HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-07 City Council (11)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s
HONO~LE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 7, 2004 CMR: 203:04
820 LOS TRANCOS WOODS ROAD [03-D-06, 03-EIA-23]:
APPLICATION BY BAR ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF YOAV
SHOHAM AND ORIT ATZMON FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 11,006 SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-
STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, A 2,294 SQUARE-FOOT
ACCESSORY SPORTS BUILDING, SWIMMING POOL,
LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ZONE
DISTRICT: OPEN SPACE (OS). ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT:A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN
PREPARED.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the following:
1.Negative Declaration and Addendum, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (Attachment B).
Site and Design Review application to allow construction of a residential structure in
the Open Space district, with the findings and conditions of approval contained the
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The project site is a single parcel (APN 182-36-030) of approximately ten acres in the
Palo Alto foothills. The site is undeveloped, containing no structures or utilities. The site
slopes upward to the east, north and west from the lowest point near the west property
line. The project area is on the east side of the property, in a relatively flat area that is part
of a "bowl", adjacent to upward sloping hillsides. This area contains native and non-
native grasses, chaparral, and various species of pines and oaks.
Adjacent land uses include single-family residential home sites. Access to the site is from
a shared driveway (also known as Los Trancos Woods Road) connected to Los Trancos
Road and Alpine Road in Portola Valley.
CMR: 203:04 Page ! of 4
The OS district does not have a maximum house size regulation. However, development
is limited by the amount of site coverage, which is 3.5% of the site area. This maximum
amount includes structures, driveways, walkways and patio areas constructed of
impervious surfaces. Previous projects in the open space utilized asphalt and concrete
surfaces throughout the site. Since these surfaces counted against the maximum site
coverage, the lot area available for structures was reduced.
The applicant is proposing to build two structures: a single-family residential home of
11,006 square feet and a sports building of 2,294 square feet (containing indoors courts,
an exercise room, bathroom and storage facilities).
The residential structure will essentially appear as a single-story structure that will be
oriented to the west. The second story areas are located at the north and south ends of the
structure, extending to a maximum height of 25 feet. The swimming pool, a terraced
patio area and landscaping extend to the west of the home. The site improvements were
designed to maximize the use of permeable surfaces. In addition to the landscaped
planters, gravel surfaces are used in many of the terraced areas (including the exterior
stairways), the driveway and auto parking court. Interlocking paver stones are used on the
walkway and stairway areas and at portions of the driveway.
The sports building will be located to the south of the residential structure and would
extend to a maximum height of 25 feet. This building is designed to provide a variety of
uses for the owner.
The exterior materials and finishes are designed to be compatible with the surrounding
environment. Thick plaster and limestone walls in muted, earth tone colors will
complement the limestone flooring at the interior living areas and exterior patio spaces.
The roof will be standing seam metal roof that will be of a dull zinc or deep gray color.
Stainless steel and wood trellis features extend over the interior/exterior thresholds.
The landscape plan is designed to fit seamlessly with the existing natural areas of the site.
Plant materials were selected for water conservation and low-maintenance characteristics.
Special consideration is placed on the preservation of the existing oak trees and the
existing grassland areas that would surround the structures. A small vineyard to the
northwest of the home (shown on Sheet L1.0) will be installed.
DISCUSSION
The applicant has proposed minor revisions to the project plans since the Planning and
Transportation Commission meeting on January 28, 2004. These revisions have been
made to accommodate program changes and economic considerations for the owner and
to allow the new structures to better follow existing contours of the project site.
The primary building and sports building now have 872 square feet of additional floor
area above grade, and the 1,117 square foot basement has been removed from the project.
CMR: 203:04 Page 2 of 4
Pervious areas have replaced impervious area at portions of the driveway and in the
landscaped areas. The result is that the amount of impervious area has been reduced by
approximately 480 square feet. Removal of the basement from the project would reduce
the amount of excavation and soil exported from the site by approximately 770 cubic
yards. The wing of the house containing the study was shifted approximately 25 degrees
to better follow the existing site contour. Minor changes to the materials palette and the
landscape plan are described in the applicant’s revision summary contained in
Attachment C.
These changes are considered by staff to be minor changes that would not affect the
recommendation of staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission. The Record
of Land Use Action has been revised to reflect the submittal date of the plans requested to
be approved. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project describes a larger single-
family residence, a smaller accessory sport building and more impervious surface than
the most recent revisions. The amount of impervious surfaces is the site development
regulation that limits development on site. As there will be a net decrease in impervious
area, there are no additional environmental impacts on the site. Additional floor area will
be converted from the basement to the first and second floors of the residence and to the
sports building. The Negative Declaration has been amended to indicate this with a
finding that this would not be a significant incremental aesthetic impact (Attachment B).
In addition to these changes, the applicant has submitted photographs and views of
existing site conditions and renderings that simulate the addition of the structures on the
undeveloped site. These photographs and renderings are contained in Attachment D.
A full project description is included in the attached Planning and Transportation
Commission Staff Report (Attachment E).
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This project was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) on
January 28, 2004. The Commission recommended that the City Council approve the
Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review application (6-0-0-0).
In addition to the Site and Design findings, the Commissioners discussed the use of
pervious and impervious surfaces on the site, the visibility of the sports building, and tree
protection for non-protected tree species. Alt.hough the Commission generally supports
the use of pervious materials to reduce water runoff and promote on-site permeability, the
result is that the structures can be larger, covering more of the site.
However, the Commission found that the project has been sensitively designed in that it
would: 1) be located to minimize off site views; and 2) would have a predominantly
single story floor plan that generally follows existing land contours.
CMR: 203:04 Page 3 of 4
The sports building would be a separate structure that would extend to a maximum height
of-25-feet. This structure would be seen from the private driveways, as shown in the
attached renderings (Attachment D). Several Commission members proposed a condition
that would lower the height of the sports building to 18 or 20 feet. However, the
proposed condition was not supported by the majority.
The project would include tree protection for all trees impacted by the project. Three
non-native pine trees located within the proposed building footprint would be removed.
The Commission discussed specific tree maintenance conditions, such as a tree pruning
and plan. Staff informed the Commission that the project would be subject to the tree
maintenance and pruning regulations contained in the Tree Technical Manual, so specific
conditions were not required for this project.
The Commission recommended that the building color be revised to be a darker shade of
brown. This condition is included in the Record of Land Use Action, Section 6.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Record of Land Use Action.
Negative Declaration and Addendum.
Applicant’s Design Statement and Revision Summary.
Photographs and Renderings of the Site.
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report January 28,
2004.
Planning & Transportation Commission excerpt verbatim minutes,
January 28, 2004.
Project Plans (Council packet only)
PREPARED BY:
STEVEN TURNER
Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
STEVE EM~LIE ~ .....
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: p dSO
A-ssist-ant City Manager
CMR: 203:04 Page 4 of 4
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2004-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 820 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE AND
DESIGN REVIEW 03-D-06 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT 03-EIA-23 (LISA VICTOR, BAR ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT)
On June 7, 2004, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
adopted the Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review
application for construction of a two-story, single-family
residence, an accessory sports building, swimming pool, landscaping
and other site improvements in the Open Space Zone District, making
the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Backqround. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Lisa Victor of BAR Architects, on behalf of Yoav
Shoham and Orit Atzmon, property owner, has requested the City’s
approval to allow construction of a two-story, single-family
residence, an accessory sports building, swimming pool, landscaping
and other site improvements for a total floor area of 11,006 square
feet. ("The Project").
B. The project site is a single parcel (APN 182-36-030) of
approximately ten acres in the Palo Alto Foothills. The site is
undeveloped, containing no structures or utilities. The site is
designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space and
is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district.
The project includes construction of a new 11,006 square foot
single-family residence (including garage and basement areas) with
an outdoor swimming pool and a 2,294 square foot accessory sports
building. The driveways would be constructed of pervious materials
including gravel and interlocking paver stones. Total impervious
area (including building foot print and other hardscaped areas)
would be 13,546 square feet. All utilities will be installed,
including electricity, telephone, water, and sewage lines.
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Project on
January 28, 2004. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in
CMR:203:04 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
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 was determined that, with the implementation of conditions of
approval, 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 January 7, 2004
through January 28, 2004.
The applicant has made minor revision to the project since the
January 28, 2004 review by the Commission. The revision included
changes to floor area, impervious area, building orientation and
the materials palette. An addendum to the Negative Declaration was
prepared on June 3, 2004. This addendum included analysis of the
impacts of the revisions to the environment. It was found that the
revisions would not significantly change the findings as described
in the original Environmental Impact Assessment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment, Negative Declaration, and
Addendum are contained in CMR 203:04.
SECTION 3.Site and Desiqn 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 project is located in an area of other single-
family residential home sites. Although the project introduces
development to a previously undeveloped site and will be visible
from the shared driveway, the project was designed to minimize the
visual impact of the structures by following the natural topography
of the site, by minimizing the amount of second floor areas and by
designing the structures low roof profiles. The development will
have minimal visual impacts on adjacent sites. Furthermore, the
materials, colors and landscaping selection have been designed to
blend in with the natural environment to the greatest extent
possible.
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 would maintain desirability of investment
in the same and adjacent areas, in that the proposed design, size
and use of the site are consistent with the existing residences on
2
Los Trancos Road. The construction of all improvements would 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.
3. Sound principles of environmental
ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
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 use of permeable materials
will help reduce rainwater flows across the land. The proposed
design of the residential structure, driveway, walkways, sports
building will follow existing site topography.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo A1 to
Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal complies with the policies of the
Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment elements
of the Comprehensive Plan, including:
Policy L-I: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the
preservation of 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 located southwest of the Highway
280 and east of Alpine Road, within the Open Space district. The
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project
site is Open Space/Controlled Development. Single-family
residential uses are permitted within this district. The
structures would be designed to minimize the impact on the open
space by minimizing the amount of impervious surfaces, by designing
low-profile buildings and by the use of materials and colors that
are compatible with the environment.
Policy L-5: The Comprehensive Plan states to maintain
the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The
project proposal would be compatible with other structures in the
area and does not detract from the natural character of the site.
Although the project would bring development to an essentially
undeveloped site, the residential structure, sports building and
other proposed improvements would result ~in minimal impacts to
neighboring properties.
Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the
project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of
Low Sensitivity. Palo Alto is known to contain widely dispersed
prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human
burials and a variety of artifacts. Therefore, cessation of all
grading and construction activities is required, if any
archaeological or human remains are encountered. At that time,
retention of a qualified archaeologist to address the find in the
field, notification of the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s
office, and if native American remains are discovered, evaluation
of the finds by a Native American descendent shall be required.
The Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American
Heritage Commission of the State of California, would provide
implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo
Alto’s roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
equestrians. Although the project would bring development to an
essentially undeveloped site, the project would not seriously
impede views of the foothills to users of Los Trancos Road or
Alpine Road due to the low profile.
Policy N-7: Al! development in the foothill portion of
the Planning Area should be consistent with the City of Palo Alto
Open Space development Criteria. Conformance with the Open Space
Deve!opment Criteria is discussed be!ow.
The project proposal meets the following Open Space
Development Criteria and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding development in designated open space areas.
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 Los Trancos or
Alpine Roads and surrounding properties. The low roof profiles and
a site plan that follows existing natural topography minimizes the
impact of the development from off-site views. Natural vegetation
and existing mature trees will be maintained, which will allow the
new development to blend in with the immediate environment The use
of earth tone colors and natural building materials would also
minimize the visual impact of the development.
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
4
properties. The size and topography of the site and extensive
vegetation will mitigate views of the proposed structures from
adjacent properties.
4.Development should be clustered, or closely
grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less
conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of
natural habitats. The mass of the structures 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 natura! topography. Building lines should follow the lines of
the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a
distance. The building footprint and terraced landscaping and patio
areas, which roughly follow the existing slope, are responsive to
the natural topography. The project would maintain all but four of
the existing mature trees and vegetation, thereby reducing the
disturbance to the site.
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. The Arborist Report and
construction plans have been evaluated by the City’s Planning
Arborist, who has agreed to the removal of four pine trees in the
area. All other trees in the vicinity of construction will be
protected.
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 driveway and parking court are
encouraged, because they enable development to blend into the
natura! topography. Fill wil! not be placed in the dripline of any
existing tree. The amounts of cut exported off the site would be
kept to a minimum.
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 building footprint, retaining walls and
smal! areas of the patio and landscaped areas. Impervious surfaces
would be below the 3.5% of the site area that is the maximum
allowed.
5
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.
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 landscape plan was designed to fit
seamlessly with the existing natural areas of the site. Plant
materials were selected for water conservation and low-maintenance
characte}istics. Special consideration was placed on the
preservation of the existing oak trees and the existing grassland
areas that would surround the structures.
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 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.
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 existing
Los Trancos Woods Road is deve!oped with a rural character. No
changes to this road are expected as a result of this project.
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 4.SITE AND DESIGN APPROVALS GRUNTED. Site and
Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipa! Code Section 18.82.070 for application 03-D-06, subject
to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of the Record.
SECTION 5.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Lisa Victor of
BAR Architects titled "Atzmon-Shoham Residence", dated May 21,
2004, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval
in Section 6. A copy of the plans is on file in the Department of
Planning and Community Environment. The conditions of approval in
6
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 a Building Permit shall be
in substantial conformance with plans dated on May 21, 2004, 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,
structures, and other features.
3. Driveway Retaining Wall- Fill shall only be used to
the minimum amount necessary to meet code requirements. The
approximate amount of fill shal! be printed on the building permit
plan sets. The concrete wal! shall incorporate an earthtone color
(integral color or paint) to blend in with the natural environment.
4.A landscaping plan for the vineyard shall be
included with the plans submitted for the building permit. The plan
shall include species type, size and quantities to be planted. The
irrigation plan shall be included showing any mechanical irrigation
system that would be extended to this area
5. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a glass
type that minimizes reflectivity from off site views.
6.If during grading and construction activities, any
archeoiogical 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 shal!
be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any
Native American resources are encountered during construction,
construction shall cease immediately unti! a Native American
descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of
the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make
further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
7. Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of a building permit,
a payment of Development Impact Fees shal! be made.
7
8.The primary exterior building color shall be revised
to incorporate a darker shade of brown that would allow the
buildings to better blend into the natural environment.
Building Division
9. Separate building permits shall be required for the
construction of each individual building and structure.
I0. A grading permit shall be required for the earthwork
and site development.
ii. The plans submitted with each building permit
application shall be complete and shall include all necessary
electrical, plumbing and mechanical drawings related to that
building.
Road.
12.The official site address is 820 Los Trancos Woods
13. All site utilities are to be shown on the site plans
associated with the building permit applications.
Public Works
14. PWE normally does not allow grading and excavation
in the hillsides during the wet season (October 1 through April 15)
to prevent storm water pollution and erosion.
15. Excavation, grading, drainage, perimeter and
retaining wal! subdrains, etc. shall be designed per
recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation submitted with
the plans.
16. Permittee must obtain a Grading & Excavation Permit
from the Building Inspection Division if excavating more than i00
cubic yards or disturbing more than I0,000 square feet.
17. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo
Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the
route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City
of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for
a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works
Engineering.
18. A completed Impervious Area Calculation Worksheet
must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit for
determining the property’s storm drainage fee. Sheet G.0!
indicates a total site impervious area of 15,835 square feet.
19. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more
than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant must apply for
coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general
permit for storm water discharge associated with construction
activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project
with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The
General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is
required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the
Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance
of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent,
post-development project design features and temporary measures
employed during construction to control storm water pollution. The
permanent measures are meant to protect storm water quality and to
minimize both run-off and discharges to the City storm drain system
by maximizing infiltration.
20. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works
Engineering (PWE) prior to final submittal to verify the basic
design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water
infiltration.
21. Master Work Schedule: Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Master Work Schedule
to PWE. The schedule must show the proposed grading schedule, and
the proposed condition of the site on each July 15, August 15,
September 15, October I, and October 15 during which the permit is
in effect. The Master Work Schedule shall also show the schedule
for installation of all interim and permanent erosion and sediment
control measures, and other project improvements. After permit
issuance, updated schedules shal! be provided to PWE each month
that the permit is active. Sec. 16.28.160.
22. Winterization Plan: All work areas that have not
been stabilized prior to onset of the Wet Season shall be graded to
drain toward settlement basins at the interior of the site. Storm
runoff water from un-stabi!ized areas shall be directed into
settlement basins and through BioWattles or other filtration
devices prior to release from the site.
23. BMP’s: Within the plan set, include the City
standard Best Management Practices (BMP) sheet titled "Pollution
Prevention - It’s Part of The Plan" available at the City’s
Development Center.
