HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-17 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
9
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JULY 10, 2000 CMR:306:00
850 LOS TRANCOS ROAD [00-D-01, 00-EIA-01, 00-UP-03|:
REQUEST BY ZWICK ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF THE
LEHMANN FAMILY FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW OF A
NEW RESIDENCE, COTTAGE, AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
ON AN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PARCEL APPROXIMATELY 12
ACRES IN SIZE, WITH A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA GUIDELINES.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
. (1) approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project oN the property
located at 850 Los Trancos Road (Attachment 4); (2) approve the proposed project, based
upon Site and Design findings (Attachment 2) and subject to the recommended
conditions of approval (Attachment 3); and approve the Use Permit for the cottage
subject to the Use Permit findings (Attachment 9).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The main residence (7,707 square feet) would be located at the southern end of the lot,
approximately 500 feet from Los Trancos Road. Additional site improvements would
include a swimming pool, three-car garage (856 square feet), a cottage (900 square feet),
two barns (588 and 1,928 square fee0, pool cabanas (450 square fee0, a well house (132
square feet), an existing water tank (271 square feet), a 0.80-acre pond, and flagstone
patios and other impervious surface material (2,935 square feet). A total of 16,896
square feet of impervious surface has been proposed, or 3.23 percent where 3.5 percent is
allowed. Approximately 5 acres of the site are proposed for agricultural use, including
low density sheep grazing and 4 acres of vineyards.
The applicant has proposed re-grading the parcel so the site topography is more
consistent with the topography of the surrounding sites. The proposed grading will
CMR:306:00 Page 1 of 4 ~
balance cut and fill, and soil will not be brought in nor taken off the site.. In addition, the
grading improvements will result in the creation of earth mounds around the various
structures, which will assist in screening the proposed structures.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On June 14, 2000, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission)
recommended approval of the project on a 5-0-0-2 vote, noting the appropriateness of the
project at the site. Specific topics in the discussion included:
Permeable Paving
Concern was expressed regarding permeability of the proposed paving materials, a gravel
base with a decomposed granite top layer. Ttie Public Works and Fire Departments have
conceptually approved the material and will require detailed engineering plans prior to
issuance of a building permit. In addition, if laid properly, the gravel base and
decomposed granite are more permeable that "Rima Stone", which is another paving
surface often recommended by the Department of Public Works.
Creek Setback
The property borders Los Trancos Creek. Because of extensive grading, surface drainage
from the property generally does not go directly into the creek, but rather flows away
from the creek. While the Comprehensive Plan proposes a 100-foot setback along
natural creeks, the applicant proposes a 75-foot setback, with a vineyard [and other
plantings] in the balance of the 100-foot setback. The applicant has submitted a
biological report which states that with proper care, the 75-foot setback will provide
adequate protection for the creek. The applicants have stated that they propose to use
organic farming methods that are not toxic to fish or other wildlife. They have offered a
written commitment to the City to do this as a condition of approval of a 75-foot setback.
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission both recommended a 100-foot
setback, which is the distance proposed in the Comprehensive Plan for natural creek
setbacks. Program N-7 recommends:
Adopt a setback along natural creeks that prohibits the siting of buildings
and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas,, and
ornamental landscaped areas within 100 feet of the top of a creek bank
Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian,
and bicycle pathways where there are adequate setbacks to protect the
natural riparian environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of
native riparian vegetation at least 25feet along the creek bank.
There are two exceptions to this setback requirement:
Single family property is exempt from the l O0-foot setback, except that
undeveloped parcels southwest of Highway 280 are not exempt. A creek
CMR:306:00 Page 2 of 4
ordinance and guidelines will be prepared addressing appropriate setbacks
and creek conservation measures.
Existing development within the l O0-foot setback will be considered legal
and nonconforming. With the lO0-foot setbagk as a goal where feasible,
redevelopment of such sites must be designed consistent with basic creek
habitat objectives and make a significant net improvement in the condition
of the creek.
The property was previously graded flat and developed with agricultural greenhouses and
two dwellings, not as a single family development. Th~ greenhouses have been removed,
and as part of the redevelopment, the existing houses will also be removed. Staff
therefore concludes that the Comprehensive Plan calls for a 100-foot setback if feasible.
A further question raised by this proposal is whether a vineyard can be planted and
maintained in the setback area, whatever its depth. The Comprehensive Plan prohibits
outdoor activity areas and ornamental landscaping; it does not mention agricultural uses.
Because the purpose of the setback is .creek and wildlife conservation, and because
agricultural activities are as problematic as ornamental landscaping in achieving those
goals, staff and the Commission believe that a vineyard should not be. permitted in the
.setback area.
The Planning and Transportation Commission, after hearing the applicant, ¯recommended
the full 100-foot setback, with no vineyard in the setback area. Because the site is
unusually fiat for the Open Space District, extensive development is possible without
building or farming closer to the creek. Good faith promises made by the present owner
¯ may be difficult to monitor and enforce in the future.
Height Measurement
The Commission recommended that the height measurement be taken from the overall
roof form, and that the monitor at the top of the roof of the main residence be considered
a part of the entire roof. In the Open Space zoning district, height is measured form the
"midpoint of the highest gable". Staff noted that the cupola is the highest gable for the
purposes of determining height of the structure. The Commission included a statement of
support for the cupola in its motion and stated its hope that the height measured would
not prevent the inclusion of the cupola in the design of the house.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Location Map
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
2:Proposed Site and Design findings
3:Proposed conditions Of approval
4:Environmental evaluation and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
5:~Lehmann property Biological Report
6:Excerpts from Planning Commission minutes, June 14, 2000
CMR:306:00 Page 3 of 4
Attachment 7:Memo to Planning & Transportation Commission, dated June 14, 2000
from staff
Attachment 8:Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (no attachments),
June 14, 2000
Attachment 9: . Use Permit findings for the proposed cottage
Attachment 10: E-mail from John Baca, dated July 4, 2000
Plans (Council Members only)
Prepared By:Amie Glaser, Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD GAWF
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY SON
Assistant City Manager
I~CMR:306:00 Page 4 of 4
Portola
Valley 850-856
810
630
500
500
Palo
Alto
OS
The City of
Palo A1 to
PLANNING DIVISION
d :\Glor~ D~’work\Ma ps~t~lfRepo ds\LosTr-d nco~850.al
Address:
File #:
Action:
850 Los Trancos Road
00-D-01, 00-EIA-01
Proposed new single-family
residence in the Open Space
zone
5
ATTACHMENT 2
Findings for Approval Site and Design Review
850 Los Trancos Road
00-SD-01i 00-EIA-01~ 00-UP-03
The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that willbe orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or
nearby sites.
The proposed project improvements will be sufficiently screened, so as not to
impact the future neighbor’s privacy orenjoyment of their property, and when the
tree plantings are mature, the project will eventually be substantially screened
from Los Trancos Road.
The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment,
or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other
authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent area.
The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent
areas, the proposed design and size of the residence and related improvements are
generally consistent with the existing residences on Los Trancos Woods Road and
the construction of the residences will be governed by the current Zoning Code,
the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, to assure safety and a high
quality of development.
Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be
observed in construction of the project.
The proposed dwellings have been designed to be consistent with the Open Space
Development Criteria adopted by the City Council to mitigate the impacts of
development in the foothills area of the community. The proposed design will
follow existing topography. The project, which includes implementation of the
Mitigation Measures, will not create significant environmental impacts as
indicated by the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project.
The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The conditions of approval require a 100 foot setback for development from Los
Trancos Creek, consistent with Policy L-7 of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy L-1
of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan states, "Retain undeveloped land west of
the Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for
very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the
City of Palo Alto Page
area." The residential construction and the proposed agricultural practices are not
in conflict with this policy. The project is in compliance with .the goals and intent
of the Comprehensive Plan, since the project meets the Open Space Development
Criteria.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Conditions of Approval
850 Los Trancos Road
00-SD-01~ 00-EIA-01~ 00-UP-03
ATTACHMENT 3
Department of Planning and Community Environment Conditions
Planning Division
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans
dated 1/14/00, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and
any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission or City
Council. The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the
plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
, o
The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building permit
drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape
features.
o Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the final construction drawings and
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All
lighting shall be minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away from the
surrounding residences and open space lands.
4.All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-reflective material.
If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains are
encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to
address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to
provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are
encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native
Amercian descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the
State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be
involved in mitigation planning.
A final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Arborist to
ensure that the requirements of Program N-7 are met, in that a ,’significant net
improvement to the condition of the creek" is made as a part of the project. The
proposed landscape plan shall be reviewed for general consistency with
Streamside Planting Guide for San Mateo and Santa Clara County Streams, a
Publication of (CRMP) and Stream Care Guide for .Santa Clara County. The use
of native vegetation shall be encouraged.
The applicant shall provide a professional survey report as to the proximity of the creek
swale to the project, and include the required 100 foot setback line on the site plan. No
City of Palo Alto Page
structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas or ornamental landscaped areas are
allowed within the required setback.
Public Works Engineering
Prior to Submittal for Building Permit:
Grading Plan - The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to
Public works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent
properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and
from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec. 16.28.270
Schedule - The applicant shall submit a master work schedule showing the proposed
grading schedule, the proposed condition of the site on each July 15, August 15,
September 15, October 1, and October 15 during which the permit is in effect. The
master schedule shall also show the schedule for installation of all interim and permanent
erosion and sediment control measures, and other project improvements. See: 16,28.160.
10.The Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building
Inspection Division. See.16.28.060 and 16:28.090
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit:
11.The project is located within 50 feet of Los Trancos Creek which is within the
jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. A permit must be obtained from
SCVWD and a copy provided to the City. SCVWD Ordinance 83-2.
12.
13.
That portion of the parcel (with address #850 Los Trancos Wood Road) which fronts on
the Los Trancos Wood roadway shall be offered for dedication to the City as a public
street. The required dedication shall be a minimum 60 foot wide. The applicant shall
submit documents offering this dedication to the City Public Works Engineering and Real
Property Management divisions. Because of the condition of the existing road, Public
Works will require the applicant to provide a funding contribution to the City for surface
and shoulder improvements to the roadway. The funding contribution shall apply to
improvements along the frontage of the parcel and will be included as part of a future
City improvement project along Los Trancos Wood Road. The applicant shall pay a
contribution to the Public Works Department in the amount of $400 to pay for the
applicant’s share of the required roadway improvements in front of this parcel.
The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works
Engineering for construct!on proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec 12.08.010.
14.Soils Report - A detailed site-specific soil report was previously submitted. The report
already identifies the current ground water level at various locations on the site., An
amendment to the soils report must be provided which includes additional information on
water table and basement construction issues. By using other available information as
City of Palo Alto Page 2
well as his professional experience, the soils engineer shall project the highest level likely
to be encountered in the future.’ This projection of highest groundwater level shall be
done for locations near the proposed basement. The design engineer, working with this
information shall make specific recommendations regarding waterproofing and building
elements required to prevent groundwater seepage based on this highest water level and
the depth of construction. If the proposed basement is above the projected highest water
level, the basement can be constructed in a conventional manner with subsurface
drainage to relieve the hydrostatic pressure. If not then measures must be taken to render
the basement waterproof and able to withstand all hydrostatic and soils pressures.
Pumping of groundwater shall be limited to seepage water only. No external drawdown
pumping is permitted.
15.Mechanical systems for equipment such as elevators which are located in the basement
should have their hydraulic and electrical equipment set above the basement floor some
reasonable freeboard distance. This will prevent flooding and damage to the equipment
during a power outage.
16.This proposed development disturbs more than five acres of land. The applicant must
apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES
general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice
of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage
under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit
two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include
permanent post-development project design features and temporary measures employed
during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management
Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. If
work is to occur in the wet season (typically from October 15 to April 15 of the following
year) then the SWPPP shall also include a winterization plan sufficient to demonstrate
that erosion and sedimentation can be controlled. Sec. 16.28.280
During Construction:
17.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as
necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operation along or across any public or private
property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances
originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside the right-of-way
shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense.
18.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to
any work performed in the public right-of-way.
19.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street without prior approval of
Public Works Engineering.
City of Palo Alto Page 3 *l "1
20.The developer shall require it’s contractor to incorporate best management practices
(BMP’s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in
conformance with the Santa. Clara valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s
construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall
monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property.
It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris(soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint,
chemicals, etc) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean
Water Act)
21.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
Prior to Occupancy:
22.The 60’ wide public right-of-way property dedication must be completed prior to
occupancy.
23.Public Works Inspector shall sign-off on the building permit prior to the finalization of
this permit. Construction improvements that must be completed prior to this sign-off
include: 1) all off-site improvements, 2) all on-site grading and storm drain
improvements and 3) all post~construction storm water pollution control measures.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Attachment 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
D,epartment of Planning and Community Environment
10.
Project Title:Lehmann Home and Guest Cottage
Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto
Planning Division
250-Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Contact Person and Phone Number:Amie Glaser, Associate Planner"
(650) 617-3119
Project Location:850 Los Trancos Road
Application Number(s):00-SD-01
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Zwick Architects, Marty Zwick
326 Pine Street
Sausalito, CA 94965
Comprehensive Plan Designation:Open Space/Controlled Development
Zoning:Open Space (OS)
Description of the Project:
Construction of a new single family residence and associated accessory buildings on a
12.015 acre site (523,376 square feet). The project includes construction of a main
residence of 7,307 square feet, an 856 square foot garage, a 900 square foot secondary
dwelling unit, and 3,369 square feet of accessory buildings including barns, pool cabana
structures, swimming pool, well house, and water storage-tank. In addition, the project
includes 15,336 square feet of impervious surface,-or 2.93%, and 29,968 square feet of
pervious roads and paths. The majority of the site will be used for agricultural vineyards
and meadows for grazing animals, permitted uses in the Open Space (OS)Zone. The
site will be re-graded and 37,132 square feet of ponds will be added to the site. Two
existing residences will be demolished as a part of the project.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The 12 acre project site is located in the Palo Alto Foothills and the Northwest property
line borders Los Trancos creek and Los Trancos Road. The site is located amid areas
predominately characterized by publicly and p~ivately owned open space. The property
is bordered by the Town of Portola Valley to.the Northwest and 810 Los Trancos Road
to the East and South. The existing site was leveled flat approximately 30 years ago to
create adequate space for greenhouses. It was used in the recent past as agricultural
S:\PLAN~PLADIV\EIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 1 of 23 13
tl.
land and several large commercial greenhouses were constructed on the site. As a
result, the site is relatively flat and without significant vegetation except around the
exterior perimeter.
