The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-05-03 City CouncilTO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MAY 3, 2004 CMR: 199:04 3849 PAGE MILL ROAD [03-D-03;03-EIA-04]: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVEA REQUEST BY PETER BALTAY 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 OF WHICH THE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA WOULD BE 11,350 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING A 6,851 SQUARE FOOT ASPHALT DRIVEWAY;APPROVAL 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) for 3849 Page Mill Road, with a finding that the project will 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 Shotgun Lane. CMR:199:04 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). Williamson Act The project is subject to the Califomia Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act). The California Legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to preserve agricultural and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Williamson Act creates an arrangement whereby private landowners contract with counties and cities to voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses. The vehicle for these agreements is a rolling term 10-year contract (i.e., unless either party files a "notice of non-renewal," the contract is automatically renewed for an additional year). In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value. On February 7, 1977, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5342, establishing an agricultural preserve on approximately 95 acres, which has since been subdivided and includes the subject ten-acre parcel. A copy of the Resolution (The Contract) is attached to this report as Exhibit F. The list of compatible uses determined to be compatible by the Williamson Act is contained on page seven of the contract and includes "uses permitted by the regulations of the OS Open Space District". Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.71.050 lists the permitted uses in the OS zone district. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. PLANNING AND TRANSPORATION COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The PTC reviewed this project at its meeting January 14, 2004 and voted unanimously 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 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. CMR: 199:04 Page 2 of 3 Condition #20 Condition #21 Condition #22 Condition #23 Condition #24 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. 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 There is no economic impact of this project to the City’s General Fund. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Record of the City Council Land Use Action (including the Site and Desi~ Review Findings for Approval and Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment B:Mitigated Negative Declaration 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:Williamson Act Contract (Council Resolution No 5342) Attachment G:Project Plan Set (Council Members only). PREPARED BY: RI’S~OPH R~A. CH RIORDAN-~AIC.P, PLANNER HEAD REVIEW: / .8"TEV~E ElVi’SLIE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER cc:TOPOS Architects Jeff and Mary Thomas CMR:199:04 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A 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 Council 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 I. Back@round. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Peter Baltay 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 total 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. Following 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 development, 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 natural stone, integral 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 project does not include any formal landscaping. The proposed exterior building lighting 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 activities, 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 envi ronmen tal 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 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. SECTION 4.SITE AND 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 approval 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 colors 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 proper ties. 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 follow the slope, are responsive to the natural topography. The site will be kept in a natura! state and no formal landscaping is proposed. Trees removed from the site will 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 14 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 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. 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 be!ow 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 will bring samples of all 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 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. Ii. 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 spil! 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. 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 approval 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 additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission or City Council. The following conditions of approval 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 shall be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All lighting shall be minimal 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 archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical 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 until 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 Mill Road Page 6 8.The following provisions contained in the Special Status Species Analysis prepared by Live Oak Associates and dated June 15, 2001 shall be incorporated into the project. Construction activities will occur outside the breeding season (generally February to August) or all construction would be preceded with a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors by a qualified biologist. 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 environmental 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 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. I0. 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 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 activities prohibited on Sunday and Holidays) would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels. ii. Landscape and irrigation plans shall 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 material compatible with the open space district shell be specified. Plant list and Procedures for Landscaping under Native Oaks, Tree Technica! 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 soi! 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 new 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 approval 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 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 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 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 with the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.40 (each tree listed separately and formula used). 15. 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 considered to be ’at-risk’, consistent with Tree Technical Manua!, 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 shal! 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 due to construction related impacts shal! 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 shal! 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 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. 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 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. 3849 Page Mill Road Page 9 19. 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. 20. All cut oak trees shall either be disposed of within Santa Clara County or properly treated for Sudden Oak diseas@ 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 approval. 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 shall 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 Manual, Section 2.30, shall 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 will 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 soil 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 shall 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 not 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 final inspection of the project, except for work specifically allowed 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 il-inches and clearly state: "WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall 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 all trees to be retained: a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. c. Trees to be retained shall 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 log before final inspection is requested. 34. Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning or care for trees to remain shall be performed in accordance with the City Tree Technical Manual, 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 all 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 fina! arborist report shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to written request for temporary or fina! occupancy. The fina! report will be used to navigate the security guarantee return process. 36. Landscape Architect Inspection. The contractor shall cal! 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. Maintenance. 