The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0597.000I • ~ ..... ~ WI December 6. 1990 HONORA8LE CITY COUNCIL Pa10 Alto) California ~O$ Tranco$ Woods Road··Site and p~ Members of the Council: Recort to Bri ef The Planning Comm;ssion. at its meeting of November 14, 199D, voted unanTmously (4-0, Commissioners, Hirsch, Beech~~ and Glazier absentJ to recommend that the City Council adopt the negative declaration and approve the Site & Design application for 701 los Trancos Woods Road subject to the following findings and conditions. Minor c~anges in the ~ond1tions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission are reflected in italics. findings 1. The project will not result i~ any significant environmental impacts, in that the project !s designed to minimize th:e UOt.rr.t of site d1sruption and to retain the existing oak tree and to allow for natural drainage. 2. The proposed design oill be orderly, harmonious and compatible with existing or potential uses Df adjoining property, in that the proposed Dse and improvements as conditioned will be similar to other uses in the area~ and U,e project has been designed Into the existing swaTe, preservfng distant views frG~ adjacent travel ways. 3. The project will maintain desirability of investment 1n the same or adjacent areas. in t~at U.e required on-1ft!!!! improvements and landscaping, and construction stanctards will assure a bigh Quality of deve I 0","" nt. 4. The proposed design, .u conditioned', wi 11 observe sound pr1rlclples of environmental design and ecological balance, in that the selected location of the residence belps to 1 fmit tlnnecessa.ry disruption of ne site and reduces the visual impacts. S. T"e proposed use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, f~ that the proposed resfdent,al use and related improvements conform to th~ inte;;~ of tfle Open Space Controlled Oe~e'opmi!nt 01R:597:0 " '. I / o o designation to allow limfted resfdential development on larger sites, and to minfmlze p~y$fca' impacts of developme~t. 1. The new residence shall meet III pertinent require~ents of Title 24~ State [nergy Code. 2. A dehlled grading, dTifnage. 2nd erosion contrel plan prepared by a regfstered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Pub'!, Works Department for review ind approval prior to issuance of I grading and/or building permit. All roof drains shall outfall to paved surfaces or dr~inrock. or other protected areas approved by the Public Works Departll'lpnt. Construction deht1s for all drainage facilities shall be submlttod with the det.lled draInage pl.n. No grade changes shall be allowed within the drip line of the existing va1ley oak tree. 3. All topsoil for areas tc be graded s~all be stockpiled and co~ered for exportatioD after grading is comp1eted. C. All grading and development on the site shall confcn. wit~ all aspects cf the project soils report recommendations. Standard dust control .. asures s~lll be incorporated fnto the ftnal gradfng plan to be approved by the Public Works Department. The preject soils engineers shall be required to certify that t~e grading WIS done In ,ccord,nee with t~eir recommendations, prfar to ffnalizatfon of t~e building penllit. 5. Mo grading shall be permItted durln9 the r.loy se.son (October 15 to April 15) ~nless I det.iled eros1o~ control plan, reviewed and approved by the ~bllc Works Cepartment, fs In place prior to any grading ICthiUes. 6. An automatfc fire sprfnkler system shall be required for the restdence. Separ.te permit and plans shall be reviewed and approved by the fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. The new struct~re shall conform with ail the requirements of Appendix [, IS arr.ended J of the current Unifortl Fire Code for structures .". the hazardous fire area. A Class ·A· or tqulvaTent fire retardant roof shail be required. 8. Prior to issu,nce of • buildiog permit, t~. applicant shall ,ubmit • detailed final landscape plan and mechanical irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape contr,ctor for review and approval by the Fire Department, PlannIng and Utilitie, Department staff. The plan shall include tne common and botan1cal na~s of all species used, number, size, type t location and spacing of all pTar:t materfals , and details regarding the mechanical irrigation system. The plan shall also include sp.cifications for protection and lIainter,anee of the existing valley oak during construction prepared by I certif;~ arborlst. The final 00:597:0 LasTranc 12/6/90 Page 2 • landscape plan shall 1ncl~de datatls concerning the location and construction of .11 landscape 1~provements. The final landscap~ plan shall be modified to prohibit any grade changes within the drip line of the existing •• lloy oak tree. The approved landscape plan sh.ll be installed prior to Ottober 15 of the construction year. unless an interfm erosion control plan fs reviewed and approved by t~e Public Works Department and fnstalled to their satfsfact10n prior to October IS. All landscaping shall be iostalled prior to request for final bU1Tding inspection of the structure. Minor modifications to the approved landscape plan ~a1 be made during installation subject to the Planning Department;s approval prior to executing the changes. The tree protection plan shall reflect the fol1.~ing: I) Prlor to initiation of construction activities t i temporary barricade shall be placed iro~nd the tTe~, as clos! is possible to the dr; p Ii n •• b} No stockptling of construction materials wltkin the sensitt~e dr1p line ar •• shall be .llowed. e) Doring trenching/grading 'otlYitles within the tree's drip line, should any roots gr!ater t~an one inch (]-J in diameter be damaged, broken, or severed, timel), rDot pruning shall be ,t)efYormed by i: certified arborist in order to m1~1Mize further root deteriorati~n. d) The existing oak shall be fertilized by deep s.Il injection In fall and spring of the construction year in ord~r to offset stress ca~sed by constructfon activities. e) No future deve'o~nt or site improvements shall be allowed withlR the drip li~e of the existing oak tree adjacent to the proposed residence. f) The final l.ndsc.pe pl •• sh.11 include .11 exterior lighting, and ,II exterior lighting sh.ll be 1~ level Ind shielded in onter to prevent gl.re fro. spilling off·site. 9. The exterior building color shall be darker than the Soerwin·Williams Llncol. Shasta nuMber 89·183. The trr~ color sh.l1 be no lighter thar. the Sherwin-~il11a. lincoln Shasta. The fi~al colors shall require staff approval prior to issuance of • building permit and applied to the buildings prior to final inspection. The stone perimeter foundation treatment .nd retaining walls s~all be constructed fro~ a dark natural stone wlt~ a dark colored grooting to be staff approved prior to issuance of a building permit. lQ. The applicant shall be aTlowed to ccnstruct I complete second star, Dver the detached g.'.ge. CItR:S97:0 LosTranc 12/6/90 Page 3 • o RECOIIIENOATI PH Planning Commission recommend. to the City Co"ncil that C."n~il adopt the Negat!"" Declaration and approve the application for Site and Design approv.l for 701 los Trineos Woods Road. subject to t~. findings and conditions 9iven i!! th Is report .. Respectf.11, ,ubmitt.d, ~r;...h7 ROBERT HALEY , .. , ~ ,,[;;:,,~, ~.'/j.( f:Jc;{u:t~j KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and C~unit1 Environment NovembeT 14, 1990 Excerpt Mi1"ll.ltes cf He PlaTI?'J1ng tOTmliss1ofl November 9. 