HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-17 City Council (4)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 17, 2004 CMR:138:04
3849 PAGE MILL ROAD [03-D-03;03-EIA-04]:
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVEA REQUEST BY FRANK
GARCIA OF TOPOS ARCHITECTS, ON BEHALF OF JEFF AND
MARY THOMAS, OF A SITE AND DESIGN APPLICATION FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 5,008 SQUARE FOOT, TWO
STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A TEN ACRE PARCEL
(435,600 SQUARE FEET) WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE ZONING
DISTRICT. THE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA WOULD
BE 11,350 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING A 6,851 SQUARE FOOT
ASPHALT DRIVEWAY; ANDAPPROVAL OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the City
Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B), with a finding that
the project wilt not result in significant environmental impacts; and approve the Site and
Design Review application to construct a new single-family residence on 10 acres Within
the Open Space Zoning District. This recommendation for approval is based upon the
findings and subject to the conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to construct a 5,008 square foot residence and a 1,464 square foot
detached garage (including a 732 square foot garage basement) on a ten-acre site. Access
to the garage would be by a covered walkway. Living areas are proposed on the lower,
main, and upper levels. The maximum height of the main residence as measured from the
midpoint of the roof would be 25 feet above finished grade. The project will not exceed
the maximum allowable 3.5% impervious site coverage. The total proposed impervious
area would be 11,350 feet including a 6,851 square foot asphalt driveway connected to
Stiotgun Lane.
CMR:138:04 Page 1 of 3
Description of the project lighting and exterior building materials can be found in the
January 14, 2004 Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission (see
Attachment C).
PLANNING AND TRANSPORATION COMMISSION REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The PTC reviewed this project at its meeting January 14, 2004 and voted (6-0-0-0) to
recommend approval of the Site and Design Review application to the City Council as
reflected in meeting minutes (see Attachment D).
The Commission’s recommendation included the addition of seven new conditions
(Condition Numbers 18-24) which have been incorporated into the Record of Land Use
Action (Attachment A), and are presented below.
Condition #18
Condition #19
Condition #20
Condition #21
Plans submitted for building permit shall include a detailed
landscape plan for both the disturbed areas of the site and the
construction and access areas. This landscape plan shall also clearly
depict the locations of all planting required for mitigation.
The leach field plan shall be designed with the consultation of the
Planning Arborist to minimize to the greatest extent possible the
disruption of tree roots.
All cut oak trees shall either be disposed of within Santa Clara
County or properly treated for Sudden Oak disease if they are to be
retained on the property.
Plans submitted for building permit shall include a detailed lighting
plan.
Condition #22
Condition #23
Condition #24
All future road improvements proposed for Shotgun Lane shall be
reviewed by the Planning Arborist prior to approval.
Prior to submittal for building permit, the applicant shall contact the
City of Palo Alto Fire Department for advice on the feasibility of
using permeable driveway material
The City Planning Arborist shall be consulted prior to any future
thinning or topping of existing trees on the perimeter of the property.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Given the scope of this project, there is no economic impact to the City’s General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Record of the City Council Land Use Action (including the Site and Design
Review Findings for Approval and Draft Conditions of Approval
Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration
CMR: 138:04 Page 2 of 3
Attachment C:Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated January
14, 2004 (without attachments)
Attachment D:Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes (January 14
2004)
Attachment E: Vicinity Map
Attachment F: Project Plan Set (Council Members only).
PREPARED BY: ~O ~,~~M PL
DEPARTMENT
S EVE
,,DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
CITY MANAGER
HARRISON
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
cc:TOPOS Architects
Jeff and Mary Thomas
CMR:138:04 Page 3 of 3
7F~.
Attach men t A
/
\
i" : 2320’
Project Site
VIL, ii’,,!I ~ ¥ Mmr’FIGURE 2
ACTION NO. 2004-01
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 3849 PAGE MILL ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW 03-D-03 AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 03-EIA-04 (TOPOS ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT)
On "INSERT DATE" the Counci! of the City of Palo Alto
approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design
Review application for a new house in the Open Space Zone District,
making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION !. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Frank Garcia of TOPOS Architects, on behalf of Jeff
and Mary Thomas, property owners, have requested the City’s
approval for the construction of a 5,008 square foot, two story
single family residence on a ten acre parcel (435,600 square feet)
within the Open Space Zoning. District. The tota! impervious surface
area would be 11,350 square feet including a 6,851 square foot
asphalt driveway. ("The Project").
B. The residence would have an integral color cement
plaster exterior finish with rectangular wood windows. Stone is
proposed along the front entrance and retaining walls. The gabled
roof would be covered with asphalt shingles. The residence would
not be visible from Page Mill Road due to the slope of the site and
existing vegetation The maximum height of the main residence as
measured from the midpoint of the roof would be 25 feet above
finished grade.
Exterior building lighting would be wall mounted to the exterior of
the residence and limited to illuminating the front and rear
entrances, porch areas, and front of the garage. Landscape lighting
is not proposed.
C. Fol!owing Staff review the Planning and Transportation
Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project on January 14, 2003
The Commission recommended (insert action) on (insert date). The
Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR: (insert CMR #)
and the attachments to it.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject
to environmental review under provisions of the California
3849 Page Mill Road 1
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070,
Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and
it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation
measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the
deve!opment, therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration
was made available for public review beginning ("INSERT DATE")
through ("INSERT DATE"). The Environmental Impact Assessment and
Mitigated Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: ("INSERT CMR
SECTION 3.Site and Design Review Findings
i. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed residence would not be seen from Page Mill Road or
adjoining properties. Visibility would be further reduced by
earth tone building materials selected to blend with the
surroundings. The materials include natura! stone, integral
co!or plaster walls, and a slate tile roof. Substantial native
Oak trees on the site would help to screen the building and
hardscape as viewed from off site. The project does not include
any formal landscaping. The proposed building lighting would be
low voltage and all light sources would be screened to not be
visible from off site.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activi ties, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The project has been designed to minimize the impact on existing
vegetation. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have
been incorporated into the project and would be implemented to
mitigate impacts on biological resources, protected trees, and
geotechnical stability.
3. Sound principles of environmental
ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
The project has been designed to minimize the visibility as viewed
from off site. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
project and would be implemented with any approval to mitigate
3849 Page Mill Road Page 2
impacts on biological resources, protected trees, and geotechnical
stability.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo A1 to
Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal as conditioned complies with the policies of
the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment
elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal meets the
Open Space Development Criteria and the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan regarding development in designated open space areas.
SECTION 4.SITE AAU9 DESIGN APPROVALS GRANTED. Site and
Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 03-D-03, subject
to the conditions of approva! in Section 6 of the Record.
SECTION 5.Comprehensive
Development Criteria
Plan Open Space
I.The development should not be visually intrusive
from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible,
development should be sited so it is hidden from view.
The proposed construction would not be visible from Page Mill
Road and surrounding properties. Existing trees and proposed new
trees would provide screening vegetation to screen the structures
and access driveways from views from off site. The use of earth
tone co!ors and natural building materials would also minimize
the visual impact of the home.
2. Development should be located away from hilltops and
designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline.
The footprint of the proposed residence is not located near a
ridgeline or hilltop.
3. Site and structure design should take into
consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring
properties.
The size and topography of the site and extensive vegetation will
mitigate views of the proposed structures from adjacent
properties.
4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped,
in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less
conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of
natural habitats.
3849 Page Mill Road Page 3
The mass of the home is set into and along the natural contours
of the site. The site improvements are generally clustered
together. The width and design of the driveway would minimize
grading and reduce impacts on existing trees.
5.Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the
natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of
the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a
distance.
The building footprint and stepped foundation, which roughly
fol!ow the s!ope, are responsive to the natura! topography. The
site wil! be kept in a natura! state and no formal landscaping is
proposed. Trees removed from the site wil! be replaced at a 2:1
ratio.
6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches,
measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and
integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be
retained as much as possible.
Tree to be removed from the site have been kept at a minimum and
limited to those trees in conflict with the proposed building and
access drive. The Arborist Report and construction plans have
been evaluated by the City’s Planning Arborist, who has agreed to
the removal of eight Coast Live Oaks, 6 California Bay Laurels,
and one California Buckeye. Mitigation for the removed trees
would be with 16 Coast Live Oaks, both 36" and 48" in size.
7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for
geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend
into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and
should never be distributed within the driplines of existing
trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading.
The cuts proposed for submersion of the lower level are
encouraged, because they enable deve!opment to blend into the
natura! topography. The fil! is to be minimized and will be used
to leve! out the driveway s!ope for smoother access. Fill will
not be placed in the dripline of any existing tree. The amounts
of cut and fill balance out and no material wil! be exported off
site.
8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce
potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces
should be avoided.
Impervious surfaces have been minimized, limited to the driveway
and building footprint, and would be below the 3.5% allowed.
3849 Page Mill Road Page 4
9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone
or subdued colors. Natural building materials in earthtones are
proposed.
All proposed building materials are natural, in earth tone colors
that will blend with the surroundings. The applicant wil! bring
samples of al! exterior materials to the meeting of the Planning
and Transportation Commission for their review and
recommendation.
i0. Landscaping should be native species that require
little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures,
fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention
technique.
The site will be kept in a natura! state with native species. No
forma! landscaping is proposed. The conditions of approva! would
ensure the use of fire retardant plants in any future
landscaping.
!I. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and
shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site.
The plans submitted with the application indicate these policies
would be observed. The residences would create additional light
and glare, but window coverings would minimize light spill from
the rooms to the outside at night. The recommended conditions of
approva! would require any exterior lighting to be directed down
to avoid any impact upon surrounding property and open space
lands.
12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than
urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk
are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment).
The proposed access drive would be asphalt.
13. For development in unincorporated areas, ground
coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Alto’s Open
Space District regulations.
The project is within the City limits and meets the O-S (Open
Space) District zoning regulations.
SECTION 5.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by TOPOS
Architects titled "Thomas Residence, consisting of 15 pages, dated
August 26, 2003, and received November 21, 2003, except as modified
3849 Page Mill Road Page 5
to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section Six. A copy
of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and
Community Environment. The conditions of approva! in Section 6
shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with
the Building Permit application.
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
I.The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with plans received on November 21, 2003,
except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of
approval and any additiona! conditions placed on the project by the
Planning Commission or City Counci!. The fol!owing conditions of
approva! shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted with the Building Permit application.
2.The approved building materials and color scheme
shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings,
patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape
features.
3.Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the
final construction drawings and shal! be subject to the review and
approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All lighting shall be
minima! and shall direct light down and shield light away from the
surrounding residences and open space lands.
4. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-
reflective material.
5.City of Palo Alto Development Impact fees in the
total of $16,267.00 (Parks-S12,050, Community Centers=S3,132.00,
Libraries-S1,085) shall be paid prior to building permit issuance.
6. The Planning Commission and City Council will review
the project to ensure that the project’s potential aesthetic
impacts are mitigated.
7.If during grading and construction activities, any
archeo!ogical or human remains are encountered, construction shall
cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address
the find. The Santa Clara County Medica! Examiner’s office shall
be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any
Native American resources are encountered during construction,
construction shall cease immediately unti! a Native American
descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of
the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make
further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
3849 Page Mitt Road Page 6
8.The following provisions contained in the Special
Status Species Analysis prepared by Live Oak Associates and dated
June 15, 2001 shal! be incorporated into the project.
Construction activities will occur outside the breeding season
(generally February to August) or al! construction would be
preceded with a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors by
a qualified bio!ogist.
If nesting raptors are found, a construction free zone would be
established around the nest. The construction free zone,
typically at least 250 feet, would be established in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter must be submitted
by the project biologist stating satisfaction that the project is
in substantial conformance with the recommended environmenta!
impact mitigation measures.
9.The following controls shall be implemented for the
duration of project construction to minimize dust related
construction impacts:
¯All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice
daily.
¯All trucks hauling soil, sand, and !oose materials shal! be
covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard.
¯All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the
construction site shall be swept and watered daily.
¯Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets.
!0. Temporary impacts would occur as a result of
construction activities. Typical noise sources would include
mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and
noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be relatively
short in duration and occur during the construction phase of the
project. Once completed, long-term noise associated with the new
building would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are
anticipated. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter
9.10 (Noise) of the PTkMC (limiting construction between the hours
of eight a.m. and six p.m. Honday - Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m.
on Saturday, and construction activities prohibited on Sunday and
Holidays) would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less
than significant levels.
!I. Landscape and irrigation plans shal! be submitted to
and approved by the Planning Division and Architectural Review
Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and
a statement of design intent shal! be submitted for each project.
A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant
3849 Page Mill Road Page 7
shall prepare these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall
include:
a. All existing trees identified to be retained.
b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity,
size, and locations. Drought tolerant and native plant materia!
compatible with the open space district shall be specified. Plant
list and Procedures for Landscaping under Native Oaks,Tree
Technical Manua!, Appendix L, shall be consulted.
c.Irrigation schedule and plan.
d. Fence locations.
e. Lighting plan with photometric data.
f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained
as necessary to ensure survival.
g. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for
trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep,
backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of
wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the
trunk by 1-inch.
h. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. The tree
irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other
shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a
street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.