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 Maintenance- 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 shall be required for site retaining walls that are not an integral part of the new house. 40. A separate grading permit shall be required for the construction of the propane tank foundation and tank anchorage. 41. A separate permit shall be required construction of the new house and detached garage. for the 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 all on- site utilities. 44. Santa Clara County Health Dept. approval 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 Geotechnical and dated November 2003 shall 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 geologist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantia! 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" vertical 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 approval 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. (PAMCI5.04.083) 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 I0 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 Mill Road Page 13 52. Underground fire supply system installations or modifications require separate submitta! to the Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department, and the Utilities Department. Note: Fire Department approval wil! 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 Development 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 horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1927 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 all 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 digital text file will need to accompany the files. This is called Metadata file and will include the date of the file, the coordinates used, the source of the data, the company name and contact information, along 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 development 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 will take place in the.month following 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 agencies. 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 of ground water is allowed. In general, however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a manner that they do not 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 potential 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 control 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 general 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 all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawdust slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters, storm drains or the creeks (PAMC Section 16.09). 62. All 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. All off site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign off. Similarly, all as-built drawings, on-site grading, drainage and post- development BMP’s shall 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 Palo Alto Public Works Department would reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than significant level. 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 April 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/Deve!oper must submit detailed load calculations and service size requirements. Any extension of the existing distribution lines will 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 approval. SECTION 28. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval.In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, 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 B ’ City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act ~ MI TI GA TED NE GA TI VE D E CL A R A TI ON I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: January 5, 2004 Application Nos.: 03-D-03, 03-EIA-04 Address of Project:3849 Page Mill Road Assessor’s Parcel Number: 351-05-050 Applicant:TOPOS Architects 540-F Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Property Owner:Jeff and Mary Thomas 10161 Phar Lap Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Project Description and Location: Application by Peter Baltay 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 f’mished 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 Planning~EIAWIIGDEC.MLk3849 Page Mill Road.doe 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 fo~: 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 Pal. 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 S:LPLAN’&LADIV~Current PlanningkEIAWIIGDEC.MLk3849 Page Mill Road.doc So o So 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 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 due to construction related impacts 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:kPLANkPLADIV~Current PlanningkEIAWIIGDEC.ML~3849 Page Mill Road.doc 10. 11. 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 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. Prior to occupancy, a f’mal 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. 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 ~Planner Date Manage~ of Current Planning SAPLANkPLADIV\Current Planning’,EIALMIGDEC.MLXrevised 3849 Page Mill Road.doc DRAFTENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment o So o o Project Title: 3849 Page Mill Road Lead Agency 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 Attachment D DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment So o o Project Title: 3849 Page Mill Road Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pal0 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 County on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the City of Palo Alto. The topography of the ske 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 heavily vegetated with oak woodland. The residence would be located down slope from Shotgun Lane. There are no views of the site from Page Mill Road. Dense vegetation is present on the proposed site and on the adjacent parcels. Because of the trees, existing development in the area is not visible from the project site. In addition, the proposed house would not be visible from adjacent lots or the sua:rounding 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 ENVIRONMENTAL 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. Aesthetics X X X X X Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources X Cultural Resources Geology/Soils X Hazards & Hazardous Materials X Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population!Housing Public Services Recreation X Transportation/Traffic 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 agreed 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 e, AICP Director ~Planning and Community Environment Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 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, program 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 information 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. 8)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 format 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 b) Sources AESTHETICS. Would the proiect: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage sce~ic 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 surroundiogs? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 1,3 NoImpact 1,3 X X c) X 1,B d) 3 X nighttime views in the area? I1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether ,mpactsto 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: 1,3 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 non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1,3 X X 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 Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X III.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 pr~)ject: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 1,3 air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,3 existing or projected air quality violation c) 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,3 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1 people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 1,3,A X X X x X X X Issues and Supporting Information d) e) V= b) c) 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 "i 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 Issues and Supporting Information Resources of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. a) 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 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 shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) 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- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Sources Would the,project: 3,4,D 3,4,D Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X 3,4,D X 3,4,D 3,4,D 3,4,D 3,4,D 3,4,D 1,5 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. a) Create a significant hazard to the 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 proiect area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,3,6 NA na 3,6 Would the proiect? X X na na X na na 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 g) h) i) Soul’ces Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade 1,4 water quality?...Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary t,3,4,6 or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which t,3,4,6 would impede or redirect flood flows? 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? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Physically divide an established 1 community? 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? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1,3 natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site 1,3 No Impact X X X X j)x IX. a)X b) c) b) X X X X XI. b) c) d) e) 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 project? 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 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X X X na na XII. a) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new 1,3 homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? project: 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: XIV. a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? RECREATION 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 6 1 1,3 1,3 1,3 X X X X X X 1,3 1,3 X X Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the 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 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 Potentially Significant Issues project: Would the project: 3,4 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X na X x X X X X 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 SIGNIFICANCE. 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 Significant Issues Potentially 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.Geotechnicai Investigation prepared by Milstone Geotechnical, Inc. dated November 21,2003. E.Project Plans, dated 8/26/03. 1.Aesthetics Although the site is located in a scenic area, given the topography of the site, separation from Page Mill Road, and dense vegetation on and surrounding the site, it has been determined that 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 property’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 trees will be removed from the area where the house will 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 design standards and would conform to current architectural and landscaping standards. Residual Impact: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 Palo 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 ofPalo Alto’s Tree Technical Manual Mitigation Measures: None required. I1.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 Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agriculture use A Williamson Act Contract regulates the allowable land uses on the site. The list of Compatible Uses contained the contract includes "uses permitted by the regulations of the OS Open Space District". PAMC Section 18.71.050 lists the permitted uses in the OS zone district. Single family dwellings are a permitted use. 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 III.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-family 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 dry, 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 significant 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. 1K 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 regionally. 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 migrants. 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 Migratory 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 all construction would be preceded with pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors by a qualified biologist. ¯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 Palo 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 19 7 43 45 52 53 74 6 93 Species Coast Live Oak Coast Live Oak California Buckeye Coast Live Oak Coast Live Oak Coast Live Oak Coast Live Oak Coast Live Oak CA Bay Laurel CA Bay Laurel CA Bay Laurel CA Bay Laurel CA Bay Laurel CA Bay Laurel Coast Live Oak Coast Live Oak Diameter 21 18 6 13,13 12 10,9 14 13 12 19,18,12,10 11 11 11 8 5 15,14,7 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 2-36" box trees 2-36" box trees 2-36" box trees 2-36" 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) tmless the trunk or basal flare of the protected tree is touching or within the building footprint. However, if removal is allowed because the tree mink 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 significant 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. 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. o 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. o 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. o 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 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 due to construction related impacts 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 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. 1~. Cultural Resources According to Holman and Associates, Consulting Archaeologists, the site is not located in an archaeologically sensitive 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 grading, 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 ground 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 ground 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 stmctures. 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 of 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. 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. 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 below mitigation measures would reduce impacts from the risk of wildland fire to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: 12.A Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’6" vertical clearance. 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) 12.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. 13.The installation of a sprinkler system for each building which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, (PAMC15.04.160). 14.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. 0~AMC15.04.083) 15.Solid fuel (wood) fireplaces WILL not be permitted. 9. 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 topography 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 grading activities and oil and grease from parked vehicles. The project site is not within a 100-year floodplain and would 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 significant change in the groundwater conditions below the site. Residual Impact:Development of the proposed project could result in additional sources of non-point source pollution from grading, oil and grease from parked cars, and asphalt. Construction activities could result in short-term runoff from graded 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 proposed mitigation, the project would not result in a significant impact on water quality or a substantial increase in erosion and sedimentation and therefore would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures: 16.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 fde 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. 17.The project would comply with the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. 18.No site grading and drainage work would occur between October 15 to April 15, every year. IX.Land Use Planning The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Open Space/Controlled Development and the Zoning Designation 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 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. No~e 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 the 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 Services 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 growth 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 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 XK Transportation/Traffic The project site is not located on a designated emergency ronte. The project will not generate air or significant automobile traffic and will 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 upgrades 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 track traffic associated with construction. Construction traffic impacts would be temporary and are not anticipated to substantially disrupt peak traffic hours. Mitigation Measures: None required XVI. Utilities and Service 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 groundwater 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 landfill 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 8’1/26/21~84 1~1:56 6583274958 JP, N-26-2004 liON 11;50 Ati O P A PL,~ING FP, X NO. 6603292154 P, 02 Mandatory Findings of Sigrdficance The proj~c~ w~ll contribute to vegetation and wildlife impact~ as~ociat~ with development of a vacant p~.,el to urban uses. However, proje¢~ impacts on th~ nanzraI and human environment would not b~ significant. The proposed new resid~-nce will not sub~antiaIly d~grad~ the surrounding environment, impact wildlife species or th©ir habitat, or eliminate imtmrtant examples o[ cultural history or pre-history. Wh~ eonsid~rexl with other eurreat projcct~ and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the project is not anticipated to result in cbmulatively sigrtifieant impacts. W~, THE UNDEI~IGNED, I~REBY ATT~T THAT WE HAVI~ REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATF, D J~-~)O-t’_t~ ,~’s O~/ , PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSEDOF SOr TY KNOWN Attachment C PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Christopher Riordan, AICP Planner January 14, 2004 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment 3849 Page 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. Environmental 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 Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C), with a finding the project will not result in significant environmental 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 undergrowth. Adjoining properties are zoned and designated as Open Space and developed with single- family residences. Project 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 grade. 