1990 Planning C~ission St.ff Report Plans {Council Kembers 001y} Photos {Council Kembers OMly) cc: Arc~itect Property OWner CMR:S97:0 LosTTanc 12/6/90 Page ~ EXCERPT Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1990 .; j AGENOA ITEM 2 70) LOS TRANCOS BQAD: Application for a site and design approval for construction Df a new, 3.000 square-foot, two-stDr~t single-faeily residence and a ]1100 square-foct, detached garage in the Palo Alto Foothills on , 5.99-.cr. 5ite. Environ~ntil A~sessment: No signif:eant impact, ip.d a negative declaration has been prepared. FiTe No.: 9O-E!A-4S. Zone District: Open Space (OS). Chairman Marsh~ Are t~ere staff comaents? ~r. Halev; 1 had I conversation with one of the adjDinfng neighbors, Mr. Alcorn, who reside$ to the immediate northwest. His con~er~ wa~ about light ~pillover frDa exterior lighti~g fixtures. It is c~n in the ARB conditions, so [ am going to suggest one modification to add I Condition S(f) that would read, "The fln.l landscape plan shall include .11 exterior lighting, and all exterior lighting shall b~ shielded i~ order to prevent light glare fro. spilling off-site." CommissjgDtr (tilleD; I had a question that was pYzzling me~ so I called Bob Haley earl fer today. In case 9thers are puzlled~ I wanted to say that I was under the i~ression that we neyer illowed wood s~ingle roofs in the foothills. I remeaber the angry, packed meeting here in the city counlil chambers ab~ut eight years Igo wher. wood shingle roofs ~ere considered a ffre hazard fR the foothills. and therefore were disallowed. So I was i little s~rprlsed to see in the staff report that cedar sningles were ~ plrt of the deveiopment plan. Mr~ Hiley: I do~ble-checked w1th the fire department this afternoon~ based on tbeir orig1na1 comments which quoted a USC code section for fire-retardant roofs. The shingles proposed, the Class A fire-retardant sbingles, do meet t~at criterion. So the) are allowed is long is they are treated. C~issioner Cullen: Is that t~e onl~ class that is il1~wed there? I ask because we ~1l1 have other items come b~fore us for that area. Mr. Hiley: Jf they are wood shingles, they must be Class A fire-retardant shingles. There are other types of shingles that would meet that, such as concrete, asphalt, and tile. 'pmpissipngr Christensen: I see the color board. Were the col~rs suggested by staff available to us, or are some of these choices what stiff has suggested? Mr. Haley: No, the colors suggested b1 staff ire not, with the exception of the color shown as tne matn body of the ho~se chosen b1 t~e applicant. St.ff 15 requesting that that be the lightest color, which would be the trl. color, and that the body of the house be • shade Dr two dlrker t.an th.t. The reason for that is that when you get It wh.t you are trying to accOIFlish, t~at lS, •• king t~e house blend into the baCKground, the backgrou~ for thiS home 1S the Portola slope, a chaparral, whic~ is a very dark color. ome of the guidelines adopted by the ccuneil for 11/14/90 -1- o 0 development in the foothills was to ~se natural materiils and subd~ed colors. It is staff's opinion that White Is not a subdued color, and that I darker color such as the beige chosen for the body would ~ sore a~p~ri'te for the trim. with I darker col~r f~r the body of the ~ou5e. Commissioner Chri}tgnsfn= Regarding the rocf ~itlrjal, how 'on~ does that fire-retardant treatment last on those shingles? Mr: Haley: J do not know the ans~er~ but I assume it ;s for the life of tho shingle. ~tssfQner Chrlsten$en: That is not what I recall frorn previous experience. thlfrl@n Marsh: You could put that Question to the applicant or h1S represent at i Ye .. CDlmi$$fo~er~: I "otice t~at the plans speak about possible deve10pment of the second story of the garage being optional. Where are we on that? Mr. Haley: These revisions came in 'Ist Wednesday after the packet was prepi~, so I did not have a chance to modif1 the staff report. Staff had raised this issue earlier when we ~ad CDncer~s about tne appropr'ateness of this stlT! house in the foot~il1s on this v~ry ~xpo~fd site. Staff expressed those concerns to the applicant, and tn~ applicant responded by submitting some revised plans, which we recei~ed last week. T~ey tilled for lowering the ~ouse about seven feet, resulting in a lower roof line of three-~nd-a-hilf feet. The garage WiS iawered about t~ree-and-i-ha'f feet. Staff had expressed I concern tnat the garage, being the dosest strtlctwre to the street, pN!Sent~n9 that tWJ-story fa~ade, could benefit from some revision to try and soften t~at impact. [t was due to the arc~itect's talent that he came u~ ~ith t~is solution to pull til at second story fi~ade on the garige back away from the ~'i:reet ~ Staff at this point recommends that the project be approved as shown, without the garage roof being pulled forward, but that is up to the c .... hsion. Chairman Marsh: I will now open the public ~earing. Jack Kemp. 1131 63rd Street. [m~H·vwi.lli: I am the architect for the QUlsts, and I plan to speak to eac~ and every issue that has been raised to fully satfsfy your Questions. But first. I would like to introduce Charlene Quist, the owner, w~o has i coup1e of opening comments. ~~.t, 3214 Woodside Road, Woodside, CA: I am ,orry that my husband co~ld not be present tonight. ~~ both grew up in this area and have been Jiving 1~ Woodside for th! past six y~ars. Upon purchasing our lot last summer, we spent a lot of ti~ contemplating not only .hat type of ~ our family needs .nd .h.t we could .fford to bUild, but also .hat we thought would look best on this lot. We decided on • f.mily farm house, and e.ployed Jack Kemp, whose previous design of a Wgodslde farm hou.e ~ad been chosen as a preferred prototype for future b~ilding in that town. We are ~ery pleased with what he ~as designed for us, and feel that it wIll look belutif.1 on that lot, .s well as go very nicely in the GOimunity. I believe we have met with all of your desig~ specifications, and r feel we have been wery sensitive to the environment of our neighbors 11/14/90 -2· • " ," J iround us. The proposed desfgn does not interfere with anybody's views of the wester! '111~. and also, the lot cannot b~ seen from any p~rtion of the adjacent Footh1lls Park. W. are located on a private road off of los Trincos Road, and iTe a part of the Hewlett Subdivision. Tne homeowners Issocfat1on of that de~elopment ~as provided ~s with a lettEf t~at they support our deslgn. I feel that th~s is I modest sized home for i 6-acre lot. but this is by no ~lns a s~all financial project. We "a~e nad to sell our hOle and ire currently living in a very sm~ll rentil with a twa-year-old and another baby due sDon, so I am anxious for these plans to .. et with your approwal and to provide for you the necessary erosion control studies so that we can besin work as soon as pGsslble. I have just. couple of comments on tMe staff report. It mainly ~.s to de with t~e landscaping, Condition ,a. I agree tMat we should hire an arborist to help us look after the one and only oak tree on the T~t. Ob~iousl, it is the only tree we have and we want to do Everything possible to ensure its remaining health~, however. we were not planning on h1rfn9 I licens.ed' landscape ardlited to dr-aw il specl fic plan. it i's not somethfng we ~ad budgeted for, and J do not feel it is necessary. I am DOre than willing to work with the staff on any plant selection materials, and our general contractor