HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-07 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
October 7, 2003 CMR:402:03
610 LOS TRANCOS ROAD [02-D-05; 02-EIA-10]: REQUEST BY
TOM JAKWAY, ON BEHALF OF THE BUNKER TRUST, FOR
SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GUEST COTTAGE
WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTRICT. AN INITIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY HAS BEEN
PREPARED, AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS
PROPOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the City
Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C), with a finding that
the project will not result in significant environmental impacts; and approve the Site and
Design Review application to construct a new single-family residence and guest cottage
on 13.35 acres within the Open Space Zoning District. Recommendation for approval is
based upon the fmdings and subject to the conditions in the Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment B).
BACKGROUND
The site is comprised of two parcels that are substandard in size by today’s open space
development standards. Both parcels will be merged into a single parcel as part of the
project.
Access to the site is from a shared driveway connected to Los Trancos Road. The two
parcels that form the site, 610 and 620 Los Trancos Road, are approximately 7.57 acres
and 5.78 acres respectively, and both are developed with single-family residences. The
site coverage of the two existing homes, patios, and driveway is 38,855 square feet.
CMR:2-24705 Page 1 of 3
Adjoining properties are developed single family residential parcels that are also zoned
and designated as Open Space.
The project will not exceed the maximum allowable 3.5% impervious site coverage. The
applicant proposes 20,324 square feet of impervious coverage, including a 9,274 square
foot building footprint for the main residence and related site improvements. The 1,096
square foot guest cottage would include an attached one-car carport. The guest cottage is
considered an accessory facility and is not a living unit because it does not have its own
kitchen. A swimming pool and tennis court are also proposed. The basement includes an
underground gymnasium. Living areas are proposed on the main and upper levels. The
maximum height of the main residence as measured from the midpoint of the roof would
be 25 feet above f’mished grade. The existing asphalt driveway will be removed and
replaced with permeable paving stones. Pavers will also be used for all additional
driveway areas, motor courts, patios, and walks (see attachment B for a more detailed
project description, site history, and discussion of the various project elements).
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The PTC reviewed this project at its meetings of May 28, 2003 and July 9, 2003 and
voted to recommend approval of the Site and Design Review application to the City
Council as reflected in meeting minutes (see Attachment E). This recommendation
included the addition of five new conditions (Condition Numbers 11-15) which have
been incorporated into the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B).
11.Perimeter fencing shall be designed to not restrict wildlife movement through the
project site. Planning staff shall review and approve the perimeter fence design prior
to issuance of a building permit.
12.Plans submitted for building permit shall include an itemization showing a 25%
reduction in lawn area.
13. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit a soils engineer report
for review by the planning arborist and the Public Works Engineering Department
describing the usefulness of the excavated bedrock as fill material and for the
construction of stone landscape walls. Staff shall review this report for compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan and the effect on the natural environment.
14. The size of the motor court shall be no larger than the minimum turning radius as
required by the Fire Department.
15. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit to remove the existing structures on site,
the applicant shall submit to Planning staff for review and approval, a detailed
deconstruction program for removal of the existing structures. Applicant shall
consider, as part of the program, allowing the salvage company two weeks to
deconstruct the buildings.
There was one public speaker providing comments on the project at the May 28, 03
Commission meeting. Mr. Herb Borock expressed his appreciation to staff for extending
CMR:224:03 Page 2 of 3
the public comment period on the Environmental Assessment, for requiring a demolition
permit for the existing structures before issuing a building permit and thanked the
property owner on his decision to merge two lots into one. Mr. Borock stated his interest
in having the applicant dedicate right-of-way on Los Trancos Road to the City, that the
applicant should submit a detailed grading plan, and that the Environmental Assessment
need more detailed information on the number of truck trips. Mr. Borock also stated his
belief that the gatehouse need a Conditional Use Permit for its construction and that the
proposed house would be too large.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Given the scope of this project, there is no economic impact to the City’s General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Vicinity Map
Attachment B:Record of the City Council Land Use Action
Attachment C:Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment D:Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated July 9,
2003 (without attachments)
Attachment E:Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated May 28,
2003 (without attachments)
Attachment F:Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes (July 9, 03
& May 28, 03).
Attachment G:Findings for Approval
Attachment H:Conditions of Approval
Attachment I:Applicants responses to the Planning and Transportation concerns from
the May 28, 2003 hearing (Council Members only).
Attachment J: Project Plan Set (Council Members only).
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT
HEAD REVIEW:
Chri~
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
A. Riordan, Planner
Steve Emsli4
Dir~mmuni, ty. Environment
Frank Benest
City Manager
cc:Tom Jakway
Bunker Trust
John Lerch
City of Portola Valley
CMR:224:03 Page 3 of 3
Attachment A
Attachment B
ACTION NO. 2003-07
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 610 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE
AND DESIGN REVIEW 02-D-05 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT 02-EIA-10 (TOM JAKWAY, APPLICANT)
On [Date], the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review
application for a new house in the Open Space Zone District, making
the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Tom Jakway, on behalf of the Bunker Trust, property
owners, have requested the City’s approval for the construction of
a new single family residence on approximately 13.35 acres within
the Open Space Zoning District. The 34,466 square foot project
includes a 9,274 square foot building footprint and related site
improvements ("The Project").
B. The site is comprised of two parcels that are substandard
in size by today’s Open Space development standards. Both parcels
will be merged into a single parcel as part of the project. 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.
Access to the site is from a shared driveway connected to Los
Trancos Road. The site is approximately 13.35 acres. The two
parcels that form the site, 610 & 620 Los Trancos Road, are
approximately 7.57 acres and 5.78 acres, respectively, and are
developed with single-family residences. The site coverage of the
two existing homes, patios, and driveway is 38,855 square feet.
The project includes the removal of the two existing homes and
existing driveway. The construction of a new single family house
requires the two parcels to be merged into one parcel.
The site is moderately sloped, ascending east from Los Trancos Road
to the top of a ridgeline. The segment of the site that is located
on the western side of Los Trancos Road descends slightly down hill
toward Los Trancos Creek. A small perennial unnamed tributary to
Los Trancos Creek crosses through this portion of the site. This
tributary passes through the site in a south to north direction
with the confluence with Los Trancos Creek occurring north of the
site. Elevations range from 550 feet to 712 feet above sea level
1
and the habitats on site consist of non-native annual grassland,
natural perennial grassland, coast live oak wood, southern coastal
scrub, riparian vegetation, and urban and suburban environments.
Both existing homes are located on the western facing hillside and
are bordered by lawn, shrubs, oak trees, and ornamental plants.
The adjoining properties are developed single family residential
parcels that are also zoned and designated as Open Space.
The project includes 23,173 square feet of impervious coverage
including a 9,274 square foot building footprint for the main
residence and related site improvements. The 1,096 square foot
guest cottage includes an attached carport to cover one car. The
guest cottage does not include a kitchen and ergot, is not
considered a second dwelling unit and does not require a
conditional use permit. The guest cottage is an accessory facility
that is permitted by right. A swimming poo! and tennis court is
included. The basement includes an underground gymnasium. Living
areas are proposed on the main level and on the upper level
(illustrated on page 3 of the Deve!opment Plans, Attachment H).
The maximum height of the main residence as measured from the
midpoint of the roof is 25 feet above finished grade.
C. Following Staff review the Planning and Transportation
Commission (Commission) first reviewed the Project on May 28, 2003
and continued the project to their meeting of July 9, 2003. The
Commission recommended approval on July 9, 2003. The Commission’s
recommendations are contained in CMR: [Number] 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 mitigation
measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the
development, therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration
was made available for public review beginning May 7 2003 through
May 28, 2003 (and extended to June 3 to give interested parties
sufficient time to review environmental documents). The
Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration
are contained in CMR: [Number].
2
SECTION 3.Site and Design Review Findings
i. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed residence would be seen from the Portola
Ranch in Portola Valley and the Blue Oaks Deve!opment. To mitigate
this visibility, earth tone building materials were selected to
blend with the surroundings. The materials include natural stone,
integral color plaster walls, and a slate roof. Substantial native
Oak trees surround the project, which help screen the building and
hardscape as viewed from off site. The plantings on the site
include an irrigated lawn area on the north side of the site,
providing a transition between the development and native grass
areas. The proposed building and pathway lighting would be low
voltage and al! light sources would be screened to not be visible
from off site.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The proposed design and size of the residence and
related site improvements are generally consistent with the
existing residences on Los Trancos Road. The construction of all
improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current
Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable
codes to assure safety and a high quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental
ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
The project has been designed to minimize the
visibility as viewed from off site. Mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project and would be implemented with any
approval to mitigate impacts on biological resources, protected
trees, and geotechnical stability.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal as conditioned complies with the
policies of the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural
Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The project
proposa! meets the Open Space Development Criteria and the intent
of the Comprehensive Pian regarding development in designated open
space areas.
SECTION 4.SITE AND DESIGN APPROVALS GRANTED. Site and
Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 02-D-05, subject
to the conditions of approval in Section [] of the Record.
SECTION 5.Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Tom Jakway
titled ~Bunker Residence, consisting of 29 pages, dated November
27, 2002, and received June 26, 2003, except as modified to
incorporate the conditions of approval in Section Six. A copy of
these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Environment. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be
printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the
Building Permit application.
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
I.The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with plans received on June 26, 2003,
except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of
approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the
Planning Commission or City Council. The following conditions of
approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted with the Building Permit application.
2.The approved building materials and color scheme
shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings,
patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape
features.
3. The roofing materials shall be earthtone in color to
blend with the natural surroundings.
4.The existing asphalt driveway shall be removed and
replaced with a permeable surface. In areas with slopes in excess
of ten percent, the surface shall be engineered to provide adequate
wet traction to emergency vehicles. Prior to building permit, an
engineering study of the adequacy of the material chosen shall be
reviewed by the Fire Department. Total impervious areas on the site
shall be limited to 3.5%.
4
5. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the
final construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All lighting shall be
minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away from the
surrounding residences and open space lands.
6. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-
reflective material.
7. The Planning Commission and City Council will review
the project to ensure that the project’s screening features will
mitigate the potential aesthetic impacts.
8. If during grading and construction activities, any
archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall
cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address
the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall
be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any
Native American resources are encountered during construction,
construction shall cease immediately until a Native American
descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of
the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make
further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
9. All mitigation measures identified by the Fire
Department to address fire hazards on this site must be
incorporated into the design.
I0. No area represented as permeable paving in project
plans received on June 26, 2003 shall be converted to impervious
paving unless an equal are of impervious paving is converted to
permeable paving.
ii. Perimeter fencing shall be designed to not restrict
wildlife movement through the project site. Planning Staff shall
review and approve the proposed perimeter fence design prior to
issuance of a building permit.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, planning
staff shall review and approve of the amount of proposed lawn area.
13. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant
shall submit a Soils Engineer report for review by the Planning
Arborist and the Public Works Engineering Department describing the
usefulness of the excavated bedrock as fill material and for the
construction of stone landscape walls. Staff shall review this
report for compliancewith the Comprehensive Plan and the effect on
the natural environment.
14. The size of the motor court shall be no larger than
the minimum turning radius as required by the Fire Department.
5
15. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit to
remove the existing structures on site, the applicant shall submit
to Planning Staff for review and approval, a detailed
deconstruction program for removal of the existing structures.
Applicant shall consider, as part of the program, to allow the
salvage company two weeks to deconstruct the buildings.
16. Oak tree Tag #39 is diseased and structurally
unsound and will be removed by the project. Replacement tree
mitigation for oak tree Tag #39 shall be the installation of either
(a) four 24-inch box size or, (b) two 48-inch box size trees, as
stipulated in the Tree Technical Manual Section 3.20, Tree Canopy
Replacement. Species shall be of the Quercus genus (valley oak,
coast live oak, black oak or blue oak) or Aesculus californica
(California Buckeye).
17. All provisions for the protection of trees shall be
implemented, as outlined in the Tree Report dated April 18, 2003
and the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. In the event of any
conflict between the two, the more protective measure shall
prevail.
18. I0 oaks on the site shall be relocated, protected
and preserved. Tree Tag #51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60 and 93
shall be relocated and provided mitigation and monitoring as
outlined in the Tree Transplanting and Relocation Plan, including
appropriate irrigation, interim and post relocation maintenance. As
a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a
security deposit of the total value of the trees to be relocated,
provided for in the Tree Technical Manua!, Section 3.26, Security
Deposits. The amount shall be as determined by the Appraisal
submitted in the Tree Report, in the amount of $41,550. The
Security Deposit shall be paid prior to building permit issuance,
and shall be held for a period, of two years following the permit
for occupancy.
19. Any revision to the plans which may affect the
welfare of the trees and vegetation shall be reviewed by the
applicant’s arborist and Planning Arborist prior to approval.
20. All provisions and recommendations contained in the
Tree Survey prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants and dated April
18, 2003 shall be incorporated into the project. Prior to issuance
of a building permit, a letter must be submitted by the project
arborist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial
conformance with the recommended environmental impact mitigation
measures contained in the report.
21. All provisions and recommendations contained in the
Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Light, Air, & Space
6
Construction and dated November 18, 2002 shall be incorporated into
the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter must
be submitted by the project biologist stating satisfaction that the
project is in substantial conformance with the recommended
environmental impact mitigation measures contained in the report.
22. The following controls shall be implemented for the
duration of project construction to minimize dust related
construction impacts:
¯All active construction areas shall be watered at
least twice daily.
¯All trucks hauling soil, sand, and !oose
materials shall be covered or shall retain at
least two feet of freeboard.
¯All paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at the construction site shall be
swept and watered daily.
¯Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
23. Temporary impacts would occur as a result of
construction activities. Typical noise sources would include
mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and
noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be short in
duration. Once completed, !ong-term noise associated with the new
building would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are
anticipated. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter
9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction between the hours
of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday - Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m.
on Saturday, and construction activities prohibited on Sunday and
Holidays) would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less
than significant levels.
24. Prior to the commencement of blasting activities,
the applicant shall notify the City of Palo Alto Fire Department
and all property owners within I000 feet of the project site of the
date and time of all proposed blasting activities. The applicant
shall comply with all directives recommended by the Fire
Department.
Building Division
25. A demolition permit shall be required for the
removal of the existing buildings on the site. Removal of the
existing buildings and final of the demolition permits is to be
completed prior to issuance of the permit for the new buildings.
7
26. The two lots comprising the site shall be merged.
The parcel ma~ or certificate of compliance shall be recorded prior
to permit issuance.
27. A separate grading permit shall be required if the
volume of cut and/or fill grading exceeds I00 cubic yards.
28. Separate building permits shall be required for each
independent building or structure.
29. No woodburning fireplaces shall be constructed
except as provided in PAMC Section 9.06.
30. The proposed gymnasium, to be located in the
basement of the main building, shall be considered as a non-
residential occupancy. The occupancy classification shall be
assigned based on the occupant load and the nature of the use.
Exits shall be provided based on the occupant load calculated using
the "exercise room" occupant load factor specified in Uniform
Building Code Table 10-A. A fire-rated occupancy separation shall
be provided between the gym and the R3 residential living area,
corresponding to the occupancy classification.
31. Santa Clara County Health Dept. approval is required
for the construction private sanitary sewage disposal systems. If
such a system is included within the scope of the proposed project,
two copies of Health Dept. approved plans are to be submitted prior
to permit issuance.
32. Implementation of the construction techniques
contained in the report Geotechnical Report prepared by
GeoForensics and dated August 2002 shall be incorporated into the
project and approved by the Building Department. Prior to issuance
of a building permit, a letter must be submitted by the project
geologist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial
conformance with the recommended environmental impact mitigation
measures contained in the report.
Fire Department
33. Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width
with 13’6" ~ertical clearance. Road to meet weight access (60,000
ibs.) and turning radius (36 ft. inside requirements of fire truck.
Road shall be all weather, and shall reach to within 150 feet of
any point on the first floor exterior. (98CFC902.2.2) NOTE: The
driveway configuration as shown does not meet this requirement.
34. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which
meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No.13 - 1996 Edition for
the main house. The guesthouse 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.
35. 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. (PAMCI5.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be
withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department
requirements have been met.
36. Additional hydrants shall be provided to make a
minimum of 3 hydrants 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 2,500
gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psig.
(98CFC903.4.2) NOTE: Delivery of building materials to the site
wil! be prohibited until the hydrants and an adequate water supply
has been provided.
37. 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.
38. Entry Gate (if provided) shall be either keyed for
Fire Department access or a Key Box shall be provided. Contact the
Fire Prevention Bureau at 329-2184 for details.
Public Work Department
Public Works Engineering
39. 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
schedule shall be provided to PWE each month that the permit is
active.
40. The location and extent of applicable SWPP/BMP
details should be indicated on the plan. Detai! references for the
Temporary BMP should carry a sheet number i.e. (ESCII)/4 where the
numerator is the specific detail number and the denominator is the
plan sheet where the detail can be found.The detailed reference
should include the following BMPs:
¯Construction Entrance
¯Sediment Basin
¯Straw Wattles
¯Geotextile Mats
¯Concrete Waste Management
¯Preservation of existing vegetation
¯Hazardous Waste Storage
*California Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks
contain varies types of construction BMP’s. A copy of the
handbooks can be purchased from Blue Print Service in Oakland.
Phone # 510-287-5485).
41. Within the plan set include the City standard Best
Management Practice’s (BMP) sheet titled ~Pollution Prevention -
It’s Part of the Plan". The applicant is responsible for ensuring
that all contractors and subcontractors are aware of and implements
all stormwater quality control measures. Failure to comply with
the approved construction BMP’s shall result in the issuance of
{correction notices, citations and/or a project stop work order.}
42. A set of notes addressing the requirements for Site
and Winterization should be placed on the drawings. The notes
should describe the winterization measures that will be implemented
during wet season to prevent erosion and storm water pollution.
The ’wet season" is defined as the period beginning October 1
through April 15 of the following year. This requirement shall be
implemented during any year when excavation activities are underway
or grading operations have left areas unprotected.
All work areas that have not been stabilized prior to onset of the
Wet Season shall be graded to drain toward settlement basins at
interior of site. Storm runoff water from un-stabilized areas
shall be directed into settlement basins and through BioWattles or
other filtration devices prior to release from the site.
Other SEPPP Temporary Measures and Erosion Controls shall remain in
effect during the Wet Season and are part of the Winterization
Plan.
I0
Identify the Limits of Work (LOW) on the plan. Provide a note on
plans advising that vegetated areas outside the LOW must not be
disturbed during the construction activities. Call out the BMP re
Preservation of Existing Vegetation at those areas.
43. A comprehensive geotechnical report for the site
must be prepared by a certified geotechnical engineer. The report,
at minimum, should include subsurface investigation, seismic
refraction survey, engineering analysis of filed data, investigation
of ground water level, and construction issues related to the
location of the swimming pool. Based on the investigation of the
ground water level, the engineer shall estimate the highest
projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the future.
If the bottom of the proposed swimming pool is reasonably above the
projected highest water level, then the pool can be constructed in
a conventigonla manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system
to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be
undertaken to render the pool waterprood and able to withstand all
projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No external drawdown
pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however, PWE
recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they
do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels.
44. The proposed development will result in a change in
the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide
calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building
permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the
applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month
following the final approval of the construction by the Building
Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and
instructions are available from PWE.
45. The plan must include a drain near the swimming pool
that can receive any wastewater that may be generated during the
operation or routine maintenance of the swimming pool water. The
swimming pool water in snot allowed to be discharged to municipal
storm collection system or into a creek. If the applicant wishes
to dispose of the swimming pool water at the site, a collection
system equipped with an every dissipater must be designed for the
site. The system should include design criteria, pipe capacity,
erosion evaluation and impact of the discharge water down slope of
the dissipater.
46. Building permit applicants are required to prepare
and submit an excavation dewatering plan whenever the project soils
report indicates that groundwater will be encountered during
excavation. The plan should be reviewed and approved by PWE prior
to the issuance of the building permit. Building permits that
include a swimming pool where groundwater is not expected to be
encountered will be subject to a condition that a dewatering plan
ii
shall be submitted to PWE for review and approval if groundwater is
encountered during excavation. -
The plans shall carry a note requiring that "Where groundwater is
not anticipated but is encountered during construction, a
dewatering plan shall be submitted to the PWE for review and
approval.
47. The location of all existing utility structures must
be identified on the plan. If the site is utilizing a septic tank,
the location(s) of the septic tank and al! associated plumbing,
including the leach fields, must be identified on the plans.
Construction, removal or abandonment of any septic system will
require prior approval from the City and the County of Santa Clara.
48. The applicant must submit a completed Certificate of
Compliance application with building permit request. The COC is
required when two lots are merged together. The COC must be
recorded with the County’s Recorder office prior to issuance of the
building permit.
SECTION 28.Term of Approval.
Site and Design Approval.In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approva!, the approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.82.080.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
12
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
I. Those plans prepared by Tom Jakway titled "Bunker Residence",
consisting of 29 pages, dated November 27, 2002, and received June
26, 2003.
13
Attachment C
ity of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
MITIGA TED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: May 1,2003 Application Nos.: 02-D-05, 02-EIA-10, 02-VAR-10
Address of Project:610 & 620 Los Trancos Road
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 182-38-009,10
Applicant:Thomas Jakway
382 E1 Portal
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Property Owner:The Bunker Trust
610 Los Trancos Road
Portola Valley, CA 94028
Project Description and Location:
An application by Tom Jakway, on behalf of the Bunker Trust, for Site and Design review
and a variance for the construction of a new single family residence on approximately 13.35
acres within the Open Space Zoning District. The 22,335 square foot single-family
residence features a 5,525 square foot basement and site improvements including a
swimming pool, tennis court, four car garage, motor court, and 34,466 square feet of
impervious area (building and paving combined). The application also includes a request
for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 894 square foot guest cottage with an
attached carport.
II.DETERMINATION
In accordance with the Ci~ of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project located at 610 Los Trancos Road may have a significant
effect on the environment. On the basis-of that study, the City makes the following
determination:
X
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
SAPLANkPLADIV~Current Planning~EIAkMIGDEC.ML\610 Los Trancos Road Mig Dec.doe
case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and,
therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not
required for the project.
In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project:
o
D
Implementation of the recommendations contained in the biological assessment by
Light, Air & Space Construction.
Implementation of the construction techniques contained in the report by
GeoForensics (Attachment C) would reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than
significant level.
The Planting of the trees required for mitigation and implementation of the Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan contained in the report by Ralph Osterling
Consultants (Attachment E) would reduce the tree impacts to a less than significant
level.
o
o
Replacement tree mitigation for oak tree Tag #39 shall be the installation of either
(a) four 24-inch box size or, (b) two 48-inch box size trees, as stipulated in the Tree
Technical Manual Section 3.20, Tree Canopy Replacement. Species shall be of the
Quercus genus (valley oak, coast live oak, black oak or blue oak) or Aesculus
californica (California Buckeye).
All provisions for the protection of trees shall be implemented, as outlined in the
Tree Report dated April 18, 2003 and the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. In the
event of any conflict between the two, the more protective measure shall prevail.
10 oaks on the site shall be relocated, protected and preserved. Tree Tag #51, 52, 53,
54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60 and 93 shall be relocated and provided mitigation and
monitoring as outlined in the Tree Transplanting and Relocation Plan, including
appropriate irrigation, interim and post relocation maintenance. As a condition of
development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit of the total value
of the trees to be relocated, provided for in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.26,
Security Deposits. The amount shall be as determined by the Appraisal submitted in
the Tree Report, in the amount of $41,550. The Security Deposit shall be paid prior
to building permit issuance, and shall be held for a period of two years following the
permit for occupancy.
Any revision to the plans which may affect the welfare of the trees and vegetation
shall be reviewed by the applicant’s arborist and Planning Arborist prior to
approval.
SAPLAN~LADIV~Current Planning~EIAWIIGDEC.ML\610 Los Trancos Road Mig Dec.doc
go
o
Temporary impacts would occur as a result of construction activities. Typical noise
sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and
grading and noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be short in duration.
Once completed, long-term noise associated with the new building would be within
acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated. Proper implementation of
and compliance with Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction
between the hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m. Monday - Friday, nine a.m. and
eight p.m. on Saturday, and ten a.m. and six p.m. on Sunday and Holidays) would
reduce construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Prior to the commencement of blasting activities, the applicant shall notify the City
of Palo Alto Fire Department and all property owners within 100Ofeet of the project
site of the date and time of all proposed blasting activities. The applicant shall
comply with all directives recommended by the Fire Department.