Other public agencies whose approval is required:None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X
X
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
X Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
UtilitieslService
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions
in the project have been made by oragreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least
one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
X
S:~PLAN~PLADIVkEIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc, Page 2 of 23
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Amie Glaser Date//
Associate Planner
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
I.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Sources
3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIVkEIAkEIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 3 of 23 ’! 5
Issues and Supporting Information
I1.
a)
b)
c)
III.
a)
b)
c)
Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. in determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 2,3 X
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for 2,3 X
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
Involve other changes in the 3 X
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct 3 X
3
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation
Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors
3 X
d)3 X
e)3 X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 4 of 23
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant $!gnificant Impact
Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IV.
a)X
b)
c)
d)
e)
affecting a substantial number of
people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES’. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse 1,2,3
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species, identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in-local or
regional plans, policies, or .
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
. Have a substantial adverse 2,3
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect 3
on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404-of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal
p6ol, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the 3
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Conflict with any local policies 2,3,4
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an 3
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
X
X
X
X
X
S:LPLAN~PLADIV~EIAkEIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 5 of 23 "/~’
Issues and Supporting Information
b)
c)
Resources
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse 2,3
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse 2,3
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a 2,3
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains,2,3
including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known 2
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to
. Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication
42.
ii) S;~rong seismic ground 2
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground 2
failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?2
Result in substantial soil erosion 2
or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or 2
soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
Potentially
Significant
Unless
d)X
Vh
a)
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
b)X
c)X
~S:kPLAN\PLADIV\EIAkEIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 6 of 23
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,~as 2
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of 2
adequately supporting the use of¯septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
a) Create a significant hazard to the 3
public or the environment
through the routing transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the 3
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or 3
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is 2,3
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an 3
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
X
X
Would the project?
X
X
X
X
X
S:\PLAN~PLADIVkEIALEIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 7 of 23 19
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity 3
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or 3
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
a) Violate any water.quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete 3
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not
support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing 3
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial
Sources
2,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project:
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
S:LPLAN\PLADIV~EIAkEIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 8 of 23
Issues and Supporting Information
d)
e)
f)
g)
Resources
Sources
erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?
3
Potentially
Significant
Unless
3
2,3
Potentially
Significant I
Issues
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
h)2,3 X
i)3.X
j)2,3 X
IX.
a) X
b)X
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an established 3
community?
Conflict with any applicable land 2,3,4
use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
S:\PLAN~PLADIV~EIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 9 of 23
Issues and Supporting Information
c)
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable 2~3
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Result in the lossof availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability 3
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or 2,3
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or 3
generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
A substantial permanent 3
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or 3
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an 3
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
a)X
b)X
XI.
b)
c)
Xd)
e)
X
X
X
X
~~S:\PLAN~PLADIVkEIA\E1A.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 10 of 23
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
,Issues
f) For a project within the vicinity 3
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XIh POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population 3
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of 3
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of 3
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in 2,3,4
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered, governmental facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable.service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
S.ignificant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
S:\PLAN~PLADIV\EIALEIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 11 of 23 23
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XlV. RECREATION
a)3 X
b)
Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the.facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
3
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. ’Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial
increase-in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,.
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking ¯
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~’1~S:\PLAN~PLADIV\EIAkEIA.docs\850 L~s Trancos.eia.doc Page 12 of 23
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Less Than No
Significant Impact
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 3
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b) Require or result in the 3
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the 3
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies 3
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the 3
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
f)Be sewed by a landfill with 3
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and 3
local statutes and regulations
.related to solid waste?
XVIh MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
Would the project:
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\PLAN~PLADIV~EIALEIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 13 of 23 25
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
wildlife species, cause a fish or "
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
SOURCE REFERENCES: -
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
S!gnificant
Impact
No
Impact
X
2.
3.
4.
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan EIR
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
Planner’ s knowledge of the project and area of proposed development
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES, 850 LOS TRANCOS ROAD:
Aesthetics
(c) less than significant impact
The site was graded and leveled approximately 35 years ago to allow for a commercial
greenhouse use at the site. The greenhouses were removed i.n 1997. The site.also
contains two dwelling units which will be removed as a part of the proposedproject.
The site will be regradedto create a more natural (less flat) grade at the site. Various
mounds and landscaping features will help screen the proposed development. The
proposed new development will incorporate natural colored building materials. In
addition, the site is located in a valley which further reduces the visibility of the site.
~ S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 14 of 23
Agricultural Resources
No impact
The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency. The site is not regulated by the
Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Air Quality
No impact
The project will not generate more vehicle trips than the existing site. Two units
currently exist on the site which will be replaced by a main house and secondary
dwelling unit. The development does not exceed thresholds established by the
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report and Santa Clara County Congestion
Management Agency.
The project would result in temporary dust emissions during grading and construction
activities. The City’s standard conditions of project approval would reduce these air
quality impacts to less than significant levels. The standard conditions of approval will
require that the following dust control measures be employed at the site to reduce dust
emissions to acceptable levels during construction: (1) Exposed earth surfaces shall be
watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequency of
¯ watering increasing on windy days; (2) spillage resulting from hauling operations along
or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately; (3) Overfilling of
trucks by the contractor is prohibited; and (4) Trucks shall be covered during the
transportation of demolished materials from the site. The proposed project, therefore,
will not have a significant effect on air quality.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Biological Resources
(a), (e), (f)potentially significant impact
(b)less than significant impact
The entrance road to the property borders Los Trancos Creek. The creek is
distinguished by the presence of Steelhead Trout, a threatened species. A biological
report outlining safe grazing, agricultural, and construction practices was submitted as a
part of the application. The reports recommended a 75 foot creek setback to ensure
that chemical fertilizers and insecticides do not enter the creek by way of spray drift or
when cleaning or rinsing spray equipment. As an attached Mitigation Measure, the
applicant will be required to alter the site plan to show the 75 foot setback from the
creek. (Lehman Residence Biotic Report; prepared by Trout Headwaters Inc.,
S:LPLANkPLADIVkEIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 15 of 23
3/21/00) The 75 foot setback will also ensure that any farm animal waste (the applicant
has proposed to keep sheep on .the property) will remain out of the creek.
An arborist report reviewing existing trees on or adjacent to the site was submitted for
planning review. All native oaks on the property and on the adjacent property will be
protected from development on the subject site. Relatively few trees exist in the center
of the site because the land was cleared for the previously existing commercial
greenhouses. Perimeter trees the trees which run along the existing driveway will be
preserved. Several smaller trees at the rear of the site will be removedas a part of the
project. The tree plan was reviewed by the Planning Arborist and was deemed
acceptable with the addition of several trees and landscaping ~within the 75 fo.ot riparian
setback to help restore the damaged riparian corridor. The Planning Arborist will
review a final landscape plan to ensure the upland and riparian creek zones are
responsibly landscaped.
Mitigation Measure:
The proposed vineyard shaft be located at least 75 feet from the. top of the
bank of Los Tancos Creek. The 75 foot line shaft be shown on the plans and at
no time shaft structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity, and
ornamental landscaping (ie.vineyards) be allowed to encroach into the 75 foot-
creek setback.
Cultural Resources
(d) potentially significant impact
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that part of the project site is located within and
Archaeological Resource Area of "moderate sensitiv!ty." Palo Alto is known to contain
widely dispersed prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials
and a variety of artifacts. The proposed mitigation measure will reduce this potential
impact to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures:
If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human
remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist shaft visH the site to address the find. The Santa Clara
County Medical Examiner’s office shaft be notified to provide proper
direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are
encountered during construction, construction shaft cease immediately
until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American
Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site
and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
S:kPLAN~PLADIV~EIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 16 of 23
Geology and Soils
¯ (a) less than significant impact
Construction of the new buildings and site improvements will require extensive grading
and will increase the amountof impervious surface area. The Soils Reports submitted
and reviewed by the Public Works Department and deemed acceptable. Conditions of
approval will require the submittal of these reports with building permit applications.
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a
strong seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an
earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land
are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore
fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction
will be reqUired to comply with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code
(UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing.seismic risk and preventing loss of
life and property in the .event of an earthquake.
The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on
erosion and soil will not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the
applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to.review by the
Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(h) less than significant
The site is in an area of high fire hazard. The City of Palo Alto Fire Department
requires mitigation measures to ensure all feasible fire prevention design features
are included in the project:
The plans meet the requirement for a fire access road 20 feet in width with 13’6"
vertical clearance, weight access (60,000 Ibs.) and turning radius (36 ft. inside)
requirements of fire truck, all-weather, reaching to within 150 feet of any point on
the first floor exterior but that field verification shall be required during grading.
The conditions of approval will required building permit plans to show a fire
sprinkler system along with an approved underground water supply for the
sprinkler system, and Fire Department approval will be withheld until Utilities
Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met.
Additional hydrants must be provided to make a minimum of 3 hydrants available
within 500 feet of the point on the access road closest to the structure (fire supply
shall be designed to provide a combined flow from the hydrants of not less than
3,000 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psig) and delivery
of building materials to the site will be prohibited until the hydrants an adequate
water supply have been provided.
S:\PLANkPLADIVkEIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 17 of 23 29
Tree Limbs and other vegetation shall be kept clear of the structure, such that no
tree should be planted closer than 10 feet to any point on the.exterior of the
building.
Hydrology and Water Quality
(c) less than significant
With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not
be significant. The area on site that will remain permeable will be 97.07%. The project’s
incremental contribution to a cumulative effect of development in the Palo Alto hills is
not cumulatively considerable, in that the project makes only de minimus contribution to
a significant cumulative impact caused by other projects that have already been
developed in these hills. The environmental conditions will essentially be the same
whether or not the project is implemented.
The site drainage will be altered :to allow drainage to be collected into a clay-bottom
pond.. The on site pond will be used to collect and store water on the property. Grassy
channels will route runoff into the pond. Pond outflow water will pass through a
biological filter before .being used to recharge the aquifer through a drain system.
Chemicals will not be utilized to treat the pond water, a specific biotic concentration of
plants and animals will naturally manage the pond’s health. The addition of the pond
and alteration of the grade will result in an overall improvement to the drainage pattern
on the site and will prevent significant siltation and runoff into the creek.
The standard conditions of project approval will require that a grading and drainage plan
be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties,
and an erosion control plan. The contractor will be required to incorporate best
management practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction
operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Land Use and Planning
(b) potentially significant
Building and impervious area coverage, and grading on the project site is regulated by
the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.71. Section 18.71.140 states grading must be
essential for the establishment or maintenance of a use and the design, scope and
location of the grading must be compatible with adjacent areas and result in the least
disturbance of the terrain and natural land features. The proposal includes relatively
equal amounts of cut and fill at the site with deeper cuts for the pool and pond. The
proposed cut and fill will create a more natural looking landscape, which will aid in
screening the proposed structures at the site. The site was leveled years ago to allow
for a complex of large greenhouses to be built on the site. The Planning Commission
~S:~PLAN~PLADIV1EIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 18 of 23.
and City Council, with the assistance of visual aids, will evaluate the project’s
compliance with Section 18.71.140, and has discretionary power to balance the need
for minimal disturbance ofthe terrain and natural features with the need to add earth
mounds to partially screen the proposed development.
No large landscape features exist at the center of the site. Significant landscape
features on the perifery of the site and surrounding the existing driveway access will be
preserved.
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes policies and programs applicable to
development within the Open Space district. The property is within Urban Service Area
boundary where "very low intensity development consistent with the open space
character of the area" is allowed (Policy L-l, Comprehensive Plan). The definition of
Open Space/Controlled Development allows one dwelling unit per ten acres, but
requires open space amenities to be retained. The total acreageof the site is
approximately 12 acres and one dwelling unit, one secondary dwelling unit, a garage,
barns, pool cabanas, and a water tank are proposed.
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Policies N-I, N-3, N-4, N-6, N-7 are applicable to this
project. Program N-6 requires the installation of"story poles" for development that
exceeds 6,500 square feet. The installation must include "outlining tape depicting the
¯ building’s location, bulk and height to aid in assessing the potential visual impacts of the
proposed project." Story poles will be installed as a part of the project prior to Planning
Commission review.
The previous development at the site (greenhouses) was within 30 feet of the creek.
Creeks and Riparian Areas Policies Program N-7 states that "Existing development
within the 100-foot setback will be considered legal and nonconforming. With the 100-
foot setback as a goal where feasible, redevelopment of such sites must be designed .
consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and make a significant net improvement in
the condition of the creek." Structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas and
ornamental landscaped areas are not allowed in the setback. Mitigation Measure #2
requires that a 75 foot creek setback be created as a part of the project, a substantial
improvement over the existing situation. The Planning Arborist would review a final
landscape plan to ensure that there is a significant net improvement in the condition of
the creek.
The Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria will be used by the
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council to evaluate the
proposed project. These are:
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 significant screening vegetation and earth mounds are
proposed to partially screen the structures and access driveways from the road
and the neighbors. The main structures are sited at the rear of the lot, which is
the lowest point on the site. The story poles will assist in a visual determination
S:\PLAN\PLADIV~EIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 19 of 23
31
o
o
7.
o
11.
