Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3921 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3921) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/24/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 805 Los Trancos Site & Design Extension Request Title: Approval of Record of Land Use Action Approving a Request for Extension of a 2010 Site and Design Review Approval to June 2014 for a New Residence at 805 Los Trancos Road From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A) approving a one-year, final extension of Council’s June 21, 2010 Site and Design Review approval for a new residence located at 805 Los Trancos Road. Background In response to the decline in development due to the recession, the Council adopted on November 4, 2009, an ordinance (Ordinance 5061) allowing extensions of permits approved before June 30, 2010. Council’s adopted Extensions table is below on this page, with table footnotes following: City of Palo Alto Page 2 Time Extensions for Valid Planning Entitlements Effective November 4, 2009 Table 1 (Revised per COUNCIL action) Time Extension – Permit Life Permit Type Current Code Requirements Ordinance Initial Permit Life Allowed Extension(s)2 Automatic Extension Additional Maximum Extension2 Permit Life 3 ARB, DEE, CUP, VAR, IR, HIE, NPE (no automatic for historic incl. potentially eligible) 1 year 1 year 1 year after allowed extension 1-year extensions by Director with findings GREEN BUILDING Up to 4 years unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Map Site and Design Review (no automatic for historic) 2 years unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Map 0 1 year after allowed extension One extension by Council after PTC - one additional year GREEN BUILDING Up to 4 years unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Map Planned Community (no automatic for historic) Per development schedule 1 year 1 year after allowed extension One extension by Council after PTC - one additional year GREEN BUILDING Up to 3 years + timeline in development schedule 1. The ordinance applies to column one permit types valid from ordinance adoption through June 30, 2010. 2. Project applicants must apply for any extension (except automatic) prior to the permit expiration date. 3. Maximum permit life may be acquired through a combination of initial permit life, allowed extensions, additional extensions and automatic extension. The proposed project received a Site and Design Review permit for a new two-story residence on a 3.5 acre undeveloped property located in the southern portion of the city adjacent to Portola Valley. Existing Site and Context The existing vacant project site is located in the Palo Alto foothills, in an area predominately characterized by publicly and privately owned open space. The Open Space Zoning designation recognizes the foothills’ scenic and rural quality. The site was previously used as farmland, and some of the original olive trees for the farm still exist on site. The property is bordered by Los City of Palo Alto Page 3 Trancos Creek to the west and the Town of Portola Valley beyond, Los Trancos Road to the north and east, and a vacant parcel to the south, as shown on the attached location map (Attachment D). A small seasonal segment of Buckeye Creek, which traverses a narrow center portion of the site, eventually connects to Los Trancos Creek off site to the west. Due to the small size of Buckeye creek, the dominant riparian habitat is along Los Trancos Creek. Project Description The proposed project is the construction of a new two-story, 11,184-square foot single-family home (which includes the garage and basement areas), an access drive from Los Trancos Road, an 18-foot wide by 75-foot long swimming pool and landscaping improvements. Twenty-six trees are proposed to be planted around the residence, increasing landscape screening and reducing visibility from public roads. The residence would be set back a minimum of 120 feet away from Los Trancos Road. The project also includes placement of a wood bridge over Buckeye Creek. The building materials have been chosen to blend with the natural surroundings. A light- colored natural stone would be used for the base of many of the permeable areas that surround the home. Muted, natural colors have been chosen for both the siding and stucco that would constitute the majority of the wall areas that may be visible from both on and off-site. A treated and stained wood has been selected for all doors, window frames and railings to help reduce the reflectivity of these elements. A non-reflective Spanish style clay tile, in keeping with the overall architectural theme of the home, has been chosen as the roof material to mitigate any sun reflection that may naturally arise during the daylight hours. The new driveway would be located on the northeastern portion of the property and was originally used as a driveway when the site was an active farm. The improvements also include construction of a small five-foot wide by two-foot high culvert to allow for Buckeye Creek to continue to flow undisturbed under the new driveway and through the site. The remainder of the creek would be maintained undisturbed. The home is to be located on a relatively flat and open area of the site, approximately 70 to 120 feet from the top bank of the Los Trancos Creek and 190 feet from the top of bank of Buckeye Creek. All other elements of the development would be located at least 50 feet from the top of the Los Trancos creek bank. Passive landscaped open space and fencing is proposed approximately 20 feet from Buckeye Creek. Summary of Land Use Action Ordinance 5061 requires that City Council make a specific finding before granting an extension request. Specifically, the City Council must find that the project would not adversely affect public health or safety and would not substantially conflict with any applicable Zoning Code or Comprehensive changes that have been adopted by the City Council since the original application was deemed complete, and may otherwise adjust project conditions to address City of Palo Alto Page 4 minor changes. These findings can be made in the positive as there have been no substantive zoning or Comprehensive Plan changes in this area. The applicant intends to move forward with construction prior to the 2014 expiration of the extended Site and Design Review approval, should it be granted. Planning and Transportation Commission Review On June 12, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission unanimously recommended (7- 0 vote, on consent calendar) that the Council extend its Site and design Review approval one additional year. Meeting minutes are provided as Attachment C to this report. Policy Implications This is the second request received, pursuant to Ordinance 5061, for an extension of a City Council Site and Design Review Approval that has required Commission and Council review and action. The only other such request was for the recently approved Site and Design Review extension approval for the Ming’s Hotel project, which was granted in April of 2013. Extensions of Director’s decisions have been approved at the Director’s level. Comprehensive Plan The project site includes two Comprehensive Plan land use designations: 1) Streamside Open Space and 2) Open Space/Controlled Development. The Comprehensive Plan designation for site is designated Streamside Open Space because of its proximity to Los Trancos Creek. The Open Space/Controlled Development allows for very low density (0.1-1 dwelling unit per acre) single family uses. The intent of the Streamside Open Space designation is to protect the corridor of riparian vegetation along natural streams. The corridor can vary in width up to 200 feet on either side of the center line of the creek. The project has been designed to protect and enhance the riparian corridor and includes the construction of an earthen berm to clearly delineate and protect the riparian corridor along a 50-foot setback from the top of bank. No building or other work is proposed within the riparian corridor. The applicant has developed a planting plan that is non-invasive and compatible with the riparian and rural nature of the site. The applicant is maintaining most of the existing trees onsite. Given the proposed design of the project, potential effects to the surrounding residential uses and sensitive riparian habitat have been minimized. The project is considered consistent with Comprehensive Plan Open Space policies. The project is specifically consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Program N-7 of the Natural Environment Element, which provides policy to protect natural creeks. A border of native riparian vegetation would be planted at least 25 feet along the creek bank. The project is consistent with Program N-7 in that it protects and enhances the creek and riparian habitat. The Comprehensive Plan provides for flexibility in the corridor width because it recognizes that conditions will vary site to site. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Because the project was designed to protect and enhance the Los Trancos Creek riparian corridor, it has been deemed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Resource Impact The applicant will be required to pay developmetn impact fees and other fees in place at the time of buildnig permit issuance. Environmental Review A Negative Declaration for this project was adopted by the Council on June 21, 2010. Courtesy Copies Mark Conroe Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (PDF)  Exhibit 1: 805 Los Trancos Final Record of Land Use Action (PDF)  Attachment B: Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report and Attachments, June 12, 2013 (PDF)  Attachment C: Planning & Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes, June 12, 2013 (PDF)  Attachment D: Location Map (PDF) 1 APPROVAL NO. 2013-________ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 805 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: File 13PLN-00185 EXTENSION OF COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE AND DESIGN (Extension of Site and Design Review of FILE 04IPT-2217) (Langenskiold Family Trust, OWNERS) At its meeting on _________,2013, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the requested Extension of its Site and Design Review for a new 11,184 square foot single family home and site modifications to residential property at 805 Los Trancos Road in the City’s Open Space District (“the Property”), making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 22, 2010, City Council approved the Site and Design Review application by Mark Conroe for construction of an 11,184 square foot single family home and site modifications (The Project”) (Exhibit 1, Record of Land Use Action 2010-6). A request for extension was filed on April 30, 2013 to extend the Site and Design Review Approval for an addition, final year, in accordance with Ordinance 5061. B. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the extension request on June 12, 2013, and recommended approval of the extension. C. The City Council finds that the project would not adversely affect public health of safety and would not substantially conflict with any applicable Zoning Code or comprehensive changes that have been adopted by the City Council since the original application was deemed complete. 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 2 original Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning February 19, 2010 through March 10, 2010. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, advertised and circulated for 30 days beginning March 5, 2010. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration are attached in CMR: 277:10. SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Permit Extension Finding The project would not adversely affect public health or safety and would not substantially conflict with any applicable Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan changes that have been adopted by the City Council since the original application was deemed complete, and may otherwise adjust project conditions to address minor changes. These findings can be made as the project does not adversely affect public health or safety and there have been no substantive zoning changes in this area. The applicant intends to move forward with construction as originally approved prior to the 2014 expiration of the extended Site and Design Review approval. SECTION 4. Site and Design Approvals Granted Site and Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.82.070 for application 04IPT-2217, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 8 of this Record. SECTION 5. Plan Approval The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by BKF, Devon Construction Incorporated, Heacox Associates Landscape Architects, and Lea and Braze Engineering Inc. titled “Langenskiold Family Trust 805 Los Trancos Road”, consisting of 15 pages, dated received on April 28, 2010,except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 6. Indemnity To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized 3 hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval The same conditions of Council approval in Exhibit 1 shall apply to the extended Approval. SECTION 8. Fees, Dedications or other Exactions The California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90- DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. SECTION 9. Judicial Review This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. SECTION 10. Term of Approval Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within one year of the date of City Council approval, the approvals shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.080 and Ordinance 5061. PASSED: AYES: 4 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by BKF, Devon Construction Incorporated, Heacox Associates Landscape Architects, and Lea and Braze Engineering Inc. titled “Langenskiold Family Trust 805 Los Trancos Road”, consisting of 15 pages, dated received on April 28, 2010, and landscape plans prepared by Heacox Associates Landscape Architects titled “Langenskiold Family Trust”, dated received April 28, 2010. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3867) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 6/12/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 805 Los Trancos Site & Design Permit Extension Title: Approval of 805 Los Trancos Road Site and Design Permit Extension From: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Lead Department: Planning & Transportation Commission Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that Council approve the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A) approving a one-year, final extension of Council’s June 21, 2010 Site and Design Review approval for the construction of a new single family residence at 805 Los Trancos Road. Background In response to the decline in development due to the recession, the Council adopted on November 4, 2009, an ordinance (Ordinance 5061, Attachment H) allowing extensions of permits approved before June 30, 2010. Council’s adopted Extensions table is below on this page, with table footnotes following: Time Extensions for Valid Planning Entitlements Effective November 4, 2009 Table 1 (Revised per COUNCIL action) Time Extension – Permit Life Permit Type Current Code Requirements Ordinance Initial Permit Life Allowed Extension(s)2 Automatic Extension Additional Maximum Extension2 Permit Life 3 ARB, DEE, CUP, VAR, IR, HIE, NPE (no automatic for historic incl. potentially eligible) 1 year 1 year 1 year after allowed extension 1-year extensions by Director with findings GREEN BUILDING Up to 4 years unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Map City of Palo Alto Page 2 Site and Design Review (no automatic for historic) 2 years unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Map 0 1 year after allowed extension One extension by Council after PTC - one additional year GREEN BUILDING Up to 4 years unless associated with a Vesting Tentative Map Planned Community (no automatic for historic) Per development schedule 1 year 1 year after allowed extension One extension by Council after PTC - one additional year GREEN BUILDING Up to 3 years + timeline in development schedule 1. The ordinance applies to column one permit types valid from ordinance adoption through June 30, 2010. 2. Project applicants must apply for any extension (except automatic) prior to the permit expiration date. 3. Maximum permit life may be acquired through a combination of initial permit life, allowed extensions, additional extensions and automatic extension. On June 21, 2010, Council approved a Site and Design Review application for a new two-story residence on a 3.5 acre undeveloped parcel of land. This parcel is located in the southern portion of the city adjacent to Portola Valley. The floor area of the home would be 11,184 square feet, including the garage and basement areas. The home would be accessed by a private driveway from Los Trancos Road and a wooden bridge over Buckeye Creek. A swimming pool and landscaping improvements are included in the project. This project was first reviewed by the Commission on March 24, 2010 and recommended for approval on May 19, 2010. The project plans have not been revised since Council approval. The Council approved the environmental review and project, with a RLUA that included the Commission’s suggested approval condition requiring the applicant to provide temporary construction access on both sides of Buckeye Creek to avoid impacting the creek during construction. A copy of the approved RLUA is provided as Exhibit 1 for the draft RLUA (Attachment A). The applicant is requesting the Site and Design Review Approval Extension to complete the construction drawings and obtain a construction loan. Mr. Conroe is planning to start construction later this year. Under Ordinance 5061, Site and Design Review Approval Extensions must be recommended by the Commission prior to Council approval. Council’s approval of the extension would result in a total permit life of four years, with commencement of construction by June 2014. Existing Site and Context City of Palo Alto Page 3 The project site is located in the Palo Alto foothills, in an area predominately characterized by publicly and privately owned open space. The Open Space Zoning designation recognizes the foothills’ scenic and rural quality. The site was previously used as farmland and some of the olive trees originally planted for the farm still exist on site. The property is bordered by Los Trancos Creek to the west and the Town of Portola Valley beyond, Los Trancos Road to the north and east, and a vacant parcel to the south, as shown on the attached location map (Attachment E). A small segment of Buckeye Creek traverses a narrow center portion of the site, which eventually connects to Los Trancos Creek offsite to the west. Due to the small size of Buckeye creek, the dominant riparian habitat is along Los Trancos Creek. Project Description The proposed project is the construction of a new two-story, 11,184-square foot single-family home (which includes the garage and basement areas), an access drive from Los Trancos Road, a swimming pool (18’ x 75’) and landscaping improvements. Twenty-six trees are proposed to be planted around the residence, increasing landscape screening and reducing visibility from public roads. The residence would be set back a minimum of 120 feet from Los Trancos Road. The building materials and colors would blend with the natural surroundings. These include a light-colored natural stone base and permeable paving areas; muted, natural siding and stucco colors since the walls may be visible from off-site views; treated and stained wood doors, window frames and railings; and non-reflective Spanish style clay tile. The new driveway would be located on the northeastern portion of the property and was originally used as a driveway when the site was an active farm. The improvements also include construction of a small five-foot wide by two-foot high culvert to allow for Buckeye Creek to continue to flow undisturbed under the new driveway and through the site. The remainder of the creek would be maintained undisturbed. The home is to be located on a relatively flat and open area of the site, approximately 70 to 120 feet from the top bank of the Los Trancos Creek and 190 feet from the top of bank of Buckeye Creek. All other elements of the development would be located at least 50 feet from the top of the Los Trancos creek bank. Passive landscaped open space and fencing is proposed approximately 20 feet from Buckeye Creek. Summary of Land Use Action The Planning and Transportation Commission is requested to recommend that Council extend the Site and Design Review Approval for one additional year or until 2014. In order to grant the extension, the City Council must find that the project would not adversely affect public health or safety and would not substantially conflict with any applicable Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan changes that have been adopted by the City Council since the original application was deemed complete, and may otherwise adjust project conditions to address minor changes. These findings can be made as the project does not adversely affect public City of Palo Alto Page 4 health or safety and there have been no substantive zoning changes in this area. The applicant intends to move forward with construction prior to the 2014 expiration of the extended Site and Design Review approval. Policy Implications This is the second request received, pursuant to Ordinance 5061, for an extension of a City Council Site and Design Review Approval that has required a Commission and Council review and action. Permit extensions of Director’s decisions have been approved at the Director’s level. The only other request for extension of a Council approved project was the Site and Design Review extension for the hotel project on the Ming’s restaurant site. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designation for site is designated Streamside Open Space because of its proximity to Los Trancos Creek. A very small portion of the southeast corner of the property is designated Open Space/Controlled Development, which does allow for single family uses. The intent of the Streamside Open Space designation is to protect the corridor of riparian vegetation along natural streams. The corridor can vary in width up to 200 feet on either side of the center line of the creek. The project has been designed to protect and enhance the riparian corridor and the project includes the construction of an earthen berm to clearly delineate and protect the riparian corridor along a 50-foot setback from the top of bank. No other work is proposed within the riparian corridor. No buildings are proposed within the riparian corridor. The applicant has developed a planting plan that is non-invasive and compatible with the riparian and rural nature of the site. The applicant is maintaining most of the existing trees onsite. The proposed berm will help protect the corridor by defining a line between developable and undevelopable areas. Application of the maximum 200-foot open space buffer allowed under the Streamside Open Space designation would render the site undevelopable. The Comprehensive Plan provides for flexibility in the corridor width because it recognizes that conditions will vary site to site. Because the project was designed to protect and enhance the Los Trancos Creek riparian corridor, it has been deemed to be consistent with the designation. The Open Space/Controlled Development land use designation allows residential densities from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre. Adjacent 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 considered consistent with Comprehensive Plan Open Space policies and the land use designation of Streamside Open Space. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Comprehensive Plan Program N-7 of the Natural Environment Element provides policy to protect natural creeks. The policy states that the City should adopt regulations to prohibit structures, ornamental landscaping or outdoor active area within 100 feet of the top of a creek bank. However, it states that passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle pathways where there are adequate setbacks to protect the riparian vegetation. A border of native riparian vegetation should be planted at least 25 feet along the creek bank. The project is consistent with Program N-7 in that it protects and enhances the creek and riparian habitat. Although a portion of the building is within 70 feet of the top of the Los Trancos Creek bank, the majority of the development occurs outside of the 100 foot setback from the top of bank. The applicant proposes to construct a natural earth berm along the 50-foot setback line from the top of the Los Trancos Creek bank to protect and enhance the existing riparian corridor between the berm and the creek. Conditions of approval require that native riparian vegetation replace invasive species at least 50 feet along the Los Trancos Creek bank and planting of native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet from the Buckeye Creek top of bank. The building is also located more than 100 feet beyond the top of the Buckeye Creek bank. Attachment G provides in detail the project’s compliance with the 12 applicable development criteria for Program N-7. Criterion 13 does not apply because the project site is located with the Palo Alto city limits. The Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance adopted in 2007 in response to the Program N-7 recognized that flexibility to determine the minimum riparian setback from the top of a creek bank was warranted. It identifies a slope stability protection area that is smaller than the 100 feet minimum from the Comprehensive Plan. The regulation states that development shall be located outside of the slope stability protection area, which is within 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 landward from the toe of bank. Lesser setbacks are appropriate as long as the creek and riparian corridor are protected. The applicant proposes no development within 50 feet from the top of Los Trancos Creek bank, which allows for the protection of the riparian corridor and creek. The project also includes carefully chosen native and noninvasive plant species consistent with the ordinance. Program N-7 also recognizes that flexibility can be granted to existing development within 100-feet setback. Although the site was vacant, the City granted the property the ability to be developed with a residential use. The lot’s odd triangular shape and two creeks limit development. The policy allows development within the 100 feet provided where the redevelopment is designed to be consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and improve the condition. The applicant designed the home to ensure protection and enhancement of the creek. Timeline The extension request is tentatively scheduled to go to City Council in June 2013. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Page 6 A Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was adopted by the Council on June 21, 2010. Courtesy Copies Mark Conroe Attachments:  Attachment A: Extension ROLUA (PDF)  Exhibit 1: 805 Los Trancos RLUA final (PDF)  Attachment B: 03.24.10 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes (PDF)  Attachment C: 05.19.10 P&TC Staff Report and Minutes (PDF)  Attachment D: MND (PDF)  Attachment E: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment F: Applicant Letter (PDF)  Attachment G: Open Space Development Criteria (PDF)  Attachment H: Ordinance 5061 Permit Extension (PDF) 1 APPROVAL NO. 2013-________ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 805 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: File 13PLN-00185 EXTENSION OF COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE AND DESIGN (Extension of Site and Design Review of FILE 04IPT-2217) (Langenskiold Family Trust, OWNERS) At its meeting on _________,2013, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the requested Extension of its Site and Design Review for a new 11,184 square foot single family home and site modifications to residential property at 805 Los Trancos Road in the City’s Open Space District (“the Property”), making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 22, 2010, City Council approved the Site and Design Review application by Mark Conroe for construction of an 11,184 square foot single family home and site modifications (The Project”) (Exhibit 1, Record of Land Use Action 2010-6). A request for extension was filed on April 30, 2013 to extend the Site and Design Review Approval for an addition, final year, in accordance with Ordinance 5061. B. The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the extension request on June 12, 2013, and recommended approval of the extension. C. The City Council finds that the project would not adversely affect public health of safety and would not substantially conflict with any applicable Zoning Code or comprehensive changes that have been adopted by the City Council since the original application was deemed complete. 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 2 original Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning February 19, 2010 through March 10, 2010. A revised Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, advertised and circulated for 30 days beginning March 5, 2010. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration are attached in CMR: 277:10. SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Permit Extension Finding The project would not adversely affect public health or safety and would not substantially conflict with any applicable Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan changes that have been adopted by the City Council since the original application was deemed complete, and may otherwise adjust project conditions to address minor changes. These findings can be made as the project does not adversely affect public health or safety and there have been no substantive zoning changes in this area. The applicant intends to move forward with construction as originally approved prior to the 2014 expiration of the extended Site and Design Review approval. SECTION 4. Site and Design Approvals Granted Site and Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.82.070 for application 04IPT-2217, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 8 of this Record. SECTION 5. Plan Approval The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by BKF, Devon Construction Incorporated, Heacox Associates Landscape Architects, and Lea and Braze Engineering Inc. titled “Langenskiold Family Trust 805 Los Trancos Road”, consisting of 15 pages, dated received on April 28, 2010,except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 6. Indemnity To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized 3 hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval The same conditions of Council approval in Exhibit 1 shall apply to the extended Approval. SECTION 8. Fees, Dedications or other Exactions The California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90- DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. SECTION 9. Judicial Review This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. SECTION 10. Term of Approval Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within one year of the date of City Council approval, the approvals shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.080 and Ordinance 5061. PASSED: AYES: 4 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by BKF, Devon Construction Incorporated, Heacox Associates Landscape Architects, and Lea and Braze Engineering Inc. titled “Langenskiold Family Trust 805 Los Trancos Road”, consisting of 15 pages, dated received on April 28, 2010, and landscape plans prepared by Heacox Associates Landscape Architects titled “Langenskiold Family Trust”, dated received April 28, 2010. TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: March 24, 2010 SUBJECT: 805 Los Trancos Road [04IPT-2217]: Request for Site and Design review of a new 11,184 square foot single family home. Environmental Review: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone District: Open Space (OS). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review the Open Space home plans, take public testimony and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C) and approve the Site and Design Review application for a new home in the OS (Open Space) Zone District based upon the Open Space Design Criteria and the Site and Design findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). BACKGROUND The application was submitted on May 7, 2004 and in review since then. There have been on­ going discussions about the Open Space Zoning district development standards since then. However, the project is subject to the development standards in effect at the time of the application submittal. Per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.28.070(k), any substandard lot that was a lawfully buildable site on July 5, 1972 would be considered a developable site. The subject site has been a legal parcel since the 1850s prior to incorporation into the City of Palo Alto, and therefore would be allowed to be developed. Si te Information The 3.55 acre vacant project site is located in the Palo Alto Foothills. The site is located in an area predominately characterized by publicly and privately owned open space. The Open Space Zoning designation recognizes the foothills' scenic and rural quality. In fact, the site was City of Palo Alto Page 1 previously used as farmland and some of the olive trees originally planted for the farm still exist on site. The site is currently vacant. The property is bordered by Los Trancos Creek to the west and the Town of Portola Valley beyond, Los Trancos Road to the north and east, and a vacant parcel to the south, as shown on the attached location map (Attachment A). Views from the portion of the site to be improved and constructed on are to the west towards Portola Valley. A snlall segment of Buckeye Creek traverses a narrow center portion of the site, which eventually connects to Los Trancos Creek offsite to the west. The creek originally ran along the southern boundary of the property to connect with Los Trancos Creek. However, approximately 50-80 years ago, a concrete culvert was constructed southeast of the site to artificially redirect the creek, which is why the current alignment is considered a bypass. Buckeye Creek measures approximately three to five feet in width, measured to the top of bank and is subject to minor modification as part of this project. Due to the small size of the creek, the dominant riparian habitat is along Los Trancos Creek. Project Description The proposed project is the construction of a new two-story, 11,184-square foot single-family home (which includes the garage and basement areas) on the 3.5 acre undeveloped site, an access drive fronl Los Trancos Road, amenities including an 18 feet wide by 75 feet long swimming pool, and landscaping improvements (see Attachment I, page A-O). The new driveway would be located on the northeastern portion of the property and was originally used as a driveway when the site was an active farm. The improvements also include construction of a small five-foot wide by two-foot high culvert to allow for Buckeye Creek to continue to flow undisturbed under the new driveway and through the site. The remainder of the creek will be maintained undisturbed. The applicant will be required to obtain permits from state agencies that regulate the watershed, including the Department of Fish and Game. The honle is to be located on a relatively flat and open area of the site, approximately 70 to 120 feet from the top bank of the Los Trancos Creek and 190 feet from the top of bank of Buckeye Creek. All other elements of the development would be located at least 50 feet from the top of the Los Trancos creek bank. Passive landscaped open space and fencing is proposed approximately 20 feet from Buckeye Creek. The applicant has been working carefully with the planning arborist on the landscaping plans for several years. Trees The tree survey prepared for the site found 54 trees onsite. One oak tree fell during a storm in December 2009 and was removed from the site. There are 13 remaining protected trees, but no protected trees are proposed for removal. The applicant proposes to remove two dead trees (bay and willow) and seven other trees (three bays, one willow, one walnut and two olive) due to poor health and to accommodate the new driveway or other fill area. The applicant proposes to plant twenty-six new trees around the residence. New landscaping will consist of native grasses and non-invasive trees, grape vines and shrubs. Only four ornamental trees are proposed to be planted within the new courtyard at the back of the building. A condition of approval would require that no ornamental vegetations be planted within 100 feet of the top of the Los Trancos Creek bank. Two canary island date palm trees are proposed to be planted at the center of the site, outside of the 100-foot riparian zone. New landscaping 100 feet from the top of bank of Los Trancos Creek and 25 feet from Buckeye Creek will be fire retardant and conlpatible with the riparian and rural environment. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Riparian Corridor The applicant proposes to construct a natural earth berm, two to three feet in height, along the 50 feet top of back setback area to clearly define and protect what would be the undisturbed riparian corridor. No landscaping changes, or other activity, are proposed between the berm and Los Trancos Creek. Between fifty and 100 feet of the top of the Los Trancos Creek bank, the applicant proposes minimal grading and landscaping consistent with the rural character of the area. All vegetation in this area would be native, drought resistant landscaping materials. Other than the culvert used to allow Buckeye Creek to continue flow undisturbed under the new driveway, no changes are proposed to Buckeye Creek. No improvements are proposed to the north side of the creek. The applicant also proposes to maintain the existing condition on the first twenty feet on the south side of the creek. Grading Minimal grading (5 cubic yards of cut, 625 cubic yards of fill) would be needed as the chosen site area for the proposed structure is primarily flat. A majority of the grading work will be done for the building pad, swimming pool, culvert for Buckeye Creek and where the driveway meets Los Trancos Road, all located at least 70 feet from the top of the Los Trancos Creek bank. Materials and color have been chosen to be compatible with the natural surroundings of the site. A condition of approval will require the applicant to obtain and submit all required permits or letters stating permits are not required from outside agencies, including the Department of Fish and Game and the US Army Corps of Engineers, for the proposed culvert and creek work as appropriate. Commission Purview All sites in the Open Space district are subject to the Site Design and Review COIIlbining District regulations (Per the City of PAMC Chapter 18.28.070(b). In this case, a Site and Design review is required because the proposal includes the construction of a new residence that must be evaluated for consistency with the intent and review criteria of the Open Space Zoning District regulations. The purview of the PTC is to review the project plans to ensure the project meets the Site and Design Review approval findings, the Open Space zoning regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The PTC is to recommend approval, approval with suggested changes or denial, based on whether site and design approval findings can be made. The Record of Land Use Action provides draft findings. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES The proposed residence meets the standards for development in the Open Space Zoning District and nearby creeks that were applicable at the time the application was submitted in 2004. The project's compliance with the updated open space standards of 2009 are shown in Table 1 (Attachnlent F) for comparison purposes. Though the project application was not deemed complete in 2004, the City'S practice has been to allow projects submitted to follow development standards in place at the time of submittal. The application was submitted prior to the adoption of PAMC Chapter 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection section, but the project was designed to be consistent with these requirements. The City's Green Building requirements and development impact fees are applicable. The applicant has submitted a Build-it-Green checklist (Attachnlent E) and has confirmed that the intention is to meet the Green Building requirement. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Development Visibility Site development will occur on the southern portion of the site, which will leave it potentially visible from the slopes located to the west of the site towards Portola Valley. It is not anticipated to be visible from public open space. Views from neighboring slopes to the east and south will be minimal, given the dense screening that would be directly adjacent to the home, which would be intermittently visible through the existing foliage and trees from the adjacent Los Trancos Road. Twenty-six trees are proposed to be planted around the residence, increasing landscape screening and reducing visibility from public roads. The residence would be set back a minimum of 120 feet away from Los Trancos Road. Story poles have been erected on the site to indicate the proposed construction, for the benefit of the public and P&TC in their consideration of the project. Photos illustrating the visibility of the story poles from Los Trancos road have been provided in Attachment D by the applicant. The building materials have been chosen to blend with the natural surroundings. A light-colored natural stone would be used for the base of many of the permeable areas that surround the home. Muted, natural colors have been chosen for both the siding and stucco that would constitute the majority of the wall areas that may be visible from both on and off-site. A treated and stained wood has been selected for all doors, window frames and railings that should help reduce the reflectivity of these elements. A non-reflective Spanish style clay tile, in keeping with the overall architectural theme of the home, has been chosen as the roof material to mitigate any sun reflection that may naturally arise at given times during the daylight hours. Riparian Setback and Landscaping The applicant has worked with planning staff and the planning arborist to develop a plan that would protect and enhance the Los Trancos Creek riparian corridor and Buckeye Creek while allowing the development of a residence and an appropriate planting plan. As previously stated, the application was submitted prior to the 2007 adoption of the Stream Corridor Protection chapter which regulates streamside development including identifying setbacks for development. However, the applicant has worked with staff to be consistent with the intent of those regulations. The purpose of this chapter is to preserve riparian resources and most importantly the area within 50 feet of the top of the creek bank. The applicant is proposing to construct a protective natural earth berm to make distinct the existing riparian corridor at the fifty feet setback along Los Trancos Creek. There is no work proposed between the berm and the creek, maintaining a natural riparian corridor. However, because this area has been impacted by invasive vegetation, a condition of approval would require the applicant to work with staff to replace the invasive vegetation with natural riparian species. On the other side of the berm, the applicant is proposing landscaping that is compatible with the rural character of the property. All plant materials would be non-invasive and fire retardant species. The residence would be placed 70 to 130 feet from the top of Los Trancos Creek. The applicant is also proposing minimal work for Buckeye Creek and its immediate surroundings. The only work proposed is the installation of a culvert to allow the driveway to be constructed above without changing the location of the creek or its flow direction. The applicant is proposing work only on one side of Buckeye Creek. On the south side of Buckeye Creek, a condition of approval requires relocation of the fence to at least 25 feet from the top of bank. The first 25 feet would be planted only with native riparian plant materials. No activity, other than restorative plantings, would occur twenty feet landward from the top of bank of either creek. All plant materials have been carefully City of Palo Alto Page 4 reviewed by staff for compatibility with the habitat. Overall, the project would enhance the riparian corridor by creating a distinct riparian area and replacing invasive species with more compatible ones. Impervious Areas Consistent with the regulations of the Open Space District, a maximum of 5,407 sq. ft. or 3.5% of impervious surfaces are proposed with this project. All driveway surfaces, as well as the majority of walkways and outdoor areas, would remain either natural or make use of permeable materials, such as gravel. The patio areas directly adjacent to the residence would be constructed of pavers that would be at least 75% permeable. The area of permeable materials, regardless of percentage of permeability, is not counted toward impervious coverage. The swimming pool is also not counted against the impervious coverage maximum. A detailed break-down of the proposed impervious areas can be found on sheet A-O of Attachment I. The project would not exceed the maximum impervious area permitted in pre-2009 open space regulations. Open Space Development Criteria Section 18.28.070(0) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires that the Open Space Development Criteria be used by the Planning and Transportation 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: 1. 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 any identified view sheds (map L-4 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan). The project is located directly adjacent to Los Trancos Road, and is screened from Los Trancos Road by a dense canopy of existing trees and shrubs. Visibility from Los Trancos Road is anticipated to be intermittent at most based on visual study from story pole placement. During the spring, visibility would be reduced due to the deciduous trees gaining more foliage. It is not expected that this project would be visible from any public parklands. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line. The proposed house would be located in a valley floor and not located near any ridges. 