Manager of Current Planning Date
SAPLAN~LADDACurrent Planning~EIAkMIGDEC.ML\610 Los Trancos Road Mig Dec.doc
Attachment C
DRAFTENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Project Title:
Bunker Residence
=
=
=
=
=
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Chris Riordan, Planner (650) 329-2!49
Project Location:
The project site is located at 610 & 620 Los Trancos Road in southwestern Palo Alto,
east from Portola Valley. Los Trancos Road is south of Alpine Road on the edge of the
San Mateo and Santa Clara County boundaries. The site is located on the west and east
sides of Los Trancos Road, approximately south from the intersection with Alpine Road.
A small portion of the site is located on the West Side of Los Trancos Road while the
majority of the site is east of the roadway.
Application Number(s):
02-D-05, 02-EIA- 10, 02-CUP- 16, 02-VAR- 10
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Thomas Jak~,ay, 382 Et Portal, Palm Springs, CA 92264
General Plan Designation:
Open Space/Controlled Development
Zoning District:
The 581,394 square foot (13.35 acres) site is zoned OS (Open Space). This zone district
is desi_maed to protect open space uses. Single family residences are allowed in the OS
District. The maximum allowable impervious area of development is 3.5 percent of the
total lot size (or 20,348 square feet (.46 acres) of impervious site coverage on the subject
property,).
Description of the Project:
The project site consists of two separate lots (which are to be merged as a condition of
~veway co~ec~ed to Los Tr~cos Koad. ~e e~s~g site coverage of~e ~o homes,
patios, ~d ~veway is 38,855 squ~e feet. ~e homes ~d 13,025 squ~e feet of
S:XPLA_Nr~PLADI~Z\Current PlanningkEIA~ELA.docs\610 Los ]?rancos Road.doc Page 1 of 28
driveway are to be removed as part of the project. The remaining driveway area (11,292
square feet) would be left intact.
The proposed residence is to a be a 22,335 square foot single family house with a 5,525
square foot basement, swimming pool, tennis court, four car garage, and an 894 square
foot cottage with an attached single car garage. It will provide 22,335 square feet of
living area including an undergound gymnasium and living areas, four car garage
and living areas on the main level, and additional living area on the upper level (
illustrated on page 3 of the Development Plans, Attachment G). The maximum height of
the main residence as measured from the midpoint of the roof would be 25 feet above
finished grade. The building would have a footprint of 9,274 square feet and the total area
of impervious surface proposed is 34,289 square feet. The new portion of the driveway
and motor court would consist of 10,917 square feet of permeable paving such as "eco-
stones".
10.
11.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
The site consists of a moderately sloping hillside that ascends east from Los Trancos
Road to the top of a ridgeline. The seglnent of the site that is located on the western side
of Los Trancos Road descends slightly dow~ hill toward Los Trancos Creek. A small
perennial unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek crosses through this portion of the site.
This tributary passes through the site in a south to north direction with the confluence
with Los Trancos Creek occurring north of the site. Elevations range from 550 feet to
712 feet above sea level and the habitats on site consist of non-native annual grassland,
natural perennial Nassland, coast live oak wood. southern coastal scrub, riparian
vegetation, and urban and suburban environments. Both existing homes are located on
the western facing hilIside and are bordered by lawn, shrubs, Oak trees, and ornamental
plants.
The land uses on all four sides of the site consist of residential development with rural
homes on acreage. Foothills Park and the Arastradero Preserve are located to the east of
site, but not directly adjacent to the site.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement).
Santa Clara Valley Health Department - Septic System Review
SAPLANkPLADIV\Current PlanningkEIAkEIA.docs\6!0 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 2 of 28
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Si,maificant Impact" as indicated by the
thee "klist on the following pages.
X
X
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biolo~cal Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
X
Hydrology/Water
Quality.
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing .
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation!Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Si~maificance
DETERMLNATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigmificant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLAR_a_~ON wil! be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or ageed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fred that the proposed project MAY have a si~maificant effect on the environment, and
an ENWIRONME!~,VTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially sig-nificant 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 anal3~e only the effects that remain to be addressed.
find that althou~__h the proposed project could have a si_o-nificant effect on the
S:kPLANkPLADIV\Currem PlanningkEIAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 3 of 28
environment, because all potentially si_maificant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
/ Steve E~aglie, AICP
Directotr ofiAlanning and
Community Environment
Date
EVALUATION OF ENWIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
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 iike the one
involved (e. g. the project fails 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).
A]I 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.
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 si~cant. :Potentially Siga-tificant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect max, be si~cant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Si~mificant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4)’~egative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Si~cant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than sigz~ificant ievei
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
S:LPLA~NnPLADla, r\Current PlanningX£tALEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 4 of 28
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, prog-ram EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above chec’klist 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 hst should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9)The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if an3’, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
issues and Supporting information
Resources
!.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of
, substantial light or glare which
Sources
1,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
S:’~PLAN~DLAD~rV\Currem PlanningkEIAlEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 5 of 28
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I!.in determining whether impactsto 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 1,3 X
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson 1,3 X
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due 1,3
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
II1. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the pr~)ject:
a)
b)
1,3
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation
Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantia! pollutant
1,3
X
X
X
c)
!,3 ~ X
S:kPLAN1PLADIV\Current PlanningkELAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 6 of 2g
e)
IV.
b)
c)
d)
e)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Potentially
Significant
Sources Potentially
, Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impactissues
No
Impact
X
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of 1
people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special 1,3,D
status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
community identified in local or 1,3,D
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but 1,3,D
not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established 1,3,D
native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a 1,3,E
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conser~,ation !,3
X
X
X
X
S:kPLA_N~LADIV~CurrentPlamaingkEIAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 7 of 28
Vo
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
b)
c)
VI.
b)
Sources
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proiect:
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a 1,3
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an 1,3
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource 1,3
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside 1,3
of formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the proiect:
Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse 3,4,C
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Aiquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist 3,4,C
for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication
42.
ii) Strongseismic ground 3,4,C
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including 3,4,C
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?3,4,C I
Result in substantial soil erosion 3,4,C
or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on ~- geologic unit or
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potential|y
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
×
X
S:~3~LA_k~PLAD~VCurrentPlannmvLELA~E" =IA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 8 of 28
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 16-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life
or property?.
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Sources
3,4,C
3,4,C
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
1,5
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a) Create a significant hazard to the
1,5
1,5
1,5
public or the environment
through the routing transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
1,3,5
X
X
X
na
na
S:kPLA_NAPLAD!V\Currem Planningk.EIAUSLa..docsk6t0 Los Trancos Koad.doc Page 9 of 28
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
na
airport land use plan or, where I NA
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 orworking in the
proiect area?
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working
the proiect area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wiidland fires,
including where wiidlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
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
3,7
3,7
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
na
X
Would the project:
1,4 I X
1,4
1,4
I c)
X
S:XPLA_NXPLADIV\Curr.m. lannin=kE1AiEIA.do~s\610 Los Trancos Road.doe Pa~ l0 of 28
d)
e)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
X
X
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 1,4
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned 1,4
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade 1,4
water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary t,3,4,6
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which 1,3,4,6
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including 1,4,6
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an established f
community?
Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not 1,2,3
limited to the genera~ plan,
g)
h)
i)
J)
a)
b)
X
X
X
X
S:IPLA.NIPLADIV\Current PlanninglELA\3EIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 11 of 2g
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Resources
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or !,3
natural community conservation
.plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that 1,3
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site 1,3
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established 1,2,3
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground 1,2,3
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above 1,2,3
levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient 1,2,3
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airpo~ land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been I na
adopted, would the project
expose people residing or
Potentially
Significant
issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
na
S:kPLAN~LADD, r\Current PlanningkEIA~EIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 12 of 28
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing na
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proiect:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than No
Significant Impact
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any
1,3
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Impact
na
X
1,3 X
1,3
6
1
t,3
X
X
X
X
V
S:~PLAN1PLADIV\CurrentPlanningkEIAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 13 of 28
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
e)
SOUrCeS Potentially
Significant
,roiect:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
impact
X
X
Other public facilities? ........1,3
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that 1,3
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which 1,3
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the
a) Cause an increase in traffic
which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial 1,3
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio On roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
’b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
county congestion management "i,3
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a na
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous t,5
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ....
Result in inadequate emergency 1,5,6
access?
Result in inadequate parking
c,~,paci~’?5
iSSUeS Unless
Mitigation
Incorpo,rated
Impact
X
X
X
na
V
X
S:kPL.42qlPLADlV\Current PlanningkEIAkELa..docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page !4 of 28
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
g)Conflict with adopted poli’cies,
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMSI
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
...... c) ’"’ 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?
d)Have sufficient watersupplies ..........
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded enti.tlements needed?
...... e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has 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
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, ~tate, and ................
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Sources Potentially PotentialLy
Significant_ Significant
issues
5
Would the project:
3,4
3,4
3,4
3,4
3,4
3,4
Unless
Mitigation
IncQrporpted .........
Less Than No
Significant Impact
X
X
X
X
X
iXVil. IViANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the ~roject have’"the ’
potentia! to degrade the qualit
Impact
S:kPLANIPLADIV\Current PlanningkEIAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 15 of 28
Issues and Supporting Information
b)
c)
Resources
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?
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)?
Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
SOURCE REFERENCES:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning)
Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development.
City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
City of Palo Alto Fire Department
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
A=
B.
C.
D.
no
Site Location Map
Visibility Analysis
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoForensies, Inc. dated August 2002
Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Light, Air & Space Construction, dated 18 November
2002
Tree Report prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants, ine, dated 18 Apri! 2003.
Project Plans, received on April 28, 2003.
S:kPLAN~LADIV\Current PlanningkEIAkEIA.docs\610 Los "l"rancos Road.doc Page 16 of 28
I.Aesthetics
The project site is located in the northwest portion of Santa Clara County. on the eastern slope of
the Santa Cruz Mountains in the City of Palo Alto. The topography of the site consists of
relatively steep slopes. The site ranges in elevation from 544 feet (near the driveway entrance at
Los Trancos Road) above sea leve! to approximately 718 feet above sea level with the site
sloping to the southeast. The site is heavily vegetated with oak woodland.
The site is composed of two separate parcels, 610 and 620 Los Trancos Road, each containing a
single family home and accessed by a common driveway. The two homes are proposed to be
removed and the two sites are to be merged.
The proposed residence will be seen from the Portola Ranch in Portola Valley and the Blue Oaks
Development. The majority of the site development wil! occur on the upper portion of the site.
The built area (buildings and paving) will cover appro "ximately 5.9 % of the entire site, and
additional area will be modified with grading and an irrigated lawn. The site will be sculpted to
provide level outdoor areas for outdoor play areas and a tennis court. A proposed 894 square
foot guesthouse with an attached single car garage is to be constructed near the entrance to the
site. The architectural design and building materials of the guest house will match those of the
main residence
The building materials will blend with the surroundings. The materials include natural stone,
integral color plaster walls, and a slate roof. All proposed exterior colors are to be earth tone.
The project also includes exposed wood rafter tails, wood windows, steel exterior railings, and
copper colored gutters and down,spouts. The hardscape materials on the site include 10,197
square feet of permeable paved area. Permeable surface include the proposed "eco-stones" on a
sand bed and base rock (driveway, parking areas, fire turnouts), and one pool (officially deemed
permeable). The proposed earth tone colored permeable pavers will provide positive drainage.
Substantial native Oak trees surround the project and help to screen the building and hardscape
as viewed from off site. The plantings on the site include an irrigated lawn area on the north side
of the site, providing a transition between the development and native grass areas.
Project hghting is to include low voltage wall lighting to illuminate the building entrance,
entrance to the garage, and a portion of the motor court, and selected walls on the east elevation.
Low voltage tree downlighting is proposed to be suspended from existing Oak trees (#’s 49, 50,
59). Pathway fighting located adjacent to the new- driveway and wall~’ays adjacent to the lawn
will also incorporate low voltage lights. All light sources will be screened to not be visible from
off site. However, the development of the site may" result in light and glare generated from
within the building and glazing on the buiiding. With the Cit3~’s standard condition of approval,
the light and glare impacts of the project will not be significant. A detailed lighting plan that is
sensitive to adjacent land use will be required as a condition of approval. The conditions of
approva! wil! require the shielding of !ighting such that the light does not e~end beyond the site,
the lighting will be directional, and that the source of light in not directly visible.
S:kPLANkPLADIV~Current PlanningkEIALEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 17 of 28
The project submittal includes a model, site sections, preliminary grading plans, story poles
erected on site, and color palette. Also included are photo renderings (Attachment G) depicting
the proposed residence as viewed from Portola Ranch (Portola Valley) and the Blue Oaks
Development. The project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council to
ensure that the potential aesthetic impacts will be mitigated by the projects screening features
which include existing Oak trees.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
If_. Agriculture Resources
The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agriculture use and is
not re=malated by the Williaxnson Act.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Air Quality
It is not anticipated that the demolition of two existing residences and the construction of the
proposed new residence and cottage would effect any reNonal air quality, plan or standards, or
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The extent of the
effects on air quality will be during the period of demolition and construction.
The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air QualitT Management District’s (BAAQMD)
thresholds of si=mfificance for air qualit3~ impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve demolition, possible blasting, grading,
paving, and landscaping which has the potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting
in increases in airborne particulate matter. Dust related impacts are considered potentially
si~aificant but can be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures.
Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions would stem
primarily from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected
to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-qualit3; impacts
related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be less than significant.
Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be adversely affected
by air quality problems. The project is on 13 acres and is not immediately adjacent to housing or
other sensitive receptors. The project is not expected to have a significant impact.
The proposed project consists of a residential use. This use does not typically create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not
expected to not create objectionable odors when the project is complete. The pro.leer would be
subject to the Ci~,’s standard conditions of approval, which includes the following condition:
S:kPLANkPLADIVkCurrent Plaxmi~gkEIA’,.EIA.docs\6 !0 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 18 of 28
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimir.e
dust related construction impacts:
¯All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
¯Al! trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at
least two feet of freeboard.
¯All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site
shall be swept and watered daily.
¯Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measures: None required
1H. Biolo~cal Resources
A reconnaissance level biological survey was conducted on November 5, 2002 by Light, Air, &
Space Construction to determine whether the site supports sensitive plans, animals, or their
habitat. The biological resources analysis is attached (Attachmem D.)
The proposed development footprint is over landscape areas, bare earth, and asphalt. A number
of small to medium sized love oak trees occur in part of the development footprint that would
require removal to facilitate the construction. The largest of these trees have been identified for
retention. The urban habitat on the property does not support the environment in which any
special-status plants may occur. The area would also not support protected species, which
include the California red-legged frog or the western or southwestern pond turtle. The oak trees
in this area could potentially support nesting bird species or raptors.
Wetlands
It was determined that one area of the site contains wetlands/waters potentially re=malated by the
Army Corps of Engineers. This area consists of the perennial drainage channel and associated
wetland habitat that occurs on the western portion of the site, west of Los Trancos Road. This
area is not close to the proposed development.
Special Status Plants
The absence of serpentine soils on the PropertT appears to preclude the potential for special-
status plants species that are known to be found only on this soil type. There were five
additional plant species for which suitable habitat was present on the site. Therefore, special-
status plant species could potentially occur on the property,. No special-status plant species were
recorded during the reconnaissance surveys conducted by Light, Air; & Space Construction in
November 2002. It was noted in their report that existing habitat conditions could support the
occurrence of five-special plant species within the survey area. The plant species that have a
potential to occur on the site include:
San Francisco Campion (Silene verecunda) Santa Cruz Manzanita (Arctostaphylos
andersonii)
Western Leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) Dudley’s Lousewort ~edicularis dudleyi)
San Francisco Co!linsia Collinsia multicolo:;)
S:kPL.~dq~PLAD!V\Current PlatmittgkEIAkEIA.docs\6 ! 0 Los Traucos Road.doc Page 19 of 28
The area in which these plants could potentially exist consists of coast oak woodland, riparian,
and grasslands habitats. Based on the presence of the required habitat type lmown to support
these special-status plants, additional surveys may be necessary during the growing season when
these plants would be visible.
Special Status Wildlife
Special Status Mammals - No special-status mammals were identified as potentially occurring on
the site.
Special Status Reptiles and Amphibians -~ There is the potential for the western and southwestern
pond turtle to occur within the riparian corridor based on the presence of the perennial drainage
channel habitat. This habitat may not be considered suitable due to the lack of open water areas
and basking sites.
The California red-legged frog could potentially occur in the perennial drainage channel.
California red-legged frog has been identified within the three quadrangles used in the
reconnaissance level bioloNcal survey by Light, Air, & Space Construction. It is possible the
California-red legged frog may fred suitable habitat to complete its life cycle within the Los
Trancos Creek corridor and the unnamed drainage channel on the site.
Nesting Raptors- A red-tail hawk was observed during the biological survey site visit. There do
exist many trees on the site highly suitable for a variety of nesting raptor species. There is also
available raptor fora=~ing habitat though the site within the adjacent grasslands.
Oak Trees
A tree survey was conducted on April 18, 2003 by Ralph Osterling Consultants to determine the
potential impacts associated with the project on existing Oak Trees. A copy of the Survey report
is found in Attachment E.
The project will result in the removal and/or relocation of 15 trees. Of the trees to be removed,
one is a coast live oak (#39) with a mink diameter of 13.5" and four others (#s 89, 90, 9t, 92) are
mulberry trees. All four mulberries are located within the proposed building footprint and the
coast live oak is located within the proposed driveway. According the tree report, the oak has a
low "suitabilib, for preservation" rating due to the presence of cavities/decay in the trunk and a
leaning condition with an unbalanced crov~m.
Ten oak trees currently located within the proposed building footprint will be relocated and
transplanted on site. The proposed tree removal and indirect impacts to trees associated with
grading and construction would be potentially si.maificant. Mitigation measures 1 through 6.
requiring replacement, transplanting, and monitoring of the trees, would reduce the impacts to
less than si.maificant.
Residual Impact:The project includes mitigation that results in a less than significant
impact.
S:kPLANkPLADIV\Current PlanningkELAkEL&.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 20 of 28
Mitigation Measures:
Implementation of the recommendations contained in the report by Light, Air &
Space Construction (Attachment D) would reduce the biological impacts to a less
than si~cant level.
The planting of the trees required for mitigation and implementation of the Tree
Protection and Preser~’ation Plan contained in the report by Ralph Osterling
Consultants (Attachment E) would reduce the tree impacts to a less than significant
level.
Oak tree Tag #39 is diseased and structurally unsound and will be removed.
Replacement tree mitigation for oak tree Tag #39 shall be the installation of either
(a) four 24-inch box size or, 0a) two 48-inch box size trees, as stipulated in the Tree
Technical Manual Section 3.20, Tree Canopy Replacement. Species shall be of the
Quercus genus (valley oak, coast live oak, black oak or blue oak) or Aesculus
californica (California Buckeye).
All provisions for the protection of trees shah be implemented, as outlined in the
Tree Report dated April 18, 2003 and the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. In the
event of any conflict between the two, the more protective measure shah prevail.
10 oaks on the site shall be relocated, protected and preserved. Tree Tag #51, 52, 53,
54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60 and 93 shah be relocated and provided mitigation and
monitoring as outlined in the Tree Transplanting and Relocation Plan, including
appropriate irrigation, interim and post relocation maintenance. As a condition of
development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit of the total value
of the trees to be relocated, provided for in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.26,
Security Deposits. The amount shall be as determined by the Appraisal submitted in
the Tree Report, in the amount of $41,550. The Security Deposit shall be paid prior
to building permit issuance, and shall be held for a period of two years following the
permit for occupancy.
Any revision to the plans which may affect the welfare of the trees and vegetation
shall be reviewed by the applicant’s arborist and Planning Arborist prior to
approval.
Cultural Resources
3"he site is currentiy developed with two, single family residences, driveways, and landscaping.
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeolo~cal
Resource Area of low sensitivity.. No impacts on cultural resources as a result of the project are
to be expected.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
S:kPLA_NkPLADI~\Current PlanningkEIAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 21 of 2g
VZ.Geolo~ and Soils
A geotechnical report was prepared by GeoForensics, Inc. A copy of the geotechnical report can
be found in Attachment C of this report.
The greater San Francisco Bay Area is recogNzed by Geologists and SeismoloNsts as one of the
most active seismic re#ons in the United States. Three major fault zones pass through the Bay
Area in a northwest direction which have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per centtu3,
strong enough t6 cause structural damage. The faults causing such earthquakes are part of the
San Andreas Fault System, a major rift in the earth’s crest that extends for at least 700 miles
along western California. The San Andreas Fault System includes the San Andreas, Hayward,
Calaveras Fault Zones, and other faults.
During 1990, the U.S. Geological Survey cited a 67 percent probability that a Richter magnitude
7 earthquake, similar to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, would occur on one of the active
faults in the San Francisco Bay ReNon in the following 30 years. Recently, this probability was
increased to 70 percent, as a result of studies in the vicinity of the Hayward Fault. A 23 percent
probability is still attributed specifically to the potential for a ma=maitude 7 earthquake to occur
along the San Andreas fault by the year 2020.
Ground Rupture - The lack of mapped active fault traces through the site, suggests that the
potential for primaza2 rupture due to fault offset on the property is low.
Ground Shaking - The subject site is likely to be subject to verT strong to violent ground
sh "aldng during its life span due to a major earthquake in one of the above-listed fault zones.
Current building code design should be followed by the structural engineer to minimize damages
due to seismic sh ~aking. The site should be considered to have a UBC Soil Type SC.
Improvements should be desi=maed to resist shaking from a s Seismic Source Type A, located
about 2 krn from the site.
Landsliding - The subject site and the surrounding area are gently to steeply sloping.
Fortunately, the site is underlain by competent bedrock material at relatively sha!low depths.
Therefore, the geotechnica! report states the hazard due to large-scale seismically induced
landsliding is low. However, as with any slope, minor sloughing of the steeper site slopes could
occur during earthquake sh -aking. The proposed improvements should not be affected by any
such sloughing, as stable bedrock materials at the site will support them.
Liquefaction - Liquefaction most commonly occurs during earthquake shaking from loose fine
sands and silty sands associated with a high ground water table. Based on the subsurface
investigation,, the proposed building site is underlain by dense resistant materials at shaliow
depths. The report did indicate that groundwater was not encountered under the proposed
building site and that liquefaction is unlikely.
Ground Subsidence - Crround subsidence may occur w-hen poorly consolidated soils density as
a result of earthquake shaking. Since the proposed building site is underlain at shallow depths by
resistant materials, the report indicated that the chance of_.ground subsidence was low~
$:kPLA~RXPLADIV~Currem PlanningkEIALEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 22 of 28
Lateral Spreading -Lateral spreading may occur when a weak layer of material, such as
sensitive silt or clay, loses it shear stren~o’th as a result of earthquake shaking. Overlying blocks
of competent material may be translated laterally towards a free face. The report states that such
conditions were not encountered on the site and the opportunity for lateral spreading is low.
Residual Impact:The project includes mitigation that results in a less than significant
impact.
Mitigation Measures:
Implementation of the construction techniques contained in the report by
GeoForensics (Attachment C) would reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than
significant level.
VH.Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project is within a high fire danger area due to the dense vegetation in the area. No known
hazardous materials are currently being used, stored, or disposed of on or adjacent to the project
site. In addition, the land has not been previously used for agriculture or any other operations
that would require the use, storage or disposal of hazardous materials on the site.
Residual Impact:The project includes mitigation that results in a less than si~mfificant
impact.
Mitigation Measures:
A i’we sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA
Standard No.13 - 1996 Edition for the main house. The guest house may be
sprinklered in accordance with NFPA Standard No.13D - 1996 Edition. Fire
Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention
Bureau. CPAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be approved unless
complete sprinkler coverage is indicated. Sprinklers cannot.be considered as
providing the equivalent of one-hour construction for purposes of fire flow and
hydrant determination, see below.
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. (PAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be withheld until
Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met.
10.Additional hydrants shall be provided to make a minimum of 1 hydrant avaiIable
within 500 feet of the point on the access road closest to the s~ueture. 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
S:kPLANkPLADW\Current PlanningkEIAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 23 of 28
not less than 2 hours. (98CFC903.4.2) NOTE: Delivery of building materials to the
site will be prohibited until v~e hydrants and an adequate water supply has been
provided. This requirement has been reduced based on previous response from the
contractor that one-hour construction would be provided. This is not yet.reflected
on the plans, and will result in additional requirements if construction remains non-
rated.