12. The grading plan shall be reviewed by Public Works
Engineering and include provision for Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPS) . Grading and base course material for the
driveway and turnaround shall be applied above the tree roots of
adjacent trees.
13. Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. A Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan for trees to be retained shall
be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted for review
and approva! by the Planning Arborist. The plan shall be
consistent with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00. Al!
specific recommendations from the approved plan shall be
implemented and maintained throughout construction. A Tree
Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no
soil disturbance is permitted shall be established and be clearly
designated on all improvement plans as a bold dashed line,
including grading, utility and irrigation, and show that no
conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shal! specify, but not
be limited to, monthly arborist inspections, and pruning,
protective fencing, grading limitations and any other measures
necessary to insure survival of the trees. Key elements of this
3849 Page Mill Road Page 8
plan shall be printed on a Tree Protection Instructions sheet
with the Project Arborist contact number.
14. Tree Appraisal. In addition to the Tree Survey
Report, the applicant shal! submit a tree valuation for all trees
to be retained and protected, as indicated on the fina! approval
set of plans. The valuation shall be consistent the City Tree
Technical Manua!, Section 6.40 (each tree listed separately and
formula used).
15. Prior to building permit issuance, as a condition
of development approva!, the City of Palo Alto, Department of
Planning & Community Environment shall be in receipt of a
security guarantee from the project sponsor for trees al! trees
that are to be retained or considered to be ’at-risk’, consistent
with Tree Technica! Manua!, Section 3.26. The amount shal! be
determined by the Director and posted prior to issuance of any
grading or building permit. The guarantee period shal! be five
years from the date of final occupancy.
Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to
City approval of the fina! monitoring report. The value of trees
that have died shall be deducted from the security guarantee and
shall not be returned. New trees shal! either be planted on site
equal to the value of the dead tree(s) or the amount retained by
the City for reforestation use at its discretion. New trees that
are planted shall be subject to a two-year establishment and
monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide a tree
evaluation report as originally required.
16. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of
Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the
project arborist or other qualified certified arborist,
assessment and recommendations to correct potential tree decline
for treesto be saved and trees planted as part of the mitigation
program. The monitoring program shall end five years from date of
fina! occupancy.
17. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment
shall be submitted for City review and approval. The report shall
summarize the program, documenting changes to the approved plans,
update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care
maintenance practices for the homeowner. The developer shall call
for a final inspection by the Planning Division Arborist.
18. Plans submitted for building permit shal! include a
detailed landscape plan for both the disturbed areas of the site
and the construction and access areas. This landscape plan shall
also clearly depict the locations of al! planting required for
mitigation.
3849 Page Mill Road Page 9
19. The leach field plan shal! be designed with the
consultation of the Planning Arborist to minimize to the greatest
extent possible the disruption of tree roots.
20. All cut oak trees shall either be disposed of within
Santa Clara County or properly treated for Sudden Oak disease if
they are to be retained on the property.
21. Plan submitted for building permit shall include a
detailed lighting plan.
22. All future road improvement proposed for Shotgun
Lane shall be reviewed by the Planning Arborist prior to approva!.
23. Prior to submittal for building permit, the
applicant shall contact the City of Palo Alto Fire Department for
advice on the feasibility of using permeable driveway material.
24. The City Planning Arborist shall be consulted prior
to any future thinning or topping of existing trees on the
perimeter of the property.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT
25. All utilities, both public and private, requiring
trenching or boring shall be shown on the landscape and
irrigation plans and shal! show that no conflict will occur
between the utilities and any landscape or trees to be retained.
This shall include publicly owned trees within the right-of-way.
26.Inspection Schedule. All inspections outlined in
the City Tree Technical Manua!, Section 2.30, shal! be performed
as required. The Inspection Schedule Table shall be printed on
the final set of plans submitted for the building permit.
27. Tree Protection Statement: A written statement
shall be provided to the Building Department verifying that
protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition,
grading or building permit wil! be issued, unless otherwise
approved by the City Arborist.
28. Fencing - Protected Trees, Street Trees, or
Designated Trees. Fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees
to be protected to achieve three primary functions, i) to keep
the foliage canopy and branching structure clear from contact by
equipment, materials and activities; 2) to preserve roots and
soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state and 3) to
identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soi!
disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless
otherwise approved.
3849 Page Mill Road Page 10
29. Size, type and area to be fenced. All trees to be
preserved shal! be protected with five or six (5’ - 6’) foot high
chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter
galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at
least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing.
16.2 Type I Tree Protection. The fences shall enclose the entire
area under the canopy dripline or TPZ of the tree(s) to be saved
throughout the life of the project. Parking areas: fencing must
be located on paving or concrete that will mot be demolished, an
appropriate grade level concrete base may support the posts.
30. Tree fencing shall be erected before demolition,
grading or construction begins and remain in place until fina!
inspection of the project, except for work specifically al!owed
in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approval by the project
arborist or City Arborist (in the case of work around Street
Trees).
31. A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on
each fence at 20-foot intervals. The sign shall be a minimum 8.5-
inches x ll-inches and clearly state: "WARNING - Tree Protection
Zone - This fence shal! not be removed and is subject to a fine
according to PAMC Section 8.10.110."
32. Arborist Inspection Report. The project arborist
shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree condition on a
minimum of four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in
receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each
month until completion at fax # (650) 329-2154.
33. The following tree preservation measures apply to
al! trees to be retained:
a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall
be permitted within the tree enc!osure area.
b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be
altered.
c. Trees to be retained shal! be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
d. Watering Schedule. All trees to be retained shall receive
monthly watering as identified in the Tree Protection Plan during
all phases of construction per the City Tree Technical Manua!,
Section 5.45. A written log of each application of water shall be
kept at the site. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt
of this !og before final inspection is requested.
34. Prior to the installation of the required
protective fencing, any necessary pruning or care for trees to
remain shal! be performed in accordance with the City Tree
Technica! Manua!, Section 5.00.
35. Project Arborist Final Inspection. The contractor
shall call for an inspection by the Project Arborist A final
3849 Page Mill Road Page 11
inspection and report by the project arborist shall evaluate al!
trees to be retained and protected, as indicated in the approved
plans, the activity, health, welfare, mitigation remedies for
injury, if any, and for the long term care of the trees for the
new owner. The final arborist report shall be provided to the
Planning Department prior to written request for temporary or
final occupancy. The final report will be used to navigate the
security guarantee return process.
36. Landscape Architect Inspection. The contractor
shall call for an inspection by the Project Arborist and
Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the
Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and
irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the
approved plans.
37. Haintenance. For the life of the project, all
landscape and trees shall be reasonably well-maintained, watered,
fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American National
Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Haintenance-
Standard Practices (ANSI A300-!995) as outlined in the Palo Alto
Tree Technical Manual.
Building Division
38. A separate grading permit shall be required for the
construction of the main driveway.
39. Separate building permits shal! be required for site
retaining walls that are not an integral part of the new house.
40. A separate grading permit shal! be required for the
construction of the propane tank foundation and tank anchorage.-
41. A separate permit shall be required for the
construction of the new house and detached garage.
42. No wood burning fireplaces shall be constructed
except as provided in PAMC Section 9.06.
43. The plans submitted with building permit
applications shall include the design and installation of al! on-
site utilities.
44. Santa Clara County Health Dept. approva! is required
for the construction of private sanitary sewage disposal systems.
If such a system is included within the scope of the proposed
project, two copies of Health Dept. approved plans are to be
submitted prior to permit issuance.
3849 Page Mill Road Page 12
45. Implementation of the construction techniques
contained in the Geotechnical Report prepared by Milstone
Geotecb_nical and dated November 2003 shal! be incorporated into the
project and approved by the Building Department. Prior to issuance
of a building permit, a letter must be submitted by the project
geo!ogist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial
conformance with the recommended environmental impact mitigation
measures contained in the report.
Fire Department
46. Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width
with 13’6" zertical clearance. Road to meet weight access (60,000
ibs.) and turning radius (36 ft. inside requirements of fire truck.
Road shall be all weather, and shall reach to within 150 feet of
any point on the first floor exterior. (98CFC902.2.2) . Fire
department approva! of the proposed driveway design, and any
turnouts proposed as an alternate method, prior to issuance of any
grading or building permit.
47. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided for each
building, which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No.13 -
(PAMC 15.04.160). Fire Sprinkler system installations require
separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC!5.04.083)
NOTE: Building plans will not be approved unless complete
sprinkler coverage is indicated.
48. Provide at least one hydrant at a distance not to
exceed 200 feet from the structure (PAMC 15.04.140). Note: If a new
water main is provided, hydrants will be required to be spaced at
a maximum of 500 feet along the portion of Shotgun Lane served by
the new section of main.
49. Tree Limbs and other vegetation shall be kept clear
of the structure in accordance with Appendix II-A of the 1998
California Fire Code. NOTE: No tree should be planted closer than
!0 feet to any point on the exterior of the building.
50. Designate the floors as basement, first story,
second story and/or third story in accordance with Building Code
definitions for purposed of plan review. Note: Additional
requirements may apply, in order to insure proper walking surface
to each egress/rescue window (2001CFC902.3) .
51. An approved automatic and manual fire alarm shall be
provided which meets the requirement of NFPA Standard No. 13, (PAMC
15.04.160). Fire sprinkler system installations require separate
submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau (PAMC 15.04.0830). Note:
Smoke detectors provided in dwelling units shall be supervised for
trouble by the fire alarm system.
3849 Page Mitt Road Page 13
52. Underground fire supply system installations or
modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention
Bureau, Public Works Department, and the Utilities Department.
Note: Fire Department approval will be withheld until the Public
Works and Utilities Department requirements have been met.
Public Work Department
Public Works Engineering
53. The applicant shall verify with the Public Works
Department the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage
and surface water infiltration. The applicant is required to
submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys
site runoff to the nearest creek. In order to address potentia!
storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm
water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for
the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP’s to be
incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality.
(Resources and handouts are available from Public Works
Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto’s companion
document to "Start at the Source" Entitled "Planning Your Land
Deve!opment Project"). The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual
grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building
permit plans.
54. The project shall adhere to North American Datum
1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizonta! survey controls and NGVD
!927 for vertical control survey though out the design process. At
the conclusion of the project the applicant shall provide digital
As-Built record drawings of al! improvements constructed in the
public right of way or easements in which the City owns and
interest. All files should be delivered in Auto Cad dwg format.
For each CD delivery, a simple digita! text file will need to
accompany the files. This is called Metadata file and wil! include
the date of the file, the coordinates used, the source of the data,
the company name and contact information, a!ong with the technician
whom prepared them.
55. A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the Palo
Alto Building Inspection Division is required for the project. Any
grading permit issued in conjunction with a phased project
implementation plan will only authorize grading and storm drain
improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading
plan for reference only, and should be so noted. No utility
infrastructure will be approved as part of a subsequent Building
Permit application.
56. The proposed deve!opment will result in a change in
the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide
calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building
3849 Page Mill Road Page 14
permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the
applicant’s monthly City utility bill wil! take place in the month
fol!owing the final approval of the construction by the Building
Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and
instructions are available from PWE.
57. The project is located within 50 feet of a creek,
which is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD) . A permit must be obtained from SCVWD and a copy
provided to the City. (SCVWD ordinance 83-2). Evidence of this
SCVWD permit does not waive the responsibility of the permittee to
obtain all other necessary authorization from other local, state,
and federal ~gencies.
58. A detailed site-specific soils report prepared by a
licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted which
includes information on water table and basement construction
issues. This report shall identify the current groundwater level,
if encountered, and by using this and other available information,
as wel! as professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the
highest projected ground~water level likely to be encountered in
the future. If the proposed basement is reasonable above the
projected highest water level, then the basement can be constructed
in a conventional manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage
system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be
undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand
all projected hydrostatic pressure and soil pressure. No pumping or
ground water is allowed. In general, however, Public Works
Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a
manner that they do penetrate existing or projected ground water
levels.
59. Although the project will disturb less than one acre
of land, it is located in an environmentally sensitive area and/or
has potentia! for storm water pollution due to steep grades. The
applicant must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) . The applicant is required to submit two
copies of the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP
should include permanent, post development project design features
as well as temporary measures employed during construction to
contro! storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices
(BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the
design. The applicant is not required to file a Notice of Intent
(NOI) for coverage under the State Water Resources Board’s genera!
permit for storm water discharge associated with construction
activity.
60. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works
inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the
public right of way, or onsite grading.
3849 Page Mill Road Page 15
61. The applicant shall require its contractor to
incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater
pollution prevention in al! construction operations, in conformance
with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for
the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris
(soi!, asphalt, sawdust slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other
waste materials into gutters, storm drains or the creeks (PAMC
Section 16.09).