3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. Given the proposed house location at the bottom of a narrow valley, the privacy impacts from this development on neighboring residences would be minimal. Additionally, the dense perimeter screening would reduce visibility of the development from off-site to a less than significant impact. 4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. The proposed site improvements would be located at one end of the existing flat meadow area to keep development at one part of the property and to maximize the distance of development from Los Trancos Road. City of Palo Alto PageS 5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The landscape plan calls for maintaining the majority of existing natural landscaping and trees. The house would be built at existing grade, which is flat. 6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. The majority of the trees on-site would be preserved. The tree survey prepared for the site found 54 trees onsite, including fourteen protected trees. One protected oak tree (Tree #21) fell during a storm in December 21,2009 and was removed from the site. But no protected trees are proposed for removal. The applicant proposes to remove two dead trees (bay and willow) and seven other trees (three bay, one willow, one walnut and two olive) due to poor health and to accommodate the new driveway or other fill area. Eight other trees that are in or near proposed driveway or are in potential fill area are proposed to be relocated onsite. The fallen tree has been removed from the site. The applicant will be required to work with City staff, including the City Arborist, to ensure that existing trees and landscaping are maintained and that new landscaping will be consistent with the existing and the project will be conditioned to protect existing trees that are proposed to be preserved. 7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the needfor grading. The project is located on a relatively flat meadow (with approximately three percent slope from Los Trancos Road towards Los Trancos Creek). Thus, very little cut (five cubic yards) or fill (625 cubic yards) would be required. No fill is proposed within the dripline of any trees. 8. To reduce the needfor cut andfill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. There are no large expansive areas of impervious surface proposed with this project. Impervious surfaces would be mainly used for the building's concrete foundation. 100% permeable surfaces (decomposed granite) are proposed for the driveway. All other permeable surfaces would be at least 75% permeable. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. Natural building materials in earth tones are proposed. All proposed building materials are natural with earth tone colors that would blend with the surroundings. Conditions of approval require non-reflective roofing and window surfaces. 10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The proposed landscaping incorporates a large number of native species plantings which would minimize the need for irrigation. The conditions of approval will ensure the use of fire retardant plants. All other plants are compatible and non-invasive to the rural nature of this site. City of Palo Alto Page 6 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. Conditions of approval will require that lights be low-intensity and shielded from view to ensure that off-site lighting impacts are minimized. 12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.) The proposed driveway consists of decomposed granite and no curb, sidewalk or gutters. A copy of these criteria can also be found attached into the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). Site and Design Findings Section 18.030(G).060 of the PAMC requires the Commission to review the project and recommend approval or changes such that the project is compatible with the following Site and Design findings: 1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. City standards and regulations will help to ensure that the use, or operation, of the site will be conducted in a manner that is compatible with the single-family uses located in the immediate area. The project would also be consistent with the Open Space Development Criteria and compatible with the general area. During construction, it is expected that there will be temporary impacts to the area in terms of construction-related noise, dust/debris and traffic. These impacts will be offset by applicable City construction standards, such as restrictions on hours of constructioIi, the City's noise ordinance, and the mitigation measures found in the attached draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C). 2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. As this site is located in and surrounded by single-family uses, the addition of a new single family residence on the vacant lot should not reduce the overall desirability of the immediate area. Single family homes are expressly permitted in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and can be found on other nearby Open Space (OS) properties, such as 810 Los Trancos Road. 3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. This application was subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and it was determined that with appropriate mitigation measures, detailed in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C), there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. 4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Per the above discussion, this project will be in compliance with the intent of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and applicable Open Space policies as they relate to development in the Open Space areas of the City. The project was also designed to be consistent with the Open Space Development Criteria findings. City of Palo Alto Page 7 The proposed findings are incorporated into the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designation for site is designated Streamside Open Space because of its proxinlity to Los Trancos Creek. A very small portion of the southeast comer of the property is designated Open Space/Controlled Development. The intent of the Streamside Open Space designation is to protect the corridor of riparian vegetation along natural streams. The corridor can vary in width up to 200 feet on either side of the center line of the creek. The project has been designed to protect and enhance the riparian corridor and the project includes the construction of an eal1hen beml to clearly delineate and protect the riparian corridor along a 50-foot setback from the top of bank. No other work is proposed within the riparian corridor. No buildings are proposed within the riparian corridor. The applicant has developed a planting plan that is non-invasive and compatible with the riparian and rural nature of the site. The applicant is maintaining most of the existing trees onsite. The proposed berm will help protect the corridor by defining a line between developable and undevelopable areas. Application of the nlaximum 200-foot open space buffer allowed under the Streamside Open Space designation would render the site undevelopable. The Comprehensive Plan provides for flexibility in the corridor width because it recognizes that conditions will vary site to site. Because the project was designed to protect and enhance the Los Trancos Creek riparian corridor, it has been deemed to be consistent with the designation. The Open Space/Controlled Development land use designation allows residential densities from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre. The site has a Zoning Designation is OS (Open Space District). Single family dwellings are a permitted use in the OS District. Adjacent 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 considered consistent with Comprehensive Plan Open Space policies and the land use designation of Streamside Open Space. Comprehensive Plan Program N-7 of the Natural Environment Element provides policy to protect natural creeks. The policy states that the City should adopt regulations to prohibit structures, ornamental landscaping or outdoor active area within 100 feet of the top of a creek bank. However, it states that passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle pathways where there are adequate setbacks to protect the riparian vegetation. A border of native riparian vegetation should be planted at least 25 feet along the creek bank. The project is consistent with Program N-7 in that it protects and enhances the creek and riparian habitat. Although a portion of the building is within 70 feet of the top of the Los Trancos Creek bank, the majority of the development occurs outside of the 100 foot setback from the top of , bank. The applicant proposes to construct a natural earth berm along the 50-foot setback line from the top of the Los Trancos Creek bank to protect and enhance the existing riparian corridor between the berm and the creek. A condition of approval would require that native riparian vegetation replace invasive species at least 50 feet along the Los Trancos Creek bank. A condition of approval would require the applicant to plant native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet from the Buckeye Creek top of bank. This will require the applicant to move a fence five City of Palo Alto Page 8 feet southerly towards the house. The building is also located more than 100 feet beyond the top of the Buckeye Creek bank. The Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance adopted in 2007 in response to the Program N7 recognized that flexibility to determine the minimum riparian setback from the top of a creek bank was warranted. It identifies a slope stability protection area that is smaller than the 100 feet minimum from the Comprehensive Plan. The regulation states that development shall be located outside of the slope stability protection area, which is within 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2: 1 landward from the toe of bank. Lesser setbacks are appropriate as long as the creek and riparian corridor are protected. The applicant proposes no development within 50 feet from the top of Los Trancos Creek bank, clearly providing for the protection of the riparian corridor and creek. The project also includes carefully chosen native and noninvasive plant species consistent with the ordinance. Program N-7 also recognizes that flexibility can be granted to existing development within 100-feet setback. Although the site was vacant, the City granted the property the ability to be developed with a residential use. The lot's odd triangular shape and two creeks limit development. The policy allows development within the 100 feet provided where the redevelopment be designed to be consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and improve the condition. The applicant has worked closely with staff to develop a project to meet the objectives of designing a house while protecting and enhancing the creek. Zoning 805 Los Trancos is in the Open Space District (OS), regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.28. The OS district is intended to: protect the public health, safety, and welfare; protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource; permit the reasonable use of open space land, while at the same time preserving and protecting its inherent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability for the following: as agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation or natural resource land; for the containment of urban sprawl and the structuring of urban development; and for the retention of land in its natural or near-natural state, and to protect life and property in the community from the hazards of fire, flood, and seismic activity; and coordinate with and carry out federal, state, regional, county, and city open space plans. Single-fan1ily uses are permitted in this zone district and the project would maintain open space characteristics of the site. The proposed residence meets the standards for development in the Open Space Zoning District and nearby creeks that were applicable at the time the application was submitted in 2004. Though the project application was not deemed complete in 2004, the City's practice has been to allow projects submitted to follow development standards in place at the time of submittal. Although the application was also submitted prior to the adoption of PAMC Chapter 18.40.140, the Stream Corridor Protection standards, those standards have been used as a guide for this project design. TIMELlNE If the P&TC recommends approval or approval with conditions, the project application will be forwarded to the City Council for final action upon conclusion of the 30-day CEQA public review period. Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval is not required for developing one single-family residence (or accessory facilities) in the Open Space district. City of Palo Alto Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and staff detennined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, and therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The original Mitigated Negative Declaration was initially made available for public review beginning February 19, 2010 through March 10, 2010. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, revised to provide a more detailed description and address the Buckeye Creek culvert component of the project, was advertised and re-circulated on March 5 for 30 days (period ends April 5, 2010). The revised version is attached to this staff report (Attachment C). Summarized below are the mitigation measures, which were not modified, and can be found in the Mitigated Negative Declaration: Mitigation.Measure D-I: Removal of anyon-site trees shall be conducted between September 1 and February 1 to avoid roosting bats and nesting migratory birds. If tree removal must be conducted outside this period, a survey of the tree must be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any species be found, an exclusion zone with a radius to be detennined by project biologist, but no less than 50 feet, should be established. Mitigation Measure F -I: In1plementation of the construction techniques and erosion control measures required by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department and requirements listed in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc. (dated September 2007) wo~ld reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than significant level. Such measures include: • A grading pennit will be required. Include a table on the 'site plan showing the quantities of cut and fill. • The plan set must include a grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, inlets and outlets. Condition of Approval: The revised Mitigated Negative Declaration has noted that a condition of approval has been incorporated into the project that would require the applicant to obtain other agency approvals for any construction activity or changes to Los Trancos Creek or Buckeye Creek. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Attachment C: Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment D: Photos of Story Poles * Attachment E: Green Building Checklist Attachn1ent F: Zoning Compliance Table Attachment G: Project Description Letter* Attachment H: Correspondence Attachment I: Site Plans (Commissioners only)* City of Palo Alto Page 10 *Prepared by Applicant COURTESY COPIES: Mark Conroe, applicant Langenskiold Family Trust, Property OwnerlMarc Zucker Trustee, 2310 Middlefield Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner Elena Lee, Senior Planner Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEP AR1MENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROV AL:~ ~~1 ~IW':"'\. Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 March 24, 2010 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 805 Los Trancos Road*: Request by Mark Conroe, on behalf of Langenskiold Family Trust, for 7 Site and Design Review of a new 11,184 sq. ft. single family home at 805 Los Trancos Road. 8 Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration have 9 been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. 10 Zone District: Open Space (OS). 11 12 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair Garber. The Site and Design Review 13 application was submitted in 2004 and is therefore subject to the zoning ordinance in effect at 14 that time. The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story residence with a basement, 15 swimming pool, and landscaping. 16 17 The project includes grading for a driveway and the home site, installing a culvert for the flow of 18 the intermittent Buckeye Creek under the driveway, constructing a berm along Los Trancos 19 Creek, and restoring the Los Trancos Creek bed riparian vegetation. The applicant has worked 20 closely with the City’s Arborist to develop a landscaping and riparian restoration plan. The 21 grading and drainage plan, on plan Sheet C-2 and ER-1indicated approximately five cubic yards 22 of cut and 625 cubic yard of fill are proposed. Grading will raise the terrain for the home by an 23 average of four feet. A more specific statement about existing and proposed grading levels is 24 provided in Staff’s answer to Commissioner Martinez’s email questions. 25 26 An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been circulated for the required 30-day 27 public comment period starting March 5, 2010. Copies of the study were routed to State 28 Clearinghouse for distribution and Staff also sent additional copies to the State Department of 29 Fish and Game, the State Water Quality Control Board, the Town of Portola Valley, and the 30 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to expedite review. Staff has not yet received 31 comments from Fish and Game and the Water Board agencies, however, Fish and Game has 32 indicated they will be submitting comments within the 30-day comment period. Staff has 33 worked with the applicant and Portola Valley and the Open Space District to share information 34 and address their concerns regarding potential wildlife impacts and visual impacts to Portola 35 Valley. The applicant has modified the project changing the palm tree species from Canary 36 Island Palm to the lower growing Sabal Palmetto and removing a large amount of fencing along 37 Los Trancos Road and Buckeye Creek introducing barriers within an established animal 38 crossing. The Town of Portola Valley and the Midpeninsula Open Space District have submitted 39 letters, which have been provided to you at places, stating they no longer have any objections to 40 either the project or the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 41 42 A letter was received today from a member of the public regarding biological resources and 43 significance findings sections of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. These letters are available 44 on the table in the back of the Chamber and to Commissioners. It is the Commissioners 45 discretion to either wait for feedback from Fish and Game and the Water Board before 46 forwarding a recommendation to Council or move the project forward and if necessary Staff 47 could revise and recirculate the Mitigated Negative Declaration depending upon the results of the 48 feedback. 49 2 1 Also provided at places are letters from the public received subsequent to the packet distribution. 2 Responses to Commissioner questions, including clarification on the Zoning Compliance Table, 3 Attachment F, clarifying regarding the projects conformance to the 2007 ordinance, a table 4 breaking down the impervious coverage, a context map showing parcel lines and owner names, 5 color copies of the story pole photos, and a table showing that the project is compliant with the 6 2007 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. 7 8 One of the Commissioners concerns is to ensure that visual impacts to public open space are 9 fully evaluated. Staff has carefully reviewed the topography of the area and consulted both with 10 the City’s Arborist, Dave Dockter, and the Supervisor for Open Space for Community Services 11 Department, Lester Hodgins. Both Staff members confirm that there will not be a visual impact 12 to any public open space areas. This is due to the hilly topography of both Foothills Park and 13 Arastradero Preserve, which are the only public open space areas proximate to the site. Also 14 because there is existing mature vegetation on site and the fact that the project is located within a 15 valley along with Los Trancos Creek the subject site is located too far away to provide 16 meaningful context via photo from the two open space areas. However, the applicant has 17 provided photos from areas in Foothill Park where the site would most likely be visible and that 18 has been made available at places. The photos confirm Staff’s assessment. The applicant has 19 also provided a color elevation and a color materials board here tonight. The elevations show the 20 use of darker colors and non-reflective materials to help it blend into the surroundings. 21 22 Staff recommends that the Commission provide comments and recommend to the City Council 23 to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Site and Design Review 24 application. Both Staff including Dave Dockter and the applicant are available to answer 25 questions. This concludes Staff’s report. 26 27 Chair Garber: The applicant, would you like to make a presentation? You will have 15 minutes 28 if you would like. 29 30 Mr. Mark Conroe, representing the owner/applicant: Good evening honorable members of the 31 Planning Commission, City Staff, ladies and gentlemen. As Staff mentioned we have been in the 32 pipeline for awhile, about over four years. It has been a combination of a couple of things. First 33 of all just internal planning within our large family to figure out what we are going to build, and 34 second of all to do a thorough job we working with Dave Dockter revised the arborist report a 35 number of times and increased the scope of the tree survey over time. We are glad to be here 36 tonight. Staff has been great to work with, very responsive. Our goal is to have people embrace 37 this project, this home. 38 39 As is noted in the Staff materials it is a home that is 7,276 square feet of habitable area excluding 40 the basement, which is 2,691 that has storage and some equipment space as well as other uses, 41 but no windows, and then has a four-car garage. 42 43 We were able to dialogue with the Town of Portola Valley and the Midpeninsula Open Space 44 District when we go their comments a couple of days ago. We immediately got on the phone 45 with them and tried to address their concerns, in one case essentially eliminating effectively all 46 the fence, 97 percent of the fence, along Los Trancos Road to not inhibit the travel of deer or any 47 other animals. The Town of Portola Valley’s comments are really two-fold screening and palm 48 trees. On the screening we said we are happy to do additional screening if they would like. 49 3 They wanted us to do some offsite on our neighbor’s land between our land and Los Trancos 1 Road. We are happy to do that assuming our neighbor approves us planting trees on their land. 2 We have had some discussions with that neighbor and we think that they would give us 3 permission. That is really the Town of Portola Valley. Midpeninsula, I think you received their 4 letter. Their final paragraph I would like to read because I think it gives a fair assessment of the 5 project. I quote, “Although the project will add a built feature the size, location, design of the 6 project is in keeping with the surrounding rural residential area. Views into the project area are 7 undisturbed. The structure is visible in areas where the view shed is already impacted by 8 surrounding structures and is not visible in areas where there are no structures visible. No other 9 project concerns were identified. The District appreciates the efforts of the project proponent 10 and the City to reduce the project footprint and to provide continued public and agency review of 11 the project.” 