HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-15 City Council (25)TO:HONORABLE
City
City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
CITY COUNCIL 9
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: September 15, 1997 CMR:383:97
SUBJECT:3230 ALEXIS DRIVE: CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REVIEW OF A NEW
’ 4,663-SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING WITH ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ( 97-D-7,
97-EIA-20)
RE__C,._OMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve the attached
Negative Declaration and Site and Design application for construction of a new single family
dwelling and associated improvements at 3230 Alexis Drive in the Open Space (OS) District,
in accord with the attached findings and conditions.
The proposed residence complies with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Open Space
Development Criteria, as described in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated
August 27, 1997 (Attachment 3).
The lot on which the proposed dwelling would be built was created in 1979 and, as par~. Of.
a subdivision, a large open space dedication was made to the City. On August 27, 1997, the
Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of this Negative
Declaration and Site and Design application. Issues discussed by the Planning Commission
included project visibility from Vista Point in Foothills Park and other visible vantage points
CMR:383:97 Page 1 of 3
from the open space area, type and size of landscaping, site fencing, and proposed use of
materials and colors of the dwelling.
The Planning Commission determined that the proposal has been sensitively designed so that
it is integrated with the natural environment of the open space area. The proposed "rural"
design, which includes subdued colors and natural materials, would assist in reducing the
visibility of the dwelling, The proposed materials of the dwelling would be consistent with
a rural theme, to include a slate roof, stone exterior face, and wood of naturally subdued
gray, tan and brown colors. In addition, the terrace and parking surfaces will be tans and
grays to blend in with the surroundings. 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.
A concern was raised by the Planning Commission regarding the location of trees to screen
the proposal from the open space area. The Planning Commission revised Condition 7 to
require the applicant to coordinate with the Planning Arborist regarding the location of
proposed trees in order to to improve the screening from Vista Point in Foothills Park (see
Attachment 2 -- the revision to the condition is highlighted in italics).
A more detailed project description and discussion of pertinent issues are contained in the
attached Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 3).
E!S_CAL IMPACT__
No fiscal impact to the City will result from this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT¯An initial study has been prepared~ recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration
(Attachment 5). The proposed Negative-Declaration finds that with standard City conditions
of approval there will be no significant impacts.
¯Attachment 1: Findings
Attachment 2: Conditions
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Staff Report(without attachments)
Attachment 4: Negative Declaration
Attachment 5: Herb Borock’s Letter, dated August 19, 1997
Attachment 6: Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Terry’s letter, dated August 23, 1997
Attaelmaent 7: Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission minutes of August 27, 1997
Plans and Submittal Materials (Council Members only)
CMRz383:97 Page 2 of 3 ,
from the open space area, type and size of landscaping, site fencing, and proposed use of
materials and colors of the dwelling.
The Planning Commission determined that the proposal has been Sensitively designed so that
it .is integrated with the natural environment of the open space area. The proposed "rural"
design, which includes subdued colors and natural materials, would assist in reducing the
visibility of the dwelling. The proposed materials of the dwelling would be consistent with
a rural theme, to include a slate roof, stone exterior face, and wood of naturally subdued
gray, tan and brown colors. In addition, the terrace and parking surfaces will be tans and
grays to blend in with the surroundings. 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.
A concern was raised by the Planning Commission regarding the location of trees to screen
the proposal from the open space area. The Planning Commission revised Condition 7 to
require the applicant to coordinate with the Planning Arborist regarding the location of
proposed trees in order to to improve the screening from Vista Point in Foothills Park (see
Attachment 2 -- the revision to the condition is highlighted in italics).
A more detailed project description and discussion of pertinent issues are contained in the
attached Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 3).
No fiscal impaot to the City will result from this project.
~___NVIRONMENT&L ASSE~M.Fd~
An initial study has been prepared, recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration
(Attachment 5). The proposed Negative Declaration finds that with standard City conditions
of approval there will be no significant impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Findings
Attachment 2: Conditions
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Staff Report(without attachments)
Attachment 4: Negative Declaration
Attachment 5: Herb Borock’s Letter, dated August 19, 1997
Attachment 6: Mr. and Mrs. W. E. TenT’s letter, dated August 23, 1997
Plans and Submittal Materials (Council Members. only)
ClVlR:383:97 Page 2 of 3
cc:Steven Schwanke, 75 Arbor Road, Menlo Park, California, 94025
Jan and Bill Terry, 925 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304
Seyed Javadi, Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association, 3108 Alexis Drive, Palo
Alto, CA 94304
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
PREPARED BY: Philfip Woods, Planner ,
REVIEWED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~
Assistant City M~ager
CMR:383:97 Page 3 of 3
Findings of Approval
Site and Design Review
97-D-7
ATTACHMENT 1
ao
Co
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 tha~ 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 Negative Declaration for this
project. The proposed dwelling has been designed 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 is 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 minimm" e
physical impacts of development.
Findings of Approval - 9/15/97
3230 Alexis Drive (97-D-7)
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 2
CONDITIONS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL FOR
3200 ALEXIS DRIVE
97-D-7
Prior to issuance of building hermit
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.
The Planning Department Shall approve the final glazingmaterial for the dwelling.
Remove two plumbing fixtures from the cabana structure.
Planning Arbori~L
4. The applicant is required to plant a minimum of nineteen Coast Live Oaks
(Quercus Agrifolia) of 48 - 72 inch size (ten 72" box and six 48" box) and three
Coast Live Oak (Quercus Agrifolia) of 120-inch box size, two Valley Oaks
(Quercus Lobata) of 120-inch box. size, and one California Buckeye (Aesculius
Californica) of 60-inch box size. Because of their significant size and importance
to the project, details of the trees shall be submitted for review by the Planning
Arborist. The applicant shall provide the following details to the Planning
Arborist for review and approval prior to and during installation of the trees;
a. Documentation of the trees’ original growing area; from where they will be
shipped; how long in their current box; photographs; size, crown spread and
height.
b. An outline of how the trees will be transported. Include routes; transportatioa
permits; escorts needed, restrictions; road clearance needed, height and width; tree
trimming needed for the narrow road; helicopter option; etc.
c. Documentation that qualified personnel that is familiar with large tree
transplanting, shall be on-site during installation.
To insure that the trees will survive; the applicant shall retain a certified project
arborist to draft a detailed tree Preservation Plan. All maintenance needs of the
trees prior .to moving, during the establishment period and thereafter shall be
included for review by the City Planning Arborist.
Conditions of Approval - 9/15/97
3230 Alexis Drive (97-D-7)Page 1
The applicant shall include a five-year tree establishment period, beginning after
the date of final inspection, in the Tree Preservation Plans.
The applicant shall coordinate with the Planning Arborist to ensure taller trees
are located so as to improve screening from Vista Point in Foothills Park; the
applicant shall provide details of grading; elevation; retaining wall design; root
protection; preservation devices, such ~is aeration, tree wells, drains, special
foundation, etc. for review by the City Planning Arborist.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall include installation of irrigation supply to all
trees and be approved by the Marketing Division of the Ul~ties Department.
Details shall specify an inline loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the
rootball at a point one-third of rootball diameter. Around large trees there shall be
additional irrigation extending beyond the root ball as needed. During the course
of the establishment period, supply amounts shall be geared to diminish to match
the natural climatic rainfall. All tree irrigation ~hall be connected to a separate
valve from other shrubbery and g~ound cover as required in Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C) (o).