11.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 10 feet to any point on the exterior of the building.
12.Entry Gate (if provided) shall be either keyed for Fire Department access or a Key
Box shah be provided. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau at 329-2184 for details.
VIII.Hydrology and Water QualiO~
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the five exploratory" boreholes that were drilled to a
maximum depth of 13 feet by GeoForensics. However, ~oundwater conditions at other
locations or other times, or different weather conditions may differ from those encountered in the
test boreholes. Goundwater seepage may exist within the zone penetrated by the borings. Based
on the information to date, construction during the dry season is not expected to adversely afI%ct
(or be affected by) groundwater.
Residual Impact:No Impact
Mitigation Measures: None required
IX. Land Use Planning
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is Open Space/Controlled Development and
the Zoning Designation is OS (Open Space). Single family dwellings and cottages are a
permitted use in the OS District. Immediately surrounding land uses are residential uses on large
parcels. Given the proposed design of the project, which minimizes potential effects to the
surrounding uses (residential), it is compatible with all adjacent development. The project is
consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies and land use designation of Open Space
Section 18.71.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) limits impervious area and building
coverage in the OS zone district to 3.5%. The project site is 581,394 square feet allowing for
20,348 of impervious area. The existing development of the two sites when combined exceeds
the maximum allowable coverage by 18,507 square feet. The impervious coverage of each
existing residence and common driveway is as follows:
610 Los Trancos Road
Footprint ................4,199 square feet
Patios ....................4,233 square feet
S:kPLANkPLADtV~Current Planning/EIAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Pa_~e 24 of 28
620 Los Trancos Road
Footprint ................3,773 square feet
Patios ....................3,078 square feet
Common Driveway (asphalt). 23,572 square feet
Total ...............................38,855 square feet (.89 acres)
The proposed development w-ill have 34,466 square feet of impervious area as follows:
610 Los Trancos Road
Footprint ......................9,274 square feet
Patios ..........................5,474 square feet
Tennis Court .................7,329 square feet
Existing Asphalt Driveway. 11,292 square feet
Total ............................34,466 square feet (.79 acres)
The applicant has applied for a variance (02-VAR-10) to exceed the maximum allowable
impervious area by 14,118 square feet (.32 acres). The Planning Commission and the City
Council to ensure that it is appropriate for the site and are not detrimental to the surrounding uses
will review the proposed variance for the project.
Residual Impact:No Impact
Mitigation Measures: None required
Mineral Resources
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (!vIRZ-1). This
designation means that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified
the City for other resources. However, there is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan
that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
Residual Impact: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: None required
Noise
The project site is located within a rural area and is not adjacent to any urban noise sources. The
proposed project, once complete, would not increase existing noise levels over the established
threshold. In addition, the area is not within any public or private airport zone. The construction
of the project would temporarily increase current noise levels N the vicininy of the project site.
Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and
~ading and noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be short in duration. Once
S:LPLANLPLADIV\Current PlanningkEI.AkEkA..docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 25 of 28
completed, long-term noise associated with the new building would be within acceptable noise
limits and no impacts are anticipated. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter
9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m.
Monday - Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday, and construction hours prohibited Sundays
and Holidays would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels. The
project would be subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding noise.
The geotechnical report prepared by GeoForensics indicates that blasting may be necessary to
excavate the baserock for construction of the basement. The distance between residential units
and the existing vegetation would help shield area residents from the noise. Mitigation Measure
13 is provided to address this potential impact.
The location of the project within a rural area, setback from any sensitive use, and noticing
requirements would prevent construction noise from exceeding nuisance levels. Project related
traffic would not cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets.
Mitigation Measure:
13.Prior to the commencement of blasting activities, the applicant shah notify the City
of Palo Alto Fire Department and all property owners within 1000 feet of the project
site of the date and time of all proposed blasting activities. The applicant shall
comply with all directives recommended by the Fire Department.
ATI. Population and Housing
The project will remove two single-family homes to be replaced by one single family home. The
reduction of one housing unit will not have a measurable effect on the CitT’s imbalance between
jobs and housing. Because the site contains two single-family homes that are owned by the
property owner and are currently vacant no persons would be displaced. Furthermore, the
expansion of infrastructure to this site will not induce substantial growth in the project area
because it is limited by current zoning.
Residual Impact: No Impact
Mitigation Measures: None required
XTII. Public Services
Adherence to codes will minimize the potential damage and risk from fire and other hazards.
However, existing laws represent minimum standards and do not safeguard against all hazards.
The development on the site is likely to increase the demand for fire and police service by an
incremental amount. However, the police and fire departments have sufficient resources to
accommodate moderate growth within the City. In addition, local schools will not see a
measurable increase in demand as a result of this project. Therefore, the increased demand will
not result in the need to expand existing facilities or construct new- facilities.
Residual Impact: Less than significant impact.
S:kPLANkPLADIV\Current PlanningkEIAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 26 of 28
Mitigation Measures: None required
XIK. Recreation
The reduction of one housing unit in Palo Alto will mitigate physical deterioration of any
recreational facilities. In addition, the proposed project will not increase the local population to a
point where expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities will be needed.
Furthermore, the undeveloped portions of the property would remain as private open space.
Residual Impact: Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None required
XE TransportationfTraffic
The project site is not located on a designated emergency route. The project will not generate air
or significant automobile traffic and will not cause or contribute to known traffic hazards.
Given the location of the site in a rural area, emergency access is limited. However,
improvements are included in the project including upgrades to the existing driveway which are
designed to improve emergency access to the site.
Implementation of the proposed project will result in truck trips to hau! excavated materials off
site. Construction crews and equipment will also increase the daily trips on Los Trancos Road
and Page Mill Road. Construction traffic impacts would be temporary and truck trips would
generally occur during off-peak hours.
Residual Impact:The proposed project will not significantly increase traffic in the local area.
However, construction of the project would result in localized congestion due
to mack traffic associated with construction. Construction traffic impacts
would be temporary and are not anticipated to substantially disrupt peak
traffic hours. (Less than significant impact)
Mitigation Measures: None required
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
Water Supply
The City’s drinking water is provided by the City’s Utilities Department, through purchases from
the San Francisquito Water Department’s Hetch Hetchy System. In 2000, the City used an
average of approximately 12.5 mgd. The City has a guaranteed allocation of 17 mgd through the
year 2006. However, the projected water demand in the City through the year 2007 is not
expected to exceed 13.7 mgd according to the City of Palo Alto Urban Water Management Plan.
The City also owns five groundwater wells, of which three are operational. The wells are
available in case the Hetch Hetchy system cannot meet the
S:kPLAN1PLADIV\Current PlanningkEIAkEIA.docs\610 Los Trancos Road.doc Page 27 of 28
85/87/2883 ~9:@5 658-94B-9542 LERCH CON~UCTION P~{~’.- B2
Based on gcmera[ rule genera! rates for s~n~e family homes, the proposed !~rojeet would geaer~te
app~oxim~ely 600 g~!lons of effluent p~ dxy, a/though ba~ed on the size of the proposed home,
lhe generafiou rotes could be as much as three times tha~ amount. The site would be serwd by a
~’pfic system consisting of two septic tm~ks ~ud a system of two drain fields.
] esidual Impa t: No Impact
]vlitigation Msasur : None required
Mandatory Findings of Signi.~.an~e
proposed ~aew resid~ee wi~ not substmatialty degrade ~e ~o~g ~~t,
,~les of e~ ~D’ or pr~m~. ~e pmje~ wo~d ere~e less ~
~mp~ on ~e q~W of ~e ~~. ~ comid~ ~ o~ c~ent p~j~m ~d
):e~ombly fores~ble ~e proj~ ~ proj~ is not ~cipat~ ~o r~s~t ~
,~i~fic~t ~p~.
’WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ~BY ~kTTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS
[H1TIGATED NEGATIV~ DECLARATION
:DATED r~ ~ PREPARED FOR THE PROFOSED
REDEVEJJOP1VtE~r O~ PROPERTY KNO~ AS
CALIFORNIA, AND AGRE£ TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGkTION MEASURES
CONT_~I,NED HEKEI_N.
Xpplicm ~i’~*~atu~-Dste
C:W-fogra~l~iles¥~qled,~ C~ 7,015o-¢¢rlond\6!0Lo~T.-’~z-oos-R.o=cl.&oe !~ge ~ o~£
Attachment D
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANqVING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Christopher Riordan
Planner
July 9, 2003
DEPARTMENT:
Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT:610 Los Trancos Road: Application by Tom Jakway, on behalf of
the Bunker Trust, for a Site and Design reviev¢ of the construction of
a new single-family residence and guest cottage on approximately
13.35 acres within the Open Space Zoning District. The 20,324
square feet of impervious area includes a 9,274 square-foot building
footprint and related site improvements. The 1,096 square-foot
detached guest cottage without a kitchen includes an attached
carport. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been
prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in
accordance with CEQA guidelines. File Numbers: 02-D-05, 02-EIA-
10.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission)
recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Attachment B), with a finding the project will not result in sigrdficant environmental
impacts and approve the Site and Design Review application for a new house in the OS
(Open Space) Zone District based upon the findings in Attachment B.
BACKGROUNq):
The Commission reviewed this project at their meeting of May 28, 2003. The previous
plans included a variance request by the applicant to exceed the maximum allowable
impervious area due to the existing asphalt driveway. During the public heating the
applicant withdrew the variance request. The revised plans (Attachment E) do not exceed
the 3.5% maximum site coverage because the existing driveway was replaced with
permeable pavers. Pavers will also be used for all additional driveway areas, motor
courts, patios, and walks.
Ciu, of Palo Alto Page 1
After closing the public hearing and providing comments to the applicant, the
Commission continued the project review to July 9, 2003 and requested the following 10
items (in italics) be submitted for further consideration.
Evaluate the visibility and massing of the north wing of the residence with
consideration given to the impact of the glazing.
The architect has redesigned the massing of the north wing to eliminate two story
tall walls to reduce its visibility. The amount of glazing proposed for this wing has
been reduced from 182 square feet to 152 square feet.
Provide greater detail of the cut and fill of the project with information provided
on where the excavated materials will be deposited.
To reduce the amount of cut and the amount of material exported off site, the grass
play area behind the residence as well as the tennis court, have been raised by 12
inches. In addition, the depth of the basement has been reduced by 12 inches. The
result of the above modifications to the grading has reduced the amount of cut by
2,053 cubic yards and increased the fill by 2,726 cubic yards. The tota! amount of
excavated material to be exported offsite has been reduced by 4,779 cubic yards.
It is the intent of the applicant to use granite excavated on site for garden planters,
walls, and dividers. The amount and quality of material to be Used will not be
~known until the excavation is underway. Use of this material will further reduce
the amount of material to be exported off site.
Depending on timing and quality of the material, the applicant has suggested it
could be deposited at Stevens Creek Quarry for eventual resale, or provided to the
Palo Alto landfill to contribute to their daily operations.
3.Submit a transportation and logistics plan for the construction of the project.
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.48 defines Los Trancos Road in Palo Alto as
a through truck route for trucks exceeding seven tons. The portion of Los Trancos
Road through Portola Valley continuing on Alpine Road to Highway 280 is a
Portola Valley defined track route. Further detail of the logistics plan is included in
Attachment A.
o Provide "cut sheets" and greater detail of the exterior lighting proposed for the
outside of the residence.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Sheet 13-15 of the Development Plans (Floor Plans) includes fixture location and
details of the proposed exterior lighting. Cut sheets of the proposed lighting are
included in Attachment A.
Submit an acoustics summary and analysis of the sound created by the proposed
"chiller" system.
The applicant has stated that the choice between air conditioning condenser units
or an air conditioning unit using chilled water with remote air handlers has yet to
be determined making it difficult to provide the requested acoustics summary and
analysis. Greater detail of the two possible systems is provided in Attachment A.
The equipment will be required to meet the city’s noise ordinance (Section 9.10 of
the PAMC) and will be evaluated by staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
Provide detailed information concerning proposed sustainable and "green"
construction techniques.
It is the intent of the applicant to construct the project with respect to the
following:
¯Returning the original slope contours to the site.
¯Water efficient landscaping.
¯"Construction waste management" to reuse and recycle the maximum amount
of material.
¯The selection of construction materials to optimize the buildings energy
efficiency.
Greater detail of the proposed construction techniques is included in
Attachment A.
Consider measures to reduce the water usage of the lawn irrigation system and
submit a detailed description of the proposed irrigation practices.
The amount of lawn area has been reduced by 25% from the previous submittal
and is less than 1% of the total landscaped area. A subsurface irrigation system is
proposed for the lawn to minimize the use of water. Further detail of the proposed
irrigation system and a brochure from the manufacturer is included in
Attachment A.
Reevaluate the proposed landscape plan with emphasis on maximizing the use of
native species consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
which encourages the use of native species for landscaping that require little or no
irrigation.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The proposed landscape plan has been revised from the previous submittal. The
square footage of lawn area has been reduced in size from 7,353 square feet to
5,509 square feet, approximately a 25% reduction. Non-irrigated native grass seed
mix will be used around the perimeter of the project site.
Submit a revised "color board" emphasizing the use of exterior colors sensitive to
the environment.
The applicant will have samples of the exterior materials available at the public
hearing. These will include samples of the slate roofing material, a stucco sample
board with actual proposed integral color, and samples of the exterior stone
mounted adjacent to the stucco.
10.Provide a plan for the deconstruction of the two exiting residences on the site.
The applicant has arranged with "Whole House Building Salvage" of East Palo
Alto to salvage the material from the two existing residences to be removed from
the site. This operation will include the removal of building materials to be resold
to the public by the salvage company at their store in East Palo Alto and via the
internet. The same company will also conduct an onsite demolition sale where
components of the buildings will be sold directly from the site for re-use. Material
not sold (asphalt, concrete, sheetrock, woodwaste, etc) will be removed from the
site and transported to the Zanker Materials Recovery Facility in San Jose.
Further details of the deconstruction operation, information about Whole House
Building Supply, and current recycling percentages and general information from
the Zanker Landfill are included in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A: Applicant’s responses to information requested by the Plannin~ and
Transportation Commission.
Attachment B:Record of the City Council Land Use Approval
Attachment C:Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated May 28,
2003.
Attachment D: Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes (May 28,
2003)
Attachment E: Plans for current project, received June 26, 2003 (Commissioners only).
City of Palo Alto Page 4
COURTESY COPIES:
Tom Jak-way
Bunker Trust
John Lerch, Lerch Construction
City of Portola Valley
Prepared by: Christopher Alan Riordan, Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval: _ , ._ d~
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachment E Attachment C
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Christopher Riordan, AICP
Planner
May 28, 2003
DEPARTMENT:
Planning and
Community Environment
610 Los Traneos Road: Application by Tom Jakway, on behalf of
the Bunker Trust, for Site and Design review and a Variance for the
construction of a new single family residence and guest cottage on
approximately 13.35 acres within the Open Space Zoning District.
The 34,466 square foot project includes a 9,274 building footprint
and related site improvements. The Variance is requested for an
increase of 14,118 square feet over the maximum allowable
impervious area of 20,348 square feet. The 1,096 square foot
detached guest cottage includes an attached carport but no kitchen
facilities. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been
prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in
accordance with CEQA guidelines. File Numbers: 02-D-05,
02-EIA-10, 02-VAR-10.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C), with a finding that the
project will not result in significant environmental impacts, approve the Site and Design
Review application for a new house in the OS (Open Space) Zone District based upon the
findings in Attachment D, and not approve the Variance application based upon the
findings for denial contained in Attachment E.
BACKGROUND
Site Information
The site is comprised of two parcels that are substandard in size by today’s Open Space
City of Palo Alto Page 1
development standards. Both parcels will be merged into a single parcel as part of the
project. 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.
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 pert’nit the reasonable use of open
space (PAMC Section 18.71.010). The Open Space District zone was then assigned to
the subjedt property.
Access to the site is from a shared driveway connected to Los Trancos Road. The site is
approximately 13.35 acres. The two parcels that form the site, 610 & 620 Los Trancos
Road, are approximately 7.57 acres and 5.78 acres, respectively, and are developed with
single-family residences. The site coverage of the two existing homes, patios, and
driveway is 38,855 square feet.
The site is moderately sloped, ascending east from Los Trancos Road to the top of a
ridgeline. The segrnent of the site that is located on the western side of Los Trancos Road
descends slightly down hill toward Los Trancos Creek. A small perennial unnamed
tributary to Los Trancos Creek crosses through this portion of the site. This tributary
passes through the site in a south to north direction with the confluence with Los Trancos
Creek occurring north of the site. Elevations range from 550 feet to 712 feet above sea
level and the habitats on site consist of non-native annual grassland, natural perennial
grassland, coast live oak wood, southern coastal scrub, riparian vegetation, and urban and
suburban environments. Both existing homes are located on the western facing hillside
and are bordered by lawn, shrubs, oak trees, and ornamental plants.
The adjoining properties are developed single family residential parcels that are also
zoned and designated as Open Space.
Project Description
The project includes the removal of two existing homes and 13,025 square feet of the
existing driveway area. The applicant proposes to retain 11,292 square feet of asphalt
driveway. The construction of a new single family house and detached guest cottage requires
the two parcels to be merged into one parcel.
The applicant proposes 34,466 square feet of impervious coverage including a 9,274 square
foot building footprint for the main residence and related site improvements. The 1,096
square foot guest cottage would include an attached carport to cover one car. The guest
cottage does not include a kitchen and therefore, is not considered a second dwelling unit and
does not require a conditional use permit. The gnest cottage is considered an accessory
facility that is permitted. A swimming pool and tennis court are also proposed. The basement
includes an underground gymnasium. Living areas are proposed on the main level and on the
610 Los Trancos Road Page 2
upper level (illustrated on page 3 of the Development Plans, Attachment H). The maximum
height of the main residence as measured from the midpoint of the roof would be 25 feet
above finished grade. The applicant proposes that the new portion of the di-iveway and motor
court consist of 10,917 square feet of permeable paving such as "eco-stones".
DISCUSSION
The primary issue with the proposed project is the amount of impervious coverage.
Although the applicant is proposing to reduce the amount of impervious coverage from
38,855 square feet to 34,466 square feet, it would exceed the 3.5% allowed for a single
lot in the Open Space District. Section 18.71.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC) limits impervious coverage in the OS zone district to 3.5% of the total lot size.
The project site is 581,394 square feet allowing for a maximum 20,348 of impervious
area, where 34,466 square feet of impervious area is proposed. The applicant has applied
for a variance (02-VAR-10) to exceed the maximum allowable impervious area by 14,118
square feet (.32 acres).
The existing development on the two parcels, when combined, currently exceeds the
maximum allowable coverage by 18,507 square feet. The impervious coverage of each
existing residence and common driveway is as follows:
610 & 620 Los Trancos Road
Building Footprints ... 7,972 square feet
Patios .................... 7,311 square feet
Common Driveway (asphalt). 23,572 square feet
Total ...............................38,855 square feet (.89 acres)
The proposed development would have the following areas of impervious coverage:
610 Los Trancos Road
Building Footprints ..........10,370 square feet
Patios ..........................5,474 square feet
Tennis Court .................7,329 square feet
Asphalt Driveway ............11,292 square feet
Total ............................34,466 square feet (.79 acres)
Although the proposed impervious coverage on the site would be reduced by the proposed
driveway area reduction (13,025 square feet), the other proposed improvements result in
610 Los Trancos Road Page 3
the impervious coverage exceeding the allowed 3.5% by 14,118 square feet. The
applicants have submitted a variance application for the additional coverage.
Three findings must be made to support a Variance Request. If any one of the three
findings cannot be made in support of the variance it cannot be approved. Staff believes
only one of the required three follo~d.ng findings can be made in support of the variance.
1.There are n_.qo exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the properO~ involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district.
The new residence and site improvements would be constructed in the same general
location as the existing house at 620 Los Trancos Road. The depth of the site requires
an approximately 720 feet long driveway to provide access to this building site. This
driveway covers 23,572 square feet of the site. The existing dri. "veway area alone
exceeds the maximum allowable lot coverage of 3.5% (20,348 square feet). To reduce
the impervious coverage of the driveway, the top portion of the driveway (13,025
square feet) that branches off to provide access to the existing homes would be
removed. "Eco-stone" pavers would be used for the reconfigured portion of the
driveway, the required fire department turnouts, and the driveway for the guesthouse.
There are no physical constraints preventing the rest of the driveway or other proposed
impervious area from being replaced with pavers or other permeable surfaces. This
can be done while providing adequate wet surface traction for emergency vehicles.
This would reduce the lot coverage by 11,292 square feet.
The granting of the application is no___t necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantialproperty right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property
loss or unnecessary hardship.
The size and depth of the site requires a long driveway that is necessary for access
however, the variance request for additional site coverage for the preservation of a
portion of the existing impervious driveway is not necessary. However, the entire
asphalt driveway can be replaced with a permeable surface as can other proposed site
improvements that are contributing to the excessive lot coverage.
o The granting of the application will not be injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general
welfare, or convenience.
The City’s review of the proposed project included the preparation of an Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration to address any potential environmental impacts
related to the project, and mitigation measures have been designed to reduce any
610 Los Trancos Road Page 4
potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Further, the proposed
project must be constructed and operated in compliance with all applicable health and
safety regulations. Although the asphalt and other proposed impervious surfaces
could be engineered to prevent environmental damage from runoff, it is not necessary
to do so because permeable surfaces can be used that allow for percolation into the
soil.
Conditions are proposed for the project that will ensure conformance with the
impervious coverage limit.
Other Zoning Requirements:
The Open Space zoning district contains the following regulations for individual
properties: (1) a minimum required lot area often acres, (2) a maximum impervious area
and building coverage of 3.5 percent, and (3) a maximum height limit of 25-feet. The
project with conditions as proposed by staff, would meet all zoning code requirements, as
demonstrated in the following Table (Table 2):
TABLE 2
PROPOSED PROJECT & CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS
610 Los Trancos Road
Standard
impervious area &
building coverage
maximum
size of site
Zoning Code
total site
3.5 % of 13 acres
(20,348 square
feet)
Proposed
34,466 sq.ft.
Conformance
Does not conform.
Variance Requested by
applicant but not
recommended by staff.
10 acres conforms
maximum height*25 feet conforms
standard setbacks
parking
13.347 acres
25 feet
more than 30’
30 feet
more than 30’
5 covered
front - 30 feet
side - 30 feet
rear - 30 feet
3 spaces
(2 covered,
1 uncovered)
Conforms
Conforms
610 Los Trancos Road Page 5
* 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.
Site and Design Review Finding~
Approval of the project also requires the following site and design findings to be made
(PAMC 18.82.055):
The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly,
harrnonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby
sites. The proposed residence would be seen from the Portola Ranch in Portola Valley
and the Blue Oaks Development. To mitigate this visibility, earth tone building
materials were selected to blend with the surroundings. The materials include natural
stone, integral color plaster walls, and a slate roof. Substantial native Oak trees
surround the project and help to screen the building and hardscape as viewed from off
site. The plantings on the site include an irrigated lawn area on the north side of the
site, providing a transition between the development and native grass areas. The
proposed building and pathway lighting would be low voltage and all light sources
would be screened to not be visible from off site.
The p~vject is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or
the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent area. The project will maintain desirability of
investment in the same and adjacent areas, the proposed design and size of the
residence and related site improvements are generally consistent with the existing
residences on Los Trancos Road, and the construction of all improvements will be
governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building
Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development.
Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in
construction of the project.
The project has been designed to minimize the visibility as viewed from off site.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and would be
implemented with any approval to mitigate impacts on biological resources, protected
trees, and geotechnical stability.
The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal as conditioned complies with the policies of the Land Use and
Community Design and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive
610 Los Trancos Road Page 6
Plan. The project proposal meets the Open Space Development Criteria and the intent
of the Comprehensive plan regarding development in designated open space areas.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
1998-2010 Compreh ensive Plan
Policy L-1 of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the City of Palo
Alto to retain undeveloped land west of the Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as
open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the
open space character of the area. The project site is west of the Foothill Freeway and is
located within the City’s Urban Service Area (map L-2 of the Comprehensive Plan). The
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Open
Space/Controlled Development and one residence is permitted on the project site.
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Policies N-l, N-3, N-4, N-6, N-7 are applicable to this
project. Program N-6 calls for the installation of "story poles" for development that
exceeds 6,500 square feet. Story poles have been installed.
