DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 5
geology team went through the entire area and never found the Whiskey Hill formation.
The collective goal is to ensure any homes built are protected and not necessarily setting out to find the fault if it is a thousand feet in another direction.
Chair Warr believed that the concerns made by Mr. Wrucke were attended to with the recommended Conditions of Approval, which are substantial to do supplemental exploratory trenching.
Mr. Wrucke stated that the Geologic Safety Committee in the Town has essentially been hobbled and is not part of the project’s process. The Committee keeps the topic of the Portola Terrace project out of meetings to avoid violating the five-meeting rule. He wished the Town could be a place where geological knowledge could be a part of the process.
Caroline Vertongen requested that Mr. Holland present his findings, and she hoped that the ASCC would put this as a Condition of Approval. There was no consideration for the commutative negative impact that is caused on the Town for every new project, and it is very important that the data be observed. She expressed concern about the first driveway, stating that if it were an egress, that would cause problems. When it comes to traffic safety and road reassignment or road improvements, BPTS is blamed. She expressed concern regarding finances and felt that a collaborative solution was necessary. She appreciated the residents who presented their specific professional expertise.
Rita Comes inquired about the possibility of ADUs being built on the site attached to the project. She stated that it was not very clear from comments made in the past by Ms.
Laura Russell and Mr. John Donahue. She asked what it would mean for the fire, materials, or the bio in that area.
Chair Warr asked whether the plan unit development being proposed was all that is being proposed and all that will be allowed.
Interim Planning and Building Director Grindall responded that was correct.
Chair Warr inquired whether the rules associated with ADUs at the State level did not apply to the project going forward.
Interim Planning and Building Director Grindall stated that his understanding was that the lot sizes did not have any room for an ADU.
Mr. Donahue advised that there was never any intent to allow for ADUs. There is no room on the individual lots.
Nan Shostak supported comments made by Mr. Wrucke regarding the topographic feature through the center of the project going diagonally from Alpine Road toward the back and through the center. It is approximately 300 feet long and needs to be investigated more thoroughly than it has been. She expressed concern about the
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 6
explanation that the geotechnical report provided for the feature and felt more needed to be done. She stated that deposits that should have been fairly flat have been folded into tall sine waves under the surface and need to be investigated. She questioned whether it was a natural phenomenon from stream flow or if It was seismic, which would be dangerous. She suggested that when the additional investigation is done toward the south end of the property, a trench should be dug and walls cleaned to see whether the wavy pattern continues throughout the site or just in the area shown in the single photograph in the report.
Ed Holland stated that during a Subdivision Committee meeting, traffic data used for the traffic data study was taken during and shortly after COVID with the sort of depressed baseline effect that would result from that. He said he would like to see a condition for an accurate reassessment of the traffic volume data, and he asked for more information about what assessment had been made relating to the addition of two new intersections on Alpine Road. He commented that the traffic data did not consider peak traffic volumes at times between 6:45-10 a.m. and 3-6 p.m. He recommended an additional safety study for site access and egress at each new intersection on Alpine Road. He shared further considerations that accommodation for train and bicycle road users are cursory, and a request that a design study be made of comparable existing development site access that might be possible. The traffic study data and safety assessment should be specific in including bicycle traffic volumes and patterns. He requested that the proposed intersections with Alpine Road be evaluated against expected practices. Some relevant observations related to that might include the absence of proposed design changes to Alpine Road, given the presence of the two new intersections. This makes a change in the safety factors for all road users and for traffic flow on an arterial route. He pointed out that there has been no discussion of turn lane features He suggested a condition for a Request for Application of turn restrictions for the two driveways if they are both allowed to be used, and a potential condition to restrict access to only one of the driveways, retaining the second driveway in part of the plan, but limiting it for the use of emergency vehicles only.
Kristy C. stated that she sent in a letter, but did not see it in the public comments. She thought the public would like to see previous public comments on this topic, and they should be gathered and retained for addressing this meeting. She requested that there be a list of all of the Portola Terrace Stanford Wedge concessions listed below and put in writing for the public. She sought information regarding the concessions, incentives, waivers, variances, additional density given to the Density Bonus Law, and she requested that the Commission reference any laws attached to each. She urged the Commission to list the VMT studied on all Portola main roads and arterials. She expressed concern about the seasonal creeks, which accumulate during the winter months and are used by the
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 7
wildlife. She referenced the 89 parking places and sought clarification regarding each unit producing six trips per day.
Chair Warr announced that the Commission would take a break and reconvene at 8:35 p.m.
Ms. Davis responded to a question regarding the specific of what incentives or concessions, as well as waivers, and/or variances were proposed as part of the project.
No request for a variance is part of the proposed project. There are two concessions being requested and one is for a reduced lot size through application of the State Density Bonus Law. The second requested concession is the elimination of a General Plan policy regarding clustering and the specific distances between the clustering of buildings. There are three waivers proposed pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. The waivers include the specified spacing between the main buildings in a planned unit development, the establishment of maximum floor area requirements relative to lot size, and the similarity between market rate and affordable units in density bonus projects.
Ms. Lamphier-Gregory explained that regarding traffic, there were some changes in the law of CEQA before the project was started. This removed congestion or traffic from CEQA analysis and moved it instead to VMT, which is more like the amount of traffic rather than the particulars of congestion. That is not included in the main document of the EIR, but it was included as an informational item in Appendix I of the draft EIR. This used counts from pre-COVID, and it looked at this project in addition to the cumulative development in the area as well as the existing conditions. It found that the intersection of the proposed private road and Alpine Road would work according to all existing safety and traffic regulations. Project intersection operations can be found on page 16-10. She noted that the draft EIR included measures to manage and prevent the spread of invasive species.
Chair Warr invited discussion from the Commissioners.
Vice Chair Flynn expressed support for Stanford’s plan to develop faculty housing and below market rate units for workforce housing. She appreciated the time and money that Stanford put toward the effort, and all of the experts that were called upon to help in developing the property in a respectful and sustainable manner. She appreciated the focus on sustainable design and felt there was a tremendous amount of effort put into the project. She stated that she looked forward to welcoming new residents to the Town, and they will add tremendous value to the community. She expressed support for Stanford’s plan to limit the development to the portion that is already developed. The fire road is critical for Stanford to be able to meet its obligations to its property and to the Town in terms of making the property fire-safe, particularly for the residents living on the ridges above the property. She expressed grave concern about it involving 4,051 cubic yards of imported fill, and it is unknown what type of dirt, where it is coming from, what weed seeds
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 8
and invasive species or toxins might be in the dirt. The damage and disruption that the heavy trucks of dirt will cause is a very serious concern. She questioned whether the route could be somewhat altered to make it more sinuous or serpentine to avoid the need to have so much fill. She appreciated that Sanford has made a tremendous effort in the residential area of the project to balance the cut and fill so there would only be a smaller amount of excess cut of only 157 cubic yards. She stated that the project should be considered as a whole between the residential area and the fire road. The residential area cannot exist without the fire road and making the site more fire safe. She expressed concern about the layout of the residential section and felt the desire to make the cut and fill balance only for the residential area has caused unnecessary and undesirable consequences. She recommended moving the complex 25 to 50 feet to the south and at least 25 feet to the west, which would involve more grading and expenses. She suggested moving the slope back slightly. The 25 feet from the neighbors along Westridge is a concern and not adequate. She felt there should be a Condition of Approval that the fire road be available for the public, and in an ideal situation, there would be a trail that linked between the top of the fire road down to the loop trail designed. She thought the parking seemed inadequate and unrealistic to assume without public transportation that people would be able to get around. She appreciated the desire to put in 36-inch trees and believed that may be useful in areas that need specific immediate screening from the complex. She stated that California Buckeyes look beautiful during the Spring, but they look like a dead tree as soon as they stop getting water. She stated that the seed pods of the California Buckeye are toxic and advised against placing them anywhere near a playground. The fire risk of having big trees that might overhang potential houses is an issue. She questioned why all of the community feedback about the project was ignored by Sanford.
Commissioner Breen remarked that the planting plan was too much, and she felt the site was meant to be natural. She wanted to avoid making the project feel like a destination.
She hoped for a little more vision with the buildings and stated that she would love to see varying roofing styles. The architecture needs to be more expressive and more cottagelike. She expressed support for all of the materials being used but felt they all looked like boxes.
Commissioner Dixon agreed that it is generally a nice project, and a lot of consideration has been made to Portola Valley. The architecture feels really homogenous and could benefit from more variety. The landscape at the front with the really defined edges seems not so much in keeping with what is typically done and recommended in the area. The neighbor setback along Westridge feels a little tight, especially if that is a corridor where people might be walking, and wildlife are using.
Commissioner Breen expressed support for moving the project, mostly to bring the trail down from the other two trails and down to Alpine Road.
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 9
Chair Warr stated that he liked the design, and he thought it was a good way to use the property that is predominantly steep. The overall site planning is appropriate if it can be determined from a geologic standpoint that it is safe. He appreciated the protection of the 64 acres and the road to get onto that area of the property. The current level of fuel management is making a big difference in the safety of the area. He expressed support for shifting the development to provide more space for the Canyon Trail and connecting the Canyon Trail all the way to Alpine Road, as it historically has been, is important. There is a need to plan how the overflow parking is going to work. He supported making the landscaping less formal. He opposed the double retaining walls and suggested that there might be more space available with the shift of the building. That is the one area in the landscape and site planning design that is incongruent with the way that it has been described. He understood from a developer standpoint the desire to have the bulk of the buildings the same because the overall cost would be reduced. He stated that he would like to see the project approved with a set of conditions that allow the applicant the courage to keep going.
Mr. Donahoe stated that the project has not been ideal for the Town in terms of delays. A great deal of the committee work was done and a lot of the comments that were provided were made prior to the EIR. The EIR should be the informational document that should have guided many of the questions. The team has been resistant to agreeing to move the project over from the property line due to being at the minimum setback. The team is very apparent to the cost of the project. He stated that he understood the traffic concerns and thought there were other things that the Town could consider. The two access points were cited to ensure that there was adequate distance of people pulling in and out. Anything else will be primarily up to the Town to make those recommendations. The Town was in charge of the environmental review. He thought the team would entertain a recommendation to bring the completed landscape plan back to the Commission prior to or after review by the fire district. Because of the fire concerns, solid wood fences from the rear fencing are not being proposed. There is a privacy issue that needs to be taken into consideration. Mr. Donahoe appreciated the comments made regarding the grading.
Interim Planning and Building Director Grindall advised that the motion would be based on the staff report. The Conditions of Approval that were handed out during the current meeting are just an effectuation of the staff report. Based on the staff report, the ASCC can make a motion and make modifications as a port of that motion.
Motion by Vice Chair Flynn moved that the ASCC recommend approval to the Planning Commission for the applied Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development, Architectural Review, and Site Development for the Wedge Project as proposed, with the following conditions: move the development 25 feet to the south to provide increased space between the development and the adjacent property line; require the connection of the Canyon Trail from where it exits the property to Alpine Road; develop
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 10
the Landscape Design as a less formal response and present it to a subcommittee of the ASCC, in collaboration with the Building and Planning Director; reduce the double retaining walls in front of the BMR units to a maximum height of four feet, with additional grading to achieve the desired design; ensure the fire road allows public trail access, and include a trail connection from a practical point down to the loop trail on the property; and plan for an overflow parking area and incorporate it into the less formal Landscape Design. Seconded by Commissioner Dixon.
Interim Planning and Building Director Grindall south clarification that the motion was an appended to the recommendation in the staff report of proving the Conditional Use Permit for Establishment of a Planned Unit Development, Architectural Review And Site Development to be Presented to the Planning Commission in Accordance with Section
18.72.100, 18.44.040, 15.12.100, and 18.64.030 of the Portola Valley Municipal Code (PVMC).
The Commissioners confirmed that was correct.
Motion by Vice Chair Flynn moved that the ASCC recommend approval to the Planning Commission for the applied Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development, Architectural Review, and Site Development for the Wedge Project as proposed, with the following conditions: move the development 25 feet to the south to provide increased space between the development and the adjacent property line; require the connection of the Canyon Trail from where it exits the property to Alpine Road; develop the Landscape Design as a less formal response and present it to a subcommittee of the ASCC, in collaboration with the Building and Planning Director; reduce the double retaining walls in front of the BMR units to a maximum height of four feet, with additional grading to achieve the desired design; ensure the fire road allows public trail access, and include a trail connection from a practical point down to the loop trail on the property; and plan for an overflow parking area and incorporate it into the less formal Landscape Design. Seconded by Commissioner Dixon, the motion was carried (4-0) unanimously by voice vote.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
COMMISSION, STAFF, COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3. Commission Reports
None.
4. Staff Reports
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 11
Interim Planning and Building Director Grindall announced that the previous item will be considered by the Planning Commission at a special meeting on November 18, 2024.
MINUTES
None.
ADJOURNMENT [9:31 p.m.]
ATTACHMENT 13
Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 2024
(meeting video available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojaq624HOz4)
WEDGE SUBCOMMITTEE
THIRD COMMENTS FROM Conservation Committee
8/5/20
It is a real loss for the Town to have this rural open space developed. We appreciate that Stanford has attempted to understand how valuable the scenic corridor and open space are to PV residents – for the esthetics of the view corridor, for the wildlife, and for the trails. We hope that the Town and the other committees will hold Stanford to a high level of follow through on preserving the natural appearance of this property as it loses its minimally developed state.
Comments:
1. In the site to be developed itself, much of the natural habitat has been lost to horse accommodations. The remainder of the site is pristine, largely undisturbed, native habitat rich with local wildlife. It is densely overgrown with no fire mitigation in the central area for decades.
2. We appreciate that the landscaping is now low water use natives.
3. We appreciate that the planting along Alpine Road is now more naturalistic oak woodland and less “landscaped”,
although still more should be eliminated to preserve the rural appearance along the road. The renderings in the Third
Submission show landscaping much as we would wish it to be – but that is not what the formal planting plan maps illustrate.
4. We appreciate that a fire road has been added. The exact placement of this is shown differently on the printed plan set and the page C.5.0 on Box – which is correct? Ongoing Fire mitigation projects done from this access need to be sensitive to wildlife and concern for the wildlife habitat should influence all decisions. There are grave fire concerns but they are being addressed with more authority and expertise by
C.
D.
A.
B.
others. We assume all dead and senescent trees will be
removed from area Y.
5. We appreciate area Y, the relatively open defensible space behind the proposed homes. No development should be
allowed here except perhaps for a community garden.
Requests:
1. To the maximum extent legally permissible, working
within the limitations of the Founder’s Grant, the
undeveloped remainder of the property should be preserved as committed open space.
2. We would like to see the developed area pushed as far back from the road and as far south as the terrain will allow, rather than focusing on meeting bare minimal easement
requirements. Ideally 100 feet from Alpine Road and 40-50 feet from northern border. The amount of additional grading this would require is small compared to the major impact it would have on settling the developments more comfortably into the community. The additional cut might be used to create gentle berms in the Alpine Road setback, providing additional screening.
3. The setback from Alpine should be for all structures and uses, not just buildings. Special care should be taken with planting or berming to insure that this area does not become used informally for overflow parking.
4. No illustration is provided to show landscaping at the entrance to the fire road – we hope there is none. If
landscaping is planned here, please provide specific plan and plant list.
5. We again request much less planting at the entrances to create a more informal and natural area in harmony with the current roadside. Our rural esthetic should be maintained; this should not look like the landscaped entrance to a
development. Ideally it would look like the rendering
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
pictures in your Third Submission and not like your planting plan illustrations.
6. The renderings show a utility pole by Alpine Trail – we thought utilities were to be undergrounded along this
frontage.
7. We suggest that the several areas called out for Stipa pulcra also include Stipa lepida – one prefers more sun than the other and a more pleasing cover will be created as the 2 species sort themselves out in the dappled sun/shade.
8. Fencing should be minimized or absent. A fence would make sense to separate BMR 1 and unit #25 from the
common area, and units # 15-21 from the wildlife corridor and trail, and would be allowed around a shared garden plot area.
9. The play area should be as natural as possible and
appeal to a wide age range. Because the common area is so small, all of it should be as multi-use as possible. Play area should be protected from nearby parking spaces by picnic tables and/or grade changes.
10. Trails:
a. The loop trail with a stub connection to Alpine Canyon Trail is an improvement over the previously proposed
trail.
b. A wildlife corridor and trail along the north property line should be established. There will inevitably be an informal path created here by deer and hikers. It would be preferable to have a proper trail with appropriate
protections rather than an ad hoc path. We strongly
recommend that the development be pushed back
another 20-25’ to allow a trail and vegetation space to separate/screen the trail from the development and the
Westridge lots
c. Once Stanford has re-established and graded these
Trails, the Town should be granted a trails easement so these will be official public trails. It would be desirable
K.
L
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
to have Stanford assume responsibility for maintenance
of these trails.
11. It would be desirable to move the existing Alpine Road horse trail – which will need rebuilding anyway – back from the roadway into the setback area to provide a more pleasant and safe trail experience.
12. Consider zero lot lines on one side of units so they have useable side yards. As planned each has only 2 narrow strips for side yards. These narrow yards are not really functional and are likely to accumulate junk and less tended vegetation.
13. The limited number of parking spaces creates a
potential problem – where will overflow parking go? It
cannot be allowed to spill over to Alpine Road or intrude into the setback. This argues for a way to get here other than driving a car. A Marguerite extension would be ideal.
14. The additional traffic generated by the new residents should be mitigated by extending Marguerite to Portola
Valley. Many Stanford faculty, staff and students already live out here; many more residents make frequent trips to the Medical Center and shopping center. This could help with parking congestion on campus.
15. More bike parking is needed.
Submitted by Judith Murphy, Chair, Conservation Committee
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
Applicant response to Conservation Committee commented dated December 22, 2020 Comments:
A. Comment noted. ēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙēÍŜϙÍîîŘôŜŜôîϙťēôϙſĖīîƱŘôϙıÍIJÍČôıôIJťϙĺċϙťēôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙ ťēŘĺŪČēϙťēôϙŕŘôŕÍŘÍťĖĺIJϙĺċϙťēôϙ«ôČôťÍťĖĺIJϙaÍIJÍČôıôIJťϙīÍIJϙĺIJϙƱīôϙſĖťēϙťēôϙĺſIJϙĺċϙĺŘťĺīÍϙ «Íīīôƅϟϙ
B. Comment noted.
C. ťÍIJċĺŘîϙēÍŜϙÍČŘôôîϙťĺϙèĺIJťĖIJŪôϙťĺϙſĺŘħϙſĖťēϙĺſIJϙŜťÍƯϙťĺϙŘôƱIJôϙťēôϙīÍIJîŜèÍŕôϙŕīÍIJŜϙÍŜϙ ŘôèĺııôIJîôîϙŕŘĖĺŘϙťĺϙĖŜŜŪÍIJèôϙĺċϙæŪĖīîĖIJČϙŕôŘıĖťŜϙċĺŘϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϟϙ D. ēôϙÍīĖČIJıôIJťϙĺċϙťēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙŘĺÍîϙĖŜϙèĺŘŘôèťīƅϙŜēĺſIJϙĖIJϙĺŪŘϙèŪŘŘôIJťϙÍŕŕīĖèÍťĖĺIJϙ ŕÍèħôťϙîÍťôîϙ͐͐-͖͐-2020.
ēôϙŕŘôŽĖĺŪŜīƅϙŘôċôŘôIJèôîϙ«ôČôťÍťĖĺIJϙaÍIJÍČôıôIJťϙīÍIJϙÍîîŘôŜŜôŜϙťēôϙŽÍŘĖĺŪŜϙèĺIJèôŘIJŜϙ ŘÍĖŜôîϙæƅϙťēôϙ
ĺIJŜôŘŽÍťĖĺIJϙ
ĺııĖťťôôϟϙēôϙîĺèŪıôIJťϙŕŘĺŽĖîôŜϙıôťēĺîŜϙťĺϙŘôîŪèôϙťēôϙ
ſĖīîƱŘôϙŘĖŜħϙĺċϙťēôϙŜĖťôϠϙÍIJîϙťēôϙŕŘôŜèŘĖæôîϙıôťēĺîŜϙťÍħôϙôƄĖŜťĖIJČϙŽôČôťÍťĖĺIJϙÍIJîϙæĖĺťĖèϙareas ĺċϙťēôϙŜĖťôϙĖIJťĺϙèĺIJŜĖîôŘÍťĖĺIJϟϙϙēôϙ«ôČôťÍťĖĺIJϙaÍIJÍČôıôIJťϙīÍIJϙÍîîŘôŜŜôŜϙťēôϙŘôıĺŽÍīϙĺċϙ îôÍîϙÍIJîϙŜôIJôŜèôIJťϙťŘôôŜϙÍıĺIJČϙĺťēôŘϙôīôıôIJťŜϙĺċϙťēôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙĺċϙťēôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϟ E. Comment noted.