10.
A NFPA-130(1996) modified Residential Sprinkler System shall be installed per
PAMC, Section 15.04.170.
The Fire Department access road/drive’way 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.
11.Provide on site fire hydrant required ff any portion of the new dwelling is located
more than 150 from public water source.
12.Provide roof covering to either be A or B fire retardant class.
13.Spark arrestors shall be shown on building plansand installed in all chinmeys as
part of project construction.
14.Residential smoke detectors shall be shown on building plans and installed for
bedrooms and hallways with battery back-up ha accordance with UBC.
iliti n i ri E! cri !
15.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
Conditions of Approval - 9/15/97
3230 Alexis Drive (9,7-D-7)Page 2
padmount transformer shall be indicated on revised site and landscape plans for
review and approval by Utilities Department and Planning Department staff.
16.If the service main size exceeds 400 Amps, the service must be three-phase at a
secondary voltage of 120/208 Volts.
17.All on site/off site work by applicant to include substructure work needed.
P___ublic Works Engineering
18. A formal site drainage plan produced by a qualified Civil engineer shall be
presented with the Building Permit submission and must be approved byPublic
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.
19.In no case shall the final grading increase the drainage flow onto adjacent
properties. (PAMC 16.28.270 (c)
20.Grading activities west of Interstate 280 are restricted to the time between April 15
to October 15. This time may be ftu~er restricted to adjust to seasonal rain
fluctuations.
21.
22.
An erosion control plan for the winterization of the site will also be required to
presented with the Building Permit submission.
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
23. All utility installations shall be in accordance wi~h the City of Palo Alto Utility
Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater, dated 1992.
24.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 fight-or-way.
25.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
Conditions of Approval - 9115D7
3230 Alexis Drive (97-D-7)Page 3
26.
27.
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.
Utility connection charges must be paid prior to the scheduling of any work
performed by the City of Palo Alto..
Conditions of Approval - 9/15/97
3230 Alexis Drive. (97-D-7)Page 4
PLANNING
ATTACHMENT 3
COMMISSION
TO:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Phillip Woods, Planner ¯ DEPARTMENT: Planning
AUGUST 27, 1997
Site and Design application at 3230 Alexis Drive for a 4,663
square foot, two story, single family dwelling with a 588 square
foot, below grade two car garage; 380 square foot, detached one
car garage; 544 square foot cabana; in ground swimming pool;
fountains; series of terraces; various site improvements and to
consider a Negative Declaration for the project (File Nos; 97-D-7,
97-EIA-20)
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the attached Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project will not result in any
significant env’.lronmentalimpacts, and approve a Site and Design application for a new two-
story single family dwelling based on the attached findings and conditions.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION
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.
Pr~ect Description .
The proposal is to construct a two-story single family dwelling on a vacant 1.6 acre parcel.
The dwelling would consist of 4,663 square feet of building area on two¯levels and a 588
square foot, attached below grade two-car garage; 380 square foot, detached one car garage;
S: ]PLAN [ PLADIV [ PSCR[ 3430Alex.sr
08-27-97
Page 1
swimming pool; exterior terraces and a 6-foot high perimeter chain link fence. In addition,
there are three guest parking spaces with a front walk leading up to the house by a Series of
terraced steps. Access as proposed would be via a new private driveway offofthe cul-de-sac
terminus of Alexis Drive. The lot proposed for develoPment has an average slope of 15%.
The proposed dwelling would be of a rural design, with a combination of slate roof and stone
and wood exterior. Proposed building color ~vould 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
Site Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive
Plan designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown below in Table
1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:Steve Schwanke
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Existing Use
Andreas Bechtolsheim
182-54-16
Open Space/Controlled Development
OS-Open Space
Vacant
Surrounding Land Use:North:Vacant undeveloped single family lot
East: Foothills Park
South: Foothills Park
West:Arastradero Preserve/undeveloped open
space
S: [ PLAN [ PLADIV I PSCR 13430Alex.st
08-27-97
Page 2
PROJECT HISTORY
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 7, tract no. 6723. Lot 10 was the undivided remainder
transferredto the City of Palo Alto as part of the Hewlett/Mullenexchange. The subdivision
does not include any easements or other restrictions on this particular lot which would
preclude development of the proposed single family dwelling.
TABLE 2
Project Comparison with Current Zoning Ordinance Requirements
REGULATION OS REQUIREMENT PROPOSED
SETBACKS
Front o 30 feet 52 feet, rain.
Side -"30 feet 56 feet, rain.
Rear -30 feet 122 feet, rain.
Height -25 feet 25 feet
Parking 4 parking spaces 6 parking spaces
Maximum Impervious 15, 246 square feet~¯’ 14~620 square feet
area including, building
coverage
*Based on 3.5% ofa 10-acre parcel - allowed because the subdivisionhad an associated open
space dedication (PAMC 18.71.080).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and the Architectural l~eview Board Ordinance. The following
Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs apply to this project:
]~nvironmental Resources Element.~qgIltIlL.7.: "Encourage the planting of fire-
resistant plants and control of flammable chaparral vegetation in the foothills to
reduce fire hazards." The proposed landscape plan incorporates native, drought-
S: [ PLAN [ PLADIV [ PSCR [ 3430Alex.sr
08-27-97
tolerant landscape material that would be planted to be consistent with existing
vegetation.
Open Space Element. Policy 4: "Protect conservation and scenic areas from
deterioration by either private or public actions." Through the underlying
subdivision, a large area of nearby natural open space will be preserved. Also, a
substantialportion of the subject lot itself, approximately 53,595 square feet would
remain as open space.
o Open Space-Element. Policy 11: "Provide the maximum open space in residential
developments consistent with residents’ needs and economic feasibility." The
proposed development would retain approximately 53,595 square feet as permanent
open space.
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. " These ten criteria have been developed"to ensure environmentally
sensitive and visually unobtrusive new development in the foothills.
The following Open Space Development Criteria apply to this project:
The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public
park lands. It shouM be sited so that it is hidden from view as much as possible.
Distant views of the siteeanbe obtained fromVista Point and various vantage points
in Foothills Park. The subject site has no trees and any development on the property
would b~ visible. This visibility will be mitigated by th.e. 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 arranges building masses around
terraces that step down with the site, and uses multiple detached volumes including
a garage and cabana building that provide visual interest. 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 that include a Seres of
stepped terraces, verandahs and pergolas.
Built forms and landscape forms should mimic 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 close 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 and incorporating a series
of retaining walls on the site.
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 usesthree different materials that areused to break up the apparentmass of
the building. Also, the high level of architectural detail and stepping of building mass
create shadows appropriate to the natural hillside setting;
Landscaping should 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 public
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 shouM be of a rural rather than urban character (standard curb, gutt~.
and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environmenO. The
S: [ PLAN [ PLADIV [PSCR [ 3430Alex.sr
08-27-97
proposal road access follows the contours and is made of a material that has a similar
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 non impervious site coverage..
Issues and Analysis
The analysis for this project relates to site grading and fill, aesthetics and views in
relationshipto adjacent open spaces, site coverage and drainage, landscaping, natural features
and trails, and architectural design.
Site Layout: The new dwelling would be located on a vacant lot which has frontage on
Alexis Court. The proposed single family dwelling would be accessed from a 15-foot 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 configurationwould
require the least amount of grading to accommodate the proposed structure.
Architectura ! Design: The proposed house is designed as a rural "farm" with a primary
"ham" structure and detached accessory buildings. The "barn’ has one main volume with
attached additions and.is integrated with verandahs, trellis and a series of terraces. The main
house is located away from the ridge line and a portion of the house steps down 2 feet to
follow the existing contours. In addition, the pool and cabana are terraced down the site to
relate to the site slopes and provide an outdoor transition.
Materials, Aesthetics and Visibility: The subject site has no trees and any development
would be visible from Vista Point and from portions of trails in the foothill park. Therefore,
the rural character of the proposed house is most appropriate for this site. The proposed
materials of the dwellingwould be consistent with a rural theme, to include a slate roof, stone
exterior face, wood all or natural subdue 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.
S: I PLANIPLADWI PSCR 1343OAlex.sr
Landscaping and Tree Preservation: 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 landscaping plan addresses these issues by incorporating
planting that will be of native species appropriate for these conditions. The proposal includes
nineteen Coast Live Oaks (Quercus Agrifolia) of48-inch - 72-inch.size and three Coast Live
Oak (Quercus Agrifolia) of 120-inch box size, two Valley Oaks (Quercus Lobata) of 120-
inch box size, and one CalifomiaBuckeye (~4esculius Californica) of 60-inch box size. The
Planning Department has received a letter from a resident that has concerns about the number
and size of trees being proposed (see attachment #5). The Planning Arborist has indicated
that the proposed 48-inch to 72-inch box size trees will have a higher survival rate than the
120-inch box size because of their adaptability to a smaller amount of soil volume. Also, the
48-inch to 72-inch box trees will allow more flexibility if they have to be replaced. The
proposed five 120-inch box size trees have a greater chance of survival if they have a water
monitoring program (see landscape plans included in the packet).
Impervious Surfaces: Site improvements related to the proposed development would result
in a total impervious surface for the lot of 14,620 square feet,including the house footprint,
garage, driveway, cabana, pool, verandah and walkways. 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 0dginal subdivision used the
cluster principal, which clustered the three lots offAlexis Drive and the six lots offLaurel
Glen and included an open space reserve (lot 10). As applied tOthis 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 proposgl would include grading for a driveway from the
street to the center point of the lot. The drive would be approximately 15 feet wide to allow
adequate backup room for emergency equipment. The driveway would have a 2% gradient.
Retaining walls will be needed along portions of the driveway, ranging from five to ten feet
in height.
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 project would require approximately 1,010 cubic yards of cut and 410 cubic yards of fill.
~ Sitedrainage will be provided through on-site percolation and outfalls designed
to lead into Arastradero Creek on the City of Palo Alto Land. The roof gutters will be
S: I PtAN I PLADIV I PSeR 13430Al~x.sr
08-27-97
Pag~ 7
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.
Utilities: Extension of municipal utilities will be required in order to serve the proposed
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 #3 and #4).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the project as proposed.
2. Recommend modification and approval of the project.
3. Recommend denial of the project.
Appropriate .findings would be required to support an alternative action.
FISCAL IMPACT_
No fiscal impact to the City will result from this project.
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 AS SE S SMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Aet (CEQA). An environmentalimpact assessmentwas prepared for
the project and determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on the
S: I PLAN [ PLADIV [ PSCR [ 3430Alex.sr
08-27-97
Page 8
environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review from August
7, 1997 to August 27, 1997 and is attached to this staff report (see Attachment # 2).
NEXT STEPS
Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to
be considered by the City Council on September 15, 1997.
ATTACHMENTS.
Attachment # 1: Location Map
Attachment #2: EIA
Attachment #3 Findings of Approval for Site and Design
Attachment #4: Conditions
Attachment #5: Herb Borock’s letter dated August 19, 1997.
Plans (Planning Commission members only)
COURTESY COPY:
Steven Schwanke, 75 Arbor Road, Menlo Park, California, 94025
Jan and Bill Terry, 925 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
Seyed Javadi, Palo Alto Hills NeighborhoodAssociation, 3108 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, CA
94304
Herb Borock, 2731 Bryon Street, Palo Alto, CA
Prepared by: Phillip Woods, Planner
Reviewed by: .Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Approval:,.:/ ~mes E. Gillil[and
Division/DepartmentHead
~//Acting Chief Planning Offical
S: l PLAN 1PLADIV I PSCR 13430Alex.sr
,08-27-97
Page 9
ATTACHMENT #1
PF(D)
Arastradero
Preserve OS
Palo Alto Golf &’
Country. Club
Mtos Hills
3230 Alexis Drive
Foothills Park
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
File Nos: 97-D-7; 97-EIA-20 Scale: 1" = 800’
ATTACHMENT 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
3230 Alexis Drive
City of Palo Alto -Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phillip Woods, Planner
415-329-2230
Project Location:
Application Number(s):
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
3230 Alexis Drive
P~lo Alto, CA
97-D-97; 97-EIA-20
Steve Schwanke
75 ArborRoad
Menlo Park, CA 94025
General Plan Designation:Open Space, Controlled Development
Zoning:OS, Open Space.
Description of the Project: An application for Site and Design to construct a new,
single family dwelling on a vacant parcel of 1.6 acres. The dwelling will consist of
4,209 square feet on.two levels with a 380 square foot garage located below grade,
544 square foot cabana, swimming pool, fountains, terraces, landscaping and various
site improvements. The site access is via a new private driveway off the cul-de-sac
of Alexis Drive.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
family ,lot.
North:
East:
South:
West:
Vacant undeveloped single
Foothills Park
Foothills Park
Arastradero Preserve/
undeveloped open space
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALEX\EIA.Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI IST FORM
Other public agencies whose approval is required. None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be-potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and
Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation and
Circulation
Biological Reso,urces
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Hazards Recreation
Noise
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
: i:! ~,~ i ~.~’:’:::.~.i.~:i.~.~:~-: <i::.:: i-::i :-~:~.i~ ::i-i:i: ! i i:i:! :’;: ~ ~ ~.~ ~ i: i i, " i:: :-i :’~::-~.:’~’~
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALEX\EIA.Page 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 Significa.nt
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remai~ to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could havea 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
Director of Planning & Community Environment
Date
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALI=X\EIA.Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation 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)All 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 requ!red~
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 f~0m 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 (c) (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 (eog. 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\3230ALEX\EIA.’ Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unlesa
Mitigation
Incorporatsd
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: ,
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
1
2
1
3
I 3
x
X
.X
X
X
a)
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official ~egional or local population
projections?
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped are~
or major infrastructure?
Displace existing housing, especially affordable.
housing?
a) Fault rupture?
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
b) Seismic ground shaking?
3
3
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
c) .Seismic ground failure~ including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
4,18,
19
4,18,
19
4,18.
19
4,18,
19
4,18,
19
4,18,
19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALEX\EIA.Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless .
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant ac
Impact
g) Subsidence of the land?’ 4,18,X
19
h) Expansive soils?4,18,X
19
i) Unique geologic or physical features?4,18,X
19
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 3,7,.X
rate and amount of surface runoff?~ 17
b)Exposure of people or property to.water related hazards ;4,5 X
such as flooding?
c)~,17 XDischarge 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?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 3 X
body or wetland?
e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 3,17 X
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
f)3 XChange 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?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?3 X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltratiOn of 6, 17 X
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from Urban or industrial activities?
i)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 3 Xotherwise available for public water supplies?
j) Alteration of wetlands in any way?~3 X
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALEX~EIA.j Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unles~
Mitigation
Incorporated
Leas Than
Significant
Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
6.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
7.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
8.
a)
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.?
Create objectionable odors?
6,8,9
6,8,9
6,8,9
6,8,9
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees}?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsl~, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
10
10,
11,
12
3, 10
10
10
3
luction or interference in:
8, 16
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 X
8 X
8, 16 X
8 X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALEX\EIA.Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporsted
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b)
c)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
p.esticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any h~alth hazard or potential health
hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increased fire hazard inareas with flammable brush,
grass or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
13
11;
;12,
13
’3, 12,
13
3, 12,
13
3, 12
61 St
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ,14
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:
X
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or
storm drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?
12.
8, 12
8, 11
8
8
8
x
X
x
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.- Would the proposal resultin a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
X
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALEX\EIA.Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unlesa
Mitigation
Incorporated
Lees Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
15
15
15
15
15
!15
13. AESTHETICS, Would 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:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
, 3
3
3
b)
c)
d)
e)
Disturb archaeological resources?
¯ Affect historical resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
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? ~
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
8
3
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALEX\EIA.Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Signific,ant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Leaa Then
Significant
Impact
a) Does the project have the potenti,;I 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?
X
X
X
X
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
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 (c) (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 Sections21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board
Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALEX\EIA.Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
18.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SOURCE REFERENCES ,
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980 - 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended)
City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49
Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1994
FEMA Flood I~surance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348-5, Map Revised September 6, 1989.
City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval
City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department "
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Tech’nical Background Report, August 1994
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
CiW of Palo Alto Police Department
City of Palo Alto Fire Department
City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
Fish & Game Code of-California, "Chapter 1 ~5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098
Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1985
18 Friar Associates, Incorporated, Soil and Geologic Preliminary Evaluation, dated April 4, 1997
19 ¯JCP, Geologists & Engineers, Soil and’ Foundation Study, dated February 1, 1986.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALE×\EIA.Page 11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sourcs8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
In(:orpol’stacl
Lass Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
3a,b,
c,f,g,
h
4a,g
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, t
Construction of the project will increase the amount o~ 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 appr.oval 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 ~he Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and
building permits.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
WATER
With the City’s required conditions ofapproval, 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 decrease
-in the amount of impervious surfaces compared withthe 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.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\3230ALEX\EIA.Page 12
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Lsss Than
Significant
Impact
6a
lOa
11
a,b,c,
12
a,e
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.
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 cbnstructing the dwelling and accessory structures.
Such noise will be short term’in duration and would be mitigated by standard City conditions of approval,
which limits hours of construction. Once completed, I~ng-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 th.e 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 required 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 tothe City for maintenance of public facilities; °"
Mitigation Measures: None required.
A padmount transformer is required on-site for.this project.As astandard 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 requi~ed.
S:\PLAN\PL.ADIV\3230ALEX\EIA.Page 13
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
/Lass Than | NoSignificantI Impact
Impact
13a,"
b
15 (a)
AESTHETICS ’
Construction of the proposed dwelling will add a new structure in a primarily open space area of the
Foothills Park and the Arastradero Reserve. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic
vistas or views open to the public. The subjectsite is located at an elevational height far below the Vista
Point in the Foothills Park. However, the development will be visible from Vista Point in the 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 with new native
species landscaping. The pr~oposed landscape plan incorporates 26 native species trees of substantial size
that include 23 Coast Live Oaks, 2 Valley Oaks and 1 California Buckeye ranging from a 48" box to 120"
box sizes. In addition, the proposed materials of the house incorporate natural materials and colors that o
include slate and stone, natural wood. The potential negative effects of the home on scenic vistas will
be reviewed by the Planning Commission as part of Sit~ 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 dwellingwill be occupied by a single family so that
the number of future residents will not be significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
(S:\plan~pladiv\eia\3230Alexis.eia)
S:\PLAN~PLADIV\3230ALE×\EIA.Page 14
ATTACHMENT 5
Herb Borock
2731 Byron Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
August 19, 1997
Palo Alto Planning Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alt.o, CA 94301
3230 Alexis Drive (97-D-7, 97-EIA-20)
Dear Planning Commission:
The original landscape plans for this project are dated June 6,
1997, were received in the Planning Department on the same date,
and were accompanied by a letter dated June 5, 1997, from the
architect-Steven A. Schwanke that included the following
descriptioo of the landscaping on page 2:
"The use and careful placement of.screen trees and
landscaping is critical to the project to provide screening from
Vista Point. The landscape plan addresses these issues. The
proposed planting will be that of native species appropriate for
these conditions."
The June 6, 1997, landscape plan included the following trees:
Seventeen (17) 120"-box size ~oast Live Oaks, including nine
(9) to provide sceening from Vista Point.
Three (3) 120"-bo~ size Valley Oaks to provide screening
from the proposed house of the future neighbor to the north.
One (I) 60"-box s’ize California Buckeye to provide screening
from the proposed house of the future house to the north.
That landscape plan provided the proper balance between (1)
providing screening from Vista Point and (2) providing screening
from the proposed house of future neighbors to the north and the
west, and of the Alexis Drive cul-de-sac and the flag-pole
driveway entrance to the east.
Planning Arborist Dave Doktor’s memorandum of June 25, i997, to
Lisa Grote described the proposed landscape as "ambitious and
exciting" and recommended that detailed "Tree Preservation Plans
shall be drafted that will outline all maintenance needs of the’
trees prior~to moving, during the establishment period and
thereafter" and that a five-year "Tree E.stablishment Period shall
be included in the Tree Preservation Plans."
Mr. Doktor also recommended that the conditions of approval
require that "A Performance Guarantee of 25% of theAreplacement
cost of all trees shall be paid to the City."
Borock / Commission / 3230 Alexis / August 19, 1997 Page 2
The conditions recommended in Mr. Doktor’s memorandum would
ensure that there would actually be trees to provide screening
from Vista Point, instead of just symbolic trees, because it is
cheaper to show tree symbols on a landscape plan than to plant
and maintain real trees.
Therefore, I am disappointed that the architect revised the
landscape’ plan to downsize most of the trees that provide
screening from Vista Point of the proposed house, but kept all of
the large trees that provide screening from the proposed house of
the future house to the north, and added trees to provide
screening from the proposed house of the future houses to the
north and west and of the the flag-pole driveway entrance to the
east, while neglecting to mention these changes to the landscape
plan in the architect’s letter that accompanied the revised plan.
The changes made to the landscape plan mean that you can no
longer recommend approval of the Environmental Impact Assessment,
because there is now a potentiall~ significant aesthetic impact
to the views from Vista Point ~that was mitigated in the June 6,
1997, plan, but is no longer mitigated in the current plan.
The new landscape plan was dated July 16, 1997, was received by
the Planning Department July 22, 1997, and was accompanied by a
letter from Steven A. Scwanke dated July 18, 1997. (The same
tree planting plan appears in the plans dated and’received August
6, 1997.)
Mr. Schwanke’s July 18 letter responds to ten requests from the
Planning Department, but omits any mention of the fact that the
landscape plans have been changed to provide .less screening from
Vista Point and more screening from the house of negative impacts
that affect the applicant.
The July 16, 1997 and August 6, 1997, landscape plans include the
following trees:
Three (3) 120"-box size Coast Live Oaks, including two (2)
to provide screening from Vista Point.
Three (3) 120"-box size Valley Oaks to provide screening
from the proposed house of the future house to the north.
One (i) 60"-box size California Buckeye to provide screening
from the proposed house of the future house to the north.
Fourteen (14) former 120"-box size Coast Live Oaks,
including seven (7) that would have provided screening from Vista
Point, reduced in size to a range of 48"-box size to 72"-box
size, without specifying the size of .each tree.
Borock / Commission / 3230 Alexis / August 19, 1997 Page 3
Five (5) added Coast Live Oaks ranging from 48’~-box size to
72"-box size, including two (2) to provide additional screening
from the proposed house of the future house to the north, two (2)
to provide additional screening from the proposed house of the
future house to the west, and one (i) to provide additional
screening from the~proposed house of the entrance to the flag-
pole driveway to the east.
The original plans were accompanied by a close-up visual
simulation of the view from Vista Point of the proposed house
that shows that the original tree planting plan would be
effective in screening the view from Vista Point.
The current plan is accompanied by a panoramic visual simulation
of the view from Vista Point that does not show the effect of the
changes from that view point due to the reduction in the number
of 120"-box size Coast Live Oaks that would be apparent in a
close-up view.
I request that you require the applicant,to restore the seven (7)
120"-box size Coast Live Oaks that were downsized in the
subsequent plans so that the aesthetic impact on Vista Point is
mitigated.
Restoration of. these 120"-box size Coast Live Oaks would
reinstitute the original intent to stagger the large trees and
,give the impression of a house in a grove of trees to create-the
illusion that the house is not there when viewed from Vista
Point,
Smaller trees would not have the same .effect as they would if the
public view points were from way below the proposed house as they
are in the case of view points from the Arastradero Preserve
along Arastradero Creek of the houses on Laurel Glen Drive.
If the applicant is concerned about the added expense, you should
remember that the expense increased when five trees were added to
the later plan and that none of the Valley Oaks were reduced in
size.
If necessary, the added trees can be eliminated and two of the
Valley Oaks can be reduced to 48"-box size to compensate for the
cost of restoring the downsized Coast Live Oaks between the
proposed house and Vista Point.
I also request that you require as conditions of approval all of
the recommendations on pages two through four in Mr. Doktor’s
June 25, 1997, memorandum to Ms. Grote,
Further, I request that the actual size of each tree be shown on
the plans, rather than a range of sizes.
Borock / Commission / 3230 Alexis / August 19, 1997 Page 4
Pool House or Cottage?
The proposed pool house has three water hook ups, which is the
standard that has been used in the past to define a structure as
a residence. ’
A cottage is permitted in the OS zone with a conditional use
permit.
Previous "pool houses" have been converted in the past to
cottages after piecemeal environmental review.
A cottage is a residence that requires four parking spaces in
addition to the six parking spaces in the current plans (four
minimum for the residence, plus two to compensate for lack of
parking in the cul-de-sac).
Appropriate conditions should be placed upon approval to provide
for the potential use of the pool house as a cottage and to
provide the required parking for-the cottage use.
Fencing
don’t recall seeing any ~encing plans in the applicant’s
submittal.~ .-
I suggest that standard foothills fencing be used, such as
double-rail split rail wooden fencing.
Location on Site
The lot line. adjustment approved July 23, 1984, permits the
proposed house to be 25 feet closer to the lot to the north and,
therefore, higher up the ridge.
The original subdivision map for the property had the 25-foot
driveway access to the flag lot located between the southern
boundary of the lot to the north and the northern boundary of the
applicant’s .lot,
The map approved in 1984 moved the flag lot driveway so that the
northern boundary of the appicant’s lot moved 25 feet to the
north to be coincident with the southern boundary of the lot to
the north.
Borock / Commission / 3230 Alexis / August i9, 1997 Page 5
Existing Iron Gate
The cul-de-sac at the end of Alexis Drive that serves three
undeveloped lots, including the lot for this proposed house, is
separated from the rest of Alexis Drive by an iron gate that was
installed to prevent unauthorized vehicle access to Foothills
Park.
Will this iron gate be removed prior to, during, or after
construction of this house?
If this iron gate is removed, what actions, if any, will be taken
to provide the protection to Foothills Park that is currently
provided by the gate?
Attached Map
The attached composite ~map shows the location of this proposed
house in relation to Vista Point and to the trails, service
roads, and paved roads in Foothills Park.
When you visit the site, you may also wish to explore the views
from Foothills Park and you can use the attached map as a guide.
~Note that the lots at the end of Alexis Drive are shown with the
original subdivision pattern that has the flag pole driveway
located between the other two lots, instead of wrapping around
the lot for" this project (see ~’Location on Site" above).
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
Attachment: Composite Map of Alexis Drive and Vicinity
Comm~,,,,,
ATTACHMENT 6
925 Laurel Glen Drive
Pale Alto, CA 94304
August 23, 1997
Mr. Phillip Woods, Planner
City of Pale Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94303
RE: Proposed new residence at 3230 Alexis Drive
Dear Mr: Woods,
We are residents of the Pale Alto Hills Neighborhood very near the proposed residence
on Alexis Drive and are also zoned Open Space,,’so we are very aware of the limitations
and special requirements to build a home.
We have reviewed the plans at the planning dep~trnent, visited the site, discussed the
plans with the architect and the owner and want to lend our support for this project and
urge the planning commissioners and the City Council members to approve this
development. - ’
The building site is challenging to the extent that any structure is going to have some
impact on the Open Space line-of-sight. The effort has been made to alleviate the bulk
of the building by setting the structure back and into the hill. In addition, we believe the.
materials, colors and plant materials are appropriate.
The one item that we saw on the original plans, and that we encouraged them to rethink,
was the enormous size of the planted oaks...120" box trees are just too huge to give a
good chance for sucedss. We have quite a lot of experience with planting oaks. We built
our homd on Laurel Glen in 1989 and planted originally 45 native oaks and now have
over 80 oaks of various kinds and sizes. We also transplanted 2ca oaks from other si~es’
¯ that were 10" to 24" diameter, of which we lost both of them. Our 24" boxed Querens
Lobatas which were 10 feet tall when we planted them are now over 60 feet tall. Our
largest boxed Quercus Agrifolia (48") basically remained the same size for three years,
but now is growing wonderfully. Our arborist advised us to resist buying a large tree for
immediate effect because you end up with a tree that does not have good root
development: We have found that his advice has held true.
We look forward to the McCraekens building their house in our neighborhood and want
our letter of support added to the package sent to the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
EXCERPT of Draft Planning
Commission Minutes of August 27,
1997.
ATTACHMENT 7
The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, August 27, 1997 at 7 p.m. in
the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding. The audio recording of this meeting had
to be done from the video recording, due to equipment breakdown. Tapes are not clear, so some
inaccuracies may remit.
Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Ojakian, Sehink and Schmidt
Commissioner Cassel
Sue Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney
David Docktor, City Planning Arborist
James Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment
subject
have one
This is the portion of our agenda where you are allowed to speak to us on any
not specifically covered on the agenda, and you have five minutes to speak. We
Basically, I have submitted a page concerning
the 1997 hearing on 3009 Middlefield Road. I feel that the minutes
are very fine, and I do not say anything other than three corrections that I would ask to be
made before making the I have written on the page I handed out, the first one is on
Page 17 at the bottom of the page,in the middle of the page. The quotes are fine,
but they were attributed to Dr. Salmon,~he speaker was myself, John Abraham. That is one
correction. The second correction is at the 32, and the sentence should read, "...that
the city try its hardest to design a project that i:’to meet those limits" rather than "...the city
has tried its hardest to meet those limits." In the of accuracy, I am making these
corrections. The third correction is on Page 33, Mr.comments in the middle of the firSt
paragraph where he says, "In taking these data and trying to~derstand them, it looked to me
from some quick calculations that noise barriers of the heights .i~Mr. Pack recommended in his
addendum report the second ~,t~mearound that about eight-and-a-ha’~r nine feet would be
sufficient." That should read ’ ...may be sufficient." It changes the meil~g a great deal, so I am
asking that the word "may" be used as it was used in the actual hearing. Thee are the only
corrections I wish to make. They are fine draft minutes, if you would conside’b~aking those
changes.
"~ ’ "
~: Thank you for your comments. That completes" ....Oral Communieation~,,~
. -~
A:[PCMinsSIPC0827.r~g Page 4
DRAFT
3230 ALEXIS DRIVE: Site and design application for a 4,209-square-foot, two-story,
single-family dwelling with a 588-square-foot, below grade, two-car garage, 380-square-
foot, detached one-car garage, a 544-square-foot cabafia, in-ground swimming pool,
fountains, seres of terraces and various site improvements. Environmental Assessment:
A negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-D-7, 97-EIA-20.
Are there any staff comments?
~: Thank you, Chairman Schink. Very briefly, I want to mention that this is a single-
family house in the Open Space District. In statt’s opinion, it does meet the Open Space
Guidelines, as well as the-zoning requirements for the Open Space District. We did receive one
letter which is included as a part of your packet commenting on the size of plant materials and the
changes between the original submittal and what you see before you. I want to make a brief
comment on that. Dave Docktor, our planning arborist, is present tonight and has reviewed those
changes. He has determined that the reduced plant size of the 120-inch box trees, some of which
were reduced to a range of 48- to 96-inch box trees, will achieve, over time, the same degree of
screening of the house and the site as the original 120-inch boxtrees would. The reduction in
plant size actually gives that plant material a better chance of surviving, over time, and a better
chance to establish themselves in the area.
Also, the change in plant material and landscape plan does not change the mitigated negative
declaration. The mitigated negative declaration was written to include a range of 48-inch to 120-
inch box plants, and that is still .the case. There is a range of plant material, and there are just
fewer 120-inch box trees.
Also, .there was an issue raised about the cabafia. It does have.four plumbed fixtures. Once a .
structure exceeds t~o plumbed fixtures, it is considered to be an accessory living unit rather than
an accessory building..There is a condition in the report that requires’the two extra plumbed
fixtures to be removed, however, there is another option that the applicant could pursue, and that
is to apply for a conditional use permit for a second living unit. The site could accommodate that
in terms of parking and size and impervious coverage. So that is another option for the applicant.
Also, I want to note that there are supplemental photographs prepared by the applicant regarding
the visual analysis. There are points marked On the map that correspond to the photographs
taken. Those are from major roadways and artefials, as well as from parklands -- Foothills Park
and Arastradero Park. In all cases, it does show that there is minimal visibility of the site and the
house. From those places where it is visible, it has been mitigated by either the screening material,
the plant material, the housing style itself and materials and color. With that, I will dose the staff
report saying that we are recommending approval.
~6L_S~it~: I would also note that at your places is a letter from Mr. and Mrs. William Terry, ..
who live on Lauren Glen Drive. Bill Terry’s house came through the commission in 1989, and I
think his comments may prove to be quite interesting in relation to the issue of tree size. He has
Pago 1"8
quite a bit of experience in dealing with the various sizes of trees and their survival rate or the lack
thereo£
Commissioner Beecham: To follow up on the letter from Mr. Terry, in particular, he notes that .
they planted a 10-foot oak, and now after eight years, it is 60 feet tall. Are the Terrys present?
That is an incredible number, and I just wanted to make sure those are the real numbers.. Does
staff have any verification of that?
]~D_.9..¢~: That is not a realistic reflection. I would like to know about that fertilizer if they
have that.
Chairman Schink: What would be more realistic?
]~?~[[I.~: If all of the soil conditions are taken care’ of, oak trees are going to grow
approximately a foot a year. Valley oaks would grow maybe 18 inches or two feet a year. They
grow a little faster, as a general rule.
~: IfI might also add, the applicant provided a site visual survey, which I neglected to
pass out to you. It corresponds to the photographs posted up there. (They are passed out)
~lail:ma~.~: Our process allows for theapplicant to make a 15-minute presentation,
followed by comments from the public.
Steve Schwanke. Architect2 75 Arbor Road. Menlo P~k: I am here to answer questions. I have
no further information to pass on at this point.~
Chairm~,n Schink: Seeing no questions, I will go to the first card from the public.
Herb Borock. 2731 B_vr~: Based on the comments from staff about the
cabafia, I would encourage the applicant, if he is going to come in for a use permit for the cottage,
to do so at the earliest date pgssible so that any additional required parking can be integrated into
the site plan at an early date.
Second, in regard to the trees and Mr. Terry’s letter, the Terry residence is on one side of the
Hopkins’ residence, and on the other side is the Altman residence, which I had an opportunity to
view when Mr. Hopkins, after the first City Council meeting, offered the invitation to come and
view his site. He opened the residence as a condition of adding their peelhouse, and was
required to plant a total of 11 coastal live oaks, four of them to be 36-inch box, I believe, and the
other seven were to be 24-inch box. Those trees are still shrubs. The problem is that you need
conditions to require the trees to be taken care of As I indicated to you in my letter, the planning
arbodst, Mr. Docktor, had recommended that there be eonditi0ns to ensure that the trees were
taken care of, be maintained and would grow. There was some concern, as you already
expressed, as to how fast the trees will grow and what kind of guarantee or performance bond
you would need to ensure that that would happen. But it is clear from the Altman situation that
A:lPCMinsSIPC0827.reg
DEAFT
P~e 19
unless there is some mechanism in the conditions that is enforced, you cannot expect the trees will
be taken care of.
Secondly, as I indicated to you in my letter, the applicant is willing to plant large trees that
provide immediate screening where it is to the applicant’s benefit. I believe it is up to the
commission to implement the Open Space criteria to protect the public vista points. I have
indicated in my letter that of the 14 trees that are uf a smaller size than they were on the original
plans, half of them refer to the public vista point. So I ask the commission to take that into
consideration. Thank you.
Chairman Schi~: Seeing no one else who wishes to speak, I will give the applicant an
opportunity to make any closing comments he wishes to make. (None)
i n r " : I have a question for the applicant. If the applicant knows anything
about the second lot that is not developed up there, there is a flag lot with driveway access
adjacent to this particular lot. I was wondering if you knew anything about the future
development of that lot.
]~r~7,J~y.~l~: Yes, the intent is to build a house on that parcel, as well. It is the same architect
and the sane landscape architect. We have just started concept design, so I really do not know
where we are going on that. I have met with the client twice. We have just started the process.