62. Al! construction within the City right of way,
easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform
to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
63. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the
building prior to the finalization of this permit. Al! off site
improvements shall be finished prior to this sign off. Similarly,
a!l as-built drawings, on-site grading, drainage and post-
deve!opment BMP’s shal! be completed prior to sign off.
64. Implementation of the construction techniques and
erosion control measures contained in the report by Milstone
Geotechnical (Attachment D), in addition to the review by the City
of Pa!o Alto Public Works Department would reduce the geotechnical
impacts to a less than significant leve!.
65. The project would be required to comply with the
national Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Construction Activity Storm Water Permit administered by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to construction
grading the applicant wil! file a "Notice of Intent" (NOI) to
comply with the General Permit and prepare a Storm Water Pollutant
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will address measures that would be
included in the project to minimize and control construction and
post-construction runoff.
66. The project would comply with the City’s Grading and
Erosion Control Ordinance.
67. No site grading and drainage work would occur
between October 15 to Apri! 15, every year.
Utilities Engineering
68. Depending upon the service size, the City may
require space and public utility easements for installing a
padmounted transformer and associated substructure. The City may
also be required to extend the existing distribution lines in order
to feed the project. Applicant/Developer must submit detailed load
calculations and service size requirements. Any extension of the
existing distribution lines wil! be at the applicant’s expense. The
3849 Page Mill Road Page 16
City will provide detailed comments and cost estimates when plans
are submitted for review and approva!.
SECTION 28.Term of Amproval.
Site and Design Approval.In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approva!, the approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.82.080.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
I. Those plans prepared by TOPOS
Residence", consisting of 15 pages,
received on November 21, 2003.
Architect titled "Thomas
dated August 26, 2003, and
3849 Page Mill Road Page 17
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I.DESC~PTION OF PROJECT
Date: January 5, 2004 Application Nos.:
Address of Project:3849 Page Mill Road
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 351-05-050
03-D-03, 03-ELA-04
Applicant:
Property Owner:
TOPOS Architects
540-F Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jeff and Mary Thomas
10161 Phar Lap Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Project Description and Location:
Application by Frank Garcia of TOPOS Architects, on behalf of Jeff and Mary Thomas,
for Site and Design review for the construction of a new 5,008 square foot, two story single
family residence on a ten acre parcel (435,600 square feet) within the Open Space Zoning
District. The total impervious surface area would be 11,350 square feet including a 6,851
square foot asphalt driveway. Living areas are proposed on the lower, main, and upper
level. The maximum height of the residence as measured from the midpoint of the roof
would be 25 feet above finished grade.
The residence would have an integral color cement plaster exterior finish with rectangular
wood windows. Stone is proposed along the front entrance and retaining walls. The gabled
roof would be covered with asphalt shingles. The residence would not be visible from Page
Mill Road due to the slope of the site and existing vegetation.
Exterior building lighting would be wall mounted to the exterior of the residence and
limited to illuminating the front and rear entrances, porch areas, and front of the garage.
Landscape lighting is not proposed.
II.DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project located at 3849 Page Mill Road may have a significant effect
SAPLANkPLADIV\Current PlanningkEIAWIIGDEC.MLkrevised 3849 Page Mill Road.doc
on the environment.
determination:
On the basis of that study, the City makes the following
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in-this
case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not
required for the project.
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
The planting of the trees required for mitigation and implementation of the Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan contained in the report by Barrie Coate and
Associates (Attachment B) would reduce the tree impacts to a less than significant
level.
All provisions for the protection of trees shall be implemented, as outlined in the
Tree Report dated August 29, 2003 and the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. In the
event of any conflict between the two, the more protective measure shall prevail.
The applicant’s arborist and Planning Arborist prior to approval shall review any
revision to the plans, which may affect the welfare of the trees and vegetation.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement
of design intent shall be submitted. A licensed landscape architect and qualified
irrigation consultant shall prepare these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall
include:
All existing trees identified to be retained.
Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and
locations. Drought tolerant and native plant material compatible with the
open space district shall be specified. Plant list and Procedures for
Landscaping under Native Oaks, Tree Technical Manual, Appendix L, shall
be consulted.
Irrigation schedule and plan.
Fence locations.
Lighting plan with photometric data.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary
to ensure survival.
S:\PLANkPLADI\ \Current Planning\EIAhMIGDEC.MLkrevised 3849 Page Mill Road.doc
Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying
dig~ng the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil
and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball
keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch.
Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. The tree irrigation system
shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground
cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards.
Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public
Works standards.
The grading plan shall be reviewed by Public Works Engineering and include
provision for Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPS). Grading and base
course material for the driveway and turnaround shall be applied above the tree
roots of adjacent trees.
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for
trees to be retained shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Arborist. The plan shall be consistent with
the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00. All specific recommendations from
the approved plan shall be implemented and maintained throughout construction. A
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no soil disturbance
is permitted shall be established and be clearly designated on all improvement plans
as a bold dashed line, including grading, utility and irrigation, and show that no
conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, monthly
arborist inspections, and pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations and any
other measures necessary to insure survival of the trees. Key elements of this plan
shall be printed on a Tree Protection Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist
contact number.
Tree Appraisal. In addition to the Tree Survey Report, the applicant shall submit a
tree valuation for all trees to be retained and protected, as indicated on the final
approval set of plans. The valuation shall be consistent the City Tree Technical
Manual, Section 6.40 (each tree listed separately and formula used).
Prior to building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the City
of Palo Alto, Department of Planning & Community Environment shall be in
receipt of a security guarantee from the project sponsor for trees all trees that are to
be retained or considered to be ’at-risk’, consistent with Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.26. The amount shall be determined by the Director and posted prior to
issuance of any grading or building permit. The guarantee period shall be five years
from the date of final occupancy.
Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final
monitoring report. The value of trees that have died shall be deducted from the
security guarantee and shall not be returned. New trees shall either be planted on
site equal to the value of the dead tree(s) or the amount retained by the City for
S:XPLANLPLADIV\Current PtanningkEIAWIIGDEC.MLkrevised 3849 Page Mill Road.doc
reforestation use at its discretion. New trees that are planted shall be subject to a
two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide
a tree evaluation report as originally required.
o The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation
report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist,
assessment and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees to be
saved and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program
shall end five years from date of final occupancy.
10.Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review
and approval. The report shall summarize the program, documenting changes to
the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care
maintenance practices for the homeowner. The developer shall call for a final
inspection by the Planning Division Arborist.
11.Implementation of the construction techniques and erosion control measures
contained in the report by Milstone Geotechnical (Attachment D), in addition to
compliance with standard conditions of the City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department, would reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than significant level.
Project ~lanner Date
Manage? of Current Planning
S:\PLANkPLADIV\Current Plannin~.LEIAkMIGDEC.MLkrevised 3849 Page Mill Road.doc
Attachment D
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Q
J
Project Title:
3849 Page Mill Road
Lead Age.lacy Name and Address:
City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Chris Riordan, Planner (650) 329-2149
Project Location:
The site is located in Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara Valley. The site is
west of Interstate 280 and south of Page Mill Road, and traversed by Shotgun Lane as
shown on Figure 1, Regional Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. Shotgun Lane intersects
Page Mill Road immediately south of "Shotgun Bend" at an elevation of approximately
1,800 feet above sea level.
Application Number(s):
03-D-03, 03-EIA-04
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Frank Garcia, TOPOS Architects, 541-F Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
General Plan Designation:
Open Space/Controlled Development
Zoning District:
The approximately ten acre site is zoned OS (Open Space) District. This zone district is
designed to protect open space uses. Single family residences are allowed in the OS
District so long as the impervious area and building coverage is 3.5 percent or less of the
total lot size. The subject parcel is approximately 10 acres and 3.5 percent represents
approximately 15,240 square feet.
Description of the Project:
Construction of a new 5,008 square-foot single family residence and a 1,464 square foot
detached garage (including a 732 square foot garage basement), on a ten-acre vacant lot
in the OS zone district. Total impervious area would be 11,350 square feet including a
6,851 square foot driveway
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
11.
The project site is a flag-and-pole shaped parcel that is approximately ten acres in size.
The site is rural, contains no buildings or other structures, and is heavily vegetated (oak
woodland). The proiect site is located in the northwest portion of Santa Clara CourtV on the
eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the Ci~ of Palo _Alto. The topography of the
site consists of relatively steep slope. The site ranges in elevation from 1,600 feet above sea
level to approximately 1,200 feet above sea level with the site sloping to the southeast. The
site is heaxqly vegetated xvith oak woodland.
The residence would be located down slope from Shotgun Lane. There are no viexvs of the
site from Page Mill Road. Dense vegetation is present on the proposed site and on the
adjacent parcels. Because of the trees, e~sting development in the area is not visible from
the project site. In addition, the proposed house xvould not be visible from adjacent lots or
the surrounding area. The proposed site is the second to last home site on Shotgun Lane.
No residential uses occur immediately adjacent to the proposed new home site. Downhill
from the property, at the end of Shotgun Lane, is a residence and barn approximately 500
feet east of the proposed project site.
Other public agencies whose approval is required
Santa Clara Valley Health Department - Septic System Review
ENVIRONM£NTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
x
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportatio~raffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or ageed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
X
AICP Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3~Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant: Potentially "Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4~"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, pro~am EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identifY the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review~
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are °°Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to inforrnation
sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project’s environmental effects in whatever forrnat is selected.
9)The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
a) 1,3
X
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,3
1,B
3
c)
X
X
X
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
1,3
X
X
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
1,3
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use In assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
c)Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
Sources
1,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
III.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
IV.
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable 1,3
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an 1,3
existing or projected air quality
violation
Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment 1,3
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant 1,3
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of 1
people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special 1,3,A
status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional 1,3,A
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following, determinations. Would the project:
c)
d)
e)
f)
V=
b)
c)
d)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but 1,3,A
not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established 1,3,A
native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a 1,3,B
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation 1,3
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a 1,3,C
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an 1,3,C
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource 1,3,C
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside 1,3,C
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
VI.
b)
c)
d)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Resources
Potentially Potentially
of formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist 3,4,D
for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication
42.
ii) Strong seismic ground 3,4,D
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including 3,4,D
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?3,4,D
Result in substantial soil erosion 3,4,D
or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-3,4,D
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),3,4,D
creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste 1,5
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Would the project:
3,4,D
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
a) Create a significant hazard to the
Would the project?
public or the environment
through the routing transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e)For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,3,6
NA
na
3,6
X
X
X
na
rla
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not
support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d)Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
Sources
3,6
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
ect:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than No
Significant Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade 1,4
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary 1,3,4,6
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which 1,3,4,6
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including 1,4,6
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the pro.
a) Physically divide an established 1
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not 1,2,3
limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable ........
habitat conservation plan or 1,3
natural community conservation
plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that 1,3
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site 1,3
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
XI.
b)
c)
e)
f)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the proiect?
For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Sources
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
na
na
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
na
na
XII.
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
.................. infrastructure)?
1,3 X
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
b)Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
RECREATIONXlV.
a)Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
Sources
1,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
1,3 X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
1
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
X
X
1,3
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Less Than No
Significant Impact
x
Would the project:
X
X
X
na
X
X
X
X
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic
which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial 1,3
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
county congestion management 1,3
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a na
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous 1,5
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency 1,5,6
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking
capacity?5
....... g) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting 5
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
........ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable 3,4
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
....... b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,3,4
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
effects?
c) Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the 3,4
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and 3,4
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate 3,4
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to 3,4
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICAN(~
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal 1,2,3,A
community, reduce the number B,C,D
or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
Potentially Potentially
Significant
Issues
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
c)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings-, either
directly or indirectly?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SOURCE REFERENCES:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning)
Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development.
City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
City of Palo Alto Fire Department
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Special-status Species Analysis by Live Oak Associates, Inc., dated June 15, 2001.
B.Tree Report prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated August 29, 2003.
C.Archaeological Report prepared by Holman and Associates, dated May 30. 2003.
D.Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Milstone Geotechnical, Inc. dated November 21,2003.
E.Project Plans, dated 8/26/03.
L Aesthetics
The site is located in such a manner that, given the topo~aphy of the site, separation from Page
Mill Road, and dense vegetation on and surrounding the site, no scenic vistas would be affected
by this project. While the project area is located in a scenic area, the house and improvements
would only be visible from Shotgun Lane at the p~operty’s frontage, because the house would be
setback from Shotgun Lane and dense vegetation in the area screens the site from view. A total
of 16 of 134 trees will be removed from the area where the house wilt be constructed. Other than
trees, there are no scenic resources (i.e. historic buildings, outcroppings, etc.) that would be
impacted by the proposed development. Furthermore, the development would be required to
meet the City’s de.sign standards and would conform to current architectural and landscaping
standards.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less Than Significant. While the project would alter the view of the site
by replacing rural open space with a private residence and other
improvements, the project would not result in a significant aesthetic
impact. Completion of the City’s review process for the proposed new
building and site improvements will ensure that development of the site is
in compliance with the zoning code, the City’s open space policies, the
City of Pato Alto’s design standards, and compatible with the surrounding
development and. In addition, the project will replace trees removed from
the site, in compliance with the City of Pato Alto’s Tree Technical Manual
None required.