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria
The Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria will be used by the Planning
Commission and City Council to evaluate the proposed project. These criteria are set
forth below, followed by analyses of the project’s compliance with them:
The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from
view. The proposed construction would not be visible from Los Trancos Road, but
could be seen from the Portola Ranch in Portola Valley, from the Blue Oaks
Development and from Vista Point in Foothill Park. Existing and relocated oak
trees would provide screening vegetation to partially screen the structures and
access driveways from views from off site. The trees would soften views of the
development, as shown on the visual study submitted with the application. The
visual impact of the homes would also be minimized by the use of earth tone
colors and natural building materials. The model and story poles will assist in a
visual determination by the Planning Commission and City Council as to the
impact of the proposed development.
Development should be located away fi’om hilltops and designed to not extend
above the nearest ridgeline. The footprint of the proposed residence and
guesthouse are not located on top of the nearest ridge. The story poles will assist
members of the Planning Commission and City Council in their evaluation.
610 Los Trancos Road Page 7
Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and
views of neighboring properties. The size of the site and extensive vegetation of
the area will mitigate views of the proposed structures from adjacent properties.
Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area
surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce
f’agmentation of natural habitats. The mass of the home is set into and along the
natural contours of the site. The site improvements are generally clustered
together. The tennis court is set apart from the other improvements. The driveway
and other site improvements will be constructed of permeable materials wherever
necessary to meet impervious coverage limitations.
Built fo~s and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building
lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear
naturaljS"om a distance. The building footprint and below grade floor level, which
roughly follow the slope of the knoll, are responsive to the natural topography.
Formal landscaping would be limited to the immediate area of the residence and
guesthouse. The landscape plan provides for additional tree plantings to increase
the natural screening provided from the existing oak trees. The landscape plan
provides ample tree plantings to provide screening where feasible.
Existing trees with a circumference of 3 7. 5 inches, measured 4.5feet above the
ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing
vegetation should be retained as much as possible. No healthy trees are to be
removed from the site. The Arborist Report has been evaluated by the City’s
Planning Arborist, who has recommended the removal of one diseased oak tree; to
be replaced by either (a) four 24-inch box size trees or, (b) t~vo 48-inch box size
trees.
Cut is encouraged when it is necessao~’ 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 garages and basement areas are encouraged, because they enable
development to blend into the naturaI topography. The cuts proposed to the rear of
the residence wi!l provide level outdoor recreation areas that will be screened by
the existing natural vegetation that surrounds the site. The fill is to be minimized
and will be used to level out the driveway slope for smoother access. Filt will not
be placed in the dripline of any existing tree. The grading for the guesthouse will
be limited to provide a level building area. The guesthouse will not be visible from
off site.
610 Los Trancos Road Page 8
To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, fiat
expanses of impervious suJfaces should be avoided. Impervious surfaces are used
only where necessary and will remain within the 3.5% allowed.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural
building materials in earthtones are proposed. All proposed building materials are
natural, in earth tone colors that wi!l blend with the surroundings with the
exception of the slate roof that is proposed to be "aquamarine" in color. A
condition of approval is reconmaended to change the color of the roof to a natural
or earthtone color. The applicant will bring samples of all exterior materials to the
meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission for their review and
recommendation.
]2.
Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation.
Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as afire
prevention technique. An extensive native planting plan and irrigation plan is
proposed. The conditions of approval would ensure the use of fire retardant plants
in the final landscape design.
Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded fi"om view so it is not
directly visiblef!’om off-sire. The hardscape and landscape 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 landscape lights to be directed down to avoid any impact upon
surrounding property and open space lands.
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 shared access driveway is composed of asphalt, which
will be changed to a permeable surface.
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 Iimits and meets the O-S (Open Space) District zoning regulations.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of the Commission hearing for this project proposal was provided by
publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property.
~,,~ers and "~’°;’q’~"~ ....m.~.. 300 feet ~ ~’~’ "............... ~o~ mc project site were mailed a neanng notice card.
TIMELINE
If the Commission recommends approval or approval with conditions,
6!0 Los Trancos Road
the project
Pa~e 9
applications will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Architectural Review
Board (ARB) approval is not required for singly developed single-family residences. The
guest cottage is not considered a single-family residence so no ARB re~)iew is required.
ENWIRONIVIENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to enviromnental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environnaental impact assessment was prepared for
the project and determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no
potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would
have a tess than significant impact on the envirormaent. The Negative Declaration was made
available for public review be~nning May 7 2003 through May 28, 2003 (and extended to
June 3 to give interested parties sufficient time to review environmental documents), and is
attached to this staff report (Attachment C).
ATTACHMENTS~XHIBITS:
Attachment
Attacl~nent
Attachment
Attachment
Attacl~r~ent
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
A: Location Map
B:Applicant’s Variance Request Statement
C:Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment
(attachments B-F of the report are located in the Planning Division).
D: Findings for Approval, Site & Design Review
E:Findings for Denial, Variance
F:Findings for Open Space Criteria
G:Conditions of Approval
H:Plans for current project (Commissioners only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Tom Jakway
Bunker Trust
John Lerch, Lerch Construction
Prepared by: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP~ Manager of Current Planning
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
610 Los Trancos Road Page !0
Attachment F
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
VERBATIM MINUTES
JULY 9, 2003
DRAFT EXCERPT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
UNFINISHED B USINESS.
Public Hearings:
610 Los Trancos Road*: [02-D-05; 02-EIA10] Application by Tom Jakway, on behalf
of the Bunker Trust, for Site and Desigaa Review- for the construction of a new single
family residence and guest cottage on approximately 13.35 acres within the Open Space
Zoning District. The 23,173 square foot project includes a 9,274 square foot building
footprint and related site improvements. The 1,096 square foot detached ga~est cottage
includes an attached carport without kitchen facilities. Environmental Assessment: An
initial study has been prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in
accordance with CEQA guidelines. File Numbers: 02-D-05, 02-EIA-10. SR Weblink:
htm://www.citv~f~a~a~t~.~r~--/citva~enda2pub~ish/p~annin~-transp~rtati~n-meetin ~s/2184.pdf
Chair Bialson: Our fist item is under Unfinished Business with regard to 610 Los Trancos Road.
Vice Chair Griffin, do you have something to say?
Commissioner Griffin: Chair Bialson, I must recuse myself from this discussion. I must
disclose that my employer the JS Cole Company is potentially a significant supplier to this
project.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Would Staff make a presentation, please?
Ms. Lisa Grote. ChiefPlannin~ Official: Thank you Chair Bialson and Commissioners. This is
follow up review from the original Site and Design that you conducted on May 28 of this year.
There were approximately .ten items that you asked the applicant to evaluate and come back with
additional information or modifications for you tonight. Those were outlined in your Staff
Report. Briefly they are evaluating the visibility, and the massing of the north wing. The
applicant did revise that north facing north wing and they did stair-step or step back the second
floor so that they have reduced some of the mass on that north w~.g. They did reduce the
glazing on the north wing by about 30 square feet, from about 180 square feet to about 150
square feet. You also asked for additional detail on the cut and fill and the applicant has
provided that in Attachment A to your Staff Report. Briefly they raised the grass area and the
reduced the depth of the basement. As a resuk they reduced the amount of cut by about 4,780
cubic yards. They did submit a transportation and logistics plan showing how that would be
removed from the site and that was also included in the attachments to your Staff Report. There
were also details showing the location and the cut sheets for the lighting that you requested.
Those were submitted and were attached to your Staff Report. In addition you asked for some
additional information on the air conditioning units and the noise analysis of those units. The
applicant is considering two different air conditioning systems and has not made a final decision
yet but has committed to having either one of those systems *._hat are chosen meet the Noise
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22,,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ordinance as required by the Municipal Code. That can become a condition of project approval
that whichever system is selected would be required to meet the Noise Ordinance and would be
reviewed by Staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
In addition you asked for greater detail on the green construction techniques to be incorporated
into the plan. The applicant has provided that information. In addition you asked for
information about the lawn area, the irrigation systems and plant material. Those have been
submitted. The lawn area has been reduced by about 25% that was shown on Sheet 3 of your
new drawing, the revised drawings. There is a section of the la~vn area on the northern portion of
what had been the bigger lawn area that has been removed. They also used a very sophisticated
irrigation system that will help reduce the amount of water that is needed to irrigate the site.
There was also information requested about the deconstruction of the houses that currently exist
on the site and the applicant has provided you information on that. They will be wor "king with
the ~Vhole House Building Salvage Company in East Palo Alto to salvage portions of the
existing two houses on the site. Then finally you did ask for revised colors and material samples
and the applicant is prepared to present those to you tonight.
Today several questions were raised about the location of the new house. It is not located on a
high point or the ridge of the site. It is located on a knoll in an already disturbed area of the site
that is between the houses, where the two houses are located now. It is in a little knoll area
between those two houses so it is not on the ridgeline. It is very minimally visible from Windy
Hill. The applicants have gone to ~eat len~h to preserve all of the protected trees on this site
and as a result of that the visibility from Windy Hill is ve~; minimal. They can probably address
that more in their presentation to you as well. There were some questions asked about the gym
allowed in the plan. Private gyms are allowed in this OS district. They cannot be commercial
recreation gyms, they can’t be rented out, but they can certainly be used by the occupant of the
house and any invited guests that they would like to have. There were questions raised about the
pool fencing and the safety aspects of the pool. We have checked with the Building Division and
the Uniform Building Code requirements on that. As long as the site is fenced the pool does not
have to have separate fencing around it as long as the entire site is fenced, which this one is
proposed to be. There does need to be an internal security system for the doors that lead out to
the pool area. There has to be an alarm on those doors so that if they are opened the occupants of
the house know that for safety concerns. There were also questions raised again about the lawn
area and that has been reduced by about 25%. With that we are recommending approval of this
Site and Desig-n application and the negative declaration. Dave Dockter is here if you have
questions about the landscaping or tree plans. The applicant is here to address these issues as
well.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Are there any questions by Commissioners before we hear from the
applicant? Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: First oi" all Chair Bialson I would like to disclose for the record that I
did meet with the applicant and Christopher Riordan at my office to speak about the revisions to
the project.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
]
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
3O
3!
32
34
35
Do
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
Commissioner Packer: I visited the site this afternoon with Chris Riordan. I haven’t spoken
with the applicant.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Do you have an?, disclosures, Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: Not since the last meeting.
Chair Bialson: Karen? Pat? Same with me. I think we will hear from the applicant now. You
will have 15 minutes.
b’k. Tom Jakwav. A~olicam. 382 E1 Porta!. Palm Sorin~s: Thank you. I am not going to go over
the basic background of the project because I think we did that well last time. If there are any
questions a5er I am done feel free to let me "know if you need any more background on any of
the basic things that we did to organize the project originally.
\\rna~ I would like to do is address specifically each of the ten items so that you can und,.rstana
clearly what we have done to hopefully mitigate these to your approval.
First of a!! on the redesig-n of the north wing of the house vve looked at a couple of different
aspects. One is chan~ng the massing of the building. This is a photo of the model that was
made thaz shows the house before we changed the design. You can see tha~ there is a large two
story dement right in that area that is unbroken by roofing. To the right of that there are
windows that don’t have overhang over them they are just in a large fa,cade of the building.
Below that vve had a rounded element on the master bedroom wing that projected out and had
really no overhang at al!. It was just an eyebrow of a roof vdth curved windows. We have
changed ~ose thi-ee portions o, th,. building.
This nex~ photo is of the revised design. You can see that now the. second s*ory wail has been
setback about four feet from the first story wall so it enables us to take a section of roof across
that area to separate that taller expanse of wall and give us a ~ice shadow line in -&e ~vo different
areas. The large vdndow to the right that previously vvas just exposed now has a roof over it that
can also shade the window and break up tha.: tall fa,cade. Then down off the bedroom vve totally
e!iminamd that rotm, ded bay and I did a smaller rectangular bay that projects out from the
be,aroom. It also ,mao!ed me to take the gable roof and extend ~+~ substantially out in front of the
w~dow. So it puts a much deeper overhang over that window. Also by eliminating the rounded
portion of the glass I thir~k it wi!! cut do,~vn on the i-effectivity of the glass because we have the
flaker portions now. ,~dso as rounded curved glass it has to be a single pane of glass. Now
because it is in strai~t sections it can be the dual pane glass that is a heat insulated g!ass and can
also be the low-E glass, which has a very !ow reflectivity to it. So that w:h improve k both in its
reflective quality and ks energy e~ciency. The final thing we did is in the bottom comer of the
building we are proposing to build planter walls using the stone that we excavate fromt,_,.
excavation. The comment before was that if we planted trees againsZ tha~ side of the building
because ~1,.~ ~a~, ,~."os ~I~,~,~,,~ ~,~a,~ a *~ *~-, *~ ] -~ +’~ away ~---" ~h~. v,,,~; ........ bit
lower than the bui!din~ and *&e canopy of the tree isn’t veu #~’"-=e~._<,.n v., f~r shielding tha~ view.
build~g this p!mn~er in that section we are able to raise ~e dirt right up to the floor ievel of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
house so that when we plant a tree instead of being down-slope it will be at the level of the house
and then that tree canopy can be a significant effect to shielding that view of the house from
offsite.
The second item regarding the cut and fill, one item I want to make sure is not misunderstood is
where it says the play field will be raised 12 inches. We aren’t raising it from an existing grade.
We have proposed to lower it four feet now we are only going to lower it three feet. So it is stil!
going to be somewhat lower than the existing ~ade but by lowering it less we had generated less
cut that we will have to take off the site. That same thing applies to the tennis court.
The issue of the stone that we are going to excavate is something that is tough to finalize right
now. What we are hoping to do is when that stone is excavated is to be able to look at it and
hopefully determine that we can use a lot of that onsite for planter walls and in the landscaping
and potentially depending on the quality and quantity and character of the stone would intend to
consider using it on the building instead of the cultured stone that we had proposed. So right
now we want to submit the material board with the cultured stone but "kno~ving that we would
intend to look at the stone we excavate, see how much we get and if we could use it as a building
material. In any case we will definitely use it on planter walls and in the landscaping around the
project as much as feasible.
The transportation and logistics plan the contractor, John Lerch, worked with people at the Ci~
and came up with a plan that is included in this document. I think if there are any specific
questions afterwards John or Christopher from their office would be better able to answer those
for you.
On number four regarding the lighting I provided cut sheets that show the type of lighting that
we are providing. All of it has the light source shielded and it is down lighting, meaning that is
not shining out or up into the sky or trees. I also provided a revised plan. We had previously
submitted a plan showing the landscape lighting. This new plan I submitted shows specifically
the lighting that is attached to the building so we can see the quantity and locations of all of that.
As I said previously the majority of the exterior ligahting is on the inside character of the house
which is away from the view of the mountains. The house itself is shielding the pool area and
outdoor entertainment area and it is a just a very small quantity of lighting that would be on some
of the decks on the side that faces Windy Hill and people looking from off-property into the site.
Regarding the acoustical performance of the air conditioning system as Staff said we haven’t
selected the specific system. So we have a~eed that when that system is selected at that time we
will do the acoustical reports that show that we can comply with the Noise Ordinances of the
City.
Number seven and number eight are kind of a similar issue regarding the quantity of lawn, the
amount of water in the landscaping and the type of planting that we are proposing. We have
done a couple of things. One is we have reduced the size of the play field that we do intend to
ant wi*& a ~ass that is mowed and not o "o’; ....... We have --~ .... ~ the slL~ ~,~ ~,,~ about
25% and it is only around 5,000 square feet of the tota! area. All the other lawns that were off of
the play field area and that portion of the play field that we have reduced we have switched the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
2~
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
material and are using a native ~ass mix that our landscape architect and Dave Dockter from the
City have been working with the supplier to get a mix that is drought tolerant and of native
~asses. Most of the other landscaping that we have, the vast majority of the other landscaping
that we have, is drought tolerant and either native or very appropriate to mix with the native
material. We have also investigated and found a sprinkler system to use in the lawn area that is
an under~ound irrigation system that is very similar to a drip system. It basically soaks the soil
at the root level so that there is no spray in the air and that eliminates the evaporation from the
spray and the over-spray that would leave the actual area that we are intending to irrigate and
would keep it very concentrated to where it needs to be.
Color board materials are over here. The f~rst thing on the right is the roofing material and that is
a slate. It is a mixture of three different colors of state. One is called fern green, one is china
~ay and one is English gay. The blend gives a nice mottling effect almost a kind of a
camouflaging effect if you will and by getting that variety of colors it takes the consistency a~vay
and gives it a little more character to it. Next to that is the plaster sample and next to the plaster
sample is the stone sample. The stone is actually laid on top of the plaster. What you see behind
the stone is that same plaster sample. The plaster is an integral color where the color pigment is
mixed into the plaster, it is not a paint, and that is rubbed on the wall. Any cracks or failures in
the plaster and the same co!or shows through. It also gives a certain mottling character to the
color as it is applied. You don’t get that very monochromatic look that you get from paint. So
you it gives the building a little more of an aged look and a little less of a new- feel. The stone
sample is a manufactured material from E1 Dorado Stone and it is a color blend again of different
pieces. That is the actual size of the pieces and the blend of the pieces that would be used.
Then the last item was the deconstruction of the house and there is a lot of information in here
about the company that the building contractor has discussed. We are kind of at an advantage
here in that the client’s have already contracted with a specific contractor so we know a lot of
these issues and are able to be very specific about now. He has talked with a company who does
this as a business and they inventory things, offer them on their website, things are then
purchased and literally people come to the property remove them. Pieces that haven’t been sold
that way are taken to their warehouse or yard and most of them sold there over time. Things that
are not totally usable are being taken to a materials recovery facility that does process most of
that for recycling. Again, those questions the builder can answer more specifically if you do
have questions about that.
Lastly, not that it is on the ten items that we have on the list but it was mentioned in the
Commission’s discussion at the end of the meeting last time regarding the siting of the house on
top of the hill. One of the photos we have here shows from Windy Hill looking back towards the
house. Yes, we are near the top of our lot but we definitely not a ridgeline location and not a top
of the hill. You can see there are three or four other houses still going further up the hil! behind
this project that are quite visible on the hill. We are as I say towards the top of our site but it is
definitely not the top of the hill that this particular lot is located on. That leads me into the
second item, which was a discussion that the Commissioners had regarding the appropriateness
of tNs location versus somewhere e!se onsite. I ~-~k that to discuss it as if nothing had ever
been built there really isn’t appropriate becaus~ these .two existing houses are there and the
driveway is there. So to suggest that maybe another siting down the hill that might be less
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
visible would be appropriate I think isn’t necessarily a realistic option for us. The two existing
houses have taken away existing vegetation and created cuts and altering of the terrain of the
site. So we are just reusing that same disturbed area now for this new house. The driveway as
you know is existing. We are not going to enlarge it, we are not going to change its location, ;ve
are just going to remove the existing paving which is impervious and add the pervious Eco-stone
paving that will satisfy the coverage requirements from the City. This picture shows our new
project overlaid on top of where the two existing houses had been. I think it is a good
illustration. The upper house to the right is so visible compared to our project and most of the
trees on our project shield the glass of the new house. Finally, any other siting downhill or on
another part of the site would be on a steeper portion of the site and would definitely require
removal, even for a very small house, remova! of existing landscape. So I think in any situation
the house for this particular lot would be located in this area.
That’s my presentation and I am happy to answer any questions people might have.
Chair Bialson: Is there anyone else who is going to speak on behalf of the applicant?
Mr. Jakwav: Only if you have questions for specific things about the deconstruction or
transportation and things.
Chair Bialson: Fine. Do Commissioners have questions? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think I have three questions. When I compare the most recently
provided plans with the earlier plans I don’t see the reduction of the 25% of the lawn area. I
know it is on page three but I am overlooking that somehow.
Mr. Jakwav: Unfortunately our landscape architect isn’t here but it is in the shape or outline of
the lawn. Also there is a significan~ lawn area that was removed that was down by the tennis
court and some lawn area by the pool that was also removed to create that 25% reduction.
Ms. Grote: The tennis court was slightly relocated into what had been a lawn area previously.
So the area that was removed was -kind of looked like a little tail that was coming off this
existing lawn area to the north of that area, to the northern part of the site.
Commissioner Holman: I have to tell you on the drawing it looks very, much the same to me. I
am just not seeing it. Maybe our architect onboard could help with that.
The deconstruction, how- long is Whole House Building being allowed to do the sale and
deconstruction?
tVm Jakwav: I don’t know that we have given them a specific timeframe. They put the materials
on their website and then the sale onsite is a weekend when people come who have bid online
and have purchased items. Then it is deconstructed and then they come in afterwards and
remove the remainder.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
3O
32
34
35
DO
37
38
39
40
4t
42
43
45
Commissioner Holman: I am well familiar with their process I just want to make s~e that it
wasn’t just a weekend for instance that they were going to be altowed. They do have the sale on
a weekend but then there should be another couple of weeks probably for them to be able to
deconstmct. Okay¯
Chair Bialson: If there is any discussion could you please us a microphone.
Mr. Jakwav: Yes, that will be the process that is used. They will have time after the weekend to
deconstruct, whatever tLme they need.
Commissioner Holman: Then the siting, I am going to hold that question and listen to the other
Commissioners first. Thank you.
Chair Bia!son: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the height. It was explained to me today that in
the O/S district the 25-foot height limit is taken by deterrcdriing the average height of the whole
structure.
Mr. Jakwav: No. At any poin~ on the site the height has to be measured from the ~ade at that
point to the centerline of the pitched roof. Maybe Staffcan be more specific about that.
Ms. Grote: That is correct. In the O/S district we can measure height in sections¯ So it allows
the house to be desi~mled to -ldnd of stair-step into a Nllside and w_inirnize the impact¯ So you
measttre the height in sections. So one section you would measure from the midpoint of the roof
down to the finish gade then the next section of the house you would measure from the midpoint
of the roof down to its finished gade. So you don’t look at it as a whole you look at it in
s%q-nents or sections depending on how it is designed¯
Commissioner Packer: So you take the average of the sections? Is there any part that is over 25
feet?
Ms. Grote: There is no part that is over 25 feet¯ There is no individual section thav is over 25
feet. It is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinar_ce.
Chair Bialson: Joe. Did you have some more Bomnie? Joe.
Cowanissioner Bel!omo: Obviously that is from grade, correct?
t asked you tbfis question at my office. Regarding *die use of this bedrock, and it might go to
Dave Dock~er, uhis idea o~ u:fl~zing t~e stone ~rom the site genera~eo from this cut utilizing that
for building materials mid onsite. First of al! I wait to ask you is it really going to be a
consideration to use this stone as you find i’~ is usable versus a cultured stone on the bulldog?
~. Jakwav: Yes. vdthout question. As i ~.-qid defim:r.e!v to -~.~ ;,* in n~o-,,=~ wails mid in
¯~¯l~ ¯
~l~dscape !~ems bu~ then hope~hy to use it on the b ~,dln_ as we see the quality of the s~one.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DO
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Bellomo: I will also ask Dave this question. Have you checked regarding the
utilization of this stone in the landscape? Comprehensive Plan calls for the natural setting and I
am not familiar with this stone outcropping often. It is really not an indigenous material. What
are your ideas on this?
Mr. Jak‘‘vav: That is why I hesitate a bit until we get a quantity. Even if we were to dig a test
hole and pull up four or tive pieces I think until we see what a ~oup of it looks like it will be
hard to say. It might be jagged gray ~anite that is best used on a breakwv-ater because it just has
no appeal or no character or it might be that it comes off in stones that appear very natural and
very appropriate to use onsite. It might be that it shatters into little pieces as we bring it up and
we don’t end up with much in the way of rocks and we end up with more in the way of small
stone.
Commissioner Bellomo: What is the depth of it now? Have you done the geological test?
Mr. Jak~vav: We don’t know where the bottom of it is but we ~know the top of it is as close as six
feet in some areas.
Commissioner Bellomo: And you have done no exploratory look at this bedrock and what you
are dealing with and how you remove it?
Mr. Jakwav: No, no other than just knowing where it is and the fact that when they did the
borings for the soils testing it stopped the material. It wasn’t soft enough that their augers could
get through it.
Commissioner Bellomo: The intention is to bore through it for piers w-hen it comes down or
would you set your foundations on the bedrock?
Mr. Jak~vav: Probably both. In the gymnasium area a large quantity of it will be removed to
create the void that the ~-mnasium will be built in. That will be the majority of the stone that is
removed from the site. On the other portion where the house is sitting basically on an
undisturbed area then I don’t think it will be piers if it is as deep as six feet. Then it will
probably be more like a slab on gade or foundations on gade.