12.
by the Planning Commission and City Council as to the impact .of the proposed
development.
Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend
above the nearest ridge line. The lot is relatively flat and is located on a lower
valley rather than a ridge. Again, the story poles will assist in a visual
determination.
site. and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and
views of neighboring properties. Any neighboring properties look down upon the
site.
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 buildings are clustered together at the rear
section of the lot. The width of the access driveways are minimized.
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. Because the site was leveled and cleared by the
previous owner, the project applicant will use cut and fill to create a more varied
natural looking landscape.
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 landscape plan
provides ample tree plantings to provide screening where feasible. The majority
of landscaping on the site will be preserved, although because of past
agricultural practices, little natural vegetation exists except at the perifery of the
site and around the driveway access.
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 cut and fill proposed
enable development to blend into the topography and will create the ponds.
To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat
expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Semipervious surfaces are
proposed for the poolside terraces and other large flat expansive surfaces.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural
building materials in earthtones are proposed.
Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation.
Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire
prevention technique. The landscape plan has been deemed acceptable by the
Planning Arborist and the landscape plan is subject to a final review and approval
from the Planning Arborist.
Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not
directly visible from off-site. The hardscape and landscape plans submitted with
the application indicate these policies will be observed.
Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb,
gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothill
environment.) The access roads are proposed to be permeable paving.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 20 of 23
13.For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general
conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. The project is
within the City limits. The project is in conformance with the Open Space District
limitation on impervious ground coverage.
Mitigation Measures:
A final landscape plan.shaft be reviewed by the Planning Arborist to ensure
that the requirements of Program N-7 are met, in that a "significant net
improvement to the condition of the creek" is made as a part of the project.
¯ The proposed landscape plan shall be reviewed for general consistency
with Streamside Planting Guide for San Mateo and Santa Clara County
Streams, a Publication of (CRMP) and Stream Care Guide for Santa Clara
County. The use of native vegetation shall be encouraged.
Mineral Resources
No impact
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Noise
(d) less than significant impact
Construction of the new buildings will result in temporary increases in local ambient
noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated
with grading and noise of constructing the buildings. Such noise will be short term in
duration and would be mitigated by standard City conditions of approval, which limits
the hours of construction, and requires that the applicant to comply with the
requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC. Once completed,
long-term noise associated with the new buildings would be within the acceptable noise
limits and no impacts are anticipated. With the City’s required standard conditions of
approval, the project’s noise impacts will not be significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Population and Housing
(a) less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Public Services
(a) less than significant impact
Fire
~he site is presently served by the Palo Alto Fire Department.
would not impact present Fire District service to the site or area.
The proposed project
The project would, as
S:LPLAN~PLADIV~EIA\EIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page21 of 23 33
a condition of project approval, be required to provide any fire safety equipment and
proper site access as required by the Fire Department.
Police
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The
present use in the new building on the project site would not by itself result in the need
for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
Schools
No direct demand for school services would result from the project, as the proposal
does not generate a significant increase of population and residents to Palo. Alto.
Parks
No direct demand for additional parks .would result from the project, as the proposal
does not generate a significant increase of population and residents to Palo Alto.
Other Public Facilities
The project would not result in impacts to other governmental agencies because the
project is relatively small in size.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Recreation
(a) less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Utilities and Service Systems
No impact
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities
and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
The proposed project will not result in adverse impacts if the proposed mitigation
measures and City standard conditions of approval are applied to the project.
S:\PLAN1PLADIV1EIAkEIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 22 of 23
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS
INITIAL EVALUATIONIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED
APRIL 29, 2000, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF
PROPERTY KNOWN AS 850 LOS TRANCOS ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY,
CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES
CONTAINED HEREIN.
Applicant’s Signature
=
Summary of Mitigation Measures, 850 Los Trancos Road
The proposed vineyard shaft be located at least 75 feet from the top of the
bank of Los Tancos Creek. The 75 foot line shall be shown on the plans
and at no time shaft structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity, and
ornamental landscaping (ie.vineyards) be allowed to encroach into the 75
foot creek setback.
If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human
remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist shaft visH the site to address the find. The Santa Clara
County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper
direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are
encountered during construction, construction shaft cease immediately
until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native.American
Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site
and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
A final landscape plan shaft be reviewed by the Planning Arborist to ensure
that the requirements of Program N-7 are met, in that a "significant net
improvement to the condition of the creek" is made as a part of the project.
The proposed landscape plan shaft be reviewed for general consistency
with Streamside Planting Guide for San Mateo and Santa Clara county
Streams, a Publication of (CRMP) and Stream Care Guide for Santa Clara
County. The use of native vegetation shaft be encouraged.
S:-~PLAN~PLADIV~EIAkEIA.docs\850 Los Trancos.eia.doc Page 23 of 23 35
Attachment 5
Lehmann Residence Biotic Report
Prepared for:
Mr. Marry Zwick
Zwick Architects
Sausalito, CA
3/21/00
Trout Headwaters, In,c,
Post Office Box 222
Livingston, MT 59047
(406) 333-4715
(406) 333-4754 fax
questions? info@troutheadwaters.com 3"/
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background
Pond system
Vineyard practices
Grazing
Summa .ry Conclusion
3
3
4
4
Appendices
Lehmann Residence pond system 6
Sulfur 7
Sulfur in the environment 7
Roundup@ 8
Roundup@ Application 8
Vangard@ 9
Vangard@ Application 9
Animal Waste Management 10
Waste Reduction 10
Partial List of References
Zwick Architects, 1999, Site and Landscape P/ans, Lehmann Residence, prepared for Mr. Len Lehmann
Geotecnia, 1999, Report Geotechnica/Study P/anned Lehmann Residence, prepared for Mr. Len Lehmann
Roques Wildland Resources, 1998, Riparian Habitat Eva/uation of Los Trencos Creek at 850 Los Trancos
Creek Road, prepared for Zwick Architects
Len Lehmann, 2000, Vineyard Chemicals List, prepared for Zwick Architects
BACKGROUND
The proposed .development is on a 12.5-acre site at 850 Los Trancos Road in Palo Alto located
east of Los Trancos Creek. This evaluation was Conducted upon review of the following
documents:
¯Proposed site development plans
¯Geotechnical study report Planned Lehmann Residence
¯Riparian habitat evaluation 850 Los Trancos Creek Road
¯Vineyard chemical management list
This evaluation was conducted to answer questions relevant to the impact of development on the
valued riparian and aquatic resources, including Los Trancos Creek and its steelhead trout.
Specifically, this report is intended to supply recommendations and outline any effects that might
result from the pond, vineyard, and agricultural use on the property.
1.0 Pond
Development of the 0.8-acre pond is intended to assist in storm water management, provide for
irrigation, enhance property bio-diversity, and create wildlife benefits. Installation of the system
will utilize natural materials (including clay liner system) and constructed biological filters for
treatment of inflow and outflow water. Pond outflow water will pass througla a constructed ¯
biological filter and then be utilized to recharge the aquifer through a drain system.
Storm water (surficial runoff) on the property will be collected into wide, shallow, grass-lined
channels and passed through the inflow biological filter before raixing with pond water in the
basin.
The pond system will be designed to achieve ecological balance to assure that no chemicals will
be needed to treat the system. Chemical use could threaten surface water and ground water
quality. Water depth, timing, and duration are the hydrologic factors that will control .biotic
composition of the pond and will consequently be crucial considerations in final planning of the
aquatic environment. Plant zonation and succession within and around the pond will be utilized
in managing nutrient cycling and aquatic species health.
A proposed pond development drawing is located in attached appendix, figure 1.1,
39
2.0 Vineyard
Development of approximately 4 acres of vineyard is intended for the propet’ty. Operation of the
vineyard will be conducted with preference toward organic techniques. However, if sulfur,
Roundup®, and Vangard® are necessary for fungus and weed control, all environmental
precautions will be enforced in excess of those expectations as indicated by the product
manufacturers and local regulatory agencies.
Overspray or drift into important wildlife habitats such as bodies of water, shelterbelts, woodlots,
vegetated ditchbanks and othe," cover on the edges of fields will be avoided. A minimum 50-foot
buffer zone will be maintained bet~veen the last spray swatl~ and the edge of any sensitive
habitats. Use of Roundup® will be managed to not expose or contaminate any body of water or
non-target vegetation by direct application, spray drift, o~" when cleaning and rinsing spray
equipment.
The use of sulfur for mildew rot control in vineyards is common. Fortunately, sulfur rarely limits
the growth or distribution of aquatic biota when applied properly. Even if minor amounts of
sulfur should enter the pond system as a result of vineyard runoff, dissolved hydrogen sulfide in
aquatic environments may help remove soluble iron to produce ferrous sulfide precipitates,
eliminating the toxic effects of hydrogen sulfide to fish and aquatic ar~imals, and minimizing
blue-green algal growth.
As V.angard® is very toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, it will not be applied within 75 feet
of surface waters. A densely-vegetated b,tffer strip of 10 feet or more will be maintained outside
of the riparian area of Los Trat~cos Creek and the pond. Vangard® will not be applied when
winds exceed 10 miles per hour, or during extremely calm conditions that could promote spray
particle suspension in fog or temperature inversions.
Details concerning chemicals, use and management are inclttded in the appendix, 2.1 - 2.3~
3.0 Grazing
Sheep grazing in the meadows no~’th of the pond and south of the vineyard will be managed to
ensure no detrimental effects on the creek or the pond system. Riparian exclusion fencing is
intended to negate any possible impacts to the Los Trancos Creek riparian buffer zone. Due to
the minimal number of sheep proposed for the acreage, grazing problems are extremely unlikely,
and will more likely assist in weed control.
Management of sheep waste through the use of sequenced grazing areas, manure collection, and
composting will be a priority. Nonetheless, based on the size of the vineyard and sheep operation,
excess nutrient loading of nitrogen, phosphorous, or potassium is extremely unlikely to be of
concern in a naturally-designed pond’and wetland system of sufficient depth, water volume, and
turnover.
. Details concerning grazing, nutrients and management are included in appendix, 3.1 - 3.3
Summary Conclusion:
Based on our preliminary research regarding the scale and organically-preferred operation of the
vineyard, the low-density sheep grazing practices, and the construction siting and roadway
considerations, we anticipate no problems in terms of sediment accumulation or water quality
degradation within the pond and/or adjacent wetland zones. The pond system on the property
will be des!gned and constructed using the most naturally balanced, environmentally sensitive
techniques and methods to ensure long term-ecological stability, water quality/supply, and low
maintenance. With wise riparian and agricultural management practices, we anticipate no
environmental or biological impacts to Los Trancos Creek or its steelhead habitat resulting from
the planned development specific to the pond, vineyard or planned agricultural use.
Appendix
Figure 1.1
Lehmann Residence pond system drawing
\ ;
Vineyard
2.1 Sulfur
Sulfur appears in wine in a variety of forms. Grape vines are dusted with elemental sulfur to kill
powdet3~ mildew. (Grapes are prone to a variety of pests including mites, insects, and nematodes.
Gravimetric.procedures used to measure sulfur residues involve tedious weight measurements of
barium sulfate precipitates. This time-consuming technique may be replaced by atomic
absorption spectroscopy, which easily measures the part per million levels of sulfur remaining on
harvested grapes.
If the vineyard has had heavy infestation of powdery mildew the previous season, it is likely that ~
a large source of inoculum fi’om which new infections can occur already exists’in the vineyard.
Managers should planto aggressively combat that particular disease during future seasons. In the
case of powdery mildew, this may justify a dormant application of lime-sulfur, even though this
material is fairly expensive to apply and the rates required pet" acre are high. Selecting the wrong
chemical could give ineffective control and represent unnecessary cost (i.e.~ sulfur would be a
poor choice to spray against phomopsis).
2.1.1 Sulfur in the environment
Sulfur can exist in valence states ranging fi’om -2 to +6. The two oxidized forms are SO4"-~ (and
HSO4"~ to a lesser extent) and the three reduced forms are S2,HS~ and H~_S. Oxidation-reduction
reactions of dissolved sulfur in the environment can progress very slowly if microbes are not
mediating the reactions (i.e., it may take a long time for sulfur compounds in the environment to
attain equilibrium).
Sulfur rarely limits the growth or distribution of aquatic biota. Anoxic sediments rich in organic
matter (from agricultural operations) often release gaseous hydrogen sulfide. In wetland/aquatic
environments with an oxygenated substrate-water interface, hydrogen sulfide is oxidized to
sulfate, part of which is reduced back to hydrogen sulfide by bacterial respiration and COD. ¯
Dissolved hydrogen sulfide in aquatic environments may remove soluble iron to produce ferrous
sulfide precipitates, eliminating the toxic effects of hydrogen sulfide to fish and aquatic animals,
and minimizing blue-green algal growth.
43
2,2 Roundup®
Roundup® herbicide, a water soluble liquid, mixes readily with water for application as a foliage
Spray for the control or destruction of most herbaceous plants. Roundup® appears to be a type of
isopropyl alcohol-based salt. It may be applied through most standard industrial or field type
sprayers after dilution and thorough mixing with water in accordance with the booklet
instructions. ¯
This herbicide moves through the plant fi’om the point of foliage contact to. and into the root
system. Visible effects on most annual weeds occur within 2 to 4 days but on most perennial
weeds may not occur until 7 to I 0 days. Extremely cool or cloudy weather at treatment time may
slow down activity of this product and delay visual effects of control. Visible effects are a gradual
wilting and yellowing of the plant t!aat advances to complete browning of above ground growth
and deterioration of underground plant parts.
2.2.1 Roundup® Application
Overspray or drift to impot’tant wildlife habitats such as bodies of water, shelterbelts, woodlots,
vegetated ditchbanks and other cover on the edges of fields sl~ould be avoided. A 50-foot buffer
zone should be maintained between the last spray swath and the edge of any of these habitats.