Requests:
F. Town ŜťÍƯ has developed a proposed èĺIJîĖťĖĺIJϙĺċϙÍŕŕŘĺŽÍīϙťĺϙÍîîŘôŜŜϙťēĖŜϙèĺIJèôŘIJϟ G.
ĺııôIJťϙIJĺťôîϟϙ®ēĖīôϙſôϙŪIJîôŘŜťÍIJîϙťēôϙIJÍťŪŘôϙĺċϙťēôϙŘôŗŪôŜťϠϙıĺŽĖIJČϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙċŪŘťēôŘϙ ÍſÍƅϙċŘĺıϙīŕĖIJôϙĺÍîϙſĖīīϙŘôŗŪĖŘôϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťīƅϙıĺŘôϙČŘÍîĖIJČϙÍIJîϙťŘôôϙŘôıĺŽÍīϙťēÍn ŘôŕŘôŜôIJťôîϙĖIJϙĺŪŘϙèŪŘŘôIJťϙŜĖťôϙŕīÍIJϟϙēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙČŘÍîĖIJČϙſĺŪīîϙIJĺϙīĺIJČôŘϙæÍīÍIJèôϙĖIJϙťôŘıŜϙĺċϙ èŪťϙÍIJîϙƱīīϠϙÍIJîϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙſĺŪīîϙēÍŽôϙťĺϙôƄŕĺŘťϙèŪťϙıÍťôŘĖÍīϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϟϙ H. ēôϙīŕĖIJôϙĺÍîϙŜôťæÍèħϙĖŜϙċŘôôϙĺċϙÍīīϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙŜťŘŪèťŪŘôŜϟϙēôϙĺIJīƅϙôīôıôIJťϙſĖťēĖIJϙťēôϙ ŜèôIJĖèϙŜôťæÍèħϙĖŜϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťЍŜϙæĖĺŘôťôIJťĖĺIJϙťŘôÍťıôIJťϙŕĺIJîŜϠϙſēĖèēϙſĖīīϙæôϙīÍIJîŜèÍŕôîϙĖIJϙÍϙ natural ıÍIJIJôŘϟϙēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙèĺIJèŪŘŜϙſĖťēϙťēôϙIJôôîϙċĺŘϙŜĖČIJÍČôϙťĺϙŕŘĺēĖæĖťϙĺŽôŘƲĺſϙ ŕÍŘħĖIJČϙĖIJϙťēôϙŜèôIJĖèϙèĺŘŘĖîĺŘϟ
I. ēôŘôϙĖŜϙIJĺϙЊŜŕôèĖÍīĖƏôîЋϙŕīÍIJťĖIJČϙŕīÍIJϙÍťϙťēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙŘĺÍîϙôIJťŘÍIJèôϟϙēĖŜϙŘĺÍîϙĖŜϙ IJĺťϙĖIJťôIJîôîϙťĺϙæôϙŪŜôîϙæƅϙťēôϙŕŪæīĖèϠϙÍIJîϙťēôϙapplicant wishes to minimize the appearance ÍIJîϙIJĺťϙèÍīīϙÍťťôIJťĖĺIJϙťĺϙťēôϙŘĺÍîϙťĺϙîĖŜèĺŪŘÍČôϙŕÍŘħĖIJČϙĖIJϙÍIJîϙÍŘĺŪIJîϙťēôϙŘĺÍîϟ J. ťÍIJċĺŘîϙēÍŜϙÍČŘôôîϙťĺϙèĺIJťĖIJŪôϙťĺϙſĺŘħϙſĖťēϙĺſIJϙŜťÍƯϙťĺϙŘôƱIJôϙťēôϙīÍIJîŜèÍŕôϙŕīÍIJŜϙÍŜϙ ŘôèĺııôIJîôîϙŕŘĖĺŘϙťĺϙĖŜŜŪÍIJèôϙĺċϙæŪĖīîĖIJČϙŕôŘıĖťŜϙċĺŘϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϟϙ K. ēôϙŘôIJîôŘĖIJČŜϙĖIJϙťēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍťĖĺIJϙŕÍèħôťϙwere ŕŘôŕÍŘôîϙŕŘĖĺŘϙťĺϙťēôϙÍČŘôôıôIJťϙťĺϙ ŪIJîôŘČŘĺŪIJîϙ@Э(ϙŕĺſôŘϙīĖIJôŜϙÍèŘĺŜŜϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙċŘĺIJťÍČôϟϙϙēĖŜϙſÍŜϙÍIJϙÍŘťĖŜťĖèϙĺŽôŘŜĖťôϟ
L. The applicant will include Stipa lepida ĖIJϙťēôϙƱIJÍīϙīÍIJîŜèÍŕôϙŕīÍIJŜϙÍŜϙŘôŗŪôŜťôîϟ aϟ ēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙēÍŜϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙıĖIJĖıÍīϙċôIJèĖIJČϠϙÍIJîϙťēôϙċôIJèĖIJČϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙſĖīīϙèĺIJŜĖŜťϙĺċϙŽĖôſċôIJèĖIJČϙÍIJîϙIJĺťϙŜĺīĖîϙſĺĺîϙċôIJèĖIJČϙÍŜϙĖIJîĖèÍťôîϙĖIJϙťēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍťĖĺIJϙŕÍèħÍČôϙîÍťôîϙ͐͐-͖͐- ͑͏͑͏ϟϙ"ŪôϙťĺϙťēôϙŜıÍīīôŘϙīĺťŜϠϙťēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙēÍŜϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙċôIJèĖIJČϙæôťſôôIJϙēĺıôŜ ċĺŘϙ ŜôèŪŘĖťƅϙÍIJîϙŜôIJŜôϙĺċϙĺſIJôŘŜēĖŕϟ
N. Comment noted.
O. Comment noted.
ϟ ĺıôϙĖIJϙťēôϙèĺııŪIJĖťƅϙēÍŜϙŜŪČČôŜťôîϙťēôϙŜēĖċťϙſĺŪīîϙŕŘĺŽĖîôϙÍϙſĖīîīĖċôϙèĺŘŘĖîĺŘϙťēŘĺŪČēϙ ťēĖŜϙŜôťæÍèħϙÍŘôÍϟϙēĖŜϙÍŜŜôŘťĖĺIJϙſÍŜϙIJĺťϙŜŪæŜťÍIJťĖÍťôîϙæƅϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙ(IϠϙŜŕôèĖƱèÍīīƅϙ
ēÍŕťôŘϙ͖ϙĖĺīĺČĖèÍīϙôŜĺŪŘèôŜϠϙŪæŜôèťĖĺIJϙЊ®ĖīîīĖċôϙaĺŽôıôIJťϙÍIJîϙbŪŘŜôŘƅϙĖťôЋϟϙēôϙ îŘÍċťϙ(I (Impact Bio-͐͐ϡϙôîŪèôîϙ®ĖīîīĖċôϙaĺŽôıôIJťϙ ċĺŪIJîϙĺIJϙŕÍČôϙ͖-͖͒ϽϙŜťÍťôŜϙЊ®ēĖīôϙ îôŽôīĺŕıôIJťϙĺċϙÍϙŕĺŘťĖĺIJϙĺċϙťēôϙŘĺĤôèťϙŜĖťôϙſĺŪīîϙŘôîŪèôϙťēôϙÍæĖīĖťƅϙċĺŘϙſĖīîīĖċôϙťĺϙŪŜôϙÍIJîϙ ıĺŽôϙÍèŘĺŜŜϙťēôϙŘĺĤôèťϙŜĖťôϠϙſĖīîīĖċôϙſĺŪīîϙŜťĖīīϙæôϙÍæīôϙťĺϙıĺŽôϙæôťſôôIJϙťēôϙŜŪŘŘĺŪIJîĖIJČϙ ēĖČēôŘϙŗŪÍīĖťƅϙēÍæĖťÍťϙŕÍťèēôŜϟϙēĖŜϙĖŜϙÍϙīôŜŜϟťēÍIJϟŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϟimpact.” Q. Town ŜťÍƯϙēÍŜ developed a proposed èĺIJîĖťĖĺIJϙĺċϙapproval to address this concern. ϟ Comment noted. Applicant will ſĺŘħ ťēôϙĺſIJϙŪæīĖèϙ®ĺŘħŜϙ"ôŕÍŘťıôIJťϙĺIJϙťēôϙƱIJÍīϙ īĺèÍťĖĺIJϙĺċϙťēôϙīŕĖIJôϙĺÍîϙēĺŘŜôϙťŘÍĖīϟ
S.
ĺııôIJťϙIJĺťôîϟϙēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙèĺIJŜĖîôŘôîϙŜôŽôŘÍīϙŕĺťôIJťĖÍīϙŜĖťôϙŕīÍIJIJĖIJČϙĺŕťĖĺIJϠϙÍIJîϙ remains committed to the present plan.
T. ēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙôƄŕīĺŘôîϙťēôϙŕĺťôIJťĖÍīϙċĺŘϙÍϙaÍŘČŪôŘĖťôϙôƄťôIJŜĖĺIJϙťĺϙťēôϙϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙŜĖťôϠϙæŪťϙťēĖŜϙ ĖîôÍϙſÍŜϙŘôĤôèťôîϙîŪôϙťĺϙīĺſϙŕŘĺĤôèťôîϙŘĖîôŘŜēĖŕϙIJŪıæôŘŜϟ U. ôôϙŘôŜŕĺIJŜôϙЊЋϙÍæĺŽôϟ
«ϟ Comment noted
A.
B.
C.
D.
Applicant response to Trails and Paths Committee comments dated December 22, 2020 A. Comment noted. The applicant respectfully disagrees with this assessment. Stanford has proposed a trail alignment that we believe is consistent with the Trails and Paths Element and Plan Diagram A in accordance with section 3200a, which states (with emphasis added in all quotations):
“The trails and paths element serves as a general guide for the development of a comprehensive system of trails and paths for the town. Standards for the construction of trails and paths are found in the “Trail and Path Construction & Maintenance Standards” adopted by the Town Council. Limitations on the use of trails and paths are found in the “Portola Valley Trail Usage” matrix adopted by the Town Council.
In addition, we believe that section 3203 also supports our alternative. Section 3203 states:
“The trails and paths shown on the trails and paths plan diagrams (located in a pocket at the end of this general plan) include those presently developed and those proposed on public rights-of-way or easements, together with new trails in locations where no right-of-way or easement exists at present. Some trail and path routes are indicated as being on or adjacent to public streets or easements or following property lines, and such locations are intended to be controlling. Where proposed trails or paths traverse unsubdivided lands, routes are intended to indicate general location and could be secured even with considerable variation in location and alignment.”
Stanford has concluded the construction of the segment of a trail behind the proposed homes could create “undue interference with use and enjoyment of private property” due to the close proximity of the proposed trail segment to the proposed homes. Our position is supported by section 3209.2, which states:
“To create a tradition of access to and use of open space so that citizens will not willingly relinquish these rights under the pressure of urbanization. Access to and use of open space should be circumscribed to the extent necessary to prevent undue interference with use and enjoyment of private property.” Stanford believes that the placement of a public trail from Alpine Road to the future junction of the Canyon Trail would place the new trail in close proximity to the proposed project, which is not supported by the Town’s General Plan Trails and Paths Element section 3210.g., which states:
“Routing, construction and use of trails and paths should be done with great care so that they:
1) are designed to adapt to the existing conditions to the extent possible while still adhering to the intent, if not the detail, of engineering standards;
2) disturb the natural conditions of terrain and vegetation as little as possible;
3) provide a variety of experiences for users;
4) provide convenient, safe passage;
5) minimize intrusion on privacy in residential areas;
6) encourage use without incurring excessive maintenance costs.” B. While the applicant will construct required trails and establish easements, the applicant respectfully disagrees with the construction of the "Canyon Trail". Stanford and its design team have gone to great lengths to avoid any unmitigated environmental impacts in the design of the project including the routing of the trails. Chapter 7 (Biological Resources) of the Draft EIR goes into great detail on how the project has avoided disturbance of riparian habitat areas and intermittent streams. More importantly, the CEQA document provides ŜŪƯĖèĖôIJťϙîôťÍĖīϙĖIJϙťēôϙŕĺťôIJťĖÍīϙÍîŽôŘŜôϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙťēÍťϙıÍƅϙŘôŜŪīťϙĖċϙîôŽôīĺŕıôIJťϙĖIJťŘŪîôŜϙ into these areas.
Stanford does not object if the Town later chooses to undertake the environmental review necessary to construct a new trail within an established riparian corridor, and our proposed trail system in our application provides a potential connection IF the canyon trail is ever constructed. However, it should be pointed out that the EIR prepared for the Portola Terrace (Wedge) project did not study the construction of a trail within the riparian corridor.
C. The applicant respectfully disagrees with this request. Similar to the previous response, the EIR prepared for the Portola Terrace (Wedge) project did not study the construction of any trail segments other than those shown in our submittal package dated November 17, 2020.
D. Comment noted. Applicant will work the Town Public Works Department on the precise location of the Alpine Road horse trail. It should be noted that after the date of the Trails Committee comments (December 22, 2020), the Town of Portola Valley undertook a study ôŽÍīŪÍťĖIJČϙťēôϙôŽÍèŪÍťĖĺIJϙèĺŘŘĖîĺŘŜϙſĖťēĖIJϙĺŘťĺīÍϙ«ÍīīôƅϟϙťÍIJċĺŘîϙſĖīīϙſĺŘħϙſĖťēϙĺſIJϙŜťÍƯϙ to ensure the placement of the Alpine Road trail is properly located to meet all the various requirements of the town involving the Alpine Road right-of-way.
Town of Portola Valley - Subdivision Committee Meeting
Regarding Stanford Portola Terrace Wedge Project
Transcript of Committee Comments
October 17, 2024
Members Present:
Woodside Fire Protection District Marshall: Kimberly Giuliacci County Health Officer: Ed Diaz
Architectural Site Control Committee Member: Carter Warr Conservation Committee Member: Judith Murphy
Trails Committee Member: Fred Leach
Town Attorney: Catherine Engberg
Interim Planning & Building Director: Terrence Grindall Town Planner: Absent
Town Engineer: Brian Fuus
Town Geologist: John Wallace, Cotton Shires
Town Building Inspector - Absent
Town Clerk Consultant: Christine Boland
Committee Comments:
CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL SITE CONTROL COMMITTEE: Would you like to use the Findings on page 23 as the mechanism for discussion? I’m not on the Trails Committee but did the Trails Committee want the difference between the proposed plan and the trails plan and the general plan?
FRED LEACH, TRAILS COMMITTEE: Our position remains that we would like to see the shift of the site for the houses moved south to allow for the further connection of the Alpine trail between where it's currently proposed to connect where the Stanford proposal is to connect to the existing Alpine trail. We would like to see it extended down to Alpine Road. That remains our preference and I think we’d like to see a little bit more detail about how the Alpine trail would be improved; moved back away from the road.... is our recommendation. If you look at Page 161 of the overlay; the pink is what the Trails Committee would like to see developed and the red is what Stanford has proposed. The position is our preference is that the trails are developed in the pink. Maybe a couple of precedents to reference are the development of Porto Valley Ranch and the Blue Oaks which have implemented trails that are consistent with I believe it's Exhibit A and Exhibit B of the trails and paths element of the General Plan. We haven’t seen any evidence that suggests it’s not an impossible request and would like to see trails developed in that way.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE:
3DJHRI
A.
B.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
Regarding Stanford Portola Terrace Wedge Project
October 17, 2024
So, I'd like to weigh in briefly on that very same thing that Conservation has been concurring with Trails about this all along this, this shift from north to south, and Stanford has multiple, excellent reasons that they don't prefer to do this. and we feel they're outweighed by enormous advantages to both the residents, and importantly, from the conservation point of view to the animals and habitat there because there’s wildlife usage of that area existing and if it’s blocked then that has a dramatic impact on that.
The other piece of it is these social, informal trails that form. You can see it on the Town Center property. We lay out the little path, and then people walk where they walk, and those become the new ways. And, in fact, if there's going to be that informally to not have that happen. Someone’s going to put a fence at this end and a fence at that end, which I don't see on the plans, and it seems that if it's going to be happening informally and constricted, then it would be better to plan for it and do it properly.
FRED LEACH, TRAILS COMMITTEE: I’m nodding my head, but I should, for the record, concur with what Judith said.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: So, I’m sorry what I said, probably fits partly under number five. My little packet somehow goes from one to five without having two, three and four, but five is the thing that applies, that talks about wildlife, and this is obviously not something that will unavoidably injure wildlife as this set, but it will have a dramatic impaction. Thank you.
ED HOLLAND, BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN & SAFETY COMMITTEE: I have a concern that traffic volumes will have increased since the original study which I think was dated 2022, which was mentioned in John’s presentation. I think a reassessment of that particularly concentrating on busy times, for example 6:45 a.m. to 10 a.m., where you would expect a lot of ingress and egress from the new proposed development and up and down Alpine Road. That warrants a fresh study, in my opinion.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: Could you have page 24 up on here because the package that you put together skips from 23 to 25 and so does his? CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL: I can make a technologically. (inaudible)...For Finding 1, I have difficulty making the finding regarding the Trail element in the General Plan and continue to have the desire that’s shared with my Conservation colleagues to move the development adequately to the South to accommodate that. I understand the issue with the grading volumes and the trees, but I think it would be a better balance. As far as Title 18, this is the first time we’ve dealt with the development utilizing the density bonus and it feels frustrating that the zoning district has. with the density bonus, very little to deal with establishing the density. It’s a personal frustration and I don’t have a problem with the compliance of it.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: The additional thing I’d like to say along here. It talks about the lines in it under Number 1, is the beauty of the landscape and the rich variety of plants and wildlife, there’s a discrepancy in the Stanford plans between the -, I can’t remember what you call it - the illustration of what it’s going to look like and the actual landscaping plan. The two don’t match when you look at the schematics. It’s lovely and it’s what we would like to see there and on but on the landscape plan, there’s much more density of landscaping and shrubs and so that it looks more like the landscaped entrance to a gated community or something, 3DJHRI
C.
D.
E.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
Regarding Stanford Portola Terrace Wedge Project
October 17, 2024
rather than this informal Native landscaping. They’ve done a great job at the native plants and drought resistant plants,etc., but the plan itself for the density that’s called for and the way it’s arrange is I’m hoping they’ll stick to what they’ve drawn instead of what they’ve written and I don’t know how to get that in, as a requirement but it’s certainly a request and it may already have been done since the stuff’s not reflect on the map that we see.
CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL: If I can, through the chair? Yes, Judy, I think those kinds of things can be dealt with as the project moves forward because those issues, I think, are less related to the recommendations we're making associated with the tentative map.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: Yeah, I don't want to bog us down with tiny details; I just hate to see stuff lost.
CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL: So, do we want to deal with Finding 2 - Design of the improvement of any proposed subdivision is not consistent with the general plan in Title 18, that you essentially built; and we're essentially talking about that? Anybody on the committee deal with that?
CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL: Finding 3: The site is not physically suitable for this type of development. Anybody take issue with the suitability of the development?
JOHN WALLACE, COTTON SHIRES, TOWN GEOLOGIST: Yeah, partway down under Item 3, it says, “the Town Geologist has reviewed the proposed development plan and determined that the site is suitable for such residential development from a geologic perspective.” I just want to go on the record and make the item has already been discussed earlier, but I wanted to go on the record and say we have not approved this from a geologic perspective in its entirety; that there is additional work to be done, and upon that work, be in a position to review and approve a final map.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: The fire person hasn't left but in her comments it wasn't clear to me that previously, when this all started the current, one of the current, one of the fire official has said, this site is not suited and it, it seems from what she was saying, that there opinion has shifted, that she didn't come right out and say, “we don't think that anymore.
Our opinion is now that this is suitable.” Have you heard that in their communications with you? That where it wasn't clear with us tonight, and I must sort of assumed that happened, but would like to hear it.
JOHN, STANFORD: Responded to comment.
CARTER WARR, ASCC: So, any other issues with the site not being suitable, physically suitable or that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development? This is where I'm still rather confused. We're doubling the density of the development from 21units to 39 units.
So that's where I'm having difficulty because I can understand a 35% bonus.... I understand how the numbers are created. You know, according to the math but it just doesn't taste right.
ED HOLLAND: If I might go ahead on that and return also to the question of fire safety:
3DJHRI
F.
G.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
Regarding Stanford Portola Terrace Wedge Project
October 17, 2024
Has there been approval for the density of the dwellings and given that we mentioned that fire-safe materials would be used. But one factor that has come up in biosafety studies is the proximity of dwellings to one another and I wonder how the proposed development complies with whatever the current standards are?
JOHN/STANFORD: Responded to that comment
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION: I would take issue with Carter just asked. I think the numbers have been explained. I understand that he doesn't like the density that results, but it all maybe lots of people don't like the density that results, but that, you know it's all it all totally pencils out, as far as I can see.
CARTER WARR, ASCC: I understand the map.
TERRENCE GRINDALL: Moving on to - Finding 6:
CARTER WARR, ASCC: I’m new to this project. I'd love to see a turning lane across the front of this property to help increase the opportunity for evacuation. So, there'd be two lanes out and one lane in and also the ability for you knowpeople to pull off to get into the project, and also a turning lane to get out.
TERRENCE GRINDALL: Comments - Finding 7: (No comments were received.)
CARTER WARR, ASCC: The question Terrence was what's the process or procedure that you're going to use to develop the report from this committee? TERRANCE GRINDALL: Terrence provided a response.
ED DIAZ, SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPT: Our only comment would be, since public utilities will be provided for the proposed units that a well-served letter, for both water and sewer, will be made available to environmental health.
TERRENCE GRINDALL: Invited Public Comment:
Resident Kristi Corley: Would like to see noise study, vehicle miles traveled and updated traffic study.
###
3DJHRI
H.
I.
Applicant Response to Subdivision Committee comments/recommendations dated October 17, 2024
A. Comment noted.
The applicant respectfully disagrees with this assessment. Stanford has proposed a trail alignment that we believe is consistent with the Trails and Paths Element and Plan Diagram A in accordance with section 3200a, which states (with emphasis added in all quotations):
“The trails and paths element serves as a general guide for the development of a comprehensive system of trails and paths for the town. Standards for the construction of trails and paths are found in the “Trail and Path Construction & Maintenance Standards” adopted by the Town Council. Limitations on the use of trails and paths are found in the “Portola Valley Trail Usage” matrix adopted by the Town Council.
In addition, we believe that section 3203 also supports our proposed alignment. Section 3203 states:
“The trails and paths shown on the trails and paths plan diagrams (located in a pocket at the end of this general plan) include those presently developed and those proposed on public rights-of-way or easements, together with new trails in locations where no right-of-way or easement exists at present. Some trail and path routes are indicated as being on or adjacent to public streets or easements or following property lines, and such locations are intended to be controlling. Where proposed trails or paths traverse unsubdivided lands, routes are intended to indicate general location and could be secured even with considerable variation in location and alignment.”
Stanford has concluded the construction of the segment of a trail behind the proposed homes could create “undue interference with use and enjoyment of private property” due to the close proximity of the proposed trail segment to the proposed homes. Our position is supported by section 3209.2, which states:
“To create a tradition of access to and use of open space so that citizens will not willingly relinquish these rights under the pressure of urbanization. Access to and use of open space should be circumscribed to the extent necessary to prevent undue interference with use and enjoyment of private property.” Stanford believes that the placement of a public trail from Alpine Road to the future junction of the Canyon Trail would place the new trail in close proximity to the proposed project, which is not supported by the Town’s General Plan Trails and Paths Element section 3210.g., which states:
“Routing, construction and use of trails and paths should be done with great care so that they:
1) are designed to adapt to the existing conditions to the extent possible while still adhering to the intent, if not the detail, of engineering standards; 2) disturb the natural conditions of terrain and vegetation as little as possible;
3) provide a variety of experiences for users;
4) provide convenient, safe passage;
5) minimize intrusion on privacy in residential areas;
6) encourage use without incurring excessive maintenance costs.” While the applicant will construct required trails and establish easements, the applicant respectfully disagrees with the construction of the "Canyon Trail". Stanford and its design team have gone to great lengths to avoid any unmitigated environmental impacts in the design of the project including the routing of the trails. Chapter 7 (Biological Resources) of the Draft EIR goes into great detail on how the project has avoided disturbance of riparian habitat areas and intermittent streams. More importantly, the CEQA document provides ŜŪƯĖèĖôIJťϙîôťÍĖīϙĖIJϙťēôϙŕĺťôIJťĖÍīϙÍîŽôŘŜôϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙťēÍťϙıÍƅϙŘôŜŪīťϙĖċϙîôŽôīĺŕıôIJťϙĖIJťŘŪîôŜϙ into these areas.
Stanford does not object if the Town later chooses to undertake the environmental review necessary to construct a new trail within an established riparian corridor, and our proposed trail system in our application provides a potential connection IF the canyon trail is ever constructed. However, it should be pointed out that the EIR prepared for the Portola Terrace (Wedge) project did not study the construction of a trail within the riparian corridor.
B. Comment noted.
As stated in previous public meetings, Stanford’s original proposed grading plan was grounded on the desire to preserve as many existing trees as possible and to have the proposed grading of the site to “balance”, meaning no need to haul in or haul away excessive dirt. Both the Town of Portola Valley and Stanford do not want a project that ŘôŗŪĖŘôŜϙťēôϙIJôôîϙťĺϙťŘŪèħϙĺŪťϙϼôƄŕĺŘťϽϙôƄèôŜŜĖŽôϙƱīīϙĺŘϙťŘŪèħϙĖIJϙϼĖıŕĺŘťϽϙÍîîĖťĖĺIJÍīϙƱīīϙ material. Overall, the shift of the project by 25 feet will require the need to remove 23 ÍîîĖťĖĺIJÍīϙťŘôôŜϙťēÍťϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙēÍîϙŜŕôèĖƱèÍīīƅϙĖIJťôIJîôîϙťĺϙŕŘôŜôŘŽôϠϙĖIJèīŪîĖIJČϙťŘôôŜϙ intended to be retained within the proposed tot lot and areas that provide screening of the project from Alpine Road. The change will require additional cut, and the need for even ēĖČēôŘϙŘôťÍĖIJĖIJČϙſÍīīŜϙĖIJϙťēôϙŘôÍŘŜϙĺċϙŜôŽôŘÍīϙēĺıôŜϙÍIJîϙŘôŗŪĖŘĖIJČϙťēôϙĺƯϙēÍŪīϙĺċϙıÍťôŘĖÍīϙ from the site.
Therefore, Stanford respectfully declines to accept the request to move the project an additional 25 feet along the northern property line for the following reasons:
x Stanford will not entertain any recommendation that reduces the number of units in ťēôϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙĺŘϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťīƅϙĖIJèŘôÍŜôŜϙťēôϙîôŽôīĺŕıôIJťϙèĺŜťϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙŕŘĺĤôèťϟ x Moving the project further to the south yet remaining outside of the Alpine Road scenic setback line will push several units “deeper” in the hillside forcing more “cut”. This would require retaining walls of up to 7 feet (up from 4 feet) along the rear property lines of proposed homes 12, 13, and 14. This creates a very undesirable rear living condition for the future residents of these homes. The increased wall ēôĖČēťŜϙÍīŜĺϙŘôŕŘôŜôIJťϙÍϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϙĖIJèŘôÍŜôϙĖIJϙèĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙèĺŜťŜϟ
x This change will shift the project’s grading from an estimate “balance” to a condition ŘôŗŪĖŘĖIJČϙŪŜϙťĺϙĺƯϙēÍŪīϙôƄèôŜŜϙıÍťôŘĖÍīϟϙ
x ēôϙĺŘĖČĖIJÍīϙŜĖťôϙŕīÍIJϙſÍŜϙċĺŪIJîôîϙĺIJϙťēôϙîôŜĖŘôϙťĺϙıÍħôϙťſĺϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϙťŘôôŜϙÍIJîϙ protect them by placing them into the proposed “tot lot”. This was a central element of our design that dictated the location of the tot lot and the surrounding loop road.
Shifting the project over 25’ no longer allows those two trees to be protected, and they would need to be removed in order to construct the loop road. This change will require the removal these two additional trees.
x Shifting the site will also require the relocation of the loop road intersection with Alpine Road. This change will require the removal of 3 additional trees to ensure proper sight distance per Town requirements.
x Shifting the site will require the removal of 4 additional trees behind lots 22 -24.
These trees are part of a grouping of existing trees adjacent to and within the Alpine Road scenic setback and were considered to be of great importance for their value of screening the project homes from Alpine Road.
x Shifting the site will require the removal of 11 additional trees at the rear of lots 1, 2, and 3.
x Shifting the site will require the removal of 2 additional trees at the rear of lots 11 and 12.
C. Comment noted. The review of the transportation-related elements of the proposed project are addressed by the Town and their consultants, not the applicant. The Town determined that an environmental impact report was required for the project, and the Town and their consultants prepared a draft EIR. As part of the preparation of the EIR, Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc. prepared a transportation analysis for the proposed project, and this report was included in the appendix of the draft EIR. The draft EIR was ĖŜŜŪôîϙċĺŘϙŕŪæīĖèϙŘôŽĖôſϙÍIJîϙèĺııôIJťϟϙĺſIJϙŜťÍƯϙÍIJîϙťēôĖŘϙèĺIJŜŪīťÍIJťŜϙŘôŽĖôſôîϙťēôϙ comments received, and the Town issued a Final EIR. The Final EIR determined that the ŕŘĺĤôèťϙîĖîϙIJĺťϙēÍŽôϙÍIJƅϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϙÍîŽôŘŜôϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙſĖťēϙŘôČÍŘîϙťĺϙťŘÍIJŜŕĺŘťation-related concerns.
D. This comment was similar to those addressed in Comment B.
E. Comment noted. Stanford acknowledges the commenter’s respect for the project landscape architect and has agreed to make the plans “less formal” than shown in the īÍIJîŜèÍŕôϙŕīÍIJŜϙſĖťēϙťēôϙĖIJťôIJťϙťĺϙēÍŽôϙťēôϙƱIJÍīϙīÍIJîŜèÍŕĖIJČϙıĺŘôϙĖIJϙħôôŕĖIJČϙſĖťēϙťēôϙ rendered image in the applicant’s plan set.
F. Comments noted. The applicant concurs that the Town Geologist has requested additional design-īôŽôīϙťôŜťĖIJČϙĺċϙťēôϙŜĖťôϙťēÍťϙſĖīīϙæôϙèĺIJîŪèťôîϙŕŘĖĺŘϙťĺϙťēôϙŜŪæıĖťťÍīϙĺċϙƱIJÍīϙČŘÍîĖIJČϙ plans.
G. ēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙÍIJîϙĺſIJϙŜťÍƯϙēÍŽôϙæôôIJϙĖIJϙèĺIJťÍèťϙſĖťēϙťēôϙ®ĺĺîŜĖîôϙ>ĖŘôϙŘĺťôèťĖĺIJϙ District Fire Marshall (who also spoke at the beginning of the Subdivision Committee), and there is agreement that the plans are consistent with the WFPD Fire Code.
H. ŪôŜťĖĺIJŜϙŘôīÍťôîϙťĺϙťēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍťĖĺIJϙĺċϙťÍťôϙĺIJŪŜϙ"ôIJŜĖťƅϙīÍſŜϙſôŘôϙŘÍĖŜôîϠϙÍIJîϙŜťÍƯϙ ŕŘĺŽĖîôîϙťēôϙÍŕŕŘĺŕŘĖÍťôϙŜôèťĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙťēôϙŜťÍƯϙŘôŕĺŘťϙťēÍťϙÍîîŘôŜŜôîϙēĺſϙťēôϙŕŘĺŽĖŜĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙ the State law were applied.
I. Questions were again raised regarding the WFPD review of the project. (See comment G.) J. Additional questions were raised related to the transportation analysis of the project. (See comment C.)
K. The applicant has provided the town with the appropriate communication from California Water Company and the West Bay Sanitary Sewer District.
Applicant Response to Recommendations made by the ASCC meeting of November 4, 2024 The following comments were recorded by the applicant. While we have attempted to be as faithful as possible, ťēôƅϙıÍƅϙîĖƯôŘϙŜīĖČēťīƅϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙĺſIJЍŜϙŽôŘŜĖĺIJϙϼſēĖèēϙťēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙēÍŜϙIJĺťϙŘôèôĖŽôîϙ by the date of this document.)
Comment 1:
Make the landscaping less formal and not so structured. The development area should look more natural. The landscaping plan should come back to a potential subcommittee of the ASCC before a building permit is granted.
Applicant response:
ťÍIJċĺŘîϙēÍŜϙÍČŘôôîϙťĺϙèĺIJťĖIJŪôϙťĺϙſĺŘħϙſĖťēϙĺſIJϙŜťÍƯϙťĺϙŘôƱIJôϙťēôϙīÍIJîŜèÍŕôϙŕīÍIJŜϙÍŜϙ recommended prior to issuance of building permits for the project. However, our legal counsel has informed us that uIJîôŘϙ@ĺŽôŘIJıôIJťϙ
ĺîôϙŜôèťĖĺIJϙ͕͔͘͏͔ϟ͔ϠϙĺIJīƅϙƱŽôϙЊēôÍŘĖIJČŜЋϙıÍƅϙæôϙēôīîϙĺIJϙťēôϙ ŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙŕŘĺĤôèťϟϙēôϙèĺîôϙîôƱIJôŜϙЊēôÍŘĖIJČЋϙťĺϙĖIJèīŪîôϙıôôťĖIJČŜϙĺċϙÍIJƅϙŜŪæèĺııĖťťôôϙĺċϙÍϙèĖťƅϙĺŘϙ èĺŪIJťƅϙèĺııĖŜŜĖĺIJϟϙ@ĖŽôIJϙťēÍťϙťēôϙĺſIJϙÍīŘôÍîƅϙēÍŜϙŕīÍIJŜϙťĺϙēĺīîϙÍīīϙƱŽôϙÍŽÍĖīÍble project hearings, the proposed condition of approval may not provide for another ASCC hearing, even of a subcommittee, following approval of the project.
Comment 2:
ôŗŪôŜťϙıĺŘôϙĺŽôŘƲĺſϙŕÍŘħĖIJČϙÍIJîϙôIJŜŪŘôϙIJĺϙŕÍŘħĖIJČϙĖŜϙÍīīĺſôîϙĺIJϙīŕĖIJôϙĺÍîϟ Applicant response:
The applicant is willing to place signage prohibiting any parking in the scenic setback area and will work with the Town on signage within the Alpine Road public right-of way. ēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϙēÍŜϙſĺŘħôîϙſĖťēϙĺſIJϙŜťÍƯϙťĺϙŕīÍèôϙČŪôŜťϙŕÍŘħĖIJČϙôŽôIJīƅϙťēŘĺŪČēĺŪťϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϠϙÍIJîϙ the total number of parking spaces exceeds the required parking ratio, inclusive of parking for guests. By law, therefore, no additional parking may be required by condition per the State Density Bonus Law ϼ@ĺŽôŘIJıôIJťϙ
ĺîôϙŜôèťĖĺIJϙ͕͔͔͐͘ϼŕϽϼ͐Ͻ).
îîĖťĖĺIJÍīīƅϠϙÍŜϙIJĺťôîϙĖIJϙťēôϙŜťÍƯϙŘôŕĺŘťϠϙťēôϙ(IϙèĺIJèīŪîôŜϙťēÍťϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťЍŜϙŕÍŘħĖIJČϙîôıÍIJîϙĖŜϙ ôƄŕôèťôîϙťĺϙæôϙÍèèĺııĺîÍťôîϙſĖťēĖIJϙťēôϙŜĖťôϙÍIJîϙťēÍťϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙſĺŪīîϙIJĺťϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťīƅϙČôIJôŘÍťôϙ demand for parking on Alpine Road.
Comment 3:
Reduce the double retaining wall near Alpine Road. Allow only 1 wall no taller than 4-ft.
Applicant response:
Stanford has looked in depth at this recommendation. Stanford followed the Town of Portola «ÍīīôƅЍŜϙ"ôŜĖČIJϙČŪĖîôīĖIJôŜϙæƅϙЊŜŕīĖťťĖIJČЋϙťēôϙēôĖČēťϙĺċϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙŘôťÍĖIJĖIJČϙſÍīīŜϙĖIJťĺϙťſĺϙŜôŕÍŘÍťôϙ walls. The original proposed grading plan was predicated, in part, on the preservation of as many existing trees as possible. More so, the grouping of existing trees within the Alpine Road scenic setback were considered to be of greatest importance, as they help to maintain the rustic characteristics of the corridor valued by the community and provides valuable screening of the new neighborhood. Also, Stanford is required to replace removed trees on-site, and we are planning on
ŕīÍIJťĖIJČϙťēôϙŘôŕīÍèôıôIJťϙťŘôôŜϙſĖťēĖIJϙťēôϙīŕĖIJôϙĺÍîϙŜèôIJĖèϙŜôťæÍèħϙϼſēôŘôϙÍŕŕŘĺŕŘĖÍťôϽϙťĺϙ provide more screening of the project.
ŜϙÍIJϙÍīťôŘIJÍťĖŽôϠϙťÍIJċĺŘîϙèÍIJϙÍťťôıŕťϙťĺϙŘôîŪèôϙťēôϙŘôťÍĖIJĖIJČϙſÍīīŜϙťĺϙ͓ЍϙĖIJϙēôĖČēťϙæƅϙŕīÍèing ŜťôôŕôŘϙƱīīϙϼ͑ϟ͔ϡ͐Ͻϙslope ÍîĤÍèôIJťϙťĺϙťēôϙôƄĖŜťĖIJČϙťŘôôŜϠϙæŪťϙťēĖŜϙſĺŪīîϙŘôŗŪĖŘôϙťēôϙŘôıĺŽÍīϙĺċϙ͑ϙ– 3 ıĺŘôϙťŘôôŜϟϙϼŜϙŜťÍťôîϙŕŘôŽĖĺŪŜīƅϠϙťēôϙīĺèÍťĖĺIJϙĺċϙťēôŜôϙťŘôôŜϙîŘĺŽôϙťēôϙŕīÍèôıôIJťϙĺċϙťēôϙŘôťÍĖIJĖIJČϙ ſÍīīŜϙĖIJϙťēôϙƱŘŜťϙŕīÍèôϟϽϙ
Comment 4:
Provide public access to ťēôϙƱŘôϙŘĺÍîϙċĺŘϙſÍīħôŘŜϠϙſēôôīèēÍĖŘŜϙÍIJîϙæĖħôŘŜϟϙbĺϙèÍŘŜϟ ĺIJIJôèťϙťēôϙƱŘôϙ
access road to the loop trail proposed in the project.
Applicant response:
ēĖŜϙèĺııôIJťϙĖŜϙèĺIJèôŘIJĖIJČϙťĺϙťēôϙÍŕŕīĖèÍIJťϟϙēôϙŕŘĖıÍŘƅϙŕŪŘŕĺŜôϙĺċϙťēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙŘĺÍîϙis ťĺϙŘôîŪèôϙťēôϙŕĺťôIJťĖÍīϙƱŘôϙēÍƏÍŘîŜϙĺIJϙťēôϙŜĖťôϠϙÍIJîϙťēôϙŘĺÍîϙſÍŜϙîôŜĖČIJôîϙſĖťēϙťēÍťϙÍŜϙťēôϙŜĺīôϙ ŕŪŘŕĺŜôϟϙēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙŘĺÍîϙſÍŜϙîôŜĖČIJôîϙťĺϙæôϙÍŜϙŜťôôŕϙÍŜϙŕĺŜŜĖæīôϙϼup to 15% grade, which is the maximum grade permitted for heavy equipment) and follow the topography up the hill. ēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙŘĺÍîϙÍŜϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙſÍŜϙbiϙîôŜĖČIJôîϙťĺϙıôôťϙŕŪæīĖèϙÍèèôŜŜϙŘôŗŪĖŘôıôIJťŜϟ ēôŘôϙÍŘôϙŜôŽôŘÍīϙЊŪIJĖIJťôIJîôîϙèĺIJŜôŗŪôIJèôŜЋϙĖċϙťēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙŘĺÍîϙſÍŜϙŘôîôŜĖČIJôîϙťĺϙÍϙ ЊŕŪæīĖèϙÍèèôŜŜЋ standard.
x
ēÍIJČĖIJČϙťēôϙîôŜĖČIJϙĺċϙťēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙŘĺÍîϙſĺŪīîϙÍîŽôŘŜôīƅϙÍƯôèťϙťēôϙîôŜĖČIJϙ parameters of the road. ƅϙèĺîôϠϙťēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙŘĺÍîϙèĺŪīîϙIJĺťϙæôϙıÍîôϙÍèèôŜŜĖæīôϙ to people with disabilities, as requested. The proposed road is well over a 15 percent grade.
The code requires that, for wheelchairs to be allowed, the road would need to be less than an 8 peŘèôIJťϙČŘÍîôϙÍIJîϙſĺŪīîϙIJôôîϙťĺϙŕŘĺŽĖîôϙīôŽôīϙīÍIJîĖIJČϙƏĺIJôŜϙôŽôŘƅϙ͒͏ϙċôôťϙĺċϙŽôŘťĖèÍīϙ rise. ēôϙŘôŜŪīťĖIJČϙŘĺÍîϙſĺŪīîϙæôϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťīƅϙīĺIJČôŘϙĖIJϙīôIJČťēϙand require additional ıÍťôŘĖÍīϙĺƯ-haul and removal of more trees.
x ēôϙĺſIJЍŜϙŘÍĖīŜϙÍIJîϙÍťēŜϙ(īôıôIJťϙıÍħôŜϙĖťϙèīôÍŘϙťēÍťϙĖťϙĖŜϙIJĺťϙťēôϙĺſIJЍŜϙĖIJťôIJťĖĺIJϙťĺϙ create ЊťŘÍĖīēôÍîŜЋϙwith parking for cars. Section ͒͑͐͏ ŜťÍťôŜϡ i. The junctions of trails and paths with roads should be limited in number and designed ÍIJîϙīĺèÍťôîϙťĺϙıĖIJĖıĖƏôϙĺŽôŘŪŜôϙæƅϙŕôĺŕīôϙÍŘŘĖŽĖIJČϙĖIJϙıĺťĺŘϙŽôēĖèīôŜϟ m. The trails and paths of the town are not to be used by motor vehicles. Design should discourage or prevent such use where feasible even if it creates some inconvenience to legitimate users.
x ŘĺŽĖîĖIJČϙŕŪæīĖèϙÍèèôŜŜϙťĺϙťēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙŘĺÍîϙſĺŪīîϙôIJèĺŪŘÍČôϙŪŜôŘŜϙťĺϙŕÍŘħϙĖīīôČÍīīƅϙ ÍťϙĖťŜϙæÍŜôϠϙĺIJϙťēôϙîŘĖŽôſÍƅϙÍŕŘĺIJϙÍîĤĺĖIJĖIJČϙīŕĖIJôϙĺÍîϟϙēĖŜϙſĺŪīîϙŕŘôŜôIJťϙÍϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϙ ŜÍċôťƅϙēÍƏÍŘîϠϙÍŜϙťēôϙŘĺÍîϙıŪŜťϙæôϙħôŕťϙôIJťĖŘôīƅϙèīôÍŘϙċĺŘϙĖııôîĖÍťôϙôıôrgency use by ƱŘôƱČēťôŘŜϟ
x There also would be no nexus between this requirement and any projected impact of the proposed project, as legally required to impose a condition of approval. Development of the ŕŘĺĤôèťϙſĺŪīîϙIJĺťϙČôIJôŘÍťôϙÍϙîôıÍIJîϙċĺŘϙŘôèŘôÍťĖĺIJϙĖIJϙťēôϙÍŘôÍϙĺċϙťēôϙƱŘôϙıÍĖntenance road, nor does the General Plan show a trail segment there.
Comment 5:
aĺŽôϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙĺŽôŘϙ͔͑-ft to the South and West to accommodate a future Canyon Trail on the bĺŘťēϙôIJîϙĺċϙĺŪŘϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϟϙ
Applicant response:
ŜϙŜťÍťôîϙĖIJϙŕŘôŽĖĺŪŜϙŕŪæīĖèϙıôôťĖIJČŜϠϙťÍIJċĺŘîЍŜϙĺŘĖČĖIJÍīϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙČŘÍîĖIJČϙŕīÍIJϙſÍŜϙČŘĺŪIJîôîϙĺIJϙ the desire to preserve as many existing trees as possible and to have the proposed grading of the ŜĖťôϙťĺϙЊæÍīÍIJèôЋϟϙĺťēϙťēôϙĺſIJϙĺċϙĺŘťĺīÍϙ«ÍīīôƅϙÍIJîϙťÍIJċĺrd do not want a project that requires ťēôϙIJôôîϙťĺϙťŘŪèħϙĺŪťϙϼôƄŕĺŘťϽϙôƄèôŜŜĖŽôϙƱīīϙĺŘϙťŘŪèħϙĖIJϙϼĖıŕĺŘťϽϙÍîîĖťĖĺIJÍīϙƱīīϙıÍťôŘĖÍīϟϙiŽôŘÍīīϠϙťēôϙ ŜēĖċťϙĺċϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙæƅϙ͔͑ϙċôôťϙſĖīīϙŘôŗŪĖŘôϙťēôϙIJôôîϙťĺϙŘôıĺŽôϙ͑͒ϙÍîîĖťĖĺIJÍīϙťŘôôŜϙťēÍťϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙēÍîϙ ŜŕôèĖƱcally intended to preserve, including trees intended to be retained within the proposed tot lot and areas that provide screening of the project from Alpine Road. The change will require additional cut, and the need for even higher retaining walls in the rôÍŘŜϙĺċϙŜôŽôŘÍīϙēĺıôŜϙÍIJîϙŘôŗŪĖŘĖIJČϙťēôϙĺƯϙ haul of material from the site.
ēôŘôċĺŘôϠϙĺŪŘϙŘôŜŕĺIJŜôϙťĺϙÍîĤŪŜťĖIJČϙťēôϙŜĖťôϙťĺϙÍèèĺııĺîÍťôϙÍIJϙÍîîĖťĖĺIJÍīϙ͔͑ϙċôôťϙÍīĺIJČϙťēôϙ IJĺŘťēôŘIJϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϙīĖIJôϙĖŜϙÍŜϙċĺīīĺſŜϡ
a) Stanford will not entertain any recommendation that reduces the number of units in the ŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙĺŘϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťīƅϙĖIJèŘôÍŜôŜϙťēôϙîôŽôīĺŕıôIJťϙèĺŜťϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙŕŘĺĤôèťϟϙ b) Moving the project further to the south yet remaining outside of the Alpine Road scenic ŜôťæÍèħϙīĖIJôϙſĖīīϙŕŪŜēϙŜôŽôŘÍīϙŪIJĖťŜϙЊîôôŕôŘЋϙĖIJϙťēôϙēĖīīŜĖîôϙċĺŘèĖIJČϙıĺŘôϙЊèŪťЋϟϙēĖŜϙſĺŪīîϙ ŘôŗŪĖŘôϙŘôťÍĖIJĖIJČϙſÍīīŜϙĺċϙŪŕϙťĺϙ͖ϙċôôťϙϼŪŕϙċŘĺıϙ͓ϙċôôťϽϙÍīĺIJČϙťēôϙŘôÍŘϙŕŘĺperty lines of ŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙēĺıôŜϙ͐͑Ϡϙ͐͒ϠϙÍIJîϙ͓͐ϟϙēĖŜϙèŘôÍťôŜϙÍϙŽôŘƅϙŪIJîôŜĖŘÍæīôϙŘôÍŘϙīĖŽĖIJČϙèĺIJîĖťĖĺIJϙċĺŘϙťēôϙ ċŪťŪŘôϙŘôŜĖîôIJťŜϙĺċϙťēôŜôϙēĺıôŜϟϙēôϙĖIJèŘôÍŜôîϙſÍīīϙēôĖČēťŜϙÍīŜĺϙŘôŕŘôŜôIJťϙÍϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϙ increase in construction costs.
c) ēĖŜϙèēÍIJČôϙſĖīīϙŜēĖċťϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťЍŜϙČŘÍîĖIJČϙċŘĺıϙÍIJϙôŜťĖıÍťôϙЊæÍīÍIJèôЋϙťĺϙÍϙèĺIJîĖťĖĺIJϙ ŘôŗŪĖŘĖIJČϙŪŜϙťĺϙĺƯϙēÍŪīϙôƄèôŜŜϙıÍťôŘĖÍīϟϙ
d) ēôϙĺŘĖČĖIJÍīϙŜĖťôϙŕīÍIJϙſÍŜϙċĺŪIJîôîϙĺIJϙťēôϙîôŜĖŘôϙťĺϙıÍħôϙťſĺϙŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϙťŘôôŜϙÍIJîϙŕŘĺťôèťϙ ťēôıϙæƅϙŕīÍèĖIJČϙťēôıϙĖIJťĺϙťēôϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙЊťĺťϙīĺťЋϟϙēĖŜϙſÍŜϙÍϙèôIJťŘÍīϙôīôıôIJťϙĺċϙĺŪŘϙîôŜĖČIJϙ that dictated the location of the tot lot and the surrounding loop road. Shifting the project ĺŽôŘϙ͔͑ЍϙIJĺϙīĺIJČôŘϙÍīīĺſŜϙťēĺŜôϙťſĺϙťŘôôŜϙťĺϙæôϙŕŘĺťôèťôîϠϙÍIJîϙťēôƅϙſĺŪīîϙIJôôîϙťĺϙæôϙ removed in order to construct the loop road. This change will require the removal these two additional trees.
e) Shifting the site will also require the relocation of the loop road intersection with Alpine Road. This change will require the removal 3 additional trees to ensure proper sight distance per Town requirements.
f) ēĖċťĖIJČϙťēôϙŜĖťôϙſĖīīϙŘôŗŪĖŘôϙťēôϙŘôıĺŽÍīϙĺċϙ͓ϙÍîîĖťĖĺIJÍīϙťŘôôŜϙæôēĖIJîϙīĺťŜϙ͑͑ϙ-͓͑ϟϙēôŜôϙťŘôôŜϙ are part of a grouping of existing trees adjacent to and within the Alpine Road scenic setback and were considered to be of great importance for their value of screening the project homes from Alpine Road.
g) ēĖċťĖIJČϙťēôϙŜĖťôϙſĖīīϙŘôŗŪĖŘôϙťēôϙŘôıĺŽÍīϙĺċϙ͐͐ϙÍîîĖťĖĺIJÍīϙťŘôôŜϙÍťϙťēôϙŘôÍŘϙĺċϙīĺťŜϙ͐Ϡϙ͑ϠϙÍIJîϙ3. h) ēĖċťĖIJČϙťēôϙŜĖťôϙſĖīīϙŘôŗŪĖŘôϙťēôϙŘôıĺŽÍīϙĺċϙ͑ϙÍîîĖťĖĺIJÍīϙťŘôôŜϙÍťϙťēôϙŘôÍŘϙĺċϙīĺťŜϙ͐͐ϙÍIJîϙ͐͑ϟ As noted in previous meetings, part of the stated request to move the project is to allow the construction of a public trail in this setback area. Stanford has resisted this recommendation for ťēôϙċĺīīĺſĖIJČϙŘôÍŜĺIJŜϡ
x Stanford has proposed a trail alignment ĖIJϙÍèèĺŘîÍIJèôϙſĖťēϙŜôèťĖĺIJϙ͒͑͏͏Í of the Trails and ÍťēŜϙ(īôıôIJťϠϙſēĖèēϙŜťÍťôŜϡ
ЊēôϙťŘÍĖīŜϙÍIJîϙŕÍťēŜϙôīôıôIJťϙŜôŘŽôŜϙÍŜϙÍϙČôIJôŘÍīϙČŪĖîôϙċĺŘϙťēôϙîôŽôīĺŕıôIJťϙĺċϙÍϙ comprehensive system of trails and paths for the town. Standards for the construction ĺċϙťŘÍĖīŜϙÍIJîϙŕÍťēŜϙÍŘôϙċĺŪIJîϙĖIJϙťēôϙЊŘÍĖīϙÍIJîϙÍťēϙ
ĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙЭϙaÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙ
StandardsЋϙÍîĺŕťôîϙæƅϙťēôϙĺſIJϙ
ĺŪIJèĖīϟϙ[ĖıĖťÍťĖĺIJŜϙĺIJϙťēôϙŪŜôϙĺċϙťŘÍĖīŜϙÍIJîϙŕÍťēŜϙÍŘôϙ ċĺŪIJîϙĖIJϙťēôϙЊĺŘťĺīÍϙ«ÍīīôƅϙŘÍĖīϙŜÍČôЋϙıÍťŘĖƄϙÍîĺŕťôîϙæƅϙťēôϙĺſIJϙ ĺŪIJèĖīϟ
x Stanford has proposed a trail alignment ĖIJϙÍèèĺŘîÍIJèôϙſĖťēϙŜôèťĖĺIJϙ͒͑͏͒ of the Trails and ÍťēŜϙ(īôıôIJťϠϙſēĖèēϙŜťÍťôŜϡ
ЊēôϙťŘÍĖīŜϙÍIJîϙŕÍťēŜϙŜēĺſIJϙĺIJϙťēôϙťŘÍĖīŜϙÍIJîϙŕÍťēŜϙŕīÍIJϙîĖÍČŘÍıŜϙϼīĺèÍťôîϙĖIJϙÍϙ pocket at the end of this general plan) include those presently developed and those proposed on public rights-of-way or easements, together with new trails in locations where no right-of-way or easement exists at present. Some trail and path routes are indicated as being on or adjacent to public streets or easements or following property lines, and such locations are intended to be controlling. Where proposed trails or paths traverse unsubdivided lands, routes are intended to indicate general location and could be secured even with considerable variation in location and ÍīĖČIJıôIJťϟЋ
x Stanford has determined the construction of the segment of a trail behind the proposed ēĺıôŜϙſĺŪīîϙèŘôÍťôϙЊŪIJîŪôϙĖIJťôŘċôŘôIJèôϙſĖťēϙŪŜôϙÍIJîϙôIJĤĺƅıôIJťϙĺċϙŕŘĖŽÍťôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅЋϙîŪôϙ ťĺϙťēôϙèīĺŜôϙŕŘĺƄĖıĖťƅϙĺċϙťēôϙťŘÍĖīϙťĺϙťēôϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙēĺıôŜϙŕôŘϙŜôèťĖĺIJϙ͒͑͏͘ϟ͑ϠϙſēĖèh states ťēÍťϡ
ЊĺϙèŘôÍťôϙÍϙťŘÍîĖťĖĺIJϙĺċϙÍèèôŜŜϙťĺϙÍIJîϙŪŜôϙĺċϙĺŕôIJϙŜŕÍèôϙŜĺϙťēÍťϙèĖťĖƏôIJŜϙſĖīīϙIJĺťϙ ſĖīīĖIJČīƅϙŘôīĖIJŗŪĖŜēϙťēôŜôϙŘĖČēťŜϙŪIJîôŘϙťēôϙŕŘôŜŜŪŘôϙĺċϙŪŘæÍIJĖƏÍťĖĺIJϟϙèèôŜŜϙťĺϙÍIJîϙ use of open space should be circumscribed to the extent necessary to prevent undue interċôŘôIJèôϙſĖťēϙŪŜôϙÍIJîϙôIJĤĺƅıôIJťϙĺċϙŕŘĖŽÍťôϙŕŘĺŕôŘťƅϟЋ x Stanford believes that the placement of a public trail from Alpine Road to the future junction of the Canyon Trail would place the new trail in close proximity of the proposed project, which is not supported by ťēôϙĺſIJЍŜϙ@ôIJôŘÍīϙīÍIJϙŘÍĖīŜϙÍIJîϙÍťēŜϙ(īôıôIJťϙŜôèťĖĺIJϙ͒͑͐͏ϟČϟϠϙ ſēĖèēϙŜťÍťôŜϡ
ЊĺŪťĖIJČϠϙèĺIJŜťŘŪèťĖĺIJϙÍIJîϙŪŜôϙĺċϙťŘÍĖīŜϙÍIJîϙŕÍťēŜϙŜēĺŪīîϙæôϙîĺIJôϙſĖťēϙČŘôÍťϙèÍŘôϙŜĺϙ ťēÍťϙťēôƅϡϙ
1) are designed to adapt to the existing conditions to the extent possible while still adhering to the intent, if not the detail, of engineering standards; ͑ϽϙîĖŜťŪŘæϙťēôϙIJÍťŪŘÍīϙèĺIJîĖťĖĺIJŜϙĺċϙťôŘŘÍĖIJϙÍIJîϙŽôČôťÍťĖĺIJϙÍŜϙīĖťťīôϙÍŜϙŕĺŜŜĖæīôϢϙ
3) provide a variety of experiences for users;
4) provide convenient, safe passage;
͔ϽϙıĖIJĖıĖƏôϙĖIJťŘŪŜĖĺIJϙĺIJϙŕŘĖŽÍèƅϙĖIJϙŘôŜĖîôIJťĖÍīϙÍŘôÍŜϢϙ ͕ϽϙôIJèĺŪŘÍČôϙŪŜôϙſĖťēĺŪťϙĖIJèŪŘŘĖIJČϙôƄèôŜŜĖŽôϙıÍĖIJťôIJÍIJèôϙèĺŜťŜϟЋ x Some in the community have suggested the shift would provide a wildlife corridor through this setback area. ēĖŜϙÍŜŜôŘťĖĺIJϙſÍŜϙIJĺťϙŜŪæŜťÍIJťĖÍťôîϙæƅϙťēôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙ(IϠϙŜŕôèĖƱèÍīīƅϙ
ēÍŕťôŘϙ͖ϙĖĺīĺČĖèÍīϙôŜĺŪŘèôŜϠϙŪæŜôèťĖĺIJϙЊ®ĖīîīĖċôϙaĺŽôıôIJťϙÍIJîϙbŪŘŜôŘƅϙĖťôЋϟϙēôϙ îŘÍċťϙ(I ϼIıŕÍèťϙĖĺ-͐͐ϡϙôîŪèôîϙ®ĖīîīĖċôϙaĺŽôıôIJťϙ found on page 7-͖͒ϽϙŜťÍťôŜϙЊ®ēĖīôϙ development of a portion of the Project site would reduce the ability for wildlife to use and move across the Project site, wildlife would still be able to move between the surrounding higher quality habitat patches. This is a īôŜŜϟťēÍIJϟŜĖČIJĖƱèÍIJťϟĖıŕÍèťϟЋ
Applicant response to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2024-05 dated November 18, 2024
1. In the event a condition of approval were imposed to move the residential development 25 feet to the south or a similar distance, the project would need to be redesigned at a lower density. This reduction in project density would violate the State Housing Accountability Act, Government Code section 65589.5.
The Housing Accountability Act prohibits disapproval of the Portola Terrace project or imposition of a condition of approval that would cause the project to be developed at a lower density. (See Gov’t Code § 65589.5(j)(1), (h)(8).) The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) expressly provides that “conditions that should be analyzed for their ePect on density . . . include, but are not limited to,” those that “directly or indirectly lower density” or cause a “reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning.” (See HCD, Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory (Sept. 15, 2020), p. 10, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/hcd-memo-on-haa-final-sept2020.pdf) The proposed condition indirectly would lower project density. The residential project site is highly constrained in light of the Alpine Road scenic setback to the east and steep oakcovered slopes to the west and the south. For this reason, a compelled move of the residential development would trigger multiple detrimental ePects that would force Stanford to redesign the project and reduce its unit count.
Most importantly, the 25-foot shift would eliminate significant developable area (8,269.75 square feet or the equivalent to two proposed lots) on an already-constrained residential project site, meaning that not all the displaced units could be relocated. Project density ePectively would be reduced in violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The 25-foot shift in the residential development would force several portions of the project into a steep hillside along the western edge of the residential project site. Stanford considers that portion of the project site ePectively undevelopable for lots of the size proposed under the State Density Bonus Law for the following reasons: The previously avoided slope areas of 20% slopes, are significantly steeper than the original development footprint. Building in these areas would require the need for the project to remove several significant trees and construct retaining walls of approximately seven feet or greater built behind small back yards. The presence of these overwhelming retaining walls in the rear of these lots would create such an undesirable residential living situation that Stanford could not construct these units; rather, we would be forced to redesign the project. As noted, not all units could be relocated within the residential project site, given its small size. This forced reduction in project density would constitute a violation of state law.
Finally, a substantial shift in the project site substantially would increase project costs and likely would make the project economically infeasible. This shift would trigger the removal of several significant trees, additional grading, placement of fill on the site, the generation of
material to be oP hauled, the additional and the increased height of retaining walls, the removal of significant mature trees and the required replacement of removed trees.
2. The State Density Bonus Law does not allow the Town to require additional parking.
Government Code section 65915(p)(1) provides that, upon request of a developer of a qualifying project, a city “shall not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests,” above specified ratios. As designed, the proposed project meets the required parking ratios. The applicant will continue to study the possibility of providing more guest parking spaces, but also recognizing that the proposed project already provides more parking than required.
In any event, the EIR concludes that the project’s parking demand is expected to be accommodated within the site and that the project would not significantly generate demand for parking on Alpine Road.
3. The applicant will examine this recommendation but does not look favorably on the recommendation due to aesthetic and technical concerns. Providing additional parking in the front yards of the homes would increase the amount of paving from 28% to 52% of the front yards. Also, an additional parking space in the front yard may not provide the necessary depth to accommodate a car without adversely aPecting the front entry to the homes. The added paving reduces the green pervious landscaping in the front yards, increasing runoP, and creates a much harsher streetscape.
4. The applicant disagrees with this proposal. There is no factual information presented that indicated why a single entrance for the project is superior to the current proposal of a looped road. While concerns related to fire department access might be mitigated by an EVA gate, this would create a condition where trash trucks, moving vans, and delivery trucks would be forced to back out of the neighborhood if no turnaround is provided. If a turnaround is added, the turnaround would have to be located within the Alpine Road scenic setback so that the project would not lose any proposed units and maintain the same number of guest parking spaces. While StaP has stated that the scenic setback can be used for parking, previous committee input indicates that the Town places a high priority on maintaining the scenic setback free from these kinds of improvements. As previously stated, any reduction in project density caused, directly or indirectly, by the requirement for a turnaround would violate the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code section 65589.5.
5. The applicant concurs with this recommendation.
Revised Conditions of Approvals
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Condition of Approval A.6(d).
The applicant disagrees with the revised condition. Stanford objects to any provision that would invite public access to the fire maintenance road. In comments made at the Planning Commission,
the applicant specifically stated that we recognize that the fire maintenance road might become an attractive nuisance The applicant states that the applicant and Town should work together to prevent public access on the road. The fire maintenance road will be a private road owned and maintained by Stanford University for a very specific purpose. Any public use, limited or otherwise, will have negative consequences on use of this road for exclusive fire maintenance purposes, and may invite unauthorized parking that might block access to this road.
The primary purpose of the fire maintenance road is to reduce the potential fire hazards on the site, and the road was designed with that as the sole purpose. The fire maintenance road was designed to be as steep as possible (up to 15% grade, which is the maximum grade permitted for heavy equipment) and follow the topography up the hill. The fire maintenance road as proposed was NOT designed to meet public access requirements.
There are several “unintended consequences” if the fire maintenance road was redesigned to a “public access standard.
• The Town’s Trails and Paths Element makes it clear that it is not the Town’s intention to create the “trailheads” with parking for cars. Section 3210 states:
i. The junctions of trails and paths with roads should be limited in number and designed and located to minimize overuse by people arriving in motor vehicles. m. The trails and paths of the town are not to be used by motor vehicles. Design should discourage or prevent such use where feasible even if it creates some inconvenience to legitimate users.
• Providing public access to the fire maintenance road would encourage users to park illegally at its base, on the driveway apron adjoining Alpine Road. This would present a significant safety hazard, as the road must be kept entirely clear for immediate emergency use by firefighters.
• There also would be no nexus between this requirement and any projected impact of the proposed project, as legally required to impose a condition of approval. Development of the project would not generate a demand for recreation in the area of the fire maintenance road, nor does the General Plan show a trail segment there.
Condition of Approval A.18.
Stanford respectfully asks the Town Council to remove recommended Condition of Approval A (Planning Department).18. There is no nexus between impacts of the Portola Terrace project and a condition of approval that would require Stanford to submit an additional operational traPic analysis prior to issuance of the project’s Final Map. As reflected in the Town’s EIR, the project (a) would not make a statistically significant diPerence in emergency evacuation times, and (b) meets all Town transportation standards without the addition of a left-turn lane from Alpine Road into the project site.
In addition, regarding wildfire evacuation, we have reviewed the Town’s Wildland Urban Interface Fire Evacuation Plan, dated June 12, 2024, and have found no means to evaluate “the project’s ability to comply with” that Plan. The Plan imposes no requirements on property owners or project
applicants; instead, it is “intended to provide information to facilitate decision making by the jurisdictional authority and other personnel who are supporting the evacuation/sheltering mission.” Plan, pg. 5, “Purpose.”
Regarding a potential left-turn lane from Alpine Road into the project site, the EIR’s analysis shows that such a left-turn lane is not necessitated by the project. The Town may, of course, opt to analyze the desirability (and environmental impacts) of any changes it considers making to Town-controlled public roadways. But there is no basis for requiring the project to fund such analysis or for the Town to make Final Map approval contingent on providing such an analysis “to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, Town Engineer, and Fire Marshal.” B. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING:
Condition of Approval B.13.
While this condition accurately states the WFPD requirements for a turnaround, the applicant wishes to state our continued opposition to the recommendation to change the project design to a “single entrance” design.
Condition of Approval B.23.
This condition appears to reflect a previous uncorrected comment. The route of the fire maintenance road is accurately reflected on sheet C-5.0 of the application plan set dated November 10, 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED that the Planning Commission having fully 1
reviewed,considered, and evaluated all of the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, and recommends that the Town Council:
1. Approve the Conditional Use Permit to establish a Planned Unit Development to allow for the clustered development of the single-family homes, reduced lot size, reduced setbacks between houses, and increased heights on some buildings, that do no meet the otherwise standard development regulations of the Residential Estate (R-E) district, but can be approved through the establishment of a PUD in accordance with the findings of Portola Valley Municipal Code (PVMC) Chapters 18.72 and 18.44 as enumerated in the November 18, 2024 Planning Commission staff report.
2. Approve the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) to subdivide the 75.2 acres into 30 residential lots, two common area lots, and a remainder open space parcel in accordance with the findings of PVMC Chapter 17.20 as enumerated in the November 18, 2024 Planning Commission staff report.
3. Approve the Architectural Review Permit to allow construction of each new building proposed, landscaping, lighting, parking, fencing/retaining walls, and green building components and the Site Development Permit to allow for grading volumes totaling 26,335 cubic yards and for the removal of 177 trees, of them 123 are significant and 54 are non-significant trees in accordance with the findings of PVMC Chapters 18.64 and 15.12 as enumerated in the November 18, 2024 Planning Commission staff report.
4. Adopt the required Findings for the Proposed Project and associated approvals listed in Item #1-4, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
5. Adopt and make conditions of approval for the Proposed Project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Town, with amendments as directed at the November 18, 2024 special Planning Commission meeting attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
6. Consider the following discussion items of the Planning Commission as follows:
a. Review the recommendation of the ASCC to move the entire residential development 25 feet to the south or other such distance to the south/southeast to provide greater distance from the adjacent single family properties to the north, noting no Commission consensus reached on this discussion.
b. Review providing additional on-site guest parking with removal of Tree #557 and/or with other site locational revisions, without removing any of the proposed on-site parking spaces, noting Commission consensus reached on this discussion.
c. Review widening the driveways for the single family homes without blocking garage access and creating the need for tandem parking, noting Commission consensus reached on this discussion.
d. Review making the new looped two-way roadway with two (2) proposed access points on and off of Alpine Road, only accessible from one (1) access point on and off of Alpine Road, install a new emergency access gate at the second access point to allow for emergency vehicle access only and create a vehicle turn around area with sufficient area for garbage/recycling, delivery and other larger trucks at the terminus where the emergency access gate is to be installed, noting no Commission consensus reached on this discussion. e. Review the open space easement language so that it does not prohibit the ability for the project site to have the potential to develop the two (2) additional residential units as allowed by State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) on the project 2 1
2 3
4 5
site or future rezoning, noting no Commission consensus reached on this discussion.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Portola Valley on November 18, 2024.
AYES COMMISSIONERS: Brothers, Karshinksy, Goulden___________________________ NOES, COMMISSIONERS:_____________________________________________________ ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS:Targ, Kopf-Sill_______________________________________ By:
Planning Commission Vice Chair
Attest: ____________________________________________________ Terrence Grindall, Interim Planning and Building Director Exhibit A: Findings
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
3 Type text here
EXHIBIT A
Findings
I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CUP Findings
1. The proposed use or facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole and to land uses and transportation and services facilities in the vicinity.
Basis of finding: The subject property has street frontage along Alpine Road, which is designated an arterial road per the Circulation Element of the Town's General Plan (page 5, Circulation Element), providing direct access to other community uses, transportation and service facilities in the project vicinity. The project site has General Plan land use designation of Conservation-Residential; a residential land use designation that includes relatively accessible undeveloped lands with some potential geologic instabilities, which are to be developed using a slope-intensity standard. No changes to the existing General Plan land use designation are proposed. Additionally, the project can be found consistent with purpose and intent for establishment of a PUD Zoning District per Title 18, allowing diversification in use. See Attachment 12 “Identified General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives” for a summary.
2. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping and such other features as may be required by this title or in the opinion of the commission be needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area and will insure the privacy and rural outlook of neighboring residences.
Basis of finding: It is found that the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed residential land uses and their associated physical improvements, as well as private and public open spaces. No physical site conditions have been identified that would preclude residential development and the prepared EIR concludes that any potential physical impacts to the environment can be lessened to a level of less than significant through incorporation of identified mitigation measures. The lot configurations have been reviewed by the Town Engineer and Fire Marshall and determined to have sufficient access to a public street. The Town Geologist has reviewed the proposed development plan and determined the site is suitable for such residential development from a geologic perspective. The Project will be subject to standard Conditions of Approval and those specific conditions of approval as recommended by all Town development department directors. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval would ensure that future development on the lots would occur in compliance with applicable policies of the general plan and zoning ordinance.
4
The residential lots maintain a minimum 38 foot 10 inch foot setback from the nearest shared property line of abutting residential uses and a 75 foot setback from the Alpine Scenic Corridor.
The project site is surrounded by other residential uses. The Residential Development Area is fairly level, has sufficient access and is of suitable size and shape for the residential development with associated site and landscape improvements proposed. Per State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) the total amount of parking required for the project is 65 spaces, while a total of 90 spaces are provided. Vehicle parking for residents and guests would be on-site and parking on the internal road will be prohibited, and enforced by the HOA to ensure that access and circulation for emergency response vehicles and other large vehicles is not obstructed. The EIR concludes that the parking demand for the proposed project is expected to be accommodated within the site and the Project would not significantly generate demand for parking on Alpine Road.
3. The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use.
Basis of finding: Alpine Road is considered an arterial road per the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Arterial roads are designed to accommodate heavy volumes of traffic and have adequate capacity. The EIR concludes no substantial changes to existing local street traffic volumes. The on-site circulation plan of the new private, two-way internal street, two proposed roadway intersections at Alpine Road, private garages and surface parking spaces are determined to meet the minimum widths and design standards of the PVMC and Fire Code.
4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof.
Basis of finding: See responses to Item#1 regarding consistency with existing General Plan land use designation and to Item #2 above regarding setbacks of buildings from adjacent properties and the Alpine Scenic Corridor. The prepared EIR concludes that any potential physical impacts to the environment can be lessened to a level of less than significant through incorporation of identified mitigation measures. The Project will be subject to standard Conditions of Approval and those specific conditions of approval as recommended by all Town development department directors to preclude adverse effects on abutting properties.
5. The site for the proposed use is demonstrated to be reasonably safe from or can be made reasonably safe from hazards of storm water runoff, soil erosion, earth movement, earthquake and other geologic hazards.
Basis of finding: The Town Geologist has reviewed the proposed development plan and determined the site is suitable for such residential development from a geologic perspective upon implementation of conditions as noted, including such things as requiring design level geotechnical investigations and compliance with applicable building codes. The prepared EIR concludes that less than significant impacts related to surface fault rupture, seismic ground failure, seismic induced landslides, erosion, stormwater runoff, can be lessened to a level of less than 5
significant through incorporation of identified mitigation measures. No public health problems were identified. The Woodside Fire Protection District has reviewed the plans and determined the site is suitable for such residential development from a fire hazard/risk standpoint upon implementation of conditions as noted. The District has also issued a series of recommended conditions of approval to ensure all applicable Fire related codes are met. All proposed new buildings will be constructed to the California Fire Code including regulations regarding fire-resistance-rated construction, and fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems. The Project proposes two access points (one net new driveway) along Alpine Road to access the development area. The proposed layout also provides access within the Residential Development Area for both fire safety and trash collection, as well as construction of a new fire maintenance access road for the Open Space Area to allow for fire safety and maintenance. A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been prepared for both the developed and undeveloped portions of the property to address existing fire hazards across the entire project site that modeled fire behavior to define mitigations/treatments to reduce the hazards. Residences that do not back generally toward Alpine Road would include a proposed 25-foot fuel management area in their back yards consisting of irrigated, low-fuel landscaping that homeowners would be required to privately maintain. The EIR further concludes that the Project represents an overall reduction in the fire hazard or risk at the Project site and also notes mitigation measures to further increase the effectiveness of the VMP. However, because of the increased development and human activity at the site, the potential for ignition of a new fire at the site would be increased, requiring Mitigation Measure Wildfire 2a which requires a series of additional measures to increase the effectiveness of the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) and Mitigation Measure Wildfire 2b which includes a series of specific measures to further reduce the potential for ignitions within the Residential Development Area. Further, development of the property to allow for residential and open space uses would be subject to the Town’s development regulations and standards conditions to avoid damage from storm water runoff, soil erosion, earth movement, earthquakes and other geologic hazards.
The buildings as proposed would comply with Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure and all would be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. A defensible space area within 5’ of the building would be noncombustible. A 4” vertical noncombustible separation zone on the building would be maintained between the siding and the ground plane (or other built horizontal surfaces). In addition, a Zone 1 wildfire protection area, consisting of irrigated, low-fuel landscaping would be established around the perimeter of the buildings and common open space areas within the development area. A Zone 2 defensible space would be established, where grasses are kept mowed, dead plant material is removed, and space is kept between shrubs, larger trees, and other combustible materials, would be maintained within 200’ of buildings. Further out, shaded fuel breaks may be used to reduce the fuel load in the surrounding area. The Zone 1 and Zone 2 areas would be owned and maintained by the project homeowner’s association. A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been prepared to address existing fire hazards across the parcel through fire behavior modeling and to define mitigations to reduce the hazards identified during modeling. An emergency fire access point is proposed to be located approximately in the middle of the development between structures for future maintenance and emergency vehicle access/egress and defense. 6
6. The proposed use will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and the general plan.
Basis of finding: It is found that the proposed use can be found consistent with the general plan, Alpine Scenic Corridor plan and Title 18 of the PVMC. See Attachment 11 “Identified General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives” for a summary. The Alpine Scenic Corridor Plan says, “The basic goal of this plan is the conservation and enhancement of the beauty of landscape and the rich variety of plants and wildlife of the scenic corridor so as to maintain this band of pleasant open country for the enjoyment of all. A further goal is to carry local traffic and to provide recreational opportunities while preserving to the maximum extent possible the natural setting with improvements limited to trails, paths and features designed to protect and enhance the natural character and the public safety”. The project site has General Plan land use designation of Conservation-Residential; a residential land use designation that includes relatively accessible undeveloped lands with some potential geologic instabilities, which are to be developed using a slope-intensity standard. No changes to the existing General Plan land use designation are proposed. Additionally, the project can be found consistent with purpose and intent for establishment of a PUD Zoning District per Title 18, allowing diversification in use and in the relationships of various buildings, structures, and open spaces in building groups and variations in the allowable heights of buildings and structures, while insuring substantial compliance with the provisions of this title, as well achieving a higher quality of development through better adjustment to terrain and greater preservation of natural features than could otherwise be achieved, while still maintaining privacy for individual homesites. The proposal would create lots consistent with the requirements of the Town’s Zoning Regulations and would facilitate a clustered development consistent with the vision established in the Housing Element and General Plan, as well as long-term preservation of on-site open space, and would prohibit further subdivision of the property. The project would provide market-rate and affordable housing on an identified Housing site that has been vacant from any residential use since its original creation. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the policies of the General Plan, Alpine Scenic Corridor Plan and Title 18 of the PVMC.
Conditions of approval would ensure that future development on the lots would occur in compliance with applicable policies of the general plan and zoning ordinance. To ensure conformance with General Plan policy 2103.15, a Fiscal Impact Analysis was prepared to evaluate the proposed project’s fiscal net benefit (if any), total Town general fund costs/expenditures (if any), and general fund fiscal balance (if any) potential utilizing industry standard approaches and methodologies. In summary, the prepared FIA concludes that the because the property tax contribution to the General Fund from this proposed project is relatively minor, the net fiscal impacts of the proposed project over the course of the next 23 years (estimated in 2027, 2037, and 2047) result in slight positive fiscal impact to the Town’s General Fund (see Attachment 10, FIA).
7. When this title or the town general plan specifies that a proposed use shall serve primarily the town and its spheres of influence, the approving authority must find that it is reasonable to conclude, based on the evidence before it, that the proposed use will meet a 7
need in the town and that a majority of the clientele of the proposed use will come from the town and its spheres of influence within the near future, normally no more than two years.
In general, in making such finding, the approving authority shall, in addition to other information, explicitly take into consideration all similar uses in the town and its spheres of influence.
Basis of Finding: The market rate housing is targeted to serve Stanford faculty, some of whom may or may not be residents of the Town, but anticipated to be a population from the local area given the location of other Stanford facilities in the broader local area. The twelve (12) Below Market Rate Housing units are intended to be occupied to individuals who live or work in the community. See response regarding the project site as an identified Housing site and FIA in Item #6 above. See Attachment 12 “Identified General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives” for a summary
PUD Requirements
General Requirements:
A. The parcel on which the development is to be located shall be in one ownership and include an area of at least ten acres or be bounded on all sides by streets, public open spaces, boundary lines of less restricted zoning districts, or other conditions which the planning commission finds makes the parcel more desirable to develop as a single unit.
Basis of finding: Stanford University has been the sole owner of the 75.2 acre parcel since 1899. The proposal is for subdividing this 75.2 acre parcel into 30 residential lots to accommodate 39 residential units, two common area lots, and a remainder open space parcel. The site is designated in the general plan for residential use. Residential lot sizes are proposed in the range of 2,981 to 5,217 square feet; this is smaller than the 20,000 square feet as would be permitted by the PUD zoning but would be permitted for consideration pursuant to a State Density Bonus Law incentive/concession (see detailed discussion above).
The entire project parcel is also identified within the Town’s Housing Element as a pending project and a site noted within the “Adequate Sites Inventory Map”, as well as identified as part of the Town’s Affiliated Housing Program developed 1990. For this site, the Housing Element further notes that development would need to be clustered along Alpine Road given the physical site constraints. The site is generally bounded by properties containing single family residential homes along Westridge Drive and Minoca Road. Thus, the site is a proper location for residential uses as proposed.
B. The proposed development shall be designed to produce an environment of stable and desirable character in harmony with the character of the surrounding area.
Basis of finding. See response to Item A above regarding an identified housing site. The 2-story residential buildings maintain heights as regulated by PVMC, The architectural style of the single-family homes and the multifamily buildings could be characterized as traditional in 8
form and modern in execution that are found to be consistent and compatible in use, design, color and materials as the character of existing buildings in the surrounding area.
C. The arrangement of buildings on the site shall be such as to provide standards of light, air, and privacy at least equivalent to the standards required under this title for lots developed individually. The spacing between main buildings shall be at least equivalent to the spacing which would be required between buildings similarly developed under the terms of this title on separate parcels, due consideration being given to building height and to the openness normally afforded by intervening streets.
In R-1 districts this requirement for space between buildings may be waived if the planning commission finds that reduction or elimination of space between main buildings will result in significant advantages in preserving natural features and adaptation to terrain, and provide standards of light, air and privacy at least equivalent to those otherwise prevailing in the district.
Basis of finding: The application proposes cluster development closest to existing infrastructure on relatively flat land, in a manner that avoids development of unstable ground, preserves substantial open space and steep slopes, minimizes grading, and fosters a sense of community. Per Section 18.44.050(C) of the PVMC, the project would be required to provide spacing between main buildings of at least 120 feet where buildings face each other across a street and of at least 50 feet where buildings are located side-to-side or where the rear of one building faces another building’s side. The spacing proposed between the clustered buildings ranges from 9’ to 104’ (see exhibits related to building spacing with Attachment 2e) while 6 of the homes would be configured as 3 duets (connected buildings with no spacing in between).
As part of the allowable incentives through application of the State Density Bonus Law, the applicant is requesting the elimination of the General Plan clustering provisions described in Land Use Principle 2105(4.1) which states: “When residences are grouped or clustered in areas where intensity standards require one acre or more per dwelling unit: (a) Each residence should have a substantial direct frontage on a common open space of sufficient size to convey a feeling of being on the edge of a large and significant open space (b) Clusters should generally consist of a small number of detached residences, and each cluster should be well-separated from adjacent clusters rather than interconnected in a linear form.” Facilitation of this proposed clustered development is consistent with the vision established in the Housing Element and General Plan, as well as long-term preservation of on-site open space, and would prohibit further subdivision of the property. Reducing minimum parcel sizes will help ensure that the developed area remains subservient to the natural landscape and will enable preserving most of the property as undeveloped land and will result in cost reductions that provide for the Project to include affordable housing. Such a configuration enables the project to avoid developing up a steep hill on the site. Reduced lot sizes through application of the SDBL, requires spacing between buildings to be closer to each other then otherwise required by the PVMC.
Proposed lighting fixtures are designed to provide targeted lighting at focused locations without substantial spillover into adjacent areas or into the sky and the proposed architectural 9
finishes are consistent with rural residential development and do not include substantial glass or other reflective materials that could be a source of substantial glare. The proposed lighting would follow the Town’s Municipal Code relative to outdoor lighting by providing dark sky compliant light fixtures and their equivalent throughout the developed area. The EIR concludes that the project would not result in substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. The situation of the lots/homesites on the site, combined with existing and proposed vegetation, creates a distance and buffer between any adjoining properties, thus maintaining privacy between existing, surrounding development.
The EIR does not identify any operational air quality issues as a result of the project. Any air quality related impacts are limited during construction activities and have identified mitigation to reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance.
D. The development shall not produce a volume of traffic in excess of the capacity for which the access streets are designed. Vehicular entrances and exits shall be carefully located and designed to minimize traffic hazards. The unit development plan shall provide for safe, convenient internal circulation, pedestrian and vehicular.
Basis of finding: As noted above, a private loop road that connects at both ends to Alpine Road with entrance and exit points at the northern and southern ends of the development is proposed for residents and guests. Resident and guest parking is proposed to be located on-site. A small emergency access roadway between two homes to provide access to the wildfire fuel management areas to the rear of the proposed homes. As part of the EIR a transportation analysis was performed using industry standards for analysis and in consideration of relevant safety standards. The EIR concludes all transportation and/or circulation impacts associated with the project are less than significant or become less than significant with identified mitigation (See Attachments 2a and 2b). The project would improve pedestrian and equestrian facilities at the site and while it would add some use of bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and roadway facilities, it would not conflict with applicable plans and policies of the Town. The project would increase vehicle access points and vehicle crossings across the Alpine Road trail, which would increase the potential for conflict between vehicles and trail users and could be considered a potential safety hazard so safety signage would be required to be installed. The project would add trips to the circulation system, but would have an average Vehicle Miles Traveled below the Town’s and below applicable significance thresholds thus would have a less than significant transportation impact. No operational issues related to vehicle queueing and/or vehicle delay are expected to occur on Alpine Road at the driveways. The Project’s site access and circulation were evaluated in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and its design would meet all applicable Town and safety standards related to circulation and emergency access. The proposed roadway intersections on Alpine Road measure 20 feet in width, which meets the Town’s maximum of 20 feet for roadways entering a road. The two roadway intersections would be approximately 550 feet apart. The Project would provide adequate sight distance at the Project intersections with low-level landscaping to ensure that exiting drivers would be able to see any pedestrians on the trail along the Project frontage as well as oncoming vehicles. The proposed plan provides some pedestrian paths within the common open area space and play 10
area, but there are no sidewalks along the internal road or pedestrian paths leading to the common area. However, due to the low traffic volume and speed within the internal neighborhood, it is presumed that bicyclists would be able to safely utilize the internal road.
E. A common area which is intended to serve a planned unit development shall be held as one parcel in which the owner of each parcel served by the common area in the planned unit development shall have an undivided interest. An appropriate open space or conservation easement covering the common area and suitable to the town shall be dedicated to the town. Guarantees suitable to the town shall be made to assure the continued maintenance of such common areas. All residential open space preserves shown on the town general plan shall be designated as common areas at the time of development and shall be treated as required by this chapter.
Basis of finding: The project would include common open space areas, including a picnic and play to be used for recreational purposes. These open space areas include areas that front Alpine Road, creating a visual buffer between the road and the project. A homeowner’s association would be used to maintain common areas. Aside from the approximately 6 acres of the project site that would be developed, the remainder of the site would be protected as permanent open space, which includes public recreation trails, and would be precluded from any future development by an appropriate legal instrument.
F. A planned unit development in a P-C district shall conform with the approved general development plan and general development schedule for the P-C district in which it is located.
Basis of finding: The project site is located in Residential Estate (R-E) zoning district not a P-C zoning district. Establishment of a PUD is purposed and intended to allow for a diversification in use and in the relationships of various buildings, structures, and open spaces in building groups and variations in the allowable heights of buildings and structures, while insuring substantial compliance with the provisions of this title, as well achieving a higher quality of development through better adjustment to terrain and greater preservation of natural features than could otherwise be achieved, while still maintaining privacy for individual homesites.
G. A planned unit development in any district other than a P-C district shall conform with all requirements of this title for such district except as otherwise specifically permitted by this chapter. Planned unit developments in districts other than P-C districts shall in addition to other requirements comply with the following:
1. Yards not less in dimension than required in the combining district in which situated shall be provided along the parcel lines bounding each planned unit development.
Basis of finding: The entire project site is proposed as a PUD.Residences on the north and east sides of the new loop road (those that don’t back generally toward Alpine Road) would include a 25-foot fuel management area in their back yards consisting of irrigated, low-fuel 11
landscaping that homeowners would be required to privately maintain. Establishment of a PUD is purposed and intended to allow for a diversification in use and in the relationships of various buildings, structures, and open spaces in building groups and variations in the allowable heights of buildings and structures, while insuring substantial compliance with the provisions of this title, as well achieving a higher quality of development through better adjustment to terrain and greater preservation of natural features than could otherwise be achieved, while still maintaining privacy for individual homesites.
Residential planned unit development requirements:
A. A residential planned unit development is a development planned and executed as a unit and consisting of single-family dwellings, together with related uses serving only the individual planned unit development.
Basis of finding: See basis of findings for the CUP and PUD above. The proposed residential development is a clustered development, containing both single family and multi-family residential units (including some Below Market Rate housing units) and is identified within the Town’s Housing Element as a pending project and a site noted within the “Adequate Sites Inventory Map”, as well as identified as part of the Town’s Affiliated Housing Program developed 1990 intended to allow multi-family housing on “institutional” sites for employees and staff affiliated with the institution that owns the parcel, to live and work in Town. For this site, the Housing Element further notes that development would need to be clustered along Alpine Road given the physical site constraints.
B. The development may include a community stable and shall include the provision for park and recreation areas adequate to meet the needs of the anticipated population of the development, and such open areas, wooded conservation areas and residential open space preserves as may be specified in the general plan, or in the approved general development plan and general development schedule for any P-C district.
Basis of finding: The project would include common open space areas, including a picnic and play to be used for recreational purposes for the residents. Public recreation trails for community use are proposed outside the residential development area, in the parcel’s remaining open space area to be preserved and precluded from further development. The site is not located in a P-C zoning district. The EIR identifies that the project would increase the number of residents at the site and therefore demand for public services and recreational opportunities. However, the project would be served with existing facilities and those proposed as a part of the project and the impact related to public services and recreation would be considered less than significant.
C. A planned unit development which involves a division of land into two or more parcels shall comply with the ordinances of the town regulating the division of land. 12
Basis of finding: The proposal includes a Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) to subdivide the 75.2 acres into 30 residential lots, two common area lots, and a remainder open space parcel. The Subdivision Committee has reviewed the proposed VTM and provided recommendations (see Attachment 8b). The VTM has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the Town Engineer. The VTM, and ultimately Final Map shall be consistent with the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance.
D. Buildings and other structures shall be located on the site in accordance with the approved planned unit development plan and thereafter such plan shall govern.
Basis of finding: The proposal includes establishment of a PUD to consider the location of the buildings and all other physical site improvements in a clustered development in accordance with the site plan layout as proposed in Attachment 2b. Any changes to the site location would not be permitted. Establishment of a PUD is purposed and intended to allow for a diversification in use and in the relationships of various buildings, structures, and open spaces in building groups and variations in the allowable heights of buildings and structures, while insuring substantial compliance with the provisions of this title, as well achieving a higher quality of development through better adjustment to terrain and greater preservation of natural features than could otherwise be achieved, while still maintaining privacy for individual homesites.
E. The area of any individual building site shall not be less than permitted by subsection B of Section 18.50.050.
Basis of finding: Lot sizes would be in the range of approximately 3,300 to 8,100 square feet for the single family and BMR lots. These lot sizes are smaller than the otherwise minimum 20,000 square feet per zoning but would be permitted pursuant to a State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) incentive/concession. See discussion above and Attachment 10, Town Attorney memo on SDBL.
F. Parking spaces shall be provided consistent with Section 18.60.110 in a garage or carport and adequate parking space for visitors shall be provided in reasonable proximity to each dwelling unit.
Basis of finding: Parking for all housing units is proposed in the amounts as required by the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and is to be accommodated through a combination of one-car garages and uncovered parking spaces primarily located on each lot. The Project would provide parking in 60 garage/driveway spaces, 24 standard onsite spaces, and 5 accessible onsite spaces, for a total of 89 vehicle parking spaces. Specifically SDBL allows a parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, as follows: zero to one bedroom, one onsite parking space; two to three bedrooms, two onsite parking spaces; and four or more bedrooms, two and one-half parking spaces. Consistent with State Law, the applicant is proposing to utilize these parking ratios. The EIR (Attachment 2a), concludes the parking demand for the project is expected to be accommodated within the site and the project would not significantly generate demand for parking on Alpine Road. 13
G. The maximum amount of impervious surface on parcels in a planned unit development may be established for the planned unit development.
Basis of finding: The total amount of impervious surface proposed is 131,230 square feet or (4% of total site area). The proposal includes establishment of a PUD to which includes a maximum amount of impervious surface per final plans approved. Any changes to the amount of impervious surface proposed would not be permitted.
H. Affordable Housing. On lots to be developed for housing pursuant to Section 17.20.215, up to four attached or detached affordable dwelling units may be allowed on a parcel, provided, that the combined floor area of these units does not exceed that which would otherwise be permitted were the parcel developed for a single-family residence.
Basis of finding: The applicant is proposing to provide the twelve (12) Below Market Rate (BMR) multi-family units. Of those, the applicant would set aside six units (or 20 percent of the total units) for low-income households and the remaining six (6) units for moderate income households in accordance with State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) which allows for increased residential density over the otherwise allowable maximum, as well as incentives and waivers in exchange for the provision of affordable units.See Attachment 9, “Town Attorney Memo on State Density Bonus, dated January 21, 2021” for further detail on the application of the percentage of additional density entitled for the project relative to the proposal of deeper income affordability offered. The floor area of the single family homes vary between 2,236 – 2,348 square feet. Similarly, through application of SDBL a waiver of the PVMC standard establishing maximum floor area requirements is requested. PVMC Municipal Code section
18.48.010 establishes a formula that enables calculation of maximum floor area requirements where minimum parcel areas are between 7,500 and 326,700 square feet. However, the formula in the Municipal Code does not account for minimum parcel areas beneath 7,500 square feet, likely because the Town’s development standards do not provide for smaller parcels. However, for this project, the requested incentive/concession through application of SBDL is to reduce minimum parcel sizes that would allow for parcels of such smaller sizes.