II.Agriculture Resources
The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Progam of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agriculture use and is
not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Residual Impact:No Impact. The proposed project will not result in the loss or conversion
of agricultural land in the City of Palo Alto or the surrounding area.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
II1.Air Quality
The project proposes to develop a private residence on a vacant site that is within a rural area.
The project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which allows single-faxnily homes
in the open space area. No sensitive receptors are located in the general vicinity of the site.
Construction activities such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations, and construction
vehicle traffic would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emission that
could affect local and regional air quality. Construction dust could affect local air quality during
implementation of the project. The &’y, windy climate of the area during the summer months
creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed.
The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve grading, paving, and landscaping which
has the potential, to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in airborne
particulate matter. Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but can be
mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures.
Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions would stem
primarily from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected
to result in a sig-nificant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts
related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be less than significant.
Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be adversely affected
by air quality problems. The project is on 10 acres and is not immediately adjacent to housing or
other sensitive receptors. The project is not expected to have a significant impact.
The proposed project consists of a residential use. This use does not typically create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not
expected to create objectionable odors when the project is complete.
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize
dust related construction impacts:
All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at
least two feet of freeboard.
All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site
shall be swept and watered daily.
Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Residual Impact: Less Than Significant. The proposed project would not create significant
local or regional air quality impacts. Short-term air quality impacts associated will be reduced to
less than significant levels with the implementation of the city’s standard conditions of approval.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
IV.Biological Resources
While the project site is. within a rural area that supports sensitive habitat, the project site does
not include wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is the site adjacent to any wetlands, waterway, or
other sensitive habitat.
Special Status Species
Appendix "A" contains a list of special status plant and animal species, their status, and their
likelihood of occurring on the project site. Twenty-five special status animal species occur or
once occurred reNonally. Of these, twelve species are unlikely to occur within the project area
because they require habitat that is not present (riparian, wetlands, serpentine, etc.) Several
animals could occur rarely on site as transients or migants. These include listed species such as
the peregrine falcon, and the willow flycatcher, and species noted as California Species of
Special Concern such as the merlin, prairie falcon, California yellow warbler, black swift, and
Vaux’s swift.
Nine special status species could occur more frequently as regular forager or may reside on the
site. These include the white-tailed kite, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, loggerhead shrike,
Townsend’s big-eared bat, California mastiff bat, Pallid bat, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
and ringtail. All of these species are relatively common regionally and the disturbance to the
existing coast live oak woodland on the site as a result of the project is expected to result in a less
than significant impact to sensitive species and their habitat.
Raptors (e.g., eagles, hawks and owls) and their nests are protected under both federal and state
laws and regulations, including the Minatory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game
Code Section 3503.5. Construction activities could disturb nesting raptors and cause them to
abandon their nests, which would result in a significant impact. Therefore, the following
conditions of approval as recommended by Live Oak Associates will be incorporated into the
project to ensure that impacts to nesting raptors remain less than significant:
¯Construction activities will occur outside the breeding season (generally February to
August) or al! construction would be preceded with pre-construction surveys for
nesting raptors by a qualified bioloNst.
¯If nesting raptors are found, a construction free zone would be established around the
nest. The construction free zone, typically at least 250 feet, would be established in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game.
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Live Oak Associates concluded that the development of this project would not result in a
significant impact to movement or landscape linkages for any species of wildlife, particularly the
cougar (refer to Appendix "A").
Trees
The proposed project is expected to remove 16 trees as a result of project construction. These
include 6 California Bay Laurels, 1 California Buckeye, and 9 Coast Live Oaks. The trees to be
removed by the proposed project are shown in Table 2. The City of Pato Alto considers the
Coast Live Oak trees ordinance-size.
TABLE 1
TREES TO BE REMOVED BY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Tree
#
36
37
35
3
4
18
5
19
7
43
45
52
53
74
6
93
Species
Coast Live Oak
Coast Live Oak
California Buckeye
Coast Live Oak
Coast Live Oak
Diameter
21
18
6
13,13
12
Construction
Conflict
Driveway
Driveway
Garage
Terrace
Residence
Replacement
Coast Live Oak
Coast Live Oak
Coast Live Oak
CA Bay Laurel
CA Bay Laurel
CA Bay Laurel
CA Bay Laure!
CA Bay Laurel
CA Bay Laurel
Coast Live Oak
Coast Live Oak
10,9
14
13
12
19,18,12,10
11
11
11
8
5
15,14,7
Residence
Residence
Residence
Terrace
Driveway
Driveway
Driveway
Driveway
Driveway
Residence
Residence
2-48" box trees
2-36" box trees
Non-regulated
2-48" box trees
2-36" box trees
2-36" box trees
2-36" box trees
_-.m box trees
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
The project proposes to remove a minimum of 16 trees, 9 of which are ordinance-sized Coast
Live Oaks that the City of Palo Alto considers protected trees. Chapter 8.10.050(b) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code states that protected trees shall not be removed from a single family
residential lot (not in connection with a subdivision) unless the trunk or basal flare of the
protected tree is touching or within the building footprint. However, if removal is allowed
because the tree trunk or basal flare is located in the building footprint, the tree removed shall be
replaced in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual.
The Arborist report by Barrie Coate and Associates also lists the trees that have an extremely
high, moderate, and minor risk of damage as a result of the proposed construction. None of these
trees are to be removed but the potential does exist for damage due to the impact of construction.
The report contains performance recommendations for the proposed construction to preserve the
trees
The proposed tree removal and indirect impacts to trees associated with grading and construction
would be potentially significant. Mitigation measures 1 through 10, requiring replacement, and
monitoring of the trees, would reduce the impacts to less than significant.
Residual Impact:The project includes mitigation that results in a less than sig-nificant
impact.
Mitigation Measures:
The planting of the trees required for mitigation and implementation of the Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan contained in the report by Barrie Coate and
Associates (Attachment B) would reduce the tree impacts to a less than significant
level.
o All provisions for the protection of trees shall be implemented, as outlined in the
Tree Report dated August 29, 2003 and the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. In the
event of any conflict between the two, the more protective measure shall prevail.
The applicant’s arborist and Planning Arborist prior to approval shall review any
revision to the plans, which may affect the welfare of the trees and vegetation.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement
of design intent shall be submitted. A licensed landscape architect and qualified
irrigation consultant shall prepare these plans. Landscape and irrigation plans shall
include:
a. All existing trees identified to be retained.
b. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations.
Drought tolerant and native plant material compatible with the open space
district shall be specified. Plant list and Procedures for Landscaping under
Native Oaks, Tree Technical Manual, Appendix L, shall be consulted.
c. Irrigation schedule and plan.
d. Fence locations.
e. Lighting plan with photometric data.
f. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to
ensure survival.
g. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying
digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and
dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping
clear of the trunk by 1-inch.
h. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. The tree irrigation system
shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover,
pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the
right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.
The grading plan shall be reviewed by Public Works Engineering and include
provision for Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPS). Grading and base
course material for the driveway and turnaround shall be applied above the tree
roots of adjacent trees.
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for
trees to be retained shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Arborist. The plan shall be consistent with
the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00. All specific recommendations from
the approved plan shall be implemented and maintained throughout construction. A
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no soil disturbance
is permitted shall be established and be clearly designated on all improvement plans
as a bold dashed line, including grading, utility and irrigation, and show that no
conflict occurs with the trees. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, monthly
arborist inspections, and pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations and any
other measures necessary to insure survival of the trees. Key elements of this plan
shall be printed on a Tree Protection Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist
contact number.
Tree Appraisal. In addition to the Tree Survey Report, the applicant shall submit a
tree valuation for all trees to be retained and protected, as indicated on the final
approval set of plans. The valuation shall be consistent the City Tree Technical
Manual, Section 6.40 (each tree listed separately and formula used).
Prior to building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the City
of Pal. Alto, Department of Planning & Community Environment shall be in
receipt of a security guarantee from the project sponsor for trees all trees that are to
be retained or considered to be ’at-risk’, consistent with Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.26. The amount shall be determined by the Director and posted prior to
issuance of any grading or building permit. The guarantee period shall be five years
from the date of final occupancy.
Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final
monitoring report. The value of trees that have died shall be deducted from the
security guarantee and shall not be returned. New trees shall either be planted on
site equal to the value of the dead tree(s) or the amount retained by the City for
reforestation use at its discretion. New trees that are planted shall be subject to a
two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide
a tree evaluation report as originally required.
The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Pal. Alto an annual tree evaluation
report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist,
assessment and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees to be
saved and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program
shall end five years from date of final occupancy.
10.Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review
and approval. The report shall summarize the program, documenting changes to
the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care
maintenance practices for the homeowner. The developer shall call for a final
inspection by the Planning Division Arborist.
IV. Cultural Resources
According to Hohnan and Associates, Consulting Archaeologists, the site is not located in an
archaeologically s.ensitive area. There are no known prehistoric or historic sites within the
project area or within two miles of the project site. According to the letter report, dated May 30,
2001 for this project, found in Appendix "C" of this Initial Study, the project would not result in
a significant impact on cultural resources.
Residual Impact: No Impact. The project would not result in any impacts to cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
VI.Geology and Soils
A geotechnical report was prepared by Milstone Geotechnical Inc. A copy of the geotechnical
report can be found in Attachment "D" of this report.
The site is located in a hilly area, with relatively high potential for erosion and the possibility of
landslides. Although land sliding has been identified on the site, downslope of the proposed
project, land sliding is not considered a direct impact to the proposed improvements due to the
topography of the proposed improvement area, distance from the previous landslide, and the
amount of dense vegetation surrounding the improvement area.
Dense vegetation on the project site makes the potential for natural soil erosion in this area
relatively small. However, construction activities, such as ~ading, could increase the likelihood
of soil erosion on site.
Septic System
According to Millstone Geotechnical, the percolation characteristics of the site soils, the very
deep bedding mapped in the area, and the apparent absence of near-surface groundwater, and the
use of a dispersed delivery system will tend to limit adverse ~ound saturation. Additionally,
slope stability analyses suggest that the slopes immediately surrounding the proposed building
site will not be destabilized. It is the opinion of Millstone Geotechnical that the risk for a
properly constructed and operated septic drainfield to result in slope instability or surfacing of
effluent on the natural slope faces is low.
Seismic Hazards
The greater San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by Geologists and Seismologists as one of the
most active seismic regions in the United States. Three major fault zones pass through the Bay
Area in a northwest direction which have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century
strong enough to cause structural damage. The faults causing such earthquakes are part of the
San Andreas Fault System, a major rift in the earth’s crust that extends for at least 700 miles
along western California. The San Andreas Fault System includes the San Andreas, Hayward,
Calaveras Fault Zones, and other faults.
During 1990, the U.S. Geological Survey cited a 67 percent probability that a Richter magnitude
7 earthquake, similar to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, would occur on one of the active
faults in the San Francisco Bay Region in the following 30 years. Recently, this probability was
increased to 70 percent, as a result of studies in the vicinity of the Hayward Fault. A 23 percent
probability is still attributed specifically to the potential for a magnitude 7 earthquake to occur
along the San Andreas fault by the year 2020.
Ground Rupture - The lack of mapped active fault traces through the site, suggests that the
potential for primary rupture due to fault offset on the property is low.
Ground Shaking - The San Francisco Bay Area is known to be an area of historic seismicity.
Although fault rupture is unlikely within the proposed building foundation and immediate site
development area, very strong ground shaking (with maximum peak horizontal pound surface
accelerations approaching 0.65g) could occur at the property due to an earthquake on the
northern segment of the San Andreas fault during the economic lifetime of the planned
structures.
Landsliding - Observed landsliding on the property is not considered to pose a direct threat to
the proposed improvements due to the separation distance. Slope stability analyses indicate
acceptable factors of safety for both static and anticipated seismic conditions. Additionally, the
proposed septic drainfield does not appear to present a significantly increased risk of slope
instability. Nevertheless, to reduce the risk of future landsliding, surface runoff from new hard
surfaces should be collected and transported to appropriately sited and constructed energy
dissipaters.
The seismic effects on the project could be potentially significant The Geotechnical report
contains recommendations concerning project site grading, construction methods, waterproofing,
surface drainage, utilities, and erosion controls.
The proposed project includes measures to reduce potential erosion and seismic impacts to a less
than significant level.
Residual Impact:The project includes mitigation measures to reduce potential erosion and
seismic impacts to a less than significant level. The project would not
result in significant geologic impacts associated with the development
with ground failure or locate a septic system on soils incapable
adequately supporting the use of septic system.