24. SWPPP/BMP Measures: The location and extent of
applicable SWPPP and BMP measures should be indicated on the
Grading & Drainage Plan (Sheet C-2) and/or the Erosion Control Plan
9
(Sheet ER-I). Some of these measures are already shown on these
sheets, but others need to be added, including:
¯Straw wattles (fiber rolls)
¯Geotextile mats
¯Concrete waste management
¯Preservation of existing vegetation
¯Hazardous materials storage
25. Vegetation Area: Identify the Limits of Work (LOW)
on the plan. Provide a note on the plans advising that vegetated
areas outside the LOW must not be disturbed. Establish clearing
limits around these areas to prevent disturbance during the
construction activities. Call out the BMP regarding Preservation
of Existing Vegetation at these areas.
26. Erosion Control General Notes on Sheet ER-I shall be
revised as follows:
¯Second note: Erosion control materials need to be in
place as of October i.
¯Third note: Rainy season is October ! thru April 15.
¯Seventh note: Cover bare slopes by October i. Erosion
control planting is to be completed sufficiently in
advance to assure plants establishment by Oct. i. If the
planting is not established by October i, then other
SWPPP measures must be implemented to stabilize the
site. No grading or utility trenching shal! occur
between October 1 and April 15 unless authorized by the
City engineer.
¯ Last note: "Projects shal! avoid ".
27.
seeded.
Indicate on Sheet ER-I the areas that will be hydro
28. A note on Sheet ER-I says, "Provide sedimentation
basin at each drain inlet." It appears that these are not
sedimentation basins, but simply drain inlet filters. Please
describe and/or provide a detail for the "sedimentation basins".
Consider a true sedimentation and/or retention basin(s) for the
site to clean and retain storm water.
29. Sheet ER-I says to provide silt fences around
exposed areas and site. Consider using wattles (fiber rolls) in
lieu of or in addition to the silt fences. We believe wattles are
more effective than silt fences as silt fences tend to fall over
when silt builds up behind them.
30. Dewatering Plan: Building permit applicants ~are
required to prepare and submit a basement excavation dewatering
i0
plan whenever the project soils report indicates that groundwater
will be encountered during excavation. The plan should be reviewed
and approved by Public Works engineering prior to the issuance of
the building permit. Building permits that include a basement
where groundwater is not expected to be encountered will be subject
to a condition that a dewatering plan shall be submitted to Public
Works Engineering for review and approval if groundwater is
encountered during excavation.
Fire Department
31. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which
meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No.13 - 1996 Edition for
the main house and Sports Building. The cottage may be sprinklered
in accordance with NFPA Standard No.13D - 1996 Edition. 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.
32. An approved underground fire supply shall be
provided for the sprinkler system, and shall meet the requirements
of NFPA Standard No. 24 - 1996 Edition. Fire supply system
installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention
Bureau. (PAMC!5.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be
withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department
requirements have been met.
33. Additional hydrants shall be provided to make a
minimum of 1 hydrant available within 500 feet of the point on the
access road closest to the structure. Fire supply shall be designed
to provide a combined flow from the hydrants of not less than 1,500
gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psig, for a
period of not less than 2 hours (98CFC903.4.2) NOTE: Delivery of
building materials to the site will be prohibited until the hydrant
and an adequate water supply have been provided.
34. 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.
35. Entry Gate (if provided) shall be equipped with an
Opticom receiver for Fire Department access or a Key Box shall be
provided (if gate is not electrically driven). Contact the Fire
Prevention Bureau at 329-2184 for details.
Utilities Department- Water, Gas & Wastewater
ii
36. Neither wastewater nor gas services from the City
of Palo Alto are available to this property. The applicant shall
submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection
application load sheet with the water load for City of Palo Alto
Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information
requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m.)
37. Due to water flow and pressure limitations in this
area, the maximum size water service available to this property
is a 2" water service.
38. The applicant shall submit improvements plans for
utility construction. The plans must show the size and location
of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire
service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift
stations and any other required utilities.
39. The applicant shal! show on the site plan the
existence of any water well or auxiliary water supply.
40. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly
(RPPA backf!ow preventer device) shall be installed for all
existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to
comply with the requirements for California Administrative Code,
Title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be
installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water
meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by
the Utilities cross Connection Inspector is required for the
supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
Utilities Marketing
40. Prior to issuance of either a building permit or
grading permit, all common area landscaping shall be approved by
the Utilities Marketing Services Division of the Utilities
Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. For projects with
more than 1500 square feet of landscaped area, a water budget shall
be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter
shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan review Specialist at
(650) 329-2549 for additional information.
SECTION 7.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.
12
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
13
Attachment B
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
a
4.
5.
6.
9.
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Application Number(s):
Project Sponsor:
Property Owner:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of the Project:
Proiect Summarv
820 Los Trancos Woods Road
Atzmon-Shoham Residence
City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Steven Turner, Planner (650) 329-2155
820 Los Trancos Woods Road
03-D-6, 03-EIA-23
Lisa Victor
BAR Architects
1660 Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Yoav Shoham/Orit Atzmon
4058 Orme Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Open Space
OS- Open Space
The project site of 10.39 acres (APN 182-36-030) is located in Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara Valley. The site is west of Interstate 280 and south of Alpine Road, as shown on
Fig~tre 1, Regional Map and Figure 2, ~Tcinity Map. There is no existing development on the
site. Access to the site would be from Los Trancos Woods Road.
The site is zoned OS (Open Space) District. This zone district is desi~maed 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 15,841 square feet.
The project includes construction of a new 11,513 square-foot single-family residence (including
garage and livable basement areas) with an outdoor swimming pool and a 2,032 square-foot
accessory sports building. The driveways would be constructed of pervious materials including
gavel and interlocking paver stones. Total impervious area (including the building footprint and
other hardscape areas) would be 14,026 square feet.
12.Other public agencies whose approval is required:None
13. Date Prepared:December 29, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIAZ, LY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked b~low would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages:
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2
DETERMINATION: 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 a~eed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATI%rE 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 fred 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 anab~zed 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
DECL.4J~TION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATWE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the.2zoposed project, nothing further is required.
Project P,~rine~
D~recto~of Planning and Communi~,
Environmenf/
Date
X
EVALUATION OF ENWIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information
sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2)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 Sign_ificant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency
must describe the mitgafion 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 (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should
identify, the following:
a) Eariier Analysis Used. Identig’ 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 Significam with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures ~vhich 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 chec "klist 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 chec "klist that are relevant to a projects em, ironmentat 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 tess than significance
4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Si~cantImpact
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
qaali~’ of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1,3,4
1,3,4"
X
X
X
X
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
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?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use.
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
X
X
X
IH.AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quali~’ management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 6 X
air quali~~ plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 6
to an existing or projected air quality violation?X
c)6 XResult in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quali~’ standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,3,6 X
concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,3,6 X
people?
5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Si~cant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural communi~’ identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California
Department offish 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 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 native resident or migratoD, wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nurseD).’ sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
X
X
X
X
X
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
1,5
X
X
X
X
x,q. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
i)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
effects, including the risk of loss, injur3’, or death involving:
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 soft erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c)
d)
e)
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?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial ris "ks
to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
1,8,18
1, 8,18
1,8,18
1,18
1,11,18
1,11,18
1,18
11,18
Potentially
Significant
~ssues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
x
x
x
x
x
NO
Impact
X
X
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a)
b)
e)
d)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
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?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
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,
1,14
1,14
1,14
I
X
X
X
X
f)
g)
h)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
where such a plan has not been adopted, within t~vo 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?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
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?
1,3
1,3
1,14
1,4,14
PotentiaLly
Significant
Issues
Potentially
SignificantUnless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 12 X
requirements?
b)12Substantially 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)
d)
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?
11,12
11,12
12,15
12
1,3,4,7
e)
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?
X
Create or contribute runoffwater which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Si~cant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which 1,4,7,X
would impede or redirect flood flows?11
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,1,7,11 X
injuD, or death involve flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1,11 X
IX. L.~2~rD USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?1,3,4
b)1,2,3,4
c)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not 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
natural communi~’ conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
Result in the loss of availabiliD’ of a "known mineral resource
¯ that 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 delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
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 vicinit3~ above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
~vhere such a plan has not been adopted, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Si~cant
Impact
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would 1,2,3,4 X
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XIL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a)1,3 X
b)
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3e)
No
Impact
X
X
XIH. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
X
X
X
X
X
XIV. RECREATION
a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
X
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity, ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
1,13
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service 1,13 X
standard established by the count)., congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an I3 X
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,4,13 X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?4,14 X
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity.?4,13 X
g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1,4,13 X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERX, qCE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 12,15 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)4,12,15 XRequire or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
c)4,12,15
12,15
15
d)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
No
Impact
X
X
X
11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sourc~Potentially Pov:ntially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
adequate 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 11 X
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 11 X
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 community, reduce the number 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? (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)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
*Project contains mitigation that would reduce impacts to less than significant.
SOURCE REFERENCES:
.1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance)
Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development.
820 Los Trancos Woods Road, Revised Project Plans by BAR Architects, December 5, 2003
Palo Alto "Master List of Structures on Historic Building Inventory", Revised March 1996.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (updated 12/99)
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, 060348-5, Revised June 6, 1999
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List
City of Palo Alto, Planning Division Arborist
City. of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division
City of Palo Alto Public Works- Water Quality Department
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
City. of Palo Alto Fire Department
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
City of Palo Alto Building Division
X
X
X
12
17.Arborist Report: 820 Los Trancos Road, Prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, August 15, 2003
18.Geotechnical Investigation: 820 Los Trancos Road, Prepared by United Soil Engineering, May 2003
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Location Map
Evaluation of Potentially Significant and other Relevant Environmental Impacts
I. Aesthetics
Although the site is located in a scenic area, ~ven the topo~aphy of the site, separation from Alpine Road,
and dense vegetation on and surrounding the site, it has been determined that no scenic vistas would be
affected by this project. The house and improvements would only be visible from Los Trancos Woods
Road. The project will involve the removal of four pine trees (Coulter Pine) in the location of the project.
Other trees that have fallen or have been damage will also be removed from the site. The removal of these
trees is not expected to decade the view from off site of the project. A total of four pine 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.
The project will include construction of a single-family residence and an accessory building that will bring
light and possibly glare to an otherwise undeveloped site. The home is oriented with windows facing west.
Morning sun during the summer months may produce glare reflecting from the windows at this side of the
building. The project would be required to meet the City’s desi~ standards and would conform to current
architectural and landscaping standards. The architectural review and building permit review processes will
ensure conformance and less than significant impacts.
Residua! Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
II. Agricultural Resources
The site is not located in a Prime Farmland or Unique Farmland of Statewide Importance area and is not
designated as a Williamson Act Property. The site will primarily be an agricultural use, which is a permitted
use in the Opens Space zone district.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
III. Air Qualit)’
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 wading, paving, and landscaping which has the
potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in airborne particulate matter. Dust
related impacts would be less than significant due to the application of standard dust control measures in
13
conjunction with the building permit review" process.
Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions from motor vehicles
associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
The project will not create substantial pollution concentrations in the area. Therefore, the project is not
expected to have a significant impact.
The site will contain a single-family residential structure. This structure and use would not create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
IV. Biological Resources
While the project site is within a rural area that supports sensitive habitat, the project site does not include
wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is the site adjacent to an3" wetlands, water~vay, or other sensitive habitat.
The City of Palo Alto Planning Division arborist has reviewed the project and has determined that no
significant trees would be impacted by the project. Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) exist on the property
and in the vicinib of the project site. The applicant does not propose to remove an); protected trees to
construct the project. Four pine trees (Coulter Pine) in the construction zone wil! be removed. Other trees
that have fallen or are damaged and dying will be removed from the site. The prqiect will be required to
provide tree protection, subject to the regaxlations contained in the City, of Palo .Alto Tree Technical Manual
in conjunction with building and grading permits.
The project site is identified as being in, and surrounded by, the biotic communi~" of Oak Woodland with
Chaparral area to the north. The immediate building site contains native and non-native grasses that will be
removed during construction. Native grasses will be planted around the perimeter of the structures on land
that was disturbed by construction. The proposed project will not significantly disturb any other existing
plant life.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
V. Cultural Resources
The site will contain a single-family residential structure and accessory building. Maps L-8 and L-9 of the
Comprehensive Plan indicate that the project site is located within an Archeological Resource Area of Low
Sensitivity. and not within a Williamson Act property. There are no identified historical, archaeological, or
paleological resources on the project site. However, the site is in the vicinity, of areas identified in the
Comprehensive Plan as moderately sensitive, and therefore the following standard condition would apply to
this project to protect the site if archeolo~cal or paleological evidence is found:
14
"Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during
construction and appraised of the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeologica! resources or
human remains are found. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara
Count;,., Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those
of a Native American, and if they are, shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(e). In the event that
archaeological resources are discovered during ~ading or construction activities, all work shall cease within
150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist. The archeologist shall
conduct independent review of the fred, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt
evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action
acceptable to all concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be for
avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include
excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in
accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the
California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall be consulted on all
aspects of the mitigation pro~am."
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
VI. Geolo~’ and Soils
The entire state of California is a seismically active area. The City of Palo Alto is located within an area that
is very geologically active. The San Andreas Fault, long considered a major seismic risk in California,
passes though the City. The Comprehensive Plan states that the San Andreas Fault is capable of producing a
ma~maitude 8.4 earthquake that would cause very violent groundshaking in much of Palo Alto. No -known
faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at this site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All
new construction would be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code, which are
directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Therefore the project would result in a less than si~mfificant impact.
Seismic gound shaking could occur on the site and could impact structures and occupants of the project
area due to seismic activity associated with regional faults such as the San Andreas, front range thrust faults
across Palo Alto to the San Andreas and the Hayward Fault.
The goal of Policy N-51 of the Comprehensive Plan is to "Minimize exposure to geologic hazard, including
slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and seismic hazards including ~oundshaking, fault rupture,
liquefaction, and landsliding" so that the risk from seismic events would be reduced to a level that must be
accepted by people living in a seismic active area, and therefore this would be considered a less than
significant impact.
No substantial changes to the site topo~aphy will occur as a result of the proposed project. Grading activity
will be limited to the soil removal for the construction of the residential structure. The project would result
in the removal of approximately 960 cubic yards of fill from the site. A final ~ading and drainage plan for
the project is subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The application of standard gading, drainage, and erosion contro! measures as part of the approved
15
grading and drainage plan and the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report is expected to mitigate
and grading-related impacts to a less than significant level.
The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or altemative waster-water disposal systems.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A hazardous material is defined as an injurious substance, including pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and
chemicals, volatile chemicals, explosives, nuclear fuels or low-level radioactive wastes. Activities that
handle hazardous materials are found throughout the City, even in residential areas and homes. The
proposed project will involve minimal forms of hazardous materials, in the form of swimming pool cleaning
chemicals and other household chemicals. The site will be used as a single-family residence, which is a use
that does not typically generate or store si~maificant amounts of hazardous materials other than those
identified.
The residential and accessory structure would be near wild lands so there is some risk of exposure to ftre.
The proposed roofing material is standing seam metal roofing, which is approved by the Fire Department for
use in the Open Space areas. The project site is not located within two miles of either a public or private use
airport. The project will not affect circulation patterns in the vicinity of the project and, therefore, will not
interfere with either emergency response or evacuation. The project is in a developed area and will not
expose people or sn’ucmres to a si~cant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
VIII. Hydrolo~’ and Water Quality
Construction of the single-family structure, accessory buildings, driveways and walkways will change the
amount of impervious surface area on the site. The proposed impervious area and coverage does not exceed
the maximum 3.5 percent allowed in this zone district. The private driveways will be constructed of
permeable pavers and gravel surfaces. The existing drainage pattern of the site will not be substantially
altered as a result of the project. However, City Standard Conditions of Approval require the incorporation
of Best Management Practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in
conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program. In addition, a
drainage plan for the site is required to be submitted -with the building permit application to address potential
water quality impacts.
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater supplies.
The site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project applicant is also required to submit a
final site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm
drainage system and/or landscaped area per the adopted Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
16
Conformance to the requirements of the Public Works Department will reduce the flood hazard impacts to
less than significant.
The project site is not an area that is subject inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Residual Impact:Less than significant
Mitigation Measures:None required
IX. Land Use and Planning
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this property is Open Space and the Zoning Ordinance
designation is Open Space district. This project would not be in conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The project could meet the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
Policy L- 1:
¯Policy L-69:
¯Policy N-6:
Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently
developed lands with in the urban service area. Retain undeveloped land west
of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances for
very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the
area.
Preserve the scenic qualities ofPalo Alto’s roads and trails for motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.
Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space
zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any- new development on views
of hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecolo~oy of the
hillsides.
¯Policy N-7:
Municipal Code Consistency
All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area should be
consistent with the City of Palo Alto Open Space development Criteria.
The project will conform to all Municipal Code requirements. The project is in the vicinity of protected
species of trees, including Coast Live Oaks (Quercus a,m-ifolia). Construction could impact the health of
these trees. The project will contain Standard Conditions of Approva! that will require appropriate tree
protection measures and devices to ensure survival of these trees.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
17
X. Mineral Resources
The project site is not located in a designated mineral resource recover), site. No impacts to mineral
resources are expected.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
X~. Noise
The project is not expected to result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels, excessive pound
shaking, or permanent noise levels in excess of standards established by local regulations or standards.