will ~ in charge of hiring a licensed landstaper to do the actual 1rrfgation work. We had not planned on puttlng it into a formal plan. Jack Kemp will respond to the rest. Mr. Kemp: I think th.t the solut10n to tMe site is fairly strai9htforward. Tne most important factor in laying out the ~ouse is the views we want to take advantage of. Nu~r One ;5 the single tree on the s1te to the so"th of tMe swale that goes toro"gh the middle of the sit,. The idea of the des1g" was to orient the dir.ing room to the tree to take advantage of the filtered sunlight coming throagh tne tree. Th~ main living area of t~e house will be the kitchen. It 1S (entral1y located to the rear I and points its way down the s~ale. giving t~ot kind of sheltered view down the swale. Tne liying room is situated to take advantage of the view of Windy Hili. The expos"re of the site needs to have a lot of attention. We have tried to drop the house into the site so that a .iRi~m of yiews are 1~terruptEd, partic~larTy the top of the house would have lfttle exposure to other adjacent sites. One of the reasons for selectfng the gilllbrel roof structure was to have the roof roll down to t11e sides of the ho~se, ~infmizf~g the house siting impact on the adjacent properties. We ~ave considered the ap~roach to the house up Los Trancos Road as being a fafrly exposed pict~re of the house. for that purpose, we haye positioned N:jor trees to provide screening on tnat approach. The design ~learl, meets all of the zonjng r!quirement~. In fact, it more than meets the.. We have coverage allowed of over 15,000 square fett, and this 'S less than 8,000 square feet. We ha~e yards that are reQuired to bE 30 feet. The minimum yard is 62 feet. ~it" other yards cons;derabiy larger than that. T~e height .ll,.ed here is 25 feet, and our height is 19 feet, well b!Tow the height limit. All other conditions of the lon;n9 ordinance and the site and design critfria are met with this desi~n. I would like to tilt. 11ttle bit about tMe conditlons. We accept all of the conditions of tM~ stiff, and would like to ask you to apprvve the recommendation to the city council. There are. couple of th1ngs I would like to till about, the roof line of the garige, in particular. When we presented our iwitial design, t~e staff comment ~as that the two-story height of the garage was too .uc~ ~f an impact on tne street frontage. We lowered the house and garage. and tri~d to cut back the second floor of 11/14/90 -3- " o 0 that garage. The i~.ct re.ll, 1, two·fold. One is th.t the lo.ered garage section Is virtually J grade~ in other .ords, you cou1d step right off t~e grade and onto t~e roof~ That, in itself. is considerably below the lev.1 of the road. Ve think those dr •• ings will show that the impact of the two-story over the garage has t.o MOre impact t~a~ the c~tback verston~ That is why we are asting for that decfsion as a preferred cechloo_ Let's t.lk • llttl. about. CIa •• A roof. We oropose to meet the fire larshal's requirements as far as the roof is concern~d. We do not prefer to put f1re~retardant s?-lingles on the roof. There is a limited life span for such shingles. In lieu of th.t. we .re proposing to put rooftop sprinklers on t~e roof ;tself, and under the shingle structure, include a ai'1e~hour, 5/8-gypsum board layer so ttlat there is one hour of fire protection between the rOQf1~g itself and the livfng arfas, ~r.d on top of the shingles, there is an automatic fire sprinkler system. This has beer. dont in other areas, and we feel confident that the fire mars~al will accept this in lieu of CllSS A type fire·retardant shingles. The otner issue that Cnarlene has already spoken of is in regard to the lindscaping. With regard to the colors, we agree with staff. You will note on the far 1eft board, there is an array of colors. The lightest color t~at you se~ is the color that was proposed which staff felt would be appropriate for the tr1~ color. We agre! that that would be so, thus we ~ave shown an array of darker, MQre muted colors for the body itself. We have no rroblem in agreeing with Condition 8(fJ because that is the way we would design the lfg~ting for the site anyway. We do not want light shedding off into anyon! else's property. Thank you. tgmafssioner (tillen: [do see the calc~Tition$ on the impervjo~s surface, but ] have fDrgott~n~ what is the percentage of lot coverage allowed? Mr. ~a'ey: The us~al impe~io~s coverage reQuirement is 3.S percent~ regardless of the siz! of the parcel. When this subdivision was created. it was created under the design called a cluster development~ which creates smaller parcels~ with the exctlange that there be a common area parcel that remains unde~eloped, devoted to open space. In 1980, the zoning adMinistrator granted a variance to give Each lot .ithin the Hewlett SubdiYlsion the same coverage requirement it wD~ld have had if it had a IO-acre parcel~ given that they had a (ommon area parcel set aside. ~fs$ioner Cullen: Apparently the coverage of this des~gn is nowhere near t~e 3.5 percent. Cqlmissi?ner Huber: Commissfoner Christensen preferred versus the staff 9~rage treatment. discussIng? and I are confused as to the Which one of these are you Mr. Keap: This was our original application. This is the revised one which is cut back. You tin see the dotted lfne, ~hic" was the original shape. This dark l,ne ttere is t~e top of the ridge. Our contMtion is that either from this location faCing t~e house from the front t you c~n see the dashed line here, or from this location. it has no mare impact on t~e site. Tbis line represents the approxiaate roadway. By coming out that fart it j~st does not have an), impact, so we prefer to keep the size of the orjglna1 design. 11/14/90 -.- • . '~ COIOi"ipn,r Chri,~sen' 00 •• the storr have 0 co~nt on this late,t version of the glTlge proposal, and also ~ c~nt a~ the idea of the sprinklered roof? What concerns. me about t~e sprinklered roof i~ that it is not .1w~ys clear to ~ that they llwzys have water ~ut th~re. The sprinklers do not do you much good if t~e water supply is not availab1e. Ms. C'$c: The conditton t is written. gi~es the fi~e department the .uthor~ty to decide~ if it 1$ under the fire code 7 if it is an eQuivi'e~t level Qf fire protection. Unless you want to be specifically more restrict{ve than the fire cod! requires. I w¢uld urge you to just leave it up to the fire marsh.l. He is required to follow the Unlfor. fire Cede. Thi, condition does gi,e hi. that right. Mr-Haley! W1t~ regard to the garage ~!i9ht, given that the applicant has lowered the garage three feet and has pro ... ·fded I substantial amount of landscaping from w~en the proposal was first seen~ staff does not have a real strong concern with gra~ting the full second story on the garage. Commissioner Christensen: [have I question about t~e landscape p1an and the requirement for a licensed landscape Irtnitect. Mr. Haley: Staff is willing to amend that. The applicant has already worked closel,. 