Use of R.oundup® should not expose or contaminate any body of water or non-target vegetation
by direct application, spray drift, or when cleaning and rinsing spray equipnaent.
Application should be delayed until vegetation has emerged to the stages described for control to
provide adequate leaf surface to receive the spray. Unemerged plants.arising from ttnderground
rhizomes or root stocks of perennials will not be affected by the spray and will continue to grow.
For this reason best control of most perennial weeds is obtained when treatment is made at late
growth stages approaching maturity.
Do not treat weeds under poor growing conditions such as drought stress, disease or insect ’
damage~ as reduced weed control may result. Reduced results may also occur when treating
weeds heavily covered with dust. R.oundup does not provide residual weed control.
Heavy rainfall immediately after application may wash the chemical offthe foliage and a repeat
treatment may be required. Roundup should not be applied if rainfall is forecast for the time of
application, nor mixed with any surfactant, pesticide, herbicide oils or any other material other
than water unless specified in this booklet. Spray coverage should be uniform and complete, but
not too heavy to cause runoff.
2.3 Vangard®
Vangard® WG is a broad-spectrum fungicide that controls certain diseases in grapes and other
fi’uits and nuts. Like sulfur, it is usedto control powdery mildew but also bunch rot. The
chemical name for Yangard® is 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyI-N-phenyl-pyrimidinamine.
2.3 Vangard® Application
Application should begin at early bloom and at other growth stages through preharvest, although
great care must be taken to avoid more than 20 ounces of application per acre per crop per year.
Vangard®is very toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Vangard® must not be applied within
75 feet of water bodies, preferably 150 feet. A vegetative buffer strip of I0 0r more feet is always
recommended around cultivated areas and proximal water bodies. Due to its potency, Vangard®
should mot be applied when winds exceed 10 miles per hour, during extremely calm conditions
that could promote spray particle suspension, or during periods of fog or temperature inversions.
Grazing
3.1 Nitrogen
Common forms of inorganic nitrogen include nitrate (NO3"~), nitrite (N02~), nitrogen gas (N2),
ammonium (NH4*~), and Cyanide (CNi). Nitrogen is a major constituent of organic matter in the
form of amino acids. In soil and groundwater, redox of nitrogen is effectively accomplished by "
microorganisms.
Under oxidizing conditions, ammonia (NH3) is converted to nitrite to nitrate, the much more
stable ion typically found in the environment. Under reducing conditions, denitrification converts
nitrate to nitrogen gas. Organic matter decays to ammonia under reducing Conditions. Stockyard
wastes, for example, would have high ammonia and little nitrate. If receiving groundwater is
reducing, the nitrogen will stay in ammonia form; however, if groundwater is Oxidizing, bacteria
will convert ammoniato nitrate. Nitrates in groundwater are a common concern, especially in
highly permeable aquifers that offer little assimilative capacity, since they often indicate the
presence of pathogenic bacteria.
The presence of nitrate in groundwater is commonly due to excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers.
The relative abundance of the N 14 versus the N i 5 isotopes can determine fertilizer versus
animal waste sources. Water supplies in excess of 10 m~L nitrate (reported as the equivalent
nitrate-elemental nitrogen) are not potable (EPA SDWA). ,
3.2 Animal Waste Management for Water Quality Protection
Waste management for the property may include the use of sequenced grazing areas and
composting. Proper riparian management will be utilized to provide buffer strips in areas where
surface water is present, including the healthy riparian buffet" along Los Trancos Creek on the
property. Recycling of the solid waste may also be used as an effective fertilizer.
Based on the size .of the vineyard and livestock operation, excess nutrient loading is unlikely to be
of concern in this nat.urally designed, 0.8-acre pond/wetland. The constructed pond/wetland
system may provide additional benefits in treating livestock and agricultural waste:
¯Provides aesthetic and functional value for plants and wildlife
¯.Makes use of level, featureless land areas with sufficient water supply
¯Would allow for);ear-round treatment in climate of Santa Clara County
¯Cost-effective to install; minimal upkeep costs
¯Only pretreatment requirement would be liquid-~olid separation
3.3 Waste reduction
Sheep can provide creative alternatives to traditional waste-handling methods. Sheep’s digestive
tracts can process materials that otherwise would be treated as waste. Sheep also produce
materials that can help manage waste in a more environmentally fi’iendly manner. In terms of
nuti’ient production, a sheep operation consisting of only 5 head would probably only produce a
very manageable few hundred pounds of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium per year.
Numerous waste materials contain nutrients that sheep need to thrive: Among these are crop
residues, grass clippings and food processing byproducts that would otherwise be considered
garbage. Some waste management experts estimate that 60 percent of landfill wastes are organic
substances from the yard. Feeding select wastes to sheep can help reduce the burden on
overflowing landfills while converting the refuse into products snch as wool, meat, manure,
lanolin and milk for cheese.
Attachment 6
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
2
ROLL CALL:
:MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16~- .........
June 14, 2000
REGULAR MEETING - 7.’00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Aven ue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Commissioners:
Kathy Schmidt, Chair
Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair
Jon Schink- absent
Patrick Burr
Owen Byrd
Phyllis Cassel -- absent
Bonnie Packer
Staff:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney
Amanda Jones, Commute Coordinator
Amie Glaser, Associate Planner
Chandler Lee, Consultant Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Chairman Schmidt: I’d like to call the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting for
June 14, 2000 to order. Would the Secretary please call the role? For the record, Commission
Cassel and Commissioner Schink are out of town. Commissioner Schink possibly will make it
back from a meeting in Los Angeles.
T~_on our agenda is Oral Communications.
COMMUN~NS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agendaORAL
with a limitation of three (3)’mitres per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from~~retary of the Commission. The Planning and
Tr~serves the h’tgh~limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.___ ~Chairma~ have any cards IBr-G~Communications. We will
move on to our next agenda item which is the Consent Calendar.
~, ...
City of Palo Alto Page 1 ~
47
1~. MS: Furth: Just as a point of information. The Council, if you pass this recommendation along
2 No, them, may or may not elect to send it back to you.. Certainly, they will read all your
3 reL~’nendations and comments but they will have the choice of either acting or asking for
4.furthe~idance from you.--.
6 Chairman Sbl~idt: Thank you. Are we ready for a vote? All in favor of the motion to deny this
7 application whiL~would be denying the negative declaration or should be vote separately on
89
these two items? ~"
10 Ms. Furth: In a recomme’l~tion for denial you don’t need to act on the negative declaration.
11 ~hat iris a valid~ative declaration.
Commissioner Byrd: I would inco~ate in my motion approval of the negative declaration and
14 th~enial of the a~cation for the overlay.
1156 Chairman Schmidt:_ Okay: Thatis what we’~,,~oting on then. Approval of ~he negative
17 d l~raft ordinance. Al~’ein favor please say aye. (ayes) All those
18 ~s 4-1, with Commis’~ner Burr against and Commissioners
19 Cassel ~d Schi~ absent tonight.~
~°1 Thank you very much. This goes on to CitY Council on July 1~
Mr. Lee: That’s correct.
’
’ ~’~
241
~ Chairman Schmidt: So you will have an opportunity to speak to them at that~e.Thankyou
Shall we taken quick five-minute break before we go on to item number 2. ~
~90 Chairman Schmidt: I’d like to call the meeting back to order and move on to our next item. ~
33~ . Another public hearing. ’ .. .
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
*850 Los Trancos Road lFile Nos.: 00.SD-01~ 00-EIA-01|: Review of an application by
Zwick Architects on behalf of the Lehman family for Site and Design review of the
construction of a new residence, garage, two barns and a pool cabana on a 12-acre site in the
Open Space Zoning District. The total impervious surface coverage for the site is proposed
to be 15,336 square feet, or 2.93%. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been
prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA
guidelines. This project has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City
Council on July 10, 2000.
Chairman Schmidt: Could we have the Staffpresentation?
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Ms. Grote: Thank you very much. I do want to make one quick correction and say that the lot
coverage is actually 3.23% rather than the 2.93% that is in your agenda.
This is a proposal for a site and design application, a single-family house in the open space
district. This site was cleared about 30 years ago and used for greenhouses until about three
years ago when those greenhouses were removed. There are two single-family residences on the
site and a barn. Those would be removed as part of this proposal and replaced with one main
house, a garage, a cottage, swimming pool and other accessory structures as described in your
Staff report.
There are two primary issues that I did want to raise tonight. One is that the applicant has
proposed within the last few days to replace the Rima stone that is shown on the driveway with a.
gravel-base and decomposed granite. The Public Works Department has not reviewed the
specifics of the proposal but on a site that has characteristics such as this, in other words with a
slope of less than 5%, relatively fiat, that decomposed granite over a gravel base is a permeable
surface. It can be designed to accept up to about 1.1 inches of rain per hour which meets their
definition of permeability. So the applicant has some additional information on the gravel base
and decomposed granite that they are able to discuss with you tonight. The second issue I ¯
wanted to raise-is that I know there are several questions regarding the vineyard and the low-
density sheep grazing that have been proposed as part of the use on the site. Both of those are
permitted uses in the Open Space District. The applicant did hire a biologist to look at the
riparian corridor along the northwestern portion of the site. The recommendation from that
biologist is that if activity and structures are kept at least 75 feet from the creek that neither
activity would have an adverse impact on the creek. Staff is recommending that that setback be
increased to 100 feet since there is room on the site to meet the 100 foot setback and that would
be in compliance with our Comprehensive Plan policy which does recommend and call for a 100
foot setback. In addition if you are concerned with animals grazing within that 100 feet you may
want to consider some sort of a small fence. We typically discourage fences in the open space
area but they can be designed in such a way that they are open and don’t inhibit small animals
from going back and forth through the fence but would keep large animals away from the creek.
There are ways to do split rail open fencing that can be unobtrusive if you want to consider that
kind of an option. With that, I’ll close the Staff report. We are recommending approval, with
conditions. I would like to introduce Amie Glaser who’s been the project planner on this
application. We are available for questions.
Chairman Schmidt: Are there questions for Staff at this time? Owen.
Commissioner Byrd: The site is immediately adjacent to Portola Valley and we won’t take civic
offence at the fact that the application says it is in Portola Valley. My question is, do you know
whether the mitigated negative declaration or the entire Staff report was circulated to Portola
Valley for comment?
Ms. Amie Glaser, Associate Planner: Yes, the plans, were initially sent to Portola Valley as well
as the Staff report and all the environmental documents. They have seen it and the only issue
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
they brought up as did some of the residents was mosquito abatement with the pond. That was
the only issue they brought up.
Chairman Schmidt: Are there other questions for Staff at this time. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: With regard tothe sheep are there any issues with the residents in Portola
Valley? You said it was a permitted use in the open space district but does that take into account
any issues that the Town of Portola Valley would have or the residents that are right across the
creek?
Ms, Glaser: If yoia go out to the area several other properties within the immediate vicinity also
have sheep grazing on their hillsides. So it’s definitely a common use in the area.
Commissioner Packer: I was referring to the small residential lots right adjacent. I know across
the road there was grazing. Those lots. I don,t Iolow if there are any regulations in the Town vis
a vie animals being so close to that little dense area of homes.
Ms. Grote: They did not raise that as an issue of concern after their review of the environmental
documentation.
Ms. Furth: I don’t believe there is anything in the open space district that says that these
agricultural activities or somewhat agricultural activities are only allowed at a certain distance. I
believe they are allowed throughout the open space district.
Chairman Schmidt: I have a question. The creek is part of the San Francisquito Creek
watershed and the steelhead trout are an endangered species in that watershed. Was this
circulatedto Fish and Game and various other groups that would care about the steelhead trout in
the stream?
Ms. Glaser: Yes, it was circulated to CRIMP as well as the Department of Fish and Game. I
actually have corresponded twice with the Fish and Game Department now and they have no
comments to offer. I even called just before the hearing just to make sure there wasn’t anything I
didn’t get and they have no comments. They are leaving it to us. The CRIMP people, Tim
Johnson, he is going to work with us possibly later depending on the size of the creek setback
that we require. He was interested in meeting with myself, Dave Docktor and potentially the
owners to see what we could do out there to ensure the creek was healthy.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, thank you. Pat.
Commissioner Burr: What is the current condition of the creek adjacent to this property?
Ms. Glaser: Aside from the fact that the riparian corridor was pretty severely impacted by the
greenhouses that used to exist there, the creek section immediately near the residences is actually
in pretty good condition. I know that several places above and below people have used various
makeshift erosion control devices and things like that. There are drainage outflows into the
City of Palo Alto Page 24
1
2
3
4
5 .
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
creek. But as far as I know, right in this area it is actually in decent condition. The applicants
can probably speak to that also.
Commissioner Burt: Back to the issue of the sheep. Are there any special concerns about
potential environmental damage from over grazing of sheep and erosion and the problems
associated with that particular livestock?
Ms. Glaser: I think the big concern addressed in the report that the applicant submitted was the
nitrogen loading of the area and potentially of the creek which is why they have chosen to locate
the sheep paddock at the far comer of the property to tryand get that as far away as possible. As
far as erosion it is a relatively flat site. I don’t think anything is going anywhere on this site. It is
pretty flat.
Chairman Schmidt: Other questions? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: There is an existing house or couple of homes where those trees are on
the bottom left there. The intent is to demolish that completely and replace it entirely with
vegetation and the sheep nearby?
Ms. Glaser: Yes, that’s what it looks like.
Chairman Schmidt: I think we can probably ask some of those questions directly of the
applicant. If there are no more questions for Staff we can move on to the public hearing and the
applicant presentation. It is my understanding the presentation will be done by Mary Zwick the
architect. You have 15 minutes to present if you need all of the 15 minutes.