Commissioner Bellomo: The other question regarding, well I will go to the lawn area. Was
there a calculation?
Mr. Jakwav: There was a definite calculation and if necessary we can do just an overlay that
shows you the ori~nal plan and the new plan. I don’t have that in my hands but we could get it
to you tomorrow.
Commissioner Bellomo: Was there an actual square footage calculation of lawn area on the
plan?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Jakwav: I don’t know if it is on the plan but it is in the report that we submitted to the City
on the second submittal. It wasn’t in the first submittal.
Commissioner Bellomo: As far as the green features of the building would those be included in
the construction documents? Would they be part of the construction documents as you go
through this?
Mr. Jak~vav: Yes. The things that we can specifically certainly identify as far as building
materials, types of things for the steel, the wood, the cabinets, yes. Then just as a general
building philosophy that would apply too for recycling of materials offsite and things that aren’t
specifically specified now but we would still be selecting that we ~vould use that as our
philosophy.
Commissioner Bellomo: My final question on the acoustic issues, mitigation for this mechanical
equipment, is it your intention no matter what systems you use whether it is an H-VAC system or
a Chiller system that you would build a sound barrier? t didn’t see an analysis of kind of the
acoustic angles off of this wall in the plan.
Mr. Jakwav: We certainly would do sound attenuation because the person it is going to effect
the most is my client because they are immediately adjacent to it. They are going to want it to be
quiet.
Commissioner Bellomo: Of course uphill where the sound is traveling. Is that being
considered?
M_r. Jakwav: That would be part of our study and our design. As an example if we went to a
Chiller system we ~vould probably put at least six to eight feet of that in a pit with a six foot wall
approximately to shield the rest and then with sound attenuation panels within that it becomes a
very effective way to shield the sound.
Commissioner Bellomo: So ~at is a proposal?
Mr. Jakwav: If we go to that sort of system, yes.
Commissioner Bellomo: Multiple H-VAC systems, box systems, will generate as much sound.
Mr. Jakwav: They well could but because they are a much smaller and individual sort of unit it
might be that they don’t all end up in one spot on the property. So we would be looking at noise
in different locations and in different quantities.
Commissioner Be!!omo: I see, so you would spread them out around the site.
Mr. Jak~vav: Most likely.
Commissioner Bellomo: I see so you would not have one area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Jakwav: It is shown right now just as one area because really we don’t "know what we are
doing. We just wanted to get it on the plan to a certain quantity but those areas would have to be
located.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: My question primarily has to do with the impact of the fencing around the
entire perimeter of the 14-acre site and how that may effect wildlife movement. We have this as
an open space area and have provisions to protect the native habitat and yet if we have fencing
that prohibits wildlife movement we have defeated part of the purpose: So can you let us ~know
more details on that fencing and how wildlife would be able to move in and out of the natural
vegetation area?
Mr. Jakwav: The fencing exists now. It has been up for a number of years. There is deer and
bobcat and all kinds of other animals that we have seen onsite. So it is an existing condition in
reality.
Commissioner Burt: Do you have a sense of if it is a continuous fence how do the deer move?
Mr. Jak~’av: Either up and over it or under it but they get around it.
Commissioner Burt: It is what height and does it go all the way down to the ground?
Mr. Jakwav: Yes, it is probably five to six feet. It varies a bit based on the topogaphy. It
surrounds the whole site and then there are motorized gates at the driveway entry.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: I would like to follow up with Dave Dockter on environmental issues
relating to the use of the bedrock for planting wa!ls if you could speak to that.
Mr. Dave Dockter. City Arborist: Yes. In thinking about using any material for planters
specifically if it was going to occupy oak trees or a heavy tree as it gows older that would have
to be engineered fill and designed in lifts and really looked at carefully. If it is exclusively
ganite it would probably offer good drainage however it would have to be engineered to have a
portion of top soil to replicate the existing conditions. That is something I have not looked at
yet. It is doable if there was a fill area to occupy plants such as trees. Smaller shrubbery and
vegetation I don’t think would be much of an issue and have to have of course some amendments
added to it to replicate the area.
Commissioner Bellomo: What is your take, Dave, on this outcropping coming out into the site in
_oeneral9 Have yon seen this done before ~ you are ,.~ava~l~g be&-ock ~ ~; 1matc~ai -,ith quite a
deep excavation and utilizing this granite, this rock, within the !andscape?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 Mr. Dockter: It is doable as far as adding a knoll or creating a new contour. In essence that is
2 what it is doing. It would have to be blended so it looks like it is part of the natural terrain. That
3 could be done, yes, and it is done quite a bit on large parcels that are relandscaped and
4 recontoured. We are doing it not too far away from this project. A second layer of that would be
5 the engineering of it. Is it going to be stable to handle things over the long term and would it
support the grasses and not erode? That is an engineering question and a soils engineer could
desig-n that adequately. I am not too worried about that.
Commissioner Bellomo: Can you talk about any other issues around the environment that the
applicants made in regards to in your opinion how they have moved and sculpted the house in
relationship to the natural environment?
Mr. Dockter: Yes. Since the first application that came through there was the assumption that
many trees would be removed and could be removed. In flagging the Comprehensive Plan and
our Municipal Code they have recontoured the house quite a bit, significantly, and actually
removed some rooms to retain a few oak trees that are very critical frankly in my own opinion in
screening from the Portola Valley side. So they have done everything that we have asked them
to do in protecting the trees that are existing onsite and in relocating some of the smaller trees.
I might point out that there is one very unusual and innovative aspect that they have designed
into this project to support again one critical tree screen oak tree. They have designed an
underground irrigation system to replicate the aquifer, if you will, during the winter rains that
travel along that base rock area. That is a very fine job on custom crafting and tailoring to the
existing conditions. I am really, really stoked to see that they have taken that measure and been
able to support that.
Chair Bialson: Thank you, Dave. Do you have any more questions? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: This is a follow up Dave to what you just mentioned about the
excavation and the recontouring and regarding of the property and that it should be done
according to sound soil engineering principles. I don’t know if that is the right phrase but I was
looking in the conditions and is that something that would be appropriate to put in the conditions
of approval that the regarding be done in accordance with whatever is the equivalent of
acceptable accounting principles or acceptable soil engineering principles so that it is restored
appropriately?
Mr. Dockter: Yes, that would be an appropriate condition to add to specific!lly address any fill
that would over a certain height, t~vo or three feet, should have an engineers’ soils report with it
and the landscape architect should address its capacity to ~ow things whether it is a tree or
shrubbery.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you. Any other questions before we go to the pubtic? Yes.
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question of the architect. !* ......... ’~’"~"* on those .... v ...... ;~" issues ~"’÷~,~ it
had to do with how large this motor court circle is. What is the diameter of that? ! Know it has
to be 36 feet to meet the Fire Department’s requirements.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
Mr. Jakwav: It is what the fire truck needed and I don’t remember ri~ht off the top of my head,
I’m sorry.
Commissioner Cassel: But it seemed to be larger than that.
Mr. Jakwav: I believe it is a 36-foot but I am not sure and I don’t want to mislead you. We
could measure it.
Commissioner Cassel: You could measure it and give me that information later.
Mr. Jakwav: Okay.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? I have Mr. Lerch who I understand is just going to be
available is that right? Then I have a Christopher Urich, you are also available on behalf of the
applicant? Do I have an?, other speaker request cards? So there are no public comments that are
going to be made so we ~vill close that portion.
Any questions of Staff?. I assume we have already asked all of those. Okay. Then why don’t we
go ahead and either get a motion or get a decision going? Yes, Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I am not sure whether we have the appropriate Staff members to answer
this question here and who they might be on Staff but back to my question regarding the ways in
which-fencing restrict wildlife movement. It is the same issue that we visited under the Stanford
Open Space issues. Basically if we have open space requirements that are to protect natural
vegetation and wildlife if we have a six-foot fence completely surrounding large areas it seems
impractical for normal ~vildlife movement to be able to occur. What is Staffs understanding of
that? Is it really something that we have addressed for non-endangered, non-threatened species
but just other wildlife species?
Ms. Grote: We have usually required open fencing sometimes split rail. There are various types
of fencing that have been used. They usually have an open component to it. It is frequently
opening at the bottom because it is the small animals that have the harder time migrating around
large fences. Large animals can usually walk around fairly easily and get where they are going.
Smaller animals have a tougher time. So we usually require at least the bottom portion of the
fencing to be open so small animals can get under it. Then if there is open fencing that allows
midrange animals that is acceptable as well.
Commissioner Burt: Are you familiar with whether this project incorporates those desig-n
aspects?
Ms. Grote: We have not looked specifically at that. We can look at the existing fencing and
certainly do that as a follow up item.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
2,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
4!
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Packer: I just want to ask Joe if your condition about the bedrock and the soils
engineer, were you contemplating as part of the condition that there be an soil engineer report or
that all the regarding is done in accordance with good soil engineering practices?
Commissioner Bellomo: Absolutely and it is to be reviewed by Dave Dockter and Staffs
engineering department.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I would like to ask the Ci~T Attorney is it wdthin our purview because
sustainability is something we have limited purview over at this time, could we make it a
condition of approval also that the salvage company be allowed a minimum oft~vo weeks to do
the deconstruction? Is that within our purview- if that was an amendment that was acceptable to
the maker of the motion?
Ms. Furth: We have a condition already about salvage, right? If you want to modify that you
could. You would want to be sure that you have some reason to believe that two weeks is an
appropriate amount of time. We do expect compliance with this condition in good faith. So that
might be enough toget where you need to go I don’t know.
AMENDMENT
Commissioner Holman: I think based on the applicant’s reaction I think their intention is good.
I have just witnessed many, many of these projects where things get down to the end and the
time gets shortened for the deconstruction company and the salvage company. So since the
applicant seems so willing I would like to add as an amendment to the motion that the salvage
companyideconstruction company be allowed a minimum of two weeks.
Ms. Furth: One suggestion from Staff is that you direct us to add a condition describing the
whole inclusion of a effective deconstmction pro~am and we will add whatever range of
conditions that need to be in there. We should probably be specific on a lot of issues that we
have not been. So if we add a new condition which describes their undertaking, basically
documents their commitment, then would that accomplish what you wish?
Commissioner Holman: Indeed it would and thank you.
Chair Bialson: Is that acceptable to Joe?
Commissioner Bellomo: It is acceptable.
Chair Bialson: _The seconder?
Commissioner Burt: Yes.
Chair Bialson: Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Grote: Excuse me, we do have a condition now from the Fire Department, it is Condition 28
that talks about a turning radius of 36 feet inside requirements of the ftre truck.
Commissioner Bellomo: That should be the extent of that circle, the maximum. Also just to
consider an acoustical mitigation and attenuation at a con_fined area for the mechanical systems
and not to spread mechanical systems through the site. I feel that there should be a central air
conditioning and acoustic wall around this mechanical equipment and it would be confined and
!ooked at acoustically by Staff.
SECOND
Commissioner Butt: I will second that motion.
Chair Bialson: Were you through with it, Joe?
Commissioner Bellomo: I was.
Chair Bialson: Do you wish to speak to it or have we discussed this enough?
Commissioner Bellomo: I would like just to say that I felt there has been a tremendous effort to
recognize the points that the Commission made at our initial study and I appreciate the efforts
made and good luck on your project.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I would just like to concur. I think that the applicant has been very
responsive to the requests of the Commission and the Staff. I think they have done a lot of very
good and constructive measures to mitigate the impact of the project. I want to thank them for
those efforts. I also wanted to make sure that I understood that these additional conditions do not
require return to the Commission for review. Is that correct?
Commissioner Bellomo: They are reviewed at a Staff level, correct.
Ms. Wvrme Furth. Senior Assistant City Attorney: And we would incorporate your amendments
into this document before it goes to the Council so it will be written there.
Chair Bialson: Do we have any comments or can we take a vote? Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Just quic~y I want to point out my concern with this swimming pool
being so close to the bedroom for the boys. I am sure this architect will think about that again.
We have a lot of accidents, ve~ sad accidents, related to pools..This is very close. It looks like
you could walk right out of that bedroom into that pool.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burr: If we wanted to incorporate the inclusion of these sorts of principles that
Staff has previously adopted is there something we can refer to or should we just do it as a
generalized statement?
Ms. Grote: Probably a generalized statement. I don’t think we have a written document on that.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Based on that conversation what happens to the fact that you have a fence
around the site that is supposed to keep people from falling into the poo! or be available for
protection of the pool? Are they in conflict?
Ms. Grote: Again, most of the concern is about small animals and it would be an opening at the
bottom of the fence so that the small animals can get through. It would not be large enough to
allow even a small child to crawl under. So it is a concern for smaller animal life. It could be
designed to allow mi~ation and still be safe in terms of humans not getting into the site.
Chair Bialson: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: I was just following up on the conflict between pool safeb"
requirements for the UVC and the very fact of that good point that Pat brought up.
Chair Bialson: I am sort of looking for a motion at this point. We have lots of items on the
agenda.
Commissioner Bellomo: I would certainly be open to scripting a motion.
Chair Bialson: Please do.
MOTION
Commissioner Bellomo: I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Attachment B, with a finding that the project ~vill not result in sigNficant
environmenta! impacts and approve the Site and Design Review application for a new" house in
the OS Zone District based on the findings in Attachment B with some added conditions. 1) :’
That there be language regarding fencing and mi~ation of wildlife scripted into the conditions;
2) an itemization of the lawn area from the original application to the revised application
showing the 25% reduction that is stated in the Staff Report; 3) also inclusion that the cut and fi!l
of the bedrock be looked at carefully through design development and through construction
documents for the engineering of the proposed ~anlte bedrock being used for landscape walls
and/or fi!l and how- that impacts Comprehensive Plan initiatives and natural environment; 4) the
minimtun turning radius was brought KD for the ftre trucks only and not for the driving circle not
to exceed that. I believe that drive circle should be held to a minimum.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Commissioner Holman: Then my other comment is I can count noses and I appreciate very, very
much an incredible an~ount I appreciate how much the applicant has gone to make the changes
that the Commission requested. I still have concerns that have not been addressed about how
visible this project is going to be not just because of its color, that has been addressed quite well
and there have been a lot of things that have been addressed. Just because of the heig_Nt and
visual on the screen still displays that it is going to have a visual impact and this is in a sensitive
area. We are comparing this project to a lot of projects that exist up there now which to my
feeling and my belief are inappropriate given the zoning district that they are in. So because of
that I will be voting against the project.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Bialson: Let’s call for a vote. Is that okay? Fine. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All
those opposed say nay. (nay) Secretary do you have that? That is five for one against and one
abstaining. Great.
Attachment D
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
..3_
.3..3
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
o
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
May 28, 2003
610 Los Trancos Road*: [02-D-05, 02-VAR-10, 02-CUP-16, 02-EIA10] Application
by Tom Jak~vay, on behalf of the Bunker Trust, for site and Design review for the
construction of a new single family residence on approximately 13.35 acres within the
Open Space Zoning District. The 22,335 square foot single-family residence includes a
5,525 square foot basement and site improvements including a swimming pool, tennis
coturt, four-car garage, motor court, and 34,466 square feet of impervious area (building
and paving combined). Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been prepared,
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines.
Staff Report Weblink: http:i!www.citvofpaloalto.or~oicitva~enda/publish/plannin~-
transportation-meetings/2018.pdf
Ms. Grote: This is a site and design application for a new house and other site improvements in
the open space district at 610 Los Trancos Road. The overall coverage is limited by a 3.5%
impervious coverage in the OS district. This is ma application for approximately 34,000 square
feet of total coverage. In that is included about a 9,200 square foot building footprint for the
main house, about 1,100 square feet for a cottage called a guest cottage it does not have a kitchen
in it althoug_h it has more than three plumbed fixtures but because it does not have a kitchen it is
not considered an accessory living unit and therefore does not need a conditional use permit. It
is an accessory structure to the main structure and is a permitted use. In addition there are other
tennis courts, patios and other impervious coverage proposed.
A_long with the Site and Design the applicant is requesting a Variance for 14,118 square feet over
the allowable impervious coverage so in excess of the 3.5%. We are not recommending
approval of that variance because there are no physical constraints on the site, which would
necessitate that additional coverage. In other words, some of the area that is proposed to be
impervious can be converted to permeable paving stones such as the Eco-stone that they have
proposed for portions of the driveway. There isn’t any-thing that would prevent that type of
permeable surface from being used on the other portions of the driveway or portions of the patio,
~vhich ~vould then reduce the amount of imper~dous coverage and bring it into compliance with
the 3.5% maximum. So we are not recommending approval of the Variance. We are however
recommending approval of the overall Site and Design. We do believe those findings can be
made. The applicant is using materials and colors and a design that is compatible with the Open
Space guidelines as well as with the Site and Design findings as Outlined in your Staff Report.
There are a couple of comments that I did want to make about the conditions and some of the
discussion that was included in the initial study. The water use is actually 350 gallons per day
not the 1,500 that was noted in the discussion in the initial study. So that does bring it down
considerably. There is also an error in the construction hours in the conditions and we are
recommending that those be modified to reflect the appropriate construction hours for residential
use which would be Monday through Friday, 8:00 _,~V_ to 6:00PM, Saturday 9:00 ~%M to 6:00
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
PM and prohibited on Sundays and holidays. So that would be corrected. In addition, an email
was received which was put at your places from John Baca talking about the NPDES Standards.
Those standards do not apply to a project of this size but we have included conditions that would
address drainage and other best management practices and those are in thd Staff Report under the
Public Works Division conditions. I think they start at Condition 36 and go to Condition 38.
Those do cover drainage and other concerns with runoff. That does conclude the StaffReport.
I would like to introduce Chris Riordan who is the Project Plarmer and will be joining us here at
the table. We are both available for questions.
Chair Bialson: I don’t see anything from Mr. Baca at our places. Did any other Commissioners
receive anything?
Ms. Grote: It came in Tuesday, May 27 at 10:12. Chris is actually going to make copies. That
is where he is so he will bring the copies to you.
Chair Bialson: Fine. Why don’t we have disclosure at this time? Joe.
Commissioner Bell0mo: I was at the site this afternoon around 3:30, drove up and through the
gates.
Chair Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I went up yesterday morning with Karen to the site and looked around the
site, said a few words to the person who was renting the site and came back down.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Phyllis has done the disclosure for both of us.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I went to the site on Monday, ran into a locked gate and turned around and
came back. I went up again this afternoon and went onto the site and at that time met the
architect and the project manager and spoke with them.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I did visit the project after work tonight and did talk with the project
manager.
Commissioner Bellomo: Annette, I also talked with the project manager today.
Chair Bia!son: Fine: ! went to the site met with a locked gate and was unable to go to the site
this aftern6on. I think that if we can in the future arrange or applicants to make sure their places
are accessible to us other than for a six-hour period that would be very helpful.
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Grote: Als0, ifI may, I did want to interject that W,vm~e has asked me to make clear for the
record that Condition Four requires that the impervious coverage be reduced to 3.5% and that
would be accomplished by ~eater use of permeable paving stones.
Chair Bialson: Fine.
Contmissioner Bellomo: I see Dave Dockter. Is Dave Dockter going to make a summary of the
landscape plan?
Ms. Grote: He is here to answer questions should you have them about the trees or other plant
material.
Cormnissioner Be!lomo: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: %,Ny don’t we have the applicant speak at this point? You ,,viii have 15 minutes.
Mr. Tom Jakwav. Architect. 382 E1 Portal. Palm Sprino_s: Good evening, I am the architect on
this project. To give you a little history my client has lived on the property for 16 years,
purchased one of the two properties in 1986. So he and his family have a very strong
understanding and affinity for the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood and their
neighbors around them. As their family gew and they decided it ~vas time to expand he was
able to purchase the property next door and so we intend to combine the two lots into one lot and
build the new residence.
There is a lot of topo~aphy on the lot from the bottom of Los Trancos up to the building pad is
approximately a 200 foot elevation change. So there is a very long driveway that exists and we
are planning to use that existing driveway. On the two existing homes now the site coverage is
approximately 38,000 square feet. On the combined lots ~ve are allowed slightly over 20,000
square feet. The existing driveway is 22,000 square feet. So just the drive,,vay exceeds the
coverage. So when we first started discussing the desQ~m and layout of this project I met with
various members of the Planning Department and we discussed that problem or that issue of the
driveway being such an extreme amount of the coverage and how it would relate to the house.
At that time we discussed applying for a Variance and that that would be a viable process to go
through. However, after more discussions mostly this week with Staff and with my client we
have decided to withdraw the application for the Variance. We intend to replace the entire
driveway with a permeable material. I have a sample here of a new materia!, Eco-stone. One of
the problems with Eco-stone is parts of the driveway are a little too steep for the Eco-stone and
we would need to do different applications. This new material that we have discovered can be
put on a steeper slope and can still We the permeable sort of requirement that we need. The
driveway doesn:t pick up the total square footage that we need to reduce so we are going to
reduce some of our patios and!or change them to this Eco-stone so that we will not need a
Variance for our coverage and we ~vill be able to make the rest of the project comply with the
3.5% coverage limit.
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The actual residence square footage of pad coverage is slightly over 9,000 feet and then we have
a tennis court and decking and the guest cottage. The tennis court is serving two purposes. It is
solving one of the Fire Department requirements and that is that we provide 200,000 gallons of
water retained in a reservoir onsite for fire protection. Even though there are existing homes
there now and existing fire hydrants they are saying that that is not adequate for the true situation
of the property. We are going to fire sprinkle the whole house and we are putting in severa! fire
hydrants up where the homes are now but in addition to that we have been given this requirement
of providing a reservoir. So the reservoir will actually be buik underneath the tennis court and
the tennis court will be the lid of the reservoir. One of our problems in siting a reservoir is
because of the nmnber of trees on the site and because the parts of the site that don’t have trees
are towards the top of the site that if we put a water tank there it would be visible from areas
offsite. So even though there is considerable additional cost to make it a below Found reservoir
that is the solution that we have proceeded with. tt also kind of justifies I think the site coverage
that the tennis court will take up as part of the project.
As far as siting goes there are two existing residences that are quite near each other. Even
though it is a total 13.5-acre site the two residences are only 100 to 150 feet apart. We are
putting our new structure in that exact same area so we are not disturbing any of the part of the
site that remains as native plant material or native geoFaphy. We are just putting the house sited
between the two existing houses where all of that area had been Faded and/or relandscaped
previously. In meetings with Dave Dockter onsite we did little nuances and pushes and shoves
to move the house around. We had originally requested in some Staff meetings that we had that
we would be able to remove three existing oak trees. Dave was not happy to have that happen so
we were able to resite the house somewhat so that those three trees do not need to be removed.
Those are pretty large trees. There are ten smaller trees that are going to be relocated. Those we
have discussed with Staff and that is an acceptable situation for them. Those trees will be
relocated onsite into locations that will help to put additional screening in front of the house. So
if you are looking from across the way, the Portola Valley hills that look back towards the house,
it will add additional screening behind the building. We have also lowered the house on the hill
from where the existing higher house is so we are not has high up as that existing neigahboring
house is.
As far as impacting the neighborhood I think just the fact that we are going from two houses to
one kind of indicates a lot of lesser impacts, less traffic, less need for services, things like that.
The client, like I said, is very atttmed to his neighbors and you cannot see any of the neighbor
houses from our proposed new building pad and the neighbors cannot see this house. The only
people who really see the house are some very long distance views. When you get across the
way and take advantage of those long distance views there are a number of larger houses that are
above ours. John, could you put that photo up that shows that? The hill continues up from
where this property is to a ridge that is probably two building parcels higher than ours. John,
could you point out where the two existing houses are on the site? So this is from the Blue Oaks
neighborhood loo "king across the way at the two existing houses on the site. John is pointing out
the two existing houses. There is the lower one and there is the second one. You can see up to
the right there is a much larger existing house on the hill and then higher directly goove our
houses is a second house and those are quite visible. Now we took a photo of the model and
inset it into this site to show the impact when the existing ~vo houses are removed and our new
Page4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
44
45
46
project constructed. This next photo will show the new house. One of the advantages that the
new house has over the existing is the colors and materials are much more in keeping with the
kind of native stones and colors that you see on the hill. So the bright white of the existing
buildings and the orange of the roof are going away and the new house will blend in better with
color.
Right here is 620 Los Trancos, this is the upper house. Right here is 610 and that is the garage
right there. This is what happens when we put the new house in that same setting and take the
other houses off. This is the new house right here.
That is most of my presentation. I can answer any questions or Nve any additional information.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Have you done any nighttime studies of this same view?
Mr. Jakwav: No.
Commissioner Bellomo:- Is there an intention to do that?
Mr. Jalcwav: Well we certainly, know that we are =ooin~= to be complying with the li~hting~
requirements and restrictions and those are some of the conditions that are within the approval
process.
Commissioner Bellomo: Can you speak a bit about how you are doing that with the general
exterior lighting more so than the landscape lighting?
Mr. Jal~vav: Sure, it is an interesting concept in that the side of the house w’e are seeing that
really from this view appears to be the front of the house is in fact the back of the house. All the
entertainment area, the pool and the play areas are on the opposite side of the house. So any
exterior lighting for patios and ten’aces and swimming pool happens on the opposite side of the
house. So the house itself will screen these long distance views from any exterior lighting. So
really the only lighting that will be much of an issue for people across the way are li~__hts inside
the house that would shine out through windows. The li=hting of trees, landscape lighting and
activities is happening on the other side.
Commissioner Bellomo: The other question is some of the west facing glass that is not as
mitigated as some of the southern recess is there a concern about the reflectivity of that from this
view as well coming back at Portola Valley Ranch homes? Is there any concern about that
reflectivity of the glass?
,Mr. Jakwav: I think you can see here that most of the glass is below the tree lines and we are
really basically seeing roof. We do have overhangs over a good quantity of the windows. I think
that so~ of reflective quality will be mitigated both by the trees themselves shading the giass so
the reflections don’t come as strong and that you won’t see through them.
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Bellomo: So the reasoning for some of the west facing unprotected glazing, can
you speak to that a bit? I notice on the model you have some unprotected west windows.
Mr. Jakwav: Mostly for view and to bring light into the house so that the clients looking out for
their upper views, looking across toward Windy Hill and some of those areas, that overhangs
wouldn’t come down and eliminate those views.
Commissioner Bellomo: So you are not that concerned about the heat gain in those situations?
Mr. Jakwav: We are going to take care of it we think with window coverings and dual glazing
and other methods.
Commissioner Bellomo: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: First I would like to say that I was impressed by a number of the things that
you have done to mitigate the impacts and especially when you contrast it to a lot of what we
historically would have allowed to be built. Today’s standards and the sensitivity that you have
shown are commendable. Having said that the one thing that really stood out to me when I was
there and Iooked at the story pull locations is that what I believe is the northern section of the
house and the two-story element is completely visible from the whole Windy Hill open space
hillside there and completely visible from the western side of the entire dish property. It just is
quite exposed. With that exception I think mitigations have been very good. I wanted to ask
have you examined that issue? Is it something that you were aware of and are there ways in
which that may be able to be addressed?
Mr. Jakwav: Yes we have considered that and the principle ~vay we are addressing it is the ten
oak trees that I mentioned that we are going to relocate are all coming over to those t~vo facades
of the property so that they will be screen substantially more. Really now as you look at it there
are no oak trees close to the house on those t~vo facades. So by relocating the oaks there and
doing some additional landscaping we hope to screen the house./
Commissioner Burt: The oaks, which are nice oaks, in tha vicinity are all pretty, much on the
dow~_ill slope of the house and the hei~mht of the ones that I saw as existing mature oaks would
not screen the second story. Would these transplanted oaks necessarily screen that second story
that would be visible from Windy Hill?
Mr. Jakwav: Probably not the first six months that we lived in the house but hopefully over time
they would ~ow. Again, similar to what you see in the photo here they would provide an
undulating screen of plant material in front of the house, i don’t think they would ever, just as
these don’t, ever totally make the house disappear but I think they take a~vay that starker impact
of seeing that building wall just hit the gound.
Chair Bialson: .amy other questions? Joe.
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Conv-nissioner Bellomo: It was noted that the roof material is chan~ng from an aquamarine to
what you have currently. Is this the roof material?
Mr. Ja~vav: This is a sample of the actual slate that we are proposing.
Conzrnissioner Bellomo: I see.
Chair Bialson: Does that answer your question, Joe?
Commissioner Bellomo: That:s okay.
Mr. Jaka~’av: Of course the slate is modeled. This is one out of a goup of three or four colors
that create an overall blend.
Cormnissioner Bellomo: One other question that was quite interesting is the process of
excavation here. most of the soils that are being removed, how many cubic yards are we loo "k_ing
at?
Mr. Jak~vav: We haven’t calculated that total yet. We have done soils test and borings to show
us what we are dealing with.
Commissioner Bellomo: What are you dealing with?
Mr. Jakwav: There are approximately six to eight feet of topsoil material. It then converts to a
bedrock that is isn’t totally solid bedrock and then it does go to bedrock. So from about ten feet
down it is, from what we have determined from the limited borings we’ve taken, is bedrock.
Commissioner Bellomo: So what are the effects? What is the .geo-technical experience?
Mr. Jaknvav: Speaking with the structural engineer it is very advantageous to us. Just like in a
high-rise building that digs lots of garage spaces and gets down into that bedrock that really
anchors our house very securely in a seismic sort of method. It makes the excavation more
expensive for us to do. Then from the bottom of the hole we are not exporting dirt we are
exporting rocks.
Commissioner Bellomo: So typically with a home that was on gade this would be a peer and
~ade beam project.
Mr. Jakwav: Correct.
Commissioner Bellomo: So what you are really considering is basically a parking garage in a
sense underneath it.
M~ Jabxav: We have a ....."~~,~n~,~,~ shell underneath - ~ then the beams that go across it are
supporting the house above.
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Conznissioner Bellomo: So the rock needs to be exported it is not being dealt with?
Mr. Jabxav: I shouldn’t have said export, we are going to to~ to retain the majority of it onsite
using it in, and this is something we are going to need to work more with Dave and other people
in the City, but our intent would be to hopefully be able to even out so we don’t have to export at
all.
Commissioner Be!lomo: Interesting. Is there a sustainable pro~am on this house or is there
thinking in terms of trying to mitigate some of the, I guess in terms of question is again there is a
chiller. I "know" it has been discussed with the acoustics of that chiller and the noise volumes
from that chiller will be to Palo Alto standards but there is a chiller that is being considered.
lVlr. Jakwav: We aren’t necessarily 100% sure that we are using a chiller system but most likely
we will.
Commissioner Bellomo: Most likely, and has that been engneered acoustically to see what the
volume levels will be?
Mr. Jakwav: I have just completed another residential project where we did that and working
with sound attenuation panels and literally sinking the chiller somewhat into the ~m-ound and
walls around it you can get to a very controllable noise level. Probably less than the 20 air
compressors that a traditional FAU system would require would make.
Commissioner Bellomo: Yes, okay. Is there a sustainable progam on this project that is being
considered?
Mr. Jakwav: We haven’t really mapped out a11 of that yet.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. I have two public speaker cards. Let me just say that we
do have to listen to people ~om the public and vote on this matter, so go ahead.
Commissioner Hohr~an: I had a question for you too. Maybe it is for Mr. Lerch. The Staff
Report mentions blasting and can you tell me what that process would be like and the
environmental impact?
Mr. Jakwav: Yes. They blast in very small increments. Say if the hole is 40 feet by 40 feet that
we want to do they will take an area that is maybe 15 feet by 15 feet and the blasting will be
intended to go through maybe three to four feet of material below that. They drill holes, apply
the material that creates the explosion, they cover that with a mat made of tires and a material
that is like a concrete and that stops the sound and it stops an~hing from_ flying. When they set
off the charge that thing just lifts slightly and you really don’t hear it even on the property and it
keeps the dust and all the things controlled. Then they excavate that material and then do
another blast as they need. So they do little pieces, little pieces at a time.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4
45
Commissioner Holman: One other question to go along with Joe’s sustainability questioning.
Have you considered doing a deconstruction of the existing buildings as opposed to a demo of
them.
Mr. Jal~vav: Yes, we are talking with different companies that litera!ly dismantle the houses,
take the pieces out of them that can be used and reuse them.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. I have two cards, Jim Hoffman in the first speaker to be followed by
Herb Borock.
Mr. Jim Hoffman. 967 W. Heddin~ Street. San Jose: I just wanted to let everybody know that I
am the landscape architect on the project and I am here to answer any questions. I am in the
audience.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Herb Borock, you have five minutes and that would be
the last speaker card I have. Anyone else who wishes to speak please complete a speaker request
card.
Mr. Herb Borock. P.O. Box 632. Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Bialson and Commissioners. I
want to thank the Staff for extending the comment period on the environmental assessment to
June 3, 2003. I want to thank the applicant for wanting to merge these lots to create a single
standard lot out of two currently substandard lots. I also wanted to thank the Inspection Services
Division for requesting a condition of demolition of the existing structures before issuing the
building permit.
The property owners expressed a wish to get some kind of tax benefits for meeting the site
development regulations. There are possibilities of Nfiing land which has been done in the past
and also conservation easements both for the land that would be west of Los Trancos Road and
also the madeveloped portion of the large lot on the east side. There is also a possibility of
Williamson Act Contracts. So that there are ways that the ovnaer can benefit from those.
The right-of-way, Los Trancos Road, under existing Council po!icy of September 16, 1996 is the
development and implementation of minor operational improvement project including securing
right-of-way from all affected property owners. Previous applications such as the eight lot
Arillaga subdivision and the single lot at 850 Los Trancos is required right-of-way dedications.
The applicants offered a 60-foot right-of-way for dedication of which the City accepted 40 feet at
this time under Council policy. I believe the same should apply to this application.
I appreciate the applicant withdrawing the Variance request, however, there is an existing
Variance due to the current driveway on one lot serving the second lot. ! believe a condition of
approval should revoke that Variance 87-V-43 since it will no longer be needed since there is
only one lot. The only reason for a long drive~vay is not the shape or size of the lot it is the
decision of the applicant as to where to site the house. So there is no justification for a Variance
or for keeping the existing one.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The guesthouse, actually it looks like a gatehouse or a guardhouse in its location, based on past
interpretations does need a use permit for the number of plumbing fixtures. This number of
plumbing fixtures could serve both a kitchen and a bathroom. That is what has been done in past
in the OS district for second structures with this number ofplumbing fixtures.
The Site and Desig-n application needs a gading plan that show’s cut and fill locations and depths
so you can see the relation of that to the water table. Previous applications have shown that as
well. Also because the Open Space site district regulations require you to make findings on the
design, scope and location of the ~ading. The location of the water table needs to be shown in
relation to the depth of the excavation rather than just stop where the borings stop which is at a
13-foot depth.
The environmental assessment needs to show the number of truck trips and the size of those
trucks. If as it shows on the plans is going to be a net 11,650 cubic yards excavated. If that is
the case they also need a transportation plan as to the route, the days of the week and the times of
day for those trips. The size of the house is very large. In fact it is double the size of houses that
caused your predecessors in 1990 to consider size limitations in the OS district. It is mainly
because of the extra size is from the excavation for that extra square footage. The structures are
not clustered. They are far apart. It is about a distance from the gatehouse to the main between
University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue from the plans is what my estimate is. The section
such as in A and B show a four story house really although two are below pound and the other
three sections show three stories. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. I have no further speaker request cards so I will close this
punic testimony portion of this hearing and bring it back to the Commissioners. Michael, did
you want to speak?
Commissioner Griffin: I had a question of Staff relating to the apparent withdrawal of the
request for a Variance. For example, ifI wish to move to accept the Staff Report how is that
done in conjunction with this removal of the Variance?
Mr. Emslie: The Variance as stated by the applicant’s representative is no longer being applied
for so if you move the Staff recommendation it would not include the Variance because that is no
longer being requested by the applicant.
Ms. Furth: But if you want to note in addition that you move the Staffrecommendation while
noting the applicant has withdrawn their request for a Variance then the record will be clear that
they a~ee with you.
Commissioner Griffin: thank you for that clarification.
Chair Bialson: Pat.
Com_m~asioner Burr" T hallo a couple of landscaping ~+’~-~................qu~o~,~. First has Staff had an
opportunity to evaluate this Eco-stone and its permeability? Is that not the Eco-stone? Whatever
this material is, excuse me.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Grote: I will just speak from here since my microphone doesn’t work any longer. Yes we
have, out Public Works Department has looked at its permeability, that and other types of
permeable pavers as well. So it doesn’t have to be Eco-stone there are other types ofpermeable
pavers that work.
Commissioner Burr: Well it is a very interesting new material. We may want to look at
advocating it for some other circumstances. Second question, there are on page eight of the Staff
Report under Development Criteria there is discussion on note six, replacement of some trees. It
does not specify the species of the replacement trees. I am presuming it would be native trees
mad it seems implied that they would be oaks. Is that a correct assumption?
Mr. Dave Dockter. Plarmin_~ Arborist: The trees that will be replaced as mitigation will be
quirkms species, native oak trees. They are listed in the mitigation measures specifically.
Commissioner Burt: Great. Then one other landscape issue. There is laxvn area that is what
size? A pretty good size lawn area. Under Comp Plan Policy N-7, which is Open Space
Development Criteria item number, ten says landscaping should be native species that require
little or no irrigation. Has Staff reviewed that Comp Plan policy requirement with non-native
sod and its acceptability?
Mr. Dockter: The Palo Alto Municipal Code, the water use requirements would be applied to
this site. That water use requirement would limit the water consumption .of the site. All the
vegetation that would be irrigated would be subject to that scrutiny. So if it tipped the scale on
too much water is being used that lawn would have to be reduced to an acceptable level.
Conm~issioner Burt: Maybe other Staff members can comment on this particular Comp Plan
policy because as I read it, I reread this for purposes of this hearing and it is not something I had
previously been dwelling on. This is page N-5 in the Comp Plan and it is policy N-7, item
number ten under the City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria. It says two key
points, that landscaping should be native species and that those native species require little or no
irrigation as opposed to an overall water usage plan, which has merit, but I don’t think
necessarily is addressing this particular Comp Plan policy.
Ms. Grote: We have looked at the overall landscaping plan and determined that it is within this
general guideline or general standard. The proposed landscaping plan requires little enough
irrigation to fall within the statement in number ten. It wasn’t intended to prevent any ~nd of
non-native planting but to minimize it. So yes we have evaluated it and as Dave said if it does
exceed water use standards we would require the non-native plant area to be reduced whether
that is the lawn or other parts of the landscaping. We have allowed small amounts of non-native
plant material on other site and desig-ns particularly for single-family homes.
Colmr~issioner Burt: The lawn or sod area size is what on this?
Chair Bialson: Mr. Hoffman we can_ use you now.
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Hoffman: We will use a tall fescue lawn.
Commissioner Burr: Do you know the square footage or the dimensions of the lawn?
Mr. Hoffman: No I don’t.
Commissioner Burt: Maybe later one of us can dig it up.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: This is probably a question for M_r. Dockter. The applicant had
mentioned I think in response to a question of Commissioner Bellomo about the cut and how
much there was going to be and where it was going. Then also the applicant responded that it
might be used onsite. Could you please respond to that?
Mr. Doclaer: Yes, that would be concerning the ~assland area. We would not ~vant to see the
~assland area reduced by :fill or decade the woodland area with again fill. So I don’t -know
frankly where it could be put at this point. That is a new introduction of information to me. We
would have to look at that or require it to be off hauled.
Commissioner Holman: Another question for Staff. Do you ~know what the color of this slate
mate!ial is and is this the Eco-stone? Does it have a color to it? The applicant had mentioned
there was another kind of paving that they were going to use because Eco-stone wouldn’t
accomplish all of the access needs.
Ms. Grote: We can ask the applicant what the color of the slate is. I don’t know what it is off-
hand. That is an example of it. Whatever color it is we can note it in the conditions if that is the
color that the Commission wants to make sure is implemented. I think that, again the applicant
may be able to answer this, I that other paving stone is not the Eco-stone. I think that is a
different paving stone, it is alternative, which works better than the Eco-stone.
Commissioner Holman: Is this the color that the applicant is intending to use? Maybe the
applicant could respond to that.
Mr. Jakqvav: Yes.
Ms. Grote: Yes, it is.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, and does the applicant want to respond to what the color of the
slate roof material is?
Mr. Jakwav: It is [verde~ee]. I am going to have to check my notes but I think it is China Blue.
It is one of those things that is interesting because each company will put a different name on it
as you shop it from one supplier to another.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Holman: One more question about color. I think there were to be paint colors
here to for the sides of the buildings and an example of the stone that was going to be used on the
building.
Commissioner Bellomo: Is it an inte~aI plaster color or is it paint?
Mr. Jalcwav: It is integal color.
Commissioner Bellomo:
Commissioner Holman:
stone?
So there is no paint Karen it is an integal plaster color.
So this is to show what the stone is, you don’t have an example of the
Mr. Jalcwav: That is correct.
Chair Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Bellomo: Is that the plaster color?
Mr. Ja~vav: Yes, that small sample is the plaster color and that is an actual application of the
plaster material.
Chair Bialson: Phyllis, did you have a question?
Commissioner Cassel: Yes. My question is for Staff and it relates to the second unit. In talking
today I think to Amy they indicated that the applicant asked for a conditional use permit. They
had asked for the three-room space and it has three plumbing fixtures in it. I went thi’ou#~ with
Wynne and Amy why this okay and it doesn’t need a conditional use permit, however, it is very
unlikely in actual use that this wi!l continue to never have anything that relates to a kitchen
facility in it due to the distance it is to the main house. Over time the applicant is just by nature
going to want to end up with something down there. No’*" we are in a situation where we don’t
have a conditional use permit in place so he can apply for it and work on the kitchen later or
something else. Could the applicant apply for whatever is necessary so that he has a 220 outlet
dow~n there or whatever just by waiting until July 1st when the state is going to require that we
allow a second unit onsite? Everything else fits our ordinance.
Ms. Grote: At this point a conditional use isn’t required because this does not have a kitchen and
that has been how we describe or how we define second units is the presence of a kitchen. It is
an independent living facility at that point. As you just mentioned as of July 1 of this year we
will no longer be able to require conditional use permits for second units. So should the
applicant, after the guest cottage is constructed, wish to add a kitchen and make this really a
second unit they can do that without a discretionary review in other words without a conditional
use permit. So we ~vould not have a way of requiring a conditional use permit in the future.
Commissioner Casse!: That I knew. It is actually better to have it as a second unit with a
kitchen in it rather than not because then if they decide to have people working at the site and
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2.~
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4i
42
43
44
45
they have facilities there or whatever this is a very big building and it is going to need some staff
that is going to end up running up and down this hill in order to get there, they don’t live there.
So having a unit onsite is not a disadvantage in this case. So I was just trying to make sure this
was feasible and people were aware that it was feasible and we didn’t get caught not having
onsite and then having it become illegal and then not being able to get it out of the illegal status.
Ms. Grote: Once it is constructed if they wish to convert it to a true second unit they will do that
if it is after July of this year.
Chair Bialson: Joe.
Commissioner Bellomo: Questions for the architect. This is a limestone coating. Is this the
sample of the plaster? Is this an integal color sample?
Mr. Jakwav: Yes. There is actually ~ound up limestone within the plaster material.
Commissioner Bellomo: The stone you are using is a cultured stone, is that correct?
Mr. Jalcwav: Yes.
Commissioner Bellomo: This is a manufactured stone.
Mr. Jak~vav: Correct.
Commissioner Bellomo: Did you consider any other type of stone besides this?
M~. Jal~vav: We looked at lots of different stones both real stones and this manufactured
material and for a number of reasons decided this was the best for the project.
Commissioner Bellomo: Also one question for the landscape architect. At the native hillside
hydro seed mix there is a notion to be determined.
M_r. Hofflnan: Dave Dockter had recommended that we go to a vegetation consultant, Zentner &
Zentner is their name. We ~vere going to get them involved in the project a little later on. They
are talking about using more native gasses that were indigenous to the hills back when and not
the gasses that are there now. We want to t~ to convert them over to a more natural hillside.
Commissioner Bellomo: Going back to Pat’s question, it looks like the lawn is approximately
100 by 160 feet or something like this. I know that there are landscaping irrigation systems that
drip into a lawn. Are you considering this type of mitigation measure.
Mr. Hoffman: Very much so, absolutely. I thi~fl( that is going to be a key issue especially where
the lawn is. It is up on the hill and with the winds and eveLything I think that ~vould be the most
practical way to irrigate a lawn.
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. That is good to ~know because I think with a lawn that size
surface irrigation certainly would create a lot of water use. In general the irrigation strategy is
for mitigation of water use in general.
Mr. Hoffinan: In general we are going to try to use low precipitation spray heads and also drip.
Commissioner Bellomo: Okay.
Chair Bialson: I would like to have a motion made. Are you ready to make a motion? We are
now at about 10:20. We did have a retreat where we decided we would try to.wrap up as soon as
we can after ten.’
Commissioner Burr: I would like to ask fellow Commissioners if they share any of my concerns
on the visibility of tl~s north wing second story to two major open space areas.
Conm~issioner Holman: Yes.
Commissioner Bellomo: Yes, I think I alluded to that with some of the extent of the glazing. So
I too am. Typically I know in some review we get a chance to see some of the sketches or some
of the thought that went into the overall design which would have been very interesting to see
how this evolved and what other shapes and forms there were as you went through the design
with such a huge project. So yes, I too have some of those concerns.
Chair Bialson: I think I a~ee with you and I think that if we can make a motion we can vote to
express our concerns. If they have not been answ-ered by the applicant or Staffthen I think the
best way to communicate it is not by asking more questions but by indicating what our feelings
and concerns are in the vote.
Commissioner Burr: Part of our process is at this time to discuss things among Cormnissioners.
That is my intention. Because this project even though it is a 20,000-plus square foot project
doesn’t go through an .~d~_B approval I am particularly interested in the expertise of Joe as an
architect and I think the discussion among ourselves prior to determining what motion we want
is an appropriate discussion.
Chair Bialson: That is fine but I th_ink the motion can also be made and have a discussion after
the motion is made. So is someone prepared to make a.motion so we can have more focus to our
discussion? I do not see the need to continue asking questions unless you have questions you
w-ant answered that go the issues that you still feel are outstanding. Joe.
MOTION
Commissioner B~llomo: I would make a motion to recommend that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the mitigated declaration, Attachment C, with findings
that the pr@ect wil! not result in si~ficant envirommenta! impacts and approve the Site and
Design Review application for a new house and not approve the ~vithdrawn Variance application
based on the findings for denial contained in Attachment E. I would add conditions to this
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
approval that this project return to us to look at the north wing in particular for visibility and
massing considerations and visual impacts of that west north glazing. I would like to get a better
understanding of the cut fill requirements and the export or onsite installation of the bedrock that
would be generated and a transportation logistics plan that would Ave us an understanding of
how that bedrock would be delivered offsite if necessary. I would like a clearer understanding of
the exterior lighting on the house itself as the plan spoke to landscape lighting but did not really
address security and exterior lightingl I would also like to see a summary analysis of the
acoustical sound generated from a possible proposed chiller at the southern eastern end of the
site. If in fact there are any sustainable geen methodology or practices that would be possibly
incorporated into a house of this magnitude. I think it would be well worth looking at those
projected requirements.
Chair Bialson: Do I have a second?
SECOb,rD
Conmaissioner Burt: Second.
Commissioner Be!lomo: I would like to add one other thing that we also look at irrigation
measures that would mitigate the amount of water usage particularly in expanses of lawn area.
Chair Bialson: The second I take it goes to that as well?
Conmaissioner Burt: It does and I at the appropriate time may have an additional friendly
amendment.
Chair Bialson: Do you want to speak to the motion or do you feel you have already?
Commissioner Bellomo: I think I have. I think I respect the amount of time and energy that
went into this. I would like to say that we can look at, during the ZOU that we took at the
participation of ARB review on projects like this one. Though I appreciate the colors I also gew
up in Los Altos Hi!ls and this area and know how hot it is. I am sure you have put a lot of
resources into understanding the character. As you mentioned the client has lived here for 16
years. I am concerned with some of the edges of the heat gain and thoug~ the dark roof is
appropriate for visibility I also am concerned about the effects that it has on the heat gain. So
there are kind of conflicts in earth tones and how this building sets into the property and blends
in but yet the effects of its own makeup promotes a lot of energy usage. Having said that there
has been a lot of work and I would just like to see more design analysis of this northwest wing.
Chair Bialson: I thank you for that motion because it does express just ~vhat I wanted in terms of
getting all the points out that we have been questioning around. Now, seconder, would you care
to speak to yours and make a friendly amendment?
AMEN-DED MOTION
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Butt: Yes. I appreciate Con:n’nissioner Bellomo’s input and I think in the absence
of ARB review of such a sizable project that it is beneficial to have architectural expertise on the
Commission. I would like to add as a friendly amendment that Staff reevaluate the allowable
turf area, which if Commissioner Bellomo’s calculation is correct is approximately 16,000
square feet of turf, which does not seem consistent with Policy N-7 of the Comp Plan. Other
than that I at the same time would like to commend the applicant for many excellent aspects to
this project that in fact do mitigate impacts that other,vise would occur. So I thank you for your
work.
Chair Bialson: Joe, do you accept the friendIy amendment?
Commissioner Bellomo: I concur with your comments and do accept that friendly amendment
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any other comments? Karen.
Conm’~issioner HoIman: Understanding the concerns of Commissioners Bellomo and Burr I
actually have a substitute motion, I don"t think it would be an amendment. I am having a lot of
difficulty with this project because of the OS zone requirements. I am having more difficulties
than were expressed in the motion and the amendment. I am having difficulty mainly with this
mimicking the natural topo~aphy. The location of the building on the hilltop, the massing of the
building, the height of the building at the hilltop, al! of that leads to I think a very si~zificant
impact from the lines of site that have been identified both in the Staff Report and this evening.
Also the roofing materials that have been brought forward tonight, I had understood that this was
going to be more of a neutral color than what this material is also the model indicates a much
darker color of the body than what the sample is that has been provided to us tonight. If that
body color is applied to this mass of a project on a hilltop it is going to have quite a si~m-tificant
hnpact.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
So my substitute motion xvould be for the projec{ to come back to us in a more low profile
project that would more satisfy the requirements of the OS zone district as I read as presented to
us this evening and incorporating both my comments that I have made as well as the comments
that have been made by Commissioners Bellomo and Burr in their comments in the other motion.
Chair Bialson: Do I have a second to the substitute motion? I am afraid that motion fails for
lack of a second. Do I have any other comments?
Commissioner Bellomo: I think ifI could speak to that just briefly. I think the very fact that we
are as’king for a relook at the northwest wing of this does speak maybe not wholeheartedly to
what you would like to see come back as a redesig-n but I think it does speak to the lowering of
the southeast wing berms in more appropriately than this northwestern wing. I think we are
as’king the applicant to come back with a relook at this end of the house’. So I think we are
asking some of what you have requested in your motion.
Chair Bialson: Yes, briefly.
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: I thiN,: that Karen’s concerns have merit mad I struggled with this issue of
the overall location of the project on the "knoll of a hill. I found myself vacillating between
comparing it to the two existing structures in which case it can be argued that this is an
improvement versus how we would site something if we were starting from scratch here. I tl~k
if we envision starting from scratch we might have more objections that we do currently. I guess
I would like to ask the City Attorney when we are evaluating compliance to these regulations is
it valid to be using a comparison to the structures that are being replaced as opposed to how we
would look at it if there were no structure there at all.
Ms. Furth: Well the answer is sometimes. This is a disturbed site therefore you take the site as
you find it. The fact that there is existing development, existing driveway, and other features for
example may lead you to conclude that rebuilding in the same area advances the goals of the
Open Space district in a way that wouldn’t be true if it weren’t already a disturbed site. That is
an example of how it would matter. You still need to conclude that the completed project
complies with the Open Space district standards. Those sometimes send different sig-nals with
respect to achieving them and so sometimes you have to decide which one is more important
than the other. In order to for~vard this to the City Council you need to conclude that it meets
those standard, those are" largely subjective standards, but it will still have to meet them.
Incidentally, we understand Commissioner Bellomo’s motion to be a motion to bring this project
back to you for further action before it goes on to the City Council. Sometimes the ARB for
example has the freedom to say well it is approved subj ect to some minor details but this needs
your complete recormnendation before it goes to the City Council.
Chair Bialson: _Any other comments? Karen.
AMEN~)ED MOTION
Commissioner Holman: I will try a friendly amendment then to ask that the body of the building
be reconsidered from the example that was shown to us tonight and that the roof color also be
reconsidered, both of them to be more envirorm~entally sensitive to the environment.
Chair Bialson: Do you accept that?
Conm~issioner Bellomo: Yes, I accept that.
Chair Bialson: Ho~v about the seconder?
Commissioner Burt: Yes but could Commissioner Holman please clarify, is that referring to
colors or other aspects?
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Holman: Yes, color. Thank you for accepting that. Then I would like to add as a
condition of approval that the existing buildings are deconstructed as opposed to demolished.
Page 18
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2 Commissioner Bellomo: Yes, I would accept that. I think I mentioned that also this comes back
3 to us with a sustainable pro~am so that would be part of that, yes Karen.
4
5 Chair Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I would support that amendment enthusiastically.
MOTION PASSED
Chair Bialson: Fine. Do we have m~ly other comments or do ;ve want to vote on this? Why
don’t we vote then? All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? That motion passes
unanimously. Thank you very much.
Mr. Emslie: Just for the members of the audience this will be readverdsed for the Commission’s
continued consideration of the approval that you just ganted because there is not a date certain.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: One thing to get on the record. I was inquiring of Staff today how this
project could combine lots and result in fewer housing units. This project as I understand it was
submitted pl~or to the Housing Element being amended.
Page 19
Attachment G
ATTACHMENT D Attachment D
Findings forApproval
Site and Design Review
610 Los Trancos Road
02-D-05
The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderl);
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or
nearby sites.
The proposed residence would be seen from the Portola Ranch in Portola Valley
and the Blue Oaks Development. To mitigate this visibility, earth tone building
materials were selected to blend with the surroundings. The materials include
natural stone, integal color plaster walls, and a slate roof. Substantial native Oak
trees surround the project and help to screen the building and hardscape as viewed
from off site. The plantings on the site include an irrigated lawn area on the north
side of the site, providing a transition between the development and native pass
areas. The proposed building and pathway lighting would be low voltage and all
light sources would be screened to not be visible from off site.
The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirabiliO; of investment,
or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other attthorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent area.
The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas,
the proposed design and size of the residence and related site improvements are
generally consistent with the existing residences on Los Trancos Road, and the
construction of all improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current
Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to
assure.safety and a high quality of development.
Soand principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be
observed in construction of the project.
The proposed dwellings have been designed to be consistent with the Open Space
Development Criteria adopted by the City Council to mitigate the impacts of
development in the foothills area of the community.. The proposed design will
follow existing topogaphy. The project, which includes implementation of the
Mitigation Measures, will not create significant environmenta! impacts as
indicated by the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project.
610 Los Trancos Road Page 12
4.The project is in accord with tire Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal as conditioned complies with the policies of the Land Use
and Community Design and the Natural Environment elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal meets the Open Space Development
Criteria and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in
designated open space areas.
610 Los Trancos Road Page i3
ATTACHMENT F
Findings for Open Space Criteria
610 Los Trancos Road
02-D-05, 02-EIA-10, 02-VAR-10
Attachment F
The development should not be visually intrusive f’om public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden f-ore
view. The proposed construction would not be visible from Los Trancos Road, but
could be seen from the Portota Ranch in Portola Valley, from the Blue Oaks
Development and from Vista Point in Foothill Park. Existing and relocated oak
trees would provide screening vegetation to partia!ly screen the structures and
access driveways from views from off site. The trees would soften views of the
development, as shown on the visual study submitted with the application. The
visual impact of the homes would also be minimized by the use of earth tone
colors and natural building materials. The model and story poles will assist in a
visual determination by the Planning Commission and City Council as to the
impact of the proposed development.
Development should be located away f’om hilltops and designed to not extend
above the nearest ridgeline. The footprint of the proposed residence and
guesthouse are not located on top of the nearest ridge. The story, poles will assist
members of the Planning Commission and City Council in their evaluation.
Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and
views of neighboring properties. The size of the site and extensive vegetation of
the area will mitigate views of the proposed structures from adjacent properties.
Development should be clustered, or closely ~’ouped, in relation to the area
surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce
f’agvnentation of natural habitats. The mass of the home is set into and along the
natural contours of the site. The site improvements are generally clustered
together. The tennis court is set apart from the other improvements. The driveway
and other site improvements will be constructed of permeable materials wherever
necessav to meet impervious coverage limitations.
Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topog’aphy. Building
lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear
naturalfi’om a distance. The building footprint and below grade floor level, which
roughly follow the slope of the knoll, are responsive to the natural topogaphy.
Forma! 1~,,,~oo,,~,~ ...... ~ be limited to the i~maediate area of the residence and
guesthouse. The landscape plan provides for additional tree plantings to increase
the natural screening provided from the existing oak trees. The landscape plan
provides ample tree plantings to provide screening where feasible. 6. Existing trees
610 Los Trancos Road Page 16
with a circumference of 37. 5 inches, measured 4.5feet above the ground level,.
should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should
be retained as much as possible. No healthy trees are to be removed from the site.
The Arborist Report has been evaluated by the City’s Planning Arborist, who has
recommended the removal of one diseased oak tree; to be replaced by either (a)
four 24-inch box size trees or, (b) two 48-inch box size trees.
Existing trees with a circumference of 37. 5 inches, measured 4.5feet above the
~"ound level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing
vegetation should be retained as much as possible. No healthy trees are to be
removed from the site. The Arborist Report has been evaluated by the City’s
Planning Arborist, who has suggested the removal of one diseased oak tree to be
warranted. This tree removal can be mitigated by either (a) four 24-inch box size
or, (b) two 48-inch box size trees.
This issue is discussed further under the Significant Issues section of this report.
Cut is encouraged when it is necessmy for geotecknical stabili& 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 ~’ading. The cuts proposed for submersion
of the garages and basement areas are encouraged, because they enable
development to blend into the natural topo~aphy, The cuts proposed to the rear of
the residence will provide level outdoor recreation areas that will be screened by
the existing natural vegetation that surrounds the site. The fill is to be minimized
and will be used to level out the driveway slope for smoother access. Fill will not
be placed in the dripline of any existing tree. The ~ading for the ga~esthouse will
be limited to provide a level building area. The guesthouse will not be visible from
off site.
To reduce the need for cut and fil! and to reduce potential runoff lmNe, flat
expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Impervious surfaces are used
only where necessary and wi!l remain within the 3.5% allowed.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural
building materials in earthtones are proposed. All proposed building materials are
natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the surroundings with the
exception of the slate roof that is proposed to be "aquamarine" in color. A
condition of approval is reconmaended to change the color of the roof to a natural
or earthtone color. The applicant will bring samples of all exterior materials to the
meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission for their review and
recomm~endation.
Landscaping should be native species that requb’e little or no irrigation.
Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as afire
610 Los Trances Road P~e !7
prevention technique. An extensive native planting plan and irrigation plan is
proposed. The conditions of approval would ensure the use of fire retardant plants
in the final landscape design.
Exterior lighting should be low-intensiO~ and shielded f’om view so it is not
directly visible from off-site. The hardscape and landscape plans submitted with the
application indicate these policies would be observed. The residences would
create additional light and glare, but window coverings would minimize light spill
from the rooms to the outside at night. The recommended conditions of approva!
would require an5, landscape lights 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
environmenO. The existing shared access driveway is composed of asphalt which
will be changed to a permeable surface.
For development h7 unincorporated areas, g’ound coverage should be in general
conformance with Pale Alto’s @en Space District regulations. The project is
within the City limits and meets the O-S (Open Space) District zoning regulations.
610 Los Trances Road Page 18
Attachment H
ATTACHMENT G
Conditions of Approval
610 Los Trancos Road
02-D-05, 02-EIA-10, 02-VAR-10
Attachment G
Department of Planning and Community Environment Conditions
Planning Divbsion
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with
plans received on April 28, 2003, except as modified to incorporate the following
conditions of approva! 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.
The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building
permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other
landscape features.
The roofing materials shall be earthtone in color to blend with the natural
surroundings.
The e~sting asphalt driveway shall be removed and replaced with a permeable
surface. In areas with slopes in excess often percent, the surface shall be
engineered to provide adequate wet traction to emergency vehicles. Prior to
building permit, an engi.’neering study of the adequacy of the material chosen shall
be reviewed by the Fire Department. Total impervious areas on the site shall be
limited to 3.5%.
o Any proposed exterior lighting shai1 be shown on the final construction drawings
and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Palo ~klto Planning Division.
All lighting shall be minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away
from the surrounding residences and open space lands~
All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-reflective materia!.
The project wi11 be reviewed by the Plarming Commission and Ciu" Council to
ensure that the potentia! aesthetic impacts wi!l be mitigated by the project’s
screening _r%atures.
610 Los Trancos Road Page !9
If during ~ading and construction activities, any archeoloNcal or human remains
are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit
the site to address the fred. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office
shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native
American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease
immediately until a Native Amercian 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.
10.
!1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
All mitigation measures identified by the Fire Department to address fire hazards
on this site must be incorporated into the desi~.
No area represented as permeable paving in project plans received on April 28,
2003 shall be converted to impervious paving unless an equal are of.impervious
paving is converted to permeable paving.
Oak tree Tag #39 is diseased and structurally unsound and will be removed by the
project. Replacement tree mitigation for oak tree Tag #"39 shall be the installation
of either (a) four 24-inch box size or, (b) two 48-inch box size trees, as stipulated
in the Tree Technical Manua! Section 3.20, Tree Canopy Replacement. Species
shall be of the Quercus genus (valley oak, coast live oak, black oak or blue oak) or
Aescutus californica (California Buckeye).
All provisions for the protection of trees shall be implemented, as outlined in the
Tree Report dated April 18. _00~ and the Palo Alto Tree Technica! Manual. In the
event of any conflict between the two, the more protective measure shall prevail.
10 oaks on the site shall be relocated, protected and preserved. Tree Tag #51, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60 and 93 shall be relocated and provided mitigation and
monitoring as outlined in the Tree Transplanting and Relocation Plan, including
appropriate irrigation, interim and post relocation maintenance. As a condition of
development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit of the tota! value
of the trees to be relocated, provided for in the Tree Technical Manual, Section
3.26, Securi) Deposits. The amount shall be as determined by the Appraisal
submitted in the Tre~ Report, in the amount of $41,550. The Security-Deposit shall
be paid prior to building permit issuance, and sha!l be held for a period of two
years following the permit for occupancy.
Any revision to the plans which may affect the welfare of the trees and vegetation
shall be reviewed by the applicant’s arborist and Planning Arborist prior to
ulJlJl ~ v
All provisions an,~ r,.,.omm,,ndatio**s contained in the Tree Sur~ey prepared by
Ralph Osterling Consultants and dated April 18, 2003 shall be incorporated into
610 Los Trancos Road Page 20
16.
17.
the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter must be submitted by
the project arborist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial
conformance with the recommended environmental, impact mitigation measures
contained in the report.
All provisions and recommendations contained in the Biological Resources
Analysis prepared by Light, Air, & Space Construction and dated November 18,
2002 shall be incorporated into the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit,
a letter must be submitted by the project biologist stating satisfaction that the
project is in substantial conformance with the recommended environmental impact
mitigation measures contained in the report.
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project
construction to minimize dust related construction impacts:
¯All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
¯All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall
retain at least two feet of freeboard.
¯All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction
site shall be swept and watered daily.
¯Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
streets.
18.
19.
Temporary" impacts woutd occur as a result of construction activities. T~vpical noise
sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and N’ading
and noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be short in duration. Once
completed, long-term noise associated with the new building would be within
acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated. Proper implementation of and
compliance with Chapter 9.t 0 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction bet~veen
the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday - Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on
Saturday, and prohibited Sunday and Holidays) would reduce construction-related
noise impacts to less than significant levels.
Prior to the commencement of blasting activities, the applicant shall notify, the City.
of Palo Alto Fire Department and all property o~ers within 1000 feet of the project
site of the date and time of all proposed blasting activities. The applicant shall comply
with all directives recommended by the Fire Department.
Building
20.A demolition permit sha!l be required for the removal of the existing buildings on
O± tncthe site. Rembval of the ex~stm= buildings and mini demolition pet,nits is to
be completed prior to issuance of the permit for the new buildings.
610 Los Trancos Road Page 21
21.
22.
The two lots comprising the site shall be merged. The parcel map or certificate of
compliance shall be recorded prior to permit issuance.
A separate grading permit shall be required if the volume of cut and/or fill grading
exceeds 100 cubic yards.
23.Separate building permits shall be required for each independent building or
structure.
24.No woodburning fireplaces shall be constructed except as provided in PAMC
Section 9.06.
25.
26.
27.
The proposed ~Tmnasium, to be located in the basement of the main building, shall
be considered as a non-residential occupancy. The occupancy classification shall
be assigned based on the occupant load and the nature of the use. Exits shall be
provided based on the occupant load calculated using the "exercise room"
occupant load factor specified in Uniform Building Code Table 10-A. A fire-rated
occupancy separation shall be provided between the gym and the R3 residential
living area, corresponding to the occupancy classification.
Santa Clara Count?; Health Dept. approval is required for the construction private
sanitary sewage disposal systems. If such a system is included within the scope of
the proposed project, two copies of Health Dept. approved plans are to be
submitted prior to permit issuance.
Implementation of the construction techniques contained in the report
Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoForensics and dated August 2002 shall be
incorporated into the project and approved by the Building Department. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, a letter must be submitted by the project geologist
stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial conformance with the
recommended environmental impact mitigation measures contained in the report.
Fire Department
28.Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’6" vertica!
clearance. Road to meet weight access (60,000 lbs.) and turning radius (36 ft.
inside requirements of fire truck. Road shall be all-weather, and shall reach to
within 150 feet of any point on the first floor exterior./~sLr ~:~v,_’.z._j N’,,,, I ~:
The driveway configuration as shown does not meet this requirement.
A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of~PA
Standard No.13 - 1996 Edition for the main house. The guest house may be
spri ~nklered in accordance with hTPA Standard No. !3D - ! 996 Edition. Fire
Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention
620 Los Trances Road Page 22
30.
Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be approved unless
complete sprinkler coverage is indicated.
An approved underFound 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 15.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval wil! be withheld
until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been
met.
31.Additional hydrants shall be provided to make a minimum of 3 hydrants 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
2,500 gallons per minute at a minimum residua! pressure of 20 psig.
(98CFC903.4.2) NOTE: Delivery of building materials to the site will be
prohibited until the hydrants and an adequate water supply have been provided.
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 10 feet to any point on the exterior of the building.
Entry Gate (if provided) shall be either keyed for Fire Department access or a Key
Box shall be provided. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau at 329-2184 for details.
Public Works Department
Public Works Engineering
34.Prior to issuance of a Fading permit, the applicant shall submit a Master Work
Schedule to PWE. The schedule must show the proposed Fading schedule, and
the proposed condition of the site on each July 15, August 15, September 15,
October 1, 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 schedule sahll be provided to PV~rE each month that the
permit is active.
35.The location and extent of applicable SWPP!BMP details should be indicated on
the plan. Detail references for the Temporary BMP should carry" a sheet number
i.e. (ESC11)/4 where the numerator is the specific detail number and the
de~ommaLu~ is m~- plan sheet where the detail can be found. The ~o~
reference should include the following B1Vfl~s:
Construction Entrance
Sediment Basin
610 Los Trancos Road Page 23
¯Straw Wattles
¯Oeotextile Mats
¯Concrete Waste Management
¯Preservation of existing vegetation
¯Hazardous Waste Storage
*California Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks contain
varies t.pes of construction BMP’s. A copy of the handbooks can be purchased from
Blue Print Service in Oakland. (Phone # 510-287-5485).
36.
37.
38.
Within the plan set include the City standard Best Management Practice’s (BMP)
sheet titled ’;Pollution Prevention - It’s Part of the Plan". The applicant is
responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors are aware of and
implements all stormwater quality" control measures. Failure to comply with the
approved construction BMP’s shall result in the issuance of {correction notices,
citations and/or a project stop work order.}
A set of notes addressing the requirements for Site and Winterization should be
placed on the drawings. The notes should describe the winterization measures that
will be implemented during wet season to prevent erosion and storm water
pollution. The ’wet season" is defmed as the period beginning October 1 through
April 15 of the following year. This requirement shall be implemented during any
year when excavation activities are underway or ~ading operations have left areas
unprotected
All work areas that have not been stabilized prior to onset of the Wet Season shall
be gaded to drain toward settlement basins at interior of site. Storm runoff water
from un-stabilized areas shall be directed into settlement basins and through
BioWattles or other filtration devices prior to release from the site
Other SEPPP Temporav Measures and Erosion Controls shall remain in effect
during the Wet Season and are part of the Winterization Plan.
Identify the Limits of Work (LOW) on the plan. Provide a note on plans advising
that vegetated areas outside the LOW must not be disturbed during the
construction activities. Call out the BMP re Preservation of Existing Vegetation at
those areas.
A comprehensive geotechnical report for the Site must be prepared by a certified
geotechnical engineer. Th report, at minimum, should include subsurface
City of Palo Alto Page 24
investigation, seismic refraction survey, engineering analysis of filed data,
investigation of gound water leveI, and construction issues related to the location
of the swimming pool. Based on the investigation of the ~ound water level, the
en~irmer shall estimate the hi~est projected ~ound-water level likely to be
encountered in the futre. If the bottom of the proposed swimming pool is
reasonably above the projected highest water level, then the pool can be
constructed in a conventi9onla manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage
system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to
render the pool waterprood and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil
pressures. No external drawdown pumping of gound water is allowed..In
general, however, P~ recommends that structures be constructed in such a way
that they do not penetrate existing or projected ~ound water levels.
39.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the
property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted
impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee
adjustment on the applicant’s monthly Cit~’ utility. bill will take place in the month
following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection
Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available
from P WE.
40.The plan must include a drain near the swimming pool that can receive any
wastewater that mey be generated during the operation or routine maintenance of
the swimming pool water. The swimming pool water in snot allowed to be
discharged to municipal storm collection system or into a creek. If the applicant
wishes to dispose of the swimming pool water at the site, a collection system
equipped with an every dissipater must be designed for the site. The system
should include design criteria, pipe capacity., erosion evaluation and impact of the
discharge water down slope of the dissipater.
4i.Building permit applicants are required to prepare and submit an excavation
dewatering plan whenever the project soils report indicates that ~oundwater will
be encountered during excavation. The plan should be reviewed and approved by
PWE prior to the issuance of the building permit. Building permits that include a
swimming pool where goundwater is not expected to be encountered will be
subject to a condition that a dewatering plan shall be submitted to PWE for review
and approval if goundwater is encountered during excavation.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
The plans shall carry a note requiing that "Where ~oundwater is not anticipated
but is encountered during construction, a dewatering plan shall be submitted to the
PWE for review and approva!.
42.The location of all existing utility structures must be identified on the plan. If the
site is utilizing a septic tank, the location(s) of the septic tank and all associated
plumbing, including the leach fields, must be identified on the plans.
Construction, removal or abandonment of any septic system will require prior
approval from the City and the County of Santa Clara.
43.The applicant must submit a completed Certificate of Compliance application with
building permit request. The COC is required when two lots are merged together.
The COC must be recorded with the County’s Recorder office prior to issuance of
the building permit.
Ci~ of Palo Alto.Page 26
Attachment I
Attachment A
61o Los Trencos Road, Palo Alto, CA
Item !: Evaluate the s-isibi!ity and massing of the north
~dng of the residence with consideration #yen to the
impact of glazing.
The north udng has been redesigned to break up the massing of the
building and to eliminate two story- high wails. Glazing has also been
redesigned. These rexdsions are illustrated on the rmdsed draftings.
Perspective sketches u,dl! be prepared for commission rev-iew at the
meeting.
Los Trencos l~oad, Palo Alto, CA
Item 2: Prm4de g-rearer detail of the cut and fill of the
project with information provided on where the excavated
materials will be deposited.
The cut and fill cubic yardage is revised to the following:
Cut: -lo,o97 cubic yards
Fill: + .006 cubic yards
Off- haul: -6,871 cubic yards
The playfield will be raised 1~_" from what was previously
proposed and the basement u~ill not be as deep. This will
greatly reduce the amount of cut and amount to off-haul.
¯The tennis court wilt be raised by 1~_" to further reduce the
previous off-haul figure
It is di_fScult to anticipate the actua! volumes of solid rock, softer
broken earth, and compatible soi! that u-i!! be excavated from the site.
The intent is to utilize as much of the granite rock, and
boulders as possible within the "off-haul figure" for garden
planters, dividers and wal!s.