12 13 What I would principally like to do is just answer questions as they come up. I think Staff has 14 done a fair assessment and again our goal was to go within the guidelines that were in place 15 when we started this process four years ago. It is sort of bad timing that this falls on the heels of 16 a meeting a couple of weeks ago on the recent Open Space dialog. So Staff has asked and we 17 provided materials comparing this project as if it was being reviewed under those standards and 18 it was close to being compliant. If we knew four years ago what was going to be passed six 19 months ago we probably would have made it compliant to the standards that were in the future. I 20 am open to answering any questions and I appreciate and ask for your support. 21 22 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, the process and procedures for this item we will use 23 the standard procedure here. We will go to Commissioner questions first, clarifying questions, 24 and then we will open it up to the public of which we have one speaker at the moment. Then we 25 will come back to discussion and action on the Commission’s part. 26 27 Mr. Conroe: Commissioner Garber, may I insert one remark. 28 29 Chair Garber: I’m sorry I thought you had finished. 30 31 Mr. Conroe: I was but I just forgot one comment, sorry. On the letter we received a few hours 32 ago from Mr. Stoecker the principle issue seems to be around Buckeye Creek, which flows 33 across our property at one point. We sort of anticipated and respect this as well as Los Trancos 34 Creek and have a 25 foot minimum setback to that Buckeye Creek as well as 50 foot to Los 35 Trancos Creek. A couple of years ago we thought for the driveway we thought putting in a 36 culvert was simpler. If it seemed to be or if Fish and Game thought bridging this instead of 37 disturbing the existing waterway was better to do, a bridge versus a culvert, we are agreeable to 38 that. That is acceptable to us. So that’s all. Thank you. 39 40 Chair Garber: Okay, thank you. So in any case, clarifying questions, public hearing, and then 41 back to the Commission. So Commissioner questions. I have lights from Commissioners Tuma 42 and then Lippert. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: First, pursuant to our Commission policies I will disclose the fact that I 45 visited the site this morning and toured around. Mr. Conroe was there. We did have some 46 discussion that was mostly information that was contained in the Staff Report. Information that I 47 learned that is not in the Staff Report or other materials are things that I don’t think are relevant 48 but they are things like the types of people that used to inhabit that land, fruit trees and other 49 4 types of trees that used to be on the land, so a little bit of history about the area. Everything else 1 we discussed was information I think that is contained in the report. 2 3 So with that a few questions first of Staff. Do we have a deemed complete date on this 4 application? 5 6 Ms. Lee: I’m sorry give me just a few minutes to find that. 7 8 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma, perhaps while Staff is trying to find that maybe I can just 9 ask the other Commissioners if they have visited the site and/or have any other declarations. I 10 will go first. I too have met with the owner and walked the property, and had no questions or 11 other information with the exception of learning some more about the history was discussed at 12 that time. Commissioner Fineberg. 13 14 Commissioner Fineberg: I too toured the property. I had a brief conversation with the applicant. 15 The conversation was over the phone solely regarding access and he was not present during the 16 tour. So I did walk the property. 17 18 Chair Garber: Others? Commissioner Lippert. 19 20 Commissioner Lippert: I visited the site but I didn’t meet with the owner. It is actually on my 21 bicycle route and I was out there. 22 23 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez. 24 25 Commissioner Martinez: I visited the site at the same time with Commissioner Fineberg. The 26 only company we had was a family of deer. 27 28 Chair Garber: All right, do we have an answer Staff? 29 30 Ms. Lee: Sorry about that. I guess it would be December 20, 2009. 31 32 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. There is something in the Record of Land Use Action, 33 page 16, Condition 19 referring to a proposed stone wall. Is that something that was proposed at 34 some point and now is not and has been replaced by something? I didn’t see anywhere where 35 there was a stone wall. 36 37 Mr. Conroe: I am not it has morphed over time. Currently what is being proposed is a type one 38 fence, which the bottom half of the five or five and a half foot fence is stone and the top half is 39 sort of a wood and mesh fence. 40 41 Vice-Chair Tuma: It is on page 16 of the Record of Land Use Action, Condition 39 and it refers 42 to a letter from Mr. Conroe received on February 26, 2010, stone wall. 43 44 Ms. Campbell: I think this was specifically regarding flooding and whether or not the existing – 45 do you recall? 46 47 Vice-Chair Tuma: What I understand is there is an earthen berm being proposed along the 48 backside dividing a portion of the property from the creek. But the stone wall? 49 5 1 Mr. Conroe: There is no berm proposed between Buckeye Creek and there is a berm between 2 the home and Los Trancos Creek. The location of the type one fence and Sheet L-2 it shows the 3 detail of type one fence, but from memory it is about a five and a half foot tall fence, the bottom 4 roughly three feet are stone and the top two and a half feet, the balance, are fence. We gave Staff 5 a copy and I have a copy of a picture of one of our neighbors’ fences that we are going to sort of 6 use for both the type one and type two fence to give people an idea of what it looks like, which I 7 can provide. 8 9 Vice-Chair Tuma: So the type one fence is essentially what surrounds most sides of the 10 structure, is that right? 11 12 Mr. Conroe: Type one yes, exactly. 13 14 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. If you have a photograph of that it would be helpful. So that first 15 three feet would be solid and wouldn’t allow for ingress or egress of any type of wildlife or 16 anything like that, correct? Okay. 17 18 Just for the record, the applicant responded off mike that the answer was correct. My statement 19 was correct. 20 21 Was interested if Staff had any comments --- 22 23 Mr. Conroe: That is currently located at 706 Los Trancos Road. 24 25 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sorry, I am confused. 26 27 Mr. Conroe: This would be the type two fence. So if you just put on the bottom where the mid-28 span is stone down there that is how the type one fence would look. 29 30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Got it, okay. Does Staff have any comments, or questions, or responses I 31 know we just received the letter from Mr. Stoecker. 32 33 Ms. Lee: Staff believes that we followed CEQA process. We have provided copies of initial 34 study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse. Usually we can wait 35 for the State Clearing House to submit the initial study but we went ahead and forwarded copies 36 to the Fish and Game. I have contacted Fish and Game and they have said that they are currently 37 reviewing it and will be submitting comments within the 30-day period. Staff has received 38 biotics reports and has used knowledge from the biotics report as well as Staff to complete the 39 initial study. We believe the initial study is accurate. However, we would wait for Fish and 40 Game to provide their technical analysis. In addition, we have also routed the copies to the 41 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and they have indicated that they were concerned 42 about wildlife along Los Trancos Creek. They never mentioned any concern about Buckeye 43 Creek. 44 45 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Then just a couple of quick questions for the applicant. The earthen 46 berm along the backside, is that something that serves a function? 47 48 6 Mr. Conroe: The only real function was to demark or kind of designate the home improvement 1 area and separate it from the riparian corridor that we are trying to respect. Also to the extent 2 there is runoff in the home area it would contain it in the home area so it wouldn’t, and again 3 feeling that it was an environmentally sensitive move to put something like this in that looked 4 natural that kind of kept the developed part of the site away from the undeveloped part of the 5 site. 6 7 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Not saying we are necessarily going to go there but would it be a 8 problem if that wasn’t allowed? 9 10 Mr. Conroe: No. 11 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. 13 14 Mr. Conroe: It wasn’t there for flood purposes as was asserted by Mr. Stoecker. 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. The type of palm tree that you discussed this evening, the newer 17 type, do you have some idea as to what the maximum height that those grow to is? 18 19 Mr. Conroe: We defer to Dave Dockter on this and told him basically most any kind of palm we 20 would be happy with. He gave us three types we picked one of them, which is a sable palm. It 21 indicates the typical height is 40 feet. It doesn’t state the maximum height. We are completely 22 open on this. It seems to be a controversial topic so we are all ears when it comes to palm trees. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. 25 26 Chair Garber: Commissioners Lippert, Fineberg, Martinez. 27 28 Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions. Number one, I am having difficulty 29 understanding where the fence is being omitted from. Is there a diagram? 30 31 Mr. Conroe: Sure, I can provide that right now. 32 33 Commissioner Lippert: So yellow is the fence that you have eliminated. So basically it is from 34 the tip of the property, I will just call it…. 35 36 Mr. Conroe: It is the entire frontage except for 20 feet flanking the driveway entrance. So it is 37 about 97 percent of the frontage along Los Trancos that was eliminated. 38 39 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then the blue is indicating the fence that would remain? 40 41 Mr. Conroe: I forgot how I color coded it. 42 43 Chair Garber: The applicant was stating that blue is type one and red is type two. 44 45 Mr. Conroe: Yes, as noted on the diagram. This was also provided to Staff a couple of days ago 46 or three or four days ago. 47 48 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. How are you handling the fencing around the swimming pool? 49 7 1 Mr. Conroe: There is no proposed fencing around the swimming pool. 2 3 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. By Building Code it is required to have a fence around the 4 swimming pool. 5 6 Chair Garber: Or a cover. 7 8 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. Are you going to cover the pool? 9 10 Mr. Conroe: We will cover. 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then the site is very problematic because of the narrowness of 13 the site. I am looking at the Fire Department or the Building Department’s point number 42, 14 provide 100-foot defensible space between the house and the wild land interface. How is that 15 accomplished? Your site is barely 100 feet in certain portions. 16 17 Mr. Conroe: From the beginning as is stated in the applicant’s letter application a lot of focus 18 was put on this and basically we pushed as far away as we could from Los Trancos Creek also 19 recognizing Buckeye Creek is on the other side. So we are basically in between the two. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, the house is noncombustible material? 22 23 Mr. Conroe: I hope so. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: Well, describe to me what is used. 26 27 Mr. Conroe: It is a wood frame stucco house with the tile roof. It requires fire sprinklers of 28 course and noncombustible material around the house as required. 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: So is your fire sprinkler system coming off of domestic water or are you 31 going to have a tank on the property? 32 33 Mr. Conroe: We have not gotten to that level of detail but we would do what is appropriate and 34 typical. 35 36 Commissioner Lippert: The reason I am asking the question is if it is coming off of domestic 37 there are no impacts on the site, but if there is a tank that is a Site and Design aspect that needs to 38 be considered. 39 40 Mr. Conroe: There has never been any discussion nor have we talked about putting a tank so we 41 would pull off the domestic, the same line, and just have the proper backflow prevention devices 42 to keep the domestic water safe. 43 44 Commissioner Lippert: With a swimming pool it is a shame that use can’t be made of the 45 swimming pool for such a use. 46 47 Mr. Conroe: I’m sorry, for what kind of use? 48 49 8 Commissioner Lippert: I said with a swimming pool for such an emergency it is a shame that a 1 swimming pool cannot be used for emergency sprinkling of the house. 2 3 Chair Garber: That is a current proposal for the Open Space if I am not mistaken, and is not a 4 requirement as part of the way the application has been made today. 5 6 Commissioner Lippert: So would they be using the pool as their water source for sprinkling? 7 8 Chair Garber: If I understand the code correctly the way that the code read when the application 9 was submitted in 2004 they cannot or can they without approval? 10 11 Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: The issue isn’t so much whether they can. The Fire 12 Department has to look and determine whether or not they can use it. The issue under our 13 zoning code is simply whether it counts as or is considered permeable or not. I think the way the 14 most recent code was written is that it continues to be considered permeable if it can be used for 15 that fire purpose. They were under the pervious code so it doesn’t matter whether it can or not. 16 If it can that is all the better but it is not a zoning code issue it is just a matter of whether fire 17 thinks it is usable. 18 19 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I will just make a comment and then we will go onto the next 20 Commissioner. In some way capacity needs to be made for fire sprinkling the house. What I am 21 used to is Santa Cruz mountains people put tanks in there all the time and it is not appropriate in 22 our open space. So it either has to come off the domestic system or use has to be made of the 23 pool and it is a shame if the pool can’t be made usable for such purpose. 24 25 Chair Garber: Yes, I am familiar with other jurisdictions although not specifically in the Open 26 Space. It could also, if it is required by the Fire Department, be undergrounded as well. 27 28 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, it could be a cistern. 29 30 Mr. Conroe: We have offered the pool to put in the plumbing required to stub off of it or 31 alternatively run it directly into the fire sprinkler system if that was deemed desirable by the Palo 32 Alto Fire Department. I have visited the site with them and talked about other issues but they 33 didn’t seem to be insistent about this. 34 35 Chair Garber: Okay. We can do another round. Commissioner Fineberg, Martinez, and then 36 Keller. 37 38 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to go back a moment to the question Commissioner Tuma 39 asked about when the application was deemed complete. Staff said it was deemed complete 40 December 28, 2009 but in the Staff Report on page three it says that the City’s practice has been 41 to allow projects submitted to follow development standards in place at the time of submittal. So 42 is this project only being required to comply with what was in place in 2004 or must they comply 43 with whatever was in place as of December 28, 2009? 44 45 Ms. Lee: It would be City’s practice to require them to comply with whatever was in place at the 46 time the application was submitted, so 2004. 47 48 Commissioner Fineberg: Even though the application was not deemed complete? 49 9 1 Ms. Lee: Yes. 2 3 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so in the intervening years where we have had code changes and 4 new programs and policies as outlined in Attachment F the fact that they are compliant with 5 those new regulations is strictly voluntary? 6 7 Ms. Lee: Yes. 8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to have a few questions about the riparian habitat and the 10 area with the steelhead trout on both Los Trancos Creek and Buckeye Creek. Understanding that 11 environmental analysis has many subspecialties there can be soils, geotechnical, historic, noise, 12 is there some subspecialty or credentialed type of environmental analyst that specializes in 13 riparian corridors and fish, endangered species? 14 15 Ms. Lee: Yes. Staff is aware of specialties such as that. In this case the applicant has provided 16 the biotics report and we are relying on Fish and Game to provide their technical expertise on the 17 topic. 18 19 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. But if I heard you correctly earlier we don’t have Fish and 20 Game’s response yet. 21 22 Ms. Lee: No, not yet. 23 24 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so how do I as a Commissioner make a determination of the 25 adequacy of a Mitigated Negative Declaration if we don’t have the review and the feedback to 26 tell us whether there is no impact or significant impacts regarding fish and riparian corridor? 27 28 Ms. Lee: It would be the Commission’s discretion to wait to hear comments back if that is what 29 you choose to do. 30 31 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 32 33 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, something I have been thinking about ever since they said we don’t have 34 that feedback. I think there are a couple of avenues we can go. If we get to the point where we 35 are going to move approval presumably or possibly adding some other conditions we could add 36 that condition that when those comments come back if there is anything greater than no impact 37 that it come back to us for further review. We could also have it come back to us on Consent 38 subject to that particular impact. They may come back and say it is a big deal and do something 39 differently or they may come back and say it is not a big deal. I think we can try to get through 40 and those issues are going to be open because we don’t have that analysis for sure. 41 42 Commissioner Fineberg: In the hypothetical of how we could also pursue it there is also the 43 possibility, I am not sure what the right answer is, but there is also the possibility of a 44 continuance if there is substantive information. So just sort of add that to the sort of hypothetical 45 three things. 46 47 10 So that is for me just a huge open question, needing to understand more about the comments 1 from Mr. Stoecker. Do we know if NOAA or DFG have been notified and is there a requirement 2 that they be notified? 3 4 Ms. Lee: Staff has submitted the environmental clearance documents to the State Clearinghouse. 5 It is the State Clearinghouse responsibility to direct it to all state agencies that would have 6 jurisdiction over the project. In addition Staff has routed separate copies to Fish and Game for 7 their comments to make sure that we did get them. 8 9 Mr. Williams: I would like to just add the DFG is Department of Fish and Game so it did go to 10 them. NOAA is (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency) National Federal Agency so we 11 don’t rout it to them. Fish and Game would consider that as part of their review the role that 12 NOA would play. But Fish and Game is the operative agency that we work through in terms of 13 any of those federal or state regulations. 14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: All right, thank you. Trees. Forgive me for not asking for this earlier 16 but it would have been helpful to have, and maybe it is here tonight, an inventory of the 17 protected trees and a map of the protected trees. I don’t know. Mr. Dockter is here if that is 18 something he has available. Specifically I am wondering there are four mature olive trees that 19 will be transplanted. Is it okay, Chair Garber if I direct these questions to our Planning Arborist? 20 21 Chair Garber: Yes. 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: There are four mature olive trees. I think I know where they are 24 located. Can we confirm their location and can you tell us if there is a probability that a mature 25 olive tree, those trees in the condition they are in will they survive relocation? 26 27 Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist: Our review of the project included the olive trees. They 28 are very old and historically been part of the property. Transplanting olives is usually very 29 successful when done correctly by a good firm. So I don’t have any doubt that the olives would 30 be successfully relocated on the property there. They do need to be relocated to facilitate some 31 of the development there. The exact locations will not conflict with any of the other surrounding 32 mature vegetation. They are being put in good open places for their final home. 33 34 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Are they the trees that would basically be the ones that are 35 nearest to where the garage is? Sort of in the middle of the field closest to Los Trancos Creek 36 and they will be right next to the garage wall. 37 38 Mr. Conroe: The olives trees are located near the house on the Los Trancos Creek side so not on 39 the Buckeye Creek. Just as a matter of note or for the record, Sheet L-1 lists the existing tree 40 survey showing the condition, size, type, and tree protection measures, and action taken for 54 41 trees onsite. That also shows the location of all those trees. This is also consistent with the 42 Arborist Report, which was made part of the record. The arborist studied all 54 trees and issued 43 a report including addressing issues like transplantation. 44 45 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. Sheet L-1 is smaller than the page in front of it so I 46 missed it. Forgive me and thank you for pointing that out. The reason I am asking about those 47 four trees and you are right it is not the garage wall I misspoke with that. It is the house wall 48 closest to the creek. They appear to be very close to where the edge of the house is so I was 49 11 wondering if those were not to be transplanted would they be able to survive given a structure so 1 close. So just to confirm, the ones that are going to be naturally west of the home will be 2 transplanted. 