Mr. Mart¥ Zwick, Architect, 326 Pine Street, Sausalito: There are a couple of issues that I just
thought I’d respond to quickly because you raised some very good questions. I thought that I’d
take some of my 15 minutes or you can give me an extra minute or whatever just to try and touch
on some of them briefly. First the rima stone: Somehow that got confused. We had never
proposed rima stone, we’re not totally in favor ofrima stone. We love the decomposed granite
and the base rock beneath it. We’ve worked with Public Works since the beginning to get their
approval there. They are totally behind it. The Fire Department is totally behind it. We were
always telling Staff since the base rock isn’t one of your pre-selected, pre-determined approved
items that it would perform as well or better than rima stone. And it does because nothing could
possibly let more water through it than gravel. That’swhy we have it. We always did. It just
got confused.
As far as the setback from the creek we understand that you have this corridor that you’re trying
to put in place. Len, my client and the owner, is going to speak to that in a second. Our biologist
did review extensively, he and I walked the creek quite a bit. It is in great shape. He
recommends very little, if anything, to be done to the creek along our boarders. There are other
places clearly that need help. But he would not have any trouble with us bringing the vineyard
right up to the berm. We have a berm that pre-exists on that site. As long as we left the
vegetation that exists there alone and we didn’t put chemicals on the site. Len will speak to the
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
chemical issue. So for us it is really a question of how far back do you set if you use chemicals
versus how far back do you set if you don’t.
The last is sheep. I learned more about sheep on this project than I ever had any desire to know.
Our sheep are over here in a paddock, behind a fence. They are not going anywhere else. The
sheep, effluent if you will, will go through a biological filter and help us compost other onsite
materials and then join other material/water that is in our pond. It will never come anywhere
near the creek. It will be treated onsite through natural means.
Lastly,there was some discussion of a fence. It is our desire to fence the site in a way that is
consistent with Staff and we’ll work with them to try and do that, to try and keep as many deer
out but let small animals come through. So that’s what we’d like to work on with Staff and
that’s our desire. With that I’d like to introduce Len to talk to you about our vineyard production
and then I’ll give you my presentation.
Mr. Len Lehman, Applicant: Iwant to thank you for your reading of our plans for my family’s
home in the foothills. I’d like to make a very, very brief comment first of all about the intent of
the plan and then go on to answer a question that I know has come up by some of the
Commissioners. First, our design r.ecognizes the unique character and historic use of this
particular site. There has been commercial agriculture on the site for at least 40 years. Our
intent is to restore natural vegetation to the site in planting trees, while continuing to utilize the
site for commercial agriculture in as natural a way as possible and consistent with adjacent
properties. There are currently two homes and a barn on the property which we would replace
with a house, a cottage, a barn, a small agricultural storage shed and a pool house. The previous
use had about 250,000 square feet of greenhouse on the site. There was a lot Of automobile
traffic, vehicular traffic in supporting those greenhouses and that business. The site was a large
user of natural gas. So the changes that we’re proposing will continue the sites agricultural
usage while reducing the intensity of use on the site.
I know that there has been a question about the appropriate setback 0fthe vineyard to the creek.
The creek, on the slide in front of you, runs along the upper arc. We certainly welcome your
recommendations asto what setback is appropriate. Previously there was a 30-foot setback. We
have proposed in our drawings initially to Staff a 50-foot set back. My understanding in the
Staff report was that a 75-foot setback was recommended. We would look to you to ask what.
you think would be appropriate but I’d like to make a few comments in that regard. One is that
there is a berm, a high berm, which is continuous along the length of the creek. That berm
prevents any surface water from flowing into the creek. So the site is isolated from the creek.
Second is that it is our intent to farm the vineyard in an organic way. We will live on the
property. As a family we only buy organic produce and it would certainly not be our intent to
dump a lot of chemicals on the vineyard. Thirdly, I’d like you to keep in mind that we would
like to keep the property viable as commercial agriculture. There is about 850 feet of creek-side
frontage on.this property and with the efficiencies of scale and commercial agriculture we
wouldnrt want to overly restrict the viability of that business. Thank you very much. I’ll tum it
back to the project architect.
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Zwick: Ihope that answers s.ome of the questions. I have a few overlays here. I always find
this one interesting because this is an old aerial photograph and that shows you the site pre-
existing with the 250,000 square feet of greenhouses on it. So it was quite an intensive
industrialized use. Unfortunately, this site if there ever was a site, I’d like to quote his
granddaughter, Elizabeth Wright Ingraham. She says, that as architects and human beings every
time we step on the earth we are making an intervention and the only question is whether it is a
good one or a bad one. And that we should look forward in the future sometime to doing one
that not just provides sustainable architecture but enhanceable architecture or enhances the
environment. This is clearly a case where we get a chance to do that because somebody did
something really horrible to this site. They leveled it. It is level to a surveyors instruments.
What we want to do is bring back some of the natural alluvial topography that was lost before..
We are not going to bring in any earth from outside and we’re not going to take any off the site.
We are just going to sculpt it a little bit to try and mimic what could have been there and give a
little bit of relief to the unrelenting flatness of the site.
Iwant to thank the Staff for their Staff report. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. I’ve never
been through a process like this. I’m on a Planning Commission in San Anselmo and I’m going
to give them a copy of our Staff report tonight. Maybe that Will be something to shoot for. We
really ground through this. I met with them early. We went through the open space
development criteria and the master plan.. I couldn’t say it any better than the Staff on page 5 or
so they go through 13 items that are part of your Comprehensive Plan and they are all really
good questions. They had us go through and answer each one. It was a great interaction. We’ve
answered them all, I think in a really good way. You’ve probably all read the Staff report. I’m
not going to read it, it would take more than the 15 minutes we’re allowed. But the bottom line
is we’re really trying to do sustainable architecture here. We’ve already had people approach us
for the lumber in the houses that we have, local to Palo Alto. We are planning on giving that to
them~ We’d use it ourselves except we’d like the income from the houses to stay as long as
possible. And we are going to get certified or recycled lumber of our own and bring it back onto
the site. It will work out quite nicely that way.
Bottom line it’s a less intensive Use. We’re not pushing the envelope. There is 3.5% coverage.
You could build a box 30,000 square feet on a site this large. We’re building like a 7,000 square
foot house. It’s not small but we’re not pushing the envelope. When .we calculate our square
footage the patios that are outside the house, we could have claimed them as being rima stone or
something else not counting within the square footage of impermeable membrane. We counted
it all as impermeable just to get a reasonable assessment of what we are doing to the site, how
we’re doing it. We didn’t try and push the envelope with one exception. I’m an architect. I
can’t give up on this stuff. I can’t leave well enough alone.
There is one issue that I’d like you to take under advisement tonight. That’s in addition to what
you’re already going to look at for the setback and the sheep and some of the other things. It’s
the last page in the little booklet that I gave you. I’m also going to put a copy of it up here on the
overhead. We architects, we’re designing to the rules, we don’t want to come up and ask for a
variance of anybody. There is one small portion of the house that late in the game we decided,
actually with Staff’s help, we had different interpretations of you calculate the height limit. We
City of Palo Alto Page 2 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
calculate the height limit according to the Black guidelines. We.say, okay articulation of the roof
is good. We’re breaking up the roof form with this cupola and you measure from the bottom
edge of the roof to the top edge of the roof and take the midpoint. In fact, the strict interpretation
goes a little differently. It says you take the midpoint of the cupola itself. That puts us about a
foot and one-half or two feet over the height limit on that one cupola. All the rest are fine. It’s
just that one. We don’t want to break up the design, we think it makes sense with the design. It
is half the energy loss through that one little skylight. We could go to flat plate skylights, that’s
in this other diagram, to the right. We’ve used twice as much energy, the light that would come
through those skylights, I wouldn’t say wouldn’t impact the people in Portola Valley but it
wouldn’tbe as nice. The yellow stripe that goes across your diagram there, is actually additional
height we could add to the house. I’m saying we’re doing that. I’m just saying if you interpret
the rules the way that the strict interpretation does you could add additional height to the house
and still be under the height limit. We’re just asking for you to take a look at this, see that rules
cannot be written for every exact circumstance and that in this circumstance, being that there is
nobody nearby, that it makes the house look better, it uses less energy, it’s consistent, that you let
us do this. We’ll hear your answer in a few minutes, I’m sure, but we’d like you to take a look at
it.
A couple of additional items beyond the 13 that were written up by the Staff. That’s the best
thing I can only supplement what they are saying. The drainage. This site is an alluvial basin.
We’re down at the bottom of what was a riverene habitat. It has layered sand and little clay discs
down below us. The water that comes onto our site stays on our site. In a big flood situation the
water stays behind the berm and in the creek. We have hydrological.studies, we’ve met with
DPE, and everybody is satisfied with all of that. So that in one of the number of 13 items it says,
is the existing going to be maintained and the answer is yes. The drainage really works. During
our construction, if we had a rain storm, all the mud anything that we wouldkick up on the site
would stay on our site. We of course would meet all the best management practices guidelines
but just so you know, that berm and the way the site is situated protects the creek. I’m doing a
creek restoration up in Napa. I met my biologist doing a creek restoration in Mill Valley; We
believe in the viability of that steelhead population as much as anyone could possibly and we’ll
do anything we can to help protect it.
The pond: The pond iswater that is filtered on the way in. It’s filtered on the way out. It was
possibly a geological item that could have occurred there in the past. It will provide a wonderful
place for water that instead of coming fight out of a well and being pumped into a field for it to
pick up biological matter and become an actual fertilizer for our vineyard. It is just a natural
process. As far as the mosquitoes, mosquitoes like shallow, hot, stagnant water. This is going to
be water that’s under re-circulation. It’s going to be deeper, it’s going to be colder than they
like. The kind of insects that will probably be populated by this will damselflies, dragonflies and
butterflies. The kind of insects that I prefer over mosquitoes, everyone else has their own
opinion, I’m sure. If necessary, we could add a fish population to this of sterile fish and
depending on what the water temperature is there are cold water, very cold and ultra-cold water
fish. If we’re lucky enough to be able to maintain it at the real cold temperatures we could even
put a sterile salmon population like a trout. They are all predators, all of them are predators of
mosquito larva.
City of Polo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The style and the exterior colors. We live in a modem day and age but a lot of us really hearken
back to an older day and age. This house really has a lot of real modem elements and some very
historic elements. We’ve tried to stay within the guidelines for, I know if my community one
house is painted Pepto-Bismol pink, to try and stay within kind of a subdued color scheme. I’ve
put a color board together here for you to take a look at tonight. One thing about it, it looks
different here tonight than it did in my office in the daylight today. I know that picking colors
from a little swatch is really difficult, the texture that you’re putting them on and everything else.
We’d like to work with Staff and put up a real mockette on the site as we’re under construction.
And stick within a color range that’s sort of like this but actually show you, if you’d like to come
and the Staff, exactly what we have in mind so we can get the more complicated colors that you
see on the hillsides as I drove here tonight where you have the green grasses evolving into the
yellow, where there is a mixture of both. That’s what I tried to render in those color drawings
that you have in front of you. Of course, I could do better on larger scale walls than I can just
with my little [prizma] colors. I’d like to work with Staff and get a subdued color scheme to go
that way. We’d be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Schmidt: Are there questions for the applicant? Could you pass the color board up
here or point it toward us. Okay. Are there specific questions? Don’t sit down, I have a
questions. I think I maybe heard reference to this. I want to inquire about the pond. The Staff
report talks about the pond source of water being storm runoff. What about during the dry
months? Is it supplied with water by a well?
Mr. Zwick: That’s a good point. It was on my list but I ran out of time. Thank .you for asking
the question. It is a very sophisticated systemactually, our pond. We get a lot of water during
the winter and very little during the summer so our pond is going to be two sizes. It is going to
have a natural benzonite lining and that lining will only occur in our summer configuration. It
will then hold water and it will be deeper in the Center so it minimizes the surface area of the
pond and reduces the amount of evaporation. In the winter we have some area sketched in on the
site plan where it will be allowed to inundate more of our fields, not a lot but 25% larger in the
winter. That will not be lined. So we will be able to take the rain water that comes down on to
our site and replenish the aquifer during the winter, In the summer we do have wells and
historically that’s how all the greenhouses were supplied. We will use City water for the
domestic use but we will maintain a couple of the wells that are onsite for our agricultural use as
they’ve been used for 30 or 40 years.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you.
Commissioner Byrd: One quick follow up question. It’s not an approval issue, I’m just curious.
What will the area between the winter dimension and the summer dimension of the pond look
like in the dry months?
Mr. Zwick: That’s a very good question. We studied that a bit. We are going to have a couple
of inundation areas. I call them the aquifer lobes. They are going to have river rock and some
plants likes willows that can stand dry months and inundation. It is going to be a portion of our
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
edging. We don’t want to have just one kind of swimming pool edge to the whole pond. So this
way it allows us to vary it. Our landscape architect helped us design this so that there are certain
edges where you can walk fight down to it, certain edges will have this little inundated area
where it’ll have some rocks in there. As I said, the lining won’t go underneath that area so the
trees can grow up through it and the water can go through it when it inundates it to help replenish
the aquifer.
Commissioner Burt: Is the vegetation in this area going to be native plant vegetation?
Mr. Zwick: Dr. Doktor helped us with this. We have his approval, we have an arborist report
from McLenahan. We love one tree that the arborist wants to take down and Dr. Doktor is
asking us to take it down. So we are taking down one tree that’s really not native but it kind of
looks native. There are a couple of Italian Cypresses, tall thin trees that architects are so in love
with, that we’re taking down. What we’re putting in is native planting and a couple of
ornamentals. It is probably too small to read but in that bigger size packet that was distributed to
you about a week ago you can read the ornamentals at the bottom. They are all approved by
Staff in Palo Alto. So I think we are in good shape there.
Chairman Schmidt: Other questions? You mentioned sustainable architecture. Would you
explain a little bit what you mean by that.
Mr. Zwick: It is an evolving field. We are using zinc roof that should last for longer than I live.