Mitigation Measures:
11.Implementation of the construction techniques and erosion control measures
contained in the report by Milstone Geotechnical (Attachment D), in addition to
compliance with standard conditions of the City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department, would reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than significant level.
of
VII.Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project is within a high fire danger area due to the dense vegetation in the area. No known
hazardous materials are currently being used, stored, or disposed of on or adjacent to the project
site. In addition, the land has not been previously used for agriculture or any other operations
that would require the use, storage or disposal of hazardous materials on the site. Fire
Department Conditions of approval to be included in the project are:
1.A Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’6" vertical clearance is required.
Road to meet weight bearing (60,000 lbs.) and turning radius (36 ft. inside) requirements
of fire truck. Road shall be all-weather, and shall reach to within 150 feet of any point on
the first floor exterior. (2001CFC902.2.2)
2. The provision of at least one hydrant at a distance not to exceed 200 feet from the
structure. (PAMC15.04.140) NOTE: If a new water main is provided, hydrants will be
required spaced at a maximum of 500 feet along the portion of Shotgun Lane served by
the new section of main.
3.The installation of a sprinkler system for each building which meets the requirements of
NFPA Standard No. 13, (PAMC15.04.160).
4.The provision of an approved automatic and manual fire alarm which meets the
requirements of NFPA Standard No. 72, 1999 Edition. (2001CBC310.10). Fire Alarm
system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
(PAMC15.04.083).
5. Solid fuel (wood) fireplaces will not be permitted.
Residual Impact:In the event of a wildland fire, residents and structures could be exposed to
a significant risk of loss and injury. Implementation of the conditions of
approval above would reduce impacts from the risk of wildtand fire to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
VIII.Hydrology and Water Quality
The conversion of open space to an urban use would result in approximately 11,350 square feet
increase of impermeable surface. This, in turn, would increase runoff from the site. Due to the
topo~aphy of the site it is possible that the project could result in significant erosion from
increased surface runoff. As a result, a drainage-erosion control plan is included in the project
consistent with Section 16.28.120 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to limit drainage and erosion
from the site. A silt fence is proposed down slope of the project. The developed area of the site
would drain to a series of on-site drainage pipes or catch basins where the water would be
collected and piped to rock dissipaters.
The project could result in additional sources of non-point source pollution in surface runoff
from ~ading acti\dties and oil and grease from parked vehicles.
The project site is not within a 100-year floodplain andwould have no impact on 100-year flood
flows. Therefore, the project would not expose people or property to flood hazards associated
with the 100-year flood. The site is not subject to seiche or tsunami and is not located near any
water retention facility.
The project includes installation of a septic system to serve the proposed residence. Wastewater
from the septic tank would be pumped to drainfield trenches upslope of the proposed developed
area. Groundwater was not encountered in six exploratory borings on the site that extended to a
depth of 22 feet and water from the septic system is not anticipated to cause a sig-nificant change
in the groundwater conditions below the site.
Standard conditions of approval listed below would reduce the impacts to less than significant:
The project would be required to comply with the national Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit
administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to construction grading
the applicant will file a "Notice of Intent" (NOI) to comply with the General Permit and
prepare a Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which wil! address measures
that would be included in the project to minimize and control construction and post-
construction runoff.
2. The project would comply with the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance.
3.No site gading and drainage work would occur between October 15 to April 15, every
year.
Residual Impact:Development of the proposed project could result in additional sources of
non-point source pollution from grading, oil and ~ease from parked cars,
and asphalt. Construction activities could result in short-term runoff from
~aded surfaces and soil accumulation in streets and driveways, which
could increase sedimentation in stormwater. The project would not result
in flooding on or off site. With the standard conditions of approval, the
project would not result in a significant impact on water quality or a
substantial increase in erosion and sedimentation.
Mitigation Measures: None required
IX. Land Use Plannin.g
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Open Space/Controlled Development and
the Zoning Desig-nation is OS (Open Space). Single family dwellings are a permitted use in the
OS District. Immediately surrounding land uses are residential uses on large parcels. Given the
proposed design of the project, which minimizes potential effects to the surrounding uses
(residential), it is .compatible with all adjacent development. The project is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Policies and land use designation of Open Space.
The project would result in an incremental loss of open space, but the loss of open space is not
expected to be significant and the proposed project is consistent with current zoning. In addition,
the project would comply with the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals and policies regarding the
preservation of trees by following the proposed mitigation for tree replacement.
Section 18.71.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) limits impervious area and building
coverage in the OS zone district to 3.5%. The project site is 435,600 square feet allowing for
13,068 of impervious area. The proposed lot coverage is 11,350 square feet or 2.61% of the total
site.
Residual Impact:The proposed project will not result in any significant land use impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None required
X.Mineral Resources
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This
designation means that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified
the City for other resources. However, there is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan
that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Residual Impact:Development of the proposed project would not have an impact to
"known or designated mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XI. Noise
The project site is located within a rural area and is not adjacent to any urban noise sources. The
proposed project, once complete, would not increase existing noise levels over the established
threshold. In addition, the area is not within any public or private airport zone. The construction
of the project would temporarily increase current noise levels in the vicinity of the project site.
Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and
grading and noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be short in duration. Once
completed, long-term noise associated with the new building would be within acceptable noise
limits and no impacts are anticipated. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter
9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m.
Monday - Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday, and construction hours prohibited Sundays
and Holidays would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels. The
project would be subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding noise.
The location of th.e project within a rural area, setback from any sensitive use would prevent
construction noise from exceeding nuisance levels. Project related traffic would not cause a
noticeable increase in noise on any public streets.
Residual Impact: Less than significant. The location of the project site within a rural
area, setback from any sensitive uses, and construction hours would prevent construction
noise from exceeding nuisance levels. Project-related traffic will not cause a noticeable
increase in noise on any public streets
Mitigation Measures: None required
XII. Population and Housing
The project will add one residence to the City of Palo Alto. This housing unit will not have a
measurable effect on the City’s imbalance between jobs and housing. Because the site is vacant
no persons would be displaced. Furthermore, the expansion of infrastructure to this site will not
induce substantial growth in the project area because it is limited by current zoning.
Residual Impact:No Impact. The proposed project would not have an impact on
population and housing in the City and the region.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XIII. Public Sen, ices
Adherence to codes will minimize the potential damage and risk from fire and other hazards.
However, existing laws represent minimum standards and do not safeguard against all hazards.
The development on the site is likely to increase the demand for fire and police service by an
incremental amount. However, the police and fire departments have sufficient resources to
accommodate moderate gowth within the City. In addition, local schools will not see a
measurable increase in demand as a result of this project. Therefore, the increased demand will
not result in the .need to expand existing facilities or construct new facilities.
Residual Impact:Less than significant impact. The project would not result in any
significant impacts on the physical environment as a result of increased
demand for police, fire, and school services.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XIV. Recreation
The addition of one housing unit in Palo Alto will not cause physical deterioration of any
recreational facilities. In addition, the proposed project will not increase the local population to a
point where expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities will be needed.
Furthermore, the undeveloped portions of the property would remain as private open space.
The project is subject to Development Impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries
based on one single family home in excess of 3,000 square feet. The impact fee for parks is
$12,050. The impact fee for Community Centers and Libraries are $2,132 and $1,085,
respectively. The total facilities impact fee would be $16,267.00. The City may adjust these
fees, and the fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance is the fee required.
Residual Impact:Less than significant. City development standards, development fees and
specific conditions of project approval reduce potential negative impacts
of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XV. Transportation/Traffic
The project site is not located on a designated emergency route. The project will not generate air
or significant automobile traffic and wil! not cause or contribute to known traffic hazards.
Given the location of the site in a rural area, emergency access is limited. However,
improvements are included in the project including upuades to the existing driveway which are
designed to improve emergency access to the site.
Implementation of the proposed project will result in truck trips to haul excavated materials off
site. Construction crews and equipment will also increase the daily trips on Shotgun Lane and
Page Mill Road. Construction traffic impacts would be temporary and truck trips would
generally occur during off-peak hours.
Residual Impact:Less than significant. The proposed project will not significantly increase
traffic in the local area. However, construction of the project would result
in localized congestion due to truck traffic associated with construction.
Construction traffic impacts would be temporary and are not anticipated to
substantially disrupt peak traffic hours.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XV1. Utilities and Sere,ice Systems
Water Supply
The City’s drinking water is provided by the City’s Utilities Department, through purchases from
the San Francisquito Water Department’s Hetch Hetchy System. In 2000, the City used an
average of approximately 12.5 mgd. The City has a guaranteed allocation of 17 mgd through the
year 2006. However, the projected water demand in the City through the year 2007 is not
expected to exceed 13.7 mgd according to the City of Palo Alto Urban Water Management Plan.
The City also owns five goundwater wells, of which three are operational. The wells are
available in case the Hetch Hetchy system cannot meet the City’s needs in times of drought or
emergency. Therefore, sufficient water supply exists and implementation of the project is not
expected to adversely impact the water supply or services in Palo Alto.
Sewage Treatment
Based on general rule general rates for single family homes, the proposed project would generate
approximately 600 .gallons of effluent per day, although based on the size of the proposed home,
the generation rates could be as much as two times that amount. The site would be served by a
septic system consisting of two septic tanks and a system of two drain fields.
Solid Waste
The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department provides solid waste disposal services for the
City. The City of Palo Alto uses two primary landfills, the Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Center and
the Kirby Canyon Landfill, and several secondary landfills. However, approximately two third
of the waste is recycled. Recycled material is transported to the SmaRT station in Sunnyvale
where it is sorted and processed. The Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Center has a life expectancy of
10 more years (until 2011), taking into account a yearly increase in waste disposal of 1-3 percent
annually. Furthermore, the City of Palo Alto has landfil! capacity contractually committed
through the year 2014. The project will not exceed the capacity of the City’s waste disposal or
collection systems.
Residual Impact:No Impact. The project would not exceed the capacity of existing
utility systems.
Mitigation Measures: None required
11:56 B5~327495~
JgN-26-2004 ~0N 11;50 ~ O P A PLANNING
TOPOS ARCHITECTS
FAX NO, 6503292154
PAGE 82
P, 02
Mandatory Findings of Significance
The project w~l! contribute to vegetation and wildlife impact~ ~Sociated with development of
a vacant parcel to urba~ uses. However, project impacts on the natural a~d human
environment would not bc significant, The propos~ new residen¢~ will not substantially
degrade the surrotmding environment, impact wildlife sp~i¢s or th¢ir habitat, or eliminate
important examples of cultural ltistory or p~-history. W~¢n considered with other current
project~ and reasonably foreseeable future projects, me project is not snticipar~l to result in
cumulatively significant impacts.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DATED .~.nt~O.~’~ ~ (~" , PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
3
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Christopher Riordan, AICP
Planner
January14,2004
DEPARTMENT:
Planning and
Community Enviromnent
SUBJECT:3849 Pa~e Mill Road: Application by Frank Garcia of TOPOS
Architects, on behalf of Jeff and Mary Thomas, for Site and Design
review for the construction of a new 5,008 square foot, two story
single family residence on a ten acre parcel (435,600 square feet)
within the Open Space Zoning District. The total impervious surface
area would be 11,350 square feet including a 6,851 square foot
asphalt driveway. Enviromnental Assessment: An initial study has
been prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in
accordance with CEQA guidelines. File Numbers: 03-D-03,
03-EIA-04.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecomlnends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recolrunend that the
City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C), with a finding
the project will not result in significant enviromnental impacts, approve the Site and
Design Review application for a new house in the OS (Open Space) Zone District based
upon the findings in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
Existing Site Conditions
The site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open
Space/Controlled Development and is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district. In
1972, the City of Palo Alto created the OS zoning district to protect and preserve open
space land as a limited and valuable resource and to permit the reasonable use of open
3849 Page Mill Road
space (PAMC Section 18.71.010). The Open Space District zone was then assigned to
the subject property.
Access to the vacant ten-acre site is from a shared driveway (also known as Shotgun
Lane) connected to Page Mill Road.
The site is moderately sloped, descending east from Page Mill Road. The vegetation on
site is primarily coast live oak woodland with Manzanita under~owth.
Adjoining properties are zoned and designated as Open Space and developed with single-
family residences.
Prqiect Description
The applicant proposes to construct a 5,008 square foot residence and a 1,464 square foot
detached garage (including a 732 square foot garage basement), on the ten-acre site. Access
to the garage would be by a covered walkway. Living areas are proposed on the lower, main,
and upper level (illustrated on page 3 of the Development Plans, Attachment D). The
maximum height of the main residence as measured from the midpoint of the roof would be
25 feet above finished wade. The total proposed impervious area would be 11,350 feet
including a 6,851 square foot asphalt driveway connected to Shotgun Lane.
The residence would have an inte~al color cement plaster exterior finish with rectangular
wood windows. Stone is proposed along the front entrance and retaining walls. The gabled
roof would be covered with asphalt shingles. The residence would not be visible from Page
Mill Road due to the slope of the site and existing vegetation.
Exterior building lighting would be wall mounted to the exterior of the residence and limited
to illuminating the front and rear entrances, porch areas, and front of the garage. Landscape
lighting is not proposed.