3 4 Mr. Conroe: Yes, reading off of Sheet L-1 there are trees 8, 10, 11, and 12. Those four are the 5 mature olives that are being relocated and they are in that area that is sort of to the west of the 6 house in the direction of Los Trancos Creek. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. Thank you. I have some questions about cut and fill and 9 whether the current plan is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan, which says that cut is to be 10 used when necessary and fill is discouraged if I can roughly paraphrase it. Did I get that 11 backwards? I think I said that correctly. Yes, I got a confirmation from Staff. We are doing five 12 cubic yards of cut and 625 yards of fill. Staff is saying that that is minimal and I having trouble 13 picturing how changing the grade, digging a basement, and 625 yards of fill is minimal. So 14 maybe if Staff could help me understand the scale of that. 15 16 Ms. Lee: The applicant has actually provided cross-sections that are located in your plans that 17 sort of give a good reference on how the project would appear. Then it also indicates from the 18 grading plan the general nature of the property being quite flat. It is not a very hilly site. I don’t 19 know if the applicant has any additional information to provide. 20 21 Commissioner Fineberg: Did you say it is on a hilly site? 22 23 Ms. Lee: No it is not. It is in a valley so it one of the flatter portions of open space. 24 25 Mr. Conroe: If I can offer kind of what the civil engineer was thinking when they came up with 26 this plan. They basically took as a starting point the garage and took that elevation, which 27 doesn’t require much cut and fill. We provided at the request of Staff an email today that broke 28 out the cut and fill for the garage, the home, and the driveway as well as the pool. Actually, I 29 would like to amend it and also add the basement. In that you will see, or I will just read off, of 30 the 625 cubic yards the home represents 550 of it, the garage 22 yards, as well as five yards of 31 cut. So you are basically cutting the garage a bit and adding a little bit of fill to even off the site. 32 Then the main fill is around the home. The driveway is 53 cubic yards and that is a total of 625 33 of fill as well as five of cut. What is noted on C-1, and I tried to get a hold of the civil engineer 34 to ask him why and if this is conventional, but they did not include it but it is noted on the plan 35 and has been for some time the cut for the pool is 195 cubic yards. They didn’t list that in their 36 cut so that is an additional cut. The basement is 110 yards, which also is not listed in their cut. 37 So the pool and the basement would provide a little over 300 cubic yards of the 620 required or 38 about half the soil required comes from onsite, and about 300 cubic yards would have to be 39 imported. 40 41 Chair Garber: Perhaps if I may offer another comparison. In the Town of Woodside if you 42 move more than 1,500 cubic yards is the threshold by which the planning commission there 43 wants to see where that earth has gone, and it excludes any earth that is moved that is within the 44 house footprint itself. Follow up from Commissioner Martinez. Actually, you are next in line so 45 if Commissioner Fineberg is done with that question? 46 47 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you, appreciate your answers. 48 49 12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 1 2 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, thank you. On drawing C-1, one of the civil drawings, on the 3 very left hand corner it lists 625 yards of fill and 620 yards of import. So that is 1,200 yards of 4 new material coming in. What is the import for? 5 6 Mr. Conroe: What is stated on the plan is there would be five yards of cut and 625 of fill 7 therefore yielding 620 the net import amount. What I am suggesting is given the pool excavation 8 and the basement excavation being about 305 cubic yards added to the five cubic yards you 9 would take the 625 fill, subtract the 310, and it would require 315 cubic yards of net import if 10 you were able to use the soil that you excavated from the basement and pool for clean fill. 11 12 Commissioner Martinez: I get it. Thank you. You show on your site plan a two-lane entry 13 drive, 18 feet wide. Is that a Fire Department requirement or is that the width you decided you 14 needed for the entryway? 15 16 Mr. Conroe: If Staff could help me, we did meet the Fire Department out there and they did tell 17 me their required width but I don’t recall it. Staff can clarify. It was just basically a width to 18 allow two cars, if someone is coming and someone is going, to pass each other on the driveway. 19 That is what drove it. That was really the thought. 20 21 Commissioner Martinez: So it is possible to reduce that some to lower the impact? 22 23 Mr. Conroe: Sure. 24 25 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. 26 27 Chair Garber: A caution there however, Commissioner Martinez. I do believe actually the Fire 28 Department is going to require 18 feet but if it can be reduced then so be it. 29 30 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, that is what I thought I just wanted to clarify that. 31 32 Mr. Conroe: Sorry, Commissioner Martinez, just as a footnote this driveway has been there for a 33 long, long time. So we are not widening what is there. 34 35 Commissioner Martinez: How did you get across the creek before? 36 37 Mr. Conroe: We drove across it. 38 39 Commissioner Martinez: Just drove through the creek? 40 41 Mr. Conroe: Yes, it is very shallow. It is two or three inches deep and sometimes it is not 42 flowing. We did not have that many trips. 43 44 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. It is a little bit unclear. The drawings sort of don’t really show 45 this but is the basement in or out of the project? 46 47 13 Mr. Conroe: It is in the project. It is about two-thirds of the ground floor building pad. The 1 ground floor is between 3,200 and 3,300 square feet and the basement is between 2,600 and 2 2,700 square feet under the first floor. 3 4 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. The civil drawings show a pad at 513 so there really isn’t a pad 5 there that is just sort of an imaginary line of …. 6 7 Mr. Conroe: The finished floor elevation, yes. 8 9 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. Did your engineering look at cutting that pad rather than raising 10 it five or six feet since as Commissioner Fineberg said cut is preferable to fill? 11 12 Mr. Conroe: Not a lot of focus was on this earlier so not a lot of discussion occurred between us 13 and the civil. The civil engineer sort of just independently just picked what they thought was 14 best probably thinking that given that this is next to Los Trancos Creek it is not a bad idea to 15 raise the pad a little. We are open to achieving a better balance between cut and fill if the 16 Commission sees it as an appropriate condition of approval. 17 18 Commissioner Martinez: Not only that I think the [plinth] that is created by this fill looks kind 19 of odd in the natural landscape. The house is plenty high and then we add another five feet just 20 sort of at this point it just seems like it exacerbates the problem of really trying to blend in more 21 with the landscape. 22 23 One last question for now. You own the adjoining property to the south as well? 24 25 Mr. Conroe: Our greater family owns that property also to the south. 26 27 Commissioner Martinez: Are there development plans kind of in the works for that? 28 29 Mr. Conroe: Twenty years ago we got a home approved on it and never built it so those are 30 lapsed. 31 32 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, thank you. 33 34 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Keller and then Garber. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: So the first question is I noticed applicant cited the square footage of the 37 house as being 7,276 square feet and Staff in their revised Attachment F shows the FAR being 38 8,904 square feet. I am wondering if somebody can explain that discrepancy to me. Thank you. 39 40 Ms. Lee: If I may, basically what it is is FAR is calculated slightly differently because in the 41 Open Space District they need to count twice for higher ceilings. So anything above 17 feet high 42 is counted twice. So we had to basically take out the deck areas and then we had to count the 43 breezeway space. So the numbers are kind of calculated differently. Some of the numbers show 44 the proposed square footage of the house itself, which includes the basement or includes just 45 livable space, but in terms of FAR we calculated per code requirements, which have very 46 specific definitions. 47 48 14 Commissioner Keller: I assume per code requirements does not include the basement because 1 the basement is less than ten percent grade under any, right? 2 3 Ms. Lee: Yes. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Okay. The next question I have is Buckeye Creek, which is 6 labeled as drainage ditch on the drawings, is Buckeye Creek before the handover from the Santa 7 Clara Valley Water District to the City of Palo Alto for the – before that transfer from Santa 8 Clara Valley Water District to the City of Palo Alto for enforcing stream rules, I am wondering 9 would they have applied the Buckeye Creek for the Santa Clara Valley Water District or is it 10 because it is too shallow or too short or whatever, it drains too few properties not covered by that 11 ordinance. 12 13 Ms. Lee: It is a recognized creek and because it is a recognized creek if Santa Clara Valley 14 Water District was reviewing the project they would have reviewed that as well. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: And, what requirements would they have placed under the old ordinance 17 on the development because of that creek? 18 19 Ms. Lee: Santa Clara Valley Water District never actually codified he requirements. The only 20 thing in their ordinance was saying that a permit shall be obtained from them. Staff’s 21 understanding is that Staff’s ordinance was developed in consultation with the Water District and 22 reflects a lot of the requirements they would have probably required. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Okay. Since there was a mention in the Staff Report the applicant did 25 work to satisfy the City of Palo Alto’s equivalent replacement for the Santa Clara Valley Water 26 District’s ordinance, although there are some differences, to what extent do those ordinances 27 apply to Buckeye Creek and what requirements were placed on the development proposed as a 28 result of it being adjacent to Buckeye Creek? 29 30 Ms. Lee: From what Staff has gathered there are no Santa Clara Valley Water District 31 requirements that are actually codified that they would have to comply with. Because the City’s 32 ordinance was adopted in 2007 it kind of falls into that in between space. So there isn’t actually 33 anything they are required to comply with. The applicant has worked with the City to make sure 34 that it met the City’s requirements even though it doesn’t really have to. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: So I am confused. Let’s just not worry about whether it was required to 37 or not required to. What I am wondering is with respect to the City of Palo Alto’s current 38 ordinance, which I understand the applicant is trying to meet, if it were required to meet that 39 ordinance what are the requirements for the Buckeye Creek adjacency issue? 40 41 Ms. Lee: That information is part of responses to Commission’s requests. There is a table that 42 shows how the project complies with the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. It states 43 basically that the main requirement for this one is that structures not be placed within a sensitive 44 area. So all activity happens and building occurs more than 50 feet away from either Los 45 Trancos or Buckeye Creek. 46 47 15 Commissioner Keller: The drawings do clearly show where the top of bank is for Los Trancos 1 but I can’t figure out in the drawings where the top of bank is for Buckeye Creek. Is there a 2 recognized top of bank or am I not seeing it? 3 4 Ms. Lee: Because of the size of Buckeye Creek and the scale of the drawing it probably would 5 have been impossible to accurately show that. So what the applicant has done is provide cross-6 sections. You see that in your plan set with the culvert drawing that kind of indicates. I think the 7 Staff Report references that it is probably four to seven feet wide at the most. It is not very wide 8 from top of bank to top of bank for Buckeye Creek. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: But what I am wondering is just as there is a drawing for 25 feet away 11 from Los Trancos Creek and 50 feet away from Los Trancos Creek there are no comparable 12 drawings for the adjacency to Buckeye Creek unless I am missing it. I am looking at A-0, which 13 seems to have these drawings. I see Buckeye Creek sort of as a dotted line there and I don’t see 14 where the 50-foot border is for that. 15 16 Ms. Lee: If you look on Sheet L-1, item 1 shows the Buckeye Creek typical cross-section. 17 18 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I understand that. I am trying to figure out where 50 feet away from 19 what would be the edge of that. So if you look for example at Buckeye Creek, 3-L-1 is the 20 drawing you are talking about. If you see where it says N driveway grade there is a little line 21 there, actually not there. It is AL-1. There is a thing where it says TOB on the edge, right? It 22 says varies three to four feet. I would expect that there would be a line, just as there are lines 23 indicating the riparian corridor for Los Trancos Creek that there would be a similar line 24 indicating the distance away from Buckeye Creek and I don’t see one. 25 26 Mr. Conroe: May I insert a thought, Commissioner Keller? 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Sure. 29 30 Mr. Conroe: There are two thoughts. One is there is a 30 foot setback against all property lines. 31 That line is shown on the plan and the garage. That is shown on A-0. Actually A-1/A-0. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: Yes. 34 35 Mr. Conroe: I am sorry that the plans are so small. I can bring a bigger set up if you like. Then 36 if you scaled off the balance there is about, Staff said about 20 feet, a minimum of 20 feet from 37 the property line to top of bank of Buckeye Creek. So if you add those two you get 38 approximately 50 feet. If it is a good idea I can bring my plan up and show you. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Well, I can see that there is – Commissioner Lippert indicates that it is 41 easier to see on L-1. I am wondering from here to here. So what I am wondering is if you take 42 the distance from the – if you look on L-1 there is a thing where it says five feet, six inches, type 43 one fence limit of work. Near to the left of that there is an indent to the creek and first of all we 44 don’t know the distance between where the creek sort of bends in towards the garage, the 45 distance from that to the garage, and we don’t know the distance from that creek to where the fill 46 is because there is a degree of fill in that region. I am not sure of the extent to where the fill ends 47 over there and whether that is within the 50 feet zone. So I am little confused about that and 48 there no measure. I don’t know where the measure is of the extent of the fill in that area. If the 49 16 fill in that area is defined by the speckled gray, sort of dotted area, if that indicates the extent of 1 the fill that looks like it is closer to my untrained eyes of 50 feet from the creek. From that point 2 to this. It looks like the garage is 50 feet from the creek but the fill may not be less than 50 feet 3 from the creek. In any event if the garage is 50 feet it could be less than 50 feet or it could be 4 more. So I am wondering about that. 5 6 Mr. Conroe: There is no fill in the garage itself. Actually the cut is happening on that corner of 7 the garage on the east side of the garage or the side that is on the Buckeye Creek side there is no 8 proposed fill on that between Buckeye Creek and the garage to put in the garage. As currently 9 proposed there is cut. If we lowered it more there would be more cut but no fill. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: So there is no fill to the logical east of the garage. 12 13 Mr. Conroe: That is correct. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Are you saying that the garage is at least 50 feet from the edge of the 16 creek? 17 18 Mr. Conroe: Scaling it off it appears to be approximately 50 feet. 19 20 Ms. Lee: If I may, Staff would also like to clarify that per actually today’s ordinance, the Stream 21 Corridor Protection Ordinance, the requirement is for them to be at 20 feet landward from top of 22 bank. The 50 feet is just what is currently existing for Los Trancos Creek. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Are there restrictions about building within 50 feet of the creek or is it 25 building within 20 feet? 26 27 Ms. Lee: Per today’s ordinance it would be buildings within 20 feet landward from top of bank 28 or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1. In this case because of the terrain 20 feet would be the 29 farther distance. So 20 feet would apply. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: That means that when the fence appears to be 25 feet at least from the 32 creek that would handle that problem, right? 33 34 Ms. Lee: Yes. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. So shall we go around again? I think I had enough for 37 now. Thank you. 38 39 Chair Garber: Thank you. Garber and then we will go down the line again. 40 41 Just a quick note although we have talked about it some, the cut and fill best practice would 42 suggest that your cut equal your fill. Ideally you are not taking material on or off your site but 43 given that this is a stream valley there may be other reasons why fill is being taken off or being 44 suggested to be taken off. It may not be stable. It may be expansive, I really don’t know. I was 45 just curious if the civil engineer, who I know is very familiar with this area and has done other 46 work there and has a lot of expertise, but I am just curious if they had offered any reasons as to 47 why that is the recommendation here. 48 49 17 Mr. Conroe: Every few years there is greater flow in Buckeye Creek than can be handled so you 1 get spillover. So I think that was one issue that we wanted to address both with this stone wall 2 on that side as well as raising the pad some. We discussed this with the City of Palo Alto 3 engineer also. 4 5 Chair Garber: In historic projects where new work has to be done, and I am talking 6 architecturally as opposed to landscape, there is often as part of the requirements from the state 7 the need to distinguish the new work from the old. Is that part of the reasoning behind having 8 your landscape architect recommending the berm to differentiate between what is natural and 9 what is not? Is that part of the motivation there? 10 11 Mr. Conroe: Yes. Again, we wanted to be hyper sensitive to setback to Los Trancos Creek 12 thinking this was going to be important. We just thought this line of demarcation would be 13 helpful to have actually a physical line as a physical marker. 14 15 Chair Garber: But there is no requirement for that. 16 17 Mr. Conroe: No. Like I mentioned previously if there is an issue with it we could remove it. 18 19 Chair Garber: Thank you. For the Staff in the Open Space Development Criteria, item number 20 three, site and structure design would take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of 21 neighboring properties. The last sentence there says, additionally the dense perimeter screening 22 would reduce visibility of development from offsite to less than significant impact. Doesn’t the 23 screening that exists now reduce or eliminate the opportunity to see through that or that comment 24 in response to some work that the applicant is proposing? 25 26 Ms. Lee: It is actually Staff’s assessment is that the existing screening but the applicant has also 27 offered to increase screening if that would meet some concerns. 28 29 Chair Garber: On item number five in the same section Open Space Development Criteria, 30 which states, built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building 31 lines should follow the lines of the terrain and trees and bushes should appear natural from a 32 distance. Then the response here is landscape plan calls for maintaining the majority of existing 33 natural landscaping and trees. The house will be built at existing grade, which is flat. However, 34 that comment doesn’t address the mass of the house itself. Is there a reason for that? Or would 35 it be common for an evaluation to include the mass and volume of the house? 36 37 Ms. Lee: That is typically a significant concern for houses on the hilltop. So in this case 38 because the house is in a valley it won’t be visible to most of the surrounding properties. 39 40 Chair Garber: That was my suspicion but I am pleased to hear that, thank you. finally, I know 41 that you have, perhaps for the applicant or Staff, met with Fire on item number 12, access roads 42 shall be rural rather than urban character. I am assuming that the Fire Department is okay with 43 gravel versus an asphalt or a concrete or other fixed surface for the drive. 44 45 Ms. Lee: The Fire Department has issued a recommendation for approval for the project as 46 proposed. 47 48 18 Chair Garber: Thank you. That’s it for the moment. Commissioner Tuma, do you have any 1 other questions? 2 3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Not at this time. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Fineberg. 6 7 Commissioner Lippert: I am interested in understanding the rationale for the double fencing 8 along the driveway. I can understand having a fence facing Los Trancos Road to discourage 9 visitors but you are in a pretty rural, open space, why have a fence on the other side of the 10 driveway? 11 12 Mr. Conroe: This is what you get when you try to do things at the last second. When we got rid 13 of the fence we left that fence thinking it would provide some level of security. In thinking 14 about it a little bit more now if we had a gate there to basically control cars coming on and off 15 the site I think we could probably get rid of a lot of even the fence that we left along the 16 driveway and just have a gate. 17 18 Commissioner Lippert: That was part of the reason why it triggered. My sense is that you have 19 so many gaps in the fence what is really the purpose of the fence? I can understand it is not nice 20 to come home at night and find a deer running across your driveway while you are coming up the 21 drive. That would be one aspect. But there are ways of discouraging deer from crossing the 22 driveway. 23 24 Mr. Conroe: In terms of cars accessing the property drops off pretty quickly so it would be kind 25 of hard probably for a car to drive onto the property except on the driveway. So we want to at 26 least control that point. We felt the fence was unobtrusive and typical in the area so we left it 27 just in the area surrounding the driveway. 28 29 Commissioner Lippert: Would you be open to another kind of barrier there that is less 30 obtrusive? 31 32 Mr. Conroe: Sure. 33 34 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then just following up on Commissioner Martinez and Chair 35 Garber’s line of questioning regarding the contours and cut and fill. You have a pretty formal 36 house here, Italianate almost. Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow the ground plane to 37 basically be natural and to in some ways because you have such a firm base on that building with 38 the stone at almost one end have it almost be a nominal base and then it get bigger, and bigger, 39 and bigger as the grade falls away. In fact, if you were to look at your basement plan and you 40 were to massage some of the spaces a little bit you could almost have the exercise room, or 41 recreation room where the five-foot drop might be and you could put some windows in there and 42 get some light into the basement. Have you thought about that? 43 44 Mr. Conroe: Given the number of issues we addressed we didn’t think of that but it is not a bad 45 idea and we would be open to considering it. As we said earlier too with balancing out the cut 46 and fill I think you want the house pad up a foot from surrounding grade just to provide a little 47 bit of a positive flow away from the house for water. Aside from that we are open to either 48 having the stone wall graduated as you suggest and/or balancing cut and fill more. 49 19 1 Commissioner Lippert: Please don’t get me wrong. It is not to be a criticism of the architecture. 2 3 Mr. Conroe: I don’t take it personally. 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I am just thinking of ways that the siting and the formality of the 6 house can work a little bit better perhaps. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Martinez. 9 10 Commissioner Fineberg: I want to go back a moment to the question about how to determine the 11 significance of the impact along particularly Buckeye Creek and also make sure that we have the 12 correct information on similar issues for Los Trancos Creek. Assuming that there are 13 professional sub-specialists who do understand all the subtle nuances of environmental review 14 for riparian corridors for fish, understanding I certainly don’t and there are so many specialties 15 that Staff can’t possibly understand all of them. Does it make sense to have a sub-specialist for 16 the environmental review to cover that portion of it to make sure that we are compliant with 17 requirements if for instance there is significant impact on Buckeye Creek and we approve it are 18 there potential liabilities for the City? I would much rather we catch it and get it right rather than 19 create any issues. So if Staff could comment and then the attorney, please. 20 21 Chair Garber: If I may, if I heard Staff correctly a biology report has been requested and has 22 been submitted as part of the application. I am not seeing that as part of our materials but 23 perhaps if you have that with you. That would have had to have been made by a certified state 24 specialist. 25 26 Mr. Williams: Right. That is what we would have based our review on and that should have 27 been done by someone qualified to look at these kinds of issues. So it was done by WRA 28 Environmental Consultants. 29 30 Mr. Conroe: Also known as Wetlands Resource Associates out of Marin. I think they are a 31 pretty well respected firm. They did consider that. One quick note, Los Trancos Creek is dry 32 about seven months a year so that is something to consider. Buckeye flows most of the year if 33 not all the year but probably the equivalent of a six-inch pipe could handle the flow in Buckeye 34 Creek for all but a few days a year. There is about a five-foot drop off going from Buckeye 35 Creek entering Los Trancos Creek. 36 37 Chair Garber: The source of water for Buckeye Creek is? 38 39 Mr. Conroe: It is upstream and it is the Arillaga property. I think it is the lake on his property. 40 We have never seen any fish but again we are not experts in looking for fish. 41 42 Commissioner Fineberg: Just to balance that the fish need the water in the creek and need the 43 appropriate habitat at the time they need it. They have evolved over thousands of years when the 44 creek is dry they are not there any more, they have gone off downhill. So it is absolutely critical 45 that during the season when they need it, which is when it runs, that it be there for them. As an 46 endangered species we have certain obligations to protect that habitat. So I just want to make 47 sure that we are covered there. 48 49 20 Mr. Williams: If I can just comment that this biologist did clearly look at a wide range of 1 different species and that but that is why we also require and the state law requires Fish and 2 Game to be involved because there are issues of statewide concern. They have not identified the 3 steelhead in here it doesn’t look like. So I don’t know if they got a copy of this as well, Fish and 4 Game? If they didn’t and they need it then they would request that or they would just use their 5 own biologist to address that and provide us with that information. 6 7 So if they come back and say there needs to be additional work done regarding the fish then we 8 would have to have that commissioned or if they come back and just say here is a mitigation 9 measure if you add it then that will be sufficient, then that is something that we would add in 10 which case we would have to recirculate the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If they come back 11 and say the steelhead are not present or it won’t significantly impact them given what is 12 happening then basically that’s a clean bill of health and the Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 stands as it is. So those are kind of the options that Fish and Game could come back to us with. 14 As mentioned before, the Commission really can either defer final action on this until that 15 information is before you or you could go ahead and essentially pass this through and if 16 something changes due to Fish and Game’s response we could come back to you, otherwise it 17 would move onto the Council or come back on Consent. There are a variety of ways to handle 18 that. 19 20 Commissioner Fineberg: If we were to pass it with some kind of either conditional approval or 21 there was a second scenario I am sorry I forget that you had hypothesized, are we going to create 22 any entitlements or will it then go to the ARB where there is some entitlement locked down? 23 Are there any risks of pursuing the path rather than holding? 24 25 Ms. Lee: This project wouldn’t go to the ARB because it is just one single-family residence. 26 This project could not go before City Council until the circulation period was over and we have 27 received all our comments. We wouldn’t forward this document unless we were certain that it 28 was something that was supportable. 29 30 Mr. Williams: I just want to add that Mr. Dockter informed me that Foothills Park drains into 31 Buckeye Creek. That is the source. 32 33 Mr. Conroe: Just a reminder, we are a minimum of 25 feet in all directions setback from top of 34 bank of Buckeye Creek. In no case are we disturbing anything within 25 feet of top of bank of 35 Buckeye. So I think the issue really is the driveway crossing and whether we bridge it or culvert 36 it and that I assume will be the discussion we will be having with Fish and Game with them 37 advising us what to do there. If they want us to bridge it we will bridge it so we won’t be 38 disturbing. 39 40 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I know that several of you have more questions but our member 41 of the public that would like to speak has been waiting for awhile. If I may let’s open our public 42 hearing and hear from our one speaker who will be Dave Polkinhorne, because you are our only 43 speaker you will have five minutes as opposed to our usual three. 44 45 Mr. Dave Polkinhorne, Portola Valley: Thank you. I live on Valley Oak, which is directly 46 opposite this project on the other side of Los Trancos Creek. I have run the design committee up 47 there for many years so I am familiar with some of this process. 48 49 21 My issues are not to comment on the architecture or the design of the house. That is for the 1 owner of the property to assess. I just wanted to talk about really two issues that concern me. 2 Primarily the first one is views. Everything that seems to be considered so far seems to be 3 considered from the Los Trancos side but not from the Valley Oaks side. The three photos that 4 are up on that wall unfortunately do not depict what is there now after some very aggressive fire 5 control work that was done along Valley Oak. So there is a lot more visibility now through that 6 vegetation to this site. Now I note Mr. Conroe has offered to plant along that area of the 7 property and I appreciate that, thank you. We have actually worked with him before when this 8 lot was originally cleared. So I would just like to make sure that those recommendations are held 9 up to further minimize the egress of what will be light and noise from this site into the Valley 10 Oak region. The light concerns me a lot because right now it is completely dark there at night. 11 There is no ambient light. There is no anything to be seen. I note in the discussion about 12 exterior lights not facing the creek, which would therefore face into Valley Oak. I would really 13 like to request that the committee take that seriously and minimizes external light, sort of up 14 lighting of trees, the house itself, because that will have a very significant impact on the rest of 15 us along Valley Oak. 16 17 I do also have a concern about the height. The story polls I believe are at 30-feet, which is the 18 average. If you look at the plans it shows the chimneys rising to nearly 35-feet. So I would just 19 like that considered. Right now there is a non-interrupted view corridor from Valley Oak and the 20 first thing you can see is a house way up on Los Trancos, a long, long way away. So I would 21 like to try and ensure that the external profile of the house including the chimneys is not visible 22 above the tree line on Valley Oak. 23 24 Now to the end we are also working with the landscape committee in Portola Valley Ranch to 25 mitigate some of the fire control work that was done with additional planting along what would 26 be the west side to us at Valley Oak to further screen that. 27 28 So really it is that height issue and light emanating from the property that is of concern to me, 29 number one. 30 31 Secondly, the comment you made about the pool. If there is no fence certainly in the Ranch we 32 have two pools and the requirement therefore means that the lights for the pool are on all night as 33 a way to ensure that someone knows it is there, someone doesn’t stagger into the pool in the 34 middle of the night. I sincerely hope we can find a way to not have the pool light on all night for 35 the same reason. There are several ways that it can be done. 36 37 Those are most of my concerns. I have some concerns about noise. Obviously construction is 38 going to create noise. I am a little concerned to see that you permit construction six days a week. 39 So I am going to have to live with this for what 18 months, I guess is how long this is going to 40 run. Is there a plan to work Saturdays during this project or not? 41 42 Mr. Conroe: [answered question off mike] 43 44 Mr. Polkinhorne: That would be very much appreciated. Obviously there is going to be some 45 noise. Then the second thing is about ambient noise once the project is inhabited. There are 46 things I would like considered there would be mitigation for things such as pool equipment or air 47 conditioning equipment. We do a lot of stuff in the Ranch around putting noise mitigation 48 devices around those and having very stringent noise levels associated with that kind of 49 22 equipment. So again that would continue to maintain the very rural and quiet nature of that area. 1 So those would be the main comments that I would want to raise. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Garber: Thank you very much and welcome to Palo Alto. We were at Commissioner 4 Martinez and then Keller. 5 6 Commissioner Martinez: I want to talk about the house a little more. 7 8 Chair Garber: Are these questions or are these comments? We are in questions still at the 9 moment. 10 11 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, then I will wait. 12 13 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Keller. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I have questions still. The first question is for Staff and is a 16 follow up to an earlier question from Commissioner Fineberg. The application was originally 17 started in the process of 2004 and continues now, deemed complete late in 2009. I am 18 wondering how long the application process is allowed to continue before it is considered stale. 19 20 Ms. Lee: Practice is that if somebody doesn’t respond or submit anything in a year then Staff 21 usually submits a letter asking them to withdraw the application. If we don’t hear back from 22 them within a month then the application is considered dead. In this case the applicant has been 23 working with Staff over the past six years so in that sense the project has been moving along, 24 albeit very slowly. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. The next question is two questions for the applicant if I 27 may. So the first question is you have considered the idea of a bridge over Buckeye Creek in 28 comparison to doing a culvert. If you were to do a bridge how much of the area would be 29 involved? How high would you have to go over? What would be your approach? 30 31 Mr. Conroe: We have not designed the bridge because we went with the culvert idea based on 32 everybody’s feedback a couple of years ago. At that point Buckeye Creek is maybe four feet 33 wide and it sinks down. So if you wanted to maximize the standoff you would design something 34 that is maybe 15 feet spanning so you would have piers or some sort of structural system to span 35 the 15 feet going over. It wouldn’t have to rise up very much because it dips at that point. So it 36 might rise up a foot. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. My final question is it seems that palm trees from my – 39 first of all I don’t know where they go on the drawing. I haven’t seen where they go on the 40 drawing unless I missed them. 41 42 Mr. Conroe: There are two that flank right by the house. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: Can you tell me which drawing shows them? 45 46 Chair Garber: Perhaps if you used your fountain as the center of your dial. Are they the ones 47 that are at seven o’clock and nine o’clock? 48 49 23 Mr. Conroe: It at the end of the driveway before it fans out to the bulb or the turnaround. You 1 will see them on the left and right. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Those little what look like pinwheel kinds of things? 4 5 Mr. Conroe: Yes, those are two palm trees. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I am wondering, I don’t think palm trees are usually fit 8 well into the open space area. So why did you pick palm trees and how open would you of 9 picking something that would fit more into open space than palm trees? 10 11 Mr. Conroe: Stanford, and yes. They are picked because we went to Stanford and we like palm 12 trees. Yes, if push came to shove consider not only substituting different types of palms but I 13 guess removing them and considering something else that would be kind of an entry marker to 14 the home. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 17 18 Chair Garber: I am next. Correct me if I am wrong, but if I am recalling correctly the way that 19 the code calculates FAR it is designed to penalize more height by giving the applicant less area. 20 is that correct? I am seeing an affirmative nod. 21 22 Regarding number nine of the Open Space Development Criteria, buildings should use natural 23 materials and earth tone or subdued colors. This is really for the applicant. Mr. Conroe, I have a 24 question for you. Your elevations show the areas of the stone or suggest where the are areas of 25 the stone that you are using, and it is shown on the material board to be the base as well the 26 voussoir lintels over some of the windows and presumably around the doorway, however the 27 elevation shows them as sort of a darker brown color. The material you actually have on the 28 board is more actually whitish. Is there intent one way or another for that stone to actually be? 29 30 Mr. Conroe: Yes, we did the material board four years ago and we did the elevation this week. 31 So if I could have gotten a darker stone from the architect that would be more roughhewn that is 32 what would have been on the materials board. 33 34 Chair Garber: Roughhewn and possibly darker than the more whitish one that is currently on the 35 board. 36 37 Mr. Conroe: That is correct. 38 39 Chair Garber: So closer to the rendering and not like the material that we are seeing there, okay. 40 Second question, the City has a variety of codes that dictate that there is no light, that you are not 41 seeing the filament of lights from beyond property lines, etc. I am assuming that you would have 42 no problems with the issues that your neighbor across the way has already voiced. 43 44 Mr. Conroe: That is correct. 45 46 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, if I can let’s close the questions here. we will keep 47 the public hearing open. Let’s go to discussion. We will start a new list and Commissioner 48 Martinez you had your light on. 49 24 1 Before you go however, a note for our more architecturally minded Commissioners, be those the 2 actual architects or not. Let us remind ourselves that although the project doesn’t go to ARB our 3 review is not necessarily about building details etc., but need to be tied to our findings and the 4 Open Space Criteria in some way. So if you do start talking about things that relate to the 5 building specifically let’s be sure to tie them back into what the policies are that we are trying to 6 get after here. So with that caveat Commissioner Martinez. 7 8 Commissioner Martinez: Well that took the steam out of my questions. 9 10 Chair Garber: If you have good ideas I am sure the applicant would be happy to hear them. 11 12 Commissioner Martinez: I wanted to commend the applicant for really working hard to address 13 the very sensitive environmental issues. Yet, at the same time we look at the house and it is sort 14 of a style of a Tuscany/English Manor. If I remember my history right the English Manor 15 philosophy was man over nature, which seems to be contrary to how hard you worked to address 16 the open space environmental concerns. 17 18 I also wanted to say that I take some issue with sort of Staff’s finding, if I can read it. Built form 19 and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. They are citing I think it is N-7 20 Policy. . I fail to see where the built form mimics the natural landscape. So I would like to 21 suggest, I don’t know how to do this without talking about architecture, and since the plans are in 22 somewhat of a early design phase that the applicant try to look at using more organic means to 23 relate the new house to the environment, not just in the color but in the use of materials, maybe 24 looking at some of the form to really try to get it to relate more to its surroundings. I think even 25 though the house is in a meadow not on the side of a hill the siting of the house actually divides 26 that meadow in half or in a third and two-thirds. I think that is a significant change that we 27 should be concerned about. That it isn’t a built form fitting within the natural environment. It is 28 a built form that really is in contradiction to the natural environment. It is very high, built higher 29 by the fill that has been chosen. I am happy that you would consider lowering the height of the 30 house. Really, since it is in its somewhat infancy look at really expressing the building in a more 31 sympathetic way to the beautiful environment where it will sit. Thank you. 32 33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, you had your light on. 34 35 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I am not inclined to meddle in your architecture. I feel very 36 similarly to Commissioner Martinez though in terms of what you have accomplished in terms of 37 the architectural style. I don’t think it is terribly compatible with the site. What people choose to 38 wear in their homes, on their own property, I think is really up to them. In some ways it is a 39 fundamental right. It doesn’t make it any more or less appropriate in this case. 40 41 What I think is important however, is how the house meets the site, is probably the most 42 significant thing that I can think of. What I am thinking of is when you look at Palladian villas 43 or even I would say traditional English architecture even though they are very formal types of 44 buildings the way they hit the ground plane particularly in landscape and open spaces are 45 particularly important to the success of how those buildings work. I think that in some ways 46 with your cut and fill here has totally been missed. 47 48 25 Your palette of materials I think is okay. I don’t think it is a particularly strong palette. I think 1 that there are other materials, as you said it is dated, that can be considered and looked at, and 2 color schemes that could also help enhance this project and either distinguish it or make it 3 compatible with the siting of the project. 4 5 Where I do have a couple of comments is in your natural plantings. Number one I think that 6 your neighbor’s suggestion of additional screening is a good one, but I would be inclined to 7 review it with the City Arborist as to the appropriateness of the species and how well it is going 8 to work and work into the open space. I would much rather seen an open, natural environment if 9 the planting were forced and they were not appropriate to what you are trying to do here. 10 11 In addition to that I appreciate the approach that you have taken with the fencing here. I think 12 this kind of fencing is pretty much going to disappear. 13 14 Chair Garber: What are you holding up there? 15 16 Commissioner Lippert: It is the type one fencing. It looks like a rail fence. Type two. With the 17 welded wire fabric is going to pretty much going to go away and it is going to be almost virtually 18 invisible. I question the need for fencing. You are in an open space area. Most of the people 19 going through that area are highly visible. You have a lot of cyclists through there. I actually 20 question whether it is necessary all the way around the property. I question whether it is needed 21 on both sides of the driveway, and perhaps there are other ways of screening or obscuring the 22 house and the driveway from Los Trancos Road and your neighbors. I would encourage you to 23 try something that is a little bit more natural. 24 25 I can understand fencing where you have put in your gardens because the deer absolutely love 26 them and that is where you want to control or be able to put up fencing to discourage deer from 27 eating your nettles. 