The project may cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction.
Standard conditions of approval will require that the builder observe the City of Palo Alto requirements
for construction times and hours.
The project is not located within an airport land use plan area or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Residual Impact:Less than si~maificant
Mitigation Measures:None required
XII. Population and Housing
The project will not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area, displace
substantial numbers of existing people or housing.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
No impact
None required
XIII Public Services
Fire
Although the site is located in a high fire hazard area as identified by the Comprehensive Plan, the
proposed project would not significantly impact fire service to the area. The conditions of approval for
the project contain requirements to address al! fire prevention measures.
Police
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The new" facility would
not result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
Schools
As the project involves construction of a single-family residence there is no expected impacts to
18
educational resources of the Palo Alto Unified School District. School district fees would be paid in
conjunction with building permit issuance.
Parks
No direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a
substantial increase in Palo Alto’s residential or employee population.
Other Public Facilities
Facilities fees (Libraries and Community Facilitates fees) would be paid in conjunction with building permit
issuance.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
XTV. Recreation
Less than significant
None required
Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for determining
parkland needs. This requires two acres of par -kland for each 1,000 people. The project would not
generate any significant additional population. No additional parkland would be required as a result of
the project.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
XV. Transportation and Traffic
Installation of the single-family structure and accessory structure will add development in a primarily open
space area of the City. The project will result in additional vehicle trips to the site, but the number of trips is
not expected to generate si~cant traffic impacts.
Los Trancos Woods Road is not designated as an arterial roadway in the Comprehensive Plan. The approval
of the proposed project will not require any changes to be made to the street. Additionally, the City’s
Transportation Division has indicated that the proposed addition will not have any transportation impacts.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
XW’I. Utilities and Service Systems
The project would involve the construction and placement of new electric, sewer, and water service to the
undeveloped site. The connections for the single-family structure and accessory structure are not expected to
create a significant new demand for services at this site. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department has
reviewed the project and has recommended standard conditions of approval.
19
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
2O
820 Los Trancos Road
Negative Declaration
Addendum
June 7, 2004
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
City of Palo Alto
Table of Contents
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
6.0
Preface and Summary
Site Location and Land Uses
Elements of the Proposed Project
3.1 Project Description
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4.1 Aesthetics
4.2 Air Quality
4.3 Biological Resources
4.4 Cultural Resources
4.5 Land Use Planning
4.6 Noise
4.7 Transportation and Circulation
Response to Comments
Response to Comment C-1
C- 1: Letter from John Baca
Conclusion
Page
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
10
Negative Declaration Amendment
820 Los Trancos Road
Page 2
1.0 Preface and Summary
A Negative Declaration was released by the City of Palo Alto in January, 2004, to
analyze the impacts of a proposed single-family residential structure and accessory sports
building at 820 Los Trancos Road. The project reviewed in the Negative Declaration
included an 11,513 square foot residential building (including a garage and livable
basement areas) and a 2,032 square foot accessory sports building. The project also
included construction of a swimming pool and permeable areas throughout the
landscaped area. The Negative Declaration was made available to the public for a 20-
day review period. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public
hearing on the item on January 28, 2004 and recommended approval of the project to the
City Council.
Prior to the City Council meeting, the applicant made minor changes to the scope of the
project. The applicant removed the basement area, adjusted the orientation of a portion of
the residential structure, added additional floor area to sports building and slightly
reduced the amount of impervious area on the lot.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows for revisions to a Negative
Declaration subsequent to adoption. These revisions can discuss changes in the project
itself, its environmental setting, or simply provide additional information. Negative
Declarations must be "recirculated" only if the document has been "substantially
rewised", which would include:
¯A substantial new avoidable significant effect of the project is identified requiring
additional mitigation measures to reduce the effects; or
¯The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures would not reduce
the new avoidable effects to a less than significant level.
No new avoidable significant effects have been identified as a result of project revisions.
Conditions of approval have been developed and are included in the recommended
approval for the project. Therefore, recirculation of the Negative Declaration is not
required (CEQA Guideline 15073.5).
Negative Declaration Amendment
820 Los Trancos Road
Page 3
2.0 Site Location and Land Uses
The project site is a single parcel (APN 182-36-030) of approximately ten acres in the
Palo Alto Foothills. The site is undeveloped, containing no structures or utilities. The site
slopes upward to the east, north and west from the lowest point near the west property
line. The project area is on the east side of the property, in a relatively flat area that is part
of a "bowl", adjacent to upward sloping hillsides. This area contains native and non-
native grasses, chaparral, and various species of pines and oaks.
Adjacent land uses include single-family residential home sites. Access to the site is from
a shared driveway (also known as Los Trancos Woods Road) connected to Los Trancos
Road and Alpine Road in Portola Valley.
3.0 Elements of the Proposed Project
3.1 Project Description
The Negative Declaration for the originally proposed project contained the following
project summary:
The project site of 10.39 acres (APN 182-36-030) is located in Palo Alto, in the
northern part of Santa Clara Valley. The site is west of Interstate 280 and south
of Alpine Road, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
There is no existing development on the site. Access to the site would be from
Los Trancos Woods Road.
The 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 15,841 square feet.
The project includes construction of a new 11,513 square-foot single-family
residence (including garage and livable basement areas) with an outdoor
swimming pool and a 2,032 square-foot accessory sports building. The driveways
would be constructed of pervious materials including gravel and interlocking
paver stones. Total impervious area (including the building footprint and other
hardscape areas) would be 14,026 square feet.
The revised project incorporates the following changes to the project description:
The project site of 10.39 acres (APN 182-36-030) is located in Palo Alto, in the
northern part of Santa Clara Valley. The site is west of Interstate 280 and south
of Alpine Road, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
Negative Declaration Amendment
820 Los Trancos Road
Page 4
There is no existing development on the site. Access to the site would be from
Los Trancos Woods Road.
The site is zoned OS (Open Space) District. This zone ~listrict 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 15,841 square feet.
The project includes construction of a new 11,006 square-foot single-family
residence (including garage) with an outdoor swimming pool and a 2,294 square-
foot accessory sports building. The driveways would be constructed of pervious
materials including gravel and interlocking paver stones. Total impervious area
(including the building footprint and other hardscape areas) would be 13,546
square feet.
¯The square footage of the house has been reduced by 506 square feet.
¯The square footage of the sports building has increased by 262 square feet.
¯The amount of imperious surfaces has been reduced by 480 square feet.
4.0 Environmental Setting and Impacts
The Negative Declaration prepared for the original project did not identify significant
impacts related to any of the issues that are required to be reviewed in an environmental
assessment. The project contains standard recommended conditions of approval that,
when implemented, would result in less than significant impacts.
The purpose of this section of the amendment to the Negative Declaration is to determine
whether the revised project would result in any potentially significant impacts that were
not identified for the original project. This addendum will review those sections that
were identified impacts as "Less than Significant" or "No Impact" and which could be
most affected by the proposed revisions. Those sections are: Aesthetics, Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Land Use Planning, Noise, and Transportation
and Circulation. The analysis is organized by issue area and numbered to correspond
with the Negative Declaration.
4.1 Aesthetics
The revised project is not expected to result in any new or increased aesthetic impacts.
The floor area and the amount of impervious area in the revised project have been
reduced in size. Additional floor area has been added to the first and second floors of the
residential structure and to the accessory sports building. However, this additional area is
Negative Declaration Amendment
820 Los Trancos Road
Page 5
minimal and would not substantially alter the appearance of the structure from off site
views. A portion of the residential structure has been adjust to better follow the natural
contours of the existing grade. This is expected to result in less disturbance of land at the
portion of the building.
Because the revised project would be reduced in overall size, light and glare impacts are
not expected to be greater than were identified for the original project. Light and glare
impacts are addressed in the recommended conditions of approval.
4.2 Air Quality
The revised project is not expected to result in any new or increased air quality impacts.
The air quality analysis contained in the Negative Declaration for the original project
concluded that the project’s vehicle trip generation rate was not high enough to create a
significant air emissions impact. The revisions do not increase the amount of trips to the
site. Therefore, the revised project will not result in a significant air emissions impact.
4.3 Biological Resources
The revised project is not expected to result in any biological resources impacts.
Neither the original or revised projects are expected to conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan or the Tree Protection ordinance for preservation of biological resources on the site.
The revisions would not substantially affect the existing biological resources beyond
what was identified in the Negative Declaration. Tree preservation criteria are contained
in the recommended conditions of approval.
4.4 Cultural Resources
The revised project is not expected to result in any new or increased cultural resources
impacts.
The site will contain a single-family residential structure and accessory building. The
Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archeological
Resource Area of Low Sensitivity and not within a Williamson Act property. There are
no identified historical, archaeological, or paleological resources on the project site.
However, the site is in the vicinity of areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan as
moderately sensitive, and therefore the standard conditions of approval would would
apply to this project to protect th’e site if archeological or paleological evidence is found.
4.5 Land Use and Planning
Negative Declaration Amendment
820 Los Trancos Road
Page 6
The revised project is not expected to result in any new or increased land use or planning
impacts.
Neither the original or revised projects are expected to conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan designation for the site, the zoning ordinance, or any existing environmental plans or
policies.
4.6 Noise
The revised project is not expected to result in any new or increased noise impacts.
Neither the original or revised projects are expected to conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan or the Noise ordinance for exposure or generation of noise on the site. The revisions
would not substantially change the impacts of noise beyond what was identified in the
Negative Declaration. Short-term construction noise is identified in the recommended
conditions of approval.
4.7 Transportation and Circulation
The revised project is not expected to result in any new or increased transportation or
circulation impacts. No changes have been made to residential density or on-site
circulation patterns.
Negative Declaration Amendment
820 Los Trancos Road
Page 7
5.0 Response to Comments
The following is a response to Comment C-1 (Page 9) from John Baca received on
January 28, 2004:
Response to Comment C-1
The existing project site is a conforming lot of 10.39 acres in the Open Space district,
which allows single-family dwellings as a permitted use. Single-family residential uses
are typically low-impact uses that do not typically create significant amounts of traffic,
air pollution nor significantly impact utility systems, water quality, and public services.
Impacts typically occur when there is development of large multi-family projects or large
subdivisions. Typically, the development of one single-family home is exempted from
the requirements of The California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15303).
However, since the project is located in an Open Space district, this exemption would not
apply.
The project site is located in an area of other developed residential sites. Utility systems
will be brought to the location of the dwelling unit on the project site. Utilities systems
already serve residential properties immediately to the north, east, and south of the
project site.
Therefore the development of a single-family residence at the project site would not
cause any significant cumulative impacts.
The accessory sports building is an accessory facility and will contain an accessory use,
which are permitted in the Open Space district. Accessory uses include recreational uses
and facilities for the use and convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of
a principal use or facility (Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.88.020(c)(4)). Therefore, the use
is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The 3.5% limit of impervious surface is intended to limit development on sites in the
Open Space District in the same way that floor area and lot coverage limit development
in other districts. The use of modem paving materials that promote permeability can
result in additional impervious surfaces for structures. The Planning and Transportation
Commission discussed this at the meeting of January 28, 2004. The Commission found
that although buildings cover a larger area of the site as a result of the use of permeable
materials, the project is sensitive to the immediate environment in that it is designed in a
location that would limit off site views and would have a predominantly single story plan
that generally follows existing land contours.
Negative Declaration Amendment
820 Los Trancos Road
Page 8
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
john baca [verdosa@hotmail.com]
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:48 PM
Info, Piandiv
Council, City
820 Los Trancos Woods Road [03-D-6, 03-EIA-23}
JanuaD" 28, 2004
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
Re: 820 Los Trancos Woods Road [03-D-6, 03-EIA-23]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The Environmental Assessment of this application is flawed in that the
cumulative impacts to utilities, public services, traffic, water quality,
and air quality. The Assessment considers only the impacts of the project
without regard to impacts resulting from similar development of all other
properties in the re,on.
The application proposes allowing indoor recreation/athletic facilities that
are clearly not in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code purposes in
regard to OS zoning.
The use of the 3.5% cap on impervious surface area is no longer useful
because the pervious paving areas proposed encourage more intensive use,
including utilities and traffic. Such use would be partially paid for by
Palo Altans that live in the more urban sections of our city.
Sincerely,
John Baca
Let the new MSN Premium Internet Soft, rare make the most of your high-speed
experience, http:/ij oin.msn.com/?psmarket=en-us &page=byoaiprem&ST=l
6.0 Conclusion
This Negative Declaration amendment was prepared to address the potential
environmental impacts of the revision to the single-family residential development
project at 820 Los Trancos Road. It is the conclusion of this amendment that the revised
project is consistent with the analysis and findings contained in the Negative Declaration
for the original project, dated January 2004.
Prepared By:
Reviewed B~
Negative Declaration Amendment
820 Los Trancos Road
Page 10
Attachment C
BAR.AI:LC H I TE C T S
May 18, 2004
Steven Turner
Ci~ of Pale Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94303
RE:Atzmon-Shoham Residence PROJECT a:02057
820 LOS Trances Woods Road
APN 182-36-30
Site & Design Besubmittal II
Dear Steven,
Please accept the enclosed Site and Design Resubmittal drawings dated May 21,2004 and the Impervious Calculation
Worksheet for the application for the Atzmon-Shoham Residence at 820 Los Trances Woods Road. These drawings
reflect the changes from the approved Planning Commission drawings that we discussed in our meeting with you
April 28. [he changes are bubbled on the drawings where appropriate, anda summary of those changes is listed
below and on the attached Data Comparison Sheet.
Sincerely,
B AI:LAR.C H I TE CTS
Lisa Victor
Vice-President
Lot Coverage
Cut & Fill
Square Footage
Plan Revisions
Elevation Revisions
Landscape Revisions
end:
path:
Site & Design Revisions between December 5, 2003 & May 21, 2004 Submittals
The Impervious Surfaces have been reduced from 3.09% to 2.99% of lot area.
The Export of dirt from the si~ has been reduced by 770 cubic yards:
The Square Fqotage of the buildings has been reduced by 245 square feet. ......
¯Basement and toilet at Pool removed
¯Study Wing shifted to follow site contours
¯Pantry between Kitchen and Dining Room removed
¯Storage and toilet added to Sports Building
¯Window Bays at West wall removed
¯Mechanical Room added to north end of Garage
¯Crawl Space vent wells added as required
¯Trellis at West Elevation exposes supporting wood memb~rs
¯Limestone replaced with plaster at East Elevation at Music Room, Library, and Bedroom 3
¯Limestone base replaced with plaster
¯Plaster replaced with limestone at Entry at East and West Elevations
¯Grass slope has replaced retaining wall between trellis and PooITerrace
¯Grass slope has replaced stairs and retaining wall near sports building
¯Retaining watls removed at south of site (between Study Wing and Sports Building
File; Richard Beard: Andrea Cochran; Wilt Clark: A~zrnon-Sheham
Impervious Surface Calculations; Data Comparison
R:k02057 Atzrnon-Shoham ResidenceL3 GOVERNMEN’i%3.02 City & Count~’~Planning DeptLSite & Design’d]4OE18 site & design resubmi[tel 2.dec
1660 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, T. 415 441 4771, F. 415 536 2323, www.bararch.corn
BAt::LAP..C H I TE C T S
May 18, 2004
Atzmon Shoham Residence
820 Los Trances Road
APN 182-36-30
Project Description
The Property, Buildin.q Sitin.q, and Scope of Work
The Atzmon-Shoham property is a 10.4 acre irregularly shaped parcel at the top of a hilly site in the Open Space district
of Pale Alto. The proposed single family residence wilt consist of a main house and two accessory structures (an
exercise building). The project will be located at the eastern edge of the parcel. This part of the site was at one time
disturbed by a quarry operation, which created a sloping bowl shape at the north, south and east perimeters. This bowl
surrounds a previously disturbed relatively flat area, where the proposed house is to be sited. The siting allows the
north, south, and east sides of the house to be nestled at the edge of the bowl, with its backdrop of forested hills. This
serves to minimize the impact of the house on the existing landscape, to screen it from view, and to create a sense of
protection by, and integration with, the hillside. To the west the house opens visually and spatially to an undisturbed
native landscape, allowing the majority of the natural meadowland to dominate the site.
The Buildin.q Desi.qn
The Atzmon-Shoham residence was conceived as a series of building groupings, or pavilions, rather than one building
mass. The majority of the house is made up of low profile one-story elements, with the two-story elements located at
the north and south ends of the building site to reflect the adjacent sloping hillsides. The building elements are
designed to create a clean lined composition which serves to enhance the natural state of the land.
The building will be constructed of wood and structural steel on a pier and grade beam foundation.