The material removed from the site will be taken by dump truck
to Stevens Creak Quarry where it will be stock piled for re-sale
or, depending on timing, direct it to any number of local Cal-
Trans highway projects.
Depending also on timing and soil qua!it-y, a po~on of the
material may be taken to the local Pa!o Nto land fill to
conm~u~e to me~r daily covering operations.
Los Trencos Road, Palo Alto, CA
Item 3: Submit a transportation and lo~sties plan for
construction of the project.
The transportation routes used for importing and extorting material
with truck over 7 tons are laid out in the Ci~ of Palo _Alto Truck
Route guide lines. In areas other than Palo Alto immediate to the job
fall under the jurisdiction of Portola Valley public wor~ department
whose truck route includes _Alpine Road to RT 0_8o. Howard Young of
Portola Valley public works will assess a one time road use fee to
cover the project excavation traffic and deliveries.
During excavation phase:
The material to be exported will be removed via dump truck at
roughly- 18 cubic yards per load. During the excavation phase
we anticipate running around 3o loads out per day for about 0_
and a half to three wee~. This process will be cbntinuous
between SAM and 3PM.
¯All trucks will have their tires washed thoroughly before they
enter Los Trencos Road to minimize the tracking of mud.
The trucks will proceed doom Los Trencos Road to _Alpine Road
where they will turn right and proceed to US Route 0_8o South.
They will return through the same route.
General material deliveries, debris removal:
A detailed truck route map was given to us by Dave Stillman,
which wil! be available for deliveD~ directions and reference on
the jobsite.
Al! deliveries over 7 tons will follow the Palo Alto truck route
guidelines.
Deliveries to or from Highway IoI ~adll take the Palo Alto
specified truck route via San :~mtonio Rd, Alma, and then Page
Mill to 0_8o.
NOTE: MIDDLEFIELD RD.
IN MENLO PARK HAS A
3 TON WEIGHT LIMIT.
CITY
~LO ALTO
OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
TRUCK ROUTE MAP
Chapter ~10~48 P.A.M.C.
Minimum fine for a truck route violation is $270
~LEGEN D~
PALO ALTO CITY LIMITS
~ THROUGH TRUCK ROUTE
-’-- "-- ""-~ "- LOCAL TRUCK ROUTE (TA.M, to 7 P,M, 0nly)I ...... L T,~U~.r~ ROUTE (2~: ......’ ....-~t~.l~Y~
Paio Alto Police Department O ENTRY-EXIT POINT
,ra~m~c Division: (650~ 32£-~687
Digest Of Truck Regulations
Definifieus
A.Truck. Any vehicle exceeding a maximum ~oss weight o’f seven (7) tons.
B,ResWicted Street. All streets in the city exert through and local truck routes.
C.Through Track Route..Any street upon which the unreswicted use of tracks is permitted. Tarough truck routes are indicated as hear3’ lines on
the reverse side map.
D.Local Truc-k Route. Any street upon which trucks with an origin andYor destination within the civ may operate but only bev,veen the hours of
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. These local truck routes become restricted streets between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Local truck routes are
indicated as dashed lines on the reverse side map.
E.Destination or Destinations. Either a single delivery or several deliveries within "Multiple DeliveD’ Zones’: as shown on the reverse side map.
General
C.
D.
E.
No truck shall be driven in any business district between the hours ofT:00 a~m. and 6:00 p.m. on any day exert Sunday if its load extends
more than three feet to the front or more than ten feet to the rear. ’
When appropriate sigms are erected, no person shall operate, drive or cause or permit to be operated or driven, any truck on an?, reswicted s~et
except as hereinafter provided.
No truck shall enter or leave the ci~’ exert on a thro.ugh or local truck route. Entry-exit points are shown by circles on the revere side map.
All trucks entering the oily for destinations outside the city shall operate only over a through mack route.
.all trucks entering the city for destinations in the civ shall proceed only ov~ a through or tocai truck route and sha!l deviate therefrom only by
the shortest and most direct route bevween each destination and the nearest through or local truck route. Upon lea~-ing each destination, a
deviating truck shalt remm to the nearest through or local truck route by the shortest and most direct route except that it may go directly to the
next destination by the shortest and most direct route without regard t6 mack routes, if it will result in a shorter distance being traveled on
restricted streets.
F.All trucks on a Mp ori~ating in the ci~ and traveling in the city, for destinations,, o.utside the city, shall proceed by the shortest and most direct
route to the nearest through or local truck.r~u~.
O.All tracks on a ~p originating in the ci~ and traveling for destinations in the city, sha!l proceed by the shortest and most direct route to the
nearest through or loca! mack route and shall then deviate th~efrom only by the shortest and most direct route between each destination and the
nearest through or local mack route, except that it may go directly to the next destination by the shortest and most direct route withou~ regard ~o
true~ routes if it will result in a shorter distance being traveled on restricted streets.
The interpretation of the a’oove shall be as follows:
I.All macks making deIiveri~ or pickups east of Middlefield Road (assuming Middlefield to mn north-south) must come from through er
local truck routes east of Middlefield.
2.AI! trucks making deliveries or pickK~s west of Middiefield Road must come from through or local truck routes west of Middlefield.
3.AlI trucks making deliveries or pickups to the Middlefteld Road Multiple DeiiveD’ Zone must use Oregon Expressway 24 hours a day.
All trud~,s maNng deliveries or pickups to other sections of lvliddlefield may use any through or local m~ck rome, but must remain
the through or local truck route to the point nearest to their destination.
4.All trucks making deliveries or pickups to Stanford Industrial Park must come from E1 Camino Real, Alma, or Page Mill Road or
Bayshore via San Antonio beaveen Bayshore and Aims, without using an?’ restricted street bewceen Bayshore and El Carnino Real.
Weigh-In. Any police officer shall have the authoriW to ord~ any commercial vehicle not on a through ~uck route to a public or private scale to
determine if it is in compliance with this section of the code.
FV. Exc~tions
A.Trucks making pickups or deliveries on restricted streets can use restricted streets between the nearest through or local ~’uck route and fine
specific address.
Tais section shall not aplSiy to the following:
i.Passenger buses controtaed by the P.U.C. and school buses.
2.Any vehicle owned or operated by a public utiii~’, or by the city. or an’:’ vehicle used for the r~rnoval of ref~e under contract. ~dth the
ci~’.
3.An?’ authorized emergency vehicle.
c,~,~in,,. ~o,,rnir~ T,~,~’~ ......*~ ,~o~;~’-~ted in-~e,’:wJ~ issued under the ~,ro,~i,,,,~ o?;h~ =’,,’~vot~,r. Grading. ~,,d ~;us Ordinance must be in
compliance ",vith routes esmblished ~n-this s~cdon.
"Urals digest shall in no way change the legal Lu~erp. retations or meaning of the Pale Alto Municipa! Code.
Revised August 22:2002
61o Los Trencos Road, Palo A!to, CA
Item 4: Provide "cut sheets" and greater detail of the
exterior lighting proposed for the outside of the residence.
A revised arehitecturaJ lighting plan is included in the resubmitted
plans and cut sheets are prox4ded describing the ex<erior fix~tures
involved.
PAUL FERRAN INC.
ITEM #2023 - "PLAZA"
DIMENSIONS: 30"H X 30"D
FINISH: ALABASTER W!OLD !RON
....90v~y Tel (323) "" ~"Fa~ (323) 653-65048464 Melrose mace, ~os Angmes, CA
LUMi[:’RE
ZUMA
1211 1211-1
1212 1212-1
1213 1213-1
BW TT COMPACT
FLUORESCENT
2DW-30W INCANDESCENT
STEP LIGHT
¯Injection molded U.V,
stabilized polycarbonate
material housing and
facepla~e. Stainless steel
and brass hardware. Two
112" NPS threaded holes for
easy wiring
¯1211, 1211-1 ;
Potycarbonate lens secured
with a silicone adhesive
1211-3, 1211-3-1, 1212 and
1213. Tern pered glass lens,
secured with a silicone
adhesive
¯Corrosion-resistant high-
output reflector
¯Sealed with an EPDM
closed cell gasket between
housing and face plate
1211:G23 secketwith
stainless steel contacts.
1211-3:GX23 sccket. 1212,
1213: Brass D.C. Bayonet
Base.
¯Standard 120V ballasL 270V
HPF ballast also available.
¯All ETL listed.
1211, 1211-1, 1211-3,
121 t -3-1: wet location, for
installation in poured
concrete, masonry, etc. and
cabinets 12"x 12"x 4° or
larger, mounted 1" or more
from cabinet wall
¯212, 1213 ETLlis~ed, wet
location for poured
concrete, masonry and IC
installation,
COOPER LIGHTING
DESCRIPTION
An extremely durable recessed
step light for use with compact
fluorescent lamps. Its clean,
compact design is unobtrusive
yet functional, making it ideal
for commercial or residential
use. Constructed from unique
U.V. stabilized composite
material for ex~ended durability
and corrosion resistance.
Horizontal louvers engineered
at 45° to provide maximum
light output with minimum
visual glare. Also available with
face plate with diffusedopen
lens. Factory equipped with the
following lamps: .1211-gWTT
compact fluorescent
1211-3-13W TT
compact fluorescent
1212, 1212-1-20W T6 1/2
incandescent lamp
1213, 1213-1-18W S-8
incandescent lamp
DIMENSIONS
£ 1/8"[232mm]
~2 5/8"[67mm]
Side View
Face Plate Options
167mini
9 118" ~ ~~ [232mrn] ~
Louvered face plate
£~ [232mm] ~
Open face plate
-"-T 2 11~"
[225mm]
Hole Cut-out Size
ORDERING INFORMATION
SAMPLE NUMBER:1211 BK-120HP-WC
1 __1
Fixture Finish
1211=Fixture with st~nciard Iouvered la~ Dl~e BK=Bla~l~l-l=F~u~ w~h o~n face pl~"
1211~F~ wP~ 13W lamp
121%3-1= ~me ~ 1211-3, ~ o~n face pla~
1~2=120V r~ w~ ~nd~ Iou~ la~ pl~~’=C~, S1~2-1=120V F~ w~ o~n ~ pl~
1~3=12V £~ ~h ~nda~ Iouv~ed fa~ pla~
11
Ballast/Mounting
(for 1211 seriesonl~y)
120=120V Normal Power
Fact ~" Ballast
12~HP=12OV High Power
Fac~3r Ballast
277=277V Normal Power
Factor
1
Options
-4= Die cast aluminum
Iouvered or open face
plate replaces composite
face plate for ~# 1211,
1211-1, 1211-3,1211-3-1
-we= At[ached die cast
aluminum wiring
comparumer~ with
through l~-anen wiring
= Available only when ~e -4 opdon (aluminum face,late) i~ sele.."~-~. Consult your repre.sem~adve for ec~di[ional op’done an~ finis,~es. For
cornplet~ pro~:l.=t cat.a, refer ~ the Lumiere Spesifiea~ion Binder. Specifications anc~ ~imensions subje~ to crang~ without n&’~=e.
Products also available in non-US vcl~ges and frequencies for interradonal rnari,~cs. Consu~ yea Jr Coep~_r Ugh~Jng re_preserr~adve for
availabil~y and or~i~ring information.
HALO*
HTT
NON-IC HOUSING
¯For non-insulated ceilings
or where insulation can be
kept 3" from housing
(U.S. only)
DESCRIPTION
Flexible, reliable and easyto
install. The HTr lathe best
choice for residential and
commercial applications.
Housing Features
¯Integral thermal protector
guards against misuse of
insulation materials and
improper lamping.
¯Adjustable socket bracket
allows the use of different
lamp types and sizes as well
as proper.and consistent
lamp positioning.
¯Junction Boxis listed for
through branch circuit wiring
and has seven 1/2" knockouts
and four Romex knockouts
with true pry out slots. Romex
knockouts include built in
strain relief and require no
additional clamps.
¯Plaster frame includes locking
screw for hanger bars and
cutouts for cdmping hanger
bars in position.
¯Housing adjustmem screws
can betightened with flat blade
screwdriver, Philips
screwdriver, wrench or
nutdriver.
¯Pro-installed, captive bar
hangers ailow housing
to be positio .ned at an,,, point
within a 24~ joist span. Score
lines provided for easy field
she rtening for 12" joists.
Unique arrowhead design
provides "N ailess"
installation. Bar hangers can
be repositioned 90= without
tools. Hangers fit onto T-Bar
spline for quick alignment
and can be permanently
secured with optional
TB7 T-Bar clip.
Installa~on Features
¯7 1/2" Height allows use in
2"× 8" joist construction,
¯Housing adjuststo
accommodate up to 2" thick
ceilings.
Listings
¯ UL Damp Location
¯ UL Feed Through
¯ IP Rated
¯ CSA Certified
DIMENSIONS
"~’~DESCRIPTION DIMENSIONS
~ ~ ~ ....housing and accommodate
" --~guard~in~ misuse of L~in-s
~insul~ion ~eriats and u ~PerTem~]a~
~improper tam~., UL Damp Location
~¯ Aaju~ablesocket b~ket . L eeaThrough
~7~~allo s the use oT d~er~t . CSA Ce~#qed
~lamp Wpes and sizes as ~_ _ . ~ ~
__.~as proper ano consi~e~~.. Ir ,ateu~
~lamp positioning.~ ~"~R=MODEL HOUSING ~ ....."-~¯ Jun~lon boxls hmeoTor ~
~~through branch d~uit wiring ~mor non-insulated ceilings ~and hasseven 1~" knockou~or where insulation can be ~,..-- ............,~.-~
kept 3" from housing ~~ _~
(U S onlv~~¯ ~our ~omexpn/outs,~n
" ’ "~integral ~rain reli~mpl~
Can be in.ailed from
below the i Romex instyTSn.ceiling
PAUL FERRAN iNC.
846/- Melrose Place, Los a ~io~ CA 90069 Tel (323),,ao--~’~"/’ 142 Fax (aaa)~’~ 653-6504
Los Trencos Road, Palo A!to, CA
Item 5: Provide an acoustics sttmmar~ and an~ysis of the
sound created by the proposed "chiller system".
The type and size of the mechanical system has not yet been
determined.
Air conditioning condenser units:
If multiple conventional condensing units running singly or in
parallel is appropriate for the building, the quietest, and most
efficient units would be specified. The units will be corralled within
the concrete enclosure nex-t to the emergency power generator. The
enclosure consists of minimum 4 foot high walls on every side and
open to the skDT.
_Air conditioning using chilled water and remote air handlers:
As an alternative to multiple condensing units, an efficient,
commercial chiller system could be used. An acoustic analysis would
then be performed to determine a proper location and enclosure to
minimize the noise impact on the site and surrounding area.
Los Trencos Road, Palo Alto, C_&
Item 6: Prmdde information concerning proposed
sust ..~nab!e and "green" construction techniques.
Most of the sustainable building techniques involve prudent selection
of materials for recycled content, low energy densi~’, and from local
sources. Other concerns are recycled construction and demolition
waste, erosion control, high emery- efficiencies for mechanical
equipment, ~,xdndows, etc. The LEED project check list x~dll be a
~f ~ .~ ~ for adaptation of the construction process.r,~_e~ e~c,~
Recuee~ D~stm
The site x,~dll be returned to the original contour.
~a2! but one of the e_~is~ng oak trees ~dl! remain untouched, and
more oak trees wil! be planted.
_~ much of the excavated rock as possible -wil! be incorporated
into the landscaping.
!,Va~er e~cient ~ " ~ ~n~~anas~ap~_~
A non-irrigated native grass rob: wi!_l_ be ineo~orated aro~d
~e site outside of the proposed pla?ing field.
O~&er ptanfings u4~ be low water demand plants.
For ~e irrigated po~on of ~e landscaping, a sub-surface low
evapora~on root Boai~ng system ~x4~ be employed.
Construction waste management
deconsLructec_ for as muchThe existing two buildings are to be ~’
reuse as possible and ~e rest }~d!l be recycled. (see item ~_o)
}dl construction waste ~dH be minimized and separated for
r~2 c!_no, or reuse.
equipment specified ~sdli be of fne highest ener~: e~ciencv
~ili~i~.
See nex: S~,~L Ior more !niormatlon:
ENERGY AND GREEN BUILDING CONCERNS
Bunker Residence, 610 Los Trencos Woods Road, Palo Alto, California
Division 2 - Sitework
02810 Irrigation system:
Division 3 - Concrete
03010 Concrete Materials:
Sub-surface ~pe irrigation system
The area around the proposed residence will return to the original contour.
Fly Ash is added to Concrete to reduce cement by 15% - 40%. A recycled
material, fly ash reduces the permeabilit.v and increases the durability of
concrete.
Division 5 - Metals
05100 Light guage steel studs:Used as in-fill framing within a Heavy steel super structure. All steel raining
materials are 60 - 75% recylcled.
Division 6 -Wood and Plaster
06010 Lumber:Certified sustainably harvested lumber Pine Cone Lumber
06190 Engineered Lumber:Interior joists, and rafters constructed with "I" section wood framing
06200 Finish carpentp/:Cabinets to be formaldehyde free particle/fiber board with water dispersed
taquer finish. Wood surfaces subject to ware are sealed with watdr based
urathane solution.
Division 7 -Thermal and moisture protection
07200 Insulation:Cellulose insulation in walls and roof, 2" (-R10) of extruded polysLTrene on
foundation walls and under basement floor.
07920 Sealants and caulking:All low toxicity sealers, silicone caulks
Division 8 - Doors and Windows
08600 Wood Windows:Metal Clad wood windows to be used with double glazed, low emissivity.
coating. The Cardinal 140 1" insulated Low- E glass has a low solar heat
coeficient of .35, a shading (fading) coefficient of .40, and a very. tow exterior
solar reflective coefficient of .25
08200 Wood Doors:
Division 9 - Finishes
09200 Lath and Piaster:
09270 Gypsum Board Accessories:
09500 Acoustical treatment:
09800 Speacial Coatings:
Solid wood doors
Low maintainance materiais
09900 Painting:
Division 10 - Specialties
10300 Fireplaces:
10530 Protective Covers:
Low VOC paints on painted surfaces
Division 11 - Equipment
11200 Water Supply and Treatment:
11450 Residential Equipment:
High Efficiency Particulate Filters (HEPA) or electronic filters in treatment
system
GE Appliances with low energy consumption
Division 12 - Furnishings
12600 Furniture and Accessories:
Division 15 - Mechanical
15400 Plumbing:
15500 HVAC:
15750 Heat Transfer:
15885 Air Cleaning Devices:
Division 16 - Electrical
Copper piping with acid-free and lead-free solder
Electrical panels located away from occupied rooms to reduce electromagnetic
field exposure.
General
61o Los Trencos Road, Pa!o Alto, CA
Item 7: Consider measures to reduce the water usage of
the la~n irrigation system and submit a description of the
proposed irrigation practices.
Hala Landscape Architecture is ex~ploring the use of the TORO
DL2ooo Series Subsurface Irrigation System for all la~ and planting
areas. They have provided product literature which describes the
system. Some oft he features of the system are as follows:
¯A technologically- advanced subsurface drip system.
¯Eliminates over-spray.
¯Allows more precise water application.
¯Delivers water through the roots eliminating evaporation.
¯Requires minimal maintenance.
The total lawn area has been reduced by approximately- 25% to less
than 1% of the total landscape area. A non irrigated grass mLx around
the site has also been proposed to further reduce the water use.
TORO®
DL2000®
Series
Subsurface
Irrigation
System
61o Los Trencos Road, Pa!o Alto, CA
Item 8: Policy N-7 of the Palo _4Jto Comprehensive Plan
encourages the use of native species for landscaping that
require little or no irrigation. A large expanse of turf at the
rear of the residence may be inconsistent with t_his poliey.
Please re-evaluate this portion of the landscape plan with
emphasis on m~izing the use of native plant species.
Hala Landscape Architecture has re~-ised their plans to show the
following design changes:
The total taw-n area has been reduced by about 0_5%; a
reduction which makes the total la~n area less than 1% of the
total landscaped area.
A non-irrigated native grass mLx around the site has been added
to further reduce water use.
61o Los Trencos Road, Palo Altos C_&
Item 9: Submit a revised "color board, emphasizing use of
colors selected for the ex~terior materials that are sensitive
to the en~ironment.
Samples of the e_~terior materials will be presented to the cit%~ council
at the July 9 meeting. They will include:
¯Slate roofing material samples.
¯A board containing the actual integral color stucco.
°E~terior stone samples mounted adjacent to the stucco.
6!o Los Trencos Road, Palo _Alto, CA
Item lo: Provide a plan for the deconstruction of the ~%vo
existing residences on the site.
After reviewing the project and a site ~dsit ~dth a representative of a
local salvage operation, Paul Gardner of Whole House Building
Salvage, we propose the following process to remove the two e~sting
residences:
¯Through the local house salvage operation, various components
of the houses (lighting and plumbing fixtures, appliances,
cabinets, carpets, etc.) will be marketed on the internet.
¯This same salvage company will then hold a demolition sale
where the houses will be picked apart and the components
sold directly from the site for re-use. Items of particular
value are the timber structural members and the T&G ceiling
planks in the lower house, the large beams in the garage, the
fence material, and ex~ensive decking around the lower house.
If there is any interest in the adobe bricks from both houses,
they will be sold off as well.
¯A~u~hing that doesn’t get sold (except for the foundation and
the adobe bricks) will be taken to the salvage yard for future
sale and re-use.
¯The concrete slabs~, footings, hardscaping, asphalt, adobe bric~,
and remaining debris will be demolished and removed from the
site by FEIK~LA CORP.
¯_All materials will be take to the Zanker Materials IKecoveo~-
Facility where it will be separated, and recycled according to the
following breakdo~ and percentages"
Concrete and ~phalt
Wood waste
Demolition debris
Trash
~flee[rocK
Wood shingles
_Asphalt shingles
95%
95%
70%
50%
98%
98%
95%
Z-Best Products Page 1 of I
Article Reprint: Cons~x~ction ]vfazerials Recycter , 1/]5/99 [Page 1 0f4
Recycling Gives Z~nker Road LandfiII Longer Life
~nd at i~ :u~rent rate of disposaL,
year~2ccording ~,:, Mi-~2c[
marketing, manage:.
Go to Pa~e: ’~ I 3 [ a
Finished Products t Materials Not Acceoted ! Credit Aaolication j Incoming Rates I Locatio______En ] Hom____Ae ] Link___As ] Racent
Art.icles
Z-Best Products Page 1 of I
Article Reprint: Consn’uction iVIa~erials Recycler, 1/25./99 Page 2 o_, -~
Doza.-. ~,bod=l D8 ...............................................................Cave:pillar
g:~cava~or.ModK.: 5Z0. w..’ihun:b~U lmcke-t ....................
Vfl.~ranng Scr~e::. L .......................................................
~c,~: Tank ........................................................................S~lf-blfilt
WOOD GRINDING OPERATION
]ub Ori ndt:,:& [2} 1 ........................................................Diamond Z
Ex~--avatoi, M<,dc.132b v,:qhu.mb~:d bUC, k~L ...................Catci?,liar
l~ac~d~r~ Mode[ 95~i ..........................................................c2atc~.it[~
L.oad¢~, Mod,.£ 980C ......................................................
Scv==:n.Ttipl(:-D¢~h= 6- 5; 20- P. ........................................Eljay
Secondatv C~tlbhgt, lmffa~o~, Model C .......................Humboidl
Haul ’l~.;ck. M~c1769 .....................................Ca:e rpilla:
Finished Products [ Materials Not AccePted. [ Credit ADDlication i incominc Rates [ Location I Home 1 Linki__As t Recer%
Articles
Z-Best Products Page 1 of 1
A_rticle Reprint: Consrrucdon MareriaLv Recycler, 1/15/99 Page 3 of 4
c.’.mpi~ o! ,’.ood:p:ck:~ :-a t1:ere.
:oad using, tin:. ~rofiuc:, and
to b~ there. 5 h~tie pi~:~ Of wOOd"
Finished Products [ Mai,,iats Not A~c~oted i Credit Aoolication [ Incominc Rates i Location I Home t Links t Recent
Articies
Z-Best Products Page 1 of I
Reprint: Consn’ucrion Materials RecycIer, J/] 5/99 Page 4 of 4
tic." hc ..-,4d. "You }::w,v.’ th=
landfill
numL~rr o~ 1~ ua;:~, .going i~ add
Finished Products I .Materials Not Acceoted )Credit ApPlication ) Jncominc Rates I Locatio~r, ( Home i L)nks ) Recent
ARicies