1P'1 these revisior.s with the utilities department in 'Jsing the landscape guidelines, which really are intended for multiple-famil)' and commercial. The utilities depart~nt has been nice enough to lend thefr assistance in helpfng to choose some appropriate plants tnat are water-c.onserving. The current plan does meet it as far as the species are concerned. Normally, we find it very difficult for applicints to prepare the final landscape plan whic~ would call o~t the actual sizes. Since th~ species that ~ave been chosen are acc~ptable~ it Is p~ssible that a landscape contractor can give us the detailed mechanical irrigation plans and the size and species, which we co~ld then review. So stiff is willing to amend that to .110~ tne final landscape plan to be prepared by • licensed l.ndscape contractor. Cpmaissioner Cullen: Having been through t~is very same thing, I think people do change what the landscape architect lays Qut when the) get to working with the landscape contractor~ because there is the theoretical versus the practical. Commjssipner Chri}tens@n: Jt 15 refres~fng to see this size heuse proposed for the foothil1s. [tnink staff has d~ne i good job of making conditfo~$ to have the style of the house fit as appropriately as pcssible onto the site. Wit~ the pictures. I aa I little mare encouraged that the style of the house. w~ich lS not one 1 would typically choose or assoclat~ witft the P.l0 Alto f~thills, does seem to fit with t~e forms of the ~ill,. I concur with the stoff that the colors should be dark, much more along the Hnes of the staff suggestion, raUer than the-se originally proposed by the applicant. The only other comment [ wanted t~ ma~e was to I.dd to the exterior l1ghting P"l"'oposal that it also be low to the ground ~nd low intenSity. [yen lights t~at tend to be on the sides of houses tend to be ¥ery visible, eve~ thoug~ they are not very high. These should be .long the ground as .uc~ a, possible While stil' providing lighting and proteclfon, but not be intr~sive. Ca.afssioner Cullen: I ha\'e I c.oncerlt about that. J t~fnk t"ey should be shielded so t"at the 1 ight flows to the liWDund, but for security PJJr-poses, 11/14/90 -5- O ("\ --to have. light at the ground does not r •• lly h.lp you 'ery ~<h in fdenttfying somebody having around. I do ~lve • concern about moving the lights d~. I can se. shielding them so that the pool of light --there art s hndud s . Copmis§1gner Christensen: Th~re are sta~dards9 and they are applied everywhere that we have pr~jett5, and t~ey don't wort. If iOU look at any project that has been approved in Palo Alto, they always have these standards for directing the 1IJht down.ard and '<D light is supposed to spill Qver~ In fact, h~~er, for ever~ prDject that we have appro~~ for .any years. if you go and ~is1t them it Dfght, the light spills Dyer and t~e impacts are sfgniftcant~ There ii an orange glow behind the Terman projett from th.t parking lot. All of those lights were not supposed to ghe Iny sp; llover, but the fact is tnat thE:Y do. and th!y make it 'w'ery urba~ and are very i~trusive. CommissiDner Cyllen; It is a very large lot. I cannot imagine that the v would be spilling off onto the next lot. What you say may be right about TenDan, but that is a problem at Tersan t~at ought to be addressed. Cgmmissfoner Chr1stensen~ But it 1S true of every project we have approved fn the last f~ years that had these same kinds of standards, ~~ere there is not supposed to be light directed off of the site, and in faet, if they are biQh it all, you can see them, whether t~e pool of light goes down or not, you still s~e them and still have a sense of it being an urban arel. I am not suggesting it jf you want a sec!',lI'it,)" searc'hlight Irranseaent, but far tke lights that they have on during tne ncrmal course of eyents, they shoold be 10. le,el_ Chaftl@n Mar$h; One of tne good things about the planning commissiDn is that the cit! co~ncil always follows us. Tbis may be an i3sue that both staff and tne applicant may want to take. look at as tnls project progresses through the next stages. MQIlQM: Commis$10per Christgnsen: I move tnat we accept the staff reco.aendatfon with the changes as proposed; that there be a l;ceRsed landsc.ape contractor; that .. e 'add a Condition 8{fJ concerning the lighting; that the nouse continu~ to b2 set down but t~at the garage be allowed t~ have a full second story. illQttJl: By Coamissiofler Huber. 'Ollissioner Cyllen: I would like my reeark about the security 11ghtin9 to be on t~e record. YO" cannot separate 8(f) and separ.te t.o kinds of lighting, so I as not going to .ove for that, but I do t~lnk that busin~ss of low level lighting on the exterior of the house in that locatiGn is unne<::essary. Chi'!'an Mjrsh; Agaln, that is s~thing that needs to be looked at in the weeks inte~ening between the planning c~ission and city council. am sure t~at the appl;,ant, ~rking with city staff, can come up with somethIng that is agreeable to all. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Karsn: [s there any furtner discussion on this MOtiDn? All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed? That passes unonllO.sly by i vote of 4-0. 11/14/90 -6- , \ • TO: PALO ALTO PLANNING CCHHISSION FILE NO.: 90-D-14 PREPAR,D BY: ROBERT E. HALEY DATE: NOVEMBEP 9., 1990 PROJECT INFO_nON location App"taot: Property Owners: Requested Action: PROJ EeT SlM'AR Y 701 Lo, Tr.nto, ~ood, Road Palo Alto, C~ 94306 Jack K2mp 1311 Sixtythird Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Peter and Charli~e Quist 3214 Woodside Road Woodside, CA 94062 Approval of. Site I Design appliCation to construct a twa-stor1 3,000 squar~ foot re~id!nce with a detiched 900 squa~e foot tw~-story garage, and related landscape fmproYements. D"e to the .xposed nature of the site, the proposed 3,000 squ.re foot residence will be visible from 111 directions. The ,1acement of the resfdence within the sWile will .in;m;ze the ~i$ual impacts. The recessed drivewiY, terra,ed pat~os are suitable for the footnil1s environment. and the landscape plan Is acceptable. RECOHKENDfO ACTION Stiff rOtoaMends that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the attached negative declaration and approval of the project, subject to t~e .ttac~ed findings and condit;ons. SITE INFORMATION Parcel Sll.: AssessDr's Parcel N~mber: Existing Zoning: Co.prehens;ve Plan DesfQnation~ Ex!.tiog Land Us.: Surrounding Land Use: 5.99 Acres 182-56-010 OS, Open Space Open Space/Controlled De~elopment Undeveloped Single-family let North: Unde,eloped single-family lot (5.4 acres) Northwest: Developed single·famlly lot (10.9 acres) -1 - o ~and.tC'l Action Dat.t.}: £nvironment~l Impact Assesslltellt: :--;-. o We,t: Undevelop.d 'ingle-family lot (S,) .cre,) Soul~: lee Quarry under rehab!litation (47.5 acres) East: Hewlett Sllbd1visfon comlnon area '8.5 Icres) July Z7. 1981: Th. City Council approv.d the Hewlett Subdivision, creating 10 single-family lots ~)th J common area parcel~ July 8. 1986: A variance a'lowing reallocation of impermeable surfice arei permltted for each sbbd;~ision lot. fncluding 15,07J square feet for lot ]0, was approved by the Zoning Administr.t~r~ May 31, 19a9~ The Planning Commissofn unanimously recommeded approval of a 6~462 square foot residence on this sHe. The CHy Council 1150 unanimously approved the previou~ application .t Its me.tlng of Juno 19. 1989. Th. arcbitectural style of the residence .as i t~o-story step dD~ contEmporary rectilin~ar de'ign with a ,Ingl.-,tory facad. facing Los TrancDs Woods Road. Marc~ l4. 