Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-03-16 City Council (44)
TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Palo Alt0 City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER 12 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT MARCH 16, 1998 CMR:162:98 APPLICATION FOR SITE AND DESIGN APPROVAL AT 3220 ALEXIS DRIVE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND TO CONSIDER A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT (File Nos: 97-D-10, 97-EIA-27) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staffrecommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and approve a Site and Design application for a new, two- story, single family dwelling based on the attached findings and revised conditions (see Attachments C and D of the attached Planning Commission report and Attachment B, revised Conditions of Approval, of the City Manager’s Report). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a new, two-story, single family residence, swimming pool and associated site improvements on a vacant, 1.6-acre parcel in the Open Space (OS) zoning district. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 11, 1998. The minutes from that meeting are attached for reference. The Commission unanimously recommended that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design application be approved, with the additional condition that the City Planning Arborist be directly involved in the actual placement of the specimen trees on the building site. Language has been added to Condition No. 3 and is included in Attachment B of this report. The Commission also emphasized the need to have the building site be kept clear of debris and dust during construction. A new Condition (No. 32) has also been included in CMR: 162:98 Page 1 of 2 Attachment B-that requires the applicant to adhere to Best Management Practice specifications and to control dust during construction. The Commission also requested staffto explore the possibility of the subject site sharing a pad mount transformer with the approved future home on the adjacent site at 3230 Alexis Drive. The Utilities Department indicates that the requirement for a separate pad mount transformer stems from the need for a relatively large utility service for this type of residential use. Utility Department personnel believe that a shared transformer arrangement is theoretically possible; however, the details of such a proposal, including new standards and conditions for easements and access, would ha~,e to be carefully considered. The Planning Commission received one letter from the public regarding this project (see Attachment C). The letter outlines a number of points relating to the project. Staff responded verbally to each point during the Planning Commission hearing. ATTACHMENTS A.Planning Commission minutes dated 2/11/98 B.Revised Conditions of Approval C.Letter from Herb Borock dated 2/3/98 D.Planning Commission Report and Attachments dated 2/11/98 Plans (City Council Members only) PREPARED BY: George White, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER ’ Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EM - SOn Assistant City Manager Steve Schwanke, 75 Arbor Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association, 3108 Alexis Drive, Paqo Alto, CA 94304 Committee for Green Foothills, 3921 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 CMR:162:98 Page 2 of 2 .PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 ........ Wednesday, February 11, 1998 Regular Meeting Attachment A ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 1998. 2.Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 1998. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 3 3220 ALEXIS DRIVE: Review of an application for site and design approval to allow the construction of a new, two-story, single-family dwelling, three-car garage, swimming pool and associated site improvements. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Zone District: OS (Open Space). File Nos. 97-D-10, 97-EIA-27. 3 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS COMMISSION MEMBER OUESTIONS~ COMMENTS ANNOUNCEMENTS Appointment of Sub-Committee to review 1998-99 Capital. Improvement Program. Recommendation to cancel Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 1998. 14 14 14 14 A:PCMins81PC0211 .reg Page 1 The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, February 11, 1998 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Beecham, Cassel, Schink and Schmidt Commissioners Bialson and Byrd Staff Present:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment George White, Senior Planner ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman ..Schink: This is the time on our agenda where members of the punic have an opportunity to address us on an item which is specifically not our agenda this evening. You have five minutes to speak. Seeing no one, I will close ihe Oral Communications portion.and move on to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS - None. A:PCMinsSIPC021 l.reg P~e2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 1998. Chifirman Sehink: Are there any corrections or additions to these minutes? MOTION: I move approval of the minutes of January 14, 1998. SECOND: By Commissioner Sehmidt. MOTION PASSES: _Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0-2-0. 2.Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 1998. Chairman Schink: Are there any corrections or additions to these minutes? MOTION: I move approval of the minutes of January 28, 1998. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say, aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0-2-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3220 ALEXIS DRIVE: Review of an application for site and design approval to allow the construction of a new, two-story, single-family dwelling, three-car garage, swimming pool and associated site improvements. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Zone District: OS (Open Space). File Nos. 97-D-10, 97-EIA-27. Chairman Schink: Would staff like to introduce this item? Mr.. Schreiber: I would like to introduce George White to the commission. George is asenior planner and has been with us for over six months, but this is his first commission meeting. He has been handling a lot of the development monitoring projects, and does a very good job. We are very pleased to have him with us tonight. Mr....White: Mr. Chairman, this item is a site and design application for a new, two-story, single- family dwelling and related site improvements, and to consider a mitigated negative declaration for this project. The staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend that the A:PCMins8IPC02 ! l.reg Page 3 City Council approve the mitigated negative declaration that is attached to your staff report with the finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and approve the site and design application for the home. The applicant is proposing tO construct a new, two- story, single-family swelling on a vacant 1.6-acre parcel in the Open Space zoning district. The parcel is a flag lot and has direct access to Alexis Drive offa narrow driveway. The design of the driveway impacts a number of trees both on the property and in the adjacent Foothills Park. The city planning arborist has reviewed the project, and he has suggested natural tree replacements for the trees that are to be removed both in Foothills Park and on the subject property. The driveway is also proposed to be of a pervious paving material. That has been reviewed and accepted by both the fire and public works departments in the city. The house itself is of a rural design utilizing natural materials and colors, and it will be substantially screened by the provision of a number of specimen trees on the site. The project otherwise complies with all applicable zoning requirements for the Open Space zoning district, including setbacks, height, parking and the impervious coverage limitations. -- The staff has received one piece of correspondence on this matter which is included in your packets. Mr. Herb Borock of 2731 Byron Street, Palo’Alto, raises a number of points, and staff is prepared to answer them if the commission so d~sires, as well as any other questions that the commission may have on this project. Thank you. Chairman Schink: Commissioners, questions of staff?. Commissioner Schmidt: I was wondering if there were any changes in thinking about drainage or site coverage after the recent rains? Mr. White: None at this time. Chairman Schink: Could you address the points that Mr. Borock has raised? Mr. White: I’d be happy to. The first point that Mr. Borock raises is that site and design applications for single-family residences are exempt from Architectural Review Board review and approval if they are singly developed parcels. The city policy has been that adjacent parcels that are developed by the same developer would be subject to Architectural Review Board approval. However, in this case, Nos. 3220 and 3230 are adjacent parcels owned by different individuals, though they are represented by the same architect. Therefore, they are not required to be heard by the Architectural Review Board. The second item relates to parking prohibited in the front yard setback. The required four spaces for this project are provided on site. A three-car garage, one additional space in front of the garage, and probably more than one additional space in front of the garage. The "guest parking" that is indicated on the plans is actually the required 60-foot emergency turnaround. It is perhaps mislabeled in that sense. However, the fire department has indicated that guest parking and an A:PCMins81PC0211 .reg P~e4 emergency turnaround can cohabitate an area. The third item is the screening of the driveway by trees. As I mentioned, the city arbodst has reviewed this project, and he has recommended that the area of the driveway to which Mr. Borock refers not be screened by trees, but be screened by low shrubs. That area naturally does not contain trees, and he felt that the addition of new trees along the driveway would highlight the driveway rather than screen. The next item is the driveway design. As I stated, the pervious paving material has been reviewed and accepted by the fire and public works departments as a permeable surface. The actual product that is going to be used has been used in other cases and is an acceptable permeable product. As for the valley gutters and concrete curbs, the applicant has indicated to me that the final design of the driveway will only incorporate curbs and valley gutters at the very low point where the storm drain is proposed. The next point is the "Toilet Room by Pool." This is actually a bathroom and changing area adjacent to the pool, and in no way would be considered a dwelling unit. Certainly, staff’would review the final building plans to ensure that there is not more than the prescribed number of plumbing fixtures. The last item is the existing iron gate on Alexis Drive. Staff called Public Works, and they had no problem with the gate’s being removed, once these properties are developed. That covers the points made in Mr. Borock’s letter.- Chairman Schink: Seeing no further questions for staff, I will open the public hearing. Steve Schwanke. 75 Arbor Road. Menlo Park: I am happy to answer any questions that the commission may have. I do not have anything else to add at this point. Commissioner sehrnidt: I would like to ask you the same question, that is, after the rains of the past weeks, do you or the client have any concerns about drainage on site, given that the driveway goes down to a low spot and then goes back up to the house, and the amount of coverage that there is on the site. Mr, Schwanke: All of the driveway paving, according to the literature we received, is over 90% permeable. The moisture that is collected on that material goes straight through. The design has a pretty substantial gravel base to help distribute that moisture. We are currently showing one collected outfall. When we do the final engineering, we will calculate the amount of water that we can. expect there, and it may be more appropriate to do two outfalls, or perhaps even three. We do not know about that yet. Those outfalls simply lead to an area that is a low, dry swale on the park lands. I was up there on one of the days that it was raining really hard to see if there was A:PCMinsSIPC0211 .reg Page 5 any sign of slippage of soils, etc.,, and I did not see any. So I feel that we have taken the right steps to deal with drainage and any on-site water appropriately. Commissioner Cassel: Where do the ouffalls go? Mr. Schwanke: They lead to a dry swale right on the border of the base of Foothiils Park. Lower down, it may have had some running water over the past week, but that eventually leads down to a creek farther down at the base of Foothills Park. We talked to Lester, the Park Ranger there, and explained what we were doing. He felt it was a non-issue in terms of the water outfalling near that area. That was his impression. Commissioner C.assel: I was actually concerned that it could be that if that area filled with water, that the house could be isolated. You could not get in or out of it. Mr. Schwanke: There is no volume of water like that running through there. The road is still elevated from the low point of that swale. The swale is a goodseven or eight feet below the lowest point in the road. Chairman Schink: You ha~,e what appears io be a’nice material board before us. Could you briefly describe for us what the materials are that you are using for the house, and also, give us an explanation as to how you decided upon those materials? Mr. Schwanke: The idea was to use natural materials and try tO pick up on materials that would blend into this type of environment.. So for the roof, we are proposing some slate. This will be a mixture of gray-blues and some maroons added in. For the paving, we are looking at some Connecticut blue stone, as well as some Arizona. we are leaning more towards the Connecticut blue stone, but we are not definitive on that yet. For the siding, we are looking at a treated, washed, old cedar board siding at this point. There is also some stucco, and we have not included that color here, but it would blend with the wood siding, as well. For the rock, we are just now getting samples of the rock that seemed appropriate, and it is in the grays and brown tones. That is what we are considering. Commissioner Cassel: I have a question about the fencing. Is this fenced or not? Are you limited as to where you can put fences? Do you plan to put up fences? Mr. Schwanke: Yes, we call for fencing around the property. -Commissioner Cassel: What kind of fencing? Mr. Schwanke: Right now, we are calling for a six-foot-tall chain link fence, which is what we have proposed on the adjacent parcel. At this point, that is what we are submitting. Some other neighbors in the Laurel Glenarea had used a similar color-coated fence, and they were the ones A:PCMins8[PC0211 .reg Page 6 ~flat actually recommended that we consider it. In their opinion, they felt that it blended in quite well with the landscape, so that is what we are considering right now. Commissioner Cassel: What color? Mr. Sehwanke: It is a tan color that we had specified. They used black, but we selected tan because of the hillside color. Chairman Schink: I have one card from a member of the public. Herb Borock. 2731 Byron Street, Palo Altoi Chairman Schink and members of the commission, staffhas responded to the issues that I raised in my letter to you of February 3, 1998. I still have the same concerns. I feel that the issue of interpretation of site and design process as to when the ARB has jurisdiction is analogous to the situation you had with counting floor area for carports. That was a question of staff interpretation. The way the council handled it was that instead of criticizing staff, they clarified the policy. I believe that if the current policy means anything of having the ARB review two houses at the same time, it means to cover this particular case. If that is not clear policy on the council, then the council shouldrevise its ordinance. Or maybe you should review whether the ARB should have hnything to do with houses in the Open Space district, because currently, we have a situation where the Planning Commission reviews houses one at a time without the ARB reviewing them, and then, if there is some minor change, it goes to the ARB or staff instead of to the Planning Commission, which is a rather bizarre process. Regarding the issue of parking, the staff report says that there are five parking spaces. I counted three in the garage and two in the front yard setback. I believe that the zoning code is clear that they do not believe in any front or side setbacks. In regard to driveway design, the materials that have been recommended for a number of properties in the Open Space zone indicate that they can be used to get around the limits on impervious coverage. Common sense tells me that at some steepness of driveway or in some intensity of rainfall, ii is not going to have 100% permeability. It seems to me that there would be performance standards for any kind of material. The question I raised about the bathroom by the pool was it did not appear to be a part of the structure, and it seemed to be the only thing it did not have any site plan that would indicate the number of fixtures. It seemed to me that it would have been a simple thing to be on the plans, even when it goes to council. Regarding the gate, staff and Public Works or Open Space may have no objections to removing it, but there should be a decision made, rather than saying that nobody has anobjection, but whether it should or should not be done. I have a transparency regarding the trees showing.plans for the same prope _r~y the first time this A:PCMins8]PC021 l.reg Page 7 came through the city processes. At that time, there were trees all along the driveway that is proposed. This came through at the time when there was a lot line adjustment to switch the driveway access from the middle of the other two lots to its current location on the south. Commissioners at that time asked (and staff was concerned about the screening of the driveway), and they were told that site and design review was the appropriate time. Today, there may not be trees in that location, but there were at one time, and although the hillside is barren, as you can see from the landscaping plan, it is the intent to plant rather significant trees for the house, and it seems to me that the driveway, especially the part that faces Vista Hill, should also be screened. If you have had an opportunity to view the site (I have not had an opportunity to go up and see if it was staked for the driveway), whatever you could see from the driveway could see that site. That is the way I would go about it, to walk along the area where the flagpole would be and look up and see what can be seen. If you can see Vista Hill, Vista Hill could see you. Only the south pan, which is a,bout 100 feet, is what is screened. Mr. Dockter was basing his justification on what is there now. He did not have before him the materials I have attached to my letter and which I just now showed you. It is the southwest and western sides that will be most visible from Vista Point. Thank you. Chairman Schink: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Are there any questions df staff by commissioners? Commissioner Beecham: I have a question on the percolation. I see in the report that there will be a percolation field for the house rain gutters. I do not recall seeing that before. Is that normal for that area? Mr. White: Yes, I believe it is normal for this area. Commissioner Beecham: Is that expected to basically percolate all of the runoff from the roof?. Mr. White: I cannot answer the technical aspect of that question, i believe it would handle the majority of it, at the .very least. Commissioner Cassel: I thought that When we did these siteand design reviews that the colors were fairly well decided upon for us. This does not sound like the decisions on the colors for the siding, etc. have been made, and it is not going to the ARB. Do we normally review those and have those set by the time we come to site and design review? Ms. Grote: Yes, you do. These are the proposed colors and materials at this stage. These would be what the applicant would be building with, if they are ultimately approved by council. So your recommendation is based upon these colors and materials. Commissioner,,Cassel: So it is not a case of his going back and changing it to a little of this and little of that? A:PCMinsSIPC021 l.reg P~e8 ~: He could not come back and change colors or materials without coming back for City review. .~ Commissioner Cass~l: I remember when Pat Cullen was a commissioner, she made us go through these color boards in fine detail. Will this slate roof have three colors, or is this a selection of colors that may be used? Mr. Schwanke: It is intended to.have three colors. Commissioner Schmidt: First, I have kind of a philosophical question or big picture question. When we have a project like this, it always says "no significant impact" because of the increased impervious surface on a property.~ When do we get to a point where we have done enough of - these in the hills Or enough of these in the city that something becomes a significant impact? Do we ever look at it in that way? Or is it always that this is just a small piece, and this is another small piece, and this is. another small piece, and therefore, it is not a significant impact? You may not be able to answer that question at this time, but I wanted to pose it. - ~: It is a good question, and I will give you a general~answer. The amount of impervious coverage really relates to smaller storrh events and the ability of normal rainfall to soak into the ground. I had a conversation with the Glenn Roberts, Public Works Director this week on this particular subject, andone of the bits of confusion is that for the rainfall like we had’ Monday night and early Tuesday morning of last week, there is little of any absorption going On. The bottom line is that there was not any notable absorption going on when you get to the type of rainfall that we had with very saturated soil and very intense rainfall, and the amount of runoff that is occurring from soil is essentially the same as a paved surface. It is all running, and the ¯ difference is very, very small. So when you get-to the major storm event, you then have very little difference in terms of whether it is paved or soil or grasslands or whatever. The impervious surface is really designed to try and have as much of the natural rainwater that we would normally get in typical situations enter the ground and act in a natural way in the sense of percolating down and being stored in the soil for plants, etc. It has less to do with handling major storm flow events, because in those situations, we are dealing with water coming offthe site, no matter what is there. Commissioner Schmidt: Because we now almost have a Comprehensive Plan, I was able to go to my Comprehensive Plan and determine in which watershed this piece of property was located. I find that it is not in San Francisquito Creek. It is in Matadero Creek, for your information. Mr, Schreiber: To follow up further and give you a more specific example, the question that Glenn Roberts and I were discussing was the Los Trancos Subdivision. The council .again had it on its agenda Monday night. Questions were raised in terms of the amount of storm water leaving that site in the event of a major storm: They were talking about eight building sites and the amount of additional water on the edge of the site. In the environmental review for that project, that issue was raised both in the initial EIR and in a comment from the water district. A:PCMinsSIPC0211.reg Page 9 The environmental consultants looked at the issue using several methodologies. What they came up with for the 100-year or really major storm was that the presence or absence of eight houses on that site had no discernable effect on the~amount of water leaving the site. Again, given the size of the site and given the supersaturated soil conditions and the intensity of rain, the presence of roofs and paving in the small portion of a larger.area just did not even show up. It was absolutely zero in terms of calculating the amount of leaving the site at Trancos Road during a 100 year storm. The same would apply here, whether you are talking about onehouse or several houses in a very large area in the major storm event, which is the one we are really worded about. With the typical storm or the five-year storm or the ten-year storm, the storm drainage systems, Matadero Creek included, are set up to handle those storms. Matadero Creek handled the one last Monday night. It came close to overflowing, but it did not. So Matadero Creek is certainly set up to handle something major. Whether last Monday night was a 100-year storm or not is still being analyzed. But this particular parcel in this particular project would have no effect on downstream water volumes in Matadero Creek in the event of a 50-year or 75-year or 100-year storm. Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. One other question. This project will require a padmount transformer, as will the adjacent property. Is it possible, when doing several houses probably being built within relatively the same time, to share a single padmount transformer, or is each one required to have a separate transformer? I am just trying to introduce fewer unattractive objects in the environment. Mr. White: I cannot answer the question specifically in terms of whether it can be shared successfully. The utilities department obviously reviews these projects and requires the transformer for each house. It is certainly something we could pursue and ask the question. But at this point, I do not know the answer to that question. Commissioner Cassel: Normally, we had one transformer per 20 houses in a residential area. Mr. White: I think that the difference in the hillsides is that the utilities are being extended to each site versus a network covering a neighborhood.’ Commissioner Cassel: Since these two houses are going up together, which is why you would like to have site and design together, you might get away with one, as they might be coming in from the same angle. Mr. White: That may be a possibility. Commissioner Cassel: If you could research that, that would be neat. The fewer of those, the better. Chairman Schink: I have a question on Landscape Plan L-1. Do you have any notes indicating the sizes of the plants for QL? It states that it is a box tree, but the size is not indicated in my A:PCMinsSIPC021 l.reg Page 10 plans. The staff report indicates 48" to 72", according .to Commissioner Beecham. Nlr. Schwanke: It is 48" to 72". Mr. White: And in addition to that, if you refer to the conditions of project approval, the applicant is actually required to plant box specimens of a specific size, according to a certain schedule. That should be reflected on the final plans, as well. Chairman....Sehink: So you will coordinate with the L-1 plan and will ultimately indicate exactly what will be planted. Mr. White: Absolutely. It will be in compliance with these conditions. Commissioner Cassel: How long Will it take those trees to grow? This model shows these lovely tall trees, taller than the house, but clearly, that will take several years. About how many years will it take to get them to that stage? Mr. White: The answer to that probably depends on each tree andthe environment in which that tree is growing. I did talk to the city arborist about this in general terms and about the total cumulative screening potential for what is being proposed on this site. It is his impression that within eight to ten years, certainly, the screening would be quite substantial..These are mainly oak trees, which grow fairly slowly in the hillsides, but it was his feeling that within eight to ten years, they would be substantial tree specimer~s. Chairman Schink: If that completes the questions, we can begin the discussion. Commissioner Cassel: There really is not a whole lot to say. The site is a flag lot that was decided many years ago, over which we have no control. I was not here for the other site when ¯ we approved that. It blends into the two. The Planning Commission itself has made recommendations to. the City Council thatwe look at the size of the buildings that are going on these lots and that they consider that in the current zoning ordinance, and the City Council has turned down that option more than once as we have approached them. So the size is within the scope of what is allowed. We have been encouraging people to use pervious surfaces rather than impervious surfaces whenever we get the opportunity to do so. The strange result of that, in this case, is that we end up with almost as much impervious surface that is allowed, and the pervious surface just allows u~ to get around the edge of the property. But it is a flag lot and has a lot of space, and that has already been approved. I think it is important, especially since you have said that this is not going to the ARB, that the colors, etc. are approved as shown, unless there is some real reason to change those. Otherwise, I do not have any recommendations other than to agree with the staff report. There is also a philosophical issue in relationship to the fences that I asked about. In the Open Space districts in the county that contain 20-acre lots, I do not believe they are allowed to put in A:PCMinsSIPC021 l.reg Page 11 fences. Commissioner Schmidt: I will make essentially the same comment that I made about the other house, which is .that Palo Alto residents who go to Vista Point in Foothills Park will be very surprised to see how close and visible those houses are, and will be surprised to find out that that piece of land is not a part of Foothills Park. Phyllis and I went up there late yesterday, and we were able to see the story poles. It is very clear that it is going to be quite a visible residence, and ¯ therefore, it is very important that .natural materials be used. The muted colors that are shown appear to be good colors that will fit in, and they must be very carefully considered to fit in with the grasses at the different times of the year. The oaks, everything really must blend in because it is so visible. I would like to throw out the idea of possibly putting in a little more landscaping to screen the residents from Vista Point and Foothills Park. It looks both from the landscape plan and model and elevation simulation that the master bedroom area would be pretty visible from Vista Point. I would think that the owners would want to consider putting in a little more landscaping there. In the few minutes that Phyllis and I were up there late yesterday, not a’ particularly attractive time to go up to Foothills Park, there were two or three other cars that stopped and looked out at Vista Point. They will looking into these propertie~ very clearly, so I think it would be to everyone’s advantage if there were very, very good screening there, especially since it will take time for it to be a good screen. Putting in more early is probably a good idea. Also, I would be interested in conditioning this in a similar manner to what we did with the other house where I believe we requested that the city arborist be involved in the final placement of the trees to ensure that the ones with the best canopy or broadest coverage, something that really helps screen, are put in those particular locations. I also think it would be useful to try to do some kind of screening during construction, maybe a fence of some sort, because the construction time will have a fairly raw look to visitors at Foothills Park. I am not exactly sure what can be done,’ but surely something can be done to make it less obtrusive during construction. Commissioner Beecham:. Kathy and Phyllis have made all of the pertinent points. I do have one thing to add, which is to say that assuming we approve this tonight, I will assume that the approved colors are on this board, and are not the mirror-like color in this one photograph. I wanted to make that clear. MOTION: Commissioner BeeCham: With that, I will move the staff recommendation that we approve the mitigated negative declaration, and find that the project will not result in any significant environment impacts, and approve a site and design application as we have it before us tonight, with staff conditions. SECOND: Commissioner Schmidt: I assume we are adding the condition about having the Palo Alto City Arborist involved in the final location of the trees. I feel fairly certain that we did that on the other house. A:PCMinsSIPC0211 .reg Page 12 Chairman Schink: Can staff comment on that? Ms. Cauble: I think it may already be covered in Condition #4, but if not, perhaps we need a little more specificity. It requires that the applicant provide planting notes and details with respect to the trees and that the city arborist needs to approve all of the planting details. I know that part of that is designed to get at the physical construction, but all of this would need to be approved by the city arborist before the trees were installed. Perhaps it needs to be more specific. Commissioner Schmidt: What we had talked about previously with the previous residence was to have the arborist actually involved when the trees wereon the site and selected, making sure that they are put in the best locations, with the biggest ones that will give the most screening in the best places. Mr. Schreiber: I would suggest adding that to clarify it. The point that was made in the last application was that when you are dealing with trees of this size, each one of them has its own shape, density, etc., and the final determination on placement is really a field determination. You want the arborist out there to assist in actually getting this spot rather than another spot 15 feet away, as this particular spot is a lot better. I might add that although it was not a condition, we will follow up on the issue of the padmounted transformers. If we can get them combined, we will do that. We will contact Utilities and will include a response on that in our staff report that goes on to the council. Chairman Schink: I have just one very small concern, which is a testimony to the good job that the architect has done in selecting the materials and in addressing most of the major coneems. I am wondering if we can fashion a condition that would require them to keep the site clean during construction. One thing that will be particularly annoying here is that the prevailing winds blow from this site towards Foothills Park. We all know that in construction projects, all of the debris will be scattered on the hills from this site up into Foothills Park if it is not kept contained. So if my fellow commissioners agree, I would like to include some language to say, "The site shall be kept clean of loose debris." Commissioner Schmidt: I like that, and would you want to add something about some sort of screening during construction? Chairman Schink: I assumed that they would probably be putting up the chain link fence early on. I am not quite sure how you would screen it. My bigger concern was that after they put up the chain link fence, all of the lunch bags would blow up against it. Commissioner Beecham: I accept that as an amendment. Commissioner Schmidt: I do also. A:PCMins8IPC0211 .reg Page 13 MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion.’? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0-2-0. Mr. Schreiber: I would just note that this subdivision was first approved in 1979, and it is the project of threatened litigation. It was asettlement agreement from which the city ended up with some notable open space areas. The issue of visibility from Vista Point was a very conscious issue and concern for the council at that time. At that point in time, they felt that the tradeoff of settling potential litig~ition plus the open space areas obtained by the city were worth having these lots created. So these lots were not historical accidents. They did not sneak through the process. Your predecessors’ predecessors’ predecessors worded a lot about it. I wanted you to know the history of it. In terms of your review, it is certainly very consistent with what was the concern then. Finally, in terms of the houses that have been proposed for both of these lots, I think they are significantly better in terms of design and reducing visual intrusion than some of the proposals that we have seen in past years for these lots. Chairman Schink: That concludes our consideration of Item 3. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES - None. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS - None. ~ COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ANNOUNCEMENTS 4.Appointment of Sub-Committee to review 1998-99 Capital Improvement. Program. Chairman Schink: Do we have any volunteers for this sub-committee? (Commissioners Beecham, Cassel and Schmidt were selected.) 5.Recommendation to cancel Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 1998. Mr. Schreiber: We recommend that you cancel this meeting, as there are no Development Monitoring items for this date. Commissioner Cassel: Could we do the retreat that night? Mr. Schreiber: From the standpoint of staff, it is probably easier to accommodate a retreat on a regular evening meeting date than to find a half day during the week. If the commission is so inclined, staff would have no objections to it in a location other than in the Chambers. Chairman Schink: It appears that that is agreeable with commissionersand that we will not be canceling the meeting of February 25. A:PCMinsSJPC021 l.reg Page 14 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. A:PCMinsSIPC021 l.reg Page 15 ATTACHMENT "B" Revised Conditions for Project Approval For 3220 Alexis Drive 97-D-10 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT Planning Department 1. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. Plannin~ Arborist 2. The plans shall retain tree #1-4 and 12 as indicated in the applicant’s arborist report dated 1/12/98 and in the City Planning Arborist report dated 1/13/98, both herein incorporated by reference. 3.The applicant is required to plant the following: ao For the main house: a minimum of sixteen Coast Live Oaks (Quercus. Agrifolia) of 48-72 inch box size and five Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia) of 90 inch box size or larger, four Valley Oaks (Quercus Lobata) of 48 to 72 inch box size, and two California Buckeye (Aesculius Californica) of 60 inch-box size. bo For the access driveway: One Coast Redwood of 36" box size, 6 California Buckeye of 60" box size, appropriately spaced on City property along the 100’ section of the south property line on Foothills Park land. The locations shall be marked at least two weeks prior to installation and approved by .Foothills Park Senior Ranger and City Planning Arborist. Co The planting plan shallshow the exposed western areas of the access road planted with non-invasive native shrubbery of various species and sizes to screen the road. -The City Planning Arborist shall review and approve the actual placement of all specimen trees and screening vegetation on the project site. 4. The applicant shall provide planting Notes and Details for the installation of the 97D 10.con 3220 Alexis Dr. Oaks, California Buckeyes and Redwood to the City Planning Arborist for review and approval. Plans shall show planting details, outline all maintenance needs of the trees prior to moving, during the establishment period of five years and thereafter. ao The contractor selected to plant the large Oaks and Califomia Buckeye shall be familiar with projects of similar scale, and be approved by the Planning Arborist. o A logistics plan outlining how the trees will be transported shall be submitted for approval. Include route; transportation permits; escorts needed; restrictions; road clearance needed, height and width; tree trimming needed for the narrow road; helicopter option; etc. Plans shall show installation of irrigation supply to all new and existingtrees and shrubs. Around large trees there shall be additional irrigation extending beyond the root ball as needed. During the course of the Establishment Period, watering shall be geared to correspond to the natural climatic rainfall. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for.the City of Palo Alto (V- C)(o). A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for trees #1-4 aLa_d 12 as indicated on the applicant’s arborist report dated 1/13/98 to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist. Plans shall include provisions for monthly inspections by the project arborist, during any excavation or fill within the tree protection zone, protective tree fencing as per below, Spraying and fertilizing or any other measures to insure to insure survival. Monthly status memo’s shall be faxed to the Planning Arborist during the first week of the month at (650) 329-2154. Monterey Pine # 12 shall have a tree protection zone of a 20’ radius that is free of excavation, fill, trenching or impact of any kind unless mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist. Tree Protection Statement: The Building Department shall have on file a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before, grading, or building permit issuance unless otherwise approved by the City.Planning Arborist. 97D10.con 3220 Alexis Dr. o Fire 10. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved plans shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection plans must be included on demolition or building plans and contracts, or on the wading plans if it stands alone from any .other permit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply: at All trees to be preserved shall be protected with five-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10- foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specificatiofi detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans.~ Each tree shall have a "Warning" sign prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and clearly state: "WARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine according to City Code 8.10.110." A NFPA-130(1996) modified Residential Sprinkler System shall be installed per PAMC, Section 15.04.170. 11. 12. 13. 14. The Fire Department access road/driveway for emergency vehicle access shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Central Station monitoring shall be required if over 100 sprinklers are installed. Provide on site fire hydrant required if any portion of the new dwelling is located more than 150 from public water source. Provide roof covering to either be A or B fire retardant class. Spark arrestors shall be shown on building plans and installed in all chimneys as part of project construction. 97D 10.con 3220 Alexis Dr. 15.Residential smoke detectors shall be shown on building plans and installed for bedrooms and hallways with battery back-up in accordance with UBC. Utilities Engineering Electrical 16. The customer shall provide space on-site for a padmount transformer. There are no transformers in the vicinity to provide service at this time. The location of the padmount transformer shall be indicated on the site and landscape plans for review and approval by Utilities Department and Planning Department staff. 17.If the service main size exceeds 400 Amps, the service must be three-phase at a secondary voltage of 120/208 Volts. ~ 18.All on site/off site work by applicant to include substructure work needed. Public Works Engineering 19. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department to construct the required storm drain adjacent to the new driveway in Foothills Park. The final specifications of this storm drain shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. The encroachment permit shall also be recorded at Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office. 20. 21. 22. A formal site drainage plan produced by a qualified civil engineer shall be presented with the Building Permit submission and must be approved by Public Works before permit issuance. The Permittee is required to submit a drainage plan showing existing and proposed drainage of the site. This plan should show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades that show how drainage patterns work. Existing drai.nage from adjacent properties shall be maintained. Show how drainage from the buildings and hardscape will be directed. In no case shall the final grading increase the drainage flow onto adjacent properties. (PAMC 16.28.270 © Grading activities west of Interstate 280 are restricted to the time between April 15 to October 15. This time may be further restricted to adjust to seasonal rain fluctuations. 23.An erosion control plan for the winterization of the site will also be required to presented with the Building Permit submission. 24.Any excavation of grading of more that 100 cubic yards or an excavation deeper 97D10.con 3220 Alexis Dr. than 3 feet requires an approved Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division. Utilities Engineering 25. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater, dated 1992. 26. 27. 28. The Developer shall submit improvement plans and Water-Gas-Wastewater application including load demands for existing and new facilities. The plans must show the proposed alignment of water, gas, and sewer mains and services within the development and in the public right-or-way. All water connections from Palo Alto Utilities must comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Contact Morris White at 650-496-6972, City’s Cross Connection Control Inspector to determine the type of protection required to prevent backflow-into the public water supply. The contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plan have been approved by the Water, Gas, and Wastewater Engineering Division. 29.Utility connection charges must be paid prior to the scheduling of any work performed by the City of Palo Alto. DURING CONSTRUCTION .City Planning Arborist 30. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. 31. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered unless approved. Co Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 97D10.con 3220 Alexis Dr. Public Works Engineering 32.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best managementpractices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) 97D 10.con 3220 Alexis Dr. Herb Borock 2731 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 February 3, 1998 Palo Alto Planning Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 3220 AlexisDrive (97-D-I0, 97-EIA-27) Dear Planning Commission: Please continue this agenda item until after the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has reviewed this application, because this proposed house is one of two houses being developed in the same subdivision cluster at the same time by the same architect, and because Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires that Site and Design review of two homes being developed together be reviewed by the ARB before being reviewed by the Planning Commission. A Site and Design application for a home in the OS Open Space Zone District can avoid review by the ARB only if the home is developed independently of other homes in the subdivision. The standard staff uses to determine whether successive home applications in the same subdivision can avoid ARB review was stated by Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote in response to a question by ARB Chair Cheryl Piha and is recorded on video tape for the November 6, 1997, ARB meeting that discussed John Arrillaga’s applitation for an eight-lot subdivision on Los Trancos Road. The video tape recorded the following question and answer: Piha:What’s the time frame on that? I mean, if they’re submitted a week apart? Grote:No. One would have to he completed and finaled. One building permit would have to be completed and finaled. The "verbatim"~ARB minutes of November 6, 1997, contain an abridged version of the above question and answer at page 18. The two homes at 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive are planned for two of the three lots in the cluster of lots at the end of Alexis Drive that are part of a nine-lot subdivision that also includes a cluster of six lots at the end of Laurel Glen Drive. The Site and Design application for 3220 Alexis Drive is the third application for a new home on a vacant lot in this Borock / Commission /-3220 Alexis / February 3, 1998 Page 2 subdivision that was filed within a period of six months last year, and during that time there was also an application for a minor Site and Design review of an addition to an existing home in the same subdivision. Each of the three applications for Site and Design review of a new home was assigned 1o a different planner or contract planner in the Planning Division. ~ Steve Schwanke is the architect for both 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive, the two homes are for the two individuals who at the time of the applications were the two top executives of Silicon Graphics, Inc. (Robert H. Ewald, and Edward R. McCracken), and the visual simulations in the file for Ewald’s home at 3220 Alexis are just copies of those submitted four months earlier for McCracken’s home, either with McCracken’s name left on the submittal or with Schwanke’s name pasted over McCracken’s name. The following time line shows the relationship between these two applications: June 6, 1997:Application filed for 3230-Alexis Drive August 6, 1997:Environmental Impact Assessment for 3230 Alexis Drive August 27, 1997:Planning Commission meeting on 3230 Alexis Drive September 15, 1997: City Council meeting on 3230 Alexis Drive October 3, 1997: October 29, 1997: Application filed for 3220 Alexis Drive 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive purchased by Ewald and McCracken October 31, 1997:Deeds recorded for 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive January 22~ 1998:Environmental Impact Assessment for 3220 Alexis Drive February Ii, 1998:Planning Commission meeting on 3220 Alexis Drive The Site and Design review application for 3220 Alexis Drive was filed on October 3, 1997, and as of January 22, 1998, no building permit application had been filed for the adjacent lot at 3230 Alexis Drive that had previously received Site and Design approval by the City Council. Borock / Commission / 3220 Alexis / February 3, 1998 Page 3 Therefore, the ARB must review the current application for 3220 Alexis Drive, because final inspection approval for a built home has not yet been received for the building planned for 3230 Alexis Drive. Parking Prohibited in Front Yard Setback The site plan for this application shows parking in the’ f{ont yard setback. Section 18.71.120 PAMC requires four parking spaces for each residence and states that these spaces "shall not be located in any required front or side yard." Although there is nothing, in the regulations for the OS zone district that directly addresses the location of parking provided on si%$ in addition to the required four spaces per residence, the clear intent of the regulations is to prohibit all parking from the front and side yards. In addition, the proposed location of this parking is in the viewshed of Vista Point in Foothills Park and would require extensive screening if it could remain in the front yard. The site design must be modified to move all parking out of the front and side yards. The site needs more than the required parking, because there is no place to park on the public street or on the access driveway. Screening of Driveway by Trees The original subdiuision approval had a different access driveway to the lot at 3220 Alexis Drive. In 1984, the City Council approved a .lot line adjustment to relocate the access driveway to its current location from its previous locatio~ between the other two lots in the cluster. At that time, the architect for the home that was then proposed on the lot submitted a site plan that showed significantly more existing trees along the entire length of the driveway than currently exist. Specifically, the 1984 site plan (a copy of which is attached to this letter) shows trees along the southwestern and western legs of the driveway, where there are none now. Even with those additional existing trees, the Planning Commission and staff anticipated the need for requiring more Borock / Commission / 3220 Alexis / February 3, 1998 Page 4 screening of the driveway during Site and Design review. (See attached excerpt of Planning Commission minutes from the meeting of June 27, 1984, pages 9 and i0.) The southwestern and western legs of the driveway need screening with mature specimen Coast Live Oaks or other evergreen trees to screen the driveway from Vista Point in Foothills Park that is only 1,750 feet from the driveway and at ahigher elevation. The additional trees should be planted in a natural pattern, rather than as a row of trees along the driveway. Driveway Design The proposed driveway contains concrete curbs and a concrete valley gutter that are incompatible with the rural character of the OS zone. The relative permeability or impermeability of the proposed driveway material is a function of the rainfall intensity and both the slope and cross-slope of the driveway. If the rainfall is too intense or the driveway is too steep, rainfall will sheet across or down the driveway and, therefore, the area of the driveway would need to be counted towards the maximum allowable impervious surface. There should be performance data available for the proposed driveway material that can be shown on a graph for a given cross- slope as a series of contour lines for percentage permeability, where each contour line is a function of the driveway slope on one axis and the rainfall intensity on the other axis. For example, given the rainfall intensity of Monday, February 1998, and the slope and cross-slope of the proposed driveway, what percentage of the rainfall would actually go through the driveway to the ground and what percentage would flow down or across the sloped driveway due to the combination of driveway cross-slope (3%), driveway slope (12%14N), and rainfall intensity? Toilet Room by Pool It is unclear whether the toilet room is included as part of the house or is separate from the house and, therefore, is a separate structure that must be evaluated to determine if it is subject to the use permit requirements for a cottage. No floor plan is available that shows how many water hookups are in the toilet room. Borock / Commission / 3220 Alexis / February 3, 1998 Page 5 If the toilet room is a separate structure, then it is limited to two water hookups to avoid the ~equirement for a use permit application. Existing Iron Gate on Alexis Drive There is a locked iron gate on Alexis D~ive that separates the three uacant lots at 3210, 3220, and 3230 Alexis Drive from the rest of the public street. The iron gate was installed to prohibit unauthorized vehicular access into Foothills Park, and was supposed to remain in place only while all three lots remained vacant at the end of the Alexis Drive cul-de-sac. The iron gate should be removed when the first house is built on these vacant lots, because Alexis Drive is a public street and because when houses are occupied on the cul-de-sac the residents can notify police and rangers of any unauthorized attempts by vehicles to use this public street to drive into Foothills Park. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Attachments:1984 Site Plan (84-PM-12) Excerpt, June 27, 1984, Flanning Commission minutes, pages 9 and i0 / , /"// /i. /"//" /i..11// /,., I ;,,/t / /,/ / , / / ) % 37,7 // I / DAVID AkEN SMIIFI ARCHII"EC1 Asenda Item Three :Application of Lee Brandenbur~ for ~ a~ .Preliminary Parcel Map to relocate the access drive to Lot 8 to allow for a more compatible house desisn on Lot 8 and minimize grading visual impact of present fla~ lot access strip. The propert7 is located to the south’~ and southwest of southern terminus of Ale~ Drive (lots 7 and 8). File No. 232-8405~ District OS (Open Space... Controlled Development) ; Public Hearing. 06/27184 --9-- Commissioner Chrlstensen: Another question is whether at this point some screening of the driveway on the part of the applicant should be attached as part of the subdivision process. Ms. Chene~: Technically we are just talking about lot line adjustment, area transfer. The driveway itself could not be installed unless a site and design application comes in. What will occur upon approval of this lot line adjustment will be the transfer of the area and create the new boundary line, but no development could occur. The driveway could not be installed. Therefore, I feel it would be adequate to handle that at the time the site and design came in. Commissioner Christensen: As long as that is clear. We have had a couple of situations where site and design regulations are not clear, and we get caught up in tangles back and forth with the landowner what we can and cannot require, particularly with fences. It might make it more clear to the applicant coming in if this is an expectation from the very beginning. Ms. CheneT: That is what I tried to address by adding the note in the staff analysis, that the specific design of the driveway would be subject to site and design review, and I believe the applicant is well aware of £his. They have a preliminary plan and have been informed that visibility is a major issue in the foothills area, and that we would be interested in seeing screening of not only any development but also the private driveway through landscaping. 06127184 -lO- Attachment D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:Planning Commission FROM:George White, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: February 11, 1998 SUBJECT:Site and Design application at 3220 Alexis Drive for a new, two story, single family dwelling and related site improvements and to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project (File Nos; 97-D-10, 97-EIA-27) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and approve a Site and Design application for a new two-story single family dwelling based on the attached findings and conditions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located in the foothills above the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club and is zoned Open Space (OS). The applicant desires to construct a new single family dwelling and related improvements on an existing lot and in compliance with all OS Zone development standards. The proposal is to construct a two-story single family dwelling on a vacant 1.6 acre parcel. The proposed dwelling would contain a total of 8,565 square feet including two levels of living area, an attached, partially below grade three-car garage and a basement. The site plan also proposes two guest parking spaces, a front walk leading up to the house by a series of terraced steps and a swimming pool. Vehicle accesss would be via a new private driveway off of the cul-de-sac terminus of Alexis Drive. S:fPLAN/PLADIV/3220AIex.sr 02-11-98 Page 1 The proposed dwelling would be of a rural design, with a combination of slate roof and stone and wood exterior. Proposed building color would include the natural colors of slate, stone and wood. A color and material sample board will be provided at the Planning Commission meeting. Site Information Miscellaneous project information is provided below in Table 1. TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Owner: Steve Schwanke Andreas Bechtolsheim Assessor’s Parcel Number:182-54-15 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning District: Existing Use: Open Space/Controlled Development OS-Open Space Vacant Surrounding Land Use:North:Vacant undeveloped single family lot East: Single family residential South: Foothills Park West: Arastradero Preserve/open space BACKGROUND The lot on which the proposed dwelling would be built was part of a larger subdivision (Tract 6723) approved by the City Council and recorded in 1979. Six lots were created at the end of Laurel Glen Drive, and three lots, (Lots 7, 8, 9) were created at the end of Alexis Drive. The subject site is lot 8, Tract no. 6723. Lot l0 was the undivided remainder transferred to the City of Palo Alto as part of a property exchange. The subdivision does not include any easements or other restrictions on this particular lot which would preclude development of the proposed single family dwelling. S : IPLAN IPLAD IV I 3220AIe x. sr 02-11-98 Page 2 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and progrdms: Environmental Resources Element, Program 7, Open Space Element, Policy 4 and. Open Space Element, Policy 11. In addition to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, the proposed residence complies with the Open Space Development Criteria, adopted by the City Council on October 20, 1986 and as indicated in Attachment D. These ten criteria have been developed to ensure environmentally sensitive and visually unobtrusive new development in the foothills. TABLE 2 project,,,,Comparison with Current Zoning Ordinance Requirements REGULATION OS REQUIREMENT PROPOSED , SETBACKS Front-30 feet 30.feet ~ Left Side -30 feet 46 feet [Right Side -30 feet 40 feet Rear -30 feet 180 feet HEIGHT 25 feet 25 feet PARKING 4 parking spaces 5 parking spaces Maximum impervious 15, 246 square feet*14,190 square feet area including building and driveway coverage *Based on 3.5% of a 10-acre parcel - allowed because the subdi~iision had an associated open space dedication (PAMC 18.71.080). SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Site Layout: The new dwelling would be located on a vacant flag lot which has access to Alexis Court. The proposed single family dwelling would be accessed from a 15-foot S:IPLANIPLADIVI3220AIex.sr 02-11-98 Page 3 wide driveway that would lead to the center of the site. The proposed project is located in the center of the lot with the bulk of the structure away from the street. This configuration would require the least amount of grading to accommodate the proposed structure. Architectural Design: The proposal incorporates a rural "country manor" design. The proposed residence has one central two story element with two attached one and two story wings at a slightly lower elevation. The house is connected to the swimming pool area and the remainder of the site by terraces and steps. The house is located away from the ridge and portions of the house step down slope to follow existing site contours. Materials, Aesthetics and Visibility: The house site has no trees and any development would be visible from Vista Point and from portions of trails in Foothill Park. Therefore, the rural character of the proposed house is most approPriate for this site. The proposed materials of the dwelling would be consistent with a rural theme, including a slate roof, stone exterior face, natural wood and subdued gray, tan and brown colors. In addition, the terrace and parking surfaces will be tans and grays to blend in with the existing colors. The proposal incorporates a 6 foot high, tan color, vinyl chain link fence around the perimeter of the property. The color and material of the proposed fence will allow it to blend in with the natural environment of the site. Tree Preservation: The construction of the new driveway will potentially impact twelve trees along the southern boundary of the project site. The City Planning Arborist has reviewed the trees as well as the proposed site plan. Of the twelve trees, eight are on the Foothills Park property owned by the City. Seven of - the twelve trees are weakened from insect invasion and drought and will not survive the drainage alterations from the new road, therefore should be removed. The remaining five trees will be retained (two on the applicant property, three on City property.) A total of seven trees (one Coast Redwood and 6 Monterey Pines) are proposed to be removed (one on the applicant property, six on City property).The City Planning Arborist has suggested replacements to mitigate the loss of these trees as follows: One Coast _Redwood of 36" box size, 6 California Buckeye of 60" box size, appropriately spaced on City property along the 100’ section of the south property line on Foothills Park land. The suggested tree replacements as well as required tree protection measures for the S:/PLANIPLADIV/3220AIex.sr 02-11-98 Page 4 retained trees have been attached as conditions of project approval. Landscaping: The use and careful placement of large screen trees and landscaping are critical to the project to provide screening from Vista Point and other areas from Foothills Park. The landscape plan addresses these issues by incorporating planting that will be of native species appropriate for these conditions. The proposal includes sixteen Coast Live Oaks (Quercus Agrifolia) of 48-72 inch box size and five Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia) of 90 inch box size or larger, four Valley Oaks (Quercus Lobata) of 48 to 72 inch box size, and two Califomia Buckeye (Aesculius Californica) of 60 inch box size. The Planning Arborist has indicated that the proposed 48-inch to 72-inch box size trees will have a higher survival rate than the larger box size because of their adaptability to a smaller amount of soil volume. Also, the 48 to 72 inch box trees will allow more flexibility if they have to be replaced. The proposed five 90 inch box size trees have a greater chance of survival if they have a water monitoring program. Such a program is required as a condition of approval. Impervious Surfaces: Site improvements related to the proposed development would result in a total impervious surface for the lot of 14,190 square feet, including the house footprint, pool, and walkways and a small portion of the driveway. The majority of the driveway is proposed to be of a pervious pavement material. This material has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the Public Works and Fire Departments. The maximum impervious area and building coverage allowed is 3.5 percent of a 10-acre parcel. This maximum is allowed according to Section 18.71.080 of the PAMC because the original subdivision used the cluster principal, which clustered the three lots off Alexis Drive and the six lots offLaurel Glen and included an open space reserve (lot 10). As applied to this lot, the maximum impervious surface coverage would be 15,246 square feet. The proposed development is, therefore, within the maximum allowed coverage. Site Grading and,Access: The proposal would include a driveway constructed of pervious pavers interspersed with solid concrete banding. The driveway would be approximately 15 feet wide to allow adequate backup room for emergency equipment. An additional vehicle turnaround area is provided on the site. _Site grading would be needed to construct the proposed dwelling. The house and terraces will incorporate a combination of cut and fill stepping down the site and relate to the slope. The house site would require approximately 910 cubic yards of cut and 420 cubic yards of fill. The driveway would require an additional 1060 cubic yards of cut and S:IPLANIPLADIV/3220AIex.sr 02-11-98 Page 5 20 cubic yards of fill. Drainage: Site drainage.will be provided tl~ough on-site percolation and outfalls designed to lead into Arastradero Creek on the City of Palo Alto Land. The roof gutters will be directed to the subsurface perforated pipe in a rock trench for on-site percolation. The driveway and guest parking runoff will be directed to a concrete ditch and to a designed outfall leading to a creek located below the site. A storm drain is proposed at the low point of the driveway. An encroachment permit will be required by the Public Works Department to allow drainage into Foothills Park. This requirement is reflected in condition #19 in Attachment E. Utilities: Extension of municipal utilities will be required in order to serve the p~oposed dwelling. New underground natural gas and electric lines would be extended to serve the new dwelling. FINDINGS AND, CONDITIONS Findings and conditions for approval of the Site and Design application are attached (Attachment C and E). PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of this Planning Commission review of the project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. A copy of this staff report was also sent to the representative of the Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is subject to environmental r~view under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and determined that any potential adverse impacts could be mitigated and, therefore, would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review from January 21 to February 11, 1998 and is attached to this staff report (see Attachment B). S:IPLANIPLADWI3220Alex.sr 02-11-98 Page 6 ACTION TIME LIMIT Date application: October 3, 1997 Date application deemed complete: January 21, 1998 Action time limit (180 days after deemed complete): July 21, 1998 Optional extension at applicant’s request (90 days): October 21, 1998 Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council on March 16, 1998. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: EIA Attachment C Findings of Approval for Site and Design Attachment D: Open Space Criteria Findings Attachment E: Conditions Plans (Planning Commission members only) COURTESY COPIES: Steven Schwanke, 75 Arbor Road, Menlo Park, California, 94025 Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association, 3108 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, Ca 94304 Committee for Green Foothills, 3921 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, Ca 94303 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Division Head Approval: George White, Senior Planner Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official S:/PLAN/PLADIN/3220Alex.sr 02-11-98 Page 7 PF(D) Arastradero Preserve Palo Alto Golf& Country Club Los Altos Hills 3220 Alexis Drive Foothills Park Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Datei 2-11-98mm File Nos: 97-D-10; 97-EIA-27 Scale: 1" = 800’ North ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM o 10. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Application Number(s): Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 3220 Alexis Drive City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 George White, Senior Planner 415-329-2230 3220 Alexis Drive Palo Alto, CA 97-D-10; 97-EIA-27 General Plan Designation: Steve Schwanke 75 Arbor Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Open Space, Controlled Development Zoning:OS, Open Space Description of the Project: An application for Site and Design approval to construct a new, two story single family dwelling, swimming pooland related landscape and impervious site improvements on a vacant parcel of 1.629 ac~es. The site is a flag lot accessed off the cul-de-sac of Alexis Drive. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: family lot. North: East: South: West: Foothills Park Single Family Residential Foothills Park Arastradero Preserve/Open Space 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required. None. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA,Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI IST FORM ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning X Population and Housing Geological Problems Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Cultural Resources Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance S:\PLAN\PLA DIV\3220A¯LEX\EIA.Page 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluationi I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. X Project Plar~e~ - Director of Planning & Community Environment Date S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explan~ttion is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)AIJ answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation _measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources SouTcea Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Inc.orporated Less Than Significant Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) ’Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1 2 1 3 2, POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS, Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismlc ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 4 4 4 4 X X X X e) Landslides or mudflows?4 X f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 4 X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land?4 X h) Expansive soils?4 X I)Unique geologic or physical features?4 X xl S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 5 issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)X b) c) d) e) f) g) h) j) 5. a) b) c) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? DisCharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or wetland? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban, or industrial activities? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Alteration of wetlands in any way? 3,7, 4,5 3,17 3,17 3 6,17 3 3 X AIR QUALITY. Would the pr,oposah Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? 6,8,9 X X X X X I X X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp. curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-siteor off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 10 10 10, 11, 12 3,10 10 10 X X X X X X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?3 X 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 8, 16 X X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?8 X c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak 8 X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?8, 16 X " e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?8 X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?8 X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 3 X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 8 X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 7 a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? . b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan c) d) or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 13 12, ’13 13 3, 12, 13 , X e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,3, 12 X grass or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels?6, 8,X 14 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?14 X 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following ,areas: a) Fire protection?8, 12 X b) Police protection?8, 11 X c) Schools?8 X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or 8 X storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services?8 -X 12..UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas?-_15 X b) Communications systems?15 .X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution 15 X facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks?15 X e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?15 X f) Solid waste disposal?15 X g) Local or regional water supplies?15 ’X S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 8 13. AESTHETICS’. Wo*uld the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 3 3 3 X X a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 8 8 8 8 8 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? 8 X X X X X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?3 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. x Ia) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the- project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 9 17. EARLIER ANALYSI~S. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrorn v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980 - 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended) 2 City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49 3 Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development. 4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1994 5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348-5, Map Revised September 6, 1989. 6 City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions Of Approval 7 City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department 8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994 9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994 10 City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 11 City of Palo Alto Police Department 12 City of Palo Alto Fire Department 13 City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division ¯ 14 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994 15 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 10 16 Fish & Game ~3ode of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098 17 Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1985 S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 11 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 3a,b, c,f,g, h 4a,g 6a GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a strong seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC) which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Construction of the project will increase the amount of landscaping on site and slightly increase the amount of impervious surface area without significant changes to site topography. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant environmental impacts. The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Mitigation Measures: None required. WATER With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant and by project completion, there will not be significant additional runoff from the site due to the increase in the amount of impervious surfaces compared with the existing use. The standard conditions of approval will require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties. The construction contractor will be required to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The proposed impervious area and building coverage does not exceed the maximum 3.5 percent allowed (PAMC 18.71.080.) Occupancy of the proposed residence, including associated driveway, terraces, swimming pool and other impervious surfaces, will increase the amount of storm-water runoff leaving the site over the existing, undeveloped condition. As required by standard conditions of approval the developer will be required to prepare a final grading plan for approval by the City. Mitigation Measures: None required. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Occupancy Of the proposed dwelling will add incidental additional vehicles to Alexis Drive and other collector and arterial roadways in this portion of the community. However, Alexis Drive has been sized to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed dwelling. Mitigation Measures: None required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 12 7a BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The construction of the new driveway will potentially impact twelve trees along the southern boundary of the project site. The City Planning Arborist has reviewed the trees as well as the proposed site plan. His report dated 1/13/98 is incorporated by reference. Of the twelve trees, eight are on the Foothills Park property owned by the City. Seven of the twelve trees are weakened from insect invasion and drought and will not survive the drainage alterations from the new road, therefore should be removed. The remaining five trees will be retained (two on the applicant property, three on City property.) The seven trees to be removed (one on the applicant property, six on City property) are required to be replaced by condition of project approval. Tree protection measures for the retained trees has been provided by the City Planning Arborist. Mitigation Measures: 1. Plans shall show the retention of Trees #1-4 and 12. PLANTING PLAN 2.Quality control information for the new trees shall be provided and found acceptable by the Planning Arborist. The information shall include: original growing area; where they will be shipped from; how long in their current box; photographs; and tree health. 3. Plans shall specify: For the access road area: Coast Redwood #5 shall be replaced with another Coast Redwood of 36" box size. Monterey Pine #6-11 shall be replaced with 6 California Buckeye of 60" box size, appropriately spaced on City property along the 100’ section of the south property line on Foothills Park land (benefiting from the hillside canopy edge.) The locations shall be marked at least two weeks prior to installation and approved by Foothills Park Senior Ranger and Planning Arborist. The planting plan shall show the exposed western areas of the access road planted with non-in~asive native shrubbery of various species and sizes to screen the road. The applicant shall provide planting Notes and Details for the installation of the replacement trees subject to review and approval of the City Planning Arborist. Plans shall show planting details, outline all maintenance needs of the trees prior to transit, during the establishment period of five years and thereafter. A.The contractor selected to plant the large California Buckeyes shall be familiar with projects of similar scale, and be approved bY the Planning Arborist. A logistics plan outlining how the trees will be transported shall be submitted for approval. Include route; transportation permits; escorts needed; restrictions; road clearance needed, height and width; tree trimming needed for the narrow road; helicopter option; etc. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 1 3 Plans shall*show installation of irrigation supply to all new and existing trees and shrubs. Around large trees there shall be additional irrigation extending beyond the root ball as needed. During the course of the Establishment Period, water amounts shall be geared to corrspond to the natural climatic rainfall. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION PLANS A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for trees the retained trees to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist. Plans shall include provisions for monthly inspections by the project arborist, during any excavation or fill~within the tree protection zone, protective tree fencing as per below, spraying and fertilizing or any other measures to insureto insure survival. Monthly status memo’s shall be faxed to th~ Planning Arborist during the first week of the month at (650) 329-2154. In addition, the following required practices (#8-12) shall be considered a part of the protection plans. 8.The large Monterey Pine indicated as tree #12 in the applicant’s arborist report shall have a tree protection zone of a 20’ radius that is free of excavation, fill, trenching or impact of any kind unless mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT 9.Tree Protection Statement:.:~:The Building Department shall have on file a statement from the Applicant or project arborist verifying that the protective tree fencing is in plac~before, grading, or building permit issuance unless otherwise approved by the City Planning Arborist. 10.All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved plans shall be protected during construction. The followino tree protection methods shall be included on demolition or buildino plans and contracts, or on the gradin_~ plans if it stands alone from anv other oermit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with five-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work ’specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. Each tree shall have a "Warning" sign prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and clearly state: "WARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine according to City Code 8.10.110." S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 14 lOa 12 a,e DURING CON~;TRUCTION 11. a, b,, The following tree preservation measures appl~ to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area, The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered unless approved by the City Planning Arborist. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are, damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. NOISE Construction of the proposed dwelling will increase noise emissions for existing residences on Alexis Drive and other nearby residential streets. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and noise of constructing the dwelling and accessory structures. Such noise will be short term in duration and would be mitigated by standard City ~onditions of approval, which limits hours of construction. Once completed, long-term noise associated with the new dwelling would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None required. PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed project will incrementally increase the need for municipal services, such as police, fire, schools, solid waster and maintenance. The project will be conditioned to ensure that adequate mitigation for public service impacts is obtained through payment of req0ired school fees, installation of fire protection and security devises as may be required by the Police and Fire Departments and payment of other fees and taxes to the City for maintenance of public facilities. Mitigation Measures: None required. UTILITIES A padmount transformer is required on-site for this project. As a standard condition of approval, a utilities easement will be required for installing the transformer at this location, installing the existing primary stub conduit, and extending the primary conduit to the new transformer location. Future access to the transformer for maintenance may become a problem should any portion of the property that is used for the transformer be developed, Should this occur, the owner of the proposed project would be required to relocate the transformer when needed. As a condition of project approval, the property owner will be required to address the situation in writing. Mitigation Measures: None-required. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 1 5 13a,b 15 (a) AESTHETICS Construction of the proposed dwelling will add a new structure in a primarily open space area of theFoothills Park and the Arastradero Preserve. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vistas or views open to the public. The subject site is located at an elevational height below the VistaPoint in the Foothills Park. However, the development will be visible from Vista Point in tl~e Foothills Park and portion of the trails in the Foothills Park. The proposal will mitigate the potential visual impacts by integrating the structures and the driveway with the existing natural surroundings and by the installationof new, mature landscaping. The proposed landscape plan incorporates 27 native species trees of substantial size that include 20 Coast Live Oaks, 4 Valley Oaks and 1 California Buckeye ranging incontainer size from 48" box to 90" box. In addition, the proposed materials of the house incorporatenatural materials and colors that include slate and stone and natural wood. The potential negative effects of the home on scenic vistas will be reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of Site and Design Review Development. Mitigation Measures: None required, RECREATION Construction of the proposed dwelling will incrementally increase the demand for park and recreational facilities in this portion of Palo Alto. However, the dwelling will be occupied by a single family so thatthe number of future residents will not be significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. (S :\plan\pladiv\eia\3220Alexis.eia)~ S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3220ALEX\EIA.Page 16 ATTACHMENT "C" Findings of Approval Site and Design Review 3220 Alexis Drive ¯ 97-D-10 d The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites; in that the proposed use and improvements are similar in size, scale and design with other uses in the area and the project has been designed and will be sufficiently screened so as not to impact the neighbor’s privacy or enjoyment of their property. The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent area," in that the project will maintain ¯ desirability of investment in the same and.adjacent areas, the proposed design and size of the residence and related improvements are generally consistent with the existing residences on Alexis Drive and nearby roads, and the construction of the residence will be governed by the current Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes, to assure safety and a high quality of development. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in construction of the project," in that the proposed design will follow existing contour lines to minimize site grading. The project will not have a significant environmental impacts as indicated by the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The proposed dwelling has been designed to be consistent with the Open Space Criteria adopted by the City Council to mitigate the impacts of development in the foothills area of the community. The project i_s in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; The proposal will be compatible with goals of the Comprehensive Plan as discussed in the "Policy Section" of this report. The proposed residential use and related site improvements comply with the OS Zone District Site development regulations and conform to the intent of the Open Space/Controlled Development land use designation to allow limited residential development on larger sites to minimize physical impacts of development. ATTACHMENT "D" Open Space Criteria Findings 3220 Alexis Drive 97-D-10 ~ The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public park lands. It should be sited so that it is hidden from view as much as possible. Distant views of the site can be obtained from Vista Point and various vantage points in Foothills Park. The home site has no existing tree cover and any development on the property would be visible. This visibility will be mitigated by the inclusion of mature native trees shown on the landscape plan which will screen the house from Vista Point and other areas in the Foothills Park, and by the use of natural materials and earthtone colors on the structures themselves. ~- Development should be concentrated, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it. This is consistent with the "cluster principle" which makes development less conspicuous. The proposal sets the building mass into and along the natural contours of the site, and uses varying rooflines and building elevations to provide visual relief. In addition, the proposal utilizes well designed architectural features that fit into the overall architectural composition and add visual interest and scale to the house. Built forms and landscape forms shouldmimic the natural topography. Building lines shouM follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes shouM appear natural from a distance. The proposed building masses follow the hillside and the floor levels are kept clo~e to grade to minimize bulk and create opportunitiesto relate the building to the site. The proposal integrates the house on the site by use of varied roof.forms and building shapes that break up mass. Also, the proposal provides an efficient use of space within the building envelope. Where grading is needed to enable the development to blend into the natural topography, it should, nevertheless, be minimized to prevent erosion. The proposal is sensitive to the topography because it follows the slope and avoids excessive grading,’ excavation and uses of retaining walls. Larger, flat expanses of impervious surface should be avoided to reduce the need for cut and f!ll and to reduce potential runoff. The proposal avoids large expanses of impervious surface by terracing the building on the hillside. o o Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. The proposal incorporate materials that include stone veneer, wood and slate that have a natural earth tone color similar to those found in the area’s natural environment. The proposal uses three different materials that are used to break up the apparent mass of the building. Also, the high level of architectural detail and stepping of building mass create shadows appropriate to the natural hillside setting. Landscaping shouM be native species which require ’little or no irrigation (except immediately adjacent to structures as afire prevention technique). The proposal has incorporated native species and drought resistant trees, shrubs and plants in the landscape plan that conserve water and require little irrigation. Lighting should be low intensity and shielded from view from surrounding publi_c points (road and parks). The proposal incorporates accent lights for pedestrian pathways and pool area that directs light down and shields light away from the surrounding parklands. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character (standard curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environmenO. The proposal road access is made of a material that has a rough texture and natural color found in rural areas. 10.Ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. The proposal complies with the Open Space District regulations for impervious site coverage. ATTACHMENT "E" Conditions for Project Approval For 3220 Alexis Drive 97-D-10 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT Planning Department 1. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. Piannin~ Arborist 2. The plans shall retain tree #1-4 and 12 as indicated in the applicant’s arborist report dated 1/12/98 and in the City Planning Arborist report dated 1/13/98, both herein incorporated by reference. 3.The applicant is required to plant the following: ao For the main house: a minimum of sixteen Coast Live Oaks (Quercus Agrifolia) of 48-72 inch box size and five Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia) of 90 inch box size or larger, four Valley Oaks (Quercus Lobata) of 48 to 72 inch box size, and two California Buckeye (Aesculius Californica) of 60 inch box size. b°For the access driveway: One Coast Redwood of 36" box size, 6 Califomia Buckeye of 60" box size, appropriately spaced on City property along the 100’ section of the south property line on Foothills Park land. The locations shall be marked at least two weeks prior to installation and approved by Foothills Park Senior Ranger and City Planning Arborist. The planting plan shall show the exposed western areas of the access road planted with non-invasive native shrubbery of various species and sizes to screen the road. o The applicant shall provide planting Notes and Details for the installation of the Oaks, California Buckeyes and Redwood to the City Planning Arborist for review and approval. Plans shall show planting details, outline all maintenance needs of the trees prior to moving, during the establishment period of five years and thereai~er. The contractor selected to plant the large Oaks and California Buckeye shall be familiar with projects of similar scale, and be approved by the Planning Arborist. bo A logistics plan outlining how the trees will be transported shall be submitted for approval. Include route; transportation permits; escorts needed; restrictions; road clearance needed, height and width; tree trimming needed for the narrow road; helicopter option; etc. Plans shall show installation of irrigation supply to all new and existing trees and shrubs. Around large trees there shall be additional irrigation extending beyond the root ball as needed. During the course of the Establishment Period, watering shall be geared to correspond to the natural climatic rainfall. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V- C)(o). A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for trees #1-4 and 12 as indicated onthe applicant’s arborist report dated 1/13/98 to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist. Plans shall include provisions for monthly inspections by the project arborist, during any excavation or fill within the tree protection zone, protective tree fencing as per below, spraying and fertilizing or any other measures to insure to insure survival. Monthly status memo’s shall be faxed to the PlanningArborist during the first week of the month at (650) 329-2154. o Monterey Pine #12 shall have a tree protection zone of a 20’ radihs that is free of excavation, fill, trenching or impact of any kind unless mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist. o Tree Protection Statement: The Building Dep .artment shall have on file a statement from the Applicant or project arborist Verifying that the protective tree fencing is in place before, grading, or building permit issuance unless otherwise approved by the City Planning Arborist. °All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved plans shall be protected during construction. The followingtree protection plans must be included on demolition or buildingplans and contracts, or on the.. grading plans ifit stands alone from any other permit. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Planning Arbor, st. The following tree preservation measures apply: All trees to be preserved shall be protected with five-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than lO- foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until fmal inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). This detail shall appear on grading and construction plans. Each tree shall have a "Warning" sign prominently displayed on the tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and clearly state: "WARNING - This fence shall not be removed or relocated without written authorization from the City of Palo Alto Planning Director. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine according to City Code 8.10.110." Fire 10.A NFPA-130(1996) modified Residential Sprinkler System shall be installed per PAMC, Section 15.04.170. 11. 12. 13. 14. The Fire Department access, road!driveway for emergency vehicle access shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Central Station monitoring shall be required if over 100 sprinklers are installed. Provide on site fire hydrant required if any portion of the new dwelling is located more than 150 from public water source. ¯ Provide roof covering to either be A or B fire retardant class. Spark arrestors shall be shown on building plans and installed in all chimneys as part of project construction. 15.Residential smoke detectors shall be shown on building plans and installed for bedrooms and hallways with battery back-up in accordance with UBC. Utilities Engineering Electrical - 16. The customer shall provide space on-site for a padmount transformer. There are no transformers in the vicinity to provide service at this time. The location of the padmount transformer shall be indicated on the site and landscape plans for review and approval by Utilities Dep _artment and Planning Department staff. If the service main size exceeds 400 Amps, the service must be three-phase at a secondary voltage of 120/208 Volts. ¯ 18. All on site/off site work by applicant to include substructure work needed. Public, Works Engineering 19. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department to construct the required storm drain adjacent to the new driveway in Foothills Park. The final specifications of this storm drain shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. The encroachment permit shall also be recorded at Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office. 20.A formal site drainage plan produced by a qualified civil engineer shall be presented with the Building Permit submission and must be approved by Public Works before permit issuance. The Permittee is required to submit a drainage plan showing existing and proposed drainage of the site. This plan should show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades that show how drainage patterns work. Existing drainage from adjacent properties shall be maintained. Show how drainage from the buildings and hardscape will be directed. ’ 21.In no case shall the final grading increase the drainage flow onto adjacent properties. (PAMC 16.28.270 © 22.Grading activities west of Interstate 280 are restricted to the time between April 15 to October 15. This time may be further restricted to adjust to seasonal rain fluctuations. 23.An erosion control plan for the winterization of the site will also be required to presented with the Building Permit submission. 24.Any excavation of grading of more that 100 cubic yards or an excavation deeper than 3 feet requires an approved Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division. Utilities Engineering 25.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater, dated 1992. 27. 28. the development and in the public right-or-way. All water connections from Palo Alto Utilities must comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Contact Morris White at 650-496-6972, City’s Cross Connection Control Inspector to determine the type of protection required to prevent backflow into the public water supply. The contractor will not be allowed to begin work .until the utility improvement plan have been approved by the Water, Gas, and Wastewater Engineering Division. 29.Utility connection charges must be paid prior to the scheduling of any work performed by the City of Palo Alto. DURING CONSTRUCTION City. Planning Arborist 30. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: ao No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered unless approved. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 31.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.