.C.~IiI:I~~: Seeing no other speakers, I will now dose the public hearing and return this
item to the commission. Are there any questions of staffby commissioners?
’ r : To follow up on Herb’s point about the five-year establishment period
for the trees, is there-much more that the staff can do to ensure that the trees are taken care of for
the five years and get a good start on life?
~: At this point, we do not have the ability to accept money or a bond or a CD or
something like that to ensure a five-year maintenance period. We are considering a condition like
that in the future for many types of development, but that is not in place at this point. We do have
an establishment period or procedure that would be subject to review by Dave Docktor, the
planning arborist, of their tree preservation plan. But it does not include holding any type of-
assurance that the plant material would survive over a five-year period.
¯’n : What might this plan include?
~D__~?,~I~: By designing the soil, the planting pits for the trees and the whole drainage, we
would be buying the insurance up front if we required them to put a lot of preparation into the
holes and the irrigation system to keep the trees surviving for five years. If they live for three to ’
five years, they have already rooted into natural soil. The original query maybe was to bond for
this large investment was when there was such a significant amount of 120-inch box oaks. That
has been sealed down. The size trees that are recommended now are in a much more tolerable
Page 20
range. I think the survival rate will be much higher. We will be ensuring the design and the
drainage for the trees which will make sure that they work. i will be reviewing that.
mmi ’ r h : My expectation is exactly what you way, that is, the preparation is
really the plan. Once you have the trees truly installed properly with whatever appropriate
watering system there may be for it, beyond that, there is not much that is done over a five-year
period except ensuring.that nothing really goes wr, ong. Is that correct?
~£,.,12¢lf¢~: Over a five-year period, we are going to want them to do regular inspections,
which would be monitoring the root system to make sure it is growing out into native soil. If it is
not, we would be asking them to do whatever is necessary to ensure that these trees are going to
survive. They are such an important part of the package, to screen the home.
-- r h : How does one determine if the roots are growing out into the native
soil?
~.,.]29.~: We would take a core sample.’
Commissioner Beecham: So your recommendation would be that they do that periodically
throughout the five years? Take core samples on the major trees?
~2~[:~_~: Yes, core samples, as well as monitoring the irrigation. That would be part of my
requirements in the tree preservation plan that they come up with. We are .requiring them to come
up with a five-year plan to address all of these issues.
Commissioner Schmidt: Mr. Docktor, in your opinion, how many years do you think it will take
before the vegetation successfully screens the residents from the vista point in Foothill Park. We
have a photo drawing in our packets that shows this view. It shows grown foliage. In your
opinion, how long will that take?
~r.,.D_0..~: It really depends upon the individual trees that are purchased. I would be happy to
work with them on the placement of the individual trees. You can get a 25- to 40-foot size tree in
a 120-inch box or that same size tree could even be in an 84-inch box or a 72-inch box. Every
specimen is different, as these are mostly field grown. They all have their own character, and
when you purchase them, the landscape architect really needs to look at them and see how they fit
spatially to put the best tree in the best spot. For the vista point trees, I would suggest planting
some valley oaks, which tend to grow taller than the live oaks in that spot, maybe switching one
of those trees to a valley oak, having three valley oaks instead of two, something of that nature.
When the individualsare purchased, that is when they need to be placed around. I don’t know ifI
can tell you how many years, however, as it is too dependent upon the specimens.
~: As a followup question on that, every time we see a project like this in the
foothills, there is obviously tension between the public interest in wanting to have the project
A:]PCMinsSIPC0827.reg Page 21
screened, and the private interest of the owner in enjoying the view. How do we enforce, over
time, a screening program with trees that screens the westerly side so that the impact on the vista
point view is reduced when the owner may, in fact, want to keep that view largely clear to enjoy
the view of the western foothills? Everything we have talked about concerns tree size and the
watering and how fast they grow, etc., all front end things, but my understanding is that there is
not an ongoing city involvement or monitoring of the condition of the landscaping. Is that
correct? ~
~: The site and design doe.s tie down the landscape plan. So at any time, if there were a
change to the landscaping, that would have to be reviewed through the site and design process. It
could either be a minor change or a major change. Minor changes could go through staff review,
but major changes would have to come back through the Planning Commission and City Council.
So that is the long-term assurance that this would meet the intent and stay ihe way it is approved,
basically.
Commissioner Byrd: So if it were my home and I wanted to cut back on watering to have the
trees grow more slowly, if at all, in order tO reduce the rate at which the screening occurs because
I want to keep the view, that certainly does not violate our process.
~..~Cff_qlg: We would want to see the irrigation system to know that there is irrigation, but we
would not be monitoring the amount of water that an individual puts on their landscaping.
However, now is the time and is what the applicant and his landscape architect and also Dave
have been working on, that is, the placement of those trees so that both parties are satisfied, that
the applicants do get to maintain their views whereas from public points of interest or view, the
house is essentially screened. That is what the landscape architect has worked very carefully on in
preparing the package that you see before you, to balance those needs. "
~L_~d~: In a case like this, it is certainly important for the Planning Commission to look at ¯
the fundamental design quality of the building and how the building sits on the site and how the
building will be seen from off site. It is unlikely that we will ever get to the point where
everything is screened. I must share with you, having become the staffhistofian, that back in the
1980s, a previous Planning Commission reviewed a house on this site. It was a two-story, totally
inappropriate house designed by a contractor, not an architect. (Sorry Jon, no offense) The
property owner had literally tipped out of a magazine a picture of a house, and that is what he
wanted. By the time the commission g6t done with its review, the gentlemen decided that the
best course of action was to withdraw his application, and he subsequently bought a lot in Los
Altos Hills and built his house. The point is that the house was simply so obnoxious on this lot
that the Planning Commission tore the application to pieces.
What we have before-us now staff believes is immensely better than what We had in the 1980s in
’the sense of having a house that is dearly designed for the site, not something that was something.
that someone had ripped out of a magazine, saying, plunk this two-story colonial thing on the lot.
So what it comes back to is looking at.the package of the building and the landscaping, taking a
look at that as the complete package.
A:IPCMinsSIPC0827 .reg P~22
Commissioner Beecham: Also, as you talked about the house design, I think one feature of this
that may address what Owen is concerned about is that the primary view from the living room is
to the north. To the west, they have the dining room downstairs, which does not have that large
of a window segment to it. For the upstairs, the master bedroom is on that side, and the terrace is
also facing north, so that gives a little encouragement not to try to limi~t the trees on the west side,
just in terms of preserving their view.
-- r " : I certainly appreciate K~n’s comments about the design of the residence
and that this is a better design than what was formerly submitted. It is indeed an excellent design
for this foothill area, however, it is also extremely visible from Vista Point in Foothill Park.
People who have gone to Vista Point for years will be surprised to find that those two lots are not
part of Foothili Park. I think people will have assumed that over the years, what they see from
Vista Point is indeed a part of Foothill Park, but it is not. So the screening is the important issue,
or some sense of screening to provide some sense of separation both for people viewing from
Vista Point and for the residents not having people up there every weekend of the year staring
down into their yard. Again, it would be a great surprise to many people that this is private land
and not a part of Foothill Park.