1991 An iDitial study rec~~ndin9 a negatfve declaration fs attached. ANAlySlS _______________________ _ Sfte Description: The property is an frregular11 s~aped rectangular 5.99 acre parcel with access from a privlte extension of los Tranco$ Woods Road. The northea.'itera third of the sHe contains a sWillI! sloping 30 to 18 percent to the so~th~$out~west and is covered with native grasses Jnd one significant lC-inch valley G.k. The southwest.ro half of the site slopes to the south 16 to 20 percent ind is covered with native grasses, oaks, and shrubs fn a second natun.lly Qccuring dninagE s"lIfale. The proposed new residen,e is sited in tne northeastern portion of the site wit~in the existing swale. Project Desriptfon~ The propo5ed two~story residence ar.d the detached garage have been designed is a barR style with i gambrel roof and horizontal lap Siding. Patios It the rear of the house Will be created with minor cuts requiring approxfmatey 5 f~t retl;nf~9 ~al1s~ The drip line of the lar~e vallel oak lfes adjacent to one of these patios. The proposed asphalt driv~y follows the natural contours of the-sHe and is ,It an i!le'/oilition appro,i.ately 12 fe.t below the road •• y directly in front of the proposed residence. The nortnerg border of t~e drivew~ will require i 3.S foot retal.in9 ~al1 tapering down to I foot bigh at the terminus wlt~ the street. T~ls particular drivew.y design will m!ni~ize the vi,ual Impact of the paving_ The roof ~.teri.ls will be fire retardant cedar shin;les. Tho proposed color to the mal. body of the building Is ... diwo b.ig. with. white trim. The -2 . ., :',. perimetEr foundat~Gn of the residencE. chimney, and garage are to be faced with. natural fieldstone. Grading and Oriinafe: T~e design concept of c~tting tne fotidations into the hillside wirr-resu t In the movement of approximate1y 1,250 cub~c yards of site soil. To minimize vfsual impacts the maiD floor of t~e residence is cut appToxim~tely 7 feet into the sides of the swale. The e)cess cut material will bo requried to b< exported off·.ito. Sit. drainage will be pic'e~ "P in catch basins located itl the parking area, roof and patios, and ·will be conveyed t~ a rock-lined outfall lecated in the natural drainage swale ~n the lower southwestern portion of tht site. This is the same swale in which the exist~ng str~et sto~ drains are conveyed. T~e initial drainage concept is acceptable to the P~blie ~orks Department. A detailed grading and drainagp. plan shall be required is I condition of approval_ In addition, the applicant has stat~d that the property owners would like to begin constructi~n acth'ities as soon as possible if the project is .approved. Staff would only recommend this in t~e event that ~inimal recipftatoin is experienced agatn this year. If and when r~jns begin, the site should be secured with adjti~nal erosion control measures and ccntruction acti~ities halted~ landscaping: T~e project vill not re~ve any existing site trees, but careful treatment around the si"9le large ~alley oak, near t~e southeastern corner of t~e residence, ~ll be necessary to Issure the cDntinued healtn ~f this tree. TNe plant materi~ls and lands(ape concept are acceptable and considered appropriate for the foot~ills setting. The proposed landscaping will help minimize the visual impacts and screen the residence from the private road serving the Hewlett Subdf~ilion. Submittal of a detailed landscape and irrigation plan documenting approprfate sizes and speCies for staff rev;e~ is recommended as I condition of approval~ It will also be recom~end~d that the Utilit, Department re~iew the landscape and irrigation plans fo~ compliance witk the recently adopt~ landscape guidelines directed at water conservation. Visual Impact: The new residence on this very exposed site is placed w;t~in the e~isting swale in such I manner that views of the residence have been mintmized for adjacent prDperty OWQers. For example, the elevation of the roof ridge line is only slightly abov~ tne el~vation of t~e road, allo~ing unobstructed distant ~iew$ to the Portola Slope parcel. The project will be ¥islb1e from extstfng and potential development to the ncrtn, east~ ~est and long distant views from tne Portal Slope parcel to the south. The cedar shingle gamhrel roof will soften t~~ impact of a two-story facade facing the prfvat! road by brInging the apparent roof line down tG the second floor plate line. The proposed medium biege wall (olor could be dar~ened to further miaimize a~d soften the wi5ual impact, as well as U5ing dlrker tri~ color. The eleyati~n of t~e proposed ro~f rfdge line fs identical in elevation to the previo~sly approved rectilinear desfgn that the Planning Commis5icn felt ~ld been sensitively designed to reduce off-site visual fmpacts. Initially staff ~ad strong concerns T~alted to the appropri.at~ness of t~ls current propesal for I barn-sty1ed house and detached garage with g4mbrel r~of presenting a two story facade to the street. and with the main body of the residence plaeed on stilts above grade wfth a~ elevated deck off the back. The applicant ~as r!vfsed the orfginal submittal to address stiff conc~rns in the following vays: IJ The circ~lar driveway has been redesigned to require only ~ne curb cut; 2) The fi.ished first floor .10.,tion of the family and dining room wings ~aye be~n lo~ered lpproximately 7, feet elimfnating an understory portion of tne housej 3) Tbis f1ftis~ed floor elevation change 11so results i~ al1Gwing ·3· <:> at-grade patios at the rear of the ~ous. Instead of • raised deck; 4) Th. roof ridge of the house ~as been lowered 4.5 f •• t and the roof ridge of the garage ~.s boen lowered. little mer. than 3 feet; and 5) tM' s~cond story of the garage has been pulled back from the street by approxim.tely 1/3 Its length to soften the appearence by creatfng I sfng'e~ltory ro~f line at the street f~cade. The sfte ~as been staKed ~ith PVC pipfr.g to show building plac!ment and ~et9ht for Commission,rs Insp&cting the property. Modifications to roof heights can be seen on the site by the flags p1aced lower on the PVC poles. The top of the poles r~flect the crfg"'.l height prior to the re~lsions. In ~dditiDn. the photo Inily$~s supplied by the lpplicant has not been revfs~d and reflect the pre-revised d'ra.ir.gs. A materials and color board r.'ill be available it the Planning Commissoln meeting. REC~~DA~T~IO~N~ _____________________ __ Staff recol11J1e'!"1ds that the Planning (omission recOJmIend tnat the City (.ouncil adopt the Negatiie Declaration and approvE the Site and Design application, subject to the findir.gs and condjtfons provided below. findings 1. The proj~'t will not resijlt in any significant environmental impacts. in t~at the project is designed to ~inimize the amo~nt of site dlsruptio~ ind to retai~ t~e existing oak tree and to 1110w for natural drainage. 2. The proposed design will be oderly. ha~n1ous and compatib1e ~ith e.,dstfrlg or potenthl ~ses. of adjoining propert,. i-' that the proposed IJse and i!tprovements as c.onditioned will be simHar to otner uses in the area, and the project has been designed into tnt eXlsting $wale, preserwing distant views from adjacent travel ways. 3~ The project will maintain desirability of 1nvestmcnt in the same or adjic~nt ar~as, i~ that the rEquired o~-site imprDve~ents and landscaping, and construction standards will assure a high quality of development. 4. The proposed design, as cond1tiQnad. will observe sound principles Df en~ironmenta1 design and ecological balance. in l~at the selEcted location of the residence help to 11.it unnecessary disruption bf the site and reduces t~e visual impacts. 