We are building carefully so that even though it’s a wood structure it will be carefully protected
from termites. I was hearing with interest the discussion of the Eichlers. They’ve now lived a
good long time and can live a lot longer as well. But we are going to be careful to try and use
materials that if somebody decided that this house was no longer viable that it could be
deconstructed and reuse somewhere else. We are going to try and use materials that come from a
place with the least amount of post-industrial manufacturing so that we can build our house with
the least impact possible. It’s quite a project, there’s no question about it, but we are going to do
our best.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. You also talked about or Mr. Lehman talked about trying to use
organic farming techniques on the grapes but there is also a section in the report talking about the
various pesticides or .chemicals that would be used to fight certain kinds of diseases on grapes.
I’m concerned about those getting into the creek.
Mr. Zwick: That is part of our learning process too. When we first started this we didn’t know
of too many people doing organic viticulture. We now know lots. When we first started we
approached it kind of straight ahead. How do you grow grapes? Well you use these things, but
we didn’t know about all the alternatives. Now we do. So that’s why Len was before you a
moment ago saying that we agree to farm organically and would like to extend our protection of
the riparian corridor to what is recommended by the fishery biologist and we should all be able
to carry on in a very good way that doesn’t harm anyone and provides agricultural use which is
what this land is zoned for.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
,33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chairman Schmidt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Would the agricultural use require additional labor, people, to come on
during harvesting or maintaining the vineyard? And will that create a certain amount of traffic or
parking issues?
Mr. Zwick: It certainly won’t create a parking issue because the way the roads are designed we
have to have a width to allow for the fire trucks that we are going to let plants grow through. So
there will be plenty of places for people park along our one driveway. That won’t be an issue.
People will come on site for just the harvest but it will be a far less intensive use than the 25
employees that were on this site for 35 years.
Commissioner Packer: I have one more question. It’s not an approval question, just curiosity.
Why the sheep? It is so bucolic.
Mr. Zwick: You may have to ask Len that. I do know that when we were out on the site the
very first time all of the neighbors, you know we’re on the bottom in kind of a bowl, all of the
people on the hillsides all have sheep. It was a Len idea and I’m just trying to implement it as
best we can. I’ve learned a lot about sheep. I know which ones are meat sheep, which ones are
wool sheep, and which ones give kind of a combination and that you should probably fence them
or have a guard llama. One or the other. So we know lots about sheep now.
Commissioner Packer: So will these be wool sheep?
Mr. Zwick: I don’t know yet. There will only be three to five sheep.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, any more questions? Thank you very much. We have two other
speakers. Herb Borock to be followed by John Baca.
Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good evening. This is.day number seven of the 20
day review period on the environmental assessment so I haven’t had the time to get something in
writing to .the Staff or to you. In terms of permit streamlining I think it’s really better if you give
the public the complete opportunity before you see the project. I’m interested in properties in
this open space area because of precedents regarding the Bressler property, for example. This is
about the same size of mid-acreage and like that property is on a creek and has had buildings that
have been demolished. So I think it is important to see how the rules are applied fairly to
different properties. I appreciate that the applicant is coming in for a use permit for the second
dwelling unit. The alternative was to research City and County records to try and demonstrate
that the previous second residence was a legal non-conforming residence. In terms of the parcel
size, it appears that you’ve been given calculations based the gross parcel size. The impervious
coverage needs to be calculated based upon the net parcel size. Net of the creek, any flood
control easements, and net. of any public road that is being dedicated. It is difficult to tell from
the information that I see.here but I believe that if you have a proper map showing the net parcel
boundaries that it will come to be approximately 3.5% or a little bit over.
C-[ty of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The Comprehensive Plan program N-7 requires the 100-foot setback. The purpose of that is the
100 feet for native vegetation. It has nothing to do with whether chemicals are being used it has
to do with the type of vegetation. So I agree with Staff on the 100-foot setback.
In terms of parking, 18.71120 of the zoning regulations require four parking spaces for each
dwelling unit. There are two dwelling units here so you require eight just for the dwelling .units.
Some people just would put a house on a parcel this size, a summer-house and with a use permit
a cottage, this is a house, a use permit and a business. There needs parking for that as well which
is the vineyard. There is an article in today’s San Jose Mercury talking about a one-acre
vineyard having five employees. So I just wonder how many there are here. There is no reason,
and it’s not proper, to compare this with the former use that was demolished three years ago.
There is no entitlement to rebuild that use. So it is a question of what your choices are that can
be built now.
The number of other structures in addition to the house and the cottage. There is the vineyard
barn, the sheep barn, the cabana house. These need to be limited to two water hookups each as a
condition otherwise they get into the question of having three water hookups and being a
residence. It is unclear from the plans how many water hookups there are in each of those.
In terms of the height calculation, I think it is very clear how to calculate height. If the applicant
wants to apply for a variance, he’s already indicated they can meet at least one of the conditions
which is it’s not going to bother any of the neighbors.
I’d like to see something from the Fire Department and Public Works that says that this road will
work. Just nearby the adjoining parcels which are on steeper grade, had a permeable surface that
had to be changed to a paved road because this is inthe watershed of the creek’. I don’t know
whether it is possible for this to work but I hope it can because that’s what’s preferred to have
permeable surface for roads in this district.
Finally, on the fencing, the kinds of fencing that have been used before which I think should be
on the plans and in the approvals to allow small animals to go through is to have a gap at the
bottom of the fence of a certain height. I believe that would work. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. John Baca is our last speaker.
Mr. John Baca, 484 Oxford, Palo Alto: I, mostly in the 1970s, bicycled by there practically
every day for ten years or so. The greenhouse did look big and it probably used a lot of natural
gas. I don’t know how much electricity it used but I never saw that much real activity from the
folks there. What I’m going to suggest is that conditions of approval include monitoring two
years and fours years after completion as to water quality and traffic, things like that. And
involve the regional water quality control people in this as well. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The applicant can have another three minutes to summarize if
you’d like.
City of Palo Alto Page 32 ¯
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. Lehman: Thank you. I’m certainly happy to answer any further questions you have. Let me
see if there were some points brought up by some of the speakers today.
I don’t like fences. I certainly would look to design a fence that would allow small creatures to
pass back and forth. We’re trying to preserve the open space, rural quality of this property as
much as possible. It is not our intent to build walls around this property or to put in extensive
formal gardens. We are really trying to be sensitive to making this an ideal application of a large
open space parcel.
I know there were previous applications and contracted to be a K-5 school. Before that an eight
or nine home subdivision. I think the best use of this property would be a combination of
service, commercial, agriculture and a single-family residence. I think that’s what we’ve done
here. We’ve tried our best to be very, very sensitive to the guidelines of development in the open
space and we also take your recommendations and those of Staff very, very seriously. Thank
you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Any more questions? Then I will close the public hearing and
come back to the Commission. Any other questions for Staff or would you like to begin
discussion? Bonnie would you like to begin?
Commissioner Packer: I visited this site on Sunday, walked over all the thistles. It is a very
beautiful site. You really can’t see, there is a lot of vegetation along the road, you don’t really
know that this field is there until you drive in. Then you see this great big space. It is meeting
all the guidelines of the open space district. If there is anything that needs to be done vis a vie
chemicals seeping into the ground or ground water issues I don’t know if there is another
jurisdiction that would monitor that. I don’t know if that’s an issue that we can deal with in the
future. Promises can be made by owners but I don’t know how far in the future that can be
monitored. If agricultural use is permitted there is always that risk. Since that’s been assumed I
don’t think we can deal with that. I don’t find any major issues with this site. It just seems like a
great use of that wonderful big space. It doesn’t seem to interfere on any other neighboring
properties: It seems very private. I suppose the vineyard probably isn’t very large compared to
Napa standard. I don’t imagine those great big tanker trucks going in and out with grapes.
Unless I hear other issues that are raised by my fellow Commissioners that raise something in my
mind, I would approve it.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Owen.
Commissioner Byrd: I like the cupola.
Chairman Schmidt: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: Simply that I concur with Staff’s recommendation on the 100 foot setback
and the importance of the native plant vegetation in that setback.
CiOJ of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Bialson: I’m in favor of the project and I agree with Staffand Pat in regard to the
100 foot setback. I like the cupola too.
Chairman Schmidt: I think we had several questions but you’ve done a good job of answering
questions. I am always concerned about future owners. You can build something and you never
know even though you say I’m going to live there forever or a long time, it still may be that it
gets sold after it’s built or in a couple of years. And someone comes in and uses lots of
chemicals or makes other changes. It certainly sounds like this applicant, however, would like to
do a nice job. A very nicely designed project, home, property and would try to have sustainable
architecture and sustainable agricultural development there, as well. I also appreciate the use of
the native types of trees.and the approach to lighting. I understand from theStaff report that
there would be no specific exterior lighting. That there would be just some small landscape
lighting and nothing on the building. I think I also like the cupola, as an architect, however I
think that must be approached through a variance. Lisa or Wynne?
Ms. Grote: For that kind of a feature the only way to be able to consider it would be through a
variance application. I think it would be difficult to make the findings that there wouldn’t be a
way to design this so that it would meet the height limit. But that would be the only mechanism
for considering additional height.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay.
Ms. Furth: The open space zone has a very restrictive definition of architectural features allowed
to go above the roofline. It is the most restrictive in the City. So unless it is doubling as a
chimney.
Chairman Schmidt: Owen?
Commissioner Byrd: The purpose of that code provision is to prevent visual intrusion of projects
interfering with "~istas from offsite, in my view. In this case, the reading of the code that is
presented by the applicant to justify its location of the midpoint is not only reasonable code
interpretation but it is also a feature that is consistent with the intent of the code. They are in a
valley bottom and it’s not going to bother anybody. So I don’t think that it is too gymnastic to
read the code the way the applicant is reading it to allow this feature without a variance.
Ms. Grote: And the section of the code you are referring to is the height definition within the
definition section. Itdoes say that it is to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or
hipped roof. I would say that that midpoint is the highest gable of this portion of the pitched
roof. I wouldn’t see how to interpret that differently, how to view it differently.
Commissioner Byrd: I have a question of the applicant of how we might read this.
Mr. Zwick: I think it is self explanatory. You just have to come at with an open mind. This is
the highest gable of the roof. If you wanted to write the code the way that you are describing, I
would have changed the language to say, "that all ornamental elements are roofs." This is where
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
the cupola, ~he cupola is a decorative element as a part of an overall roof. The overall roof form
which is 90% of that square footage is measured from its gutter to its ridgeline. That’s how I
interpreted it for six months as we were working on the project never thinking anyone had any
other interpretation of that particular element. Of course there is always another way to interpret
it. You just have interpret what is reasonable. In this case, what is reasonable is to use less
energy, to put less light out through the roof, to make the architecture consistent and call it a day
and say that you’ve done a good job. That’s what I’m hopingyou’ll do.
Commissioner Byrd: I agree with most of what he said. I don’t think we back into our zoning
interpretation through the outcome as was suggest at the end. I mean, if it doesn’t fit, it doesn’t
fit. But in this case I actually do think that the first part his statement about how to read the
section is a reasonable way to interpret this provision which enables us to find that the midpoint
is defined by the roof form and the cupola is an ornament on top of the roof and therefore we are
consistent with code.
Ms. Grote: Under special provisions which is Section 18,88, the only exceptions to that height
definition are for chimneys and antennas. A cupola doesnrt qualify as a chimney or an antenna.
So I think that the roof is actually part of that gable that covers the cupola. That is the roof. So
therefore you take the midpoint of that roof structure. It is not something that is otherwise
allowed to intrude.
Commissioner Byrd: So if there was a flat skylight, what’s called a flat skylight which in fact
has some depth to it, would you consider the height of the roof to be measured from the high
point of the skylight or from the rest of the roofline? This is starting to sound more like a Zoning
Administrator’s hearing than a Planning Commission hearing.
Ms. Grote: I would say it would be the midpoint of that skylight structure or feature because
that’s part of the roof.
Commissioner Byrd: I would read it as from the lower roofline because that’s the roofline and
the skylight is an ornament that is plopped on top of the roof.
Ms. Grote: I think the skylight would be integral to the roof itself and that you would factor it
into the overall height.
Commissioner Byrd: We can discuss how to recommend this code interpretation to Council and
let them figure it out.
Chairman Schmidt: We have another question for you Mr. Zwick.
Mr. Zwick: You guys lined things up very nicely working through all the problems. I just want
to add one more thing about the 100 feet. The 100-foot wasn’t there during and agricultural use
for 30-40 years. The riparian habitat is protected by an additional element that most stream
edges do not have. There is a berm there that is heavily forested. You can barely walk through.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
I’m sure you tried to go down to the creek. Our intention is to leave it alone.. We have a whole
fishery biologist who has run through all this. He doesn’t mind at all us doing this agricultural
use. Now, you were wondering Chair Schmidt, about what if somebody else comes through and
does something horrible, I guess that’s always a possibility. I would recommend that you make a
condition of approval that we certify this farm as it an organic viticulture because at that point
there is a piece of paper that can ride with the property that can be a deed restriction that if that
certification is ever lifted you’ll know about it and that can also be part of the approval tonight.
At that point the 100-foot setback comes into play and they just have to re-post the vineyard at a
100-foot distance as opposed to a 30- or 40-foot distance. I just thought I’d offer that to the mix.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Just a brief comment to Staff. On the public notice I noticed that we have I
think the same 300 feet notice parameter that we have in the urban environment, I just wonder
whether in the future we ought to have a broader geographic area that gets noticed. 300 feet is
generally one piece of property out here.
Ms. Grote: We can certainly consider that. I believe Amie actually went beyond the 300 feet.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Are there other comments? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question for Staff about the 100 feet. It seems to me the 100 feet
is based on a guideline in the Comprehensive Plan and it talks about development. It seems to
me that the Comprehensive Plan was envisioning buildings and concrete and stuff near a creek.