Accordingly, Section 18.48.010 does not allow for a determination of maximum floor area for any of the project’s proposed parcels given their smaller size, therefore, this development standard is not an applicable, objective standard. Regardless, Stanford requests a waiver of PVMC Section 18.48.010 for all parcels to ensure the provision cannot be read to apply to the project. For the proposed 3 bedroom units, the floor area percentage to lot area is between 43-61%, 65-78% of a floor area percentage for the 3 bedroom duets, 52-60% floor area percentage for the 4 bedroom units, and 48-53% floor area percentage for the BMR units.
Establishment of a PUD is purposed and intended to allow for a diversification in use and in the relationships of various buildings, structures, and open spaces in building groups and variations in the allowable heights of buildings and structures, while ensuring substantial compliance with the provisions of this title, as well achieving a higher quality of development through better adjustment to terrain and greater preservation of natural features than could otherwise be achieved, while still maintaining privacy for individual homesites. 14
I. Multifamily Affordable Housing. A residential planned unit development may be developed to provide multifamily affordable housing consistent with Section 2482 of the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Basis of finding: The proposal includes 12 Below Market Rate (BMR) affordable multifamily housing rental units in three, two-story buildings with four units in each. Of those 12 BMR units, the applicant would set aside six units (or 20 percent of the total units) for low-income households and the remaining six (6) units for moderate income households. The rents would be set according to State requirements for affordability and the applicant will be required to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the Town for the BMR units. See Attachment 12 “Identified General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives” for a summary, which includes Housing Element policies.
J. Housing in C-C and A-P Districts. In C-C and A-P districts on those parcels identified in either the Nathhorst Triangle Area Plan or the Village Square Area Plan as suitable for housing, detached or attached single-family homes may be permitted. The PUD shall establish the number of dwelling units, floor area, impervious surface, parking, height and setback limits which are compatible with adjoining and nearby existing and permitted uses. The distances between main buildings as provided for in Section
18.44.050 may be modified in the same way as that section permits modifications in R-1 districts. Such permit may also establish limits on occupancy of such dwellings. A PUD for this purpose may be combined with a commercial or administrative-professional PUD.
Basis of finding: n/a project site is not located within any of these identified zoning districts.
K. The figure of eighty-five percent, which limits the size of a single building on a parcel, as found on line 7 of Table 1A, may be modified as a part of a planned unit development.
Basis of finding; See response to floor area limits and applicable application of SDBL in Item #H above.
II. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the general plan, any specific plans, and Title 18 of this code;
Basis of finding: It is found that the proposed map can be found consistent with the general plan, Alpine Scenic Corridor plan and Title 18 of the PVMC. See Attachment 11, “Identified General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives” for a summary. The Alpine Scenic Corridor Plan says, “The basic goal of this plan is the conservation and enhancement of the beauty of landscape and the rich variety of plants and wildlife of the scenic corridor so as to maintain this band of pleasant open country for the enjoyment of all. A further goal is to carry local traffic and to provide recreational opportunities while preserving to the maximum extent possible the natural setting with improvements limited to trails, paths and features designed to protect and enhance the natural 15
character and the public safety”. The project site has General Plan land use designation of Conservation-Residential; a residential land use designation that includes relatively accessible undeveloped lands with some potential geologic instabilities, which are to be developed using a slope-intensity standard. No changes to the existing General Plan land use designation are proposed. Additionally, the project can be found consistent with purpose and intent for establishment of a PUD Zoning District per Title 18, allowing diversification in use and in the relationships of various buildings, structures, and open spaces in building groups and variations in the allowable heights of buildings and structures, while insuring substantial compliance with the provisions of this title, as well achieving a higher quality of development through better adjustment to terrain and greater preservation of natural features than could otherwise be achieved, while still maintaining privacy for individual homesites. The Vesting Tentative Map would create lots consistent with the requirements of the Town’s Subdivision and Zoning Regulations and would facilitate a clustered development consistent with the vision established in the Housing Element and General Plan, as well as long-term preservation of on-site open space, and would prohibit further subdivision of the property. The project would provide market-rate and affordable housing on an identified Housing site that has been vacant from any residential use since its original creation. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the policies of the General Plan, Alpine Scenic Corridor Plan and Title 18 of the PVMC.
2. That the design or improvement of any proposed subdivision is not consistent with the general plan, any specific plans, and Title 18 of this code; Basis of finding: It is found that the proposed design and improvements associated with the subdivision can be found consistent with the general plan, Alpine Scenic Corridor plan and Title 18 of the PVMC. See Attachment 11, “Identified General Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives” for a summary and basis for finding in Item 1. above. The proposed design and associated improvements of the lots have been reviewed by the Town Engineer, Town Geologist and Town Planner for consistency with City regulations. Conditions of approval would ensure that future development on the lots would occur in compliance with applicable policies of the general plan and zoning ordinance. To ensure conformance with General Plan policy 2103.15, a Fiscal Impact Analysis was prepared to evaluate the proposed project’s fiscal net benefit (if any), total Town general fund costs/expenditures (if any), and general fund fiscal balance (if any) potential utilizing industry standard approaches and methodologies. In summary, the prepared FIA concludes that the because the property tax contribution to the General Fund from this proposed project is relatively minor, the net fiscal impacts of the proposed project over the course of the next 23 years (estimated in 2027, 2037, and 2047) result in slight positive fiscal impact to the Town’s General Fund (see Attachment 10, FIA).
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; Basis of finding: It is found that the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed, as no physical site conditions have been identified that would preclude residential development. The prepared EIR concludes that any potential physical impacts to the environment can be lessened to a level of less than significant through incorporation of identified mitigation measures. The Residential Development Area is fairly level, has sufficient access and is of suitable size and shape for the residential development with associated site and landscape improvements. The lot configurations have been reviewed by the Town Engineer and Fire Marshall and determined to have sufficient access to a public street. The Town Geologist has reviewed the proposed development plan and determined the site is suitable for such residential 16
development from a geologic perspective. The Project will be subject to standard Conditions of Approval and those specific conditions of approval as recommended by all Town development department directors. Further an EIR has been prepared and determined any identified potential physical impacts to the environment can be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval would ensure that future development on the lots would occur in compliance with applicable policies of the general plan and zoning ordinance.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; Basis of finding: It is found that the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. No physical site conditions have been identified that would preclude the development of 39 residential units. See also basis of finding for Item 3. above.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
Basis of finding: The prepared EIR concludes that any potential physical impacts to the environment can be lessened to a level of less than significant through incorporation of identified mitigation measures. Further, development of the subdivision would be subject to the Town’s development regulations and standards conditions to avoid damage to the environment or wildlife.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems;
Basis of finding: It is found that the proposed design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The prepared EIR concludes that any potential physical impacts to the environment can be lessened to a level of less than significant through incorporation of identified mitigation measures. No public health problems were identified.
The Project proposes two access points (one net new driveway) along Alpine Road to access the development area. The proposed layout also provides access within the Residential Development Area for both fire safety and trash collection, as well as construction of a new fire maintenance access road for the Open Space Area to allow for fire safety and maintenance.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the planning commission may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This paragraph shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Basis of finding: It is found that the proposed design of the subdivision and type of improvements will not conflict with easements. Any existing easements will be modified with the recordation of the Map and revised CC&Rs to ensure no conflicts.
III. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
17
1. The structure is designed so as to minimize disturbance to the natural terrain.
The subject property is significantly sloped to the rear and proposed site improvements are built on the relatively flat portion of the lot (where the existing horse boarding facility is generally located), out of the on-site riparian zones, Alpine Scenic Corridor, and denser vegetated areas. Aside from the approximately 6 acres of the project site that would be developed with the residences, the remainder of the site would be protected from development by an appropriate legal instrument. The amount of grading, and cut and fill, has been designed so that the grading of the site would “balance”, meaning that dirt brought onto or hauled off the site during grading activities would be minimized, as well as construction emissions and dust. The applicant’s state the proposed grading/land disturbance attempts to work with the natural contours of the land with the goal of minimizing disruption to the existing landscape which helps maintain natural drainage patterns and preserves the ecological integrity of the site. Given the clustered development design proposed, a resulting “system wide” grading plan where all lots and adjacent loop street have been designed as an integrated package. A site drainage system has been designed to manage stormwater effectively, enhancing both safety and usability.
2. Existing vegetation is preserved to the maximum extent possible.
The applicant states that their design team has worked together to preserve as many existing trees as possible. As noted above, within the immediate Residential Development Area there are a total of 431 surveyed trees in the immediate vicinity. Of these 431 surveyed trees, 177 trees proposed for removal - 123 trees are significant and 54 are non-significant trees. All trees are proposed for removal due to the poor health of the trees, trees proximity to construction, new driveways and/or associated grading. There are thousands of additional trees within the Open Space and Permanent Maintenance Road Area, none of which are proposed for removal at this time as part of this application. See Attachment 2l, “Arborist Reports” which includes a summary of the trees inventoried, their size, condition, disposition, project impact and other condition notes, as well as Sheet C4.1 and C4.2 "Tree Dispositions" of Attachment 2b, for a site plan showing trees proposed to be removed and those to remain, as well as a summary table of each tree and its reason for proposed removal within the Residential Development Area.
3. The structure is designed and located to allow adequate light and air for itself and its neighbors.
The proposed residences is located within minimum setbacks, the project maintains rear yard open space for the owners’ enjoyment and has separation from neighboring homes. The property’s lot configuration, combined with existing topography and vegetation, in relation to the surrounding residential properties, results in the proposed buildings being separated and screened from neighboring properties and buildings. See response to PUD finding C above.
4. Landscaping, screening, and fencing preserve privacy and mitigate adverse effects on neighboring properties.
Landscaping is proposed to be retained to the greatest extent feasible. The proposed project consists of a total of 89,891 square feet of new landscaped areas - not including the proposed 310 new shrubs or 55 new, 36” box sized trees to be planted. The existing 18
approximately 3.5-foot-tall split rail fence would be retained along the existing trail fronting Alpine Road with modifications to accommodate site driveways and a connection to the new site trail. Deer fencing (6 feet tall) is proposed around the single-family lots for security without obscuring views. See response to PUD finding C and Items #1 and #3 above regarding screening and privacy on neighboring properties.
5. Entrances, exits, and internal circulation shall be sited to promote traffic safety and ease and convenience of movement.
The Project proposes two access points (one net new driveway) along Alpine Road to access the development area. The proposed layout also provides access within the Residential Development Area for both fire safety and trash collection, as well as construction of a new fire maintenance access road for the Open Space Area to allow for fire safety and maintenance. See responses to CUP finding #3, PUD findings D and and F above regarding circulation, traffic safety, parking, and movement within the project site.
6. Night lighting is located and fixtures chosen to promote public safety but minimize effects on adjoining properties.
Fixtures direct light downward, use minimum lumens necessary, and warm color temperature to minimize light encroachment to surrounding areas. Fixture location and quantity are sufficient for safe internal circulation on site. See response to PUD finding C above regarding night lighting.
7. Planting and site design mitigate the problems of drainage and soil erosion.
The proposed planting schedule is made up of primarily native plants with low water usage and is grouped in a natural pattern. Proposed irrigation is designed to minimize water runoff and soil erosion on site and complies with Town’s WELO requirements. See response to CUP finding #5 above regarding drainage and soil erosion.
8. Materials and colors are compatible with the rural setting of the town and the surrounding landscape and structures.
All proposed materials will meet Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) requirements, Town reflectivity guidelines and include a natural color palette and material choices that blend the residences into the site. Building and roof colors were selected to meet the Town’s reflectivity values.
9. Proposed grading minimizes the apparent disturbance to the natural terrain.
The amount of grading is proposed to primarily facilitate the location of the residences, site work, the new loop road, driveways including emergency vehicle access, and retaining walls, all within the most flat part of the property with attempt to minimize vegetation removal to the greatest extent feasible in attempts to minimize the overall amount of grading and disturbance to the property’s entire natural terrain. See responses to CUP finding #6, PUD finding # B, and Item #1 about the overall grading approach attempting to minimize disturbance to the natural terrain.
Design Guidelines
19
1. SITE DESIGN
The proposed project has been designed to maintain the 75-foot scenic setback along Alpine Road, proposes landscaping and the situation/orientation structures to screen the development from the road. The proposed project is well suited for the relatively flat topography of the development area without disturbing the otherwise steeply sloped and heavily vegetated remainder of the site. Proposed exterior materials are natural and have a natural color palette to help blend the project into the surrounding context. Proposed site development maintains the riparian corridors, and preserves 64.4 acres of the the total 74.2 acre site as open space. The buildings as proposed would comply with Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure and all would be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system. See response to CUP finding #5 above related to additional wildfire design standards proposed as part of the project.
2. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The scale, form and massing of the buildings appear compatible with other residential uses recently approved and under construction, and with existing structures on neighboring properties. Use of non-combustible materials such as cement fiber, standing seam metal roofs, and large metal-clad windows and a muted earth tone color palette support the residence’s relationship to its surroundings.
3. LANDSCAPE DESIGN
The proposal includes 89,891 square feet of new landscaped areas - not including proposed new shrubs or trees. Proposed landscaping complies with Town requirements for impervious surfaces and water use. Species used are primarily drought resistant. Plantings are concentrated in areas where they provide screening for neighboring properties and public right-of-way. Exterior outdoor lighting is limited, all is shielded and down-lit. The existing approximately 3.5-foot-tall split rail fence would be retained along the existing trail fronting Alpine Road with modifications to accommodate site driveways and a connection to the new site trail. Deer fencing (6 feet tall) is proposed around the single-family lots for security without obscuring views. A 25-foot fuel management area in the back yards of the single family residences consists of irrigated, low-fuel landscaping species. The project’s licensed landscape architect has submitted a certified statement that the proposed landscaping plans comply with town design standards, including those for the Alpine Road scenic corridor, the Town’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, and the Town’s site visibility guidelines. 20
EXHIBIT B
Recommended Conditions of Approval for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Conditional Use Permit for establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the 75.4 acre parcel, Architectural Review for construction of thirty-nine (39) new residential units, Site Development Permit for tree removal and grading and Density Bonus/Affordable Housing Agreement for a site density bonus and creation of twelve (12) Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units associated with the proposed Portola Terrace (Stanford University) Residential Development Project - the project site known as 3530 Alpine Road, APN 077-281-020, File # PLN_ARCH0021-2019.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW / PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT / ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW /
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/ DENSITY BONUS AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The Conditions of Approval herein contained shall be applicable until such time as the project approved has undergone a lawful 'Comprehensive Redevelopment' which is defined to mean that subsequent to construction of the project, at least 50 percent or more, cumulatively, of project building space has lawfully been demolished and replaced with new building space, landscaping, other improvements, or open space and shall be binding on the Applicant/Developer and all heirs, executors, administrators, and successors in interest to the real property that is the subject of this approval.
2. The buildings and all site improvements shall be situated on the property in accordance with the approved set of plans prepared by Siegal and Strain Architects dated November 10, 2020. These plans indicate the location of the buildings, the size of the buildings, the landscaping, lighting, fences/retaining walls, parking and all other physical site improvements to be provided.
3. Minor modifications to the approved plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. Modifications to the approved plans not deemed minor by the Director shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Council as an amendment to the approved project entitlements
4. As part of the Town Council approval, the removal of a total of 177 trees, of which 123 are significant trees and 54 are non-significant trees as shown on sheets C4.1 and C4.2 within the approved set of plans, and as described in the June 11, 2020 and February 9, 2021 Project Arborist memos prepared by Hort Science Bartlett Consulting, was approved. No further significant tree removal is allowed without prior approval by the Planning Director. 21 Type text here
5. As part of the Town Council approval, a State Density Bonus with the following bonus, incentives, concessions and waivers was approved:
a. Density bonus of 9 additional units, for a total of 39 units; b. Two incentives/concessions:
i. Reduction of the minimum parcel sizes from 20,000 square feet to approximately 3,300 to 8,300 square feet for residential lots.
ii. the elimination of the General Plan clustering provisions described in Land Use Principle 2105(4.1);
c. Three waivers:
i. Portola Valley Municipal Code (PVMC) Section 18.44.050(C) requiring specified spacing between main buildings in a residential planned unit development. ii. PVMC Section 18.48.010 establishing maximum floor area requirements. iii. PVMC Section 18.17.070, requiring similarity between market-rate and affordable units in density bonus projects, to the extent this provision could be read to apply to the proposed project.
6. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit revised plans including the following details, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, in consultation with up to two (2) members of the ASCC as necessary:
a. An exterior color package shall be submitted for each residential unit, fence and wall, including final paint colors and finishes, to demonstrate consistency with the approved plan set.
b. The proposed open space and trails sheets shall be updated to include a gate and/or signage at the location where the new public trail crosses over the fire maintenance road to clearly delineate to the public users that the fire maintenance road is not part of the on-site public trail system and access to the road is prohibited to the public, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
c. The proposed open space and trails sheets shall be updated to delineate the extent of the fire maintenance access road size and location to be consistent with the final approved set of plans.
d. The proposed open space and trails plan shall be updated to include details to manage public access to the fire maintenance road for pedestrian access only. e. The landscaping plan shall be revised to create a more natural, and less formal landscaping approach, that demonstrates compliance with all applicable fire codes to the satisfaction of the Woodside Fire Protection District, and demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the Town’s Municipal Code and General Plan.
7. The applicant shall prepare access easements or other comparable documents to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney and Planning Director to be recorded with the County Recorder to allow access to, subject to limitations as set forth in the final easement agreement, portions of the Alpine Road trail on the property and emergency fire access improvements for the project at 3530 Alpine Road, as shown on Sheet C-5.3 of the ASCC Submittal package dated 11/10/20, until such time as the project approved has undergone a lawful 'Comprehensive Redevelopment' which is defined to mean that subsequent to 22
construction of the project, at least 50 percent or more, cumulatively, of project building space has lawfully been demolished and replaced with new building space, landscaping, other improvements, or open space. These instruments shall be recorded prior to recording of the Final Map.
8. Future use, improvements, new construction, rights-of-way, maintenance and/or easements (or other appropriate legal instruments), which shall be applicable until such time as the project approved has undergone a lawful 'Comprehensive Redevelopment' which is defined to mean that subsequent to construction of the project, at least 50 percent or more, cumulatively, of project building space has lawfully been demolished and replaced with new building space, landscaping, other improvements, or open space of all final approved public trails as part of the approved project shall comply with the following adopted Town documents, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Planning Director:
a. “Trail Easements and Trails in the Road Right of Way” b. “Trail & Path Construction & Maintenance Standards”
c. “Trail Usage Rules”
d. Resolution 2352-2007 “Establishing Rules and Regulations Relating to the Use of Trails”
e. Section 17.52.030 “Improvements” of the Portola Valley Municipal Code.
Easements (or other appropriate legal instruments) for public trails shall be applicable until such time as the project approved has undergone a lawful 'Comprehensive Redevelopment' which is defined to mean that subsequent to construction of the project, at least 50 percent or more, cumulatively, of project building space has lawfully been demolished and replaced with new building space, landscaping, other improvements, or open space and shall be subject to limitations as set forth in the final easement agreement or other legal instrument.
9. Invasive plant materials shall be prohibited from entering the project site on construction equipment. Existing invasive plants shall be removed from areas of the project development site in which project improvements are made prior to final inspection.
10. Staging plans shall state that no parking is permitted on Alpine Trail/Path and no material may be staged on Alpine Trail/Path.
11. Prior to building permit issuance, a detailed construction staging, logistics, and tree protection plan for the construction shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director .
12. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate that all AC Units and Mechanical Equipment comply with Town’s Noise Ordinance, PVMC Section 9.10.030, prior to building permit issuance.
13. The project applicant shall prepare for recordation an appropriate legal instrument preserving
64.4 acres of project open space from any further development beyond public recreational trails and a fire maintenance access road, which legal instrument shall be applicable until such time as the project approved has undergone a lawful 'Comprehensive Redevelopment' 23
which is defined to mean that subsequent to construction of the project, at least 50 percent or more, cumulatively, of project building space has lawfully been demolished and replaced with new building space, landscaping, other improvements, or open space , and as shown on the approved set of plans to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney and Planning Director.
Such legal instrument(s) shall be recorded prior to recording the Final Map for the project.
14. The applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the Town for the 12 Below Market Rate Housing rental units (six units dedicated to low income households and six units dedicated to moderate income households), with all applicable terms and conditions in accordance with the final approved Below Market Rate Housing Plan, prior to recording of the Final Map. Such Agreement shall be recorded against the property prior to recording of the Final Map for the project.
15. The Architecture and Site Development Permits shall automatically expire two years from the thirtieth day following the date of issuance by the Town Council if, within such time period, a Building Permit has not been obtained.
16. The permit(s) granted by this approval may not be appealed pursuant to Government Code section 65913.3.
17. All mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein, which were adopted and made conditions of project approval by Resolution No. 2024-04, shall be implemented and are a part of these conditions of approval.
18. Prior to issuance of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit an operational traffic analysis, evaluating the project’s ability to comply with the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Evacuation Plan, dated June 12, 2024 and evaluating potential Alpine Road street improvements including, but not limited to, the construction of a new left turn lane into the development site, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director, Town Engineer, and Fire Marshal but the applicant would not necessarily be responsible for the cost, implementation and construction of any identified improvements.
B. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING:
1. Building plans shall comply with all conditions listed in the “Public Works & Engineering Department Site Development Standard Guidelines and Checklist” in effect at the time of the project approval or approval by the Town Council of any amendment to the approved project entitlements. The project architect or engineer shall submit a completed and signed checklist with the building plans.
2. Prior to commencement of construction, Applicant shall review all items listed in the “Public Works & Engineering Department Pre-Construction Meeting for Site Development.” This 24
document is also available on the Town website
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showdocument?id=3317
3. The site is subject to and must comply with the County’s Green Infrastructure plan, and shall use San Mateo County Design Guidelines as template for future submitted Stormwater Management Plan.
4. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall resubmit any revisions to the Site Development permit plan set to the Town for review. The applicant must highlight the revised items on the plans and submit a letter noting each revised item.
5. Show and label all existing and proposed utilities within the project vicinity on the building plan submitted for plan check.