Mr.,S.dl~: Let me elaborate briefly on the project history. What is in the staff report is
certainly correct in that the City Council approved these lots in 1979. What is not elaborated
upon, as there was no reason for doing so, is that the six lots on Laurel Glen and the three lots on
Alexis Drive, including this one, were approved as part of a litigation settlement. There certainly
was considerable discussion at the time in terms of the potential for visual impact from these lots,
both on Vista Point and on other locations. The creation of the lots was part of a package that
resulted in additional city open space. The conclusion of the council at that time in the late 1970s
was that the tradeoff of obtaining other lands and having these lots created was a good tradeoff
from the standpoint of public policy and public interest, given the,issues involved and the potential
problems in litigation. ,.
~: I have received a late card from the landscape architect. We have d~ised the
public hearing, so it is not appropriate to have any more public input unless the commission is
inclined to open the public hearing.
~ner O_iakiar~: I would be inclined to hear what he has to say.
C_~lil:mall~Sdli~: Then we will considerthe public hearing to be reopened.
r " 300 _ P i : Thank you for including me after your hearing
was closed. I hope you do not take it as a negative, my being from Oregon, as we do with
Californians coming into the northwest.
C.2h3~l~LSx, hi~: As long as you don’t stay down here.
A:lPCMinsSlPC0827.reg Page 23
~: I did grow up in San Francisco and went to Berkeley. I do work in the area, so I do
know the native plant materials here, and I am very familiar with many of the issues related to
plant survival, but not as well as your arborist, I am sure.
I agree with Dave and all of his comments referring to tree size, its sustainability, its growth
habits, etc. It is extremely important that when we do put in the trees, that they are properly
installed with good drainage and good irrigation and are properly maintained. It is a huge
investment for the applicant to do this, and you will have our assurances that all of these factors
and issues that you are very concerned about will be adhered to.
As we select the trees, I would suggest that we go up and see the trees at the nursery. We have
some photographs of preliminary studies that we have done at various nurseries, and we have
seen what is available and what is the quality of the trees that could be placed on the site. We are
concerned, because of the steep grade, about bringing very, very large trees onto the site.
Excessive grading will also be an impact on the site, so we have to take that into consideration.
The growth of the trees, from my experience, if we put in a 15-foot tree with a 15-foot spread, in
ten years, it is going to double in size. I have never lost a tree in transplanting trees. We will
guarantee you, and we are guaranteeing our client, that if for some unforeseeable reason, we do
lose a tree or a tree is not in healthy condition, we will replace the tree. Our contractor said he
would replace the tree at his cost. So I want to reassure you from the client’s point of view and
my professional experience that we are very concerned. It is just a beautiful site, and we want to
maintain the integrity and the spirit of the site with very minimal impact, but also with great
concern about the public view and the public concern about how we build selectively and with
low impact on the site. The house is set backfrom the ridge as much as it can get, so .it is
downhill. It is not on the ridge, and I think that is going to help tremendously with what we can
plant closer to the ridge and up on the.slopes.
Commissioner Schmidt: Mr. Borock also commented in his lett,er abotlt the fence on .the
property. I believe it is beigy color chain link fence that is proposed. Mr. Borock suggested a
wood, split rail fence similar to what is used in Foothill Park and in some of the other places
around the area. I wondered what you might think about a wood fence rather than a chain link
fence.
~r.,_~_~]_~: Near the house, we have called out a split rail fence all along the drive for visual
reasons. Around the perimeter of the property, we need to provide security fencing for the
swimming pool. We are also trying to figure out the best solution for dealing with the deer.
Actually, this was based on a recommendation either by the Terrys or the Hopkins who just went
through the process. They researched various fence options, and concluded that this tan color
blended in the best with the color of the hills. So that is why we have proposed it at this point.
mmi i r " : Wall that go around the entire perimeter?
Yes, that is what we are calling for now.
A:lPCMinsglPC0827.reg
Chairman Schink: Seeing no further questions, I will return this item to the commission and dose
the public hearing again.
i n r hmi : I want to comment more about the design of the residence. I do fed it is
very thoughtfully designed for this location. The more rural character and the use of natural
materials I think is significantly more appropriate in this foothill environment than a lot of the
villas that we see dotting our hillsides, especially, since this will be visible from Foothill Park,
which has buildings of a rural nature in it and it is a very rural site¯
However, I am concerned about an appropriate level of screening. I think what has been
suggested is probably as thoughtful as it can be. We might want to include in our conditions that
the city arborist actually work with that final location of trees, perhaps modifying a couple of the
trees as suggested to get some taller varieties toward the Foothill P~rk side. This certainly is an
incredible site. It essentially has the same view as Vista Point in Foothill Park. It also has an
incredible view of the bay area, and it is a nicely designed house. It will be visible. It will make
an impression on all people who visit Palo Alto Foothill Park and go to Vista Point. If a second
house is built on that other site, that will also be very visible. Those were already approved,
subdivided sites. It would be nice if those were properties that were a part of Foothill Park, but
unforttmately, they are not, so good design and screening is extremely critical in those locations.
_Commissioner O_iaki~a: I pretty much agree withKathy’s comments. Several weeks ago, I was
up in Foothill Park on Vista Point. In thinking back on that when I saw this application in front of
us, I agree with Kathy’s comments. People are going to be very surprised, because this house is
very dose to thepark and highly visible. So I am not sure if Kathy’s condition, the way she stated
it, is sufficient enough or not, but I think dearly, we need to make sure that this piece of property
is screened as best we can do it. Other than that, I am fairly comfortable with the application and
would behappy to bee it go through.
i n r i : I agree with Kathy’s comments and share her concerns. I am .wrestling
with how we can express better the selection of tree size, and whether that be the larger boxes or
the smaller boxes. I guess I must leave that to the arborist to tell us which is ultimately going tO
be the best size, assuming that the applicant will keep the water turned on for the trees.
_Commissioner Beecham: I do not have any new comments beyond what has been said already,
but I did write down a condition that I think Kathy is referring to. I can offer that when it is time
for a .motion, unless Kathy already has one written down.
~oner B_vrd: I think Kathy has nicely summed it up. I would encourage the applicant to
keep the impact on the public views from the flats and from Vista Point in mind, doing what they
can to limit the impacts so there are not prying eyes in both directions.
T~_D.T.LO~: " i n r B e h m: I will move the staff recommendation with the change to
Condition #7, adding "The applicant will work with the city arborist to ensure that taller trees are
located so as to improve screening from Foothill Park."
~:lPCMinsSlPC0827.reg Page’25
~: And you wanted that added to Condition #7 which begins: "The applicant shall
provide details of grading, elevation, retaining wall design, root protection, preservation devices
such as aeration, tree wells, drains, special foundations, etc., for review by the city planning
arbodst."
.Commissioner Beecham: Yes.
~: By Commissioner Bialson.
~: I have a procedural question. Are you requesting taller trees than are shown in
the current set of plans?
Commissioner Beecham: It was to optimize the selection of trees to ensure that taller trees go in
that area. I do not know how they decide what they are going to get when they go to look at the
trees, but just to make sure that priority is given to the taller trees.
.~.ail]II~3_~_d3J~: I will be supporting the motion. The applicant really has done about
everything we could possibly ask for in designing a house and in coming up with the landscape
concept for this site. No one ever likes to see things change, but now that we are confronted with
a change, I think we are very fortunate that this architect and this landscape architect and this
client have come forward with this project, showing a great deal of responsibility and good
design.
MOTION PASSE~S: Chairman Schi~: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those
in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on-a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner Cassel absent.
Page 26