Here I think what we are talking about are posts to support vines. Is that the extent of the
development and perhaps irrigation structures or those smoke pots or things like that that you see
at vineyards? Anyway those are not very permanent. I’m wondering there seems to be some
discussion about 25 feet worth of vineyard post. I wonder, are we stuck? Is there a specific
requirement that there has to be absolutely nothing between 100 feet and the creek bed or do we
have some flexibility there and a little common sense?
Ms. Furth: The restriction actually isn’t simply for development. It is not targeted at buildings.
It prohibits the siting of buildings, other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas,
ornamental landscaped areas, so you can interpret that as you think appropriate for agricultural
activity. It indicates that there should be a 100-foot setback from the top of the creek bank when
it’s feasible. It does also say that when you’re dealing with...there is an exception for single
family development but not on this side of Highway 280. Existing development is legal and
non-conforming but they are not proposing that. They have to maintain the existing
development. So I think that if you believe that it should be less than 100 feet the first question
is it infeasible to have less than 100 feet. Another alternative would be to say that you don’t
view this as having impacts similar to outdoor activities or ornamental landscaping. But if you
think it is similar in impact or potential impact to ornamental landscaping and outdoor activities
then I think that really pushes you towards a finding that it is infeasible if you don’t want the full
100 feet.
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Butt: Isn’t there also verbiage regarding reestablishment of native landscaping
within that i00 foot corridor?
Ms. Furth: It says, within Setback areas provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 25
feet along the creek bank. I think you also of course are dealing with your more broadly based
open space findings about the desire to create environmentally sound development.
Chaimlan Schmidt: Any more discussion? A motion? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Are we looking for a motion to approve Staff’s recommendations with
regard to the project? Is that what we are looking for?
I would like to so move that we support Staffs recommendation with respect to the project and
in addition would find that the definition of the height measurement standards not prohibit the
construction of the improvements with a cupola.
Chairman Schmidt: And are you supporting Staff’s recommendation for a 100-foot setback from
the creek bank?
Commissioner Bialson: Yes, I include that.
Chairman Schmidt: Is there a second to the motion?
Commissioner Burt: I’ll second it.
Chairman Schmidt: Would you like to speak to the motion?
Commissioner Bialson: I think this is a very sensitive development. I appreciate the concerns
that Staffhas raised with regard to looking for an additional 25 feet from the creek bed. So I find
that appropriate. I really don’t have very much to say that hasn’t already been said.
Chairman Schmidt: Pat, as the seconder do you have any other comments? I don’t see any other
comments here. I will support the motion. I think it is important to try to meet with
Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the lO0-foot setback. Although this is not a large
vineyard size, I think vineyards in Burgundy are a lot smaller. So I think it would be a viable
vineyard here. Owen.
Commissioner Byrd: I just want to briefly compliment the applicant on the sensitivity of the
design to the site. We see some really inappropriate designs proposed for open space areas and
this is a really sensitive treatment for the site. It actually reduces the impacts to the environment
of the site and is consistent with a lot of the values that underlie our Comp Plan. So while I’m
rarely willing to enthusiastically support development in the open space district, in this case, it is
the fight project in the right place.
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chairman Schmidt: Let’s take a vote then. All those in favor please aye. (ayes) All those
opposed say no. That passes 5-0 with Commissioners Schink and Cassel absent. Thank you.
That now will go on to City Council on July 10, 2000. We are very happy to retum all of those.
Thank you very much for your work and all the detailed research of this complicated project.
Now, moving on to our last item on the agenda. We are sorry that it is this late. at night. Our
next issue is Transportation Demand Management Plan.
3.~ransportation Demand Management Plan: The goal of the TDM is to reduce motor
v~icle travel within Palo Alto by encouraging commuter alternatives to the solo occupant
veh~xThis plan maps out the proposed program.
Chairman Sc~idt: We have our Director of Transportation, Joe Kott here this evening.
Mr. Joe Kott, Dir~or of Transportation: Thank you Chair Schmidt. We’ve just done a shift
change here. I’d likd~t~ introduce, since November, our new Commute Coordinator, Amanda
Jones who is joining usX~q~d will actually give the presentation. My job in a case like this is to
put things as best I can in!~k~0me context. We are mandated under the Comp Plan to do all we
can to reduce trip generation~Palo Alto. The very first goal of the Comp Plan is to reduce
reliance on single occupant veh~tc~es. An important policy under that goal, Policy T-3 to support
the expansion and development ot’~omprehensive effective programs to reduce auto use at both
the local and regional levels. Counc~xn this year’s budget directed the Planning Department and
the Transportatio~a Division to develop ~,~ravel demand management program. First to.~¯
demonstrate it’s feasibility Downtown and’~en extend that program City-wide. What we’ve
done in effect is throw Amanda right into theN!,eep end of the pool. She’s been doing all kinds of
things to reduce vehicle trip generation includin~marketing our City-wide shuttle, rather
effectively I might add. The action oriented focus~!(it has been to review major development ’proposals including the Cancer Center proposal with~ct to travel demand management.
TDM is one of the major st~iatives the Comp Pl~_~calls for to deal with motor vehicle
congestion and other dis~le use. It’s certh~ly a cost effective way to deal
with motor vehicles and t~ore mobility fo~t,p~eople. We found that our
review of parking capa~wn Palo Alto, that theXal~eapest structured parking
space that we can buy the, 00 per stall. So to the’~e~tent that we can reduce
the demand for parking Downtown, dem~d for road space Downtown, ~d demand for road
space and parking in ot~h.is pr.ogr.am e.~ly pays for itself. It
is side by side with initi~~r alte~tives to the
automobile to get peoples in land use to creat~marter growthwhich I know this Commission is particularly keen about. ~
The TDM program add~f the equation. TheiR, are
physical components, th~cularly concerned withN .
creating incentives and ~duce reliance on sin’)~
occupant automobiles. TDM can be particularly effective with employer buy-in and a very
major part of a program like this. Amanda’s job is to work with employers. TDM needs useful
City of Palo Alto Page 38
I /
Attachment 7
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
Date:June 14, 2000
To:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
From:Amie Glaser
Subject:850 Los Traneos Road: Review of an application by Zwick Architects, on
behalf of the Lehman family for Site and Design review of the construction of
a new residence, cottage, garage, two barns and a pool cabana on a 12 acre site
in the Open Space Zoning District. The total impervious surface coverage for
the site is proposed to be 15,336 square feet, or 3.23%. Environmental
Assessment: An initial study has been prepared, and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is-proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. This project has
been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council on July
10, 2000. (00-SD-01, 00,EIA-01)
Driveway Material
The proposed driveway material has changed from "Rima Stone" to a gravel base with decomposed
granite top layer. The gravel base/decomposed granite paving material offers superior permeability
to the "Rima Stone". The gravel base/decomposed granite paving material allows air and water
circulation so tree roots will not have to break through the paving to get the air and water they need.
In addition, the soils report for the site indicates that the soils below the surface of the site consist
primarily of sand and gravel which offers a highly permeable base for the driveway surface.
The Pond
Please note a typographical error in the Staff Report. The proposed pond will be approximately 0.80
acres in size, not the 0.08 acres discussed in the Staff Report.
Tree Removal
An Italian Stone Pine, tree #66 in the arborist report, described as being in poor condition, will be
removed in addition to several small fruit trees as described in the Staff Report.
S :\PLAN~PLANDIV~PCSR/85 01ostrancos.mem
Attachment 8
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Amie Glaser, Associate Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE: June 14, 2000
SUBJECT:850 Los Trancos Road
Review of an application by Zwick Architects, on behalf of the Lehman family for Site and
Design review of the construction of a new residence, cottage, garage, two barns and a pool
cabana on a 12 acre site in the Open Space Zoning District. The total impervious surface
coverage for the site is proposed to be 15,336 square feet, or 3.23%. Environmental Assessment:
An initial study has been prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in
accordance with CEQA guidelines. This project has been tentatively scheduled for a public
hearing with the City Council on July 10, 2000. (00-SD-0L 00-EIA-01)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning & Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B), with a finding that the
project willnot result in significant environmental impacts, and approve the Site and Design
Review applications based upon findings (Attachment C) and subject to conditions of approval
(Attachment D).
BACKGROUND
The parcel is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space:and the parcel
is located within the Open Space zoning district. In 1972, the City of Palo Alto created the Open
Space (O-S) zoning district to protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable
resource and to permit the reasonable use of open space (Section 18.71.010 of the Municipal
Code). The Open Space District zone was then assigned to the subject property. The site
currently contains two single family residences and a barn/storage type structure.
The site was cleared and leveled approximately 30 years ago. A complex of commercial
greenhouses was constructed and operated at the site until three years ago when the greenhouses
were removed. The site has remained in two family use as two single family homes and a barn
(6,500 total square feet) currently exist on the site. The existing structures will be domolished.
City of Palo Alto Page 1 6’7
Site Description
The project site is a 12.015 acre parcel (523,376 square feet) located in the Palo Ako Foothills.
The project site is adjacent to LosTrancos Creek, the Town of Portola Valley, and 810, 854 and
830 Los Trancos Road. The site contains little significant vegetation, except along the driveway
into the site and at the perimeter of the site near the property lines. Utility services currently
exist at the site and serve the two existing single family residences. The site was recently
annexed into the West Bay Sanitary District. The West Bay Sanitary District will provide the
sanitary sewer services:
The following table (Table 1) provides Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations on the
project site and adjoining sites:
TABLE 1
EXISTING USES AND DESIGNATIONS, SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY
850 Los Traneos Road
Location
North &
West
South
East
Project site
Existing Uses
Town of Portola Valley,
Single Family Uses
810 Los Trancos, Single
Family, Proposed 8 Lot
Subdivision :
854 & 830 Los Trancos
Road, Single Family
Comprehensive Plan
N/A
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Two Single Family
Residences
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Zoning
N/A
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The main residence (7,707 square feet) would be located at the southern end of the lot,
approximately 500 feet from Los Trancos Road. Additional site improvements would include a
swimming pool, three car garage (856 square feet), a cottage (900 square feet), two barns (588
and 1,928 square feet), pool cabanas (450 square feet), a well house (132 square feet), an existing
water tank (271 square feet), a 0.08 acre pond, and flagstone patios and other impervious surface
material (2,935 square feet). A total of 16,896 square feet of impervious surface has been
proposed, or 3.23% where 3.5% is allowed. Approximately 5 acres of the site are proposed for
agricultural use, including low density sheep grazing and 4 acres of vineyards.
The applicant has proposed re-grading the parcel so the site topography is more consistent with
the topography of the surrounding sites. The proposed grading will balance cut and fill, soil will
not be brought in nor taken off the site. In addition, the grading improvements will result in the
creation of earth mounds around the various structures, which will assist in screening the
proposed structures.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Pond
The development of a 0.08 acre pond will assist in storm water management and provide for
irrigation of the proposed vineyards. The pond will have a natural clay liner system. The inflow
and outflow water will be treated using biological filters. Storm water on the propertywill be
collected into wide, shallow grass lined channels and then biologically filtered before going into
the pond. Outflow water will pass through a biological filter before traveling into the aquifer.
The pond will be managed without chemicals through the use of plant zonation and succession,
as well as careful management of water depth; timing, and duration.
Materials
The main house and guest cottage would be comprised of stucco walls with wood trim. The roof
trim will be made of a non-reflective zinc metal material. It is non-reflective and has a patina
that gives it a dark gray color. The bams, pool cabana, and other accessory structures will have
wood singles and gray asphalt shingle roofs. Impervious patios will be made of flagstone. The
permeable pavers include "Rima" stones on a sand bed with base rock over the top (driveway,
turning courts). The Rima stones placed with wide joints reduces or eliminates runoff from the
surface to levels comparable to soil without the pavers.
Landscaping
Substantial native tree plantings are proposed to surround the complex of structures. The
proposed plantings on the site include native tree species: the Coast Live Oak, the Valley Oak,
Big Leaf Maples, and California Bays. In addition, the Planning Arborist has suggested planting
Red Willow (Salix laevigata), a wildlife tree; and Western Redbud (Cercis occidentalis) and
Flannel Bush (Fremontedendron ’Pacific Glory’) for a native color tall shrub. Planting areas will
be strategically placed near the .various structures to begin what will become a substantial
vegetative screen to mitigate visual impacts of the proposed structures. No exterior building
lighting has been proposed. Landscape lighting will incorporate low voltage lights.
Riparian Corridor
Los Trancos Creek runs along the northwestern border of the property next to Los Trancos Road.
The applicants will leave the existing riparian corridor intact. The applicant will also increase
the setback between the site improxiements and the creek. No structures, ornamental shrubbery,
or paved activity areas would be within 75 feet of the creek; structures previously existed within
30 feet of the creek. The 75 foot setback was recommended by the Lehman Property Biological
Report, see Attachment E. The 75 foot setback would be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, which calls for redevelopment of sites to make a net improvement in the condition of the
riparian corridor. Damage to the riparian corridor from the previously existing greenhouses will
be mitigated with additional native plantings. The final landscape plan will be reviewed by the
Planning Arborist.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan
Policy L-1 of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the City "...to retain
undeveloped land west of the Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with
allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the area .... " The project site is west of the Foothill Freeway and is located within the City’s
Urban Service Area (map L-2 of the Comprehensive Plan). The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
land use designation for the project site is Single Family Residential and one residence is
permitted at the project site. The proposed development’s impervious coverage is less than the
3.5% maximum impervious area allowed on the property. The project is consistent with this
policy.