The indoor and outdoor spaces of the home are designed to integrate with the natural characteristics of the site. Thick
exterior walls will provide a sense of protection and will serve to insulate the house. Large glass doors to the west
terrace will allow for a sense of openness and connection to the view. Trellises and overhangs mediate between inside
and outside, and provide sun protection and energy efficiency. Interior sun control shades built into the soffits over the
doors and windows, and energy efficient glass, are an additional energy conservation measure. The limestone floors of
the interior spaces wilt continue through to the exterior terraces, creating a blurring between inside and outside living
spaces.
The palette of materials and subdued colors was selected to further integrate the house with the landscape.
The color and texture of the plaster on the building complements the surrounding stone terrace. The muted, mottled
colors of the roof are provided by weathered standing-seam zinc. The trellis and overhangs are of teak slats with
brushed stainless steel connectors.
The minimal low-density site lighting will consist of path lighting and shielded down lights and will not be visible from
off site.
File
None
R:~2057 Atzmon-Shoham ResidenceS3 GOVERNMENT~3 02 City & Counh~.Olanning Depf~040518 design statement site & design city council.dec
1660 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, T. 415 441 4771, F. 415 536 2323, www.bararch.com
BA1KAR.CHITE CTS
May 18, 2004
RE:Atzmon-Shoham Residence
Project Data
PROJECT #:02057
Square Footage
Main House
Planning Commission City Council
December 5, 2004 May 21, 2004
Main House:Main House:
Basement = 1117sf
1s’ Floor = 9164sf
2n~ Floor =1232sf
No Basement
1" Floor = 9703sf
2°~ Floor =1303sf
Square Footage
Sports Building
Total Impervious
Surface Area
Cut & Fill
Height Limit
(25’ allowable on
all buildings)
Subtotal = 11,513sf
2032sf-
14,026sf (bld.qs & hardscape)
452,588sf (lot area)
=3.09%
Cut 2100cy
Fill 1140cy
Export 960cy
Main House
15’-6" max at one story
24’-10" max at 2 story
23’-0" max
Subtotal = 11,006sf
2294sf
13,546sf (bldos & hardscape)
452,588sf (lot area)
=2.99%
Cut 2740cy
Fill 2250cy
Export 190cy
Main House
15’-6" max at one story
24’-10" max at 2 story
23’-0" max
path:R:\02057 Atzmon-Shoham ResidenceL3 GOVERNMENTL3.02 City & Count~kPlanning Dep~040510 Atz Sho data comparison between PC & CC.doc
1660 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, T. 415 441 4771, E 415 536 2323, www.bararch.corn
Sent By: ANDREA COCHRAN LANDSCAPE ARCHTTE;415 503
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Engineering
Phone: 6501329-2151 FAX: 650/329-9240
0070;May-19-04 6:,38PM;Page
IMPERVIOUS AREA WORKSHEET
FOR LAND DEVELOPMENTS
Applicants for all projects creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface must fill out
this worksheet and submit it to theBuilding I.uspection Division prior to issuance of a building permit.
-" ¯’&~ ~fe l,,-t~e~-~’~.."
Title of Dwg. used to ~alculate revised~~im~p_~._~ous areaL, _ A.., ~ip"~4. ,l~t_ _~/ -Dwg. Date O~../g.//ZO0,~
For residential uses ~Number of living units (Circle one):@) 2 3 or more
Proje~ Type (Circle one):~"e,w Dev~.lopme~Redevelopment
Watershed (Circle one):(’dan Fl-macisquito~Matadero Barron Adobe SFBay
(see attached watershed map)
Purpose of Worksheet
The City of Polo Alto is coldecting information on impervious su.rfaces created by land development projects in order to meet the
requirements of its Stormwater Discharge Permit, issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition,
this information is used to calculate the monthly Storm Drainage Fee for nonrsingle-famit¥.re~entia] properties (single-family residential
properties are assessed a fiat monthly Storm Drainage Fee).
Every developed land parcel in the City of Polo Alto is assessed a mont.ifly Storm Drainage Fee. The fee is based upon the relative
contribution of storm water runoff from each parcel to the City’s storm drainage System. A parcel’s relative contribution of storm water
runoff is based upon the amount of’~impervious surface" on that parcel.
"Impervious surface" means that part of a developed parcel that has been modified to reduce/.he land’s natural ability to absorb and hold
rainfall. It includes hard surfaces which cause water to rtm off the surface in greater quantifies or at an increased rate of flow from ~e
flow that existed under natural.conditions prior to development. For e.xample, common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited
~o, rooftops, walk-ways, patios, courtyards, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, or any cleared,
graded, graveled, paved, or compacted surfaces, or other surfaces which sixMlarly impede the natural infiltration of surface water into ~e
soil.
h-M_PERVIOUS A_REA SU1VIMARY
Exls~g imperviou~ smqacs (sq. ft.)0 (b)
Area of impervious surface to be constructed (sq. ft.)
Existing percent impervious [line (b)+line (a)} (%) ~
I 54-Io
Ratio of newly constructed impeawious surface to existing impervious surface [line (d) + line (b)} (%)
Approxamate area of land dism_rbance during construction (sq. ft.) "~ ~]’ l;~ 7 ¯ (f)
/
(From "Impervious Area Calculation", see back side.)
Revised percent impervious [line (g) +line (a)] (%) g
STAFF ONLY
Building Permit #Building Permit Application Date Reviewer
16AprilQ2 Impervious Area Worksheet
Sent By: ANDREA COCHRAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITE;415 503 0070;May-19-04 6:38PM;Page 2/2
I1VIPERVIOUS AREA CALCULATION
(Select on__.~e of the following methods and wovide the required information)
METHOD !
Calculate the area of impervious surface by measuring all
impervious improvements.
Bui.ldmgs
Parking/storage areas
(including driveways)
Walk-ways
Patios and courtyards
Or_he, SD cifv-( _e ", .....,,aft )
Total impervious area (sum #1 thrtt
+ 4.-7’~
+ ?.7{;
METI~OD 2
Calculate the area of impervious surface by subtracting the
area of pervious surface from the total area of the parce!.
Total area of parcel
(from Assessor’s Book)
Pervious Areas
Landscaping
Undisturbed areas
Other (specify )
Total impervious area (sum #7 thru 10)
METHOD 3
Calculate the area of impervious surface by aciding (or
subtracting] r_he net change in impervious surface as a
result of construction to the impervious surface that existed
prior to construction.
Existing mapervious area +
New Impervious Areas
Buildings +
Parkin!!storage areas +
(including driveways)
Wakk’,vays +
Patios and (outwards +
Other (specify,
Buildings
) +
Impervious Area Removed
Parking!storage areas
(including driveways)
"Walk-ways
Patios stud courryards
Other (speciN )
Total imperwious area (sum #12 thru 22)
I 6ADri!02 Impervious Area Worksheet
(13)
(14)
(15)
(!7)
.... (]
(’1,9)
(20)
Attachment D
<
0
I
0
N
<
Z
Attachment E
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Steven Turner,
Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 28, 2004
820 Los Trancos Road [03-D-06, 03-EIA-23]: Application by Lisa
Victor of BAR Architects on behalf of Yoav Shoham and Orit
Atzmon for Site and Design Review to allow construction of a two-
story, single-family residence, an accessory., sports building,
swimming pool, landscaping and other site improvements for a total
floor area of 11,513 square feet. Zone District: Open Space (OS).
Environmental Assessment: a Negative Declaration has been
prepared for public review and comment.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment C), with a finding the project will
not result in significant environmental impacts, and approve the Site and Design Review
application based upon the findings and subject to the recommended conditions of
approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
Site Information
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
space (PAMC Section 18.71.010).
The project site is a single parcel (APN 182-36-030) of approximately ten acres in the
Palo Alto Foothills. The site is undeveloped, containing no structures or utilities. The site
3875 Page Mill Road Page 1
slopes upward to the east, north and west from the lowest point near the west property
line. The project area is on the east side of the property, in a relatively flat area that is part
of a "bowl", adjacent to upward sloping hillsides. This area contains native and non-
native grasses, chaparral, and various species of pines and oaks.
Adjacent land uses include single-family residential home sites. Access to the site is from
a shared driveway (also known as Los Trancos Woods Road) connected to Los Trancos
Road and Alpine Road in Portola Valley.
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to build two structures: a single-family residential home of
11,513 square feet (including a 1,117 square foot basement) and a sports building of
2,032 square feet (containing indoors courts, an exercise room and bathrooms facilities).
The residential structure will essentially appear as a single-story structure that wilt be
oriented to the west. The second story areas are located at the north and south ends of the
structure, extending to a maximum height of 25 feet. The second floor areas of the house
contribute approximately 1,200 square feet of the total area of the home. The swimming
pool, a terraced patio area and landscaping extend to the west of the home. The site
improvements were designed to maximize the use of permeable surfaces. In addition to
the landscaped planters, gravel surfaces are used in many of the terraced areas (including
the exterior stairways), the driveway and auto parking court. Interlocking paver stones are
used on the patio areas and portions of the driveway. The total impervious surface area,
including the building footprint, is 14,026 square feet, where 15,841 square feet would be
the maximum allowed (3.5%).
The sports building will be located to the south of the residential structure and would
extend to a maximum height of 25 feet. This building is designed to provide a variety of
indoor and outdoor uses for the owner. West facing exterior walls contain glass sliding
doors that may be opened to create covered patio areas. Interior walls are movable to
provide for various sized indoor play court areas.
The exterior materials and finishes are designed to be compatible with the surrounding
environment. Thick plaster and limestone walls in muted, earth tone colors will
complement the limestone flooring at the interior living areas and exterior patio spaces.
The roof will be standing seam metal roof that will be of a dull zinc or deep gray color.
Stainless steel and wood trellis features extend over the interior/exterior thresholds. A
color and materials board will be displayed at the meeting.
The landscape plan is designed to fit seamlessly with the existing natural areas of the site.
Plant materials were selected for water conservation and low-maintenance characteristics.
Special consideration is placed on the preservation of the existing oak trees and the
existing grassland areas that would surround the structures. A small vineyard to the
820 Los Trancos Road Page 2
northwest of the home (shown on Sheet L 1.0) will be installed. A description of the
landscape design intent is provided in the applicant’s project description letter, contained
in Attachment D.
All utilities would be installed, including electricity, telephone, water, and sewage lines.
The structures would require fire suppression facilities in the form of sprinklers in the
interior spaces.
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):
TABLE 1
PROPOSED PROJECT & CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS
820 Los Trancos Road
Zoning Code Conformance
Standard total site Proposed
impervious area &3.5 % of 10.39 acres
building coverage (15,841 sq. ft.)14,026 sq.ft,conforms
maximum
size of site 10 acres 10.39 acres conforms
maximum height*25 feet 25 feet conforms
standard setbacks
front - 30 feet
side - 30 feet
rear - 30 feet
Setbacks
exceed 30 feet
(closest is 80’)conforms
2 spaces
parking (1 covered,3 covered conforms
1 uncovered)
* 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.
820 Los Trancos Road Page 3
Site and Design Review Findings
The required findings (PAMC 18.82.055) can be made for the project and are listed as
follows:
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 project is located in an area of other single-family residential home sites.
Although the project introduces development to a previously undeveloped site and
will be visible from the shared driveway, the project was designed to minimize the
visual impact of the structures by following the natural topography of the site, by
minimizing the amount of second floor areas and by designing the structures low roof
profiles. The development will have minimal visual impacts on adjacent sites.
Furthermore, the materials, colors and landscaping selection have been designed to
blend in with the natural environment to the greatest extent possible.
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 would maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas,
in that the proposed design, size and use of the site are consistent with the existing
residences on Los Trancos Road. The construction of all improvements would 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.
3.Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be obsem,ed in
construction of the project.
The project has been designed to minimize the impact on existing vegetation.
Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been incorporated into the
project and would be implemented to mitigate impacts on biological resources,
protected trees, and geotechnical stability. The use of permeable materials will help
reduce rainwater flows across the land. The proposed design of the residential
structure, driveway, walkways, sports building will follow existing site topography.
4. The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community
Design and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as
820 Los Trancos Road Page 4
described in this report. The project proposal meets the Open Space Development
Criteria as described in this report and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan regarding
development in designated open space areas.
Visibility and Aestheties
The project has been designed in such a way that the visual and aesthetic impacts have
been minimized with respect to adjacent residential uses The applicant has proposed to
place the buildings in the bowl-shaped area of the site, which minimized the off-site
views of the development. The low profile of the buildings and the colors and materials
what have been selected for the exterior are compatible with the immediate environment.
A retaining wall would be constructed on the uphill side of the driveway and auto parking
area. The retaining wall would extend to a maximum height of approximately eight feet.
Recessed wall lights will provide illumination for the driveway and auto parking court.
The applicant will present information regarding the retaining wall at the meting,
including building materials and colors.
Based upon site topography, the location of existing mature foliage and the proposed
locations of the structures on the project site, the impacts to adjacent property owners
would be less than significant.
Landscaping
The landscape planting plan, irrigation plan and lighting plan is shown on Sheets L 1.0 to
L-7.0. As previously mentioned, the plant material selected would be low water and low-
maintenance varieties.
The proposed vineyard is shown conceptually on the plans, but the planting list does not
include the species or size of planting for this area. In addition, no irrigation is shown for
the vineyard. Staff recommends that the landscaping plan be revised to show the details
of the vineyard prior to issuance of the building permit, as a condition of approval.
Lighting
A landscape lighting plan is included in the project plan set on Page L5.0. The plan
includes low-voltage walkway and patio lighting that would either be shielded or directed
downward in such a way that filaments or bulbs would not be seen from off site. Lighting
data and fixture descriptions will be available at the meeting.
Oak Tree Protection
The site contains numerous valley oak and coast live oak tree specimens. No oak removal
is proposed for the location of the buildings, although four non-protected pine trees
would be removed. Project construction would occur in accordance with the requirements
outlined in the arborist report submitted by the applicant and the conditions imposed by
the City’s Managing Arborist. A tree protection plan included in the plan sets on Sheet
820 Los Trancos Road Page 5
L3.0.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, both with
respect to the Open Space/Controlled Development land use category and its adherence
to the following policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element:
Policy L-1: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of undeveloped land
west of the Foothill Expressway and dunipero 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 located southwest of the Highway 280 and east of Alpine Road,
within the Open Space district. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation
for the project site is Open Space/Controlled Development. Single-family residential uses
are permitted within this district. The structures would be designed to minimize the
impact on the open space by minimizing the amount of impervious surfaces, by designing
low-profile buildings and by the use of materials and colors that are compatible with the
environment.
Policy L-5: The Comprehensive Plan states to maintain the scale and character of the
City. Avoid land uses that are overwhehning and unacceptable due to their size and
scale. The project proposal would be compatible with other structures in the area and
does not detract from the natural character of the site. Although the project would bring
development to an essentially undeveloped site, the residential structure, sports building
and other proposed improvements would result in minimal impacts to neighboring
properties.
Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the project site is located within an
Archaeological Resource Area of Low Sensitivity. Palo Alto is known to contain widely
dispersed prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials and a
variety of artifacts. Therefore, cessation of all grading and construction activities is
required, if any archaeological or human remains are encountered. At that time, retention
of a qualified archaeologist to address the find in the field, notification of the Santa Clara
County Medical Examiner’s office, and if native American remains are discovered,
evaluation of the finds by a Native American descendent shall be required. The Native
American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the
State of California, would provide implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto’s roads and trails for motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. Although the project would bring development to
an essentially undeveloped site, the project would not seriously impede views of the
foothills to users of Los Trancos Road or Alpine Road due to the low profile.
820 Los Trancos Road Page 6
Policy N-7: All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area should be
consistent with the City of Palo Alto Open Space development Criteria. Conformance
with the Open Space Development Criteria is discussed below.
Open Space Development Criteria
The project conforms to the policies of the Natural Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the Open Space Development Criteria of Policy
N-7. A description of how the project meets the pertinent criteria is listed below:
The development should not be visually intrusive fi-om public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from
view. The proposed construction would not be visible from Los Trancos or Alpine
Roads and surrounding properties. The low roof profiles and a site plan that
follows existing natural topography minimizes the impact of the development
from off-site views. Natural vegetation and existing mature trees will be
maintained, which will allow the new development to blend in with the immediate
environment. The use of earth tone colors and natural building materials would
also minimize the visual impact of the development.
Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend
above the nearest ridgeline. The footprint of the proposed residence is not located
near a ridgeline or hilltop.
Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and
views of neighboring properties. The size and topography of the site and extensive
vegetation will mitigate views of the proposed structures from adjacent properties.
Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area
surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce
f!’agmentation of natural habitats. The mass of the structures is set into and along
the natural contours of the site. The site improvements are generally clustered
together. The width and design of the driveway would minimize grading and
reduce impacts on existing trees.
Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building
lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear
natural from a distance. The building footprint and terraced landscaping and patio
areas, which roughly follow the existing slope, are responsive to the natural
topography. The project would maintain all but four of the existing mature trees
and vegetation, thereby reducing the disturbance to the site.