5~ The proposed use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehens ive Plan, in that the propDsed residential use and re1ated improvements conform to the I.tent of the Open Space Controlled Oevelopment designation to allow ljmited residential devrlopment on larger sites, and to mioimize physical Impacts of development. Conditions 1. Tne new residence shall meet all pertinent requirements of Title 24, State EnerllY Code. 2~ A detattled grading, drainage. and erosiDn conirol plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall b. submitted to the Public Wor's Department for re~iew a~ Ipproval prior to issuance of i grading and/or buildIng peooit. All Toof drains shall outfall to paved surfaces or dratnrock, or other protected areas approved by the Public Works -4 - • /' Department. Construction deta!ls fQr ,11 drlinage facilities shall be .ubmitted with the detailed droin'ge plan, No grade change, sh.ll be Ill.wed withIn the drip line .f the existIng v,llel o.~ tree. 3. All topsoil for areas to be graded s~al1 be stockpiled and cov~red for export.llon after grading is completed. 4. All gTiJlding and d€'"'f'elopment on the sHe sl1.all conform with ill aspec.ts of the pr~ject soils report recommendations. Standard dust control measures shall be incorporated into the final grading plan to be approved by the Public Works Oeparhent. The project 50\1s engineers s,~all be required to certlfy that the grading was d~ne in accordance with their recommendations, prior to fina11zation of the bU11ding permit. S. No grading sh.ll be p,rmltted during the rliny •• ason (October IS to AprIl 15) unless i detailed erosion control plan revie~ed and appro¥ed by the Public Works Department and the erosion contrOl plan, is in place prior to any grading activities. 6. An lutomatlc fire sprinkler syste~ shall be required for the residence. Separate permit and ,lans shall be reyi~ed and approved by the Fire Oepart~~nt prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. The new structure shall conform with al' the requirements of Append;~ E~ as ~nded, of the current Uniform ftre Code for structures in the hazardous fire area. A Class -A-OT equivalent fire retardant roof shall be required. 9. Prior to lssuar.ce of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a d~tailed final lar.d£cape plan ind ~thanical irrigation plan prepared by a 1 icensed landscape architect for review and approval by the Fire Depart.~nt, Planning and UtilitIes Department staff. The plan shall include the common and b~tanical names of ill species ~sed, number, size, type, location and spaCing of .11 plant •• terials, and details regarding t~e .echanic.l IrrigatIon system. The pl.n shall also include spetifications for protection and maintenance of the existing ¥aliey oak during construction prepared by i certified arborist. The fi"al lanscape plan shal' 1nclud! details cDncErning the location and construction of a'l landscape improvements. The fin11 lanscape plan shall be modified to prohibit any grade changES ~ithfng the drip line of the exiting valley oak tr~e. The appro~ed landscape plan shal1 be installed prior to October IS of the construction yearJ unless an interim erosion control' plan j5 revjewed and approved by the P~blic Works Oepartment and installed to their statlsfactlon prIor to O<tober 15. All landscapIng shall be insta11ed prior to request for final bYilding i~~pect;on of t~e structure. Hinor modifications to the approved landscape plan may be made during 1 •• to1htlon subject to the Pl."ning Department's approval prior to executing the changes. The tr'te protection 'plan sha.ll reflect the foll.wing: a) Prior to initiation of construction activtties. a temporary barricade shall be piaced around the tree. as close as possible to the drip line. b) No stockpiling of construc~;on aaterials wit~in the sensitive drip lIne are. sh.ll be .llowed. - 5 - <} d) ~l o During trenchfng/grading i~tfvit~e$ within the tr&e's drip line. should any roots greater than one inch [1-) in diamet~r be damaged, bork!n, Dr $ev~red, t1me11 root pru~ing shall be perfo~ed by a certified Irbortst fn order to minimize further rDot deterioratiqn. The e.lstln9 oak s~ill be fertilIzed by deep soIl Injection in fill and spr!ng of the construction ye.r in order to offset stress caused by construction .ctlvltles .. No future deye1Q,~nt or site im9~ovements shall be Illo.ed wlt~i~ the dripllne of the exItIng oik tree .djacent to the proposed rE'sidence. 9. The exterior bu'14ing color sha11 be darker t~i~ the Sherwin-Wi111ams lIncoln Shi.to number 89-183. The trIm color shill b. no lIghter thin the S~trwfft Williams l1ncoln S~asta. The final colors snail require staff aporoyaJ prior to Issuance of • building perolt and applied to the bu'1d1ngs prior to finll inspect1cn4 l~e stone perimeter foundat~on treatment and retaining walls shall be con~tructed fr05 I dark natural slone with a dark colored grouting to be staff appro\'ed prfor to issuance of a building permit. An~~~fN~T~S ______________ _ Ope" Space Oevelopment Criteria adopted by Council UA l!lcat1on Map 'lans {Commissioners O~ly} Photos (CDORisslonoTs Only} COP IE S Sf NT TO Architect Property Owner ---------_._--- Mid-PenIAsul. Regional Open Space District, c/o 0.1 Woods -6 - I I' CITY or PALO Al TO OPEN SPACE O(VElOPMEN! CRJ!ERJA (Adopted October 20, ISdo) J. ·1ftt development s'f!t!oL;1d not be vhu.a11y intrusive from pl.1111ic rudlfr'i!Ys C!r1d public "uk hnd.s.. It s1'lould' be sihd so that it is hfdc!cn from vi-e .. · iii! .uch IS possible. 2. Dev-elopment shcu1d be concentrated', or clo.s.ely grouped', in fe-hUon to tn! area surr~und;n9 it. This is consistent with the ·('~~ter pTintiplf~ which males ae~elop~nt lfss conspic~ous. 3. !~ilt forms and landscape forms ~hou'd mimic the nat~rll tOp09TiP~Y. Building lfnes should follow the lfnes ~f the terrain, ana trees and bu,~es s~ould appear natural (rom I distance. 4. Where grading is ntedf~ to enable the development to blend into the ~atural t~pography~ it sho~ld. nevertheless. be min~mized to prevent erDs;on. 5. lirge, flat expanses of ~~per~ious surface should be ivoided to redwc~ the ne~d for cut and fill and to reduce pctentlil runoff. E. Buildings should use ~aturll ~ateri~15 and !arthtone or subdu!~ cc1ors. 1. lar.dsca.plng should be nathe species \IIhlch require little cr no irrigation {excr,t frnmediate11 Jdjacent to structures 2S a fire prevention lec~niQue). 8~ Ughting sholl1d be lDw intensftJ' and sfl:ie1ded from view frorr. sur-round'in; pu~'ic point. (road and parl'J. 9. Actus roads s~cu'd be of oil r~ril rather than urban character '(StiilndH~ curb, 9uttl!r and concrete sidewaU: aTe usually inc.onsistefit with the f(:'ct~i1h er,~"ironment}. ]0. 'round cC~frige shou~d be in general c~nfcrmance with Palo Alto's O~En Spacf District re9~1.tions. Env1ronmenta\ Documents -Cit! of PiTo ~lto ENVIROHM£HTAL ASSE~SMEHT Project OescriptlonjTitle: Site & Design appllc.tion to construct, 3,000 sguare foot two-story single-family residence ~it~ detatched gaiage l~catlDn/Address: 701 los Trancos Woods Road --------p.y"A I to. tA-94-02¥'S '-'-""-'''------ Spo."orlng Agency/Appl iCint: ____ -"-J'".c"k'--"~eIl1£LAI,,,A'__ ___ _ Address .nd Telephone of Applicant: 1311 Si.tythird Street _-11~41~5 li20 -5708 _________ --'E"'me"Cr....,yC!:v!.-i 1'21:=-e". ,.!,C"-A-'9~4:!!50~8'--__ _ Application for: Site' Oesi9n Review Zoning at Project tocation~ os Fe. Receipt No.: 90-381 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Based up~n review of th~ project files. the undersigned ~~mber of the ?Tanning Oepartment has cDncluded; 1;1 fu!.Y.