6. Provide a Hydrology/Hydraulics report per San Mateo County Drainage Manual at the time of building permit submittal.
7. Provide documentation and a summary table in the building plan set submitted for plan check showing the total overall impervious surface area for both the existing pre-construction site condition and the post-construction site condition. The Town’s Site Development Standard Guidelines include a requirement for the installation of stormwater detention for projects that create or replace greater than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface.
8. Provide documentation in the building plan set submitted for plan check as to how the size of the detention system and its components were determined.
9. Provide documentation within the project Drainage Report to be submitted as part of the building plan set submitted for plan check of the existing condition and estimated post-development peak runoff. Post-development peak runoff must be less than or equal to the existing pre-development condition or mitigation must be provided. For the runoff calculation for existing and post-construction conditions, provide the watershed delineation, time of concentration for peak flow and the runoff coefficient used for the project site.
10. Provide calculations in the building plan set submitted for plan check indicating the flow velocity for sizing the proposed storm drainage pipes, and provide information for the sizing of any proposed rock slope protection.
11. The building plan set submitted for plan check shall show cleanouts in the drain system along bends.
12. The building plan set submitted for plan check shall show a sediment capture inlet upstream of the detention basin connection. The capacity of the inlet shall be based on the approved Drainage Report.
25 Type text here
13. Consistent with Fire Department requirements, the minimum turning radius for Hammerhead/Tee and curves shall be 40 feet. The applicant shall ensure the minimum turning radius meets this requirement and shall be reflected in construction plans to be submitted to the Building Department.
14. The building plan set submitted for plan check shall show the sizes of all existing utilities in the project area.
15. The building plan set submitted for plan check shall show the existing 42-inch storm drainage pipe that crosses the proposed water line.
16. For maintenance purposes, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the proposed 8-inch storm drain that crosses under Alpine Road on the south side of the development shall be increased to 18 inches in diameter, similar to the other existing storm drain crossings.
17. The building plan set submitted for plan check shall show the location of the proposed fire hydrants along Alpine Road.
18. The building plan set submitted for plan check shall show scored trails located at any driveway approaches.
19. Private roadway connections to Alpine Road shall be designed with a minimum 25-foot corner radii pursuant to Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code Chapter 17.40.070.
20. Except in designated stalls shown on approved project plans, parking shall not be allowed on the Private Road to allow minimum 20’ wide adequate emergency vehicles access. The applicant shall coordinate with Woodside Fire Protection District regarding striping and signage requirements for emergency vehicle access, which requirements shall be shown on plans submitted for building permit, prior to permit issuance.
21. The building plan set submitted for plan check shall show a typical cross-section for the emergency access between lots 8 and 9. The cross section of the fire maintenance road is shown on page C-5.2 of the 11/10/2020 submittal package.
22. The building plan set submitted for plan check shall show a typical cross-section and centerline radii for the Vegetation Management Maintenance Road shown on C5.0, C5.3, and TM-4.0. (The cross section of the fire maintenance road is shown on page C-5.2 of the 11/10/2020 submittal package.)
23. The Vegetation Management Maintenance Road shown on sheets C5.3 and TM-4.0 do not match the same roadway shown on sheets EX-1, EX-2, and EX-3 of the Proposed Trails letter dated May 26, 2020 and as reflected in the November 11, 2020 submittal.
24. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, improve Alpine Trail along the property frontage as shown in approved plans.
26 Type text here
25. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, replace the two existing 18” storm drains under Alpine Road.
26. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, underground existing overhead utility lines on Alpine Road along the entire property frontage.
27. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, repair or replace fencing along the right of way/property line of the entire property frontage of Alpine Road.
28. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, remove all dead brush, dead trees or trees in poor health and trim all trees and brush along Alpine Road frontage and within the 30-foot area from the property line on the property as recommended in Arborist’s report and in coordination with the Town.
29. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, provide additional information in the project Arborist’s revised report for the trees along the entire property frontage of Alpine Road including the trees within the Alpine Road right of-way and within the area on the property located approximately 30’ from the property line along the property frontage to determine which trees may affect the Alpine Trail and right of way (protruding or canopying).
C. TOWN GEOLOGY:
The following shall be performed prior to approval of Building Permits:
1. Supplemental Exploratory Trenching – The Project Geologist shall perform additional subsurface exploration westward from Exploratory Trench T-1 to determine the location and nature of the geologic contact between the Whiskey Hill and Ladera Sandstone Formations.
Offset trenches shall be considered where mature oak trees prevent continuous exploratory trenching. Exploration in the northern portion of the residential site should be considered to help characterize the subsurface geology and further clear the site from geologic hazards. An exploration plan shall be submitted to the Town for review prior to commencement of subsurface exploration. The Town shall expeditiously review such plan. The Town Geologist should be notified prior to the start of exploration and be given the opportunity to inspect the subsurface exposures.
2. Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation of Site Slopes and Drainage Channel – The slopes above the proposed development shall be evaluated with respect to their potential for instability and adverse impacts to the project properties. Retaining wall freeboard/mitigation from sloughing/landsliding along the upslope side of the development should be evaluated, to the extent necessary as determined by the project geotechnical engineer and reflected in plans to be submitted to the Building Department, to the satisfaction of the Town Geologist. In addition, setbacks from the northern drainage channel shall be assessed. 27
3. Updated Development Plan – The Development Plan shall be updated in the event the results of Conditions C.1 and C.2 so require.
4. Geotechnical Review of Grading, Drainage, and Structural Plans and Final Map - The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve the Grading and Drainage Plans, Structural Plans, and Final Map to ensure that their recommendations have been incorporated into the Plans. The results of the Supplemental Exploratory Trenching, Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluations, Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Updated Development Plan, Structural Plans, and Grading and Drainage Plan and Final Map Review (Conditions C.1 through C.6) shall be submitted to the Town for review prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
D. FIRE DEPARTMENT:
1. All roadway transitions and superelevations shall be less than 10%
2. All fire apparatus access roads and/or driveways must maintain a minimum of 13’6” vertical clearance of any vegetation or tree branches at all times.
3. Addressing required on each structure and each individual R-2 rental unit numbers shall be visible from the loop road of contrasting color from background, illuminated a minimum of 4-inch stroke.
4. “No parking” lanes shall be indicated with red curbs and/or no parking signs shall be installed where Fire Dept access to structures, PIV, FDC, and hydrants are installed.
5. R-2 occupancies are required by state mandate to have annual fire inspections by local jurisdictions.
6. R-3 Occupancy: three fire hydrants, capable of a minimum of 1000 GPM at 20 PSI, along the loop road, with a maximum separation of 400 ft. between each hydrant. Hydrants shall be installed prior to any framing of the structures. Each structure shall have a hydrant within 500 ft measured via the roadway or driveway.
7. R-2 Occupancy: Will be 1500PM at 20PSI based on the V-B construction type.
8. FDC and hydrant proximity must be within 100 ft. per WFPD Ordinance.
9. 200 ft of defensible space will be required on the parcel identified on project plans as Parcel “Y,” located between the remaining undeveloped Stanford parcel and all proposed developed parcels. Defensible space will be required prior to start of any site development work and maintained until such time as the project approved has undergone a lawful 'Comprehensive Redevelopment' which is defined to mean that subsequent to construction of the project, at least 50 percent or more, cumulatively, of project building space has lawfully been demolished and replaced with new building space, landscaping, other improvements, or open space. 28
10. 50 ft perimeter property line defensible space per WFPD local ordinance NO. 24-01 will be required along the perimeter of the project site prior to start of any site work and maintained until such time as the project approved has undergone a lawful 'Comprehensive Redevelopment' which is defined to mean that subsequent to construction of the project, at least 50 percent or more, cumulatively, of project building space has lawfully been demolished and replaced with new building space, landscaping, other improvements, or open space.
11. A fire protection plan, including a vegetation management component indicating map of the area, acres to be treated, distance to neighboring structures, vegetation types, topography, riparian areas, complete prescription, scope, methods and annual treatment timelines and individuals responsible for overseeing work, shall be submitted to WFPD for review and approval prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. A fire fuels management report dated May 5, 2020 was submitted to WFPD for review and was approved by WFPD.
12. Final landscape plans are required to be reviewed and approved by the WFPD prior to building permit issuance.
13. No hazardous vegetation and combustible materials that are within the first five feet (5 ft.) of or above a structure and any attached deck.
14. No combustible bark or mulch is allowed in this zone. Consider using hardscape like gravel, flagstone, permeable pavers or blocks, pervious or porous concrete, or other noncombustible materials.
15. Ensure all live tree branches are kept a minimum of 10 feet above the roof and decking.
16. Ensure all branches are a minimum of ten feet (10 ft) away from chimney and stove-pipe outlets.
17. Replace combustible fencing, gates, trellis, and arbors attached to structures(s) with noncombustible features. For existing fences, consider providing a separation distance of at least 6 feet from any structure unless the last 6 feet of fence connecting to the structure is constructed of a noncombustible material.
18. Maintain horizontal and vertical spacing among shrubs and trees to achieve defensible space clearance utilizing the fuel separation or continuous tree canopy method.
19. NFPA 13 or 13D fire sprinkler system to be installed based on occupancy type.
20. Proximity of FDC to a hydrant must be within 100 ft.
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
1. The Final Map and subdivision improvement plans shall, pursuant to the standards set forth in the Subdivision Map Act, substantially conform to the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by Sandis 29
Engineers and approved on [DATE]. The Final Map shall be prepared by a qualified Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor and shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director.
2. The Final Map shall include all required plan details pertaining to open space and trails in accordance with Chapter 17.20 “Tentative Maps”, in accordance with the final approved plans, and in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Town Planning and Building Director.
3. The Vesting Tentative Map and any subsequent Final Map approval, on its own, does not permit the commencement of any site work at the Property.
4. The final conditions, covenants and restrictions document (CC&Rs) shall specify that the future Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be responsible for:
a. Maintenance, repair, restoration, replacement, and management of all private stormwater management facilities.
b. Maintenance of perimeter landscaping, retaining walls, and fencing.
5. The Final Map shall include all contents required by the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section 66433 et seq.), prior to approval of the Final Map.
6. All required subdivision fees in accordance with the subdivision ordinance shall be paid at the time of Final Map submittal.
7. Upon submittal of the final map, the applicant shall propose a name for the private street. The town historian shall expeditiously review and approve such name within thirty (30) days to ensure timely processing and recording of the final map.
8. At the time of construction of subdivision improvements, all construction vehicles and equipment shall be parked on the subdivision lands and not on the public streets.
INDEMNIFICATION
1. The Applicant (or any successor) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Town, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the Town, its agents, officers and employees to attack, set aside, void or annul approval of the subdivision or arising out of or in any way relating to any actions taken by the City related to approval of the Project, or any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for approval of the Project and related actions.
Pursuant to this condition, the Town shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action or proceeding regarding the Project and the Town shall cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action or proceeding.
30
Attachment 1 density Bonus Memo
_____________________________________________________________________ TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Leigh F. Prince, Legal Counsel
DATE: January 21, 2021
RE: State Density Bonus Law
INTRODUCTION:
This memorandum is intended to provide a high-level overview of the State Density Bonus Law and does not address all of the details and nuances of this complex law.
State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) was adopted by the State of California in 1979 as has been amended over the years to encourage applicants to include lower income housing units in developments by providing increased residential density over the otherwise allowable maximum, incentives and waivers in exchange for the provision of affordable units. This memorandum is up to date through Assembly Bill 2345 which became effective January 1, 2021. State Density Bonus Law applies to all cities and towns in the State of California and requires cities to adopt an implementing ordinance. The Town of Portola Valley adopted an implementing ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 18.17) in 2014. Compliance with State Density Bonus Law is mandatory and preempts any inconsistent local regulation.
DISCUSSION:
State Density Bonus Law requires local governments to grant a density bonus and one or more incentives when an applicant constructs a housing development (five or more units) that will contain at least one of the following:
1. Ten percent of the total units for low income households.
2. Five percent of the total units for very-low income households.
3. At least 35 senior citizen housing units.
4. Ten percent of the total units in a common interest development for persons and families of moderate income.
5. Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for transitional foster youth, disabled residents or homeless.
MEMORANDUM
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
$WWDFKPHQW Page 19
Attachment 1 density Bonus Memo
6. Twent percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development.
The total number of units for the purpose of calculating the percentages described above does not include units added by a density bonus. The lower income units are required to be restricted for a minimum of 55 years.
Density Bonus:
The percentage density bonus to which an applicant may be entitled for the provision of low income, very-low income and moderate income units is detailed in the tables found in Government Code Section 65915(f). The percentage density bonus to which an applicant would be entitled varies based on the percentage of lower income units provided and the affordability level. The more lower income units or the deeper the affordability, the greater the density bonus. All density calculations resulting in fractional units are rounded up to the next whole number. The maximum percentage density bonus provided for in any of the tables is 50 percent.
The following are a few examples from the State Density Bonus Law:
• 10 percent low income units Æ 20 percent density bonus • 10 percent very-low income units Æ 32.5 percent density bonus • 40 percent moderate income units Æ 35 percent density bonus • 25 percent low income units Æ 50 percent density bonus .
A density bonus means a density increase over the otherwise allowable maximum residential density. Thus, through the application of State Density Bonus Law, an applicant may exceed the maximum residential density identified in the zoning code.
Incentive or Concession:
In addition to the density bonus, State Density Bonus Law provides for incentives or concessions for the provision of lower income units. An incentive or a concession is defined as any of the following:
1. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions.
2. Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with a housing project.
3. Other regulatory incentives proposed by the applicant that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. An incentive may, but need not be, the provision of a direct financial incentive such as the waiver of fees.
The number of incentives or concessions an applicant is entitled to receive depends on the percentage of low, very-low or moderate income units provided as follows:
1. One incentive for projects that include at least 10 percent of the total units for low or moderate income households, or at least five percent for verylow income units.
Attachment 1 density Bonus Memo
2. Two incentives for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for low or moderate income households, or at least 10 percent for very-low income units.
3. Three incentives for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for low or moderate income households, or at least 15 percent for very-low income units.
4. Four incentives for an 100 percent affordable project.
Incentives or concessions requested by the applicant, may only be denied if the town makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
1. The incentive is not required to provide for affordable housing costs as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 which defines affordable housing costs for very-low, low and moderate income housing.
2. The incentive would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historical Places. Government Code Section 65589.5 defines a specific adverse impact as a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact, based on objective written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed at the time the application was complete.
3. The incentive would be contrary to federal or state law.
The town bears the burden of proof and there must be substantial evidence in the record of the basis for denial.
Waivers:
In addition to one or more incentives, an applicant may be entitled to waivers. A waiver is a reduction in a development standard (e.g. height, setback requirement, etc.) that if applied without modification would physically preclude construction of the proposed project. There is no limit on the number of development standard waivers. Waivers shall be granted unless the town finds that the waiver would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or any property listed on the California Register of Historical Places or would be contrary to federal or state law. A waiver neither reduces nor increases the number of incentives to which the applicant is entitled.
Parking:
An applicant may request to apply the following parking ratios identified in State Density Bonus Law to a proposed project:
1. Zero to one bedroom, one onsite parking space.
2. Two to three bedrooms, two onsite parking spaces.
3. Four or more bedrooms, two and one-half parking spaces.
If the proposed project provides the maximum percentage low income or very-low income units or is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop and there is
Attachment 1 density Bonus Memo
unobstructed access to the transit stop, the maximum parking ratio inclusive of handicapped and guest parking is 0.5 spaces per bedroom. The total number of required spaces is rounded up to the next whole number. Onsite parking may be provided through tandem or uncovered parking spaces, but not on-street parking.
Failure to Comply:
If a town denies a density bonus, incentive or development standard waiver for a proposed project in violation of the State Density Bonus Law, an applicant may bring a writ of mandate requesting that the court order the town to grant the density bonus, incentive, or development standard waiver and approve the project. If the court determines that the town denied the density bonus, incentive or development standard waiver in violation of the law, the court may order the project with the density bonus, incentive or development standard waiver approved and the town will have no more discretion related to project approval. Furthermore, if the court determines that the town denied the density bonus, incentive or development standard waiver in violation of State Density Bonus Law, the court will award the developer reasonable attorneys’ costs and fees.
cc: Laura Russell, Planning & Building Director
Cara Silver, Town Attorney
ATTACHMENT 17
Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated February 5, 2024
(available online:
https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showdocument?id=18578&t=638602880003796939) Hard copy available upon request.
1 IDENTIFIED GENERAL PLAN GOALS, POLICIES AND/or OBJECTIVES The following General Plan goals, policies and/or objectives have been summarized as those which may be considered applicable to, and consistent with, the proposed Portola Terrace project.
LAND USE ELEMENT
General Objectives and Principles
2102.1. To provide for residential uses and related facilities and services that will preserve and enhance the quality of living enjoyed by local residents.
2102.2 To maintain the natural character of the planning area and to provide for limited park, recreation and open space uses in appropriate scenic areas where the uses will be compatible with the maintenance of the residential nature and quality of the planning area.
2102.5 To ensure that development in areas subject to geologic, fire and flooding hazards is controlled so that people and structures are not exposed to unacceptable levels of risk. 2103.2 Uses of land should include homes, open spaces, agricultural pursuits and such other private, office and commercial uses as are required to serve the frequent needs of local residents.
2103.5 In any development within the planning area, full consideration should be given to the geologic conditions so that development on unstable land can be avoided or minimized. 2103.6 In order to maintain the rural atmosphere of Portola Valley, all buildings should be subordinate to their natural surroundings in size, scale and siting. Monumental buildings should be avoided. 2103.8 In order to help minimize the adverse effects of higher intensity uses upon lower intensity uses, landscaping areas of primarily native plants appropriate to the site should be provided. Such buffers should be of a size and design that will provide an effective visual buffer.
2103.9 In all developments in the planning area, full consideration should be given to fire protection needs, including those identified in the safety element, and adequate measures should be taken to ensure that these needs are met.
2103.9.1In all developments in the planning area, full consideration should be given to fire protection needs, including those identified in the safety element, and adequate measures should be taken to ensure that these needs are met.
2 2103.10 The rate of development and location of projects should not exceed the capacity of the town, special districts and utility companies to provide all needed services and facilities in an orderly and economic manner.
2103.11 Conservation of energy from non-renewable sources should be considered in the design, improvement, reconstruction and remodeling of buildings.
2103.12 The use of passive and active solar energy should be encouraged in the siting, design and construction of buildings.
2103.13 Where feasible, development proposals should incorporate unified planning for the largest land area practically possible in order to preserve open space, conserve unique natural features of the area, allow logical extensions of the trail and paths system, maximize the opportunities for controlling the extent and impacts of development and otherwise help ensure the application of good land use planning principles.
2103.14Grading shall normally be the minimum necessary to accommodate development; however, in those instances where increased grading can provide for greater compatibility of development with the natural setting and not cause significant adverse effects on the environment, such grading shall be preferred.
2103.15 For all new developments within the planning area, full consideration shall be given to the fiscal ability of the town and other affected local governmental agencies to provide essential services. When fiscal impact will exceed tax revenue to be generated, provisions may be made to require off- setting fiscal impact fees.
2103.16 In the planning, design, construction and operation of development within the planning area, water conservation should be a high priority.
2103.17 In all new developments, the undergrounding of utilities should be considered a high priority.
Residential Areas Objectives and Principles
2104.3. To assure that all building sites and residences are developed in a manner minimizing disturbance to natural terrain and vegetation and maximizing preservation of natural beauty and open space.
2104.3.To provide for the grouping or clustering of residential buildings where this will maximize the opportunity to preserve natural beauty, habitat and open space without generally increasing the intensity of development otherwise possible.
3 2104.5 b Insure that occupancy of land and dwellings will be in balance with service facilities such as on-site parking, traffic capacity of access streets and capacity of utilities such as water and sewage disposal.
2104.5 d Fix responsibility for use, occupancy and conduct on the premises in relation to town standards and requirements. That is, on each parcel and in each main dwelling, someone must be “in charge” as owners or tenant of the owner.
2105.3 Population densities within the planning area should be guided by considerations of topography, geology, vegetative cover, access to transportation and services, fire hazards, emergency access, impact on pre- existing residential development and other factors such as:
A. The highest densities should be located on relatively level land close to local shopping and service areas, other local facilities and transportation facilities. Densities should decrease as the distance from these facilities increases.
B. Population density should decrease as steepness of terrain increases.
C. The lowest densities and largest lots should be located on the steepest hillsides on which the town allows development and in mountainous areas where it is necessary to limit storm runoff, prevent erosion, preserve existing vegetation, protect watersheds, avoid potentially unstable ground and maintain the scenic quality of the terrain.
2105.4. Steep slopes, potentially unstable ground, canyons and ravines should be left undisturbed as residential open space preserves.
2105.4.1 When residences are grouped or clustered in areas where intensity standards require one acre or more per dwelling unit:
a. Each residence should have substantial direct frontage on a common open space of sufficient size to convey a feeling or being on the edge of a large and significant open space.
2105.5 On tree covered buildable slopes, development should be designed to preserve groves of trees as well as individual trees and native understory to the maximum extent possible. 2105.7 To the extent feasible, all structures (including residences) should complement and blend in with the natural setting of the planning area; and to this end, the following principles should be adhered to:
a. Structures may be located in existing tree covered areas to the extent possible and still be consistent with slope, geologic and related conditions and the need to preserve locally unique or especially beautiful wooded areas.
4 b. Largely bare slopes and sparsely wooded ridges visible from large portions of the town or planning area should be kept free of structures to the maximum extent possible.
2105.8 In all residential areas of the town, or its spheres of influence, particular attention must be given to the effects of approaching the maximum amount of development permitted on individual parcels. The cumulative effect of buildout under appropriate ordinances and policies should be examined and steps taken to ensure that its effect will not be injurious to the unique and desirable characteristics of each area. Overall development levels as measured by floor area ratios and impervious surfaces should be limited so as to preserve the rural setting.
2105.9 To the extent feasible, the design of subdivisions should retain a representative composition of habitats on the site and their interrelationships. 2106b The slope-intensity standards for the conservation residential and open residential categories recognize in part the overall problems of the development in areas with potential geologic instabilities. However, the intensity of development in individual developments should be further reduced as necessary to reflect specific geologic conditions encountered, to minimize significant visual impacts, to preserve scenic qualities and historic features, and to avoid high fire hazards and inadequate emergency access.
2106c Residential development and related improvements should be permitted only where geologic stability meets the standards of the town for the specific uses. 2106d Land use intensities may be increased beyond those specified in this section in accordance with provisions for the inclusionary lot program adopted by ordinance by the Town Council and Policy 2, Program 2-1 of the Housing Element. 2107 Residential areas of low intensities are the predominant land use proposed in this general plan. Eight categories of residential land use intensities are indicated. The multi-family – medium, mixed use, multi-family - low, low-medium and low intensities are restricted to areas of existing development. The conservation residential intensity is assigned to less steep land close to community and circulation facilities and existing development.