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
820 Los Trancos Road Page 7
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. The Arborist Report and construction plans have been
evaluated by the City’s Planning Arborist, who has agreed to the removal of four
pine trees in the area. All other trees in the vicinity of construction will be
protected.
o Cut is encouraged when it is necessaly 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 driveway and parking court are encouraged, because they enable
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill will not be placed in the
dripline of any existing tree. The amounts of cut exported off the site would be
kept to a minimum.
o To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff large, fiat
expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Impervious surfaces have
been minimized, limited to the building footprint, retaining walls and small areas
of the patio and landscaped areas. Impervious surfaces would be below the 3.5%
of the site area that is the maximum 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.
10.Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation.
hmnediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as afire
prevention technique. The landscape plan was designed to fit seamlessly with the
existing natural areas of the site. Plant materials were selected for water
conservation and low-maintenance characteristics. Special consideration was
placed on the preservation of the existing oak trees and the existing grassland
areas that would surround the structures.
11.Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded fi-om view so it is not
directly visiblefi-om off-site. The plans submitted with the application indicate
these policies would be observed. The residences would create additional light
and glare, but window coverings would minimize light spill from the rooms to the
outside at night. The recommended conditions of approval would require any
exterior lighting to be directed down to avoid any impact upon surrounding
property and open space lands.
820 Los Trancos Road Page 8
12.Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb,
gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills
environmenO. The existing Los Trancos Woods Road is developed with a rural
character. No changes to this road are expected as a result of this project.
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 Planning Commission heating 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 heating
notice card.
TIMELINE
If the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends approval or approval with
conditions, the project applications would be forwarded to the City Council for final
action, as Architectural Review Board recommendation is not required for agricultural
uses and accessory buildings and facilities.
Action:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Negative Declaration Public Review Period:
P&TC Meeting:
Required Action by Council:
Date:
August 21, 2003
December 19, 2003
January 7-January 28, 2004
January 28, 2004
June 15, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration has been prepared and has been available for a 20-day public
review period beginning on January 7, 2004 and ending on January 28, 2004. A copy of
the document is provided as Attachment C.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A:
Attachment B.
Attachment C:
Attachment D.
Attachment E:
Location Map
Record of Land Use Action
Negative Declaration
Project Description Letter and Supporting Documentation
Project Plan Set (Commissioners Only)
820 Los TrancosRoad Page 9
COURTESY COPIES
Lisa Victor, BAR Architects
Yoav Shoham & Orit Atzmon
Prepared by: Steven Turner, Planner
Reviewed by:Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote,-Chief Planning Official
820 Los Trancos Road Page 10
Aerial Photo w/parcel overlay
NOTE: PARCELS ARE NOT ACCb~RATE
AND NOT POSITIONED CORRECTLY
Attachment A
Attachment B
ACTION NO. 2004-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 820 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE AND
DESIGN REVIEW 03-D-06 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT 03-EIA-23 (LISA VICTOR, BAR ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT)
On , the Council of the City of Palo Alto adopted
the Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review application
for construction of a two-story, single-family residence, an
accessory sports building, swimming pool, landscaping and other
site improvements in the Open Space Zone District, making the
following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
fol!ows:
A. Lisa Victor of BAR Architects, on behalf of Yoav
Shoham and Orit Atzmon, property owner, has requested the City’s
approval to allow construction of a two-story, single-family
residence, an accessory sports building, swimming pool, landscaping
and other site improvements for a total floor area of 11,513 square
feet. ("The Project").
B. The project site is a single parcel (APN 182-36-030) of
approximately ten acres in the Palo Alto Foothills. The site is
undeveloped, containing no structures or utilities. The site is
designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space and
is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district.
The project includes construction of a new 11,513 .square foot
single-family residence (including garage and basement areas) with
an outdoor swimming pool and a 2,032square foot accessory sports
building. The driveways would be constructed of pervious materials
including gravel and interlocking paver stones. Total impervious
area (including building foot print and other hardscaped areas)
would be 14,025 square feet. All utilities will be installed,
including electricity, telephone, water, and sewage lines.
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission(Commission)
reviewed the Project on January 28,2004. The Commission
recommended approval on The Commission’s
recommendations are contained in 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
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 was determined that, with the implementation of conditions of
approval, 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 January 7, 2004
through January 28, 2004. The Environmental Impact Assessment and
Negative Declaration are contained in 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 project is located in an area of other single-
family residential home sites. Although the project introduces
deve!opment to a previously undeveloped site and will be visible
from the shared driveway, the project was designed to minimize the
visual impact of the structures by following the natural topography
of the site, by minimizing the amount of second floor areas and by
designing the structures low roof profiles. The development will
have minimal visual impacts on adjacent sites. Furthermore, the
materials, co!ors and landscaping selection have been designed to
blend in with the natural environment to the greatest extent
possible.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activi ties, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The project would maintain desirability of investment
in the same and adjacent areas, in that the proposed design, size
and use of the site are consistent with the existing residences on
Los Trancos Road. The construction of all improvements would 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.
3. Sound principles of environmental
ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
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 use of permeable materials
will help reduce rainwater f!ows across the land. The proposed
design of the residential structure, driveway, walkways, sports
building wil! follow existing site topography.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal complies with the policies of the
Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment elements
of the Comprehensive Plan, including:
Policy L-I: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the
preservation of 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 located southwest of the Highway
280 and east of Alpine Road, within the Open Space district. The
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project
site is Open Space/Controlled Development. Single-family
residential uses are permitted within this district. The
structures would be designed to minimize the impact on the open
space by minimizing the amount of impervious surfaces, by designing
!ow-profile buildings and by the use of materials and colors that
are compatible with the environment.
Policy L-5: The Comprehensive Plan states to maintain
the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The
project proposal would be compatible with other structures in the
area and does not detract from the natura! character of the site.
Although the project would bring development to an essentially
undeveloped site, the residential structure, sports building and
other proposed improvements would result in minimal impacts to
neighboring properties.
Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the
project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of
Low Sensitivity. Palo Alto is known to contain widely dispersed
prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human
burials and a variety of artifacts. Therefore, cessation of all
grading and construction activities is required, if any
archaeological or human remains are encountered. At that time,
retention of a qualified archaeologist to address the find in the
field, notification of the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s
office, and if native American remains are discovered, evaluation
3
of the finds by a Native American descendent shall be required.
The Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American
Heritage Commission of the State of California, would provide
implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo
Alto’s roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
equestrians. Although the project would bring development to an
essentially undeveloped site, the project would not seriously
impede views of the foothills to users of Los Trancos Road or
Alpine Road due to the low profile.
Policy N-7: All development in the foothill portion of
the Planning Area should be consistent with the City of Palo Alto
Open Space development Criteria. Conformance with the Open Space
Development Criteria is discussed below.
The project proposal meets the following Open Space
Development Criteria and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan
regarding development in designated open space areas.
!.The development should not be visually
intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as
possible, deve!opment should be sited so it is hidden from view.
The proposed construction would not be visible from Los Trancos or
Alpine Roads and surrounding properties. The low roof profiles and
a site plan that follows existing natural topography minimizes the
impact of the development from off-site views. Natural vegetation
and existing mature trees will be maintained, which wil! allow the
new development to blend in with the immediate environment The use
of e~rth tone colors and natural building materials would also
minimize the visua! impact of the deve!opment.
2.Development should be located away from
hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline.
The footprint of the proposed residence is not located near a
ridgeline or hilltop.
3.Site and structure design should take into
consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring
properties. The size and topography of the site and extensive
vegetation will mitigate views of the proposed structures from
adjacent properties.
4.Development should be clustered, or closely
grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less
conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of
natural habitats. The mass of the structures 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 terraced landscaping and patio
areas, which roughly follow the existing slope, are responsive to
the natural topography. The project would maintain all but four of
the existing mature trees and vegetation, thereby reducing the
disturbance to the site.
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. The Arborist Report and
construction plans have been evaluated by the City’s Planning
Arborist, who has agreed to the removal of four pine trees in the
area. Al! other trees in the vicinity of construction wil! be
protected.
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 driveway and parking court are
encouraged, because they enable development to blend into the
natura! topography. Fill will not be placed in the dripline of any
existing tree. The amounts of cut exported off the site would be
kept to a minimum.
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 building footprint, retaining walls and
smal! areas of the patio and landscaped areas. Impervious surfaces
would be below the 3.5% of the site area that is the maximum
allowed.
9.Buildings should use natural materials and
earthtone or subdued colors, liatural building materials in
earthtones are proposed. All proposed building materials are
natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the
surroundings.
require
i0. Landscaping should be native species that
little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to
structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire
prevention technique. The landscape plan was designed to fit
seamlessly with the existing natural areas of the site. Plant-
materials were selected for water conservation and low-maintenance
characteristics. Special consideration was placed on the
preservation of the existing oak trees and the existing grassland
areas that would surround the structures.
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 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.
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 existing
Los Trancos Woods Road is developed with a rural character. No
changes to this road are expected as a result of this project.
13. For development in unincorporated areas, ground
coverage should be in genera! conformance with Pa!o Alto’s Open
Space District regulations. The project is within the City limits
and meets the O-S (Open Space) District zoning regulations.
SECTION 4.SITE AND DESIGN APPROVALS GRANTED. Site and
Design Approva! is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 03-D-06, subject
to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of the Record.
SECTION 5.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Lisa Victor of
BAR Architects titled "Atzmon-Shoham Residence", dated December 5,
2003, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval
in Section 6. A copy of the 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 a Building Permit shall be
in substantial conformance with plans dated on December 5, 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 fol!owing 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,
structures, and other features.
3.Driveway Retaining Wall- Fill shall only be used to
the minimum amount necessary to meet code requirements. The
approximate amount of fill shall be printed on the building permit
plan sets. The concrete wall shall incorporate an earthtone color
(integral color or paint) to blend in with the natural environment.
4.A landscaping plan for the vineyard shall be
included with the plans submitted for the building permit. The plan
shall include species type, size and quantities to be planted. The
irrigation plan shall be included showing any mechanical irrigation
system that would be extended to this area
5. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a glass
type that minimizes reflectivity from off site views.
6.If during grading and construction activities, any
archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall
cease and a qualified archaeologist shal! visit the site to address
the find. The Santa Clara County Medica! Examiner’s office shall
be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed, if any
Native American resources are encountered during construction,
construction shall cease immediately 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.
7. Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of a building permit,
a payment of Development Impact Fees shal! be made.
7
Building Division
8. Separate building permits shall be required for the
construction of each individua! building and structure.
9. A grading permit shall be required for the earthwork
and site development.
i0. The plans submitted with each building permit
application shall be complete and shall include all necessary
electrica!, plumbing and mechanica! drawings related to that
building.
Road.
ii.The official site address is 820 Los Trancos Woods
12. All site utilities are to be shown on the site plans
associated with the building permit applications.
Public Works
13. PWE normally does not allow grading and excavation
in the hillsides during the wet season (October 1 through April 15)
to prevent storm water pollution and erosion.
14. Excavation, grading, drainage, perimeter and
retaining wall subdrains, etc. shall be designed per
recommendations in the Geotechnicai Investigation submitted with
the plans.
15. Permittee must obtain a Grading & Excavation Permit
from the Building Inspection Division if excavating more than i00
cubic yards or disturbing more than I0,000 square feet.
16. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo
Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the
route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City
of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for
a construction’ logistics plan is available from Public Works
Engineering.
17. A completed Impervious Area Calculation Worksheet
must be submitted prior to issuance Of a building permit for
determining the property’s storm drainage fee. Sheet G.01
indicates a tota! site impervious area of 15,835 square feet.
18. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more
than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant must apply for
coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general
permit for storm water discharge associated with construction
activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project
with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The
General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and.implement a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) . The applicant is
required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the
Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance
of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent,
post-development project design features and temporary measures
employed during construction to control storm water pollution. The
permanent measures are meant to protect storm water quality and to
minimize both run-off and discharges to the City storm drain system
by maximizing infiltration.
19. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works
Engineering (PWE) prior to final submittal to verify the basic
design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water
infiltration.
20. Master Work Schedule: Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Master Work Schedule
to PWE. The schedule must show the proposed grading schedule, and
the proposed condition of the site on each July 15, August 15,
September 15, October i, and October 15 during which the permit is
in effect. The Master Work Schedule shall also show the schedule
for installation of all interim and permanent erosion and sediment
control measures, and other project improvements. After permit
issuance, updated schedules shall be provided to PWE each month
that the permit is active. Sec. 16.28.160.
21. Winterization Plan: All work areas that have not
been stabilized prior to onset of the Wet Season shal! be graded to
drain toward settlement basins at the interior of the site. Storm
runoff water from un-stabilized areas shal! be directed into
settlement basins and through BioWattles or other filtration
devices prior to release from the site.
22. BMP’s: Within the plan set, include the City
standard Best Management Practices (BMP) sheet titled "Pollution
Prevention - It’s Part of The Plan" available at the City’s
Development Center.
23. SWPPP/BMP Measures: The location and extent of
applicable SWPPP and BMP measures should be indicated on the
Grading & Drainage Plan (Sheet C-2) and/or the Erosion Control Plan
(Sheet ER-!) . Some of these measures are already shown on these
sheets, but others need to be added, including:
¯Straw wattles (fiber rolls)
¯Geotextile mats
¯Concrete waste management
¯Preservation of existing vegetation
¯Hazardous materials storage
24. Vegetation Area: Identify the Limits of Work (LOW)
on the plan. Provide a note on the plans advising that vegetated
areas outside the LOW must not be disturbed. Establish clearing
limits around these areas to prevent disturbance during- the
construction activities. Call out the BMP regarding Preservation
of Existing Vegetation at these areas.
25. Erosion Control General Notes on Sheet ER-I shall be
revised as follows:
¯Second note: Erosion control materials need to be in
place as of October i.
¯Third note: Rainy season is October 1 thru April 15.
¯Seventh note: Cover bare slopes by October i. Erosion
control planting is to be completed sufficiently in
advance to assure plants establishment by Oct. i. If the
planting is not established by October i, then other
SWPPP measures must be implemented to stabilize the
site. No grading or utility trenching shall occur
between October i and April 15 unless authorized by the
City engineer.
¯Last note: ~’Projects shal! avoid
26.
seeded.
Indicate on Sheet ER-i the areas that will be hydro
27. A note on Sheet ER-I says, "Provide sedimentation
basin at each drain inlet." It appears that these are not
sedimentation basins, but simply drain inlet filters. Please
describe and/or provide a detail for the "sedimentation basins".
Consider a true sedimentation and/or retention basin(s) for the
site to clean and retain storm water.
28. Sheet ER-I says to provide silt fences around
exposed areas and site. Consider using wattles (fiber rolls) in
lieu of or in addition to the silt fences. We believe wattles are
more effective than silt fences as silt fences tend to fall over
when silt builds up behind them.
29. Dewatering Plan: Building permit applicants are
required to prepare and submit a basement excavation dewatering
plan whenever the project soils report indicates that groundwater
will be encountered during excavation. The plan should be reviewed
and approved by Public Works engineering prior to the issuance of
the building permit. Building permits that include a basement
where groundwater is not expected to be encountered will be subject
to a condition that a dewatering plan shall be submitted to Public
i0
Works Engineering for review and approval if groundwater is
encountered during excavation.
Fire Department
30. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which
meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No.13 - 1996 Edition for
the main house and Sports Building. The cottage may be sprinklered
in accordance with NFPA Standard No.13D - 1996 Edition. Fire
Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC!5.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will
not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated.
31. An approved underground fire supply shall be
provided for the sprinkler system, and shall meet the requirements
of NFPA Standard No. 24 - 1996 Edition. Fire supply system
installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention
Bureau. (PAMC!5.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be
withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department
requirements have been met.
32. Additiona! hydrants shal! be provided to make a
minimum of ! hydrant available within 500 feet of the point on the
access road c!osest to the structure. Fire supply shall be designed
to provide a combined flow from the hydrants of not less than 1,500
gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psig, for a
period of not less than 2 hours (98CFC903.4.2) NOTE: Delivery of
building materials to the site will be.prohibited until the hydrant
and an adequate water suppiy have been provided.
33. 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.
34. Entry Gate (if provided) shall be equipped with an
Opticom receiver for Fire Department access or a Key Box shall be
provided (if gate is not electrically driven). Contact the Fire
Prevention Bureau at 329-2184 for details.
Utilities Department- Water, Gas & Wastewater
35. Neither wastewater nor gas services from the City
of Palo Alto are available to this property. The applicant shall
submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection
application load sheet with the water load for City of Pa!o Alto
Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information
requested for utility service demands (water in g.p.m.)
!i
36. Due to water flow and pressure limitations in this
area, the maximum size water service available to this property
is a 2" water service.
37. The applicant shall submit improvements plans for
utility construction. The plans must show the size and location
of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire
service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift
stations and any other required utilities.
38. The applicant shall show on the site plan the
existence of any water well or auxiliary water supply.
39. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly
(RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed for all
existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to
comply with the requirements for California Administrative Code,
Title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be
installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water
meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by
the Utilities cross Connection Inspector is required for the
supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
Utilities Marketing
40. Prior to issuance of either a building permit or
grading permit, all common area landscaping shall be approved by
the Utilities Marketing Services Division of the Utilities
Department. The landscape shall conform to the Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards of the City of Palo Alto. For projects with
more than 1500 square feet of landscaped area, a water budget shall
be assigned to the project and a dedicated irrigation water meter
shall be required. Call the Landscape Plan review Specialist at
(650) 329-2549 for additional information.
SECTION 7.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:
12
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
13
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Attachment C
Project Title:820 Los Trancos Woods Road
Atzmon-Shoham Residence
o
No
4.
5.
6.
9.
10.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Application Number(s):
Project Sponsor:
Property Owner:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of the Project:
Proiect Summar7
City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Steven Turner, Planner (650) 329-2155
820 Los Trancos Woods Road
03-D-6, 03-EIA-23
Lisa Victor
BAR Architects
1660 Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Yoav Shoham/Orit Atzmon
4058 Orme Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Open Space
OS- Open Space
The project site of 10.39 acres (APN 182-36-030) is located in Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara Valley. The site is west of Interstate 280 and south of Alpine Road, as shown on
Figure 1, Regional Map and Figure 2, Vicinity Map. There is no existing development on the
site. Access to the site would be from Los Trancos Woods Road.
The 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 15,841 square feet.
The project includes construction of a new 11,513 square-foot single-family residence (including
garage and livable basement areas) with an outdoor swimming pool and a 2,032 square-foot
accessory sports building. The driveways would be constructed of pervious materials including
gravel and interlocking paver stones. Total impervious area (including the building footprint and
other hardscape areas) would be 14,026 square feet.
12.Other public agencies whose approval is required:None
13. Date Prepared:December 29, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the
checkiist on the following pages:
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: 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.X
I fred that althoug~h 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.
Project Pla~tne]/~Date
I fred 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~p_.~oposed project, nothing further is required.
DateD]rec~6v: of Planning and Community
Environment(
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information
sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the
referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2)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 fi’om "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 (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 flee to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects 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
4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant ImpactIssuesMitigationImpact
Incorporated
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1,3,4 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 1,3,4 X
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1,3,4 X
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which 1,3,4 Xwould adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
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?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
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.
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
X
X
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 project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 6 X
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 6
to an existing or projected air quality violation?X
e)6 X
d)
e)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
1,3,6
X
X
5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NoSignificantSignificant Unless Significant ImpactIssuesMitigationImpact
Incorporated
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)1,4 X
b)
c)
d)
e)
Have substantial adverse effects, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and 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 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 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 tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
X
X
X
d)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
1,5
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Prioio 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)
d)
e)
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?
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?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
1,8,18
1, 8,18
1,8,18
1,18
1,11,18
1,11,18
1,18
11,18
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a)
b)
c)
d)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
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?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
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,
1,14
1,14
1,14
9
X
X
X
X
g)
h)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
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?
1,3
1,3
1,14
1,4,14
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
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)?
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?
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?
Create or contribute runoffwater which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?,
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
12
12
11,12
11,12
12,15
12
1,3,4,7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources so,,rces Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which 1,4,7,X
would impede or redirect flood flows?11
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,1,7,11 X
injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1,11 X
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?1,3,4 X
b)1,2,3,4 X
c)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not 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
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that 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 delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
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?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,4
1,2,3,4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
~ssues
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would 1,2,3,4 X
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a)1,3 XInduce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 3 X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
X
X
X
X
X
XIV. RECREATION
1 Xa)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?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the X
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a)1,13 XCause 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 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 1,13 X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an 13 X
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,4,13 X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?4,14 X
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?4,13 X
g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1,4,13 X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 12,15 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)4,12,15 X
c)
d)
e)
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
4,12,15
12,15
15
X
X
X
11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No"
Significant Significant Unless Significant Impact
Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
adequate 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 11 X
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 11 X
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 community, reduce the number 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? (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)?
c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
*Project contains mitigation that would reduce impacts to less than significant.
SOURCE REFERENCES:
.1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7o
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance)
Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development.
820 Los Trancos Woods Road, Revised Project Plans by BAR Architects, December 5, 2003
Palo Alto "Master List of Structures on Historic Building Inventory", Revised March 1996.
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (updated 12/99)
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, 060348-5, Revised June 6, 1999
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List
City of Palo Alto, Planning Division Arborist
City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division
City of Palo Alto Public Works- Water Quality Department
City of Paio Alto Transportation Division
City of Palo Alto Fire Department
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
City of Palo Alto Building Division
X
X
X
12
17.
18.
Arborist Report: 820 Los Trancos Road, Prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, August 15, 2003
Geotechnical Investigation: 820 Los Trancos Road, Prepared by United Soil Engineering, May 2003
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Location Map
Evaluation of Potentially Significant and other Relevant Environmental Impacts
I. Aesthetics
Although the site is located in a scenic area, given the topography of the site, separation from Alpine Road,
and dense vegetation on and surrounding the site, it has been determined that no scenic vistas would be
affected by this project. The house and improvements would only be visible from Los Trancos Woods
Road. The project will involve the removal of four pine trees (Coulter Pine) in the location of the project.
Other trees that have fallen or have been damage will also be removed from the site. The removal of these
trees is not expected to degrade the view from off site of the project. A total of four pine 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.
The project will include construction of a single-family residence and an accessory building that will bring
light and possibly glare to an otherwise undeveloped site. The home is oriented with windows facing west.
Morning sun during the summer months may produce glare reflecting from the windows at this side of the
building. The project would be required to meet the City’s design standards and would conform to current
architectural and landscaping standards. The architectural review and building permit review processes will
ensure conformance and less than significant impacts.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
II. Agricultural Resources
The site is not located in a Prime Farmland or Unique Farmland of Statewide Importance area and is not
designated as a Williamson Act Property. The site will primarily be an agricultural use, which is a permitted
use in the Opens Space zone district.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
III. Air Quality
The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s ~AAQMD) 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 would be less than significant due to the application of standard dust control measures in
13
conjunction with the building permit review process.
Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions from motor vehicles
associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
The project will not create substantial pollution concentrations in the area. Therefore, the project is not
expected to have a significant impact.
The site will contain a single-family residential structure. This structure and use would not create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
IV. Biological Resources
While the project site is within a rural area that supports sensitive habitat, the project, site does not include
wetlands or riparian habitat, nor is the site adjacent to any wetlands, waterway, or other sensitive habitat.
The City of Palo Alto Planning Division arborist has reviewed the project and has determined that no
significant trees would be impacted by the project. Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia) exist on the property
and in the vicinity of the project site. The applicant does not propose to remove any protected trees to
construct the project. Four pine trees (Coulter Pine) in the construction zone will be removed. Other trees
that have fallen or are damaged and dying will be removed from the site. The project will be required to
provide tree protection, subject to the regulations contained in the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual
in conjunction with building and grading permits.
The project site is identified as being in, and surrounded by, the biotic community of Oak Woodland with
Chaparral area to the north. The immediate building site contains native and non-native grasses that will be
removed during construction. Native grasses will be planted around the perimeter of the structures on land
that was disturbed by construction. The proposed project will not significantly disturb any other existing
plant life.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
V. Cultural Resources
The site will contain a single-family residential structure and accessory building. Maps L-8 and L-9 of the
Comprehensive Plan indicate that the project site is located within an Archeological Resource Area of Low
Sensitivity and not within a Williamson Act property. There are no identified historical, archaeological, or
paleological resources on the project site. However, the site is in the vicinity of areas identified in the
Comprehensive Plan as moderately sensitive, and therefore the following standard condition would apply to
this project to protect the site if archeological or paleological evidence is found:
14
"Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during
construction and appraised of the proper procedures to follow in the ever~t that archaeological resources or
human remains are found. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara
County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those
of a Native American, and if they are, shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(e). In the event that
archaeological resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within
150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist. The archeologist shall
conduct independent review of the f’md, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt
evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action
acceptable to all concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be for
avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include
excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in
accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the
California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall be consulted on all
aspects of the mitigation program."
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
VI. Geology and Soils
The entire state of California is a seismically active area. The City of Palo Alto is located within an area that
is very geologically active. The San Andreas Fault, long considered a major seismic risk in California,
passes though the City. The Comprehensive Plan states that the San Andreas Fault is capable of producing a
magnitude 8.4 earthquake that would cause very violent groundshaking in much of Palo Alto. No known
faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at this site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All
new construction would be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code, which are
directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Therefore the project would result in a less than significant impact.
Seismic ground shaking could occur on the site and could impact structures and occupants of the project
area due to seismic activity associated with regional faults such as the San Andreas, front range thrust faults
across Palo Alto to the San Andreas and the Hayward Fault.
The goal of Policy N-51 of the Comprehensive Plan is to "Minimize exposure to geologic hazard, including
slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and seismic hazards including groundshaking, fault rupture,
liquefaction, and landsliding" so that the risk from seismic events would be reduced to a level that must be
accepted by people living in a seismic active area, and therefore this would be considered a less than
significant impact.
No substantial changes to the site topography will occur as a result of the proposed project. Grading activity
will be limited to the soil removal for the construction of the residential structure. The project would result
in the removal of approximately 960 cubic yards of fill from the site. A final grading and drainage plan for
the project is subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The application of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as part of the approved
15
grading and drainage plan and the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report is expected to mitigate
and grading-related impacts to a less than significant level.
The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waster-water disposal systems.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A hazardous material is defined as an injurious substance, including pesticides, herbicides, toxic metals and
chemicals, volatile chemicals, explosives, nuclear fuels or low-level radioactive wastes. Activities that
handle hazardous materials are found throughout the City, even in residential areas and homes. The
proposed project will involve minimal forms of hazardous materials, in the form of swimming pool cleaning
chemicals and other household chemicals. The site will be used as a single-family residence, which is a use
that does not typically generate or store significant amounts of hazardous materials other than those
identified.
The residential and accessory structure would be near wild lands so there is some risk of exposure to fire.
The proposed roofmg material is standing seam metal roofing, which is approved by the Fire Department for
use in the Open Space areas. The project site is not located within two miles of either a public or private use
airport. The project will not affect circulation patterns in the vicinity of the project and, therefore, will not
interfere with either emergency response or evacuation. The project is in a developed area and will not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction of the single-family structure, accessory buildings, driveways and walkways will change the
amount of impervious surface area on the site. The proposed impervious area and coverage does not exceed
the maximum 3.5 percent allowed in this zone district. The private driveways will be constructed of
permeable pavers and gravel surfaces. The existing drainage pattern of the site will not be substantially
altered as a result of the project. However, City Standard Conditions of Approval require the incorporation
of Best Management Practices for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in
conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program. In addition, a
drainage plan for the site is required to be submitted with the building permit application to address potential
water quality impacts.
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater supplies.
The site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project applicant is also required to submit a
final site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm
drainage system and!or landscaped area per the adopted Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
16
Conformance to the requirements of the Public Works Department will reduce the flood hazard impacts to
less than significant.
The project site is not an area that is subject inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Residual Impact:Less than significant
Mitigation Measures:None required
IX. Land Use and Planning
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this property is Open Space and the Zoning Ordinance
designation is Open Space district. This project would not be in conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The project could meet the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
Policy L-1 :
¯Policy L-69:
¯Policy N-6:
Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently
developed lands with in the urban service area. Retain undeveloped land west
of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances for
very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the
area.
Preserve the scenic qualities ofPalo Alto’s roads and trails for motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.
Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space
zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views
of hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the
hillsides.
¯Policy N-7:
Municipal Code Consistency
All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area should be
consistent with the City of Palo Alto Open Space development Criteria.
The project will conform to all Municipal Code requirements. The project is in the vicinity of protected
species of trees, including Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia). Construction could impact the health of
these trees. The project will contain Standard Conditions of Approval that will require appropriate tree
protection measures and devices to ensure survival of these trees.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
17
X. Mineral Resources
The project site is not located in a designated mineral resource recovery site. No impacts to mineral
resources are expected.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
XI. Noise
The project is not expected to result in permanent increases in ambient noise levels, excessive ground
shaking, or permanent noise levels in excess of standards established by local regulations or standards.
The project may cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction.
Standard conditions of approval will require that thebuilder observe the City of Palo Alto requirements
for construction times and hours.
The project is not located within an airport land use plan area or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Residual Impact:Less than significant
Mitigation Measures:None required
XII. Population and Housing
The project will not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area, displace
substantial numbers of existing people or housing.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
No impact
None required
XIII Public Services
Fire
Although the site is located in a high fire hazard area as identified by the Comprehensive Plan, the
proposed project would not significantly impact fire service to the area. The conditions of approval for
the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures.
Police
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The new facility would
not result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
Schools
As the project involves construction of a single-family residence there is no expected impacts to
18
educational resources of the Palo Alto Unified School District. School district fees would be paid in
conjunction with building permit issuance.
Parks
No direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a
substantial increase in Palo Alto’s residential or employee population.
Other Public Facilities
Facilities fees (Libraries and Community Facilitates fees) would be paid in conjunction with building permit
issuance.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
XIV. Recreation
Less than significant
None required
Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for determining
parkland needs. This requires two acres of parkland for each 1,000 people. The project would not
generate any significant additional population. No additional parkland would be required as a result of
the project.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
XV. Transportation and Traffic
Installation of the single-family structure and accessory structure will add development in a primarily open
space area of the City. The project will result in additional vehicle trips to the site, but the number of trips is
not expected to generate significant traffic impacts.
Los Trancos Woods Road is not designated as an arterial roadway in the Comprehensive Plan. The approval
of the proposed project will not require any changes to be made to the street. Additionally, the City’s
Transportation Division has indicated that the proposed addition will not have any transportation impacts.
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Less than significant
None required
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
The project would involve the construction and placement of new electric, sewer, and water service to the
undeveloped site. The connections for the single-family structure and accessory structure are not expected to
create a significant new demand for services at this site. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Department has
reviewed the project and has recommended standard conditions of approval.
19
Residual Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
No impact
None required
2O
Attachment D
~B A1KAP~C H i TE C T S
Atzmon Shoham Residence
820 Los Trancos Road
APN 182-36-30
Project Description
The Property, Buildin,c! Siting, and Scope of Work
The Atzmon-Shoham property is a 10.4 acre irregularly shaped parcel at the top of a hilly site in the Open Space district
of Palo Alto. The proposed single family residence will consist of a main house and two accessory structures (a guest
cottage and an exercise building). The project will be located at the eastern edge of the parcel. This par[ of the site
was at one time disturbed b~ a quarry operation, which created a sloping bowl shape at the north, south and east
perimeters. This bowl surrounds a previously disturbed relatively flat area, where the proposed house is to be sited.
The siting allows the north, south, and east sides of the house to be nestled at the edge of the bowl, with its backdrop
of forested hills. This serves to minimize the impact of the house on the existing landscape, to screen it from view, and
to create a sense of protection by, and integration with the hillside. To the west the house opens visually and spatially
to an undisturbed native landscape, allowing the majority of the natural meadowland to dominate the site.
The Buildinq DesiQn
The Atzmon-Shoham residence was conceived as a series of building groupings, or pavilions, rather than one building
mass. The majority of the house is made up of low profile one-story elements, with the two-story elements located at
the north and south ends of the building site to reflect the adjacent sloping hillsides. The building elements are
designed to create a clean lined composition which serves to enhance the natural state of the land.
The building will be constructed of wood and structural steel on a pier and grade beam foundation.
The indoor and outdoor spaces of the home are designed to integrate with the natural characteristics of the site. Thick
exterior walls wilt provide a sense of protection and will serve to insulate the house. Large glass doors to the west
terrace will allow for a sense of openness and connection to the view. Trellises and overhangs mediate between inside
and outside, and provide sun protection and energy efficiency. Interior sun control shades built into the soffits over the
doors and windows, and energy efficient glass, are an additional energy conservation measure. The limestone floors of
the interior spaces will continue through to the exterior terraces, creating a blurring between inside and outside living
spaces.
The palette of materials and subdued colors was selected to further integrate the house with the landscape.
The color and texture of the plaster on the building complements the surrounding stone terrace. The muted, mottled
colors of the roof are provided by weathered standing-seam terne metal. The trellis and overhangs are of teal slate
with brushed stainless steel connectors.
The minimal low-density site lighting will consist of path lighting and shielded down lights and will not be visible from
off site.
File
None
R:X£20~ A~2rnon-Snoham ResidenceX3 GOVERNMEI’,rp3.02 City & County,30820 design statement site & design.doe
1660 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109, T. 415 441 4771, F. 415 536 2323, www:bararch.com
Statement of Landscape Design Intent
Project: Atzom Shoham Residence
Address: 820 Los Trancos Road
o
Statement of Aesthetic and Functional Vision and Description of Landscape at Maturity
The proposed Atzom Shoham residence is located on a 10.4 acre site. Two acres of this
are will be affected by the development of the house and surrounding landscape. The
remainder of the site is to be left natural.