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 integral color cement plaster exterior finish with rectangular wood windows. Stone is proposed along the front entrance and retaining wails. 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 of ten 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 Zoning Code Standard total site Proposed Conformance impervious area &3.5 % of 10 acres 11,350 sq.ft. building coverage (15,225 sq. ft.) maximum conforms size of site 10 acres 10 acres conforms maximum height*25 feet 25 feet conforms exceeds front - 30 feet minimum standard setbacks side - 30 feet setbacks rear - 30 feet conforms 2 spaces (1 covered, parking 1 uncovered)3 covered 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 segment 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. Predominately 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 i3 12 19,18,12,10 11 11 11 8 5 15,14,7 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 2-36" box trees 2-36" box trees 2-36" 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. Howeverl 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. 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, integral 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 designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, 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 observed 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-I, 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 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 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. o 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. 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 for~ns 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 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. 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 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, 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. 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. 10.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. 11.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 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 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. 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 recommends 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:& Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 10 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 45 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes January 14, 2004 DRAFT EXCERPT Attachment D NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearing 3849 Page 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 family residence 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 Griffm 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 Staffs report. The applicant has 15 minutes to presem 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 33 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 Griffm: 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 Baltav, 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 and.their 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 judgrnent. 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 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 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 length 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. In the same vein we decided to curve the actual form of the house to conform to the topography again to minimize large amounts of retaining walls and grading 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 topography 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 ground 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 grove 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 3 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 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. Balmy: 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 mmouts 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 turns, 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 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 45 46 Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: road? Is Shotgun Lane within the property line then?It is a private Mr. Baltay: Shotgun Lane is a private road. Commissioner Packer: Within your property? Mr. Balmy: 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. Baltay: 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 rams 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. Balta¥: 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 grading 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 45 46 Commissioner Holman: That was one of the questions I wanted to know. Would there be any additional grading or tree removal as a part of this road paving? Mr. Balmy: 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 dam road is an eight footer replete with hairpin turns. So you have great 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 incongruous. 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. Balmy: 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. Balmy: 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. ! 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. Balmy: 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 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 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? Commissioner 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 unfommately 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 ! 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. Balta¥: 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 Butt: 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 give 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? 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 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 talking about views from offsite and we know that you were out there observing. Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning 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, looking 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 furore 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 33 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. Balta¥: 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 dormer 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. Balmy: 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 ground and even 30 feet away the trees are growing 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. Balmy: 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 Jeffand 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 fmal 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. Baltay: 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 formal we can think of is the trees and the turnaround of the driveway, formal in the sense that we are taking existing trees and formalizing the frame around them. There is no intention 9 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 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 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. Commissioner Holman: The last one is the asphalt driveway, did you consider using a permeable surface? Mr. Baltay: Yes, we have considered strongly using actually a gravel 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 our 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 fotmd 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. Balta¥: 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 gravel drive. Vice-Chair Cassel: They probably won’t let you do a gravel drive but there are materials available. Mr. Baltay: 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 gravel 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 gravel driveway could be something that they accept. Chair Griffin: Pat. 10 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 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. Baltay: 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 degrees of density. As of yet we have not found a satisfactory solution I shall say. What else can I say? Maybe Dave Dockter could address this. Chair Griffm: 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 fred 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 33 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 overall 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 fiat 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 soil 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 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 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 approving 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 landscape 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 should 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 Dockter 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 Griffm: Do we have a second? Pat? SECOND Commissioner Butt: Second. Chair Griffin: Karen do you wish to speak to your motion? Commissioner Holman: 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 great 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 natural 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 Commissioner 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 free. 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 Attachment E uJn- .,.,) SHOTGUN LANE Scale: 1" = 2320’ ~’= Project Site VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 Attachment F