2121 Residential Area No. 7. This area is composed primarily of the Arrowhead Meadows, Alpine Hills, Hillbrook, Stonegate, Stonegate Meadows, Corte Madera Acres, Palmer Estates, Portola Terrace, Portola Heights, and Pine Ridge subdivisions. All of these subdivisions have minimum parcel sizes of 1 acre or more. In addition, there are unsubdivided areas of larger parcels, namely in the vicinity of Georgia Lane. The entire area is shown in the low intensity category. As the unsubdivided areas are developed, attention should be given to ensuring careful integration into the largely already developed area so as to ensure compatibility.
Particular attention will need to be given to land use relationships in the vicinity of the nonresidential uses along Portola and Alpine Roads.
5 2121 Residential Area No. 8. This area is composed of the Westridge and Oak Hills subdivisions plus a steep undivided area between Westridge and Alpine Hills subdivision. The area is shown in the conservation residential intensity. Few lots are vacant in the subdivisions.
The character and quality of the area should be conserved as the area plays an important part in maintaining the open space character of the town.
2123a In the area along Alpine Road, any development should be kept well back from the road so as not to encroach on the Alpine Road Corridor, Portola Road Corridor, and Nathhorst Triangle Area.
Parks, Recreation Areas and Open Spaces Objectives
2134.1. To retain areas of natural terrain and vegetation sufficient to preserve the overall natural open character and quality of the area, and to buffer the town from its neighbors and its constituent neighborhoods from each other while permitting reasonable development of private lands. 2134.2. To provide for appropriate park and recreation areas for community and neighborhood use.
2134.3. To encourage public parks, recreation areas and open spaces serving other than primarily local residents only in locations where they will not be a disruptive influence on local residents and where they will preserve unique natural resources for use by residents of the larger region.
Public Facilities and Services Objectives and Priniciples 2163 1. To ensure the development of public utilities in a manner that will cause minimum disruption of the natural beauty of the area.
2164 1.All lines and facilities related to the transmission and distribution of power and telecommunications should be placed underground. If this is not practical and such lines or facilities are to be placed aboveground, the impact should be compensated by the undergrounding of lines or facilities in other locations within the planning area. The undergrounding of lines and facilities should be balanced against adverse effects on native vegetation.
2164.4 All utility installations should be designed to minimize damage from identified geologic hazards.
2164.6 Water supply systems must conform with established health and fire protection standards.
6 2164.8 Vegetative ground cover should be sustained to prevent storm water erosion.
Unobstructed natural drainage channels should remain the principal storm drainage system, and riparian vegetation along their sides should be maintained in order to reduce erosion and bank failure and preserve habitat. Publicly owned drainage structures should be provided and maintained in accordance with the current Storm Drainage Plan of Portola Valley. 2164.10 The planting of native vegetation in developments should be encouraged as a water conservation measure.
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Objectives and Principles
2207 Size is not a limiting factor for open space, nor is public ownership necessary. In Portola Valley, concern for the preservation of open space should include all scales of open space from hillside watershed areas of large expanse to natural and landscaped areas on residential and other developed properties.
2209 Many open spaces are best preserved and managed if the town or another public agency has responsibility or regulatory authority through fee title, easement or special zoning. This is especially true of public parks, flood plains, natural areas along travel corridors, creeks and riparian lands, wilderness areas or other wildlife habitat of shy or endangered species, and areas that represent a potential danger to health and safety. 2212.1.To preserve open space in order to maintain the natural environmental qualities that make Portola Valley an unusual and special place in which to live. 2212.2.To provide visual enjoyment by means of a continuous flow of open space and natural ground contours throughout the entire planning area.
2212.8.To provide scenic corridors along routes of major movement. 2212.10. To provide for the retention of vegetative forms that contribute to the public safety and help maintain the natural processes and aesthetic qualities of the town. 2212.11. To preserve as open space, insofar as necessary, those areas subject to inherent natural hazards in order to ensure the public safety and welfare.
2212.12. To preserve and protect areas vital as wildlife habitat or of a fragile ecological nature.
7 2213.5. The scale and type of materials used in developments should be harmonious with the surrounding natural scenery.
2213.6. Open spaces should be linked together visually and physically to form a system of open spaces.
2213.7. Common open spaces intended to serve the immediate residents should be owned by the residents through a homeowners’ association, condominium association, or other similar legal instrument.
2213.9. Open space along creeks, streams and scenic trails should be protected from encroachment through flood plain zoning, development setbacks, conservation easements, public acquisition of streamsides and other appropriate devices which will help preserve them in an essentially natural state.
2213.10. A qualified biologist should delineate those areas rich in wildlife, or of a fragile ecological nature. These areas should be preserved through land use regulation or through dedication or acquisition where necessary.
2213.11. Environmental impact studies should take into consideration the impact of development proposals on wildlife habitats.
2213.12. Land use regulations should be used to prevent damage to vegetative ground cover.
2213.13. The contribution of vegetation and water areas in maintaining air quality should be considered in any major land use proposals.
2213.14. Areas hazardous to the public safety and welfare should be retained as open space.
Areas that fall into this category include:
A. Slopes generally over 30 percent.
B. Fault zones - bands on either side of known fault traces sufficient to include lands of probable ground rupture.
C. Areas of geologic instability.
D. Streams and their flood plains.
2213.15. Streams, stream sides, ponds and trails should be preserved as scenic open spaces through regulation, dedication and, where necessary, by public acquisition.
8 2213.16. Scenic corridors should be protected so as to maximize their scenic quality.
2213.17. Scenic corridors and greenways
A. Scenic corridors and greenways should be of a width suitable to preserve the natural quality of the area through which the corridor passes and provide space for appropriate uses.
B. Development within scenic corridors and greenways should not detract from the essential qualities of the corridor or greenway. C. Scenic corridors and greenways should be designed to insulate residential areas from noise and activity on trafficways and to provide buffers between other incompatible uses.
2213.18 New residential developments should provide for the clustering of residences so as to leave larger natural areas (residential open space preserves and other open space preserves) as undisturbed open space with limited local use by trails and paths. (When considering residential open space preserves, see also Section 2109 of the general plan.)
RECREATION ELEMENT
Objective and Principles
2307 1. All residential areas should be served by a public park within a distance of 1/4 to 1/2 mile.
2325 The trails and paths are in themselves important recreation facilities. A very extensive system is proposed which provides access from residential areas to recreation facilities at schools, parks, etc., and between residential areas. The system provides pleasant routes for recreational travel through particularly scenic portions of the town. (See the trails and paths element.)
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Objective and Principles
3101.1. To provide for movement within and through the planning area by automobile, bicycle, horse and foot on an integrated system of circulation facilities. (See the trails and paths element for proposals for movement by bicycle, horse and foot.) 3101.3. To locate, design and develop circulation facilities so as to conserve the natural beauty of the area and minimize adverse effects on adjoining uses of the land.
9 3101.8. Roads should be designed for safe travel at moderate speeds and to minimize the cost of maintenance.
3101.9. On-road parking should be discouraged.
TRAILS AND PATH ELEMENT
Section 3204: Upon adoption of this plan, no trail or path shall be opened or developed on an existing trail or path easement, except in the normal subdivision process or conditional use permit process, without first: 1) determining if the proposal is in conformity with the general plan, and 2) holding a public hearing after giving notice to the owners of land abutting on such proposed trail, or path, or easement. Town council action on such matters will be taken only after giving due consideration to the facts and opinions presented at the public hearing.
Section 3205: The trails and paths element proposes a comprehensive system of trails and paths.
This system provides for horseback riding, hiking for pleasure, walking to schools and other community facilities, and bicycling for pleasure as well as to and from local destinations. The more major trails and paths also provide for travel through the planning area, and for residents to travel from the town to nearby destinations. The character and quality of the trail and path system is intended to have high scenic value throughout because of the low density rural character of the community and the town's dedication to furthering the concept of Portola Valley as an open space preserve in the Midpeninsula.
Objectives and Principles
Section 3209:
1. To provide a system of trails, paths and bicycle routes and lanes to:
a. provide recreation, particularly scenic, quiet, leisurely neighborhood walks and rides;
b. furnish easy access to trails from individual properties; c. permit safe, pleasant travel between parts of the community; d. connect local areas within the town to through trails and paths within and adjoining the town;
e. create opportunities for nature and conservation education; f. provide for solitary activities such as meditation and contemplation; g. recognize the wide range of users including hikers, equestrians, road and mountain bikers, in-line skaters, those in wheelchairs and those using other suitable nonmotorized vehicles; h. provide safe and convenient facilities for use by children in reaching local schools, the library and playing fields; and
i. ensure that such facilities are designed and used so as to avoid habitat degradation
10 2. To create a tradition of access to and use of open space so that citizens will not willingly relinquish these rights under the pressure of urbanization. Access to and use of open space should be circumscribed to the extent necessary to prevent undue interference with use and enjoyment of private property.
Section 3210:
1.g. Routing, construction and use of trails and paths should be done with great care so that they:
1. are designed to adapt to the existing conditions to the extent possible while still adhering to the intent, if not the detail, of engineering standards;
2. disturb the natural conditions of terrain and vegetation as little as possible;
3. provide a variety of experiences for users;
4. provide convenient, safe passage;
5. minimize intrusion on privacy in residential areas;
6. encourage use without incurring excessive maintenance costs.
1.j. Through trails, paths and bicycle routes should connect to those in adjoining jurisdictions, and within the town special care should be taken to minimize intrusion into residential areas.
1.p. Trails shall be designed and constructed so as to minimize changes in the natural flow of water across the land.
SCENIC ROADS AND HIGHWAY ELEMENT
3303 These principles are intended to guide future actions of the town and private parties.
1. Regulate density and land use, as provided in the general plan and zoning ordinances, with special attention to the view from the road.
2. Give special consideration to site development, including controlled access for driveways and special setbacks for buildings.
3. Keep the amount of roadway cuts and fills required in road maintenance or construction to a reasonable minimum.
4. Contour and plant cut and fill slopes as an integral part of the road design, construction and maintenance process.
5. Carefully control earth moving, grading, contouring and replanting in areas adjacent to and visible from the road.
6. Keep traffic signs and markers to a minimum and place with consideration for the visual quality of the road. In addition, all commercial signs on scenic routes must be of such design as to be in keeping with a rural and natural atmosphere.
7. Control the design of all structures abutting scenic routes, including review by the Architectural and Site Control Commission.
11 8. Landscape all development along scenic routes and maintain such landscaping.
10. Encourage planting of native wildflowers, shrubs, and trees on public and private property.
Wherever possible, remove aggressive exotic volunteers such as yellow star thistle, pampas grass, acacia, Scotch and French broom and eucalyptus.
11. Provide hiking and riding trails and bicycling paths separated from the pavement, where possible, as a part of future road improvements.
13. Give high priority to placing underground all existing overhead utility lines, and structures to the extent possible, along the town scenic roads. Do not erect new or additional overhead facilities.
3312 “The policy of the Town of Portola Valley has always been to maintain a tranquil, rural atmosphere, and to preserve a maximum of green open space. The Alpine Scenic corridor should be developed in accordance with the policy. The natural look and feeling of the land between the road and the creek should be maintained. Trees and natural growth should be preserved and increased. Recreational uses should be in keeping with a peaceful and rural atmosphere.”
3313 In May, 1971, the town adopted the Alpine Parkway Plan, subsequently renamed the Alpine Scenic Corridor Plan, as a part of the town general plan which includes detailed description of the road and of related design policies (see part 6). Special provisions to implement the plan and to protect the corridor include:
2. Special setback lines along a major portion of Alpine Road.
4. The recreation element and the trails and paths element which include proposals for trails and paths in the corridor.
SAFETY ELEMENT
Objectives and Principles
4105 The objectives of the Town of Portola Valley in adopting this element of the general plan are:
1. To define the relative degree of risk in various parts of the planning area so that this information can be used as a guide for minimizing or avoiding risk for new construction
12 and for risk abatement for existing development.
2. To minimize the risk to human life from structures located in hazardous areas.
4106 The following principles are intended to guide the town and private parties in future actions.
1. Land uses should be controlled to avoid exposure to risk in excess of the level generally acceptable to the community (defined in this element as “Acceptable Risk”).
2. Locate development, to the maximum extent feasible, so that it will avoid areas which present high risk exposure.
3. Development in hazardous areas should be limited to structures and improvements that would not threaten human life or cause substantial financial loss if damaged, or the development or site should be engineered to mitigate the hazard if possible without unduly disturbing the natural environment.
4. Where utility lines and roads are located in or cross high hazard areas, all reasonable measures should be taken to insure continuity or quick restoration of service and prevention of secondary hazards such as fire or flood.
5. High hazard areas should not be subdivided unless and until adequate mitigating measures are assured.
7. New structures should be designed and constructed to withstand, within levels of acceptable risk, the hazards known to exist at their locations.
10. Reports of geologic and/or soil investigations should be required in all instances when a permit is sought and available information indicates a potential substantial threat to life or property from a geological hazard.
11. The location and extent of areas covered by soil and geologic investigations received by the town should be recorded by the town geologist on the town’s Geologic Map and Ground Movement Potential Map, and the reports thereon should be considered to be public records. Where appropriate, the results of such detailed investigations will be utilized to supplement and supersede more general information.
SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT
4403 To preserve and enhance the natural features and open space of the planning area because they are unusual and valuable assets for the planning area, the Peninsula and the
13 entire Bay Area.
Overarching Goals
4. To encourage and provide for enhanced resource efficiency and the use of sustainable materials in all building projects.
5. To employ the principles of “green” building.
4424 Goal: New Buildings - Encourage, and where feasible, require new buildings to adhere to “green” building design standards.
1. To require all new buildings to achieve a minimum level of sustainability based on an accepted “green” rating system.
The above objective addresses many topics including: use of passive and active solar energy as well as geothermal energy in the siting, design and construction of buildings; conservation of water through the use of drought-tolerant plant materials and recycling; reduced use of non-renewable resources in design and construction of buildings. 4426 Goal: Water Resources - Protect and conserve water resources in the town including imported water.
3. To use drought resistant native plants in developments.
4. To maximize the collection and recycling of natural-sourced and public water. 4427 Goal: Living Environment - Protect the natural environments for plants, animals and humans.
1. To protect the interdependent plants and animals that together comprise a balanced ecosystem in our forests, grasslands, chaparral areas, and creek systems.
2. To protect extensive areas of native vegetation that support wildlife.
HOUSING ELEMENT
GOAL 1: Expand the types of housing allowed in the community. Facilitate the development of a range of housing types to meet the Town’s fair share of regional housing needs and accommodate current and new Portola Valley residents of diverse ages, races, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
14 GOAL 2: Elimination of Government Constraints. Removal of governmental policies or regulations that unnecessarily constrain the development, improvement, or conservation of market-rate or affordable housing.
Policy 5: Improve the development review process to reduce uncertainty and encourage development that fits with the Town’s objective standards while preserving rural character.
GOAL 3: Resilient Housing. Manage wildfire vulnerability through design and policy strategies.
Policy 6: Continue to refine fire resistant building standards and land use policies to ensure they utilize the most up to date science in preparation for wildfire resiliency.
ALPINE SCENIC CORRIDOR PLAN
6202a The basic goal of this plan is the conservation and enhancement of the beauty of landscape and the rich variety of plants and wildlife of the scenic corridor so as to maintain this band of pleasant open country for the enjoyment of all. A further goal is to carry local traffic and to provide recreational opportunities while preserving to the maximum extent possible the natural setting with improvements limited to trails, paths and features designed to protect and enhance the natural character and the public safety.
25. Views of hills and oaks important to the corridor; work with Stanford to retain open space quality.
27. View of ridge behind Stanford; retain
29. Steep wooded canyon and hillside (Stanford land); extreme care needed in design and construction if lands are developed in the future; maintain as permanent open space if possible.
Memorandum
Date: November 26, 2024
To: Terrence Grindall, Interim Planning & Building Director Town of Portola Valley
Building, Planning & Engineering Dept
From: Kai-Ling Kuo, Gary Black
Subject: Response to Planning Commission Traffic Discussion for the Stanford Wedge Housing Project on Alpine Road in Portola Valley, California Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared a transportation analysis for the EIR for the Stanford Wedge Housing Project in 2022 (included as Appendix I of the Draft EIR). This memorandum addresses the following traffic-related topics that were raised by Planning Commissioners at the 11/18/24 hearing to consider the project.
1. Should there be a center turn lane and/or a right-turn lane at the project driveways?
2. Could one of the project driveways be closed to normal traffic?
3. Is the 2019 traffic data (November 2019) used for the transportation analysis outdated? It should be noted that traffic operational effects on the roadway system are not considered CEQA impacts. These are discussed as informational items outside the CEQA analysis. None of the information in this memo would be considered “significant new information” under section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. This memo does not identify any new significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Therefore, no recirculation or re-issuance of EIR documents would be required as a result of the information in this memo.
1. Peak-Hour Turn Lane Analysis
The 2022 transportation analysis shows that the project would provide adequate sight distance at the driveways, and no operational issues related to vehicle queueing and/or vehicle delay are expected to occur on Alpine Road or on the driveways. The outbound left-turn traffic would experience vehicle delay equivalent to an acceptable LOS C, and the inbound left-turn traffic would experience vehicle delay equivalent to an acceptable LOS A. These results indicate there are sufficient gaps in the traffic flow on Alpine Road for the project traffic to turn into and out of the project driveways.
The need for an inbound left-turn lane or right-turn lane on Alpine Road at the project driveways is evaluated below based on the design guidelines published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Figure 1 shows the traffic volumes at the project driveways under existing plus project conditions. It is anticipated that the left-turn inbound and right-turn outbound project traffic would mostly use the southern driveway while the right-turn inbound and left-turn outbound project traffic would use the northern driveway.
Stanford Wedge Housing Turn Lane Analysis November 26, 2024 Page | 2
Inbound Left-Turn Lane
A left-turn lane warrant analysis was conducted for the project driveways to determine whether a separate left-turn lane from northbound Alpine Road would be necessary to safely and efficiently accommodate the project traffic. The AASHTO publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2018) provides suggested left-turn lane guidelines (see Figure 2). The guidelines indicate that the projected northbound left turns into the project site would not warrant a separate left-turn lane during either the AM or PM peak hour. The analysis assumed one access point to the project site for a conservative evaluation that also answers the later question about one access point. With two access points as proposed, the driveways would be marginally farther from the warrant and the conclusions would be the same.
Figure 1
Traffic Volumes at Project Driveways, Including the Project, AM(PM) Figure 2
AASHTO Left-Turn Lane Warrant Guidelines for T-Intersections and Project Driveway Conditions for AM and PM Peaks (Alpine Road Southbound Volumes Across the Driveway, Northbound Left Turn Volumes into the Driveway)
Stanford Wedge Housing Turn Lane Analysis November 26, 2024 Page | 3
Inbound Right-Turn Lane
A right-turn lane warrant analysis was conducted based on the NCHRP’s Design Guidelines for Intersection Auxiliary Lanes (NCHRP Research Report 780 published in 2014). The report provides right-turn guidelines (see Figure 3). The guidelines indicate that the projected southbound right turns into the project site would not warrant a separate right-turn lane during either the AM or PM peak hour. The analysis assumed one access point to the project site for a conservative evaluation that also answers the later question about one access point. With two access points as proposed, the driveways would be marginally farther from the warrant and the conclusions would be the same.
Figure3
NCHRP Right-Turn Lane Warrant Guidelines for T-Intersections and Project Driveway Conditions for AM and PM Peaks (Alpine Road Southbound Through Volumes, Southbound Right Turn Volumes into the Driveway)
Center Turn Lane for Outbound Left-Turn Traffic
The need for a center turn lane on Alpine Road to facilitate outbound left turns from the project driveways was evaluated based on the delay that would be experienced by the outbound traffic.
Because the outbound left-turn traffic would experience vehicle delay equivalent to an acceptable LOS C and there would be adequate sight distance for the outbound vehicles to identify gaps on Alpine Road, a center turn lane on Alpine Road would not be warranted.
Summary
The turn lane analysis shows that a center turn lane or a right-turn lane would not be warranted at the project driveways because the project generated traffic would not meet the thresholds.
Stanford Wedge Housing Turn Lane Analysis November 26, 2024 Page | 4
Conversely, there would be no adverse effect on traffic operations to provide a center turn lane or a right-turn lane at the project driveways.
2. Evaluation of One Access Point
The project proposes two driveways to access the project site. Although the transportation analysis shows the vehicle access and the driveway operations would be adequate with two access points, the Planning Commission discussed gating one of the driveways for EVA access only. With only one access point for project vehicle traffic, the driveway would still operate adequately and would not result in the need for turn lanes. (See the turn lane warrant analysis above, which was performed to consider one access point.)
3. Comparison of Pre- and Post-Pandemic Traffic Data
Traffic levels dropped during the pandemic, so for many years traffic counts that were taken before the Bay Area pandemic shelter orders began in March 2020 were considered more conservative (higher) than conducting newer counts. Hexagon’s ongoing experience is that traffic levels in the area have generally bounced back slowly since shelter orders were lifted, likely reflecting increased work-from-home arrangements. This is demonstrated in a comparison of counts in the vicinity from before the pandemic (dating from 2016 to 2019) to more current counts (dating from 2023 or 2024) as shown in Table 1. These are streets on the Peninsula or in the South Bay for which Hexagon had such counts from both time periods to compare.
Table 1
Comparison of Pre- and Post-Pandemic Traffic Data
The traffic data comparison above shows that traffic volumes on these streets is generally still lower than before the pandemic, with some locations achieving similar volumes. While data are not available for a direct comparison on Alpine Road, based on vicinity trends, the 2019 traffic data for the transportation analysis would still be considered valid for assessment of the project driveways and updated counts would not be recommended or anticipated to change any of the conclusions in the transportation analysis included with the EIR or in this memo.
Year Volumes (veh/hr) Year Volumes (veh/hr)
AM 2018 897 2024 852 95%
PM 2018 1,101 2024 893 81%
AM 2016 1,149 2024 1,053 92%
PM 2018 1,291 2024 939 73%
AM 2019 2,585 2024 2,419 94%
PM 2019 2,339 2024 2,246 96%
AM 2018 2,023 2024 1,847 91%
PM 2018 1,695 2024 1,755 104%
AM 2018 972 2023 705 73%
PM 2018 850 2023 772 91%
Percent Change
(Post/Pre %)
Bay Road east of Woodside Road (SR 84)
(Redwood City)
5th Street north of El Camino Real (SR 82)
(Redwood City)
Pre-Pandemic Post-Pandemic
Saratoga Avenue south of SR 85
Interchanges (Saratoga)
Peak
Hour
University Avenue south of Saratoga-Los
Gatos Road (SR 9) (Los Gatos)
Miramonte Avenue south of El Camino Real
(SR 82) (Mountain View)