The sit~ is located on a south-facing slope with a combination of Coast Live Oak woodland
and grassland, in association with areas that were disturbed by a quarry that once mined
the site. The vestiges of the grading by the quarry operation created a level bench/bowl
shaped area on the moderately sloping site. This bowl area created an ideal opportunity
for siting the house in the existing disturbed area, while allowing the preservation of the
undisturbed native landscape. The upper reaches of the bowl above the house, along the
driveway to the uphill neighbor, are thickly planted with various species of non- native
Pine. The only trees that will be removed for construction are several pines toward the
center of the site.
The landscape concept has been to site the house so that house and terraces, sit
seamlessly within the native landscape. Irrigated landscape areas are only in immediate
proximity to the house and are limited in scale for maintenance and water conservation.
The remainder of the site is landscaped with a transitional planting of native and low water
use plants and grasses knit into the native landscape areas. There will be a small vineyard
on the west side of the bowl in an existing grassy area.
The driveway was carefully situated so that no grading or drainage will take place under
the canopy of any oaks. In addition, the house is located to maximize the views to the
majestic Live Oaks on the east side.
At maturity, the site will look very similar to the conditions that currently exist, as almost all
of the existing trees will remain and the native vegetation will infill the disturbed areas. New
native oaks will be planted and will grow to provide additional privacy. Olives and fruit trees
will be planted in closer proximity to the buildings for shade and color. Above the driveway,
below the area of non-native pines, the new olives will grow to provide additional
screening. Areas that were disturbed by construction grading will be revegetated with
native grasses.
Statement Related to Planting and Irrigation Systems
Plant materials have been chosen for water conserving and low maintenance
characteristics. Most of the planting will be irrigated with a drip system to reduce water
use. There are several very small turf areas immediately adjacent to the paved terrace
o
areas off the house, these limited areas act as carpets for outdoor gathering in direct
proximity to the house. All planting areas will be mulched where possible to reduce water
use.
Projected Long Range Maintenance of the Project until Maturity
The landscaped areas are designed to have a natural appearance at maturity (except at
the orchard area and the vineyard that will have a more agricultural appearance). The
landscape has been designed with the highest maintenance/manicured areas immediately
adjacent to the house with more native/natural areas occurring as one moves away form
the building.
Most of the proposed planting is very low water-use, so after the initial 2- 3 years of
regular water, much of the landscape will be very adapted to the local climate and will
require little maintenance.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Attachment F
82!) Los Tran¢os Woods Road~ [03-D-6]: Application by Lisa Victor of BAR
Architects, on behalf of Yoav Shoham and Orit Atzmon for a Site and Design Review to
allow construction of a two-story, single-family residence, an accessory sports building,
swimming pool, landscaping and other site improvements for a total floor area of 11,513
square feet. Zone District: Open Space (OS). Environmental Assessment: a Negative
Declaration has been prepared for public review and comment. File Nos: 03-D-06, 03-EIA-
23. SRWeblink: http:iiwww.cityo~paloalto.or~!citva~endaipublistv’planning-transportation-
meetingsi2878.pdf
Mr. Turner: Thank you Chairman Griffin and Commissioners. Staff is recommending that the
Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council that they should
approve the Negative Declaration with the finding that the project will not cause a significant
environmental impact and approve the Site and Design Review application based upon the
findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval and the record of land use
action.
The project before the Commission this evening is for Site and Design Review of a new single
family residential structure, accessory, building and landscaping in the Open Space District. The
Site and Design Review is required for all development prior to securing any building permits.
As mentioned in the Staff Report the project site is an undeveloped ten acre parcel located in the
Open Space District. This site is generally steeply sloped except for a large somewhat flat area
where the proposed development would occur. The perimeter of the site contains many tree and
shrub species including mature oaks, pines and chaparral. The interior of the site contains native
and non-native ~asses. Adjacent land uses include single family residential structures and
access to the site is from a shared driveway known as Los Trancos Woods Road.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The project includes construction of one single family residential structure, an accessory building
that is indicated on the plans as a sports court. The project includes construction of a swimming
pool, landscaping, automobile parking court and pervious and impervious walkways and patio
areas. The total impervious surface of the project is approximately 14,000 square feet or 3.1% of
the site where 3.5% is the maximum allowed.
The main living area in the principal structure are essentially contained in a single story mass
with a two story element at the north end of the project and a two story sports court at the south
side. Although these two features extend to 25 feet they are constructed following the natural
slope of the land, which helps to minimize the perceived height of the structures. The applicant
has prepared a scale model that will help visualize the proposed development in context with the
land. That model is right up here in front of you.
The colors and materials that are proposed were chosen to be compatible with the environment.
Sample boards are also available as are technical specifications and pictures of the proposed
lighting fixtures to be used in the landscape areas and driveways of the project. The applicant
has proposed a minimal amount of landscaping for the project instead choosing to blend the
structures in with the existing vegetation on the site. The landscaping to be added including
olive and fruit trees and drought resistant planting requires minimal irrigation and maintenance.
A vineyard is shown on the project plans to the west side of the development. Staff is
recommending that the applicant provide additional information regarding the landscape
requirements and plant species proposed for this area. The applicant’s project description letter
is contained in the Staff Report as Attachment D.
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The Planning Commission may want to discuss various issues related to the design of the project
such as visibility and aesthetics of the structures and the landscape plan. It is Staff’s opinion that
the single family dwelling is a permitted use and that the private sports court is a use that is
accessory to the primary residential use. The sports building does contain a full bathroom and a
kitchenette however it is the intent of the owner to use this facility as a recreational use and not
as a second dwelling unit. The structure does not meet the height or size requirements for a
second unit and would not be able to be legally converted to such a unit. However, Staff is
recommending that an additional condition be included as part of the record of land use action
that would prevent accessory buildings to be converted to a dwelling unit at any time in the
future. The record of land use action in your Staff Report also contains recommended conditions
for tree protection and Fading activities. The Commission may want to comment on the
adequacy of these conditions.
The applicant and property owners are here to make a presentation and answer any questions that
vou may have. That concludes the Staff Report. Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Do Commissioners have any questions they would like to address of Staff prior to
having the applicant come forward? If none, is there a representative tbr the applicant, perhaps
the architect? Would you please come forward and introduce yourself.
Mr. Yoav Shoham, 4058 Orme Street, Palo Alto: I am new to this so bear with me. I am the
applicant. I will be very brief and then I will turn it over to the architect to give you any details
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
you want. I am a professor at Stanford my wife is psychologist here in Palo Alto and my
dauo~hter is up way past her bedtime. All I want to say about the project is we fell in love with
the area. If you see sort of a bowl and the nestle view and we wanted to be kind of out of sight.
That is the philosophy to blend with the area. The instructions to the landscape architect who is
also here was to basically make sure that the area remains the way it is right now. So that is the
philosophy and with that if you have any questions for me by all means otherwise I will turn it to
our architect.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. I am wondering just for the bureaucratic record if you could fill out a
speaker card for us. Thank you. Now we will hear from the architect.
Mr. Richard Beard, BAR Architects, 1660 Bush Street, San Francisco: Thank you. 1Mr.
Chairman and Commissioners. I am the principle in charge of the design of this project with
BAR Architects in San Francisco. Also here for the design team is Will Clark, the civil engineer,
Rich Tenture who is going to be the contractor and Andrea Cochran the landscape architect and
Lisa Victor my associate. In the interest of the hour and given the favorable Staff Report I am
going to be quite brief and leave as much time for you to ask questions if you have them.
It was just over a year ago that I first visited 820 Los Trancos and like those of you who have
seen the site or the photo~aphs there were several things that were particularly catching about
the site as an architect in particular. One was the site had been previously graded in this area.
Some quarrying activity had happened in the past and it created a kind of bench. This is of
course just a small portion of the site but it created this bench and this little hollow which ~vas a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
terrific opportunity for developing and building a house in a setting that would really shield it
from offsite view but still afford the house to be built in such a way that it could capitalize on the
assets of the site. The assets are many. It is very serene and beautiful setting but certainly the
trees figured very heavily in our consideration and placement of the site. The oak trees in
particular which are down here and extend on down the valley, a very beautiful ~oup over here
and then some really very handsome mature trees over here. So after my first visit to the site I
had not really spoken yet with what were going to be my clients about what they wanted to do
with the site. So it was with a little bit of trepidation that I first started to listen to what their
progam would be and a little bit afraid that they might say something that you might typically
expect which is gee, there is a nice big flat area let’s build a ~eat big house right in the middle of
it. Instead what they came back with was perfectly scripted to conform with what we know now
are the Open Space Development Criteria, Policy N-7 in your ordinances. They wrote back, we
see a house made up of a series of pavilions. These pavilions hug the side of the bowl leaving
you with a sense of space in front of you and below you. So that was really the principle that we
used in developing the design of the house. It really does hug the edges of this bowl. We
xvorked very closely with our landscape architect to get it fine tuned in a position that actually
minimizes gading, fill down to an absolute minimum, cut on the backside where it is not visible,
primarily one story structures, two story appearing only when it is silhouetted against hills so that
at no point do you actually have the house daylighting against an offsite view.
I think that really summarizes the highlights of the design. Given the favorable Staff Report I
think it is probably best just to take questions from you. Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
"~1
23
Chair Griffin: Commissioners? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: When I visited the site there were some pink tape things out there and
some yellow tape things. Can you describe what those were meant to outline?
Mr. Beard: They were basically outlining the footprints of the various pieces of the house that
were up there. The difference between the pink and the yellow though I am trying to remember.
The pink ribbon was outlining the sports building and then everything else was in yellow.
Chair Griffin: More questions?
Vice-Chair Cassel: The sports building. I g-uess I don’t quite understand what you mean by a
sports building. I just haven’t a clue from the shape and what you are doing with it.
Mr. Beard: The sports building houses a squash court and it also houses an exercise area for just
general exercise machine~, a bathroom and a wet bar and then kind of an open exercise area for
doing yoga or other exercises like that.
Vice-Chair Casse!: Why is it 25 feet tall? It is the first thing you run into as you go down the
street and I don’t understand the need for the height.
Mr. Beard: The height is dictated by the requirement for playing squash but the building we
have lowered into the ~ound on this side, on the private drive side, eight feet lower so we could
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21
22
get the floor level considerably below grade on the driveway side so that the height was on the
side that you couldn’t see driving up to the last house on the street.
Chair Griffin: It was an absolutely stunning site. I did visit it and I am envious of the architect
and the owners. It is a terrific location. I am wondering on the view or the orientation towards
the west looking across the top of the swimming pool coming this direction. The views from
offsite I am thinking of reflective issues from all of the plate glass because it was clear from what
we saw here on the plans that there is a lot of glass across that western elevation. What is being
done to try to mitigate reflective light coming off of that site?
Mr. Beard: You can see that we have developed a screen wall in front of the glazing wall, which
are back at this plane, and we have developed a screen wall in front of those with these limestone
columns and another wall in front of that.
those major glass exposures on that side.
Then a wood trellis work on top of that to shade all of
On the lower buildings we have also added projecting
overhangs so that it casts a lot of shadow onto those sides although those pieces don’t have
nearly the extent of glazing that the main living spaces do.
Vice-Chair Cassel: So you aren’t going to have problems with Title 24?
Mr. Beard: No actually because of some of the other ener~o-y conservation measures we are
taking in the building we are going to exceed the Title 24 requirements.
1
2
3
4
5
Chair Griffin: If there are no other questions from Commissioners I am going to open this to the
public and give them a cl~ance to make comments. Is John Baca in the house? Yes he is, hello
John.
Mr. John Baca. 484 Oxford, Palo Alto: Commissioners, I want to say first of all that I think the
6 Staff has done a great job in evaluating this project as have the architects and the owner. My
7 main concern is with the lack of any focus on cumulative impacts from all of the OS
8 development that has been occurring in this area. You all know that you have had many
9 projects, many more than usual anyway, come before you recently. While each project
10 individually can look great, can be designed well, can work out but I believe there is the
11 possibility that you can wind up over building and defeating the purpose of the OS zone. I don’t
12 believe that the 3.5% impermeable surface cap was implemented with the knowledge that the
13 driveways were now going to be considered permeable surfaces. So you are getting a lot more
14 square footage of building, a lot more mass, than has been previously the case and definitely has
15 been the case in this neighborhood. Actually you could make a case that the Site and Design
16 finding number three that sound principles and environmental design and ecological balance are
17 not being observed due to all the similar increases in the size of the projects being proposed. If
18 not now I believe that this problem should be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance Update and the
19 Open Space zoning criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise everybody up there is going to be
20 building swimming pools and I do have a problem with how you justify a sports facility that is
21 indoors as being compatible with Open Space zoning. Chapter 18.71.060 Uses Requiring Use
22 Permits, recreational uses including riding academies, clubs, stable, country clubs and golf
23 courses. While I might not wish for those to be in Open Space zones at least those are not uses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
that are enclosed in buildings. So I would request that you seriously address changes in the OS
zones and that you would ask Staff and Council to exh_ibit more concern for cumulative effects.
The amount of gravel area for this project that can be used for parking is basically an invitation
to increase the number of vehicle trips in that area. That is again, that doesn’t happen if it is just
this one project no big deal but it is going to happen for all these projects. When you start
increasing the use of utilities, when you start increasing traffic even if you have development
tees that are received by the City I believe that the effects will still be bourn somewhat by the
citizens of the City that live in smaller properties and smaller houses and that use less resources
that are being diminished. Water use is going to be problematic. You are all aware of that.
Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our last speaker is Len Lehmann if Len is still with us. I have no
further cards. Welcome.
Mr. Len Lehmann, 2237 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: I am the owner of an immediately adjacent
parce! at 850 Los Trancos Woods Road in Palo Alto. I just would like to make a very, brief
statement in support of this project. I also a~ee with many of the statements that John gave
about the cumulative effect of development in the Open Space but would say that I kno~v this
parcel very well. I have walked it extensively. I believe the design of this project is really
exemplary and I believe it is not only a beautifu! design but it demonstrates ~eat sensitivity to
the natural site and to the intent of the Palo Alto development guidelines for the Open Space. It
is a very, low intensity use within the Open Space, very much in contrast to the previous use of
my own site, which had approximately half a dozen employees and very many trips including
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
trucks and other vehicles. I am very pleased to see that the design of the new home hugs the
basin of the site and enhances the natural conditions of the site. The massing of the building
being primarily single story really minimizes its own impact on the neighborhood and respects
the privacy and views of the neighboring parcels. I don’t believe the improvements that are
being proposed can be viewed by neighbors or the public except on the access driveway. The
landscaping is very appropriate to the intent of the Open Space. I am really very pleased by the
project as proposed. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Are there any other speaker cards? There being none I am going to close the
public portion and bring the discussion back to the Commission. Do Commissioners have any
questions of Staff or of the applicant. Karen.
Commissioner Holman:
building?
Can Staff remind us what the maximum height is of an accessory
Ms. Grote: Well in this case they can have an accessory building that is 25 feet in height, which
is the same height as the main structure. As long as it is not in a setback area they can go up to
25 feet.
Chair Griffin: We can start some comments here. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will deal with the comment that Karen brought up. I did some research and
stuff on that and I challenged Staff on this and we have a funny situation in which we can have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
an accessory building in the Open Space district that is larger than we can have for a second
dwelling unit. So the second dwelling unit can only be 17 feet tall and it can only be 900 square
feet but an accessory building in this space can be any size as long as it is out of the back district
and covers our space which is something we will need to talk about when we get back to our
Open Space District. The other observation I made is this is single story structure and it nestles
nicely in there and it can be seen from some other hills. I was there this afternoon and I could
see the other hills so they could see me but it is nestled nicely in the site. It isn’t a small
structure and none of it is underground. It is 11,000 square feet FAR. What is interesting is we
have been working very hard to try to get less coverage on these sites and what we have done is
ask people to put in pervious materials so the water can come through them. What’s happened is
this has been done very nicely and there are a lot of impervious surfaces there so that we can
now have the site covered with 3.5% of impervious surface. This is not the fault of the landscape
architect. They used the ordinance as it is in place and have done a nice job with the ordinance
as it is in place and as Mr. Baca said we may want to think about that in the future. But the
desig-n is nice for the site.
Chair Griffin: Pat, you had a question.
Commissioner Burr: Yes. As we have discussed on several of our recent Open Space
developments xvhich have been coming in a flurry to us as of late this issue that Phyllis that just
spoke about and that Mr. Baca referenced seems to be one that has had significant unintended
consequences, not subtle ones but major ones. I think we have to rush to address this issue. As
it pertains to this site how much square footage is being covered by pervious concrete or other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
materials that we would normally or historically have thou~mht of as what is built upon square
footage and today is not being technically classified as such?
Mr. Turner: I think the project data box on the first page of you plan set might describe that but I
would also maybe ask the project architect to come up and provide some details about that.
Commissioner Burr: Steve, I don’t know if you can pencil this out but one of the things I am
going to be interested in is if we had had our previous use of materials which would have caused
the driveway and I don’t know what other areas to be impervious, how big of a building could
have been built? I will take a ballpark answer to that one.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let me put it this way, you can build a smaller building and build it higher.
So here it is a single story but if you go up to 25 feet we don’t count FAR in our total decision.
Commissioner Burt: That is correct. FAR is not the only issue although within our context of
Open Space approval if we had a building that was all 25 feet in height we would have other
considerations on whether it was appropriate. While they are looking at that I will just offer a
comment. I think this is the second out of three recent ones that have been designed in very
sensitive manner. I think it has made good utilization of the contours of the landscape unlike one
of the recent project that I think did not do so. We had a second one recently that like this did a
very., good job of building within the conditions that were there, it is not up on a knoll, it seems to
respect the surroundings in a good way. So my questions and comments are not ones that are
principally directed toward the sensitive of the architect or the builder here. They have to do
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
with what I think is if we are going to approve this project I want to see us move ag~essively on
what we are seeing as endemic problems in the Open Space area and we are getting an
accumulation of projects that are different from what were the original intentions of what the
Open Space guidelines would have driven us toward on what we would approve. While they are
doing that if other people have questions or comments I’ll wait.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Is there a leach field accompanying this project?
Chair Griffin: I am getting a shake of head. Steven do you know’?
Mr. Turner: I would refer that to the project architect for that answer.
Chair Griffin:
question.
Well the project architect is busy trying to research the answer to the previous
Commissioner Burt: It looks like the project owner may have an answer.
Mr. Beard: I will give you the calculation I came up with and we will see if this supplies you
with a sufficient answer. From the table on page three you see a total under proposed of 14,026
square feet of impervious area and building coverage. Of that, 11,216 square feet are attributable
to the building leaving 3,810 square feet of impervious area outside of the building footprint,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
which is impervious. Then my civil engineers also asked me to remind you that we are
providing onsite retention to collect the accumulated rainfall onsite to provide ample recharge.
He can answer some other question if you have those.
Commissioner Burr: My question actually had to do with how many square feet of the pervious
pavements are included in the project site.
Mr. Beard: We were never asked to provide a calculation of pervious area.
Commissioner Burt: But these are the pavements like your driveway and things like that that are
utilizing the new innovative materials that are pervious.
Mr. Beard: Right. We don’t have a calculation of those areas.
Commissioner Holman: Before vou leave though, my question was, are there leach fields as a
part of this. I either didn’t understand the answer or maybe you didn’t understand my question.
Is there a leach field accompanying this project?
Mr. Beard: I will ask the civil engineer or Yoav.
Mr. Shoham: There is currentlv no leach field. Our hope is to connect to the sewer system down
below. If that is approved that is our preference. I am optimistic that will happen but the backup
plan would be to create a leach field. Does that answer the question?
1
2
6
7
8
9
!0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Colmmissioner Holman: Yes, thank you.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Butt: I have a couple of other smaller questions. I see that one of the materials
on the trellises is teak and that brings up a question of whether that is consistent with Site and
Design Review finding number three on sound principles of environmental design in terms of
isn’t teak one of the woods that is recommended against for environmental reasons because of
being a rainforest hardwood? Maybe I am mistaken on that.
Mr. Beard: That is true that there is a species ofteak, which is very, environmentally sensitive. It
is Brazilian Rainforest Teak. All of the teak that we use in all of our projects now is sustainably
har~ested. It is plantation teak.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. As long as you are up here I have a follow up question on
landscaping. Just in scanning the species with my limited Latin a lot of the species looked to be
native plants can anyone give us a little more insight on that?
Mr. Beard: Sure.
Ms. Andrea Cochran. Landscape Architect, BAR Associates: The concept for the design was to
use native materials around the perimeter of the property,. As one approaches the house and gets
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
very close to the house we would be using some more trees like olive trees that are drought
tolerant but are low water use. The intention is for the majority of the property to be landscaped
with native grasses and native plants to kind of retain the character to make it appear as if the
house had been dropped in. The non-native would be in the area immediately on the terracing
around the house, planting around the structures would be native trees and immediately adjoining
the house would be non-natives. Then we proposed an orchard planting just above the house.
The sense is that the grassland would be restored up to this level here. This is a very small lawn
area on these terraces and everything else that you would see, these are big oak trees, these are
existing pine trees that are non-native and hopefully over time as those would go that would be
something that could be replaced with natives.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Just while you are up there as a landscape architect I am noticing on the
plans the auto court seems to be a big black hole if you will in terms of greenery and
landscaping. Are there any further opportunities to add a tree or something? It seems like such a
big area that is blank.
Ms. Cochran: There is a fire turnaround area here which sort of sets some of the geometry for
that area but we do have planting at the perimeter and we have talked about adding another tree
at this corner here. We do have new trees here and there are trees at the entry.
Commissioner Packer: Okay, so that space is dictated by the fire trucks?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Ms. Cochran: In part the geometry is dictated by the Fire Department.
hammerhead that is required for the fire.
There is a 60 foot
Commissioner Packer: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Cochran: Then the backup space for the garage.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a couple more questions for the architect. The stainless steel that
is used as a part of the sunshade and trellising there is quite a propensity, for reflectiviV with this
material. Could you speak to how much of this material is going to be used, please?
Mr. Beard: Yes. The stainless steel that is part of the wood trellising are stainless steel dowels
about three-eighths to a half inch dowel and the wood goes on top and on the bottom of it. So it
is visible from directly below or from directly above but it is not visible laterally from offsite.
Commissioner Holman: That is a very good answer. Then additionally when you go out to the
Open Space District and look at what has been built and you see a number of Mediterranean
style buildings or Tuscan or whatever you wish to call them and some of the coloring on some of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22
those projects is similar to this. I find these colors to be quite light for the environment. I am
wondering if you have given consideration to and would give further consideration to darker
colored materials. If you look at the front page of your plans the material colors are pretty
similar to this and the building sticks out quite a bit.
Mr. Beard: Right. Yes that is the same drawing I believe that is on the wall back over there.
Yes I am familiar with what you are talking about Commissioner and when we start really
refining the stucco samples it would certainly be our intention to go no lighter than that. In the
daylight outside of the room the colors look much, much brighter as you have observed. So
when we do some field testing with them I think it will go darker.
Commissioner Holman: You say you want to go no lighter and I am saying it really should go
darker.
Mr. Beard: It should go darker, yes.
Commissioner Hotman: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: I would take a motion.
MOTION
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
t8
19
20
21
22
23
1 Commissioner Bialson: I am about to give you one. I move that the recommendation of the
2 Staff with respect to this project be followed by the Planning Commission and that is that we
3 find the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that we approve the Site and
4 Design Review based upon the findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval
5 in the record of land use action.
Chair Griffin: Do I have a second?
SECOND
Vice-Chair Cassel: I’ll second.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis seconds.
Vice-Chair Cassel: But I would like to add Karen’s comments in that this comes back to be
reviewed for color so that the colors are not as light as they are noxv. Who would that come back
to?
Ms. Grote: To Staft:
Vice-Chair Cassel: To Staff. This color needs to be darker, the architect a~eed and usually we
receive the final colors.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1-~
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chair Griffin: Would the maker accept that?
Commissioner Bialson: Yes I would and I would also agree to change my motion somewhat to
add the additional condition of preventing the accessory unit from becoming a dwelling.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Of course, yes.
Ms. Grote: To prevent the accessory building from becoming a dwelling.
Commissioner Bialson: Correct. With those two changes to the recommendation from Staff that
would be my motion. I would love to get a second.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I seconded it.
Commissioner Bialson: I think we all feel that this is a sensitively designed project and I
appreciate the way it has been brought forward. I think the comments that have been made by
the public and fellow Commissioners with regard to the changes that we need to make to Open
Space rules are known by all of us and hopefully that matter will be brought forward by Staff.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Vice-Chair Cassel: This is a lovely site. It has minimal views from offsite. It can be seen
offsite. I was there today and there is nothing in the area that is growing except for one tree
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
"~1
22
where the sports building is so it looks like it can be built without taking down any trees. It is
low in height for most of the building. Although I was totally surprised by the sports building
my comments to that again are to the system rather than to this particular site. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I will support the motion. I agree with the comments that Annette and
Phyllis have made. I think it is a lovely design and it seems to work well with the site.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a couple of friendly amendments to add and they are in keeping
with the amendments that were accepted last week or two weeks ago by the Commission for the
previous project. Before that I will do two others. One is that the concrete wall color is not
indicated and that should come forward and also be reviewed in keeping with the color
comments we have had on this. If the maker and seconder would accept that I would appreciate
it.
Commissioner Biatson: That would be fine.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That’s fine.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Holman: Then the conditions of approval should include a detailed landscape
plan that show all disturbed areas for cut and fill to go to the City Arborist. That there should be
a landscape plan also presented for construction staging and access areas presented to the City
Arborist. That should the necessity of leach fields become a part of the project that those also go
to the City Arborist for review. That any future thinning or topping of trees should require City
approval. These are all conditions that you guys approved as a part of the last project that we
reviewed in the Open Space District.
Commissioner Bialson: I don’t know whether those, there are three amendments there, correct?
Commissioner Holman: I didn’t count them. I think there are four.
Commissioner Bialson: I think some of them have already been addressed by Staff but if not
they would be agreeable to me. The last one with regard to the thinning or topping of trees by
applicants sort of concerns me and I am open to discussion about that. Is that something that
Staff is used to dealing with on something like this?
Ms. Grote: We have looked at protected trees and thinning or pruning protected trees. I believe
two weeks ago there was a similar condition attached to a Site and Design in the OS District. I
would need to check that but I believe you have done this for another house recently.
Chair Griffin: Dave Dockter, would you like to comment on that as to what our previous actions
have been and your overall opinion?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
t5.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Dockter: I believe that the Commission could comfortably suggest that the tree pruning
techniques comply with the ANSI standards which are no tree topping or comply with the Tree
Technical Manual. Because this is a discretionary review the Commission has the ability to
desi~maate all the pine for instance to be equal with that of the protected oak trees so they would
all be subject to proper care according to the Tree Technical Manual. So with that in mind the
obligation to the property, owner would be to treat the trees with reasonable care as outlined in
the Technical Manual which just basically prohibits them from being destroyed through bad
pruning practices. If they wanted to remove a tree it would be a matter or requesting for a tree
removal permit to actually outfight remove it. So it would be relativelv easy for the City to
enforce actually because it would be a prohibited act to top the trees and they would have to
request a removal permit to remove a tree.
Commissioner Bialson: Let me just ask you Dave, my concern with regard to the proposed
amendment had to do with the pine trees and whether or not we wanted to keep those given that
they are non-native. What you are saying is that the applicant could come in and request a
permit to allow removal of those and show that they were going to put in native species, is that
correct? It would thereby be approved? It is not a question of the health of the tree being the
determinate as to whether or not it could be removed? I am just looking to trying to get those
non-native species out of there.
Mr. Dockter: Staff and City wouldn’t be necessarily interested in getting rid of all non-natives
because the row of mature pines are part of the landscape there. They are naturalized if you will.
1 Thefe are many, many crowded trees in the ~ove already that we would absolutely as part of the
2 construction project support removal or some thinning of the trees..The ones that remain they
3 could technically become a subject of the discretionary approval and be required to remain and
4 be protected the same as a formal landscape plan would be on a commercial project for instance.
5 Any later requests we would look at it with reasonableness and not be overly restrictive or
6 protective of these non-natives if they are volunteer trees or things that should be removed. I
7 believe Staffwould be pretty permissive in working with the property owner. I would suggest
8 that the Commission doesn’t require Staffto review for just mere thinning and pruning. I think it
9 is better left just the obligation like protected trees is stay away from bad pruning practices and
10 just let the property owner do the normal pruning that they should be entitled to without City
11 review or regulation. Outright removal Staff could respond to those requests if the Commission
12 were to condition the project.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Vice-Chair Cassel: The project we did last time wasn’t an oak ~ove it was just a huge number
of oak trees. This is not in that situation. We have not done this before. You are not really
recommending that we put, I am trying to get to what you are saying. What vou are saying is we
should maybe recommend that they use good Tree Technical Manual practices? You want them
to use that as a model.
Mr. Dockter: Correct. Good pruning practices as outlined in the Tree Technical Manual.
Chair Griffin: Karen, would you characterize your suggested amendment as being in
conformance with the way the Arborist has explained it?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Holman: Of course, that would be the last amendment that I suggested and I
would just refer to Mr. Dockter’s comments about the Tree Technical Manual.
Commissioner Bialson: I think that would be fine in this case. I don’t want it to become a
matter of course that we require that because I think it is a little overuse of the City resources to
have those sorts of issues constantly going back to Staff. I am sort of looking at this as not
wanting to set a precedent where we protect non-native species. I am just very sensitive to what
the Auditor indicated that we be very careful in our stewardship of City resources. Go ahead,
Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am just referring them back to, given these comments, the Tree
Technical Manual I am not adding anything to the process. I am not adding any process. So
maybe even saying that maybe I don’t even need to add this last condition of approval. I would
defer to Mr. Dockter on that.
Commissioner Bialson: I would appreciate that. I would rather not have this additional thing.
All your other conditions are fine.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Vice-Chair Cassel: A~eed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I have one other possible condition I want to see what the rest of the
Commission feels about it. The size of this accessory athletic building ifI ballpark it is quite a
bit taller than this room here. That is a large structure and there certainly is basis our Open
Space approval under which we have discretionary review of that compatibility. It seems to be
excessively tall and for that purpose, excessively tall. I want to see whether Commissioners
would be receptive to placing some additional constraint on the height of that 18 or 20 feet,
something that is a tall single story structure that allows reasonable use of athletics there but not
something that is 25 feet tall.
Commissioner Bialson: I would prefer not to include that in my motion. I think that this project
has been sensitively desQmaed. While we may not be used to that sort of a structure I think we
have taken care of it being possibly used for residential purposes and I am not going to second
guess the applicant with regard to his need for a 25 foot high ceiling.
Chair Griffin: Let me just ask Staff or the applicant is there a dimension specification for a
squash court that required a 24 foot ceiling height? I "know they are big rooms but are they in
fact what, for a championship court you have to have 24 feet but you could get by with
something less?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Shoham: They are typically much taller than that. What I did is I went and looked at what
the least you can get away with and that’s that. But if you go to the Stanford squash courts or
any standard courts you will find them taller than that.
Chair Griffin: Indoor courts? The Stanford indoor court is taller than 24 feet in height?
Mr. Shoham: I believe so. I believe they are a little taller than 24 feet. It is actually easy to
measure because it is a gallery. You can stand there and measure top to bottom. Now remember
this is not the finished height that we are talking about, we are talking about the whole structure
height. So inside it comes to, I don’t want to actually speak out of turn, I am not sure what
happens in our case because I have forgotten the numbers. At Stanford, quoting from memory, I
believe you get a net of about 22 feet net from finished floor to the ceiling. We get much less
than that.
Chair Griffin: Thank you.
Commissioner Bialson: So can we vote on my motion?
Chair Griffin: If there are no further comments then let’s vote.
Commissioner Burt: Michael, this is not an additional amendment. It is essentially an
overriding condition for me to support it and that is the response on what kind oftimeframe we
can see some either emergency measures or getting the Open Space ~o-uideline recommendations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
back to us so that we don’t continue to have projects come before us that we probably would not
approve in the future and we would not have approved in the past. So does Staff have any kind
of a timeframe on that?
Ms. Grote: I will need to talk with our Zoning Ordinance team and we can report back to you at
your next meeting. But we can accelerate that in the schedule so that we do bring it back to you
as soon as possible.
Commissioner Burt: Do we have other Open Space projects in the pipeline?
Ms. Grote: I am not aware of any at this point.
Commissioner Burt: Good, thanks.
Vice-Chair Cassel: The other is how many sites do we actually have because I can remember
going back and doing some counts on this when we talked about doubling the size of these spots
from ten to 20 acres and we didn’t actually have as many as I thought. So there may be some
potential issues here. Although it seems like we have been flooded in the last couple of weeks.
Ms. Grote: Amy is reminding me that we do have one on Skyline Boulevard that is already
applied for and is in the pipeline.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Commissioner Burr: I would just forewarn Staff that we would expect that the considerations for
compatibility that are part of the Open Space that are non-fonnulaic~ not related to the
impervious surface, I certainly intend on looking aggressively at conformance to those other
guidelines. Just because somebody meets the impervious surface guideline does not give them
cart blanche to do a lot of things that they otherwise would not be able to do.
MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-0)
Chair Griffin: Let’s vote on the measure. All those in favor of the amended motion say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. That takes us to the end of this second item.
Thank you Staff and applicants.