~tive Dechrition: The projec.t has no significant environmental impact. Ho Environmental i~pact Report is required. The reasons for a Negative Declaration are: in the attached initii1. __ ~1.l!...~ record of project action is available for review It the Palo Alto Planning Defartmentt located on the 5th floor of City Hall. 250 Hamil.tQ.~Avenue-1- Pa 0 Ailo. CA. 1=1 The project m.y have a significant environment.l impact. An £nvironmental Impact Report will b~ prepared. Ph1ning Department OfrJ.Jial: .~_:-~ C ~.~_t..~ <--::> Planning Director: ~ 1-~-Dfrl: 10/25/90 The prDje<t has be.n approv _ Date: _____ _ The project has be~~ denied. Revised 8/1/79 ElAFRM Date: File No.: 90-EIA-46 . 190-EIA-46 , 1 o Envlron~nt~l Oocum~nts -elty of Pilo Alto I. II. Ill. IV. INITIAL STUDyl,l Project Title/Address, 701 los Trancos Vo~ds Road, Palo Alto Project Oescription: ~~~~itfon to construct' two-story l!OQO~uare fO<lt resid~_~~itll iI detaClied gange and rehted site __ i~prtl __ v~mmei'1ts TnC1LJding landscacing. Environmental Settfng: 5.99 acre undeveloped lot 1" Palo Alto Foothil1S:...L..S'OD~S varying for 18 to 30 percent. ___ Surro.;mding llses, ~ndeyeloped sinsel-family lots to the n~rth and west, Quarry undergoing restoration to the SDut~, c~n area of Hewl!tt subd;~ision to the $o~theast. develGped single-family lot to the northw2st. EnY;ronmer!tal l.p.ct Checklist (Explanation of ,11 Section V): I. Eart~. Wili the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes So geologic substructures~ b. Disruptions, disp1acements t compaction O~ overcovering of t~e soil? c. Change h topognphy or ground surfa'Ce relief features? d. The dest~ctiDnt covering er modification of ""y unique geologic Dr physical fe.atYres? •• Any increase in wir.d or wlter erOSion of s~ils. e~ther on or off the site? f. Exposure of people or property to geologie hazards 5\Jch as eart~quakes. landslides. ~ud$lfdes. gro~nd failure, or sfmilar hazards? 9. Changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which _at modify t~e channel ·yes· answers are in YfS IlAIBE NO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of a rhe,.. .;>r the bed of I bay or iDlet? L IAd.pled frOM Appendix I, C.liforni. Guideline. for Implementat!on of C£QA, December 14, 1976. ZUpdated ".y 1982; June 19B3 ElAFIICK I 90-EIA·46 2 • \ l. AIr. ~ill th~ propos.l result 1,: I~ Substar.tlil air emissions or deterfora· tion of ambient air q~ality? b. The creation of obJectfonal odors? c. Alteratfon of 11T mowement. moisture tempe~ature, or any c~ange in cTi~ite. efther locally or regi~na'? J. V.ter. Will the proposal result In: i. C~ange~ 1" absorptfon rates, drainage ~atterns, or the rate and amount of surfatt water runoff? -L b. Alterations to th~ course or flow of flood waters? c. Oist~arge into surface waters, or in any alterlti~n of surface water qualitl~ including but net limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d. Alteration of the direction of rate of flow of ground waters? t. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards suc~ as flooding or tidal waves? f. Change iD the quantity of ground waters. either tbrough direct additions or with- drawals. or through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or exca''iations? _1_ _1- x I 4. Plant Ufe. ~il1 t~. proposal result in: £IAfMCK l. Change i" t~e diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (includ ing trees. s~rubs, grass. crops, micrQ- flora and aquatic plants)? ~ b. Reduction Df the numbers of any unlq~e. rare or endangered species ~f plants? X c. Introduction of new sytcies of plants 1nto an arei. or in i barrier to the nOTllal replenishment of existing species? -.!.. d. Reduction f~ acreage of ~n1 a9ricult~ral crop? ~ 9D·EIA·46 J o 5. Animal life. Will the proposal re5~'t in: I. Change i~ the diversfty of species. or of any species of aoimais (birds. lind Ini~al$ tncluding reptiles, fis~ and shellfish. benthic organisms, insects or lIic.rofiuna)? b. Redyction of the numbers of any ~niQue. rare or endangered species of animals? c. lr!trodl1ct1on of new species of animals into an area, or r~sult in a barrier to the .igration or movement of animals? d. Oet!r~oritton ia e~istfng fish or wi1d1'f. habitat? 6. Noise. Wiil the proposaL result in: i. lrlcreases in existing noise hve1s? b. Exposure of people to severe noise 1eve1s1 7. l1ght and glare. Vi11 the proposal produce new light glare? 8. land Use. Will the proposal resylt in a substantial alteration of the present or plann~d land use of an area? 9. Energy/Natural Resources. Will the proposal result lll: a. Use of s~bstintial amo~nts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase 1D demand upon eXlstiDg sources of energy. or requjr~ the development of ne~ sources or on0'"9y1 c. Increase io tne rat! of use of any natural resources? d. Substantial depletion of any ~onrenew· able natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve I risk of an explosiDn or the release of ~az'rdous s~b$tan,es lfncludin9t but not li.ited to. 011 1 pesticfde5~ chemic~l$ or radiltion} ~~ the event of an accident or upset? £JAfIlCIC --_. __ ._._----- 11. ~~lation/Housin9. a. Wi1} t~e proposal alter the lo<ation, distr~bution* density. or gTowth rate of the ~umin population of an areal b. Will the propo,.l effe,t eXi,ting hoYs'ng. or create iI demand ftlT addi tional 'housing? 12. Tr.n,oort.llon/Circ.laticn. Will the propo,.l result in: a. Generation of s~bstantia' additional vehicular mO¥Ement? b. Effects on existing parkfng facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Alteritio~s to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/ or goods? d. Jncrease i~ traffic hazirds to ~tor vehitles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 13. Public Services. Will the proposal ~ave an effect ~pon. or result fn a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the fo11owing areas: a. fire protection? b. Police pr~tectiDn? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreati~nal facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f4 Other governmental services? 14. Utilities. Will the propes.l result in • need for n~ systems, or substantial illteritions to the followIng "tilltle,: EIAfIlCX i. Power or natunl gas? b. Communications systems? 90-ElA-46 5 ' _x_ x ..L ..L I ," '" -":-'- o c. Water? d. S~wer or septic tank? e. Stor& water drainage? f. SClid waste and dispasal? IS. Human Health. Will the proposal result ir,: •• Creation of any health hazard or potentia1 health hazard (excluding ",nt.1 health)! b. E~pos~re of people to potenti~l hea1t~ hazards? 16. Aesthetics. Will the pr{lposal result in the obstruction of any scenic ,ista or view open to the public. or ~il1 the proposal result ~D the creation of in aesthetic)l'! offensf'fl! site open to publ ic view? 17. Recre-a.tfon . • il1 tn~ proposal result in an imp~ct upon the qua1ity or quantity of exist- ing recrsational opportunities? lB. Caltural Resources. a. Will the pl'op".l result i, the altera- tion of/or the destruction of a prehistor1C or historic arthaeologica1 site? b_ Will the proposal result in adverse pl'll/sical Dr nsthet"it @ffect'i. tQ a prehfstor1c Or bistoric building, struct~re, or obj@ct? c. Do •• the propos.1 have the potential to cau~e i physical change which ~o~ld Iffect unj~ue c~ltural values? d. Will the propos.1 restrict eXisting religious or sacred uses withf" the potenth1 fmpact ilrea'? YES .-.