DISCUSSION
Zoning Requirements:
The Open Space zoning district contains the following regulations for individual
properties: (1) a minimum required lot area often acres, (2) a maximum impervious area
and building coverage of 3.5 percent, and (3) a maximum height limit of 25-feet. The
proposed project would meet all zoning code requirements, as demonstrated in the
following Table (Table 1):
3849 Page Mill Road
TABLE 1
PROPOSED PROJECT & CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS
3849 Page Mill Road
Standard
impervious area &
building coverage
maximum
size of site
maximum height*
standard setbacks
parking
Zoning Code
total site
3.5 % of 10 acres
(15,225 sq. ft.)
10 acres
25 feet
front- 30 feet
side - 30 feet
rear - 30 feet
2 spaces
(1 covered,
1 uncovered)
Proposed
11,350 sq.ft.
10 acres
25 feet
exceeds
minimum
setbacks
3 covered
Conformance
conforms
conforms
conforms
conforms
conforms
* The definition of height is the vertical distance above grade (elevation of finished or
existing grade, whichever is lower) to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched
or hipped roof. The height of a stepped or terraces building is the maximum height of
any segTnent of the building.
The site contains a large number of Coast Live Oaks as well as many other indigenous
trees (Canyon Live Oaks, California Buckeyes, and Madrones). Although the PAMC
requires mitigation for the removal of Coast Live Oaks, the Planning Arborist has
determined the other trees on site to be equally important to the existing oak Woodland
environment and therefore to be considered equal in value in terms of protection and
mitigation purposes if removed. The project would include the removal of 16 native trees
- six Bay Laurel, one Buckeye,.and nine Coast Live Oaks.
Predon~nately moderate and steep slopes characterize the topography of the site. The
slope as well as the number of existing trees limits the area that is feasible for
development. The proposed project would be constructed on a portion of the site with the
least amount of slope (approximately 20%).
The Landscape and Tree Protection plan (Sheet 13 of the Development Plans) illustrates
trees to be removed and trees to be protected. Only those trees with the potential to be
3849 Page Mill Road
impacted by construction were surveyed. Of these 134 trees, 16 trees would be removed,
including seven Coast Live Oaks of a size the City of Palo Alto considers protected (see
Table 2, below)
TABLE 2
TREES TO BE REMOVED BY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Tree Species
#
36 Coast Live Oak
37 Coast Live Oak
35 California Buckeye
3 Coast Live Oak
4 Coast Live Oak
18 Coast Live Oak
5 Coast Live Oak
19 Coast Live Oak
7 CA Bay Laurel
43 CA Bay Laurel
45 CA Bay Laurel
52 CA Bay Laurel
53 CA Bay Laurel
74 CA Bay Laurel
6 Coast Live Oak
93 Coast Live Oak
Diameter
21
18
6
13,13
12
10,9
14
13
12
19,18,12,10
11
11
11
8
5
1},14,7
Construction
Conflict
Driveway
Driveway
Garage
Terrace
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Terrace
Driveway
Driveway
Driveway
Driveway
Driveway
Residence
Residence
Replacement
2-48" box trees
2-36" box trees
Non-regulated
2-48" box trees
-.m box trees
2-36" box trees
-ao box trees
2-36" box trees
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chapter 8.10.050(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code states that protected trees shall not
be removed from a single family residential lot (not in connection with a subdivision)
unless the trunk or basal flare of the protected tree is touching or within the building
footprint. However, if removal is allowed because the tree trunk or basal flare is located
in the building footprint, the h’ee removed shall be replaced in accordance with the
standards in the Tree Technical Manual. As mitigation, ten 36"- box Coast Live Oak trees
and four 48"- box trees would be planted (and agreed to by the Planning Arborist) for the
removal of the existing Oaks.
Site and Design Review Findings
Approval of the project also requires the following site and design findings to be made
(PAMC 18.82.055):
1. The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby
sites. The proposed residence would not be seen from Page Mill Road or adjoining
3849 Page Mill Road
properties. Visibility would be further reduced by earth tone building materials
selected to blend with the surroundings. The materials include natural stone, inte~al
color plaster walls, and a slate tile roof. Substantial native Oak trees on the site would
help to screen the building and hardscape as viewed from off site. The proposed
building lighting would be low voltage and all light sources would be screened to not
be visible from off site.
The project is desi~ed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or
the conduct of bu.siness, research of educational activities, or other authorized
occupations,.in the same or adjacent area. The project will maintain desirability of
investment in the same and adjacent areas, the proposed design and size of the
residence and related site improvements are generally consistent with the existing
residences on Page Mill Road, and the construction of all improvements will be
governed by the regulations Of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building
Code, and. other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development.
Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be obse~n~ed in
construction of the project.
The project has been designed to minimize the impact on existing vegetation.
Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been incorporated into the
project and would be implemented to mitigate impacts on biological resources,
protected trees, and geotechnical stability.
The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal as conditioned complies with the policies of the Land Use and
Community Design and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive
Plan. The project proposal meets the Open Space Development Criteria and the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open space areas.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan
Policy L- 1 of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the City of Palo
Alto to retain undeveloped land west of the Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as
open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the
open space character of the area. The project site is west of the Foothill Freeway and is
located within the City’s Urban Service Area (map L-2 of the Comprehensive Plan). The
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Open
Space/Controlled Development and one residence is permitted on the project site.
3849 Page Mill Road
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Policies N-l, N-3, N-4, N-6, N-7 are applicable to this
project.
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria
The Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria will be used by the Planning
Commission and City Council to evaluate the proposed project. These criteria are set
forth below, followed by analyses of the project’s compliance with them:
The development should not be visually intrusive fi’om public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from
view. The proposed construction would not be visible from Page Mill Road and
surrounding properties. Existing trees and proposed new trees would provide
screening vegetation to screen the structures and access driveways from views
from off site. The use of earth tone colors and natural building materials would
also minimize the visual impact of the home.
Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend
above the nearest ridgeline. The footprint of the proposed residence is not located
near a ridgeline or hilltop.
Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and
views of neighboring properties. The size and topography of the site and extensive
vegetation will mitigate views of the proposed structures from adjacent properties.
Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area
surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce
f!’agmentation of natural habitats. The mass of the home is set into and along the
natural contours of the site. The site improvements are generally clustered
together. The width and design of the driveway would minimize grading and
reduce impacts on existing trees.
Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building
lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear
naturalfi’om, a distance. The building footprint and stepped foundation, which
roughly follow the slope, are responsive to the natural topography. The site will be
kept in a natural state and no formal landscaping is proposed. Trees removed from
the site will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio.
Existing trees with a circumference of 3 7. 5 inches, measured 4.5feet above the
ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing
vegetation should be retained as much as possible. Tree to be removed from the
3849 Page Mill Road
site have been kept at a minimum and limited to those trees in conflict with the
proposed building and access drive. The Arborist Report and construction plans
have been evaluated by the City’s Planning Arborist, who has agreed to the
removal of eight Coast Live Oaks, 6 California Bay Laurels, and one California
Buckeye. Mitigation for the removed trees would be with 16 Coast Live Oaks,
both 36" and 48" in size.
Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged
and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate
development to minimize the need for grading. The cuts proposed for submersion
of the lov~er level are encouraged, because they enable development to blend into
the natural topography. The fill is to be minimized and will be used to level out the
driveway slope for smoother access. Fill will not be placed in the dripline of any
existing tree. The amounts of cut and fill balance out and no material will be
exported off site.
To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff large, fiat
expanses of impe~a, ious surfaces should be avoided. Impervious surfaces have been
minimized, limited to the driveway and building footprint, and would be below the
3.5% allowed.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural
building materials in earthtones are proposed. All proposed building materials are
natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the surroundings. The applicant
will bring samples of all exterior materials to the meeting of the Planning and
Transportation Commission for their review and recommendation.
Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation.
Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as afire
prevention technique. The site will be kept in a natural state with native species.
No formal landscaping is proposed. The conditions of approval would ensure the
use of fire retardant plants in any future landscaping.
Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not
directly visiblefi’om off-site. The plans submitted with the application indicate
these policies would be observed. The residences would create additional light
and glare, but window coverings would minimize light spill from the rooms to the
outside at night. The recommended conditions of approval would require any
exterior lighting to be directed down to avoid any impact upon surrounding
property and open space lands.
Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 8
12.Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb,
gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills
environmenO. The proposed access drive would be asphalt.
13.For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general
conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. The project is
within the City limits and meets the O-S (Open Space) District zoning regulations.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of the Commission hearing for this project proposal was provided by
publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property
owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a hearing notice card.
TIMELINE
If the Commission reconmaends approval or approval with conditions, the project
applications will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Architectural Review
Board (ARB) approval is not required for singly developed single-family residences.
Action:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Negative Declaration Public Review Period:
P&TC Meeting:
Required Action by Council:
Date:
04/10/03
01/05/04
01 / 14/04-02/02/04
01/14/04
07/02/04
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for
the project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures,
no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project
would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration will
be made available for public review beginning January 14, 2004 through February 3, 2004,
and is attached to this staff report (Attachment C).
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Record of Land Use Action (including the Site and Design Review
Findings for Approval, Finding for Open Space Criteria, and Draft
Conditions of Approval)
Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment
(without attachments)
Attachment D: Plans for current project (Commissioners only)
Cio; of Palo Alto Page 9
COURTESY COPIES:
Frank Garcia, TOPOS Architects
Jeff and Mary Thomas
Prepared by: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Project Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
Department/Division Head Approval:7.//(.!~-~. / 4 ~ic_, .
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page l 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Planning and Transportation Comrnission
Verbatim Minutes
January 14, 2004
DRAFT EXCERPT
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearing
3849 Pa~oe Mill Road~’: 03-D-03, 03-EIA-04]: Request by TOPOS Architecture on
behalf of Jeff and Mary Thomas for Site and Design review of the construction of a new
single fanfily ~esidence within the Open Space zoning district. An Initial Environmental
Assessment study has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in
accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Zoning: OS
Mr. Chris Riordan. Planner: Thank you Chair Griffin and fellow Commissioners. As
you mentioned the Site and Design application before you this evening is for the
proposed construction of a new two-story 5,008 square foot residence on a ten-acre parcel
at 3849 Page Mill Road in the Open Space Zoning District. The total impervious surface
area would be 11,350 square feet, which includes a 6,851 square foot asphalt driveway.
The project would not be visible to adjacent properties nor it would it be visible from
Page Mill Road due to existing slopes and dense vegetation.
Access to the site is from Shotgun Lane a private road with an existing average width of
15 feet. The Fire Department has approved the applicant’s road widening proposal,
which is on the wall to my left for a series of turnouts, specific areas of road widening
and new paving. The proposed asphalt driveway to the house would be 12 feet in width.
The proposed project would conform to Open Space Zoning regulations as depicted in
Table 1 of your Staff Report.
The project also would include the removal of 16 native trees of which nine are coast live
oaks. Table 2 of the Staff Report specifies which trees are proposed for removal as well
as the trees to be replaced. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist, is here tonight to address
any specific questions as they may relate to trees.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the
City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration with a finding that the project
would not result in significant environmental impacts and approve the Site and Design
Review application for the proposed project based upon the findings of record land use
action located in Attachment B of the Staff Report. Also I have a correction to the Staff
Report. There is a typo I noticed while sitting in the audience. On page five under Site
and Design Review findings it states that the house will have a slate tile roof. That is
incorrect. It will be an asphalt tile roof. This concludes Staff’s report. The applicant has
15 minutes to present the project. Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Do Commissioners have any questions of Staff at this time? Fine are there
any disclosures that you would like to make, Commissioners?
Commissioner Burt: I tried to view the site but I went down what I believe is Shotgun
Lane but I didn’t see any street sign at the entrance there and then I tried to follow it
down. I went all the way to the end, met someone at the very end of the road, was given
a direction backwards and couldn’t really locate the site. So I got that close but I feel
somewhat incapable of addressing the issue tonight without being able to see the impact
on public open space areas. So that is the extent of my disclosure.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I did visit the site this afternoon and met Dave Dockter there.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I visited the site this morning. I also had trouble locating it but was
able to locate it.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie? Annette, not for you either? I did visit the site briefly as well
and likewise had a very difficult time finding it but mission was accomplished.
Now do Commissioners have any questions of Staff at this time, and if not, we will ask
the applicant to come forward. Will you introduce yourself, please? You will have 15
minutes.
Mr. Peter Baltay, Architect. TOPOS Architects: Thank you. I am the Principle at
TOPOS Architects. Before I say anything I would really like to extend a deep and
sincere thanks to Chris Riordan and Dave Dockter the Planning Staff who have really
helped us put together an application. It is our understanding that a previous applicant
had been trying to put an application together and had significant difficulties.
The property in question is covered with live oak trees and valley oaks and a number of -
- it is a beautifully forested site. That is what has attracted our clients, Jeff and Mary
Thomas, to want to purchase the site and build a home to live on for them andtheir two
children. When they hired us as architects then the question was how do we build a home
that meets their requirements and is sensitive and responsive to the natural environment
and in this case it is most importantly the trees. At least that has been our judgment.
We started with a number of various siting studies and we came to feeling that the house
was best located on a flatish portion of the property somewhat in from Shotgun Lane on
two sides. Walking around I think everyone would agree that it is less densely populated
with trees. We felt we could actually try to squeeze a home in between quite a few. That
did make us need to get a driveway, a road of some sort over to the site. After some
study and marching around again we felt that we could actually weave through a 12-foot
wide road without removing any live oak trees. There are two or three bay trees that need
2
to be taken out but we feel that we actually do preserve the dense canopy nature of the
site quite well while bringing a good access drive into the property. Then once you get to
where the house is it opens up somewhat naturally in the current situation. So we feel
that the house is situated in one sense at least to the best possible way anyone could put a
house on this site, which was our objective, which was what our direction was from our
clients. Even a detail on that level when you get to the end of the driveway because of its
len~h you need some sort of a turnaround. We found again that we could loop the
driveway around a number of quite attractive trees again preserving the trees, preserving
the nature of the site and keeping everything less impacted by the development. You
could just put a larger paved area but we felt that just was not appropriate.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
In the same vdin we decided to curve the actual form of the house to conform to the
topowaphy again to minimize large amounts of retaining walls and wading work. We
don’t expect to do any onsite hauling either way with soil. We want to keep everything
there and by making the house conform to the topowaphy we can do that. So the house
actually slopes and curves around the flatish spot. In studying that spot, it is hard to see I
guess without a lot of thought, but there are just a couple of clusters of trees that are quite
attractive and we decided to try to situate the home between two of them and then the
garage further around between two others, again trying very hard to situate the house in
between the trees. We started with one of the nicest trees, I think Dave Dockter would
attest to that, we have hire Barry Coats who is a preeminent arborist in the valley to help
us with these studies and sitings. We have looked very hard at a very extensively
prepared arborist report for how do we fit this in, which trees can we and can’t we look
at. We really have studied that very hard. On another level we have sited the house so
that the lower floors cut into the hillside so that the whole building is lowered into the
wound as you come around, almost a daylight basement idea. Again, we feel that that
minimizes the impact of the home on the site. In this case it really is impossible to see
this building from Page Mill Road, perhaps from an extremely long distance away with a
telescope or binoculars but it really is not easily found as the Commissioners can attest to,
it is hard to see anywhere. Even from Shotgun Lane the house will be very difficult to
see through the wove of oak trees. It is my belief that is what Jeff and Mary Thomas
want and prefer and enjoy and would like.
In the same vein on the design of the house we have also pitched the roof steeply in an
attempt to get the upper floors or some upper bedrooms really tucked under the roof
shorn with dormers again to reduce the apparent massiveness of the building. This is
more of an onsite architectural thing but from their point of view it is so the home does
not feel so large and dominant relative to this spectacular forested environment. That is
what our objective has been.
We have elected to use a series of what we think are very natural and earth toned
materials. I have samples here that are better perhaps than the color board that I would to
pass around. There is an asphalt shingle colored weathered wood. There is a cement
plaster and aluminum extrusion color. I am not able to bring in a piece of stone
obviously for the natural stone base and retaining wall but we feel that these colors are
extremely earth tone type. We feel that they are very much natural colors. We also are
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
trying to respond to the need for protection from the environment up there, which can be
somewhat more harsh than down here in Palo Alto. A cement plaster siding was a given
for us from the client in that she wants a fireproof home or at least closer to that. Any
type of wood siding just could not meet that requirement and that is a serious issue
especially when you are that far up the hills. We feel that cement plaster is an extremely
natural material having been around for not hundreds but thousands of years.
With that we would like to respectfully request approval of our process. We have been
working at this for quite a while now and we would really like to hopefully get on and get
construction started this summer. We would really appreciate if you could ask whatever
questions and whatnot and try to process us along. Thank you, I will be available for any
questions.
Chair Griffin: Just stand there if you please Mr. Baltay I am sure we will have some
questions for you. Any questions here at the moment? Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will start with questions of the road and the access. As I drove
down the road it changes its nature consistency, whatever it is made of, before you get to
the house that is immediately up the hill from you. And that road is I would describe it as
crushed rock. I stopped up at the other house and walked down with two lovely dogs that
those neighbors have. They know where the lot is. But the information I had on the road
and maps I understand this afternoon we received new information about what you have
been approved with, I am not sure if it is the Building Department, the Public Works
Department I think and would like it if you could explain that road a little. Chris?
Mr. Riordan: It is actually the Fire Department who actually approved the change to the
access road.
Chair Griffin: The Fire Department. So could either you or the architect explain to us
what they are going to do with that road for access in?
Mr. Riordan: Probably the architect would be better off to explain that to you.
Mr. Baltay: Thank you, yes. The Fire Department has required actually that we improve,
which means to pave essentially the surface of Shotgun Lane from the house immediately
above our subject property down to the opening of our driveway. As I understand it the
idea is that once you have at least two homes down a road it counts as a road not a drive
and therefore it must be paved. It is not something we are eager to do however whatever
it takes to get the project built. They are requesting that we widen certain turnouts
essentially along the road. There is no mass widening of Shotgun Lane proposed and we
understand has been approved per our drawing we submitted two months ago. We will
have to widen two or three of the turnouts beyond what’s, I won’t say graded, but sort of
a dirt road right now and make sure it is about 20 feet wide at some of the hairpin rams,
which is obvious and easily required and accomplished. The big idea is that we will be
paving a portion of Shotgun Lane from the house immediately uphill from the subject
property to the opening of our driveway as a requirement of the County Fire Marshall.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Is Shotgun Lane within the property line then? It is a private
road?
Mr. Baltav: Shotgun Lane is a private road.
Commissioner Packer: Within your property?
Mr. Baltay: Partially within our property. As it works its way up toward Page Mill it is
on other properties in this area.
Commissioner Packer: I am just going to ask Staff, the additional paving how does that
affect the ratio of impervious to pervious, the 3.5%? Would you need to do some
additional calculations because you would be adding additional impervious surface? By
changing the surface of that road you are making impervious I would assume.
Mr. Baltav: I think Staff would probably be best to direct that to.
Mr. Riordan: Yes. What it is is the road is actually in an easement so that actually gets
pulled out of the lot area and is not included in the calculation for overall lot coverage.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you for clarifying that.
Mr. Riordan: You’re welcome.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: A follow up on the same subject. When you have to widen at
one point I think you said some of the turns and then I think you said some of the
turnouts. So a clarification on that. Then as a part of that did you just get this
information today, I understand?
Mr. Baltav: We prepared a drawing two months ago or so. We just heard tonight, two
hours ago, that the drawing had been approved by Gordon Simpkinson. What we have
proposed is starting at the top of Page Mill Road coming down essentially no work on the
road until we get to the house just above our subject property. What we have done in our
drawing is essentially point out to the Fire Marshall that there are widenings in the road
where other people have their driveways. From that house immediately above the subject
property there are two sharp hairpin turns both of which are actually on our subject
property both of which we are proposing to pave wide enough so that they turnouts.
There will be no wading or tree removal or additional physical work on the road so much
as just verifying that it meets the Fire Department standards and paving them to that
width.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Holman: That was one of the questions I wanted to know. Would there
be any additional ~ading or tree removal as a part of this road paving?
Mr. Baltav: Absolutely not.
Chair Griffin: I am going to say Peter that the reason that you are being quizzed so
closely on this road was that I think all Commissioners that visited the site were struck by
the lousy road and the fact that you are proposing I think a 20 foot wide driveway and the
darn road is an eight footer replete with hairpin turns. So you have peat fire access for
the fire equipment on your property and getting there they are going to have to use hook
and ladder. It just seemed a bit incongzuous. Who is doing the engineering on the road?
Is the County’doing that? Is the City doing that? Are you hiring an excavation contractor
to figure that out for you?
Mr. Balta¥: We have been consulting with an excavation contractor. As it stands now it
seems a fairly straightforward paving job. They tell us the subsurface of the road is
actually quite sound. Perhaps it has deteriorated now over the winter since we have last
been up but my understanding is that it is not that big a deal to pave this stretch we are
talking about.
Chair Griffin: I certainly hope you are right although it looks like they are changing the
radiuses here on this road. Anyway, you are prepared to pay for it.
Mr. Baltay: We have a fixed bid from a paving contractor to do this required work.
Chair Griffin: Great. Are there more questions?
Vice-Chair Cassel: I just wanted to make a clarification. I believe that driveway is not
20 feet. We checked that. I was told it was 14 feet.
Mr. Baltay: I believe we proposed a 12 foot wide drive from Shotgun Lane into the
house, approximately 100 and something feet.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have 12, 14, 16 got approved as the minimum for the last house.
Mr. Riordan: It is actually a little inconsistent. The plans do show 14 feet. I actually
measured. I scaled it.
Mr. Balta¥: I am sorry, I am mistaken then. We have requested 14 feet.
Mr. Riordan: Right and I noticed that the drawing that you are looking at right now does
say 12 feet. I do believe the applicant’s intension is to have a 14-foot wide driveway
entering the house.
Chair Griffin: I must say that there does seem to be an inconsistency here where the
previous application was involving a 16-foot driveway and that doesn’t seem to be the
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
case now. Does Fire change their minds or does anybody ~know what Fire’s criteria might
be for this sort of thing?
Ms. Grote: We can double check. It does sometimes depend on how many lots are being
accessed, whether or not they are being accessed from a public or a private road but we
can check on their criteria and report back to you at a future date. It can vary depending
on how the site is accessed.
Chair Griffin: We have just seen a lot of applicants come through here with Page Mill
Road addresses and driveways seem to be a hot topic every time. Pat? Bonnie?
Commissione? Packer: I have a question for you about some of the choices and the
decisions you went through in deciding which trees that you would have to sacrifice for
the house. I unfortunately wasn’t able to go to the site. I don’t know if there are story
poles there or not but just looking at the plans and where the residence is going to
displace some of the trees in the back where it curves. Just looking at the plans and not
knowing the topography I just wondered why you weren’t able to move the house just a
little bit to save some of those trees. Also that large bay laurel that I guess must have
several trunks, it must be a magnificent tree as multi-trucked bay laurels can be, that is
number 43 on the driveway. Why couldn’t you kind of loop around that? Is there still
some room to make some decisions to be able to save some of the larger trees?
Mr. Baltav: I am afraid we have worked awfully hard to save as many trees as we can. I
don’t think on the driveway I categorically say that you could not save any more trees
and still fit down a driveway. The bay tree that we have to take out, one of them is a nice
tree, two others are honestly not very attractive. I guess I admit to being prejudice that
we attempted to save the oak trees as a paramount objective. We feel that the driveway
should preserve all the oaks of that forest. The siting of the house, I guess it is hard to
comment on it verbally. It is a difficult complex three-dimensional situation. When you
look on the drawings for example tree number 20, which is sort of between the two
buildings, is a very nice specimen. We tried hard to save that. To the left of the garage
as you are facing it is a cluster of four oak trees that are again very nice. The four trees
that are in the turnaround of the driveway have the potential to become extremely
attractive canopy trees over that whole area there. I would honestly be loath to try to re-
guess all our site planning now as far as tree preservation. We really have to spend quite
some time doing that.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: It is my understanding that there have been some good efforts to
retain strong screening of the structure as well as the recessing of the structure in the
hillside. I don’t know who would be most appropriate to We us a little more information
on how well the structure will be screened, whether it is Dave Dockter or Chris or the
architect. In particular the visibility from the Open Space Districts and whether it is
Montebello or Duveneck that has the greatest potential for this property being visible
from the open space areas. Could we get some comments on those two aspects?
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Riordan: Yes. Today I must admit when I was out there it was rather foggy so all
you could see was a blanket of clouds. But when I was out there earlier in the year what
you can see from the site as I believe the architect mentioned was only Los Altos Hills
which is many miles away. It is not my belief that the project will be visible from any
open space that is in the general vicinity. It is really screened and as you mentioned it is
really hard to find and to see.
Chair Griffin: Would Dave Dockter like to make any comments in that regard? We are
talNng about views from offsite and we know that you were out there observing.
Mr. Dave Dodkter, Plannin~ Arborist: Thank you. Good evening Commissioners. I
have had the occasion to be out there quite a few times over the past several years on this
parcel on clear days as well as the foggy. Around the actual site and the ridge and
backbone where the house will be located directly across the canyon is an open space
preserve area. I believe it might even be owned by the water district where there are not
residences at all. Down the canyon towards Los Altos Hills there are visible three or four
homes as Mr. Riordan said, miles away, that you can only see very distantly some of the
windows or roofs. Again in return, loo~ng back, I doubt if they could see this structure
because this parcel would still be screened by a buffer row of oak trees in the foreground
or at the edge of the area where they would be building towards the canyon. As the
architect mentioned behind the structure of the development toward Page Mill Road it is
virtually impossible to see from anywhere except for when you are immediately upon it
above on Shotgun Lane. I think it deserves to be said most important would be to keep
and retain the perimeter screening of oaks that do face the canyon and the headwaters to
Los Trancos Creek there. They would be most important to the future screening as well
as of course the colors of the house and the roof and all. Does that answer your question?
Chair Griffin: Thank you. It is a well-forested site in my estimation. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: My question was related to that. Of course I couldn’t see very far but
the fog actually was down below so you could see some distance. Were you planning to
trim out any of that underbrush so that you would have a better view along that ridge as
you look down the hill?
Mr. Balta¥: No we have no plans for trimming or tree removal aside from what is
requested in the drawings and to the best of my understanding my clients have not further
plans down the road.
Chair Griffin: Do we have any other questions? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: The drawings show a lot of glazing, for obvious reasons, on the
building. It would be natural that in this setting, and I must say it is a gorgeous setting,
that the owner would want a lot of glazing. Not only is this screened and hard to see it is
dang near hard to find. It says in the Staff Report that window coverings will cover any
light at night. If you are in this kind of setting I just can’t image even using window
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
coverings almost. So was there any consideration given to a deeper overhand or anything
like that that could minimize any offsite visibility of light at night?
Mr. Baltay: Yes, we have fairly large overhangs in building averaging about 30 inches.
If you look carefully you will see that many of the doors are recessed further back. It is
our feeling that a window in a donner is somehow less visibly intrusive. Additionally I
don’t think there is a single window that is wider than about 24 inches. They are all
broken up into small pieces of lines of casement windows. There are no large picture
windows the kind that makes extremely annoying reflections for a passing airplane or
something. It is simply a 24 inch wide window has about a 16-inch piece of glass
perhaps. There is no single large piece of glazing anywhere. We do that as a matter of
our design style perhaps but also it does again reduce the visual impact of the building
upon its surroundings. It makes it fit in more. It makes it feel less magnificent perhaps.
Commissioner Holman: So on the first floor you don’t have opportunity for overhangs.
There is one set of windows that is underneath an upper balcony but there are some lower
windows that aren’t recessed and don’t have an overhang. Do you have any suggestions?
Mr. Baltav: Down at the basement level, the level that cut into the hillside there, those
windows would not be visible from anywhere honestly. They are right at the pound and
even 30 feet away the trees are ~owing up on the hillside. They are covered by a
walkway, a deck of sorts, above them. We don’t feel that’s an unreasonable amount of
windows to have for a child’s bedroom.
Chair Griffin: If there are no further questions of the architect it would be appropriate to
have public comments. Although I don’t have any cards for the public comments. Peter
would you like to wrap up any final comments here that you would like to make?
Mr. Baltav: I think we are really trying our best to make this house equal to or
appropriate to the majesty of these trees and that site. That was Jeff and Mary’s initial
requirement and is still very much what they are after. We want this house to be there
with the trees. We have worked hard I think, all the evidence suggests that we have taken
that seriously. That is our big issue here. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Karen, you had a final question.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I apologize. I did have another question and it is "kind of a
two-parter. There isn’t any current landscape plan or exterior lighting plan. Are those
intended to be implemented at some time in the future or they are just not part of this
proposal?
Mr. Baltav: We have the exterior lighting that we are planning on putting in is on those
drawings. It is only a couple of light fixtures just necessary at the doors. There is no
formal landscaping plan because there will be no formal landscaping. The most forma!
we can think of is the trees and the turnaround of the driveway, formal in the sense that
we are ta -king existing trees and formalizing the frame around them. There is no intention
9
to install other landscaping except as required perhaps for reseeding of slopes that have
been disturbed during construction as Dave was explaining earlier. We do not intent to
put any type of elaborate or even minimal landscaping on the property. Jeff and Mary
really like it just like it is. Thank you.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Holmfin: The last one is the asphalt driveway, did you consider using a
permeable surface?
Mr. Baltav: Yes, we have considered strongly using actually a gavel driveway. We
have concerns whether that will meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall. We actually
would prefer to have an option to have a driveway be a more permeable type material
gravel being dur choice honestly. We feel a little bit stuck between various governing
agencies and don’t want to have our options cutoff at this point.
Chair Griffin: Do you have a question?
Vice-Chair Cassel: It is on this same issue. What we have been finding is they have
been working with the Fire Department and they have found some materials that are
permeable that will meet their requirements. We just did that with the previous
application that was before us. So I think there may be some options if you look at that.
Mr. Baltav: We would be very happy to explore those options and to the extent that we
are permitted use any variety of permeable materials on that drive. Hopefully even
including a gavel drive.
Vice-Chair Cassel: They probably won’t let you do a gavel drive but there are materials
available.
Mr. Baltav: We actually have explored that option with our geotechnical consultant and
our arborist working together in an effort to try to mitigate further the impacts on the
trees and gavel would be one way to help. We have also explored an option with our
contractor who tells us it would be less expensive which is always good. What we
request is that we not be locked in at this meeting to any particular thing asphalt seeming
to be the most intense so to speak. We really are trying to get construction started and
want to keep our options open.
Chair Griffin: Chris, did you have a comment?
Mr. Riordan: Typically the Fire Department requests and all weather driveway. I do
commend the applicant for wanting to minimize the pervious surface on the site. I think
the Commission could make a recommendation that on approval of the Fire Department
on the gavel driveway could be something that they accept.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: Chris, I don’t think you were before us when we have had two
recent developments in the Open Space area that came back with a new non-gravel
surface that was permeable.
Mr. Riordan: On 610 Los Trancos Road we actually had a permeable concrete that works
quite well and the Fire Department has also approved that use in hillside homes. The
good thing about that is you can dye it many colors so it really hides into the background.
Commissioner Burt: Based on that information does the applicant have any reservations
about incorporating that material that we have recently included as a condition in two
other Open Space developments?
Mr. Baltav: Yes we do. It is our understanding from our arbor consultant that the plants
need not just water coming through but they need air. They need elements from the
atmosphere and this really doesn’t, it is our understanding at least, allow that. We have
worked hard with the consultants and in order for the trees to survive as best as possible
they say it needs next to nothing, which would be gravel. We have looked into a
permeable concrete. There is a similar type of asphalt available. There are interlocking
concrete pavers of various de~ees of density. As of yetwe have not found a satisfactory
solution I shall say. What else can I say? Maybe Dave Dockter could address this.
Chair Griffin: I must say that this is a little frustrating to us because you are not the first
applicant to come before us with this same dilemma. There is a part of me that wishes
that Staff could give better direction somehow. I don’t know whether it is appropriate or
not. To me it seems like applicants are floundering a bit trying to find a material that
satisfies us up here on the desk as well as making Fire Department happy. I thought we
had discovered the magic product that did that. Maybe I am not understanding.
Ms. Grote: In most cases there are a variety of materials that can be used, interlocking
pavers this new permeable concrete. There have been a lot of advances in the last three,
four, five years in that regard. The Fire Department nor does Public Works typically
accept gravel. There are a number of reason for that sometimes it is the weight and the
need for sustaining the weight of an emergency vehicle, sometimes it is just the fact that
gravel migrates out into the public right-of-way or private right-of-way and creates
hazards. So there are a number of reasons -why gravel isn’t accepted. So we would need
to work with the applicant to find an acceptable material that is permeable.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Based on the visit this afternoon I don’t think I have any more
questions for the architect but I do have a couple of things I would like Dave Dockter to
comment on for clarification and edification of those who weren’t able to visit the site.
One is about the leach field that is being proposed and what that might entail and the
impact of that. The staging area is another issue that I would like you to comment on if
you would, please. The staging area because one of the things I have been aware of is
that once a project is built sometimes just the process of getting a project built there is a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
lot of damage done to surrounding area or property in that process and that is why the
question about the staging area especially given this wonderful site.
Mr. Dockter: Regarding staging areas and building of the project we would look to the
applicant to submit a logistics and staging plan with the set to identify areas for staging,
loading and unloading of materials and then make sure that those areas would be
adequately protected. The trees would be protected from those areas. That is currently
not involved on the tree protection plan so we need a little bit more. It is minor stuff I
think as far as the overal! scope of the project. It is a detail that we will need from the
applicant, the applicant has already committed to working with us on the logistic areas.
The areas that’will be impacted with the road widening curves and logistics staging area
those will need to be addressed for vegetation after those areas are abandon. So there
will need to be part of the detailed landscape plan that will have to be submitted for the
building permit. The detailed landscape plan won’t demand a formal landscaping as you
might expect on the flat lands or business park area. The detailed landscape plan needs to
fit with the open space indigenous plant palette. So we will make sure that it fits with the
area. But the vegetation landscape plan does need to be there as part of the building
permit set so that the open disturbed soi! areas do get planted with something whether it
is shrubbery, trees or hydro seeding. Does that answer your two questions?
Commissioner Holman: The leach field.
Mr. Dockter: We did identify some areas, two leach fields are proposed. They are
proposed to be up in semi-treed areas uphill above the project. The arborist report has
put up some red flags of the trenches that lead towards the leach fields that could cut
through roots. Out in the leach fields the trenches that are characteristic of leach fields
need to be dug all over the place up there in the woods. So we are going to be
recommending that an air spade technology be used so that an open trencher just doesn’t
cut through the roots of all the beautiful oaks that are up there. That is another thing that
the applicant I think has indicated a willingness to work with us on. Again, still more
details to come to us but minor, I think they can be incorporated in a couple of the sheets
of plans with a revision.
Commissioner Holman: One last question. When Commissioner Griffin appeared on the
site he had a question about Sudden Oak Death, SOD. Did you have a means to deal with
that when there is cutting on this property as there will be some.
Mr. Dockter: Actually the State of California has a quarantine on Santa Clara County in
regard to Sudden Oak Death disease. That is prevalent in the Santa Cruz mountains
woodland areas just like this. So we could either put a condition on the project or just
work with the applicant to control the wood that it does not leave the County or gets
treated if it does stay onsite. Again I can prepare a condition to incorporate before it does
go to Council to address that issue that Mr. Griffin raised.
Chair Griffin: Do you have a motion for us?
12
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
MOTION
Commissioner Holman: I do if there are no other comments or questions by other
Commissioners. I would move approval of the project apprdving the Mitigated Negative
Declaration. I do have some additional conditions of approval based on the site visit this
afternoon. One is that there should be a detailed 1.andscape plan presented and it should
be presented for all disturbed areas for cut and fill for one and for two there should be a
plan presented to show tree and shrub mitigation plantings and location of those. That
doesn’t currently exist. That there should be a landscape plan also presented for the
construction staging and access areas. Another condition of approval would be that the
leach fields stfould be design in consultation with the City Arborist and the project
Planner to determine best method preserve tree roots. That the Sudden Oak Death
quarantine that exists in the County be respected and that cut trees on the property be
managed in such a way that the trees if they would stay onsite would be treated or they
would be hauled offsite but within County. Dave Dock~er could consult on that. That a
lighting plan be presented. I will comment on this later if you want. But that there
should be a lighting plan presented as a condition of approval so it lives with the project.
That any road improvements be also referred to Dave Dockter, the City Arborist, and the
Planning consultant. That the applicant further investigate permeable driveway material.
That any future thinning or topping of trees on the perimeter of the property would have
to get City approval.
Chair Griffin: Do we have a second? Pat?
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: Second.
Chair Griffin: Karen do you wish to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Hotman: This is one of the more beautiful sites I have actually visited. I
think the applicant has done a terrific job of tree retention. They have done a really ~eat
job of following the contour of the property. It is a difficult site to try to put a house on
but I think they have done a really exemplary job. The fact that there are no materials
being exported offsite that they have balanced the cut and fill is one example of the kind
of care that they have taken. I think it is a really good project. They haven’t asked for
any variances, they have asked for no exceptions and I think it is a highly sensitive
project.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I concur that I think this is one of the best-designed projects if not
the best-designed project we have seen in the Open Space. I would like to commend the
applicant and the architects for doing so. I think it demonstrates the sort of sensitivity to
the namra! environment and to the adjacent public lands that we really need to be seeking
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
in these kinds of developments. I would just say that although Conmaissioner Holman
had a good number of supplemental conditions none of them seem to be ones that would
be particularly difficult to meet unless Staff has any concerns about them then I would
support them as well.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I think the motion is fine. I just have an enforcement question I
guess. How would we make sure that the last condition with respect to the topping or
thinning of trees if done at any time in the future must be approved by the City? What
mechanism do we have in place for that?
Ms. Grote: Again, as a part of a condition monitoring program which we do implement
on a regular basis for conditional use permits, for Site and Designs, for variances, for
anything that have conditions attached we will go out and do a regular annual inspection.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: The reason that I wanted to have these conditions added to this
is so they live with the life of the project. So any future owners are fully aware and very
aware and apparently aware of all these conditions.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-0)
Chair Griffin: Any other comments from other Commissioners? I think we are ready to
vote on this item. All those in favor of Karen’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? And
there are none. The item carries unanimously. We are now finished with agenda item
three.
14