The Comprehensive Plan Program N-7 states that, "Existing development within the 100 foot
creek setback will be considered legal and nonconforming. With the 100 foot setback as a goal
where feasible, redevelopment of such sites must be designed consistent with basic creek habitat
objectives and make a significant net improvement in the condition of the creek." The previous
development at the site (greenhouses) was located within approximately 30 to 40 feet of the
creek. The plants and trees within the riparian corridor were removed to make room for the
greenhouses. The 100 foot setback is feasible on the site and staff recommends, a condition of
approval requiring the 100 foot setback to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed project is required by the conditions of approval to have a minimum 75 foot
setback from the top of the creek bank. No paving, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas,
or structures are allowed within the creek setback. Biological and riparian habitat studies
submitted by the applicant suggest that a 75 foot setback from the creek is appropriate for the
protection of the riparian corridor around the creek as well as the Steelhead trout in the creek.
While the applicant plans to grow grapes organically in the proposed vineyard, a 75 foot setback
will ensure that if chemicals are used, the creek environment will not be damaged. In addition,
the 75 foot creek setback will ensure that any organic wastefrom grazing animals will not
damage the creek, again see Attachment E for details. The Planning and Transportation
Commission may choose to require a 100 foot setback rather than a 75 foot setback to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological
Resource Area of "moderate sensitivity." Palo Alto is known to contain widely dispersed
prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials and a variety of artifacts:
The mitigation measure addressing this issue, identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
has been incorporated into the project. This measure requires cessation of grading and
construction if any archeological or human remains are encountered, retention of a qualified
archaeologist to address the find in the field, notification of the Santa Clara County Medical
Examiner’s office and, if native American remains are discovered, evaluation of the finds by a
Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the
State of California and implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Open Space Development Criterion
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Policies N-l, N-3, N:4, N-6, N-7 are applicable to this project.
Program N-6 calls for the installation of "story poles" for development that exceeds 6,500 square
feet. Story poles will be installed as a part of the project prior to the Planning & Transportation
Commission meeting. The Open Space Development Criterion and a description ofh0w the
project meets the criterion, are listed below
City of Palo Alto Page 4
2,
7.
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 will be minimally visible from Los Trancos Road. The
project is sited approximately 500 feet from Los Trancos Road. The proposal includes
substantial plantings to screen the project. In addition, the site will be re-graded to create
a more natural looking topography. Significant screening vegetation and earth mounds
are proposed to partially screen the structures and access driveways~ The proposed trees,
when mature, will provide a softening of the development. The visual impact of the
homes will also be minimized by the use of natural building materials and earth tone
colors. The story poles will assist in a visual determination by the Planning Commission
and City Council as to the impact of the proposed development.
Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the
nearest ridgeline. The footprint of the home and accessory structures are not located on
.top of a knoll nor on top of a ridge but rather in a shallow valley. Again, the story poles
will assist in a visual determination.
Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of
neighbor, ing properties. The propose earth mound and tree plantings on the subject
property will mitigate views of the proposed structures from residences in Portola Valley
as well as from 8!0 Los Trancos Road. Existing dense vegetation at the perimeter of the
Subject lot and on neighboring lots also provides screening.
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 proposal is for cluster development with the structures being
located at the low point on the lot, the eastern-central area. The driveway is made of
earthtone permeable material andthere is only one driveway for the entire site.
Buih 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 provides ample tree plantings to provide screening where
feasible. The extensive plantings would be native species. The lot is relatively flat and
will be re-graded to mimic the natural topography of surrounding sites.
Existing trees with a circumference of 3 7. 5 inches, measured 4. 5feet above the ground
level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should
be retained as much as possible. The Arborist Report has been evaluated by the City’s
Planning Arborist and he has given his consent to the removal of several small fruit trees.
While the center of the site is without significant vegetation, all perimeter vegetation,
which is quite significant, will be retained as a part of the project. As a condition of
approval, tree protection measures will be installed and shall be printed on the final
building plans.
Cut is encouraged when it & 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
City of Palo A lto Page 5 ’~ ~
minimize the need for grading. Cut and fill will be balanced on the site. Cut and fill will
be utilized to create a more natural topography (the site was graded flat approximately 30
years ago). The cut and fill will be used to create the proposed ponds and earth mounds,
which will allow the house to blend with the topography.
o To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff large, fiat expanses of
impervious surfaces should be avoided. Flat impervious surfaces are used only for pool
coping, steps, and flagstone patios. The driveway will be made of pervious pavers.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural
building materials in earthtones are proposed. All proposed building materials are
natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the surroundings.
10.
11.
12.
Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately
adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as afire prevention technique.
An extensive native planting plan and irrigation plan is proposed. The conditions of
approval will ensure the use of fire retardant plants in the final landscape design. In
addition, the final landscape plan will be reviewed by the City Arborist.
Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly
visible from off-site. The hardscape and landscape plans submitted with the application
indicate these policies will be observed. The residences will create additional light and
glare, but window coverings will minimize light spill from the rooms to the outside at
night. The project is conditioned such that any landscape lights will be directed down to
avoid any impact upon surrounding property and open space lands.
Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter,
and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.) The
access roads are proposed to be permeable "Rima" paving in an earth tone color, with no
curb, gutter or sidewalk.
13.For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general
conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. The project is within the
City limits and meets-the O-S (Open Space) zoning regulations.
Zoning
The Open Space zoning district contains the following regulations for individual properties: (1) a
minimum required lot area of ten acres, (2) a maximum impervious area and building coverage
of 3.5 percent, (3) a maximum height limit of 25-feet (17 feet for the cottage), and (4) setbacks
of 30 feet from each property line. The project has three covered parking spaces and several
additional uncovered spaces in thedriveway. The project meets all zoning code requirements.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Creek Setback
A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a survey of the location of Los Trancos
Creek in relationship to the proposed project. The 75 foot setback must be shown on the plans.
Within the creek setback, plantings from "The Streamside Planting Guide for San Mateo and
Santa Clara County Streams ", and "Stream Care Guide for Santa Clara County" shall be used.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Again, the Planning Arborist will approve the final landscape plan for the site to ensure that
Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 is complied with in that a significant net improvement is made
to the creek environment.
Road Dedication
The portion of the parcel (with address #850 Los Trancos Wood Road) which fronts on the Los
Trancos Wood roadway shall be offered for dedication to the City as a public street. The
required dedication shall be a minimum 60 foot wide. The applicant shall submit documents
offering this dedication to the City Public Works Engineering and Real Property Management
divisions. Because the existing road is in poor condition, Public Works will require the
applicant to provide a funding contribution to the City for surface and shoulder improvements
to the’ roadway. The funding.contribution shall apply to improvements along the frontage of
the parcel and will be included as part of a future City improvement project along. Los Trancos
Wood Road. The applicant shall meet with Public Works Staff to discuss the type and extent
of improvements required. The funding contribution and the offer of property dedication must
be provided to the City prior to issuance of the building permit.
Soils and Grading
Building and impervious area coverage, and grading on the project site is regulated by the Palo
Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.71. Section 18.71.140 states grading must be essential for the
establishment or maintenance of a use and the design. Scope and location of the grading must be
compatible with adjacent areas and result in the least disturbance of the terrain and natural land
features. The proposal includes an average cut and fill of two feet in various locations on the
site, with deeper cuts for the pools, house, and ponds. The Planning Commission and City
Council, with the assistance of visual aids, will evaluate the project’s compliance with Section
18.71.140, and has discretionary power to balance the need for minimal disturbance of the terrain
with the need to add earth mounds to partially screen the proposed development from the views.
The natural grade and topographical features were destroyed when the site was graded fiat 30
years ago. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a final grading plansubject
to review and approval by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of.any grading and
building permits.
Agriculture and Vivicilture
The applicant has proposed to operate a large (4 acres) vineyard on the property as well as graze
sheep. The applicant was required to submit reports describing the biological impacts of the
proposed agricultural practices. Low density sheep grazing and meadows will be located at the
southern end of the lot far from the creek. The biological report found that the sheep operation
will not result in nitrogen loading of the soil or the creek. The 75 foot setback from the creek for
the vineyards was recommended by the biological report. The applicant will be using organic
farming practices. Should chemical herbicides and pesticides need to be used, the 75 foot
setback will ensure that chemicals will not make their way into the creek, provided that the
proper distribution methods, as recommended by the manufacturer, are followed.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Findings and conditions for approval of the Site and Design applications are attached
(Attachment C and D).
City of Palo Alto Page 7
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice of the Planning Commission.review of the project was provided by publication of
the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility
customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
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 ..
determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts
would result from the new homes, therefore, the project would have a less than significant
impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review
beginning June 7, 2000 through June 27, 2000, and is attached to this report (Attachment B):
ACTION TIME LIMITS
Date of application:
Date application deemed compete:
Action time limit (180 days after deemed complete):
Optional extension at applicants’ request (90 days):
1/11/00
4/20/00
10/17/00
1/15/00
Following the Planning & Transportation Commission hearing, the project application is
tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council on July 10, 2000.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Location Map
Attachment B:Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment
Attachment C:Findings for Approval, Site & Design Review
Attachment D:Conditions of Approval
Attachment E:Lehman Property Biological Report
Plans for current project (Commissioners only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Owners: Len Lehmann, 3600 E1 Camino Real/Suite 110, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Architects: Zwick Architects, 326 Pine Street, Sausalito, CA 94965
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Amie Glaser, Planner
George White, Planning Manager
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official~)’~
74
City of Palo Alto Page 8
ATTACHMENT 9
Use Permit Findings
850 Los Trancos Road
00,SD-01~ 00-EIA-01~ 00-UP-03
1,The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
The cottage will be located with adequate separation between buildings and will be
designed to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent neighbor’s privacy. The perimeter
of the site is heavily landscaped to minimize off site views. The proposal also complies
with all other applicable zoning standards, including floor area ratio, height, lot coverage,
and setbacks.
o The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
The secondary dwelling unit is consistent with Policies H-I, H-2, and Program H-4 of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan~ The secondary dwelling unit has been designed in a
manner that is compatible with the main residence and surrounding accessory structures.
In addition, the secondary dwelling unit provides an opportunity to maintain the
affordable housing.supply by providing a smaller unit for potential rental.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
75
Attachment 10
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
john baca [verdosa@hotmail.com]
Tuesday, July 04, 2000 11:33 PM
city_council@city.palo-alto.ca.us; amie_glaser@city.palo-alto.ca.us
ed_gawf@city.palo-alto.ca.us; lisa_grote@city, palo-alto.ca, us;
frank_benest@city.palo-alto.ca.us
850 Los Trancos Road
July 4, 2000
Palo Alto City Council
Re: 850 Los Trancos Road
Dear and most-esteemed councilmembers:
The project proposed for 850 Los Trancos Road is portrayed as sort of a "family farm" set among
bucolic hills dotted with sheep. The previous use of the property is characterized as a high
intensity land use in comparison with this proposal. If this project is completed, can you picture
the kids waking up early to tend to the animals, then going to school, coming back and tending to
the vineyard and their other farm chores, with homework being done in the evening? I can’t. I
know from my experience that the old greenhouse operation was not very intensive. The
proposed project has no conditions which limit how intensively the land will be used.
The words that suggest low impact, ecologically sensitive, even organic use of the property are all
qualified by vague words such as "expect". This project envisions a large residence, with another
residence, and a pool/cabana complex to which is added a sheep ranch and a vineyard, barns,
and more.
Think about the mini-sheep ranch. How many sheep? I Would like to think that you are aware
that sheep grazing eat groundcover to the max and the plants can’t grow back; generally, cattle
graze and allow plants the ability to continue growing, while sheep do not. The sheep operation
may or may not require a lot of extra feed to be trucked in, along with the nutritional supplements,
and the vets, and the city has no idea of what will be involved. How large is the grazing area for
sheep, sequenced or not (what happens to the ungrazed areas in the sequencing)? The
operation is not going to be a few sheep let loose in a pasture, there is more involved (the more
sheep, the more people, the more traffic, the merrier?). How about a limit of one sheep per family
member?
The vineyard is said to be large. However, the size of 4 acres may be large only in comparison to
nearby vineyards. Is the size constrained? The establishment of a vineyard would also likely
indicate that some winery operations would be established. A vineyard operation is not going to
simply require minimal work except when all the relatives come in to pick and crush the grapes.
Vineyards are intensive operations and if a problem develops with the monoculture crop, it would
require heavy chemical applications. Will the applicant consent to constantly maintaining a
CCOF certification for both the sheep and grape/wine uses (or whatever a stringent organic
standard is most applicable)? Other conditions of approval could be used that would attempt to
document who knows what kind of chemicals are going to be used. How is the vineyard going to
be watered? Through onsite water sources?
A pond is just a pond unless it is some kind of filtration, recirculation, pumpingl and irrigating
system. The associated equipment, the pool and another pump/filter unit will use additional
electricity and chemicals. Andthe gunk filtered out will be disposed of somewhere unspecified.
Yes, there will be traffic generated from these operations unless the people live on site or in
Portola Valley. But where is the stuff that isn’t filtered going to go?
I contend that the city doesn’t know the result of approving this project. It is a pretty presentation
by the applicant. The project is lacking in how to measure the effects after completion. My June
27, 2000 email concerning the inadequacy of the EIR lists other problems. I find it hard to believe
that the city staff has experience in sheep ranches and vineyards. I do not ask that my
experience be accepted, but I do ask that the operation of this project be critically examined.
Annual monitoring is required in this case, and the city has the staff to do so, and the owner can’t
expect that the city pay for testing of water, maintaining lists of chemicals used, traffic patterns,
and inspections. It is also necessary that conditions of approval will allow the city to require that
problematic operations cease.
The presentation of this project is excellent, but the project is not as advertised. Someone told
me that I should go to the council meeting and tell them that they should also permit the use of
the property as a pig farm. I responded that this person ought to become involved in city
governmental affairs. But I did have to laugh!
Sincerely,
John Baca
P.O. Box 18527,Stanford, CA 94309 650/473-0996 verdosa~,hotmail.com
city council@,city.palo-alto.ca.us, amie .qlaser~,city.palo-alto.ca.us,
ed .qawf~,cit¥.palo-alto.ca.us, lisa .qrote~city.palo-alto.ca.us,
frank benest@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
78