- _X_ 90-EIA-I6 6 ., l _1- l -'- l X l I 19. ~andatorr Findings of Significance. ,. Does the ~roject bave the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. substa~tillll reduce the habitat of a fis~ or wildlife specie., c.us' , fish or wildlife popul.tion to drop below self-sustaiAing levels t t~re2ten to elf.f"at~ I plant or ip.fmal tommunitYt reduce the number or restrict the range of I rare or end~ngered pl~nt or Inim~l or eli~lnate ;mportant examples Qf the r.ajor periods of Cal!fornia history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the pot,nth1 to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-tenm, en~ironmental goals? (A short-term fmpaet on the envirGnrnent ;s on! which occurs i~ a relativel, brief. definitive period of time while Tong-te~ impacts will endure well ioto the future.) c_ Ooes the project have fmpacts ~hich Ire individually limited. but cum~l~tiyelJ considp.rable? {A proj~ct maj i~ict on two or .ore separate resources wnere the impact on edch resourte is relativel, .mall. but where the .ffect of the total of thost iapacts on th~ environment i~ significint.) d. Does the project have environmental effects ~fc~ will cause substantial advtrse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Y. Explanation of ·yes· an$wars in environmental checklist. See attached. . I EIAfItCI( 90·£11.·46 1 o J {b,t.f} (arth. Construction ~f the residence ~ill disrupt site s~fls and require-the movement of .pprox1~attl1 1,250 hundr~d cubic yards of site soils. A geotec~nlcal investigation was ~erformed fDr this site by Cleary Consultants, an engineering geology firm. From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint. the site has been determined suitable for the proposed constructi<ln proYid'ed that tht soils en9ineer~s recomitmdations aT! fncllrpol"'ited into the developement of the sHe. The site is ynd'erliin by expansive clay soils and~ conseqvent1t. struct~res ~hal1 be supported by reinforced drilled pier and grade beam foundatlons. The site is within i reg10n associattd with the northwest trending San Andreas fault system. This system S~TVts Tight lateral transform movement between ths Pacific and North American Plates and it ext~nds for at least 450 miles along the California co~st. The San Andreas fauld is mapped approximately 1.) mi1es to the southwest of the site. Other active faults in the area are mapped, respectively~ &p~rQximately 12 miles ~est and 17 miles e.st of the site. Sased on the soils engineer's review of the references t no lnDwn acti~e or potentially active faults are locat~d in close proximity to the site. Therefore, the potential hazard resulting from surface fault rupture is cons ide-red Jaw. H'owever, hlstorical evider,ci! and the results of current technology fndicate that at least one moderate to severe earthquake will occur sometime during the deSign life of t~e residence. During such an earthqwake, the dang~r from fault offset through the site is remote, but strong ground snaking is 11kel, to occ~r. All c~nstruttion on the s1te shall b~ subject to the geote(hnicJl report prepared by C1eary Cons~ltants Inc .• dated August 23, 1990 and the prowisions of tne most current Uniform Bui1ding Code, portions of wnicn are directed at mfDfmizing seisimc risk and the loss of life and property in t~e e~ent ~f an earthquak~. The applicant has stated t~at he would like to explcre beginning 9rading activities as soon is possible. Generally grading actiwites are not allowed in the fo~thills from October 15 ta April 15 of the construction year because of erosion concerns. The P~blfc Works Oepartment will issue grading permits durfng this period if a proper detailed erosi~n control plan is submitted for re¥i~w. A detailed grading and drifnage plan shall be req~ired for review and approval by the Publ It .'orb Department prior-tc issuance of any grad in~ and/or building permit. 3 (a) Water. Approximately 3 percent [7,600 sq. ft.) of the site will be cowered wlt~ i~ervious surfacing after full development. The maximum . a110wable ~mperY\ous coverage for this s\te '5 15,071 square feet. The maximum impervious coverage was determined for each Gf the 10 lots in the He.l.tt <"bdlv;slon wit~ variance 86-Y-Z2 Issued on July 8, 1986. Proposed minor alterAtions to e)istfng sTapes should not significantly affect site drainage. A proposed dratn l\n@ ~'11 tarry s,te dra1nage from the project area to i naturll drAinage channel in the lower eastern portion of the prop.rly. Th. outf.ll shall b. lined with dr.in rock_ PosHhe surface gn.d.ients of a.t least two p(',rc.ent sha.ll be mair:tained away (ro. the proposed ~tructures so that water does ~ot collect on slopes or in the yaci~it1 of the foundations. Water (ro. roof downspouts, pawemi!nt and slab5 s~all be tied fnta drains and/or closed pipes and carrled to suitable drainage faCilities. Cut and fill slopes shall be p·1anted to minimize erosion, and surfac! runoff shall be diverted away from the top of slopes and £!AFMCK ~-.--~--------------- • 90-[14-46 8 • - .' -.-. - ;/" .. " / , . -'. carried to a su1tabte dr~inige collection system. The site dr~lnage pla~ 5~all incorpDrate tn! 50ils engfnetr'S recommendations into the detailed dTsinage plan which shall be requiered to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Oepa~~ht pri~r to issuant! of any gradfng and/or building permit. e (.1 Plant life. The exiting site currently has one s1gnificant walley oak adjacent to the pro~osed residence. Tne remainder of the 5it~ is cov~red with liiltive gruses ln~ shrubs il'H~ s.ome smaller oaks neaT t~e ea.stern boundary of the site. The project will ~ot result in the removal of any trees on tne site. Prctection of the ~aliey ~ak during construction activities shall reQ~Tre the following protection measure$: 1. Prior to initiation of con~tu(tion activities. a temp~rary barricade shall be placed around the tree as (70se as possibl~ to the drip1 ine. 2. "0 stockpiling of construction materials within the sensitive driplin. area shall be allowed. 3. Ouring trenching/grading activities within the tree's dripline. should any roots greater that one inch i~ diamet~r be damaged. bork~n or sever!d. timelj root pruning shall be performed by a certified arborfst i~ order to minimize furtner reot deterioration. The current preliminar1 landscape plan call for the additfon of drought tolerant shrubs a~d groundcovers. It is recommend~d that the liG~id ambers proposed for placement along the driveway and the pine; along the street frontage and the easter~ side of the proposed residence be replaced witn a more appropriate specf!s for the foothills envjr~nment. 6 {a) ~~~ Construction activities will result in temporary fncreases in ~ noise levels. All construction activities shallb e subject to the provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance. long term impacts will b! negligible. 1 Light and Glar~ The new residence will increase light so~rces in the area. the impact oT1Ulls impact should be mini~al. Any exteriour lighting shou1d be direct!d away from the adjacent propertfes to the ncrhtwest ind east. As the scrfe~ landscaping t~ be prDvided matures~ it shou1d help s~ield adjacent properties from any increased lighting. !L.lit] Population/Housing. The: addition of a new single-fa;nl1y residence .... i11 have l negligible impact on ar~a,populitiGn. J2 (a1-!LansportatJ~n/Circ~latfon. The new home will create the demand for ~parling spaces on the site. The three cavtred and one ~ncovered spaces propo.ed .ill meet thl. demand. [JAHICK 90·EIA·46 9 I • I I / , .,.t I 'V • . " .' lJ... a.. a ~ a: CI) o o z < a: t- en o -' i ; , en o / • . , / / • •