28 29 So those are my comments. I have one last comment however, and this is really by way of a 30 lesson on architecture. Your windows while I think are quite nice you may want to take a look at 31 some books by Chris Alexander, Building in Timeless Styles. Particularly when you are looking 32 out a large window particularly at open space you actually want to go with smaller panes. Part 33 of that is that it actually frames and puts everything into context. It is when you are in a very 34 confined space when picture windows begin to work like Eichler type homes. They have big 35 windows because the area in yards is very confined. So you are trying to create that connection 36 between inside and outside. So I would just take a look at a couple of architectural books by I 37 think Chris Alexander is a very good example and he can bring you up to speed very quickly on 38 some things that could enhance what you are trying to accomplish architecturally. 39 40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Fineberg. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Yes, first of all, while I am talking can somebody hand me back the 43 diagram that indicated the fencing? Thank you. So what it is interesting is that it looks like the 44 fence around the property is type one fence, which has a blue fence, is the type one fence 45 actually is the one that doesn’t look like that. That is type two fence. The one with the stone 46 base. So around the property will be all the fence with the stone base and along the driveway we 47 are talking about that one being the open fence that looks like the picture that Commissioner 48 Lippert showed, which is the sort of rail fence if you will. Then you are talking about possibly 49 26 not even needing that and just having something near the driveway because nobody is going to 1 go there anyway. So some gate at the driveway. So I am not sure if Commissioner Lippert’s 2 comments still hold when around the property is the stone fence. I will leave that for 3 Commissioner Lippert to refer to. 4 5 I agree with the idea of lowering it and having less fill, more cut. I agree with the comments that 6 say that the plantings should be discussed with the City Planning Arborist. 7 8 I understand that the motif behind this building sort of reminds me a lot of buildings on the 9 Stanford campus, having spent many years in that place. It is somewhat reminiscent of that, 10 however, even with that as a motif I am troubled by the idea of the palm trees. It seems that even 11 the changed palm trees grow to 40 feet high or more. So that is a significant thing that looks like 12 it doesn’t really fit in with the open space. So I would encourage finding some tree that is a 13 defining end of driveway tree that is more in keeping with the open space motif. 14 15 I think that if Fish and Game come back and say that they want some sort of bridge over in order 16 to deal with the riparian corridor of Buckeye Creek I would be interested in at least having that 17 come and show it to us so we can see what it looks like. To the extent that the grading changed I 18 would also like to see that come back and just see how it fit onto the property with the grade 19 lowered several feet. With those changes I feel reasonably comfortable. 20 21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Tuma. 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: Can’t resist approaching this from the architectural perspective, along 24 with my fellow Commissioners. I had a light bulb moment when you said the palm trees were to 25 be reminiscent of Stanford campus, and I realized as Commissioner Keller has just said the 26 buildings are absolutely reminiscent of the Stanford quad. The buildings on Stanford’s quad 27 were designed and landscaped with formal gardens, with rectilinear plots, with interior quads, 28 long straight approaches, and that isn’t what is present on this site. You have sort of funky 29 triangle, a curving driveway, so there is some dissonance for me. Also, and I am not suggesting 30 you totally redesign the house but you have a rectangle with two long sides, with the long sides 31 going across the narrow distance of the triangle. So to me the house kind of reaches a wall. 32 When you come down the driveway, except for the side yard setback there is no left side, there is 33 no right side of open space of view shed. The house is a wall down the meadow. If you were to 34 redesign it, not suggesting you should, wondering about rotating the house so that the length of it 35 goes with the length of the parcel. There may be reasons not to do that. That was just something 36 I had been thinking about. Then as you would approach the house you would see past it 37 continuing into the meadow. So that was one thought. 38 39 I am still kind of hung on how to progress with this without the knowledge of whether we can 40 recommend for approval on a Mitigated Negative Declaration knowing that there might be 41 significant impacts that we don’t have feedback on, and that is my primary issue. 42 43 I have noted some of the things that during the discussion that we might want as conditions. I 44 would concur that there be conditions that there not be construction on Saturday. That during 45 construction there be sensitivity to the neighbors for construction noise. That there appropriate 46 mitigations for equipment noise, pool pumps and such as that, after the project is built out. That 47 there be more balance of cut and fill. I am not going to say this in the right construction or 48 engineering words but that there not be a six-foot rise in the house so it is levitating off the plane 49 27 of the meadow. That there not be palm trees used, or if they are that they are really short ones. I 1 think one of the neighbors proposed a 30-foot max, maybe even 20 feet if that is possible. I 2 agree with several of my colleagues that the current design for the fences is now kind of I would 3 say not fully constructed plan right now because there have been some last minute changes. I 4 understand that the implications of some of those changes, the unintended consequences, may 5 not have been thought through. So that there be something that that fence plan be more fully 6 planned. There be a condition that the lights not be visible as much as possible to the residents 7 on Valley Oak as well as on Los Trancos including the pool being dark at night or at least not 8 shining up, if that is feasible. That there be discussions with the City Arborist about planting 9 screens along both Los Trancos and Valley Oak Road. That there be considerations of lowering 10 the height of the house. I don’t know whether that last piece of lowering the height is feasible or 11 advisable but it sounds like there were several suggestions it would benefit the project so I am 12 willing to do for consideration. That’s it for now. 13 14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma and then Garber. 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: So I find myself in agreement with a lot of the comments that have been 17 made thus far. I will put my spin on a couple of them. I do like the idea of trying to use the 18 natural grade a little bit more. Having been out to the site this morning one thing that maybe 19 could be considered is some terracing. For example, if you had the garage at one grade and it is 20 like terraced down you could actually make the entire place a little bit more interesting and break 21 things up a bit. 22 23 I almost think regardless of what Fish and Game come back with a bridge could be quite 24 interesting here to sort of celebrate the existence of the creek, and could be a feature that could 25 enhance the overall project. I think regardless of what Fish and Game come back with there still 26 may be some people that are not entirely comfortable with the culvert being put in there. So I 27 think there may be some benefits to the project and ways to address some concerns. 28 29 Screening on both sides, Los Trancos and for the Portola Valley neighbors, is great. I think if 30 you do use a little bit more of the natural grade a couple of the chimneys that were mentioned 31 will come down a little bit because you are not raising them up as much. So maybe that brings 32 that down as well. 33 34 I don’t have heartburn about fencing the area that you are talking about but I would think twice 35 about just using the type two instead of the wall. If there is a real reason to use the type one with 36 the first three feet of stone so be it, but the other is quite handsome and it sort of blends in with 37 things quite nicely. 38 39 I actually think palm trees are quite nice but if that is something that is changed out it comes to 40 mind, I don’t know what they are called but I call them these tall skinny Italian pine trees that are 41 quite interesting and could be used as kind of a way to sort of announce an entryway. The very 42 Italian would sort of fit in with the architecture. 43 44 The other comment that I want to make is I am incredibly impressed with not only the work that 45 went into this application but also the way that the applicant has comported himself this evening 46 both in response to suggestions, comments made by the Commission and neighbors. I am 47 confident that we are going to get a project that works for everybody. 48 49 28 I have a question at this point for the applicant. Would you prefer sort of some time for us to 1 maybe continue this and maybe go away for a time and think about the comments and come back 2 with some revisions, or are would you be more interested in kind of a conditioned approval? I 3 would be interested in your thoughts on that. 4 5 Mr. Conroe: Our preference would be to condition an approval and have some of these items 6 either to Staff’s satisfaction or to come back on certain items for your additional review, but limit 7 it to those items, which are on the table. 8 9 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. 10 11 Chair Garber: Good comments all around and I will add my support to several. The screening 12 that the applicant has offered to do and that the various Commissioners have suggested I will add 13 my support to. 14 15 I share some of the questions that have been raised regarding the fencing and its purpose. 16 Although I don’t see it as conflicting with the Open Space requirements as it is. Palm trees, I 17 don’t mind them. They are buried inside the site. They are at almost the lowest point of the site. 18 I don’t think anyone is going to see them other than the main house, assuming that they are 19 essentially the same size as the house. The bridge versus the culver I think is really a call for 20 Fish and Game. It matters very little to me. A bridge obviously is more expressive but that is a 21 choice for the applicant to make. Grading change, cut and fill, etc. I think short of there being a 22 strong civil engineering reason to raise to the degree that it has I would support trying to get the 23 house lower. I support a number of Commissioner Martinez’s comments regarding getting the 24 house to be a little more horizontal in nature but frankly I don’t see the way that the house is 25 currently designed and its massing especially existing in a valley floor as being inappropriate 26 given the Open Space Criteria. I would have a significantly different feeling about it if it were 27 on the top or on the side of a hill. I would support mitigations regarding noise both during 28 construction with limiting construction to weekdays and not on Saturdays. I would also ask that 29 the applicant work with Staff to find ways to mitigate the operational noise on an ongoing basis 30 especially if that means burying things like pool equipment or putting the pool equipment in the 31 basement of your main house or something of that sort. Those are all ways that I can imagine 32 those things being mitigated. Then I would also support lighting and if there are other things that 33 the applicant can also work with Staff to see if there are ways that are in addition to what the 34 requirements are by code to meet the concerns of the neighbors especially across Los Trancos 35 Creek that would be only a good thing. Finally, I would be interested in perhaps Staff’s take on 36 their suggestions for how we can deal with the issue of the learnings that we may get from Fish 37 and Game and how we can incorporate that into our action this evening. 38 39 I have a final light from Commissioner Tanaka. 40 41 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So thank you to the applicant for presenting and Staff for all 42 your hard work. I think the comments tonight were actually very enlightening as were the 43 questions. To save time my comments were largely aligned with Vice-Chair Tuma as well as 44 Chair Garber, except I think that a bridge actually would make a lot of sense here and perhaps 45 prevent the need with whatever Fish and Game says whether it had to be there or not, needing to 46 come back here and spending more Commission time on this. So I am more for the bridge. 47 48 29 I also like Commissioner Lippert’s comment having a window on the basement and perhaps even 1 a walkup basement. So I think following the terrain actually makes a lot of sense and could 2 actually help the property as well. That is all I had. Thank you. 3 4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, a motion perhaps? 5 6 MOTION 7 8 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. I will make a motion. I will move that the Planning and 9 Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative 10 Declaration and approve the Site and Design Review application for the new home in the Open 11 Space with the following items to return to us on Consent. Number one, cut and fill to be a more 12 natural slope to the degree that the fill removed from the site is minimized. The house should 13 appear more naturally grounded. The fire sprinkler system should be fed through the domestic 14 water service or the pool if it is permitted to be used, or there be no above grade water tanks 15 without additional review. Again, that would need to come back to use to take a look at. 16 Additional screen tree plantings along the Portola Valley side of the property to be screened from 17 the neighbors, and that to be reviewed by the Planning Arborist for appropriateness of those 18 plantings. That a bridge over Buckeye Creek be preferred to a culvert. So we would want to see 19 what that bridge looks like. Reduction or redefine the fencing and screening around the 20 property. So we would really want to see what that is going to look like and whether you are 21 going to be reducing that fencing or using another method. It could be plantings or some other 22 method. Limiting construction to weekdays. Noise mitigation for air conditioning equipment 23 and the pool equipment. An alternative to the proposed palms. Lastly, when that does return to 24 us on Consent we would like to see whether there are any comments from Fish and Game or any 25 other agencies after the close of the comment period. If the impacts are potentially significant 26 how they will be mitigated. 27 28 SECOND 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Second. 31 32 Chair Garber: Seconded by Commissioner Keller. Would the maker like to speak to their 33 motion? 34 35 Commissioner Lippert: I think we have all done a really great job here. I appreciate my fellow 36 Commissioners as well as the applicant taking our comments to heart. I think it will be a really 37 great project. Thank you. 38 39 Chair Garber: And the seconder? 40 41 Commissioner Keller: I agree, and I just want to clarify one thing that Commissioner Lippert 42 said. Commissioner Lippert said that you prefer a bridge over Buckeye Creek. is that a 43 condition that it be a bridge? 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: I prefer a bridge and if in fact there is going to be a bridge I would like 46 to see what that bridge looks like when it returns to us on Consent. 47 48 30 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so I am assuming then what you mean is that either there be a 1 bridge and they show it to us on Consent or they give reason why they are not using a bridge. 2 3 Commissioner Lippert: Well, if they don’t show a bridge maybe that would be a reason to pull it 4 off of Consent but I don’t see that as necessarily a reason not to approve the project. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. I think that the site kind of constraining. I guess it is a 7 long time in coming. It has been five or six years since the project started its process. it would 8 have been approved under the rules then in force and so considering that it is the City’s process 9 for approving a project that is continuously being modified and worked on in the interim I think 10 that it is fair to approve this project subject to the conditions that Commissioner Lippert ably 11 mentioned. It worthwhile noting that because of various limitations such as the percent of 12 pervious cover and things like that and the FAR issues that this project would not be approved if 13 it were submitted today under the current rules as it were enacted in 2009. We go by the rules in 14 effect at the time of project submission so that is fair. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Garber: Discussion? Commissioner Fineberg. 17 18 Commissioner Fineberg: I am not sure that last statement of it not being approved is accurate 19 because isn’t this parcel subject to the 1973 accords so it gets 1,500 feet, which is 3.5 percent of 20 ten acres? So isn’t this within the acceptable FAR? 21 22 Mr. Williams: It is not part of that agreement. 23 24 Commissioner Fineberg: I’m sorry I thought I saw that in the Staff Report. 25 26 Chair Garber: The Staff Report addresses that condition but I am not recalling how it addresses 27 it, but it is someplace in the Staff Report is it not? 28 29 Ms. Lee: I think the 3.5 percent applies because this parcel is a legal nonconforming parcel. I 30 think it is located close to the parcels that Commissioner Fineberg referenced but it is located 31 outside of those. 32 33 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, maybe we can find that later. Friendly amendment for the 34 maker. As one of the conditions of approval unless I missed it I don’t believe I heard you saying 35 anything about lights. I am open to wordsmithing if you have a better suggestion but would you 36 consider something that all lighting plans comply with requirements in the Open Space District 37 with a sensitivity to the neighbors both on the Palo Alto and the Los Altos, so both on Los 38 Trancos and Valley Oak? 39 40 Commissioner Lippert: I don’t have a problem with that. That is what our ordinance says that 41 they have to keep the light contained on the property I believe. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: I think that is fine but I think you mean Portola Valley not Los Altos. 44 45 Commissioner Fineberg: Correct. I am sorry. Thank you for that. I have a question related to 46 the specific wording of your motion. What happens if Fish and Game comes back and says that 47 there are significant impacts and they can be mitigated and here is how? Then are we 48 automatically pulling it off the Consent to review the changes that need to be made in order to do 49 31 the mitigations? What happens if they can’t be mitigated and they are significant? Does Staff 1 then have to do an EIR and it can’t move forward on a Negative Declaration. 2 3 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 4 5 Mr. Williams: The answer to your second question is yes. If they are significant and cannot be 6 mitigated then an EIR would be required. If there is additional mitigation that is required 7 through Fish and Game then we will need to modify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 8 recirculate it. There is not a reason why it still can’t come back to you after that circulation 9 period on Consent. Then if you feel like the change is significant enough you can pull it off of 10 Consent and discuss it, but the change could be relatively minor or just a construction condition 11 or something like that so it doesn’t need to. 12 13 Now, the only caveat I would have is, I don’t know why there would be, but if there were 14 something that really significantly changed the design like you can’t cross the creek there you 15 have to move someplace else or something then we would be in a different situation. We should 16 come back to you not on Consent and show those changes. What I would anticipate is that there 17 would either be no additional mitigation measures and just a determination by Fish and Game 18 that there isn’t a significant impact or there would be some additional mitigation measure which 19 could be a bridge or could be some other means of revegetating or restoring around the disturbed 20 area or something like that and if that is the case we are into the recirculation and can come back 21 to you and put that all on Consent and you can determine if you feel it is necessary to pull it and 22 discuss it. 23 24 Commissioner Lippert: Part of the reason why I left it open with regard to the bridge is that it 25 could very well be that Fish and Game might prefer a culvert for instance. It is a little more 26 protected. It is a little more substantial. 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: One more friendly amendment if I could since there is some 29 uncertainty. Would you accept a motion that if there are significant impacts that either have to 30 be mitigated by changing the project or by continuing with a new EIR that in effect we are 31 withdrawing our approval and it come back to us on a Consent Calendar? 32 33 Commissioner Lippert: Well, what I said in the motion was that if Fish and Game or other 34 agencies came back with potentially significant impacts that they be mitigated, and those would 35 need to be presented to us as part of these items that we would be reviewing on Consent. The 36 thought is that if you saw something in there that you felt was mitigated and it wasn’t appropriate 37 you would be able to pull that from Consent and we would discuss it. We would decide whether 38 we wanted to move forward with that or not. The whole idea though is that we would get a 39 second chance, rather than continuing this item, basically what we are seeing today we are 40 approving. There are some things that we all have concerns with and those would be addressed. 41 They would come back on Consent and then we would make that determination as to whether 42 Vice-Chair Tuma likes the bridge or the cypress trees. 43 44 Commissioner Fineberg: So here is where I still have some concern. I absolutely agree with the 45 intent of what you are saying that if we like what we have now except for these areas that we 46 have identified that we allow it to move forward. But not knowing what changes might happen 47 let’s say for instance Fish and Game says, as Director Williams said, they can’t cross the creek 48 32 they have to move the whole house, are we tying our hands and saying we are only allowed to 1 review the bridge or does the whole thing come back to us if it comes off Consent? 2 3 Chair Garber: Can you give us a hand, Staff? 4 5 Mr. Williams: Yes, if that is the case then the whole thing needs to come back. you would pull 6 it off to review the project if it changed the whole layout substantially. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, that answers my concern. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 11 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am going to be supporting the motion, just a couple of comments that I 13 wanted to make. While I agree with Commissioner Keller’s conclusion that this project exactly 14 as proposed wouldn’t meet the 2009 standards it is actually not entirely that far off in many of its 15 components. There would be some relatively simple things I think that could be done to bring it 16 into compliance. So I agree, it doesn’t meet it, but it is not that far off. 17 18 The other thing that I would point out is something we have not discussed is there is a Build It 19 Green checklist, or preliminary point number in here, which is 150 points as what they are going 20 for, which is a very interesting number in light of our discussions the other night. It is 21 commendable and it is something that shouldn’t go unnoticed about this project. There has been 22 an awful lot of thought. I think what we are doing here tonight is sort of maybe rounding out 23 some of the edges and trying to tweak things a bit but there is quite a bit to be lauded even from 24 an environmental perspective about the way that this project has been put together. So I want to 25 make sure that that doesn’t get lost because what we have tended to focus on tonight are the little 26 things that need to get changed. I think it is a great project in many ways and one that I think as 27 a community we would be proud of. 28 29 Chair Garber: I am seeing lights from Fineberg. Commissioner Fineberg did you want to speak 30 again? Commissioner Keller did you want to speak again? 31 32 Commissioner Keller: Yes, just for the record, it is 1,200 square feet more than the current code 33 allows for the 2009. Since it is sort of grandfathered in that is okay. The Build It Green 34 checklist is filled in by hand and I would recommend that you actually take the spreadsheet and 35 put numbers in it and have it calculate all the stuff out when it goes to Council. I didn’t want to 36 sit there and add up the numbers, I trusted that it was done right, but why not let Excel do that or 37 your favorite spreadsheet calculator. 38 39 I am assuming that the interpretation of the motion is that if there are additional mitigations that 40 are needed that those mitigations come back to us for review on Consent. If the project requires 41 additional major changes because they are not easily mitigable through a Mitigated Negative 42 Declaration then essentially our approval is withdrawn because the Mitigated Negative 43 Declaration can’t be taken. If the driveway can’t cross the creek I guess the project is up the 44 creek. 45 46 Chair Garber: Thank you, Commissioner Keller. Let me remind the maker that Commissioner 47 Fineberg had actually asked for a friendly amendment regarding lighting. 48 49 33 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I didn’t have a problem with it because it was consistent with the 1 code. 2 3 Chair Garber: Okay and you accepted it. Okay, thank you. Anything else Commissioner 4 Keller? I will be supporting the motion as well. I thank Commissioner Tuma for his reminder of 5 the Green Point Rated checklist, which I did review. I may quibble over a point or two on it but 6 basically I too was impressed by the number. Commissioner Tanaka, you had a final comment? 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: I actually had a question for the maker of the motion about the palm 9 trees. Was that a suggestion or a requirement that they don’t have palm trees? 10 11 Commissioner Lippert: Well, my motion just states that there should be an alternative to the 12 palm tree. If they came back as the items that we have asked for and they picked a palm tree I 13 guess that would be a reason to pull it off of Consent unless we found that the choice of palm 14 tree was appropriate, but that is up to them. 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: That is fine. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Garber: With that I am seeing no more lights. Let’s vote on the motion as it has been 19 stated. Just before we do let me just ask Staff if they have clarity on the various conditions that 20 have been made and if there are any other questions that they have. 21 22 Ms. Lee: I believe we have the points, thank you. 23 24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 25 26 Commissioner Lippert: We don’t have any specific rules with regard to pulling items off of 27 Consent. My understanding is if any one Commissioner chooses to have it pulled off of Consent 28 it could be. 29 30 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 31 32 Chair Garber: That is correct. With that let us vote. All those in favor of the motion say aye. 33 (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Martinez, 34 Tanaka, Fineberg, Garber, Tuma, Keller, and Lippert voting yea. 35 36 Thank you very much. We will close the public hearing and this item. 37 38 We have a few little pieces of business to take care of. We have the approval of minutes from 39 Wednesday, February 24. Do I hear a motion to approve them? 40 41 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of February 24, 2010. 42 43 MOTION 44 45 Vice-Chair Tuma: So moved. 46 47 Chair Garber: A second, please? 48 49 34 SECOND 1 2 Commissioner Martinez: Second. 3 4 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 5 6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez seconds. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those 7 opposed? The motion passes unanimously. 8 174.0' 110.0' 126.8' 224.7' 167.3' 179.3' 417.5' 177.0' 79.6' 118.0'143.4' 275.7' 48.1' 795.7' 45.9' 31.1' 174.0' 110.0' 126.8' 224.7' 167.3' 179.3' 13.8' 47.6' 209.1' 345.4' 13.8' 345.4' 47.6' 243.2'608.1' 54.4' 795.7' 209.1' 1 243.2'608.1' 423.6' 178.7' 39.1' 446.9' 2.6' 446.9' 39.1' 200.0' 1290.7' 10.0'4.5' 207.9' 208.1' 47.4' 17.7' 4.5' 207.9' 208.1' 48.5' 143.4'118.0' 79.6' 177.0' 417.5' 502.1' 48.5' 275.7' 48.1' 72.0' 31.1' 45.9' 178.7' 620 610 856 805 L O S T R A N C O S R O A D This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'174' 805 Los Trancos Rd. Location Map CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto elee2, 2010-02-08 14:01:54 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Letter of Application  Request for Extension of Existing Approvals  Site & Design Review  805 Los Trancos Road  Palo Alto, CA  (Updated April 29, 2013)    This application is requesting a one year extension to the existing approvals for Site and Design  Review obtained on June 22, 2010 for the construction of a new single family residence on  approximately 3.55 acres within the Open Space Zoning District.  It is noteworthy that the June  2010 application was approved unanimously by both the Planning Commission and City Council  with no controversy.  The request for this time extension is required for our family to complete  construction documents, obtain a construction loan and pull building permits; we hope to start  construction later this year.  What follows is the original text from the June 22, 2010 Site and Design Review approval (which  provides additional information on what was approved in June 2010):  The application proposes 5407 square feet of impervious coverage (which meets the 3.5% impervious  coverage requirement), which includes a footprint for the home of 3262 square feet, decks of 443  square feet, a breezeway and garage of 1472 square feet, and a deck around the pool of 230 square  feet.  The proposed home has 7276 square feet of habitable area (some of which is above the attached  garage), not including a basement of 2691 square feet.  The site is located on Los Trancos Road approximately ½ mile from Alpine Road.  The site is  approximately 1400 feet long and ranges from 50‐300 feet deep and is bordered by Los Trancos Road on  one side and Los Trancos Creek on the other side.  The site is accessed by an existing driveway off of Los  Trancos Road.  The site is generally flat with a slight (approximate 3%) slope towards Los Trancos Creek.  All of the site improvements are proposed in the widest area of the site, which is currently an open, flat  grass area, and which provides the greatest setback from Los Trancos Creek and Los Trancos Road.  A  majority of the site will be left in its current, native condition.  The driveway will consist of a permeable  surface consisting of decomposed granite and the area in front of the garage and a small pad off the  back door will consist of permeable pavers.    One of the primary objectives in designing the home on the site was to maintain a significant buffer  between Los Trancos Creek and the proposed home thereby providing for a riparian corridor for native  flora and fauna.  This objective was achieved by: (1) maximizing the distance of the home from Los  Trancos Creek top of bank (all improvements are set back a minimum of 70’ from top of bank with most  of the improvements being over 100’ from top of bank), (2) limiting all site work so as to be a minimum  of 50’ from top of bank, (3) contributing to a minimum 120’ wide “riparian corridor” centered along Los  Trancos Creek to accommodate native fauna and flora (which includes the riparian setbacks along the  other side of Los Trancos Creek), (4) planting only native plants and trees in the 50’ top of bank setback  area, and (5) providing a gentle, natural form earth berm (2‐3’ in height) along the 50’ setback from top  of bank to be planted with native riparian plantings. Furthermore, a new fence will be installed to  indicate the limit of work on the site, resulting in leaving a majority of the site undisturbed in its native  state.  The home design is Mediterranean style using an earth tone palette and natural building materials.  The  improvements consist of a two story home (with partial basement) with a breezeway which connects  the home to the garage, a swimming pool and landscaping around the home.  The home height is  consistent with zoning code with the midpoint of the pitched roof at a height of 25’ from finished grade.   Required parking will be provided in the four car garage.  The pool may equipped, if recommended by  the fire department, to serve as an emergency water supply in the event of a fire.  Utilities are provided to the site as follows: Sewer service is currently provided to the site by the West  Bay Sanitary District; Water will be provided by the California Water Service Company; and Gas and  electric service will be provided by PG&E.  A new fire hydrant will either be provided just off of Los  Trancos Road (near the driveway) or on the site at a location determined by the Palo Alto Fire  Department and Cal Water.  While the property has a number of trees located on it, the location of all improvements was selected to  minimize the impact to the trees and as such does not impact any mature oak trees.  As noted in the  arborist report, there are four olive trees and one small (6” diameter) oak that will be preserved (and  relocated) on site as part of the new home construction; additionally, there is one small (14” dia.) oak  that is close to the new home pad and therefore the specified tree protection measures will be  implemented.    Due to the relatively flat nature of the property, the only grading required will be to build up the  building pads.  Site drainage will be handled via grass swale areas to allow for filtration of storm water.   As part of the driveway construction, a small (5’ wide by 2’ high) culvert will be installed in order to  allow for the small perennial unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek (which runs intermittently during  the year and which is approximately 3’ wide and up to 6” deep)  to flow undisturbed.  What follows is how the site’s design complies with the following objectives (18.82.060 PAMC):  1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious,  and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites: The subject property  is one of the last home sites in this area of the OS District.  As such, all of the adjoining land  (with the exception of one adjacent site) has been built out for residential uses.  Hence, this  site’s residential use is consistent with all the neighboring uses.  2. To ensure desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational  activities or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas: As noted above, all the  adjacent uses are residential and as such there are no commercial uses in the area.  3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be  observed: A majority of the site is being left in its native, undisturbed state.  Additionally, a  “riparian corridor” is being established along Los Trancos Creek which will further encourage  native fauna and flora.  There is very little impact to the existing trees on the site.  The home  design is situated on a flat area of the property in what is now an open meadow and which is  screened from Los Trancos Road to the greatest degree possible.  Finally, earth tone colors and  natural building materials are being used in the home’s design.  4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: The  Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria are listed below followed by analyses of  the project’s compliance with them:  a. 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 home site has fairly dense vegetation along the perimeter of the property  so as to screen it in most directions.  The site is situated approximately ten feet below  Los Trancos Road with varying levels of vegetation and trees obscuring view of the home  improvements, which are 100 to 200 feet from Los Trancos Road.  The home site chosen  affords the greatest amount of screening from Los Trancos Road as compared to any  other location on the property.  Furthermore, additional tree planting is proposed to  provide additional screening of the site improvements from Los Trancos Road.  The  visual impact of the home will also be minimized by the use of earth tone colors and  natural building materials.   b. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above  the nearest ridgeline.  The proposed home is in a narrow valley floor and as such is not  near any hilltops.    c. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of  neighboring properties. Due to the site’s significant vegetation that surround the project  site, the proposed home improvements are mostly not visible to any neighboring  properties nor is their privacy impacted.  d. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding  it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of  natural habitats.  The site improvements are clustered together and a majority of the  site is left undisturbed in its natural state.  The driveway will consist of permeable  materials and takes the most direct approach to the home to minimize driving areas.  e. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography.  Building lines  should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a  distance.  The home improvements are built at the existing grade.  Formal landscaping is  limited to the immediate area of the home.  The landscape plan provides for additional  tree plantings to increase the natural screening already provided.    f. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground  level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design.  Existing vegetation should  be retained as much as possible.  No healthy trees are to be removed from the site.  The  arborist report recommends removing one dead olive tree.  Four olive trees are to be  preserved and relocated on the site.  g. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the  development to blend into the natural topography.  Fill is generally discouraged and  should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees.  Locate development to  minimize the need for grading.  The improvements are located in an existing meadow  which is relatively flat and therefore there is very little need for either cut or fill.  The  only fill required relates to the building pads.  Fill will not be placed in the dripline of any  existing tree.  h. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of  impervious surfaces should be avoided.  Aside from the building improvements, there  are very few impervious surfaces that are being proposed.  Furthermore, the proposed  impervious surfaces are within the 3.5% allowed.  i. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors.  Natural  buildings materials in earthtones are proposed.  All proposed building materials are  natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the surroundings.   j. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation.  Immediately  adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention  technique.  An extensive native planting list has been proposed with limited onsite  irrigation.  Fire retardant plants will be used near all structures.  k. Exterior lighting should be low‐intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible  from off‐site.  The proposed hardscape and landscape plans submitted indicate that  these policies will be observed.  Landscape lighting will be directed as to be shielded  from view off site.  Given that the site is located in a narrow valley and surrounded by  trees, it is unlikely that exterior lighting will be visible off‐site.  l. Access roads should be rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and  concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment). The driveway  will consist of decomposed granite and there will not be any standard curb, gutter or  sidewalks.  m. For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general  conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations.  The property is within the  City limits and meets the OS (Open Space) District zoning regulations.        805 Los Trancos Road Page 1 ATTACHMENT G OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 805 Los Trancos Road Section 18.28.070(o) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires that the Open Space Development Criteria be used by the Planning and Transportation 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: 1. 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 any identified view sheds (map L-4 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan). The project is located directly adjacent to Los Trancos Road, and is screened from Los Trancos Road by a dense canopy of existing trees and shrubs. Visibility from Los Trancos Road should be minimal. It is not expected that this project would be visible from any public parklands. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line. The proposed house would be located in a valley floor and not located near any ridges. 3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. Given the proposed house location at the bottom of a narrow valley, the privacy impacts from this development on neighboring residences would be minimal. Additionally, the dense perimeter screening would reduce visibility of the development from off-site to a less than significant impact. 4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. The proposed site improvements would all located at one end of the existing flat meadow area to both keep development at one part of the property and to maximize the distance of development from Los Trancos Road. 5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The landscape plan calls for maintaining the majority of existing natural landscaping and trees. The house would be built at existing grade, which is flat. 6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. The majority of the trees on-site would be preserved. The project includes the removal of three dead trees (a bay, willow, and olive tree) and remove one black walnut, two bays, and one olive tree due to location of proposed driveway location or poor condition, and re-locate eight other trees that are in or near proposed driveway or are in potential fill area. Tree #21, a coast live oak (58.5” in diameter), as listed in the Tree Survey & Appraisals prepared for the project, fell during 805 Los Trancos Road Page 2 the December 21, 2009 wind and rain storm. The fallen tree has been removed from the site. The applicant will be required to work with City staff, including the City Arborist, to ensure that existing trees and landscaping are maintained and that new landscaping will be consistent with the existing and the project will be conditioned to protect existing trees that are proposed to be preserved. 7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. The project is located on a relatively flat meadow (with approximately 3% slope from Los Trancos Road towards Los Trancos Creek). Thus, very little cut (5 cubic yards) or fill (625 cubic yards) would be required. No fill is proposed within the dripline of any trees. 8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. There are no large expansive areas of impervious surface proposed with this project. Impervious surfaces would be mainly used for the building’s concrete foundation. Permeable surfaces are proposed for the driveway. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. Natural building materials in earth tones are proposed. All proposed building materials are natural with earth tone colors that would blend with the surroundings. Conditions of approval will require non-reflective roofing and window surfaces. 10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The proposed landscaping incorporates a large number of native species plantings which would minimize the need for irrigation. The conditions of approval will ensure the use of fire retardant plants in the final landscape design. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. Conditions of approval will require that lights be low-intensity and shielded from view to ensure that off-site lighting impacts are minimized. 12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.) The proposed driveway consists of decomposed granite and no curb, sidewalk or gutters. 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 June 12, 2013 3 4 DRAFT EXCERPT 5 6 805 Los Trancos Road: Extension of Council Approval of a Site and Design Review Application for a 7 new house at 805 Los Trancos Road 8 9 Chair Martinez: Let us first vote on the item, the one item remaining on the Consent Calendar and that’s 10 the one year extension of site and design on 805 Los Trancos Road. We need a Motion and a second. 11 12 MOTION 13 14 Commissioner Keller: So moved. 15 16 SECOND, VOTE 17 18 Chair Martinez: Ok, Motion to grant the one year, recommended one year extension of the site and 19 design approval has been, Motion has been made by Commissioner Keller and seconded by Vice-Chair 20 Michael. Any discussion on the item? I guess we can’t, so those in favor of the Motion signal and say 21 aye (Aye). The Motion passes 6-0 with Commissioner Panelli absent tonight. 22 23 MOTION PASSED (6-0, Commissioner Panelli absent) 24 25 Commission Action: Commission approved staff recommendation for Extension of Council Approval of 26 a Site and Design Review Application for a new house at 805 Los Trancos Road, Motion by Commissioner 27 Keller, second by Vice-chair Michael 6-1, Commissioner Panelli absent) 28 174.0' 110.0' 126.8' 224.7' 167.3' 179.3' 417.5' 177.0' 79.6' 118.0'143.4' 275.7' 48.1' 795.7' 45.9' 31.1' 174.0' 110.0' 126.8' 224.7' 167.3' 179.3' 13.8' 47.6' 209.1' 345.4' 13.8' 345.4' 47.6' 243.2'608.1' 54.4' 795.7' 209.1' 1 243.2'608.1' 423.6' 178.7' 39.1' 446.9' 2.6' 446.9' 39.1' 200.0' 1290.7' 10.0'4.5' 207.9' 208.1' 47.4' 17.7' 4.5' 207.9' 208.1' 48.5' 143.4'118.0' 79.6' 177.0' 417.5' 502.1' 48.5' 275.7' 48.1' 72.0' 31.1' 45.9' 178.7' 620 610 856 805 L O S T R A N C O S R O A D This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'174' 805 Los Trancos Rd. Location Map CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto elee2, 2010-02-08 14:01:54 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb)