HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-22 City Council (16)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 22, 2000 CMR:230:00
SUBJECT:3220 AND 3230 ALEXIS DRIVE [3220 ALEXIS: 99-D-6, 99-ARB-150,
99-EIA-30, 3230 ALEXIS: 99-D-5, 99-ARB-149, 99-EIA-29]
REQUEST BY BERGTRAUN-EVARD ARCHITECTS, AIA, ON
BEHALF OF THE GOLDMAN FAMILY FOR SITE AND DESIGN
REVIEW OF TWO RESIDENCES ON TWO ADJACENT OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT PARCELS COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY
3.2 ACRES WITH A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA GUIDELINES
RECOMMENDATION
Staff, the Planning .Commission and Architectural Review Board recommend that the
City Council (1) approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project for
the properties located at 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive (Attachment 5); and (2) approve ~he
proposed project, based upon Site and Design findings (Attachment 3) and subject to the
recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 4).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The two parcels forming the 3.2 acre site, shown on the location map (Attachment 1), are
part of. a "cluster" development in the Open Space District where individual lots are less
than ten acres, but receive development credit for previously dedicated open space. A
total of 30,492 square feet of impervious area (building and impervious paving
combined) may be constructed on the site, in accordance with the 1978Settlement
Agreement of Graham vs. City of Palo Alto, which established the terms for development
ofthe subject parcels. The 1978 documents and a brief history of zoning and land use are
provided (Attachment 2) to assist the City Council in gaining a further understanding of
the development terms.
CMR:230:00 Page 1 of 4
The two parcels are lots seven and eight of Tract 6723. Lot seven (3230 Alexis Drive,
68,195 square feet) would be developed with a 13,400 square foot single family residence
with a three-car garage, plus five uncovered parking spaces, a lap pool, turning court and
terrace areas, for a total impervious area of 15,063 square feet. Lot eight (3220 Alexis
Drive, 83,044 square feet) would be developed with a 3,359 square foot residence with a
four-car garage, plus two uncovered parking spaces, a pool, turning court and terrace
areas, for a total impervious area of 5,043 square feet.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Architectural Review Board
On April 6, 2000, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the
project on a 5-0-0-0 vote. The ARB agreed the design was well thought-out and the
design team worked well together, noting the size of project and its potential to impact
the ecosystem. The ARB commented on the exportation of soil (6,695 square feet), but
recognized that a majority of soil to be removed (3,901 square feet) was in order to allow
the houses to be cut into the hill. The ARB commented on the height of the crow’s nest,
but acknowledged that it would not exceed the zoning regulation for maximum height
and reminded one of the crow’s nest on the Gamble House in Pasadena. An ARB-
recommended condition of approval (Attachment 4, proposed no. 42) requires .ARB
review of any future building additions or increase in impervious area, but does not
impose size restrictions beyond those set forth in the 1978 settlement agreement.
¯ The ARB also expressed concern regarding irrigation, lighting, drainage, potential
erosion near Arastradero Creek, and potential noise from mechanical equipment. To
address these concerns, the ARB recommended additional conditions (proposed no’s 39,
40, and 41) and a modification to a staff-recommended condition (proposed no. 18). The
Board encouraged the applicant to use solar heating to heat the pools and to use photo-
voltaic energy, but this did not become a recommended condition of approval.
Two members of the public spoke at the ARB hearing. One citizen expressed support for
the project and noted that the design firm has done well in dealing with the issue of the
view from Foothill Park. The second citizen expressed concern regarding the view of the
project from Vista Point and the calculation of impervious coverage. He noted the
settlement agreement did not say that views are important to the value of these lots, and
stated that the conditions of approval should ensure that the landscape will grow to the
sizes portrayed on the submitted drawings (see attached plans).
Planning Commission
On March 29, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6-0-1-0 vote.
The Planning Commission noted the benefits of clustering the homes and the proposed
use of one driveway to serve both houses. The Commission expressed concern regarding
the proposed materials,, water use, landscape screening and site. maintenance.
~9 CMR:230:00 Page 2 of 4
Concern was expressed regarding permeability of the proposed paving materials.
Discussion regarding the proposed use of Rima stone with only soil between the pavers
resulted in agreement by the Commission that the proposed pavers would be permeable.
The Commission noted potential environmental impacts of copper proposed on the
buildings. The City of Palo Alto discourages the use of copper on buildings and suggests
the use of alternative materials; however, there is no code requirement preventing the use
of copper and the applicants propose only limited use of copper at the building fascias.
The Commission stated its concern with the amount of water needed for trees over time
while exploring possibility of adding evergreen trees for screening purposes. After
discussion, the Commission understood that the proposed plantings of native trees of
mixed size and species, coupled with drip irrigation system for the first five years, would
be better than a forest of redwood trees on the site. The applicant has expressed an
interest in. using recycled water to supplement the City water supply for landscape
irrigation. The Planning Commission re.commended adding a condition requiring the
site to be kept clean on a daily basis during construction. The condition was incorporated
into the recommended conditions of approval (proposed no. 15, Attachment 4).
Two members of the public were concerned about the amount and type of screening
trees, maintenance and survival of the trees proposed on the site, the location of the
driveway, glare from glass, drainage and permeability of the proposed pavers.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:Location Map
Attachment 2:Map of 1978 Settlement of Graham vs. City of Palo Alto approved by
Council 10/2/78 (p.1), statement of approval terms (p.2), history of
site’s zoning/land use (p.2)
Attachment 3:Site and Design findings and compliance with Open Space criteria
Attachment .4:Proposed conditions of approval
Attachment 5:Environmental evaluation and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 6:Applicant’s statement
Attachment 7:Architectural Review Board minutes, April 6, 2000 (excerpt)
Attachment 8:Planning Commission minutes, March 29, 2000 (excerpt)
Attachment 9:Architectural Review Board staff report, April 6, 2000 (reduced site
plans of proposed and previous projects, background and evaluation
attached)
Attachment 10: Planning Commission Staff Report (no attachments), March 29, 2000
Plans (Council Members only)
Prepared By:Amy French, Planner
CMR:230:00 Page 3 of 4 3
Manager Review: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY ~IARRISON
Assistant City Manager ’
~CMR:230:00 Page 4 of 4
Attachment I
Ara~tradero OS
¯ lialo Alto Golf&’
Country. Club
3230 and 3220 Alexis Dr.
¯ l%othills Park
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report ¯ .
3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive
3220 Alexis: 99-D-6, 99-ARB-150, 99-EIA-30
3230 Alexis: 99-D-5, 99-ARB-149, 99-EIA-29
Altos Hills
Scale: 1"= 800’
North
6
7
STA~"q~4ENT OF V~CE-MAYOR ALAN
PROPOSED. SETTL~IEI~T OF GRA}L~M VS " CITY OF PALO ALTO
’October 2, 197B :
~executi~e sessionthis evening, the Council approved a
proposed settlement of Gra~am vs. City bf PaTo" Alto now pending .-.
in the ~uperio~ .Court of’~anta Glare ~ounty. .P~i~tiffs Own
approximately 50 acres of land adjacent to and below Foothills
~ark. .They claim inverse condemnahion as a result of the.rezonin~
of their propert~.~.t~ the O-S designation in 197~. "The City denies
the claim.
’T~e parties ~re in the process of settling the litigation
onterms considered favorable to a11. ’The basic terms are as
wiZi excha ed. Rather,. a= ies c ange
The" City.owns-approximately 41 acres of land adjacent ~o
Plaln~if~s’ 50 ac~es, .Plaintiffs will transfer to the City
approximately 45 ~cres of their property, i0 ac~es of which is
designated as a. Eift.. The City-will Place and maintain a marker¯ on that 10-acre parcel in recognition of. the Rift, The City, ¯
in turn, will transfer to ’Plaintiffs approximately 20 acres of
~he City’s ¯property,S/
As a-result’of these mutual transfers, City’s .ownership "will
.~ncrease from ~I to 66 acres. Plaintiffs will own approximately
.25 a~res upon which they CORrelate development for .residentiali"-¯ su~dl~ision purposes. ~fthe properties of. Plaintiffs’and the.:. ..
City were combined, the 0-S designation would.permit, amon~’.othar "¯ things, nineresldential, units on the total ~I acres. In accordance "
w~th cluster and density transfer principles which serve t~ achle~e .
..t!~ purposes of t~e O-S zone, the permitted, comblned density of :
".nlne units .will 5e allocated to Plaintiffs!..25 acres. .. . . ".
¯ " ’ PRior to any transfer,-’.Plaintiffs will apply.for asubp .
dlvisioh, of the entire 91 acres; Plalntiffswillprovide the " ¯ ’ .. "
necessarY’subdivision maps,.parcelmaps, andapplications ts ...’ .-.
$5~t~ thef~ n~ne ~ots~plus. the City’s 66-acre lot. : City approval ..w~L De,grantee OnLy after full conslderati0n, and ~eview byCity." ...
¯ staff, the~lannlng Commlssion~ and the Council at public meetings
in accordance with .law. Although the contemplated settlement and ,’
transfers of land are contingent upon suchultimate approval, the
City is ngtpreco~mitted to grant such 9pprov~l;
Since l~ti~a~ion is still:pending, this is the extent bf"any /."..".
.co~meh~ on the proposed settlement which’ can bemade. ’
l-~-Th~ 01ty ,wili pay its "oxm escrow fees an@ titieInsuran~e. ¯
premlums~ Plaintiffs will pay f~r a!l required surveys and . - -
englneerln~’work contemplated in additlon,to theirown escro~
fees and t~le-insurance premiums. ..
~/The property to b~ transferred from Plaintiffs to the.Ci~y".~s’.d~g~ated o~ the attached map as O~R ~ EXC~L%}~GE .PKOPERTY"a~d
O~R’S GIFT P~,OPERTY. .The property to be transferred to the
~lalntiffs from .the City is designated on~he map ~s C~TY’S ¯
EXCHANGE PROPERTY,..
8
EXHIBIT 2, page 3
Brief History of Land Use/Zoning
3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive
In 1972, the City of Palo Alto created the Open Space (O-S) zoning district and
then included the subject property in the O-S zone. A 1978 Settlement Agreement
resolved a claim of inverse condemnation. The agreement involved 91 acres, a
combination, of 50 privately owned acres and 41 acres owned by the City of Palo
Alto. The City ended up with 66 acres and the applicant ended up with 25 acres
through land transfers (45 acres from the plaintiffs to the City, and 20 acres from
the City to the plaintiffs.) The 25 acres were allowed clustered development (nine
residential units, each entitled to the maximum impervious coverage (3.5%)
allowable on a ten-acre parcel). The agreement required the plaintiffs to apply for
a subdivision to create nine developable lots.
In 1979, the City Council approved a ten-lot subdivision (Tract 6723) comprised
of nine developable lots on 25 acres and including a remainder ten-acre parcel
deeded to the City. This tenth parcel, located west of lot eight, is to remain
undeveloped as part of the property exchange agreed upon by the City and
landowners in the settlement. The project site includes lots seven and eight of this
subdivision, on which a total of 30,492 square feet of iml~ervious area may be
constructed, in accordance with the Agreement. There are no easements to
preclude development on these lots.
Development on these lots is subject to the Open Space zoning regulations and
discretionary review via the City’s Site and Design review process. The lots are
designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map for Single Family Residential
land use.
10
Attachment 3
Findings for Site and Design Approval and -
Compliance with Open Space Criteria
3220 and 3230 .Alexis Drive
3230 Alexis:99-D-5, 99-ARB-149, 99,EIA-29 3220 Alexis’.99-D-6, 99-ARB-150, 99-EIA-30
Findings for Site and Design Approval
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. ~
The proposed project improvements will be sufficiently screened so as not to impact the
future neighbor’s privacy or enjoyment of their property, and when the tree plantings are
mature, the project will eventually be substantially screened from Vista Point in Foothills
Park.
The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of investment, or the ’
conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent area.
The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, the
proposed design and size of the residence and related improvements are generally
consistent with the existing residences on Alexis Drive and the construction of the
residences will be govemed by the current Zoning Code, the Uniform Building Code and
other applicable codes, to assure safety and a high quality of development.
Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in
construction of the project.
The proposed dwellings have been designed to be consistent with the Open Space
Development Criteria adopted by the City Council to mitigate the impacts of
development in the foothills area of the community. Theproposed design will follow
existing topography. The project, which includes implementation of the Mitigation
Measures, will not create significant environmental impacts as indicated by the Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared for this project.
4.The project is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Policy L-.1 of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan states, "Retain undeveloped land west
of the Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very
low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area." The
residential construction is not in conflict with this policy. The project is in compliance
with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, since the project meets the Open
Space Development Criteria.
12
Compliance with Open Space Criteria
The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view.
The proposed construction will be visible from Vista Point in Foothill Park. The project
is sited toward Alexis Drive to minimize the visual intrusion upon Foothill Park, and the
houses are nestled into the more recessed portion of the hill. Significant screening
vegetation and earth mounds are proposed to partially screen the structures and access
driveways from Vista Point in Foothill Park. The proposed trees, when mature, will
provide a softening of the development, as shown on the visual study submitted with the
application. The visual impact of the homes will also be minimized by the use of natural
building materials and earth tone colors. The model and story poles will assist in a visual
determination by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board .and City
Council as to the impact of the proposed development.
Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the
nearest ridge line. The footprints of the two homes are not located on top of the knoll nor
on top of the ridge. The simple roof form of the larger residence follows the slope of the
adjacent sloping grade. However, the structures may be seen above the ridge line from
the vantage point of lower elevations. Again, the story poleswill assist in a visual
determination.
Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of
neighboring properties. The adjacent undeveloped property to the north, 3210 Alexis
Drive, is located approximately 46 feet from the northernmost edge of the larger home,
and 96 feet from the easternmost edge of the larger home. The smaller house would be
set back approximately 102 feet from the 3210 Alexis parcel. Due to the siting of 3210
Alexis on the north-facing slope of the knoll, the primary view for that property will be to
the north. In addition, the existing oak trees on 3210 Alexis, the propose earth mound
and tree plantings on the subject property will mitigate views of the proposed structures
from 3210 Alexis Drive.
Development should be clustered or closely grouped in relation, to the area surrounding
it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of
natural habitats.The proposal is for cluster development into a single complex. The mass
of the larger home is set into and alongthe natural contours of the site. The buildings are
clustered together in the direction of Alexis Drive, which allows the retention of
undeveloped area on the westernmost half of lot 8, and allows a reduction in the total
driveway area. An access easement proposed across 3230 Alexis Drive allows a
reduction in the number of driveways, and the proposed 12 foot wide driveway would be
of permeable earth tone materials and required turnouts would be turfblock.
Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines
should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a
distance. The use of split floor levels and below grade floor levels for the buildings which
roughly follow the slope of the knoll and saddle ridge is responsive to the natural
topography. The proposed grading on the site would rearrange the slopes of these natural
topographic features to provide additional screening. The simple roof forms would follow
the natural topography, and the house would step back in the direction of the slope. The
roof over approximately 1,995 square feet of basement living area will be a "garden roof,"
planted with meadow.grass or similar vegetation, to mitigate the mass. It will be difficult
to simulate a natural vegetation growth pattern from a distance, since the existing knoll
and saddle ridge are devoid of trees. However, the landscape plan provides ample tree
plantings to provide screening where feasible. The extensive plantings would be native
species with "finger-like" extensions into the site.
Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4. 5feet above the ground
level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should
be retained as much as possible. No healthy trees are to be removed from the site. There
is no vegetation on the knolls or valleys of the site, only along the southerly perimeter.
The Arborist Report has been evaluated by the City’s Planning Arborist, who has
suggested the removal of four Pines that are in average to poor health along the property
line.
7.Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and
should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to
minimize the need for grading. The cuts proposed for submersion of the garages and
basement areas are encouraged, because they enable development to blend into the natural
topography. The other cuts proposed between the two homes do not appear to be made for
geotechnical stability, but to provide for vehicle access and level outdoor recreation areas.
The proposed fill is proposed for screening purposes (sloped areas adjacent to the guest
house and upper parking area), to level out the driveway slope for smoother access across
3230 Alexis Drive, and to provide a level terrace area adjacent to the guest house. The
sloped area to the west of the guest house is designed to provide screening of the filled
terrace area.
10.
11.
To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff large, flat expanses of
impervious surfaces should be avoided Impervious surfaces are used only for retaining
¯ walls, utility enclosure areas, pool coping, and concrete steps. Semipervious surfaces are
proposed for the poolside terraces and other large fiat expanses adjacent to the two houses.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural
building materials in earthtones are proposed All proposed building materials are
natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the surroundings.
Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately
adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as afire prevention technique.
An extensive native planting plan and irrigation plan is proposed. The conditions of
approval will ensure the use of fire retardant plants in the final landscape design.
Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly
visible from off-site. The hardscape and landscape plans submitted with the application
indicate these policies will be observed. The residences will create additional light and
glare, but window coverings will minimize light spill from the rooms to the outside at
night. The project is conditioned such that any landscape lights will be directed down to
avoid any impact upon surrounding property and open space lands.
12.Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter,
and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.) The
access roads are proposed to be permeable "Rima" paving in an earth tone color, with no
curb, gutter or sidewalk.
13.For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general
conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. The project is within the
City limits and meets the O-S (Open Space) zoning regulations.
Attachment 4
Conditions of Approval
3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive
3230 Alexis:99-D-5, 99-ARB-149, 99-EIA-29 3220 Alexis:99-D-6, 99-ARB-150, 99-EIA-30
Department of Planning and Community Environment Conditions
Planning Division
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans
dated 1/14/00, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and
any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board or City Council. The following conditions of approval shall
be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit
application.
. o
The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building permit
drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape
features.
°
o
°
Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the final construction drawings and
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All
lighting shall be minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away from the
surrounding residences and open space lands.
All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non-reflective material.
The sloped planting area near the dining room lanai of the primary residence shall be
enlarged to accommodate the three proposed large trees, to ensure growth of these trees
¯ to mitigate the impact of the building. Adequate soil volume shall be provided.
The project will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission
and City Council to ensure that the potential aesthetic impacts will be mitigated by the
project’s screening features, which include tree plantings and earth mounds.
If during grading and construction activities, any archeological, or human remains are
encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to
address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to
provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are
encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native
American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the
State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be
involved in mitigation planning.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
All mitigation measures identified by the Fire Department to address fire hazards
on this site must be incorporated into the design.
The applicant shall provide a professional survey report as to the proximity of the
creek swale to theproject, and include the required 100-foot setback line on the
site plan: No structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas or ornamental
landscaped areas are allowed within the required setback.
Bordering the project, there are hillside edge trees and fence line plantings of non-
native pines and Coast Redwoods along the property line fence. Of these,
potential impacts may be only to the fence line trees. Because of this potential,
staff requests a certified arborist assess the health, longevity and retention value
of these trees for City review. There are four Pines (39-12) the arborist report
identified as requiring removal due to beetle infestation. The applicant shall
coordinate with Foothill Park rangers to coordinate the removal of these trees in
conjunction with the development project.
On the southwest visual exposure of each house, the applicant shall explore
switching tree species from Valley Oak to Coast Redwood, to achieve timely
rooftop screening.
The applicant shall record a tying agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney, restricting the sale of one parcel without the other, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Prior to the submittal of Building Permit application, the applicants shall submit a
proposal for semi-pervious terrace areas in detailed plans showing exactly which
of the semi-pervious areas will be permeable and which of the semi-pervious
areas will be impervious, such that 50% of the area will be permeable. No area
represented as permeable paving in project plans dated 1/14/00 shall be converted
to impervious paving unless an equal are of impervious paving is converted to
permeable paving.
Because of the importance of visual screening represented by the on site trees
proposed with this project, the property owner shall ensure the survival of the tree
plantings for a period of five years. The owner shall install any necessary
replacement trees and monitor their survival. A certified arborist shall prepare a
report at the end of five years documenting the condition of the trees and said
report shall be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Community
Environment. ,Any subsequent owner(s) shall also be obligated to replace any
trees that die with trees of the same size and species stated on the approved
building permit plans.
During construction, the site shall be kept clear of debris on a daily basis.
Building
16.All new construction will be required to comply with the provisions of the most
current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at
minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in. the event of an
earthquake.
17. Lighted address sign must be seen from the street.
Public Works Department
Public
18.
Works Engineering
A formal site drainage plan produced by a qualified civil engineer shall be
presented with the Building Permit submission and must be approved by Public
Works before permit issuance. The Permittee is required to submit a drainage
plan showing existing and proposed drainage of the site. This plan should show
spot elevations.of existing and proposed grades that show how drainage patterns
work. Existing drainage from adjacent properties shall be maintained. Show how
drainage from the buildings and hardscape will be directed. The drainage plan
must also show roof water access. The plan shall include provisions for long-term
monitoring of the .drainage patterns on this site into the creek.
19.Grading activities west of Interstate 280 are restricted to the time between April
15 to October 15. This time may be further restricted to adjust to seasonal rain
fluctuations.If construction, especially grading and landscaping, will not be
completed prior to October 15, an erosion control plan will also be required to
presented with the Building Permit submission. Exposed earth surfaces shall be
watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with
frequency of watering increasing on windy days. Spillage resulting from hauling
operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed
immediately. Overfilling of trucks by the contractor is prohibited. Trucks shall be
covered during the transportation of demolished materials from the site.
20.A soils report shall be submitted with each building permit application. This
project shall address both the compaction associated with the grading and the
highest projected groundwater level. Pumping of groundwater will not be
permitted.
21.The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to
submission of the Building Permit to verify the basic design parameters affecting
grading, drainage and surface water filtrationl The Applicant will be required to
submit a conceptual grading and drainage plan for PWE approval. In order to
address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify best
management practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated in the Storm Water Pollution
17
Prevention Plan (SWPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPP shall
include both temporary BMP’s to be implemented during construction and
permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water
quality. The PWE approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be
incorporated into the building permit plans.
22.
23.
Any construction within the city right of way must have an approved Permit for
Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. This
statement must be located adjacent to the proposed work on the site plan.
An ingress/egress easement must be provided by the 3230 Alexis property and in
favor of the 3220 Alexis property for the driveway access to 3220 Alexis. This
easement must allow unlimited access to 3220 Alexis both on the surface and
subsurface utility installation. This easement must be recorded and run with both
parcels. This easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any Building
Permit for the proposed project.
Utilities Department
Utilities Engineering- Water, Gas & Wastewater
24.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility
Standard Specifications and the utility Department Standard Conditions.
25.The applicant, shall submit a completed Water-Gas-Wastewater Service
Connection application (load sheet) for the City ifPalo Alto Utilities. The
applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands
(water in g.p.m., gas in BTUPH, and sewer in g.p.d).
26.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans
must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the
development and the public right -of-way, including meters, backflow preventers,
fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities.
27.All water connections from Palo Alto Utilities must comply with requirements of
California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive.
Contact Morris White at 650,496-6972, City’s Cross Connection Control
Inspector, to determine the type of protection required to prevent backflow into
the public water supply.
28.Utility connection charges must be paid prior to the scheduling of any work
performed by the City of Palo Alto.
Utilities Engineering- Electrical
29.
30.
31.
32.
All electic utility design and installations shall be in accordance with the City of
Palo Alto, Electric Service Requirement Manual, 1999.
The electric site plans must show the size, location of all new installations and
equipment along with all utilities in their vicinity (WGW, Telephone,
FiberOptics, etc.). These plans may be developed by a field survey with City
underground inspectors/Engineering estimators. Call 496-6965 or 586-4534 to
schedule a field meeting.
Applicant shall provide and acquire all Utility easements as required for the
properties as above. Generally, minimum 3 ft. clearance from all three sides and.
10 ft. clearance from operating doors shall be required for any padmount
transformers. All locations of any equipment shall have to be accessible at all
times for the maintenance/operations staff.
Though no conflict is apparent at this time for this project with the existing City
Electric plans or facilities in the general location shown, the customer/property
owner shall have to modify or adjust the final design for any unforseen changes in
Electtric service configuration or any Capital improvement project(s) by the City
in the area.
Fire Department
33.The plans meet the requirement for a fire access road 20 feet in width with 13’6"
vertical clearance, weight access (60,000 lbs.) and turning radius (36 ft. inside)
requirements of fire truck, all-weather, reaching to within 150 feet of any point on
the first floor exterior but that field verification shall be required during grading.
34.Building permit plans shall show a fire sprinkler system which meets the
requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13D - 1996 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system
installations require Seprate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Building
Permit plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated.
35.An approved underground water supply shall be provided for the sprinkler
system, and shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24 - 1996 Edition.
Water supply system installations for fire protectin shall require separate
submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC 15.04.084) Fire Department
approval will be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works
Departmentrequirements have been met.
36.Additional hydrants must be provided to make a minimum of 3 hydrants available
within 500 feet of the point onthe access road closest to the structure (fire supply
shall be designed to provide a combined flow from the hydrants of not less than
3,000 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psig)
98CFC903.4.2.Delivery of building materials to the site will be prohibited until
the hydrants an adequate water supply .have been provided.
19
37.Tree Limbs and other vegetation shall be kept clear of the structure in accordance
with Appendix II-A of the 1998 California Fire Code. No tree shall be planted
closer than 10 feet to any point on the exterior of the building.
38.The entry gate shall be widened to accommodate a fire truck and keyed for Fire
Department access or a Key Box shall be provided. Contact Fire Prevention
Bureau at 329-2184 for details.
39.The lighting plan shall be brought to the ARBon consent calendar (after City
Council review of the project).
40.A study of the size and shape of the mechanical equipment shall be submitted for
staff review in accordance with CEQA and City Noise Ordinance.
41.If a railing is needed on the "garden" roof over the basement floor bedrooms, the
failings shall be submitted for ARB review on consent calendar.
42.Any proposal for an increase in the total amount of impervious coverage or
additional sq.uare footage on these lots shall be Jsubmitted for ARB review.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Attachment 5
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Goldman Residence and Guest House
City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
3.Contact Person and Phone Number:Amy French (650) 213-9251
4.Project Location:3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive
o Application Number(s):
Project Sponsor’s Name/Address:
3230 Alexis:99-D-5, 99-ARB-149, 99-EIA-29
3220 Alexis:99-D-6, 99-ARB,150, 99-EIA-30
Bergtraun-Evard Architects
947 Industrial Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303
7.General Plan Designation:Single Family Residential
8.Zoning:Open Space District
9. Description of the Project:
Construction of a complex of two residences on two adjacent parcels having a combined total
area of approximately 3.2 acres (151,239 sq.ft.) within the Open Space Zoning District. The
primary residence is a 13,400 square foot single-family residence, including a three-car garage
plus five uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements including a lap pool, turning court
and terrace areas, for 15,063 square feet of impervious area (building and paving combined).
The guest house is a 3,359 square foot single-family residence, including a four car garage plus
two uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements including a pool, turning court and
terrace areas, for 5,043 square feet of impervious area (building and paving combined). Total
habitable floor area (including garage area) on the site is 16,759 square feet, with a building
footprint of 11,112 in total. The footprint of the paved areas (permeable, semi-pervious and
impervious) on the entire site will be approximately 13,233 square feet in total. The vegetative
area remaining on the site will be approximately 126,894 square feet, or 84% of the total site.
Project description based upon plans submitted to the Planning Division January 18, 2000.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located at the terminus of Alexis Drive in the Palo Alto Foothills. The project
site is adjacent to Foothill Park and near Arastradero Creek. The site is an undeveloped pair of
grassy knolls which can be seen from Vista Point in Foothill Park,. and contains no significant
S:LPLAN~PLADIVkARBkEIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 1 21
vegetation, except for two pine trees at the southernmost property line. One of the two parcels
is a flag lot with limited frontage on Alexis Drive. Existing service facilities available for the
project,’ such as a water meter, fire hydrant, telephone and electrical, are located at the end of
Alexis Drive within the right of way. The adjoining property to thewest, northwest, south and
southeast is open space parklands owned by the City. The adjoining property to the northeast is
an undeveloped single family residential parcel, on which several mature oaks are growing.
11.
12.
13.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: none
Date Prepared: February 11, 2000
Public Review Period: February 14, 2000 - March 2, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages,
x Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
x Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
x Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
X
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
X
Transportation/-rraffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent, A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
X
S:~PLANkPLADIVkARBkEIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 2
legal standardsl and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Director ~f Plannin~nd
Community Environment
Date
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)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where ¯
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
S:kPLAN\PLADIV~RBkEIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 3 23
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
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). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used.. Identify 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
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate, into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to
a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
¯ b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV~ARB’tEIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
a)1, 7,13 x
b)1,7,13
c)
d)
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
a)
b)
c)
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation
Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
X
x
No
Impact
x
II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead .agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model, to use in assessing i~pacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 1,2 xFarmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland. Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for 1,2,3 Xagricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Involve other changes in the existing 1 Xenvironment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
II1.. A!R QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
a)1,2 X
b)1,2 X
c)1,2 X
S:~PLAN\PLADIV~RB~EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 5 ~.5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No "
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d)X
e)X
IV,
a)X
b)
c)
d)
e)
Vo
b)
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to 1,2
substantial pollutant concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,2substantial number of people?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect,1,2either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on 1,2any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on 1,2
federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the 1,2
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or 1,2,11
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an 1,2,13
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in 1,2
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in 1,2
the significance of an archaeological
X
X
X
X
~.~ S:~PLAN\PLADIVkARB\EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentiallyl Potentially Lees Than No .
Resources Significant Significant ,Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c)x
d)X
VI.
a)X
X
b)
c)
d)
e)
VII.
b)
resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including 1,2
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Expose people.or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake 5
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?2,4
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,2,4
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?2,7
Result in substantial soil erosion or the 2
loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil 2,4,7,13
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as 2,4,7,13
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately na
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
Create a significant hazard to the 2,7
public or the environment through the
routing transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the 2,7
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
X
x
X
X
x
X
S:~PLAN\PLADIVkARB\EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 7 27
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d)Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e)For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safetyhazard for people residing
or working the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g.i the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have bee.n granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
Sources
2,7
2,7
na
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
x
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No ’
Impact
X
X
X
Would the project:
2 x
2 x
2,7 x
S:\PLAN\PLADIV~ARB~EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of Polluted runoff?
Sources
2,7
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water 2
quality?
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood na
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard 9
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a 2
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involve flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 2
mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established 1,2
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use 1,2,3,7,
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency 13
with jurisdiction over the project.
(including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:.
a) Result in the loss of availability of a 2
known mineral resource that would be
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No"
Impact
x
X
x
x
S:\PLAN\PLADIV~kRBkEIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 9 29
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
b)x
XI.
b)
c)
d)
e)
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a 2
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation 2,7
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation 2,7
of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in 2,7
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic 2,7
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport na
land use plan or,where such a plan
has not been adopted, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to -
excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a na
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Induce substantial population growth in 1,2
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of na
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of na
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
XlI.
b)
c)
x
No
Impact
X
x
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV~ARBkEIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page. 10
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No "
Impact
Xlll.PUBLIC SERVICES.
a)Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
. Parks?
10, 2
Other public facilities?
XlV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of 1,2existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational nafacilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 1,2,12
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the. number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or 2
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
X
X
X
X
S:\PLAN\PLADIV~ARBkEIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 11 31
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
designated roads or highways?
Result in change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency
access?
c)x
d)x
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
2,12
3,12
8, 12
3, 7
3
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
e)
f)
g)
X
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Impact
X
Would the project:
1,2 x
b)1,2 x
1,10c)
d)
e)1,2
X
Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capac{ty to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local
X
X
f)2 x
g)2, 3 x
S:~PLANLPLADIV~AR.B~EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 12
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) .Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
-projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial "
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No .
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
x
SOURCE REFERENCES:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11,
12.
13
Site visit. Planner’s knowledge of the site and project.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 Zoning Ordinance
Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code Standards for Seismic Safety
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
Uniform Building Code
Information submitted by the applicant
City of Palo Alto Fire Department comments
FEMA Flood Map
City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division comments
City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist’s comments
City of Palo Alto Transportation Division comments
Answers substantiated through the responses provided on the attached explanation
X
,X
S:\PLAN\PLADIVkARB\EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 13 33
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES, 3220 and 3230 ALEXIS DRIVE:
I.Aesthetics
(a) potentially significant impact,
(b,c,d) less than significant impact
The proposed residential complex will be seen from Vista Point in Foothills Park, The
primary residence and majority of the extensive site development will occur on the site
nearest Alexis Drive, which is farther from Vista Point than the smaller guest house, to
be located on the flag lot. The built area (buildings and paving) will cover approximately
16% of the entire site, and additional area will be modified with contour grading,
irrigated lawn and significant vegetation. The site will be sculpted to provide landscaped
earth mounds in key locations for screening purposes, and to provide level outdoor
areas for poolside terraces and grass play areas.
The project submittals include a model, site sections, preliminary grading plans, and
renderings which describe the view from Vista Point at initial construction and at such
time as the vegetation has matured. The applicant has stated that story poles will be
erected on the site on or around February 18, 2000. The project, including the story
pole installation and documentation, and proposed screening features, will be reviewed
by the City’s Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council.
The primary residence will step back on the site following the slope, and will provide
13,400 square feet of habitable area including an underground three-car garage,
basement and ground floor living areas, and a crow’s nest]study. In addition, uncovered
parking area for five cars, plus a loading area and turnaround areas will be provided for
the primary residence. The guest house will provide 3,359 square feet of habitable
area, including a four-car garage and one floor of living area. Uncovered parking
facilities for three cars and a turnaround area will be provided for the guest house.
The building materials will blend with the surroundings. The materials include natural
stone walls with slate roof in earthtone colors, natural wood doors, windows, columns
and trellises, bronze anodized skylights and copper gutters and downspouts. The
hardscape materials on the site include 13,267 square feet of permeable paved area.
The permeable pavers include "Rima" stones on a sand bed and base rock over 10,204
square feet (driveway, turning courts), permeable turf block over 3,063 square feet
(parking areas, loading space, fire access lane), and the two pools (by definition in Palo
Alto Municipal Code). The proposed earth-tone colored permeable pavers will provide
positive drainage and provide required turnaround and access to the site.
The impervious hardscape area includes several poolside terraces (8,476 square feet of
"semi-pervious" pavers creates a total impervious area of 4,238 square feet), concrete
steps (1,561 sq.ft.), retaining walls (2,090 sq.ft.) utility enclosure pads (720 sq,ft.) and
pool edge coping (384 sq.ft.). The visual impact of the extensive poolside terrace area
will be partially softened by non-native trees within the terrace areas. However, the
sloped planting area located next to the dining room lanai of the primary residence
S:\PLAN\PLADIVkARB\EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 14
needs to be enlarged to accommodate the three large trees. Mitigation Measure #1
requires this modification to the design.
Substantial native tree plantings surrounding the complex will help to screen the
buildings and hardscape. The plantings on the site include irrigated lawn area on the
north side of the complex, providing a transition between the terraces and native grass
areas. Oak and Redwood planting areas are strategically placed at the perimeter of the
site in "early planting areas" to begin what will become a substantial vegetative screen
to.mitigate visual impacts.
No building lighting has been proposed. Landscape lighting will incorporate low voltage
lights and light sources will be screened from view from Foothill Park. However, the
development of the site may result in an increase in light and glare generated from the
additional lighting within the building and glazing on the building. With the City’s
standard conditions of approval, the light and glare impacts of the project will not be
significant. A detailed lighting plan that is sensitive to adjacent land uses will be
required as a condition of project approval. The conditions of approval will require the
shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the site, the lighting will
be directional, and that the source of light is not directly visible:
Mitigation Measures:
=
The sloped planting area near the dining room lanai of the primary
residence shaft be enlarged to accommodate the three proposed large
trees, to ensure gro.wth of these trees to mitigate the impact of the building.
The project will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, Planning -
Commission and City Council to ensure that the potential aesthetic impacts
will be mitigated by the project’s screening features, which include tree
plantings and earth mounds.
II. . Agricultural Resources .
No impact
The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency. The site is not zoned as an
agricultural use, nor regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
III. Air Quality
No impact
The project will generate more vehicle trips than the existing undeveloped site, although
this increase is not considered a significant impact because it does not exceed
S:~PEAN\PLADIV~ARB~EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 15
35
thresholds established by the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report and
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency.
The project would result in temporary dust emissions during grading and construction
activities. The City’s standard conditions of project approval would reduce these air
quality impacts to less than significant levels. The standard conditions of approval will
require that the following dust control measures be employed at the site to reduce dust
emissions to acceptable levels during construction: (1) Exposed earth surfaces shall be
watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequency of
watering increasing on windy days; (2) spillage resulting from hauling operations along
or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately; (3) Overfilling of
trucks by the contractor is prohibited; and (4) Trucks shall be covered during the
transportation of demolished materials from the site. The proposed project, therefore,
will not have a significant effect on air quality.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
IV. Biological Resources.
(a), (b) less than significant impact
An arborist report reviewing existing trees on or adjacent to the site was submitted for
planning review. All native oaks on the property are located on the adjacent property to
the east, and will be protected from development on the subject site. Coast Redwood
trees and Monterey pines are located at the southerly edge of the site bordering Foothill
Park, the majority of which, are located on the City property. These border trees are
reportedly in poor health. Their removal would allow space for the installation of healthy
species .and the proposed drip irrigation system would encourage faster growth for
screening purposes. The City’s standard conditions of approval will include tree
protection conditions to protect any healthy trees on and off-site.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
V=
(d)
Cultural Resources
potentially significant impact
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within and
Archaeological Resource Area of"moderate sensitivity.". Palo Alto is known to contain .
widely dispersed prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials
and a variety of artifacts. The proposed mitigation measure #3 will reduce this potential
impact to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures:
=
If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human
remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara
S:~PLAN\PLADIV~ARB\EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 16
County Medical Examiner’s officeshall be notified to provide proper
direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are
encountered during construction, construction shaft cease immediately
until a Native Amercian descendent, appointed by the Native American
Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site
and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
Vl~ Geology and Soils
(a, b, c) less than significant impact
Construction of the new buildings and site improvements will require extensive grading
and will increase the amount of impervious surface area. The Soils Reports submitted
in January 1998 for twoprevious houses and site modifications on the project site have
been certified by the original author of these reports as being applicable to the current
project. These reports were considered in the initial studies for the previously approved
houses on the site and are incorporated into the documentation for the current proposal.
Conditions of approval will require the submittal of these reports with building permit
applications,.which shall be separate applications for each residence.
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a
strong seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an
earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land
are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore
fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction
will be required to comply with the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code
(UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of
life and property in the event of an earthquake.
The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on
erosion and soil will not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the
applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the
Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(h) potentially significant
The site is in an area of high fire hazard. The City of Palo Alto Fire Department
requires mitigation measures to ensure all feasible fire prevention design features
are included in the project:
The plans meet the requirement for a fire access road 20 feet in width with 13’6"
vertical clearance, weight access (60,000 Ibs.) and turning radius (36 ft. inside)
requirements of fire truck, all-weather, reaching to within 150 feet of any point on
the first floor exterior but that field verification shall be required during grading.
37
S:\PLAN~PLADIV~ARBkEIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 17
The conditions of approval will required building permit plans to showa fire
sprinkler system along with an approved underground water supply for the
sprinkler system, and Fire Department approval will be withheld until Utilities
Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met.
Additional hydrants must be provided to make a minimum of 3 hydrants available
within 500 feet of the point on the access road closest to the structure (fire supply
shall be designed to provide a combined flow from the hydrants of not less than
3,000 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psig) and delivery
of building materials to the site will be prohibited until the hydrants an adequate
water supply have been provided.
Tree Limbs and other vegetation shall be kept clear of the structure, such that no
tree should be planted closer than 10 feet to any point on the exterior of the
building.
The entry gate shall be widened to accommodate a fire truck and keyed for Fire
Department access.
Lighted address sign must be seen from the street.
4.All mitigation measures identified by the Fire Department to address fire
hazards on this site must be incorporated into the design.
VIII.Hydrology and Water Quality
(c)lessthan significant
With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not
be significant. The area on site that will remain permeable will be 86.7%. The project’s
incremental contribution to a cumulative effect of development in the Palo A!to hills is
not cumulatively considerable, in that the project makes only a de minimus contribution
to a significant cumulative impact caused by other projects that have already been
developed in these hills. The environmental conditions will essentially be the same
whether or not the project is implemented.
The standard conditions of project approvalwill require that a grading and drainage plan
be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties,.
and an erosion control plan. The contractor will be required to incorporate best
management practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction
operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program.
The site is in Flood Zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone. It is an area of
moderate flooding, outside the 100 year flood zone but inside the 500 year flood zone or
flooding to a depth less than 1 foot in the 100 year flood event.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
S:\PLAN\PLADIVkARB~EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 18
IX.
(b)
Land Use and Planning
potentially significant
Building and impervious area coverage, and grading on theproject site is regulated by
the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.71, Section 18.71.080. Due to a previously
approved subdivision which included a gift to the City of land adjacent to the subject
site, the impervious area allowed on each of the parcels of this site is 15,246 square
feet (or 10 acres x 43,560 ft/acre x 3.5%). Section 18.71.140 states grading must be
essential for the establishment or maintenance of a use and the design, scope and
location of the grading must be compatible with adjacent areas and result in the least
disturbance of the terrain and natural land features. The proposal includes an average
cut and fill of two feet in various locations on the site, with deeper cuts for the pools
(four feet average) and house (five feet average.) The Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board and City Council, with the assistance of visual aids, will
evaluate the project’s compliance with Section 18.71.140, and has discretionary power
to balance the need for minimal disturbance of the terrain and natural features with the
need to add earth mounds to partially sci’een the proposed development from the views
from Vista Point.
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes policies and programs applicable to
development within the Open Space district. The property is within Urban Service Area
boundary where "very low intensity development consistent with the open space
character of the area" is allowed (Policy L-l, Comprehensive Plan). The definition of
Open Space/Controlled .Development allows one dwelling unit per acre, but requires
open space amenities to be retained. The total acreage of the site is approximately 3.2
acres and two dwelling units are proposed.
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Policies N-l, N-3, N-4, N-6, N-7 are applicable to this
project. Program N-6 requires the installation of"story poles" for development that
exceeds 6,500 square feet. The installation must include "outlining tape depicting the
building’s location, bulk and height to aid in assessing the potential visual impacts of the
proposed project." Story poles will be installed as a part of the project (see mitigation.
measure #1).
The development is adjacent to the uppermost swale of what eventually becomes
Arastradero Creek west of the project site. Creeks and Riparian Areas Policies
Program N-7 requires a 100 foot development setback from the top of the creek bank,
within which structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas and ornamental
landscaped areas would not be allowed. The project submittal included a partial site
topography map indicating the location of the centerline of the swale and showing the
location of the permeable driveway 100 feet from the centerline. Plantings of riparian
trees and native Redwoods are proposed within the 100 foot setback, and no structures
or impervious surfaces will be constructed within the 100 foot setback. Mitigation
Measure #5 requires the applicant to provide a survey of the location of the creek swale
in relationship to the proposed project.39
S:\PLAN\PLADIV~ARBkEIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 19
The Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria will be used by the
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council to evaluate the
proposed project. These are:
1. The development should not be Visually intrusive from public roadways and
public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is.
hidden from view. The project is sited toward Alexis Drive to minimize the visual
intrusion upon Foothill Park. Significant screening vegetation and earth mounds
are proposed to partially screen the structures and access driveways from Vista
Point in Foothills Park. The story poles will assist in a visual determination by the
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council as to the
impact of the proposed development.
2.Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend ¯
above the nearest ridge line. The footprints of the two homes are not located on
top of the knoll nor on top of the ridge. However, the height of the multi-level
structures may be seen above the ridge line from the vantage point of lower
elevations. Again, the story poles will assist in a visual determination.
3.Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on .privacy and
views of neighboring properties. The adjacent undeveloped property to the north,
3210 Alexis Drive, is located approximately 43 feet, from the northernmost edge
of the primary residence as proposed. Due to the siting of 3210 Alexis on the
north-facing slope of the knoll, the primary view for that property will be to the
north. For this reason, the proposed structures are not likely to have a significant
adverse impact upon views from, or privacy for 3210 Alexis Drive.
4.Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area
surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce
fragmentation of natural habitats.
The buildings are clustered together in the ~direction of Alexis Drive, which allows
the retention of.undeveloped area on the westernmost half of lot 8. The width of
the access driveways are minimized..
5.Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building
lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear
natural from a distance.
6.Existing trees with a circumference of 37. 5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the
ground level should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing
vegetation should be retained as much as possible. The use of split floor levels
and below grade floor levels for the buildings which roughly follow the slope of
the knoll and saddle ridge is responsive to the natural topography. The proposed
grading on the site would rearrange the slopes of these natural topographic
features. It will be difficult to simulate a natural vegetation growth pattern from a
distance, since the existing knoll and saddle ridge are devoid of trees. However,
the landscape plan provides ample tree plantings to provide screening where
feasible.
7.Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable
the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally "
discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees.
S:~PLAN\PLADIV~M~3~EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 20
11.
12.
13.
Locate development to minimize the need for grading. The cuts proposed for
submersion of the garages are encouraged, because they enable development
.to blend into the natural topography. The other cuts proposed between the two
homes do not appear to be made for geotechnical stability, but to provide for
vehicle access and level outdoor recreation areas. The proposed fill is proposed
for screening purposes (sloped areas adjacent to the guest house and upper
parking area), to level out the driveway slope for smoother access across 3230
Alexis Drive, and to provide a level terrace area adjacent to the guest house. The
sloped area to the west of the guest house is designed to provide screening of
the filled terrace area.
To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat
expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Impervious surfaces are
used only for retaining walls, utility enclosure areas, pool coping, and concrete
steps. Semipervious surfaces are proposed for the poolside terraces and other
large flat expanses adjacent tothe two houses.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural
building materials in earthtones are proposed.
Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation.
Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire
prevention technique.
Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not
directly visible from off-site.The hardscape and landscape plans submitted with
the application indicate these policies will be observed.
Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb,
gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills
environment.) The access roads are proposed to be permeable "Rima" paving.
For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general
conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. The project is
within the City limits. The project is in conformance with the Open Space District
limitation on impervious ground coverage.
The application includes a document (Covenant and Agreement) which will effectively
hold the two parcels as one. parcel, without actually merging the lots. The document
has been reviewed by the City Attorney and the conditions of approval will require the
recording of final approved documents prior t(:; the issuance of building permits. An
easement across 3230 Alexis Drive to access 3220 Alexis Drive has recently been
submitted with the revised project submittal (submitted January 18, 2000). This
easement will also need to incorporate other necessary easements for service to 3220
Alexis Drive. The conditions of approval will require a private Utility easement to service
the Guest House (3220 Alexis) across the Primary residence property (3230 Alexis), for
which.an easement legal description and plat map must be submitted for review by the
City Attorney. The conditions will require the easement to be recorded for the benefit of
the 3220 Alexis Drive property.
Mitigation Measures:
S :\PLAN\PLADIVkARB\EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 21
The applicant shall provide a professional survey report as to the proximity
of the creek swale to the project, and include the required 100 foot setback
line on the site plan. No structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity
areas or ornamental landscaped areas are allowed within the required
setback.
X.Mineral Resources
No impact
Mitigation Measures: None required.
XI.
(d)
Noise
less than significant impact
Construction of the new buildings will result in temporary increases in local ambient
noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated
with grading and noise of constructing the buildings. Such noise will be short term in
duration and would be mitigated by standard City conditions of approval, which limits
the hours of construction, and requires that the applicant to comply with the
requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC. Once completed,
long-term noise associated with the new buildings would be within the acceptable noise
limits and no impacts are anticipated. With the City’s required standard conditions of
approval, the project’s noise impacts will not be significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Xll.
(a)
Population and Housing
less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: None required.
Xlll.Public Services
(a)less than significant impact
The site is presently served by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The proposed project
would not impact present Fire District service to the site or area. The project would, as
a condition of project approval, be required to provide any fire safety equipment and
proper site access as required by the Fire Department.
Police
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The
present use in the new building on the project site would not by itself result in the need
for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV~kRB\EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 22
Schools
No direct demand for school services would result from the project, as the proposal
does not generate a significant increase of population and residents to Palo Alto.
Parks
No direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, as the proposal
does not generate a significant increase of population and residents to Palo Alto.
Other Public Facilities
The project would not result in impacts to other governmental agencies because the
project is relatively small in size.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
XlV.Recreation
(a)less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: None required.
XV.Transportation/Traffic
(e)less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: None required.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
No impact
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities
and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
XVll..Mandatory Findings of Significance
The proposed project will not result in adverse impacts if the proposed mitigation
measures and City standard conditions of approval are applied to the project,
S:~PLAN\PLADIVL~RB\EIA\alexisdriveeia.doc Page 23
43
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS
INITIAL EVALUATION/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED
FEBRUARY 11, 2000, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF
PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3220 AND 3230 ALEXIS DRIVE, PALO ALTO,
CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES
CONTAINED HEREIN.
Applicant’s Sillnature
’ Summe.ry of Mltloatl0n Me_as~res, 3220 ~nd 3230 Ale_x_.l~ Drive
2..
¯The sloped planting area near the diningrum lanai of the prtmqf
resld~ shall I~ enlarged to =~ommodat= the three proposed large
¯tress, to ensure growth of these trees t~ mitigate the impact of the building.
The project will be reviewed bythe An:hitOOturel Review Board, Planning
Commission and City Council tO ensure ~at ffm potential aesthetic Impacts.
will be mitigated by the proJecfe screening features, which include 1roe
.pklntinllP= and earth mounds, -
.4.All mitigation minute Identified by the Fire Department to address fire
ha:ards on .~is site murat be incomortted Into the design.. ....
The applicant shall pr~vtda, p .mkms..k).n~.! ~.~’. ey m~ ~. ~ rro~m~
a~s or o~n~l bn~d sr~s am al~d ~in ~e mq=md
.~;\l,I,/t iN\rl .,,i:ll ~,~lt U\I~IA~a iex i~i~a,d~== I’=i~
A
U N -E V A
R C H ~ T E C T Attachment 6
October 25, 1999
Amy French
Planner
City of Palo Alto
Re: Site and Design Review @ 3220 Alexis Drive
Histo~: About 16 years ago, a large parcel of land was given back to the city in exchange
for a few buildable parcels clustered at the end of Alexis Drive. These parcels have
extraordinary views; therefore, the value of the property is based upon being able to
appreciate the views from a residence. This is the agreement and exchange the city made. In
the time since the parcels were created, the property has changed hands a number of times
and a number of residences have been designed for the property. None of the previously
designed residences have been built.
Project Description: We propose to construct a 3,359 square foot, two story, single family
home. The residence has been designed as a guesthouse for and in conjunction with the
proposed improvements on the adjacent lot at 3230 Alexis Drive. The proposed
improvements at 3230 are being submitted for review simultaneously under a separate
application. Our intent is to create a single, cohesive residential complex that occupies both
3230 and 3220 Alexis Drive. The proposed home design incorporates a four car parking
garage with storage on the lower level and a two bedroom, guesthouse/living space on the
upper level. A pervious access drive connects the garage level to the access drive for 3230.
Two additional parking spaces are provided at the garage location.
Design Concept: The site at 3220 is a saddle in the ridge below the knoll at 3230. The site
is treeless with spectacular views. The house is designed to respect and reinforce the ridge,
sitting on the southem edge with the lower garage level built into the slope below. The
house is designed to be simple and quiet with a shallow gable roof following the direction
of the main house at 3230. This guesthouse will also serve as the pool house. The pool will
be located just to the east between the two houses, creating a common village green between
the two structures. The house has been designed to take advantage of the exterior spaces
and to integrate them with their adjoining interior spaces.
Visual Impact: The project site has no trees and is clearly visible from Vista Point. Any
development on this site would be visible from Vista Point and portions of the trails in
Foothill Park. The house has been built into the hillside minimizing its visual mass. The
location of the house has been carefully selected at the eastern end of the property to allow
for the house to cluster with the proposed improvements at 3230. This allows for the
creation of one cohesive complex rather than the more suburban approach of two
completely individual developments, centered on their individual properties.
5 5 0 0 D oyl e Street 947 Industrial Ave
Emeryv i lie, Ca 94 6 08 P alo Alto, Ca 94303
510-652 -0612 voice 650- 843 - 1014 voice
510-652-0613 fax 650- 843- 1015 fax
45
The exterior finishes will be stone, wood, stucco, slate and weathered copper, all of natural
subdued gray, tan and brown colors. The pool deck and patio areas will be tan flagstone.
The driving and parking surfaces will be tans and grays to blend in with the existing site
colors. These driving and parking surfaces will also be constructed of pervious paving
stones.
Landscaping: The use and careful placement of screen trees and landscaping is critical to the
project to provide screening from Vista Point. Native trees and shrubs will be used to extend
the existing vegetation towards the house, blurring the line between public and private space.
The approach to landscape improvement on parcel 3220 is twofold. First, early or possibly
before the beginning of construction, Oak reforestation can begin on the north facing slope
downhill from the saddle. Here approximately 50 small Oak trees will be planted with wind,
browse and shade protection to enhance rapid growth. Eventually these will provide habitat
for a variety of wildlife forms as well as enhancing erosion control.
The reforestation on the south-facing slope is treated as a westerly extension of the broken
pattern of Oaks and other native trees on the south slope of parcel 3230. The former are
concentrated in a cluster at the west end of the guest house to visually break up and obscure
the guest house and. surrounding garden walls.
Site lighting: All landscape lighting will be downward focused and shielded with cutoffs to
screen light sources .from the parklands..Low voltage lighting will be to the greatest extent
possible.
Water Usage: Through the use of native landscape planting and leaving large expanses of
the site natural the intent is to moderate irrigation and dissipate rainfall into the natural
topography.
Respectfully Submitted,
Alex Bergtraun, AIA Gregory P. Evard, AIA
E R 13 T R \ U N -E V A -(
A R C H 11 T E C T S
October 25, 1999
Amy French
Planner
City of Palo Alto
Re: Site and Design Review @ 3230 Alexis Drive
Histo~: About 16 years ago, a large parcel of land was given back to the city in exchange
for a few buildable parcels clustered at the end of Alexis Drive. These parcels have
extraordinary views; therefore, the value of the property is based upon being able to
appreciate the views from a residence. This is the agreement and exchange the city made. In
the time since the parcels were created, the property has changed hands a number of times
and a number of residences have been designed for the property. None of the previoUsly
designed residences have been built.
Project Description: We propose to construct a 13,400 square foot, two story, single family
home with a crows nest office built above the upper terrace of the structure and an
underground parking garage below the lower level. The residence has been designed in
conjunction with the proposed improvements on the adjacent lot at 3220 Alexis Drive. The
proposed improvements at 3220 are being submitted for review simultaneously under a
separate application. Our intent is to create a single, cohesive,residential complex that
occupies both 3220 and 3230 Alexi~ Drive. The proposed home design incorporates a guest
arrival and parking area on the upper level and a three car attached garage on the lowest
level. A pervious drive will connect the two arrival locations and continue on to access the
adjacent 3220. The guest arrival and parking area will accommodate five parking spaces.
Design Concept: The site at 3230 Alexis Drive is a special place. Occupying the majority
of a gentle, treeless knoll, the views are spectacular. The house is designed to respect and
reinforce this knoll by wrapping around its edge and terracing down the southwest slope.
The curving form and simple sloping roof combined with the planted garden roofs of the
lower level are intended to feel as if part of the hill. We have located the house down from
the ridgeline and off of the knoll to the southwest side while maintaining the bay view to the
north from the upper level. This terraced approach of following the topography allows for
an at grade entry on the upper level while preserving the knoll as open space. The high point
of the knoll will actually be increased somewhat to increase the percent of reforested slope
visible from the vista point at Foothills Park. A crows nest / office is tucked into the roof
form over the entry and entry colonnade adding interest to the roof, creating a visual center
of gravity and capturing a peak at the South Bay view. The lower level is built into the
hillside and terraced downthe slope to the southwest reducing its visual impact. This lower
level is organized around a great room, or family room, that brings light into the core of the
building from above and flows out onto aterrace at grade. The house has been designed to
take advantage of the exterior spaces and to integrate them with their adjoining interior
spaces at each level.
5 5 00Doyle Street 947 Industrial AveEm eryvi lie, Ca 94 6 08 P alo Alto, Ca 94303510-652 -0612 voice 650-843 - 1014 voice510- 652-0613 fax 650-843 - 1015 fax
Visual Impact: The site has no trees and is clearly visible from Vista Point. Any
development on this site would be visible from Vista Point and portions of the trails in
Foothills Park. The house has been designed to step down the hillside minimizing tall
vertical wall surfaces. The location of the house has been carefully selected at the westem
end of the property to allow for the house to cluster with the proposed improvements at
3220. This allows for the creation of one cohesive complex rather than the more suburban
approach of two completely individual developments, centered on their individual properties.
The exterior finishes will be stone, wood, stucco, slate, and weathered copper, all of natural
subdued gray, tan and brown colors. The driving and parking surfaces will be constructed
of pervious paving stones in tans and grays to blend with the existing site colors.
Landscaping: The use and careful placement of native trees and landscaping is critical to the
project to provide a natural setting from Vista Point. The basic approach in landscape
improvement is that of reforestation of both northeast and southwest faces of the ridge as
well as at the southwest end. With a few exceptions adjacent to the house, California native
trees are proposed throughout. In order to soften the architectural lines of the buildings,
specimen trees ranging in box size from 72" to 48" will be placed at critical locations,
particularly along the west facade. In order to maximize plant survival, the majority of the
trees planted in non-critical locations will be planted from smaller containers. Patches of
meadow and local grasses will remain elements of the landscape to blend with the
surrounding foothills. Along the east and west faces of the ridge, Coast Live and Valley Oak
will predominate. More than 90 trees will be planted in naturalistic clusters, breaking the
view of the west facade in particular into small sections, A grove of redwood trees is
planned for the south east end of the site tying it in with the existing riparian landscape at
the property’s edge and blurring the line between public and private space. ¯
Site lighting: All landscape lighting will be downward focused and shielded with cutoffs to
screen light sources from the parklands~ Low voltage lighting will be to the greatest extent
possible.
Water Usage: Through the use of native landscape tree planting and leaving large expanses
of the site either natural or restored to local grasses, the intent is to moderate irrigation and
dissipate storm water runoff through the use of subsurface dispersion trenches in
undisturbed slope areas.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ale~ergtraun, AIA - "
Gregory P. Evard, AIA
Attachment 7
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
Thursday, April 6, 2000
REGULAR MEETING - 8:00 AM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
¯250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
ROLL CALL:
Board members:
Robert Peterson, Chair
Francisco Alfonso, Vice-Chair
Lee I. Lippert
Joseph Bellomo
Drew Maran
Liaison:
Amy French, Planner
Staff:
Lisa Grote, C.Planning Official
Ray Hashimoto, Zoning Admin.
Luke Connolly, St. Planner
Nancy Hutar, Contract Planner
Lorraine Weiss, Cont. Planner
Anne Moore, Cont. Planner
~ PRoCEDuRES FOR PUBLICHEARINGS
Please be ~ the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as
¯follows: ..-~’~".
Announce agenda item ~
O~pe~ public hear. in.g ~
8t. af~.r, ecommendatio.n _ ....i ..~
A~mitation~e discretion of the Board.
P~a r or limitat~4~hree (3) "
minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. .~
Page 1
4. ,~39,.E1Camino Real [99-PAR-3]: Request by Roger K. Kohler Architect on behalf of..
~Che.n.for a preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board to allow the
d.emo.liti~isti.ng buildings (consisting of a 1,701 square foot commercial
structure, a 660 sq~cessory storage structure, and a 1,080 square foot detached
garage/~mctt~_re totah’n .~quare feet), and construction of a new 4,000
L_.~_ar_~, ~ot ~uil~ng f~r,c~Tei~ial~0~ and related site improvements.Architectural Review Board Action: No formal action was ta~~inary review.
N_.EVCBUS U.ESS.
Public Hearings (Major).
3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive.(3230 Alexis: 99-D-5, 99-ARB-149, 99-EIA-29; 3220
Alexis: 99-D-6, 99-ARB-150, 99-EIA-30): Request by Bergtraun-Evard Architects, AIA,
on behalf of the Goldman family for Site and Design review of construction of two
residences on two adjacent parcels having a combined total area of approximately 3.2
acres within the Open Space Zoning District. The primary residence would be a 13,400
square foot single-family residence, including a three-car garage plus five uncovered
parking spaces, and site improvements including a lap pool, turning court and terrace
areas, for 15,063 square feet of impervious area (building and paving combined). The
second residence would be a 3,359 square foot single-family residence, including a four
car garage plus two uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements including apool,
tuming court and terrace areas, for 10,203 square feet of impervious area (building and
paving Combined). Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been prepared, and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. This
project has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on
May 1, 2000.
Public Testimony:
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Expressed his concerns with the view from
Vista Point and with the calculation of impervious material coverage. Noted that the
settlement agreement did not say views are important to the value of these lots. Stated his
concern that the condition should ensure that the landscape will grow to the sizes
portrayed on the drawings.
Seth Yadovitz, 207 High Street, Palo Alto: Expressed his support for the project. Feels
that the design firm has done well in dealing.with the issue of the view from Foothill
Park.
Page 4
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C),
with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, and approve
the Site and Design Review applications based upon findings (Attachment D, and E) and subject
to conditions of approval (Attachment F).
Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval, as recommended by
staff, on a 5-0-0-0 vote, recommending modification to Condition # 18, and recommending four
additional conditions (Conditions 39 -42).
Condition 18 revision:
A formal site drainage plan produced by a qualified civil engineer shall be presented with the
Building Permit submission and must be approved by Public Works before permit issuance. The
Permittee is required to submit a drainage plan showing existing and proposed drainage of the
site. This plan should show spot elevations of existing and proposed grades that show how
drainage patterns work. Existing drainage from adjacent properties shall be maintained. Show
how drainage from the buildings and hardscape will be directed. The drainage plan must also
show roof water access. The plan shall include provisions for long-term monitoring of the
drainage patterns on this site into the creek.
Condition 39
The lighting plan shall be brought to the ARB on consent calendar (after City Council review
of the project).
Condition 40
A study of the size and shape of the mechanical equipment shall be submitted for staff review
in accordance with CEQA and City Noise Ordinance.
Condition 41
If a railing is needed on the "garden" roof over the basement floor bedrooms, the railings
shall be submitted for ARB review on consent calendar.
Condition 42
Any proposal for an increase in the total amount of impervious coverage or additional square.
footage on these lots shall be submitted for ARB review..
6.555 College Avenue [~-&RBr~-: Request by Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, Inc.,
on behalf of property owner Jim B_~t~ral Review Board review and
recommendation to the Director of Planning and ~’dtl~ail:LEnvironment to allow
architectural and site modifications to an two-story building p~ff~!~a~ ~ ~ a
Page 5
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32:
33
34
35
36
37
ROLL CALL:
-MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST .LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
March 29, 2000
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 PM
City Council Conference Room
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chambers
Civic Center, Ist Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Commissioners:
Kathy Schmidt, Chair
Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair
don Schink
Patrick Burt
Owen Byrd
Phyllis Cassel - in conflict with ltem 1
Bonnie Packer - in conflict with ltem I
Staff..
Lisa Grote, Acting Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth,. Senior Asst. City Attorney
Ray Hashimoto, Zoning Administratoi"
Amy French, Planner
Nancy Hutar, Contract Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Ed Gawf, Planning Director
C~. an Schmldt: I’d like to call to order the Planning and TransPortation Commission
_m. ~t.lng ~, 2000. Would the Secretary please call the roll.
~te for th~that Commissioner Cassel will be not be here at the Study Session
because she has a conflict o~e,r,~st in the Stanford project in that her husband works for SLAC.
Also newly appointed Commissione~ker will not participate in this Study Session because
she ~st. Her husban~etiree from Stanford and her son is Currently
r~cei~ing, a tuition benefit ~t Stanford. They wi~ this evening.
T~h,e ?;st,.,~m,. ~,S,,ur;~e~d~a. IS O.r~l C.°mmu_ni.cati°~il "~
the agenda
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. Tl~e Planning an’~
City of Palo Alto Page 1
53
1
2
3
4
5
.6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive* (3230 Alexis: 99-D-5~ 99-ARB-149, 99-EIA-29~ 3220
Alexis: 99-D-6~ 99-ARB-150~ 99-EIA-30): Review of an application by Bergtraun-
Evard Architects, AIA, on behalf of the Goldman family for Site and Design review of
the construction of a complex 0ftwo residences on two adjacent parcels having a
combined total area of approximately 3.2 acres within the Open Space Zoning District.
One residence is a 13,400 square foot single-family residence, including a three-car
garage plus five uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements including a lap pool,
turning court and terrace areas, for 15,063 square feet of impervious area (building and
paving combined). The second house is a 3,359 square foot single-family residence,
including a four car garage plus two uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements
including a pool, turning court and terrace areas, for 5,043 square feet of impervious area
(building and paving combined). Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been
prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA
guidelines. This project has been tentatively scheduled to return to the Architectural
Review Board for a public hearing on April 6, 2000 and tentatively scheduled for a public
hearing with the City Council on May 1, 2000.
Chairman Schmidt: I will let Staff discuss all the square footages and so on in their presentation.
So we’ll move on to Staff presentation.
Ms. Grote: A couple of things. First I would like to introduce Amy French. She is the project
manager on both projects in front o.f youtonight. This is the first time that Amy has been in
front of you so we welcome her.
Also there is a member of the audience who would liketo speak under Oral Communications.
You may want to consider, if that is a brief comment, taking that first before you take the public
hearing item.
Chairman Schmidt: Is that acceptable to the Commission to take the Oral Communications?
Okay. Would the person who wants to speak please be sure to fill out a card.
Mr. Ken Ha~,es, 210 High Street, Palo Alto: I will fill out a card. I know it has been a long
evening for you. I have an architectural practice here in Palo Alto. I would just like to make as
brief a statement as I can regarding mixed-use projects in Palo Alto, mixed use havin~ residential
and commercial components to them. I’m here because I’m concemed about the future and the "
future of the housing supply in Palo Alto. We work with many clients in Palo Alto on residential
and commercial projects. Recently we’ve been involved on several mixed-use project, half a
dozen let’s say, in various zones in Palo Alto. A few of which are going to have to come before
you soon seeking variances and exceptions to zoning ordinances. In discussing mixed-use
projects with our clients in Palo Alto it is difficult to get past a lot of the disincentives imposed
by virtue of the zoning ordinance with our clients. They don’t understand why commercial
portions of their projects would be reduced and impacted in and why the processing of the
application is so long by merely proposing projects that have components of multi-family
City of Palo Alto Page 30
I
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
residential use. So I’m here to address Palo Alto’s Municipal Code Title 18 in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. I’m going to read some things.
The housing technical document, Chapter 6, page 46, Residential Uses in Commercial Districts.
¯ All of the City’s zone districts allow for residential development except the Public Facility Zone.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s several Mixed-Use projects were developed in the commercial zones
that included significant numbers of residential units. During the late 1980’s and 1990’s
financing of mixed-use projects became more difficult and the City has seen a decline of mixed-
use proposals. In addition, the zoning ordinance requirement for site and design review of
mixed-use projects and a requirement that.the more restrictive zoning requirement of either the
commercial or residential.zone apply have resulted in a constraint in the production of housing
units in the commercial zones. In this housing element the City has adopted Program H- 11 ¯ .
which calls for the elimination of the requirement for site and design review of mixed-use
projects. Policy H-4 and programs H-8, H-9 and H-10 are intended to encourage mixed-use
projects and to implement a review of mixed-use requirements with the intent to simplify the
zoning requirements and adding incentives that will encourage further residential and mixed-use
developments in commercial zones.
Chapter 7, page 67, Policy 14. Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and
industrial areas, evaluate existing incentives for encouraging residential use on lands zoned for
commercial and industrial use to determine whether incentives implemented today are effective
and should be maintained and determine what new incentives should be provided. Evaluate any
disincentives that discourage residential use on lands zoned for commercial and industrial use
and if necessary eliminate or mitigate such disincentives.
I won’t read the next policy statement.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, thank you. For Oral Communications there is a three minute time
limit and that’s what the buzzer indicated.
Mr. Haves: I’m sorry. I will continue during the discussion of a project then. I haven’t even
made my points yet. This is pretty important..
Commissioner Schink: I would like to hear the rest of this.
Commissioner Cassel: But you can’t do both.
Mr. Haves: I would like to continue ifI may.
Commissioner Schink: I would like to ask the chair, I would like to hear the speaker finish.
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. In Appendix A, page 8, Policy H-4. Encourage mixed-use projects as a
means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality.
Program H-8, evaluate the effectiveness of existing incentives and encourage mixed-use
City of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41’
42
43
44
residential development on commercially zoned land and determine additional incentives to be
provided. It goes on in that kind of way.
The projects that we are working on right now are in the CN Zone which has an RM-15 overlay,
we’re working on projects in the CDS Zone which has an RM-30 overlay, and we’re working in
the CDC Zone which has an RM-40 overlay, all with higher densities. The only incentive to a
mixed-use project in any of those zones is an increase in the allowable FAR in those zones.
There was an increase in height allowed in the CN Zone and there are provisions for a 20%
parking reduction per Chapter 1883 if the parking requirement before the reduction is at least 30
cars. Those are the only incentives that are in the current zoning ordinance: They stopped there.
Everything else seems to be a disincentive when looking at residential on top of commercial. If
we want to do these kinds of projects we need to think about ways to resolve this. Multi-family
regulations are written for residential buildings at the ground plane. Go through the zoning
ordinance, commercial is over here, residential is over here, it always talks about the residential
as standalone projects really. There is one chapter on combining them. Since they are written at
the ground .plane when you look at daylight plane, setbacks, building height, open space, those
all relate to how you measure.it from the ground plane. So you can see that if you want to put a
residential development on top of a commercial project in a more urban area, in-fill Downtown,
all of sudden how do you deal with a daylight plane that starts at ten feet at the property line and
goes at 45 degrees? It makes you eliminate a good portion of your commercial building, in order
to meet that daylight plane requirement, because your housing is up on top. That’s really where
it needs to go in the Downtown zones. The regulations for commercial and residential are
written separately and joined in the ordinance by confusion, contradiction, making it difficultto
understand by design professionals and City Staff. In the CN Zone one uses FAR incentive for
commercial bu.t. you revert to residential for all other commercial requirements. In the CD Zones
you use commercial for commercial, residential for commercial but if the residential is on top of
the commercial you use the residential for the height. It gets very convoluted.
So lastly, there must be a better way. We need housing. We need the vitality that it provides in
our Downtown core. We need the housing and commercial Downtown to help reduce traffic.
We need an ordinance change or we need a policy statement from Planning Commission that is
very direct to the Staff that offers interpretations that can be implemented and enforced by the
Planning Staff. Certainly it is not the intent of the ordinance to restrict the development of
housing in our core commercial areas or to make the process protracted and difficult to
understand. I don’t have the answers but just one suggestion. It would make sense to me that
when one is doing a project in the Downtown core and you’re encouraging that mixed-use
vocabulary and the residential is up on top, that we think of that residential development and
how it relates to the zoning ordinance by saying when you elevate it above the ground on top of a
building, define that as the ground plane. Measure daylight plane and so on from that point.
Measure setbacks from that point. So the commercial can be the commercial and the residential
then up on top can respond to the residential guidelines and the residential doesn’t adversely
impact the project. A lot of projects are not proceeding as soon as we inform our clients of these
disincentives. Thanks for your time.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you for your comments. I would like to let you know that practically
this whole Commission was involved in creation of the Comprehensive Plan and we are all very
supportive of changing the zoning ordinance. The .zoning ordinance is on the Planning Staff’s
radar screen, it is on their agenda. We hope that they will m.ake changes rapidly. I’m not exactly
sure what the time frame is now but we know that changes are needed. Thank you.
Ms. Grote: I do believe that there has been at least one other person that has submitted a card
that would like to speak to you.
Chairman Schmidt: Yes, I’ve got another card for Oral Communications. Lynn Chiapella.
Ms. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: In mid-town where I live .there are
telecommunications facilities going up and there doesn’t appear to be any orderly fashion.
Someone just comes in and wants to put one up so the tower goes up. They are not very
attractive. They are double the height of the buildings and in some cases there is really no trees
or landscaping to mitigate it. I know that we’re trying to make an improvement in that but the
problem is that it seems like each one is treated as a separate facility for each little tower. I’m
sorry I didn’t bring my pictures. Each little tower just appears all of a sudden on top of another
building. To me they look like smokestacks and they are just plain not attractive. I would ask
that some plan be implemented for putting these things up so that one neighborhood, where I
live, doesn’t have two, three, four, five, six, whatever someone determines is okay to go there.
Right now they are just free to go in willy-nilly with no plans whatsoever and we’re stuck with
looking at towers. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Let us go back to our first agenda item after our break and back
to Amy French for the Staff presentation on the 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive.
Ms. Amy French, Planner: Thank you. The project before you is a clustered complex of two
homes on a 3.2 acre site next to Foothill Park and Arastradero Preserve. The total impervious
area proposed for the smaller residence is actually 5,043 square feet as opposed to the 10,203
square feet stated in the project description of your Staff report. Therefore the complex is
actually 20,106 square feet of impervious area, not 25,266 square feet as noted in the report.
The larger house on Lot 7, 3230 Alexis Drive, would have 13,400 square feet of floor area. The
smaller house on Lot 8, 3220 Alexis Drive, would have 3,359 square feet of floor area. Site
modifications are proposed in addition to the houses as described in detail in the Staff report.
Significant landscaping is proposed in an effort to mitigate the visual impact of development on
this site. The architects, Alex Bergtraun and Greg Evard, and their landscape architect, Tito
Patti, are all here to present materials, boards, photographs,.the model you see before you, and
renderings.
The visual impact is the most obvious of the project’s issues. These parcels are smaller than the
minimum area required for an Open Space Zone parcel which is ten acres. However, the amount
of impervious area is the same as if the parcels were ten acres. The reason for this is a settlement
agreement as described in the Staff report. Planning Staff and the Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto Page 33
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
will answer any questions you may have regarding the history of this settlement, the land use and
the subdivision, and any other questions you may have regarding the project.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council, make the
determination in favor of the proposed mitigated negative declaration, and conditionally approve
the project. If the Planning Commission recommends approval, the project will be reviewed by
the Architectural Review Board prior to City Council consideration because two homes are
proposed on adjacent lots.
Two clarifications Staff has, quickly: One is regarding the initial evaluation prepared in
accordance with CEQA. The evaluation includes a finding that on February 11, 2000, the
applicant signed an agreement to make the revisions to the project set forth in five mitigation
measures. This agreement notes that the applicants reviewed, "this mitigated negative
declaration." However,the document is really just an evaluation with draft findings to determine "
that a mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. The draft finding is to be reviewed by
City Council who may or may not approve a mitigated negative declaration for the project.
Should the City Council approve the mitigated negative declaration, a notice of determination
would then be filled out and the mitigated negative declaration would be attached and filed with
the appropriate agencies.
The second clarification pertains to the memo you received from Herb Borock. It mentions two
errors in the report. One I’ve already mentioned is regarding impervious area for the smaller lots
with smaller house. The second error regards Mr. Borock’s comments at the preliminary ARB
which were attributed to Lee Lippert, an ARB member, in error. Mr. Borock has some other
issues which I’m sure he will elaborate for you. I should note that he has had a chance to review
the current plans. The memo was in part based on previous plan sets. So he was able to see the
revised plan sets. Those are all the comments I have for now.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you Amy. Are there any questions for Staff at this point? Yes,
Bonnie..
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the parking. In the report it says the required
parking iS four spaces for each parcel. There are seven spaces for the 3220 and eight spaces
3230. In Conformance it says, conforms. I wonder if you couldexplain that.
Ms. French: Yes, the project meets the minimum requirements and actually exceeds the
minimum requirements, providing more parking than is required. So it is optional as far as what
they are providing that is not required. Only the four spaces for each parcel are required.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt:. Owen.
Commissioner Byrd: Did Staff have any concerns that this additional parking on this project
created an excess of impervious surface or hardscape on the site? I know we tend to cheer when
City of Palo Alto Page 34
,1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
a commercial project comes in with extra parking but does the same attitude rightfully apply
here?
Ms. French: Actually, the proposed parking surfaces are proposed to be permeable turf block
and Rima pavers, so that as far as drainage, this is not proposed to be impervious, it is proposed
to be permeable. In regards to the number of cars that could be parked up there, if that’s your
question, Staff did not address that as an environmental issue in any way.
Chairman schmidt: Any other questions for Staffat this moment? Then we will move on to
presentation by the applicant. You have 15 minutes for presentation.
Mr. Alex Bergtraun, Bergtraun, Evard, A.I.A. Architects: We’d like to do a collaborative
presentation between my partner Greg Evard, and Tito Patti, our landscape architect. So let me
introduce the three of us first. I’m Alex Bergtraun, I’m one of the partners of Bergtraun, Evard.
Greg Evard is my partner. We have offices in Emeryville and Palo Alto. The Palo Alto address
is 947 Industrial Avenue. Tito Patti, the project landscape architect, has an office in San
Francisco and the address of his office is 15 Vandewater Street.
Thank you for listening to our project today. We understand the extreme importance of these
sites. Greg and I have both hiked the hills our entire lives. We both grew up in this area. Tito
Patti has been working with open space issues his entire career. It is most important that we look
at this project as a site planning and site design project. We understand the significance of these
sites. We have a really special opportunity here and we’re extremely excited hbout working on
this project. The Goldman’s, our clients, have been extremely enlightened. They have looked at
the two sites that were available and decided to create a cluster together so they could minimize
the amount of development over two sites as compared to if these two sites were developed as
separate lots completely. We’ve worked over a year and one-half on this project. We’ve gone
through a voluntary process to go through a preliminary ARB review and from that ARB review
we’ve taken all of the suggestions that were given to us by the ARB and we’ve changed the
project over the last year to reflect all that. We look forward to explaining to you the entire
project.
It is really important to understand that the reason we are so happy to be working on this project
is the Goldman’s have told us.from day one on this project that they intend to live here for the
rest of their lives and grow their family on this site. For architects it can’t be more exciting to
work on a project this beautiful on a site where clients want to live the rest of their lives.
Mr. Tito Patti, Tito Patti & Associates, 15 Vandewater Street, San Francisco: I’m equally
excited to be working on this project not only because of the opportunity to work on a cluster
concept because I think it is rare when you find a client who is interested in landscape restoration
and in this case, really reforestation. That is really one of the basic building blocks of our
concept. Let me explain that by referring you to the graphic on the wall. Most of these items
you are certainly familiar with, the Palo Alto Hills Golf& Country Club, this green line is the
division between privately owned properties and the Open Space lands, the Arastradero Preserve
and Palo Alto Foothills Park. Here is.Vista Hill. Here is Alexis Drive winding up and here is the
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
cul-de-sac at the end of the drive. This area here is where there are three parcels and our clients.
own two of those parcels in this area. Of really great importance is the different pattern of
vegetation that you see here. The white lighter areas are grasslands. The darker areas are oak
woodlands. In between the dark areas and the light areas are occasionally some gray areas such
as in here and over in here where the oak woodlands are trying to reclaim those grasslands.
That’s of course called succession. Those areas, such as this area in here, are called savannas; In
addition to these three communities, typical in the Santa Cruz Mountain’s foothills, there, are the
riparian communities. This is the head of Arastradero Creek. You can see it winding on down
l~ere and continuing on down toward the flatlands. The keystone of our project is to jump start
this succession process and to set this home in a cleating at the edge of the savanna or the area
that the oak forest would succeed into. The reason these are grasslands is because they were
grazed for centuries. The reasons that they continue to be grasslands after the grazing has been
removed is because they are periodically disked which kills the seedling oaks. So what we are
doing is a real restoration process.
This overlay gives you a little bit of an idea, and I hope that the graphics show you more clearly,
how we are extending an arm in one case of a riparian grove which will consist primarily of
Sequoia, Redwoods, native Maple and Sycamores at the head of Arastradero Creek. Then in
contrast, in these areas, we are again jump starting the oak forest by adding over 100 trees of
various sizes of [Quercus labata and Quercus agrifolia].
The orientation is a little bit different here. This is the Alexis Drive bulb in here. This is the
extension of the riparian corridor which continues in that direction. The property line is actually
not shown, it is off this map in here. We are actually proposing to start the planting as soon as
we have approval before the construction process starts. So that in this area and in this area we
can actually have trees underway and thriving by the time the house is constructed.
The model will give you another sense of how this works. I think the most important thing there
is to see how the basic structure of the house fits within this clearing within the oak woodland.
Mr. Greg Evard, Bergtraun~ Evard A.I.A. Architects: I’d like to give you a little overview of the
project. I think the model is the best way to really see what we’re trying to do here. Like Tito
mentioned, the bulb of the cul-de-sac exists in this location. This is 3230 Alexis and this is 3220
Alexis. If you’ve had a chance to take a look at the model the property lines are physically
scored into the model; Our concept for the house is to bring vehicle access offofthe bulb of the
cul-de-sac and bring it around below the structure on 3230 Alexis. When you pull into the
driveway you can immediately turn to the right and come to a guest parking area which allows
for an at grade entry into the main public level of the house, the living room, kitchen and the
main family areas. If you don’t turn up there you continue around the structure to an
underground parking location. Then that roadway continues on to the guesthouse. The
guesthouse and the main house are clustered together as closely as we could really orient them
on the site. We’re really trying to create a clustered concept with a common village green
captured between the two. I think that is really evident. The model does a very good job of
showing how that works.
City of Palo Alto Page 36
The way the house is laid out, you enter on an entry colonnade, come into the center of the house
and we have a barrier-flee environment that we’ve created. One of the programmatic
requirements that we had from the client was to create a barrier-free environment for
requirements in their family and as they live there and age there, they really didn’t want to have
some of the obstacles that could be a problem living on a hillside. So we’ve created levels that
are barrier-free there. So the main level exi~sts there. We have the lower level placed down here
with a view through the roof forms on the lower level are actually garden roof. They will be
planted out with garden material so the meadow actually steps up onto the roof. That is very
important from the Vista Point view because as you look at the house from the Vista Point that is
what you see. So we are pulling the meadow up on to the house and really expanding the knoll
there.
As you continue on around to the guesthouse here there is parking at the lower level, an
underground parking space then a guesthouse space that is constructed at the same level as the
lower level of the main house. So we’ve tried to create an indoor-outdoor emphasis on all the
levels of the house from the guesthouse to the lower level here creating the village green
recreational terrace here and again on the upper level with the main house. You can also see
how the planting, all of the trees on the site are proposed to be planted there. There are not ~any
trees on the site fight now. So all of these trees you can see are screening trees and items as Tito
mentioned.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 Mr. Bergtraun: We did a study to understand a little bit what the meaning of clustering that
23 we’re trying to develop on the site really can be. We took a look at a previously approved
24 project that was looked at by this Planning Commission and also by the City Council and was
25 approved. We thought it was a very good example to understand what would be the best case
26 scenario. This project right here is the one that was approved previously by the Council. This is
27 our proposed project. Here are the two sites on each proposal, We thought that it was very
28 interesting to see what happens when you try to cluster together. The first thing that happens is
29 you get a chance to share amenities. So we don’t have to do any kind of a doubling up of
30 driveway. Whereas when we bring this across two things happen. First off all, we save a lot of
31 paving area as opposed to the previously approved project. Secondly, we get a chance to do a lot
32 less grading because the way this driveway works across the property it actually works exactly
33 with the contours that are existing. The other issue that comes up is that if you develop two
34 properties separately like this one that was proposed, you end up having to take the one driveway
35 and bring it down through the pole of the flag pole lot. What happens then is you are constricted
36 ’ to have an effect on the riparian corridor. When we developed this driveway we made a very
37 strong effort to keep it out of the 100 foot setback of the riparian. The other two things that
38 happened that we’re very pleased to see was in looking at the two differentprojects we realized
39 that in driveway square footage we are developing 25% less of driveway area and paving of
40 parking area with our proposal. As far as overall impermeable developable area we are 30% less
41 compared to what was proposed and approved prior. The reason that we think it’s really
42 important to look at these two proposals is not so much a critique of this project as to understand
43 that this, we consider, a best case scenario in a case where one goes and develops the two
44 properties separately. So we are very pleased that we’ve had a chance to look at this clustering
45 development and see that not only is it a win for our clientsin that they can have a property that
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
ties together different elements of the site but it is a very big win for the City in that there is a lot
of open space that is left and that we’re not building on top of saddles. For instance, this piece is
on top of the saddle of the hill and this is right on top of the mole of the hill. We’ve tried very
carefully to respect the knoll of the hill that is existing and the saddle as it comes across on 3220
Alexis.
Mr. Evard: I’d also like tojust present kind of our materials pallet that we’ve been developing.
I’m not sure what the best way for you to see this is but I’ll hold it up from over here. Basically
we’ve come up with a materials pallet of a very natural colored materials, tans, browns and
grays. The lower portions of the building will be clad in stone, this stone here. The roof material
will be a slate which is again in the tans and browns. There will be some stucco portions, panels
in the upper parts of the structure that will be painted out in a complimentary tone as you can see
there. The window system and trim for the house will be all in natural wood. We’re proposing a
teak and mahogany window system. Also some of the wood detailing at the exterior will be
matching that. We’ll be using a little bit of copper for flashing and some of the fascia trim. That
is going to be left natural and should weather out to be a natural brown. This is the finish that
you can expect in that climatic zone. There will be some skylights and glass on the roof. One of
the concerns we’ve had was from glare from the glass. We found a German glass manufacturer
that has created a glass that virtually eliminates glare. We have a display here that you’re
welcome to take a look at. It’s got a side by side comparison of standard glass with Schotz Glass
which is the German product here. They use it for automobile showrooms where you’re
interested in seeing the merchandise and not reflections. Thank you.
Mr. Patti:. Complimenting the building colors, these are the landscape pavement colors. This is
a Cameron sandstone which is a beautiful variegated stone in soft brown tones. The color range
for the Rima paving stones, which are 100% permeable, which we’re using for the driveways,
the parking areas, the turning areas, which are areas that have been approved by the Fire
Department as far as their maneuverability. This is the color range. Again, everything is in soft
earth-tones. The material range, as he mentioned before, is again making use of a totally native
palette. Some of the signature materials being used are Qtiercus lobata and Quercus agrifoli,
which already dominate the surrounding hillsides. In the riparian zone Sequoia sempervirens
(Coast Redwood) will be accompanied by the native trees. There would also be Maples, not
shown on the plans. By the way there are some 115 or so major trees that are included in the
plan, and there will be at least as many if not more shrubs such as Toyon and Wax Myrtle which
will also be a part of the entire palette. We appreciate your attention very much. Once again, I
think we have come up with a project which is essentially taking its cue from the surrounding
hillside and surrounding forest. We’d like to open the session up to questions at this point.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Schmidt: Tharik you. Are there questions from the Commission for the applicant?
Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I’m starting out my term with lots of questions. Could you explain in
what ways the project has changed from when you originally presented it to the ARB? I was
reading the minutes of that proceeding when you presented that. They were concerned about the
City of Palo Alto Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
location of the buildings vis-a-vis the knoll and also some shadow issues because it was facing
north.
Mr. Bergtraun: We’ve actually made a list often items that we changed on the project because
of the ARB review. We lowered the residence down four feet to couple it with the adjacent
sloping grades. We dropped the garage level down an entire floor. So it is now completely
underground. By doing that we changed the grading situation between the two projects so that
there is a complete at grade access of the driveway from the one house to the other. Before, we
had a ton of retaining walls that we were showing. We developed it with Tito Patti to precisely
eliminate almost completely the retaining walls along that driveway. We nestledthe guesthouse
into the ground completely, butting it up against the most publicly viewable side. We pulled in
the swimming pool, from where we had shown it previously, into the common green area and we
clustered all the elements. By doing that, we minimized the sprawl on the site and as you can see
by our layout-we really tied it together as carefully as we can. We rotated the roof and building
of the guesthouse so that it is aligned with the main roof of the main house tying the family
together. So you have kind of papa bear and mama bear together. We pulled the glass back
behind large overhangs and lanais to increase shadow patterns. We also rotated the living room
.so that we have an outdoor access that opens on the sides that need to have some solar
protection. On the north side where we had pulled it back before we pulled it out to the face so
that there we would have better daylighting. The lower level we developed as a plinth. That was
one of the specific topics that were brought up by the ARB. They felt that we had a lower floor
that had one roof system going that was like the upper roof system but not enough alike. So we
completely broke it away and created a plinth with a garden roof over the entire piece. We tried
to take the idea of.the ARB and take it one more step, which was not only to break the roof form
but to bring it in as a garden roof and tie it in with the meadow. We eliminated side retaining
walls as I mentioned before. By doing that we also pulled the driveway up and promoted the
health of the riparian corridor. Right now if you go out there you will find that there are a lot of
trees that are sickly along that corridor. Part of this project is that we want to help bring it back
to what it should be and maintain that. There has been an.extensive native planting planned on
this project that was created. Tito Patri came in right at the exact time that we came in for the
preliminary ARB meeting. So we didn’t have a chance to develop a landscape project for them.
The project has completely become an integrated whole between the building indoor interiors
and the exterior spaces that flow. Lastly, the project now includes an extensive reforestation
plan. As Tito talked about earlier we have an oak reforestation area happening towards the
northeast and towards the southwest we are taking riparian corridor and fixing it, as I said earlier,
and bringing a finger up of that riparian corridor to tie it in with the main body of the building.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I have a question with regard to the permeable surface. I see from your
exhibit here that the stone shown in the pictures is placed quite a bit apart from one another. Yet,
having just recently bought this stone myself and did my driveway and entryway in it, I
purchased it and it was called interlocking. They actually interlock. There is not this large
amount of grass that grows in between them that is shown in your picture. Can you tell me about
the discrepancy, please?
City of Palo Alto Page 39
63
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
2 Mr. Patti: IfI may, you are talking about a different stone. This is a stone that was developed in
3 Germany and has ribs on its edges. The way interlocking pavement works is because of the
4 friction between the pieces of stone. That’s why it does not fail very easily. In other words, if
5 one member is under pressure it will not failbecause it can’t tip in any way because it is so tight
6 against the others. These stones are called Rima stones. That pressure is maintained by two
7 vertical rims along each face so that the stability is still there but the permeability is also there.
8 Tests that have been made on this material, applying as much as 25 inches of rain an hour which
9 is something that we hope we never get here, have proven that there is virtually no runoff. Of
10 course the key is how you design the base to this material. Of course it will be designed to
11 withstand the weight of fire trucks. We’ve already met with the Fire Department and. they have
approved the use of this material.
Commissioner Bialson: So as a follow up, this manufacturer makes two different types of stones
with the same name?
Mr. Patti: No, Basalite carries this stone in this country. This stone is made by Patton and it is
not the same as an interlocking stone.
Commissioner Bialson: Okay.
Mr. Patri: Those are color samples that you see there. That’s just to give you an idea.
Commissioner Bialson: They are called Cannel?
Mr. Patti: I’m sorry, that is my misunderstanding. That is just to give you an idea of the color
range. We are trying to keep the pavement as naturally colored as possible so it blends in with
the hillside.
Commissioner Bialson: I would like at some point some further amplification of that because
these look a lot like what I purchased, the same manufacturer, same shipment over from
Germany, and they abut one anther. There is no grass that grows in between them so I am a little
confused.
Mr. Patti: We have a copy of their material andwe can give it to Staff.
Chairman Schmidt: I want to ask a follow up question. How does this paving material differ
from a grasscrete or other pavers that allow grass to grow next to it or through it?
Mr. Patti: It is a variation on the basic idea. For one thing it is one of the few that we know of
that’s been approved by a Fire Department. There are other materials that use a geo-fabric,
different kinds of cells, grass-pave, or gravel-pave. This is the one that the City of Palo Alto Fire
Department happens to have approved.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are there other questions for the applicant? Bonnie
City of Palo Alto Page 40
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
’30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43.
44
45
Commissioner Packer: I’d like to go back to the issue of the location on the hill. Was the four
feet that you dropped it was that the farthest down that you could go in order to maintain that
knoll? I’m looking at what I think is a topographical map. It looks like there is about ten feet
approximately.
Mr. Bergtraun: It is a really interesting balancing act that we have to do here. Because if you
look at the sections that we provided on the project, we have to balance the elevation of the floor
with the overall height of the building and be able to still get view through. We have a 20%
slope and we spent a ton of time trying to figure out exactly how do you get the right inclination
of the roof slope so that it matches the slope that is on the site and so that when a person is
looking at it from far away they get the feeling that they are in the same family o£tlae hillside and
the roof slope. That was one part. The second part was how far can you go down and still
maintain view. The third part is how far can you go down and then not affect the grading for the
driveway between the main house and the guesthouse. So it was a real kind of three-dimensional
chess puzzle that we were playing with here. I don’t know ifI answered the question but it was
tricky. The four feet was about the very best that we could do with Tito to figure out how we
could maintain the grading across the site.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you.
Mr. Bergtraun: The part I didn’t address-was the whole focus of the main house design was to
pull the house down the hill so we could have the knoll expressed. The entire reason for doing a
radius curve to the building was to echo the knoll form to the house and the site. Doing a radius
form is a major nightmare for anyone trying to design a house. We didn’t go into this willingly.
We went into it only after we realized that it was the best way to echo the forms of the landscape.
Chairman Schmidt: How long do you think it will take before the site looks similar to what we
see in the model in terms of tree. growth?
Mr. Patri: The material that we’ve submitted shows you a graphic at day one and at 20 years. So
the model very accurately repeats the 20 year time period.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you.
Mr. Bergtraun: I just have to add to that that it was a lot of fun making the model. We had a
woman who made each of these trees preciselyto the height of what a 20 year tree is. We went
to her garage and looked at every one of these trees to be precisely correct:
Chairman Schmidt: Any other questions? Then we will proceed to the public part of the public
hearing. I have two cards with one more coming. The first speaker is Lynn Chiapella to be
followed by Bill Terry.
Ms. Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: This project actually looks a lot better than the
project I saw several years ago. However, I am concerned at the placement of the house. It
City of Palo Alto Page 41
.!looks to me like it is right on top of that knoll. So if you’re up on the Vista Point looking down it
2 is a very strong impact so Ihave some questions. I did read that the windows would be non- .
3 glare .which I think is good. I don’t really know if that’s really so or not. The reason that I’m
4 concerned is there were two houses on Laurel Glen built fairly recently. The impact of those two
5 houses~ there will never be mitigation by trees on those houses they were placed too low on the
6 hill to ever block any of those windows. So what looks nice on paper doesn’t develop. I don’t
7 know who goes out and check andmake sure these things actually get done in that way. That
8 was our main concern, that the landscape actually in some cases doesn’t even have an
9 opportunity to mature because the grading is so severe and then the replanting is so low on the
10 hillside that it cannot, even at the 60 foot level, reach the level of the lawn that sits on top of
11 these ridges.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The impact from Vista Point would be my concem. I think from Arastradero Preserve it would
not be so bad. I hope that what you saw, that I didn’t see, is that the color of the roof will not be
glaring from up there. That it would be dark enough that it doesn’t just blind you as several of
the roofs do when you’re in Arastradero Preserve looking back towards Palo Alto Hills and
especially for the Los Altos Hills you’ll see a tremendous amount of glare.
The driveway I had hoped could go higher on the hill so there wouldn’t be so much impact on
the foothill hiking trail along there. It is hard to judge. The original one shown on a previous
projecthad enormous impact because it went right down along where the trail is. This new one I
really can’t say from this position how far back that really is and where the trees were. But the
original one-went right into the tree line. So I hope that is thoroughly checked out.
The last thing is that this is located between Foothill Park and Arastradero Preserve. Arastradero
actually has a strip that comes right up. It’s called the Hewlett Mullins property or something
but it really is the Arastradero Preserve. This on one side and then Foothills Park on the other
side. What they’ve been doing is driving their disker right straight through the creek chewing up
Arastradero Creek and making a real mess. Then going upan extraordinary shaped hillside and
then curving around to this entire area. Their landscape plans sound great but what I don’t hear
is what are we going to do about that disker who has been coming up mowing down the oaks for
years. Plans to come up and continue disking the oaks from what I hear from the Open Space
Division and may not be able to gain access from the little strip that’s a driveway. I’m
concerned about the creek being chewed up year after year after year and the disker coming up
and continuing the processes that have been going on for so many years. So I would hope that in
this plan something comes fromOpen Space as to how the access to this property will be for
disking purposes for fire control which the Fire Department insists has to be done on both sides
of the property. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you.
Mr. Bergtraun: What is the politics here? Can we respond to these questions?
Chairman Schmidt: I’m sorry that we can’t.
City of Palo Alto Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
Ms. Grote: You may want to take up those items in discussion after the public has made all their
comments. You may want to address some of the outstanding questions at that time.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Does the applicant get another presentation?
Ms. Grote: The applicant also has a summation period where he could address the comments.
Ms. Furth: In addition, the Commission always has the power to ask additional questions.
Chairman Schmidt: So you can address those after the public comments. The next speaker is
Bill Terry to be followed by Herb Borock.
Mr. Bill Terry, 925 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto: I’m a neighbor of this parcel I Cannot see the
parcel from my house but I can see it driving up Alexis and I can see it from the Palo Alto Hills
Golf Club. I’ve walked this parcel many times. I’ve been up there recently as they’ve put their
poles on the parcel. I’ve had a chance to look at their plans in detail including the building plans
and the landscaping plans. I must say I am impressed. I am impressed with the job the owners
and the architects have done on a very sensitive piece of land to make it fit into our
neighborhood and into our City. I would urge your approval of this project.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Our last speaker is Herb Borock.
Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good evening Chairman Schmidt and members of
the Commission. I want to thank Staff fora thorough report and for responding to my concerns
and questions. Unfortunately I didn’t have the current plans to look at when I wrote my letter. I
still have some of the same concerns, however.
One of the concerns that I mentioned was the view from Vista Point. I had not actually noticed
the orientation on the plans and assumed the bottom of the plan was south, it is actually a
southwest view, so I mentioned needed from the south side and it’s actually the southwest. It is
basically the view that you see from Vista Point. The previous projects on these two parcels had
more significan~ screening of that view from Vista Point with more significant specimen trees
and more evergreen trees. It seems to me that that’s an extremely important viewpoint, from the
public parklands. It is the first open space guideline that covers that in that you should condition
the project rather than simply requesting the applicant to have different species but condition the
project to both screen the view of the main house and also the driveway.. Since the project is no
longer taking advantage of the long flagpole stem of the flag lot which was hidden from view.
The driveway here will be seen from that viewpoint,
The applicant indicates that they have intention of creating reforested area. Pictures of trees or
plans or models of trees on the model here are cheap. It is expensive to do that kind of planting
but the main increase in expense from the previous project is the increase cost of the land and the
increased size of a much bigger house in terms of floor area and should not try and make up that
difference in price by having less landscaping than the previous projects that had less floor area.
I believe that if the applicant does intend to do this reforestation then.it shouldn’t be any burden
City of Palo Alto Page 43
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
to have enforceable conditions on the landscaping to guarantee the installation, replacement,
maintenance and preservation of the trees. I’ve indicated how that can be done with some
attachments from previous City Staff memos.
In regard to the permeability or impervious surface of these various things that are called
permeable or semi-permeable, it doesn’t matter whether it has a brand name square or whether it
is some concrete. It is really the space between the squares that provides the permeability. The
ordinance is very clear, the idea of runoff in space between impervious surfaces is already
accounted for. So it is taking what is essentially an impervious surface and claiming that since
there is space between a couple of squares of brand name paving that therefore the entire
impervious is now permeable. That is important in terms of the size of the houses that you see
because any impervious surface that is left over from driveways and patios and other areas like
that can then be used for floor area which is what is actually visible. So I think you should
actually look very carefully and look at the samples of what it is that is being suggested that is
permeable to find out if it really is.
In terms of the drainage, I believe in previous projects in the Open Space District you actually
saw at the Commission and Council level showed an actual drainage plan. I believe that should
be a condition. Of course, that’s a policy issue in terms of eroding the hillside if it doesn’t work
right rather than just delegate that to Staff. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Now the applicant can have five minutes for answering
questions or summarizing the project.
Mr. Bergtraun: I’d like to address a few of the issues that were brought up. We didn’t get a
chance to pass this by you and we will right after we’ve given our presentation. It is pretty
amazing to look at this glazing. You’ll actually feel like you could stick your finger through, the
side that has the Schott glass on it. This is what we are proposing for the areas where glare is a
serious consideration. We’re going to go back and forth because there are a couple of different
pieces. The color of the roof, as you can see, is not something that is glaring. It is something we
spent a lot of time trying to understand. The issues with all the materials that we picked were not
only that they were earth-tones and that they blended in with the landscape but that they were
materials that will last a lifetime. A lifetime is not the lifetime of the particular, occupant but it is
the lifetime of the building. So we looked very carefully at what materials will look good 25
years from now and that’s what we tried to see when we picked these materials.
Tito Patri will talk about some of the other issues that revolve around the landscaping. The last
issue that I wanted to bring up is that the whole discussion about drainage plans is one that we
have brought forth with Phil Plymale with Public Works. There are many opportunities to work
a extensive drainage plan not only for the building itself but also for the interim grading that has
to happen prior to construction so that we make sure that the effects of construction are
minimized on the site also.
Mr. Patri: Picking up from that, the system that we have used is to replicate essentially a
Lechfield approach. So that runoff water that is generated by rooftops, which would be one of
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 .
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
the few sources in this case, will be re-injected into the ground. This of course is particularly
important since some of the runoffwill by toward the riparian zone. Another point that I want to
make, and I hope it is clear, is that the property line veers drastically away from the riparian
zone. This is the property line. The lower road would have brought damage into the 100 foot
setback zone as well as visually impacting the road. The public trail, which actually is a
maintenance road continues essentially in this direction. So I just wanted to make that point
clear.
Mr. Evard: With respect to the planting plan, we did meet with Mr. Docktor, your arborist, and
with some minor suggestions, have gotten his agreement on our basic approach. Particularly the
idea of using a random spacing savanna pattern approach of various ages to begin with as the
most positive way of ensuring that this forest remains. One of the riskiest things to do is to bring
in a great deal of very large plant material, perhaps in an attempt to hide everything. This is very
often a very problematic situation in which the risk of loss to those trees is much higher than if
you plant what is naturally an ecologically mixed age community.
As far as the non-porous paving I would be happy to provide Mr. Borock a copy of the reports
that we have showing that given whatever measured areas the porous paving allows the water to
penetrate into the soil quite readily.
Chairman Schmidt: Are there any additional questions for the applicant? Jon.
Commissioner Schink: Could you stand in front of the model where you would be if you were
on Vista Hill?
Mr. Bergtraun: Here, but quite a bit lower. It is a very low angle.
Commissioner Schink: Could you address the concern that one member of the public brought up
that possibly the edge of the driveway might be visible?
Mr. Bergtraun: There is one other discussion that I want to briefly touch on. That is the whole
discussion of glare is a discussion of angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. If you
stand here and look at the angle that we’re really looking at and look at where the sun angles are
going to be coming from, you won’t have that angle of incidence equal angle of reflection. So
you will not be getting the glare off the roof in any case, even if you were using a glare type roof.
As far as the driveway goes we have laid out the trees that we’ve shown on the plan as closely as
possible to where they are actually going to be located. The driveway piece that’s exposed is
right here. We’re showing there, what we didn’t show on the model but we do show on the
drawings, the shrubs that come down so there is a natural progression down of planting. The
same over here. So you don’t have any kind of an abruptness. What we were trying to do very
carefully on this was to avoid the idea of a suburbanization of the lot - that you put in a house in
the middle of the site and bring a big green hedge around it to just shield everything - we
understand that the house is part of the site and we’re trying to see how you make it naturally
flow into the site.
City of Palo Alto Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis, do you have a question?
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question about the copper. You’re using the copper flashing, it’s
very pretty and it lasts a long time, but we’re having problems with copper in our streams. I
wondered if it was necessary to use that product.
Mr. Evard: We’re really proposing to use a real limited quantity of the copper. We are looking
to that for its durability and maintenance free-application. There really isn’t going to be a large
quantity such as copper roofing involved in the project.
Commissioner Cassel: This is a very big house, so what’s limited?
Mr. Evard: Some of the fascia material on the garden roofs will be fabricated from copper and
some of the flashing details.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Regarding the evergreen trees that Mr. Borock would like to see placed
what is the problem with putting some more evergreen trees out there?
Mr. Patri: We are trying to create a healthy environment of native vegetation. All the way from
large trees to medium shrubs down even to ground covers. To essentially add a forest of even
aged trees is to ask for the same kind of trouble that is already taking place along the property
line in here where Monterey Pines have been planted and are dying. We’re trying to establish a
healthy environment from an ecological standpoint because we are working with natives. With
the exception of areas immediately around the house where we want the freedom to plant some
decorative plant materials.
Commissioner Bialson: So there are no native evergreens that you could plant there?
Mr. Patri: We are planting redwoods and of course the Quercus agrifolia are evergreen, as are
most of the shrub material.. Some of the shrub materials that you see in areas like this are not
very small shrubs. We’re talking about materials that can get up to ten or fifteen feet tall.
Mr. Bergtraun: I also think you can see it pretty clearly in the model. The whole concept behind
the landscape development was that we try to tie into the landscape that is next to it. So if you
start taking redwoods and bring them all the way across to this area you actually start changing
the whole nature of the landscape fingers that are out there on the existing.
Chairman Schmidt:. Bonnie, do you have another question?
Commissioner Packer: I was wondering about the coast redwoods. They are very thirsty trees.
We haven’thad a drought for about three or four years but we do have droughts as you know.
What kind of additional water supply would this project involve?
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Mr. Patri: All of the trees will have a drip system, a subsurface water supply system, which is a
very efficient system. It practically eliminates any loss or waste through evaporation. Obviously
it can also be timed for the dry seasons of the year. So we think that this can be handled in a
very efficient manner.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: A follow up to that. You’re putting in native trees that would normally
be able to be handled in that area. You need to educate me. How much water and why would
you be watering these beyond the first few years?
Mr. Patri: There isn’t a tree in the world that doesn’t need water.
Commissioner Cassel’ I know that. But oak trees that are out in the country side are not watered
year-round. They are using the natural water system. This is up in the hills, it’s hard to get
water there and it’s a lot of vegetation. Is that the intent of using native trees such tl~at over time
they will not be watered?
Mr. Patri: Over time, exactly. The system can be designed to be removed after five or seven
years. Once the trees are established there will need to be shade protection. There will need to
be varmint protection and of course a drip system for each tree to establish them. But clearly the
best we can do is to give these trees a helping hand for the first five or ten years. Probably less
than ten years. So that they can withstand the normal climatic stresses that they are used to.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: How far apart do you plan on placing these pavers? I’m sorry to keep
going back on that but I went to at least five different homes from Hillsborough down looking at
this before I purchased it for myself. Not one of those had grass growing in between because the
stones were placed closer together than would allow grass to grow in between.
Mr. Evard: This material really is not what you see as an interlocking paver. It is made out of
the same concrete. The fabrication process is the same but the difference is in the design. The
physical configuration of the pavers. So, as Tito mentioned there are ribs that hold these stones
apart by about half an inch to three-quarters of an inch. That is then filled with aggregate to .
allow the water to flow through. So the idea of this stone is not to have them touching physically
like interlocking pavers typically do. They look like interlocking pavers but there is actually a
band of sand and aggregate between each stone because these stones have little nubs that keep
them apart.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate that. Those are ones I looked at already and there was no
grass growing in between.
City of Palo Alto ,Page 47
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Evard: Actually the idea is not to have grass grow between them. The idea is to see that
with an aggregate and keep that drainage-way clear, This is not a grass material that we are
proposing for the driveway.
Commissioner Bialson: So the diagram you showed with grass growing in between?
Mr. Bergtraun: There are two ways to set up the interlocking stones.
Commissioner Bialson: I’m concerned because the diagram that you show presents one image
and now you’re telling me that’s the wrong image. So I’m trying to understand why that is.
Mr. Bergtraun: Let me see if I can explain it. There are two ways that you can set the same
stone next to each other. If you take it with the nubs next to each other and closer together then
you don’t have grass growing between them. If you knock the nubs on top of each other, so they
face each other, then you have more space in between and you can have grass growing in
between. That’s why we show, with the same material, you have two different ways you can use
it. What we’re proposing is to do the one without th~ grass in between because actually if you
start growing grass in between you can lose permeability because the root system of the grass as
it grows will actually start to prevent water from going through and we want to do the exact
opposite. So it’s confusing because what we showed was the same stone with two different
applications. The. application that we are looking at is the one without the grass on it.
Mr. Patri: There should be two images there. I think it,s the one on the left that shows what
we’re proposing.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I’ll just go back to the water issue. How much wateris it going to take to
water all of these lands? One of the complaints that we’re beginning to get is how much water it
is taking to house homes up in the hills. The water in general that it .takes to maintain these large
homes. What is the water usage going to be?
Mr. Patri: I can’t give you quantities at this point. But number one, we are usingall native plant
materials in any area that is in any way distant from the house. Secondly, we are using drip .
systems that minimize waste to almost nothing. Thirdly, we are looking into the possibility of
using gray water from the house in the garden areas. So I think we are doing as much as one can
do to minimize the impact and at the same time satisfy the need to provide a healthy planted
environment to place this house at the edge of a clearing in a forest.
Chairman Schmidt: I have a question. Approximately how long do you imagine it will take to
build these two houses and all the site work and so on?
Mr Evard: We haven’t really gotten to a point of working on that schedule. We would imagine
that it would probably be around a year and one-half to construct the s(ructures out there.
City of Palo Alto
Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Chairman Schmidt: While construction is going on, do you envision trying to do any screening.
of what’s going on if it is extremely visible¯ from Vista Point? Are you considering doing any
screening other than I know you were starting the landscaping at the two edges earlier but would
there be anything else?
Mr. Patri: Let’s see if we made that clear. We would be planting all of this area and some up
here next to the cul-de-sac. Any material here that is outside of the gray line which is most of
this I believe we have that diagram shown in our submittals, as well as the forest on the other
side. Your concern is the view from Vista Point. That is our intention to get as much of this
planting started as early as possible so it does help mitigate the visual impacts.
Chairman Schmidt: I understand that and I appreciate that. I just third( there will be a lot of
exposed construction site up there.
Mr. Bergtraun: It is actually interesting that our contractor who we are very excited to be
working with called us up about a month ago and said regardless of what happens with planning
on this I want to be out there working this summer to see if I can get some interim protection
measures going for the site, so we can protect the site. So he is already thinking about protection
against erosion on the site and screening because he is concemed that the more visible he is the
more attractive it is for people to come down and bother him while he’s doing construction. So
it is actually to the contractor’s benefit to screen himself.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, thank you. Jon.
Commissioner Schink: Would you be willing to agree to a condition that this site be kept clean
during construction: The concern we raised with a previous application was that your workers
work hard so they have a big appetite and they leave a lot of their lunch bags around. It is
always windy up there so the trash ends up in Foothill Park.
Mr. Bergtraun: We actually think that’s a great idea. We have a wonderful contractor. So we
know that it is not going to be a problem..We would jump at a chance to say that it is going to be
a wonderful site even during construction.
Commissioner Schink: Alright, thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: It looks like we are done with questions. Thank you very much. Phyllis has¯
a question for Staff.
Commissioner Cassel: I guess the major question of Staff is we have a 25 foot height limit in the
Open Space District and a 3.5% impervious coverage. So in any one given spot here we seem to
have no more than 25 feet high but as the building goes up the slope it keeps going up. From the
bottom of the site to the top of the site is much more than 25 feet. Are we violating the intent of
this rule in approving this? It looks like a way to get around the intent.
City of Palo Alto Page 49
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Grote: The height is actually measured to the highest point of a segment of a building in this
particular case. So no it is not violating either the intent or the actual wording of the ordinance.
In ~r~any of the previously approved buildings in the Open Space District the same application
hz,~:: been applied, the same application of the height definition. It is the highest point to any
segment of the building.
Chairman Schmidt: I will officially close the.public hearing. Are there any other questions for
Staff?. Seeing none, who would like to begin the discussion? Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I think the applicant has thoroughly demonstrated that this project is
environmentally superior to the previous project which we approved. I should also add for the
record that I had an opportunity to discuss the project with the applicant prior to this meeting, I
think the point that is probably most important for us to keep in mind, from my perspective, is
that if I were allowed to write the rules for development in the foothills I would insist that the
homes be clustered. That is in fact is what is happening here. If I were writing the rules I would
insist that the homes share a driveway and.that again is in fact what’s happening-here. So I think
the fact that we’re getting a better situation than we had before should be recognized. On top of
that it is important to recognize that we have in front of us an application that is done in the
correct architectural style. This is truly a home built in the Bay Area architectural style which is
nice to see for a change. It is a nice change from the conspicuous consumption of the grandiose
mansions in Italianate formthat gets placed up in the foothills. So I think this will be a good
e.xample of what should be built there. While the previous project was a well designed project
this is a better designed project. To really sum it up they’re doing the right things here. When an
applicant comes forward doing the right things we should approve it. Not say, you guys are
really doing the right things let’s see if we can get just a little bit more. I think it is good to
recognize that they are there. They have done a very responsible good quality job and we should
enthusiastically endorse this project and send it on to the City Council.
Chairman Schmidt: Who would like to speak next? Bonnie you look bright eyed and ready to
say something.
Commissioner Packer: I’m tom here because I don’t .have the history that the rest of you have
with the other projects and have a basis of comparison. When I read about it on paper it sounded
like this is a good approach to this site. I have to say that when I went Up.there today at noon I
was struck by the beauty of the place. I saw the storypoles there and it seemed to be the story
poles were just too close to the top of the hill. I began to have a few doubts. Then I ask what
else can you do if you want to build a house there. It is a bit large but it’s within the guidelines
and is meeting the requirements in terms of the amount of impervious space that is allowed. So
I’d like to hear what other people have to say. I have reservations because of the size and
because of the beauty of the.hill. Yet it is zoned for a house and the house is going to be built
there. If this is the house that is going to be built they’ve done a very good job of dealing with
that beauty.
Chairman Schmidt: Jon did you want to say something?
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
’20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Schink: If no one’s jumping in with other comments, I know it’s a long evening~.
I’d go ahead and put a motion on the floor to see ifI could move things along. I’d like to move
the Staff recommendation with the added condition that the site will be kept clean on a daily
basis.
Chairman Schmidt: Is there a second for that.
Commissioner Byrd: I’ll second for purposes of discussion.
Commissioner Cassel: May I ask Jon a question?
Chairman Schmidt: Sure.
Commissioner Cassel" Jon you’ve always talked to us about cut and fill and how that’s being
handled. You seem comfortable with that in this case?
Commissioner Schink: From my review, this site looks like it’s much more balanced than the
previous review. The previous application had more driveway. I think that there is going to be a
little bit more cut on that smaller building but that’s always that trade-offyou get. I could be
wrong because it’s being cut into the hill so in the long run you see it less, but they are going to
have dig our a little bit more material. It looks like that’s then being filled back in to mitigate the
impacts of the smaller building. I thought from an environmental standpoint this was a more
responsible hillside project.
Chairman Schmidt: Owen.
Commissioner Byrd: Just briefly to my second. Homes of this size are not necessarily my
favorite development product and development in the hillside is not necessarily my favorite
location for development but these are legal lots. There is a lot of history around this. Under the
circumstances I agree with Jon. This is a pretty sensitive approach. So I can make the findings
to support this. "
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I guess I feel the same way Owen does which is somewhat rare. I too
share a lot of reservations but the applicant does seem to have the desire and obvious intent to
build a sensitively designed and constructed home. I am concerned about there being 20 years to
wait before we have some effective screening. I think itis far better than what we approved
previously. I have a problem with accepting this because we approved something that was not as
acceptable in the past. That is where my reservation comes from.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis, do you have comments?
Commissioner Cassel: I don’t disagree with Owen quite as often but I’ll agree with him tonight.
What’s funny is this is going to be a pretty house. I did see the site and meet with the family
City of Palo Alto Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
and architects ahead of time. From the perspective of being in that house or visiting that house it
is going to be a very exciting house. You can see us kind of being hesitant. I think it has to do
with the size of the house. We see the needs for so many houses and we’ve been working on
trying to get houses and we can get three to five houses in this. Yet this is what’s allowed. This
is what’s up there. This is what the family wants. So we have to build the house because it is the
house that it is and it fits in the spot. I also want to thank Herb Borock for coming up with the 91
acres on our information because that was one of the questions that was bothering me most. We
worked on three previous applications, one on Laurel Glen and the two for this site, and we kept
being told that this was a very large piece of land and had no numbers. I really appreciate those
numbers coming forward. That helped me a lot.
Chairman Schmidt: I support a lot of the comments that my colleagues have made tonight. I
will go back to something I said with the first house and probably the second house that came
through. When I went to and probably when most people go to Vista Point and look down we
have assumed that that property is part of Foothill Park. So we are astounded to find that it isn’t
part of Foothill Park and that they are legal lots and people can build on them. So I think that
lots of people will be surprised when the project goes ahead. I certainly appreciate all the efforts
that have been made to make this a better project than the previous ones. To really try to blend
into the hill, to try to restore the type of environment that is there. ! still think it will make a big
impact on Foothill Park. I recommend that the ownerS, architects, and landscape architects go
often to Vista Point and look and see what you can do to continue to improve what you’re doing
there. I think all Palo Altans value Foothill Park a lot. It is a wonderful place. When I wentup
there over the weekend to look at the story poles there was someone who had brought visitors up
there and was pointing out all the different landmarks that you can see from that location. It will
be a different place with a complex of homes up there. Again, I appreciate the efforts that you
are going to try to make-it more natural looking and fit it. But it is still large and it will have an
impact. Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I just want to make one closing comment. In some of my comments by
making a comparison to the previous house I wasn’t trying to subtract from what’s being done
here. I truly believe and I’m really going out on a limb, it’s terrible to compliment the building
before it ever gets built, but I sat back and looked closely at this plan and said to myself,
obviously the budget is quite substantial for this project. They could have hired any architect in
the world. Is there any architect in the world that could have done a better job? Are there any
materials, or anything, they could have done better? I frankly just cannot see that there is an
architect who would have been more sensitive. This is truly a superb job. It recognizes the
importance of Bay Area architectural style. I think we should realize we are getting a wonderful
piece of architecture here that is done in a very sensitive fashion. I think we are fortunate even if
it is in a very visible location.
¯Chairman Schmidt: As an architect I will second Jon’s comments. I think it is very sensitive to
the site and I very much appreciate that it is not a Spanish or Colonial style up on the hill.
Any other comments or are we ready to vote? Okay. It has been moved by Jon and seconded by
Owen to approve Staff recommendation with the condition added that the site will be kept clean
City of Palo Alto Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
on a daily basis. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All those opposed please sa3i no.
That passes unanimously with the six of us present and Commissioner Burr absent.
Thank you very much.
The next item on our agenda is 2825 E1 Camino Real. Staff comments?
N~3x 2825 E! Camino Real [File Nos.: 99-ARB-97~ 99-D-4~ 99-EIA-13~ 99-V-13~ 00-DEA
~ 011: Review of an application by Jim Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for Site and
NNDesign Review of demolition of an existing 1,426 square foot building on a parcel in C-S
..~ing district and construction of a new 35-foot high, three story mixed-use building
i~nc.~ing three two-bedroom residential units comprised of approximately 5,650 square
_feet o,~e third floor, office space comprised of approximately 4,500 square feet on the
_.s_e_c,o_n~ .~r, and a 15-vehicle parking area on the first floor. Related site improvements!.n__c.l~u.d,¢_~si.x~,nc,overed parking spaces in the rear yard, and a walled and landscaped front
~hat inclbd,,es landscaped area reserved for two deferred parking spaces. Since it
i, ncl.u,des..re, s.id.en . 1 units, the project is subject to the RM-30 District (Multiple Family
Resident!al) de_veloXR,ment regulations, therefore: A.Design Enhancement Exception is
req.ues.ted to. a!low (1)~eferred parking are to be located within the required front
setback! and (2) the u.seXo~additional private open space in lieu of a portion of the
required common usable reX~dential open space area. A Variance is requested for (1)
~ithin required s~e setbacks, (2) encroachment into side daylight plane, (3)
i~te .co_v_e.r.age beyond ~1~ maximum permitted coverage area. Environmental
~tig.a.ted Negativ&l~eclaration has been prepared in accordance with
~.. Thi_s pro_je_ct has b~,,~ tentatively scheduled to return tothe
Ar~.e.w.B. oar.d for a. _publicXi~_ earing on April 20, 2000 and tentatively
,o _ sc~edulsd ?r a pu~llc hearing with the Cit~’~uncil °n June 5’ 2000"
Ms~’t brief in the in’rest of time. Staff does recommend
~.ion.. Staff recommXO~s approval on the variance
~t plane encroachmen~ "Staff recommends approval on
~0ns. Staff, however,N~commends denial of the
~n revi~v-~-a~proval is requested for a
~e tory building~Fhey are commercial
~.gle ~t0_ry deta~heX~a~age adjacent to the
District parcels.
ts. This is
application.
~an~_w_~l_d,~_~iid~iedbyt~eCity. C°un~i.l" ._ ...~-. N~ing
There are ten extraordinary circumstances identified in the report that woul,d justify.the van~r~ce
presentation. If you have questions we are here to answer them. " - ...........
\City of Palo Alto Page 53
77
Attachment 9
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
I
Agenda Date:April 6, 2000
To:
From:
Subject:
Architectural Review Board
Amy French, Planner Department: Planning and
Community Environment
3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive [3220 Alexis: 99-D-6, 99-ARB-150, 99-
EIA-30, 3230 Alexis: 99-D-5, 99-ARB-149, 99-EIA-29] Request by
Bergtraun-Evard Architects, AIA, on behalf of the Goldman family for "
Site and Design review of two residences on two adjacent Open Space
District parcels comprising approximately 3.2 acres. The proposed floor
areas of the single-family residences are 13,400 square feet (3230 Alexis)
and 3,359 square feet (3220 Alexis). The total impervious area of the
Complex is. 20,106 square feet. Site improvements include landscaping,
two pools and poolside terraces, vehicle turning courts, seven uncovered
¯ Parking spaces, and retaining walls. Environmental Assessment: An initial
study has been prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed
in accordance with CEQA guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council
approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C), with a finding that the project will
not result in significant environmental impacts, and approve the Site and Design Review
applications based upon findings (Attachment D, and E) and subject to conditions of approval
(Attachment F).
BACKGROUND
Three of the current ARB members are familiar with this project, since preliminary plans were
presented to the ARB on March 18, 1999. Verbatim minutes are attached to this report
(Attachment I.) The changes made to the project since March 18, 1999 are noted in the
applicant’s project description attached to this report. In summary, the following changes have
been made since March 1999:
¯The larger of the two residences was lowered about four feet down on the knoll,
¯The garage dropped farther underground (one floor level)
S:plan/pladiv/arb/reports/3220&3230Alexis Page 1 79
¯The smaller house was rotated, nestled deeper into the slope with a berm on one side,
¯The design of larger house now provides more solar protection (glass pulled back),
¯The garden roof at the lower level of larger house provides a distinct difference in roofing,
¯The grade between houses was modified and the pools are clustered,
¯The number of retaining walls at the driveway was significantly reduced,
¯Landscape plan including native species and oak "reforestation" at property edge.
On March 29, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project. The Commission
recommended Site and Design approval on a 6-0-1-0 vote, with the additional condition that the
site be kept clean on a daily basis during construction (added to conditions of approval~
Attachment F). Comments pertained to the materials, water use, maintenance during the
construction period, and tree screening. Concerns were expressed regarding permeability of the
proposed pavers and the environmental impacts of using copper on the buildings. One Planning
Commissioner expressed a desire that the architect and landscape architect monitor construction
from the vista point vantage point and do whatever possible to minimize visual intrusions. Two
members of the public were concerned about the maintenance and survival of the trees proposed
on the site, and about placement of the driveway. Another condition of approval has been added
to ensure installation, maintenance and preservation of all proposed trees in perpetuity.
Background information regarding the subdivision and settlement agreement is provided in
Attachment H (Background/Detailed Evaluation of Zoning and Comprehensive Plan
Compliance.
Previous Projects
In September 1997, the City Council approved development on lot seven. In March 1998, the
City Council approved development on lot eight. The Council approvals were based upon
recommendations by the Planning Commission only. Review by the Architectural Review Board
was not required since the properties were Under separate ownership. Both of the previously
approved buildings were designed by the same architect, and incorporated natural earth-tone
building materials and impervious driveway surfaces. Both development approvals were
conditioned to provide substantial screening of the new buildings as seen from Foothills Park.
The impervious coverage of the previously approved houses on these parcels (28,810 sq.ft, total)
were greater than the proposed project’s impervious coverage (25,266 sq. ft. total). Reduced site
plans are provided (Attachment G) to provide a visual comparison of the previously approved
projects and proposedproject.
Site Description
The project site is a 3.2 acre site comprised of two adjacent parcels having a total area of 151,239
square feet, located at the terminus of Alexis Drive in the Palo Alto Foothills. The parcels are
Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Tract 6723. Lot seven (3230 Alexis Drive) is 68,195 square feet and is the
site of the larger single family residence. Lot eight (3220 Alexis Drive) is 83,044 square feet and
is the site of the smaller residence. The two sites taken together form the proposed project site.
~s:lplanlpladivlarb[reports/3220&3230Alexis Page 2
The project site is adjacent to Foothill Park and Arastradero Preserve. Lot seven is
approximately 24 feet from Arastradero Creek, whereas lot eight is over 100 feet from the swale
of Arastradero Creek. The site is an undeveloped pair of grassy knolls that can be seen from
Vista Point in Foothill Park. The site contains no significant vegetation, except for two pine
trees at the southernmost property line. One of the two parcels is a flag lot with limited frontage
on Alexis Drive. Utility Services such as a water meter, fire hydrant, telephone and electrical,
are located at the end of Alexis Drive within the right of way and are available to serve the
proposed development.
The adjoining properties to the west, northwest, south and southeast are parklands owned by the
City. The adjoining property to the northeast, 3210 Alexis Drive, is an undeveloped single family
residential parcel, on which several mature oaks are growing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The larger residence would contain.a three-car garage, and site improvements on Lot 7 would
include five uncovered parking spaces, a lap.pool, turning court and terrace areas. The smaller
residence would contain a four-car garage, and site improvements on Lot 8 would include two
uncovered parking spaces, a pool, tuming court and terrace areas. Total proposed impervious for
the entire project would be 20,106 square feet.
Larger House
The curvilinear shape and siting of the larger house on Lot 7 follows the existing topography on
the southwest-facing slope of the knoll. The split-level home would step down three levels from
northeast to southwest and would be cut into the slope. The house would contain 13,400 square
feet. The underground three-car garage would have a triple-wide vehicle door and adjacent stair/
elevator core.
The proposed basement living area would contain several rooms without windows at the
basement level, including a family room/library, theatre, laundry, mechanical rooms, four
bathrooms, pet rooms, storage rooms, two stairways and hallways. The exercise room, three
bedrooms, nanny/guest room and two bathrooms would have southwest-facing windows
providing natural air and light, and the hall area between these sleeping rooms would be
illuminated by skylights in the ’ceiling. The "garden roof" over the basement bedrooms and
exercise room would be planted with meadow grass or similar vegetation. The centrally located
family room/library (1,012 square feet) would extend upward to double-height vaulted ceilings,
to capture light from southwest facing windows at the ground floor level. The ground floor
living area would have southwest facing windows in the kitchen, dining room, playroom, master
suite, and northeast facing window in the living room, study, and entry/foyer. The curved
"gallery" space would function as the circulation spine to access ground floor rooms and view
into the vaulted family room/library below. The crow’s nest/study and observation deck would
have windows facing both southeast and northeast and interior windows allowing a view of the
gallery.
s:lplanlpladivlarb[reports/3220&3230Alexis Page 3
On the east side of the house, the five uncovered parking spaces, loading zone and first turning
court would be on the same level as the terrace leading to the entry/foyer. On the west side of the
house, a second turning court provides access to the garage. The proposed lap pool and adjacent
free-form pool would be located on the north side of the house. Boulders are proposed in
naturalistic placement in concert with the free-form pool, and the boulders would extend
westward down the slope to the lower pool and eastward to a meandering path that crosses the
two lots. The p0ol is on the same level as the dining and living rooms, and access down to the
second pool on Lot 8 is provided via a long staircase. A total of 15,063 square feet of impervious
area (building and impervious paving combined) is proposed. Approximately 1,995 square feet
of the total impervious 15,063 sq. feet. will be "garden roof" area.
Smaller House
The smaller house would be located on the south-facing slope of the saddle-ridge and would
contain 3,359 square feet including the four-car garage. The turning court allows access to the
garage and three uncovered parking spaces. The underground garage would have a double-wide
door and two tandem spaces, The adjacent storage and pump room are built into the slope and
there are no windows into the basement. An elevator provides accessibility to the living area on
the upper floor. An outdoor stair also provides access to the upper level, which includes an
entry/living/kitchen area, two bedrooms and three bathrooms. Small west-facing windows would
provide light and area to bedrooms and one of the bathrooms. Sliding glass doors are proposed
at the north wall of the guest room and on two walls of the living room. The other two
bathrooms have doors opening to the balcony leading to (and be on the same level as) the pool
terrace and adjacent dining terrace. The p0ol dimensions are 26’ x 26’. A total of 5,043 Square
feet of impervious area (building and paving combined) is proposed.
Combined development
Total floor area (including garage area) proposed for the site is t6,759 square feet, with a
. building footprint of 11,112 in total. The vegetative area remaining on the site will be
approximately 126,894 square feet, or 84% of the total site. Vehicular access is proposed via one
driveway accessible from Alexis Drive. The driveway branches off to a visitor parking and
loading a~ea near the easterly property line, and then continues to the turning court next to the
first garage, ending at the turnaround/guest parking area next to the garage of the smaller
residence.
The building materials for both houses include natural stone walls with slate roofs in earth-tone
colors, natural wood doors, windows, columns and trellises, and bronze anodized skylights. The
hardscape materials on the site include 13,267 square feet of permeable paved area. The
permeable pavers include "Rima" stones on a sand bed and base rock over 10,204 square feet
(driveway, turning courts), permeable turf block over 3,063 square feet (parking areas, loading
space, fire access lane), and the two pools (according to an established interpretation of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code per CPA Resolution5293). The impervious hardscape area includes
several poolside terraces (8,476 square feet of "semi-pervious" pavers creates a total impervious
area of 4,238 square feet), concrete steps (1,561 sq.fi.), retaining walls (2,090 sq.ft.) utility
enclosure pads (720 sq.ft.) and pool edge coping (384 sq.fi.).
s:tplanlpladivlarblreports/3220&3230Alexis Page 4
Substantial native tree plantings are proposed surrounding the complex. The plantings on the site
include irrigated lawn area on the north side of the complex, providing a transition between the
terraces and native grass areas. Oak and Redwood planting areas are strategically placed at the
perimeter of the site in "early planting areas" to begin what will become a substantial vegetative
screen to mitigate visual impacts. No exterior building lighting has been proposed. Landscape
lighting will incorporate low voltage lights.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Zoning Ordinance regulations
as set forth in detail in Attachment H. Therefore, findings for approval of the Site and Design
application can be made, and are provided in Attachment D. An evaluation of the project’s
compliance with Open Space Criteria is provided in Attachment E.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Site Design/View from Vista Point
The proposed residential complex will be seen from Vista Point in Foothills Park. The larger
residence and majority of the site development will occur on the site nearest Alexis Drive, which
is farther from Vista Point than the smaller house. The built area (buildings and paving) will
cover approximately 16% of the entire site, and additional area will be modified with contour
grading, irrigated lawn and significant vegetation. The site will be sculpted to provide landscaped
earth mounds in key locations for screening purposes, and to provide level outdoor areas for
poolside terraces and grass play areas. The pools and terrace areas are situated between the two
residences. The visual impact of the extensive poolside terrace area will be partially softened by
non-native trees within the terrace areas. However, the sloped planting area located next to the
dining room lanai of the primary residence needs to be enlarged to accommodate the three large
trees. The applicant has agreed to the mitigation measure requiring a redesign of this area in
order to provide ample soil area and hasten the growth of these screen trees. This redesign will
be presented to the Architectural Review Board.
Architectural Design ::, :;
The project submittals include a model, site sections, preliminary grading plans, and renderings
which describe the view from Vista Point at initial construction and at such time as the
vegetation has matured. Photographs of the story poles erected on the site on February 15, 2000
will be presented to the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council.
The proposed significant plantings would serve to minimize the visual impact of the
development. Consistent with the rural surroundings, the structures and site hardscaping will be
of natural, .earth toned materials. These building materials and colors will blend harmoniously
with the site’s natural surroundings. To minimize glare from the windows and skylights; a
Condition of approval requires these features to be constructed with non-reflective glass.
s:lplanlpladiv/arblreports/3220&3230Alexis
Page 5
Creek Swale Setback
The southerly property line of lot seven is adjacent to the uppermost swale of what eventually
becomes Arastradero Creek west of the project site. Creeks and Riparian Arc.as Policies Program
N-7 requires a ~ ~0 foot development setback from the top of the creek bank, within which
structure:~, impt:.: ,..ious surfaces~ outdoor activity areas and ornamental landscaped areas would
not be allowed. The project submittal included a partial site topography map indicating the
location of the centerline of the swale and showing the location of the permeable driveway 100
feet from the centerline. Plantings of riparian trees and native Redwoods are proposed within the
100 foot setback, and no structures or impervious surfaces will be constructed within the 100 foot
setback. A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a survey of the location of the
creek swale in relationship to the proposed project.
Drainage and Permeable Area
The project plans indicate the area on site that is to remain permeable will be 86.7% of the entire
site area. A condition of approval requires the proposal for semi-pervious terrace areas to be
sumitted in detailed plans for review by the Planning Division, to ensure at least 50% of the area
shown as semi-pervious will be permeable, and requires that no area represented as permeable
paving shall be converted to impervious paving unless an equal are of impervious paving is
converted to permeable paving.
The conditions of project approval also require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes
drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties, and an erosion control plan. The
conditions also require the contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for
storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa
Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
Soils and Grading
Construction of the new buildings and site improvements will require extensive grading and will
increase the amount of impervious surface area from that which currently exists on the
undeveloped site. The Soils Reports submittedin January 1998 for two previous houses and site
modifications on the project site have been certified by the original author of these reports as
being applicable to the current project. These reports were considered in the initial studies for
the previously approved houses on the site and are incorporated into the documentation for the
current proposal. Conditions of approval require the submittal of these soils reports with
building permit applications, which will be taken in as separate applications for each residence,
and require measures to ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant.
Building and impervious area coverage, and grading on the project site is regulated by the Palo
Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.71. Section 18.71.140 states grading must be essential for the
establishment or maintenance of a use and the design, scope and location of the grading must be
compatible with adjacent areas and result in the least disturbance of the terrain and natural land
features. The proposal includes an average cut and fill of two feet in various locations on the
site, with deeper cuts for the pools (four feet average) and house (five feet average.) The
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council, with the assistance of
s:lplanlpladivlarblreports/3220&3230Alexis P~e6
visual aids, will evaluate the project’s compliance with Section 18.71.140, and has discretionary
power to balance the need for minimal disturbance of the terrain and natural features with the
need to add earth mounds to partially screen the proposed development from the views from
Vista Point. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a final grading plan subject
to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building
permits.
Vegetative Screening and.Existing Trees
Substantial native tree plantings surrounding the complex will eventually help to screen the
buildings and hardscape. Approximately 105 large evergreen and deciduous trees, ranging in
container size from 24" box to 72" box, are proposed to screen the project from views from the
west, south and east. Tree plantings at the site perimeter will be comprised of approximately 4 i
trees in "early planting zones" to begin what will become a substantial vegetative screen. An oak
planting area at the northernmost property line will also be an "early planting zone" to screen the
property from the residential area down the hill.-Until the trees are mature, the development will
be fully exposed to view from Vista Point in Foothills Park.
The City’s Planning Arborist has reviewed the renderings on sheet A. 13 of project plans, and
notes that the size of the initial tree planting appears to be realistic and achievable, and generally
matche’s the planting plan, and that the View of Mature Tree Planting also appears to be realistic
and achievable, without over-emphasizing expectations. The Planning Arborist suggests that the
applicant explore switching tree species to Coast Redwood instead of Valley Oak to achieve
timely screening of the rooftop of the smaller house on the southerly side.
An arborist report reviewing existing trees on or adjacent to the site was submitted for planning
review. All native oaks in the vicinity are located on the adjacent property to the east, and will
be protected from development on the subject site. Coast Redwood trees and Monterey pines are
located at the southerly edge of the site bordering Foothill Park, the majority of which are located
on City property. These border trees are reported by the applicant’s arborist to be in average to
poor health. Their removal would allow space for the installation of healthy species and the
proposed drip irrigation system would encourage faster growth for screening purposes. Condition
of approval # 10 requires removal of four failing pines on Foothill Park adjacent to the southerly
property line of the subject property, and requires protection of any healthy trees on and off-site.
Light and Glare
No exterior building lighting has b~en proposed. An increase in light will be generated from the
additional lighting within the building. The proposed glazing will be non-reflective. Since
Foothills Park is closed at sunset, the light from the interior of the houses will not impact the
view from Vista Point. Landscape lighting will incorporate low voltage lights and light sources
will be screened from view from Foothill Park. A condition of approval requires the submittal
of a detailed lighting plan that is sensitive to adjacent land uses and provides for the shielding of
lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the site, the lighting Will be directional, and
that the source of light is not directly visible.
s:lplanlpladivlpcsr]3220 & 3230 Alexis SR Page 7
Construction
A condition of approval requires dust control measures to be employed at the site to reduce dust
emissions to acceptable levels during construction. Another condition of approval requires daily
cleanup and maintenance of the site during construction. Since the site is located in a strong
seismic risk area, a condition of approval requires new construction to comply with the
provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at
minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Construction of the new buildings will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise
levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associatedwith gradfng and
noise of constructing the buildings. Such noise will be short term in duration. A condition of
approval limits the hours of construction, and requires that the applicant to comply with the
requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC.
Fire Prevention/Fire Access and Traffic
The site is in an area of high fire hazard. Conditions of approval by the City of Palo Alto Fire
Department will ensure all feasible fire prevention design features are included in the project.
The conditions include the installation of additional hydrants,, sprinkler system and underground
water supply with adequate pressure and flow, clearance between tree limbs and the buildings,
the widening of the entry gate and the provision of Fire Department access to the gate key box.
The proposed Rima-stone driveway pavers have been approved by the Fire Department. The
locked gate that currently prevents vehicle traffic to continue to the end of Alexis Drive will be
removed by the Public Works Department to allow for emergency access. The general~ public
will no longer be prevented from driving to the end of the cul-de-sac.
Parcel Tying Agreement and Access Easement
The application includes a document (Covenant and Agreement) which will effectively hold the
two parcels as one parcel, without actually merging the lots. The document has been reviewed
by the City Attorney and the conditions of approval will require the recording of final approved
documents prior to the issuance of building permits. The shared property line between the two
parcels can be and has been determined to be a side property line for both parcels. This allows
the swimming pools to encroach up to 24 feet into the 30 foot side setback. The front property.
line of Lot 8 (flag lot) is contiguous with the rear property line of 3210 Alexis Drive, and the rear
property line of Lot 7 is the longest line contiguous with the "flag pole" of Lot 8,
An easement across 3230 Alexis Drive to access 3220 Alexis Drive will incorporate other
necessary easements for utilities services to 3220 Alexis Drive. Conditions of approval require a
private utility easement across 3230 Alexis to serve 3220 Alexis, and the submittal of an
easement legal description and plat map. The conditions will require the easement to be recorded
for the benefit of the 3220 Alexis Drive property.
s:lplan[pladivlpcsr13220 & 3230 Alexis SR Page 8
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Findings and conditions for approval of the Site and Design applications are attached
(Attachment D, E and F).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice of the Architectural Review Board review of the project was provided by
publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property
owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). An initial evaluation of environmental impacts was prepared for the
project. Staff determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially
adverse impacts would result from the new homes, such that the project would have a less than
significant impact on the environment. The initial evaluation, mitigation measures and draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration made available for public review beginning February 14, 2000
through March 2, 2000 are attached to this report (Attachment C).
ACTION TIME LIMITS
Date of application:
Date application deemed compete:
Action time limit (180 days after deemed complete):
Optional extension at applicants’ request (90 days):
10/29/99
2/11/00
8/11/00
11/11/00
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
--~Atl~achment G:
,-~Attachment H:
Attachment I:
ATTACHMENTS
Loc~tion Map
Applicants’ project statement
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment
Findings for Approval, Site & Design Review
Findings for Open Space Criteria
Conditions of Approval
Reduced Site Plans to compare previously approved project & proposed project
Background/Detailed Evaluation of Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Compliance
Minutes of preliminary ARB review on 3/18/99
Plans for current project (ARB members only)
COURTESY COPIES
Owners: Susan and Phil Goldman; 400 Fir Lane, Los Altos, CA 94024
Architects: Bergtraun Evard Architects, 947 Industrial Avenue, Palo Altol CA 94303 and 5500
Doyle Street, Emeryville, CA 94608
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Amy French, Planner
Ray Hashimoto, Zoning Administrator
s:lplanlpladivlpcsr13220 & 3230 Alexis SR Page 9
Sent By: Alex Bergtrsun AIA Arch±teot;510 652 0613;Nov-15-g9 13:29; ~’" ~t~P~gelO/lO" ~-e
89
ATTACHMENT H
Background/Detailed Evaluation of Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Compliance
3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive
3230 Alexis:99-D-5, 99-ARB-149, 99-EIA-29 3220 Alexis:99-D-6, 99-ARB-150, 99-EIA-30
Land Use and Subdivision
In 1972, the City of Palo Alto created the Open Space (O-S) zoning district to protect and
preserve Open space land as a limited and valuable resource and to permit the reasonable use of
open space (Section 18.71.010 of the Municipal Code). The Open Space District zone was then
assigned to the subject property.
A 1978 Settlement Agreement (copies of text and map are provided at the end of this attachment)
resolved a claim of inverse condemnation, based upon. the 1972 designation. The agreement
involved 91 acres, a combination of 50 privately owned acres and 41 acres owned by the City of
Palo Alto but not yet dedicated as parkland. The City ended up with 66 acres and the applicant
ended up with 25 acres through land transfers (45 acres from the plaintiffs to the City, and 20
acres from the City to the plaintiffs.) The 25 acres were allowed clustered development (nine
¯ residential units, each entitled to the maximum impervious coverage (3.5%) allowable on a ten-
acre parcel). The agreement required the plaintiffs to apply for a subdivision to create nine
developable lots.
In 1979, the City Council approved a ten-lot subdivision (Tract 6723) comprised of nine
developable lots on 25 acres and including a remainder ten-acre parcel deeded to the City. This
tenth parcel, located west of lot eight, is to remain undeveloped as part of the property exchange
agreed upon by the City. and landowners in the Settlement. The project site includes lots seven
and eight of this subdivision, on which a total of 30,492 square feet of impervious area may be
constructed, in accordance with the Agreement. There are no easements to preclude development
on these lots. Development on these lots is subject to the Open Space zoning regulations and
discretionary review via the City’s Site and Designreview process. The lots are designated on
the Comprehensive Planland use map for Single Family Residential land use.
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations
The following table (Table 1) provides Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations on the.
project site and adjoining sites:
s:lplantpladivlarblreports/3220&3230Alexi Page 20
TABLE 1 ¯
EXISTING USES AND DESIGNATIONS, SITE AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY
Location
North of
3230, east
of 3220
North of
3220
South
East
West
Project site
Existing Uses .
3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive
Comprehensive Plan
Vacant residential parcel,
3210 Alexis Drive
Foothills Park and City
owned open space
Foothills Park
Foothills Park
Foothills Park and City
owned open space
two vacant parcels
single family residential
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Open Space/Controlled
Development
Open Space/Controlled
Development,
I single family residential
Zoning
Open Space
PF(D)
(Public Facilities,
Site and Design)
Public Facilities
Public Facilities
PF(D)
(Public Facilities,
Site and Design)
Open Space
Zoning
The Open Space zoning district contains the following regulations for individual properties: (1) a
minimum required lot area often acres, (2) a maximum.impervious area and building coverage
of 3.5 percent, and (3) a maximum height limit of 25-feet. The project meets all zoning code
requirements, as demonstrated in the following Table (Table 2):
s:lplan[pladivlarblreports/3220&3230Alexis Page 21
TABLE 2
PROPOSED PROJECT & CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS
3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive
Standard
Impervious area & building
coverage maximum:30,492
square feet allowed for
entire site*
size of site**
maximum height***
standard setbacks* * **
parking
Zoning Code
total site
3.50 % of 10
acres, each
site allowed
15,246’
10 acres*
25 feet
front - 30 feet
side - 30 feet
rear - 30 feet
3220 Alexis
(smaller house,
lot 8)
5,043 sq.ft.
83,044
21’8"
more than 30’
30 feet
more than 30’
3230 Alexis
(larger house,
lot 7)
15,063 sq.ft.
more than 30’
30 feet
more than 30’
Conformance
total of
20,106 sq.ft.
conforms
total site
151,239 sq.ft.
conf0rm.~
conforms
4 spaces
(1 covered,
3 uncovered)
4 covered, three
uncovered
3 covered, 5
.uncovered conforms
*Total impervious acreage based upon 10 acres. Ten acres x 43,560 sq.ft./acre x 3.5% = 15,246.
**Although the O-S District requires a minimum of 10 acres for development of a residential
unit, the project site is exempt from the requirement as a result of the 1978 Settlement
Agreement allowing for Tract 6723 to have nine lots on 25 acres subject to the dedication of an
undeveloped ten-acre parcel to the City of Palo Alto.
***The definition of height is the vertical distance above grade (elevation of finished or existing
grade, whichever is lower) to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof. The
height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building.
****Through use of a tying agreement, the shared property line between the two parcels can be
and has been determined to be a side property line for both parcels (as opposed to a rear property
line for Lot 7 and front property line for Lot 8, the "flag" lot). The front property line of Lot 8
(flag lot) is contiguous with the rear property line of 3210 Alexis Drive, and the rear property
line of Lot 7 is the longest line contiguous with the "flag pole" of Lot 8.
s:lplanlpladivlarblreports/3220&3230Alexis Page22
1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan
Policy L-1 of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the City "...to retain
undeveloped land west of the Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with
allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of
the area .... " The project site is west of the Foothill Freeway and is located within the City’s
Urban Service Area (map L-2 of the Comprehensive Plan). The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
land use designation for the project site is Single Family Residential and one residence is
permitted on each of the two parcels of the project site. The proposed development’s impervious
coverage is less than the maximum impervious area allowed on the property. The project is
consistent with this policy.
Tl:te Comprehensive.Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological
Resource Area of "moderate sensitivity." Palo Alto is known to contain widely dispersed
prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials and a variety of artifacts.
The mitigation measure addressing this issue, identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
has been incorporated into the project. This measure requires cessation of grading and
construction if any archeological or human remains are encountered, retention of a qualified
archaeologist to address the find in the field, notification of the Santa Clara County Medical
Examiner’s office and, if native American remains are discovered, evaluation of the finds by a
Native Amercian descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the
State of California and implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Policies N-l, N-3, N-4, N-6, N-7 are applicable to this project.
Program N-6 calls for the installation of"story poles" for development that exceeds 6,500 square
feet. Story poles were installed as a part of the project on February 15, 2000.
s:lplanlpladivlarblreports/3220&3230Alexis Page 23
Attachment 10 2
PLANNING COMMISSION.
MEMORANDUM
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Amy French, Planner
March 29, 2000
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
SUBJECT:3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive
Review of an application by Bergtraun-Evard Architects, AIA, on behalf of the Goldman family for
Site and Design review of the construction of a complex of two.residences on two adjacent parcels
having a combined total area of approximately 3.2 acres within the Open Space Zoning DistriCt. The
larger residence is a 13,400 square foot single-family residence, including a three-car garage plus
five uncovered parking spaces, and site improvements including alap pool, turning court and terrace
areas, for 15,063 square feet of impervious area (building and paving combined). The smaller
residence is a 3,359 square foot single-~family residence, including a four car garage plus two
uncove~arking spaces, and site improvements including a pool, turning court and terrace areas,
(~-~.~ ~square feet of impervious area (building and paving combined). Environmental
.----/Assent: An initial study has been prepared, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed
in accordance with CEQA guidelines. This project has been tentatively scheduled to return to the
Architectural Review Board for a public hearing on April 6, 2000 and tentatively scheduled for a
public hearing with the City Council on May l, 2000.(3230 Alexis: 99-D-5~ 99-ARB-149~ 99-EIA-
29; 3220 Alexis: 99-D-6~ 99-ARB-150~ 99-EIA-30):
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment C), with a finding that the project will not result in
significant environmental impacts, and approve the Site and Design Review applications based
upon findings (Attachment D, and E) and subject to conditions of app~:ovaL(Attachme~F), ......
BACKGROUND
The two parcels are designated On the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Single Family
Residential and are located within the Open Space zoning district. In 1972, the City of Palo Alto
created the Open Space (O-S) zoning district to protect and preserve open space land as a limited
and valuable resource and to permit the reasonable use of open space (Section 18.71.010 of the
Municipal Code). The Open Space District zone was then assigned to the subject property. A
s:lplanlpladiv[pcsr[alexpc.wpd Page 1
1978 Settlement Agreement which resolved a claim of inverse condemnation based uPon the
1972 designation resulted in the-approval, of a ten-lot subdivision in 1979. The. subdivision, Tract~
6723, was comprised of nine developable lots on 25 acres, and included a remainder ten-acre
parcel deeded to the City. This tenth parcel, located directly west of lot eight, is to remain
Undeveloped as part of the property exchange agreed upon by the City and landowners in the. ¯
settlement. The project site includes lots sevenand eight of this subdivision, on which a total of
30,492 square feet of impervious area may be constructed, in accorance with the Agreement.
There are no easements to Preclude development on these lots.
Process
The required first step in the development review process is Site and ~esignl~view by the .
Planning Commission. Because the project includes the development of two residences within
the Open Space District, the project must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board after
Planning Commission consideration and before City. Council consideration. Preliminary plans
for the project were reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on March 18, 1999. Verbatim
minutes are attached to this report as Attachment I.
Previously approved projects
In September 1997, the City Council approved development.on lot seven. In March 1998, the
City Council approved development on lot eight. The Council approvals were based, upon
recommendations by the Planning Commission only. Review by the Architectural Review Board
was not required since the properties were under separate ownership. Both of the previously
approved buildings were designed by the same hrchitect, and incorporated natural earth-tone
building materials and impervious driveway surfaces. Both development approvals were
conditioned to provide substantial Screening of the new buildings as seen from Foothills Park.
The impervious coverages of the previously approve~, houses on these parcels were greater than
those of the.proposed project. A total of 28,810 square feet of impervious area was previously
approved for two houses on the two parcels (whereas the proposed project’s impervious coverage
is 25,266 square feet). Reduced site plans are provided (Attachment G) to provide a visual
comparison of the previously approved projects and proposed project.
Site Description
The project site is a 3.2 acre site comprised of two adjacent parcels having a.total a~ea of 151,239
square feet, located at the terminus of Alexis Drive in the Pale Alto Foothills. The parcels are
Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Tract 6723. Lot seven (3230 Alexis Drive) is 68,195 square feet and is the
site of the larger single family residence. Lot eight (3220 Alexis Drive) is 83,044 square feet and
is the site of the smaller residence. The two sites taken together form the proposed project site.
The project site.is adjacent to Foothill Park. Lot seven is approximately 24 feet from Arastradero
Creek, whereas lot eight is over 100 feet from the swale of Arastradero Creek. The site is an
undeveloped pair of grassy knolls that can be seen from Vista Point in Foothill Park. The site.
contains no significant vegetation, except for ,tyro pine trees at the southernmost property line.
One of the two parcels is a flag lot with limited frontage on Alexis.Drive. Utility Services such
O~s:]plan[pladiv]pcsr[alexpc.wpd - ¯Page 2
as a water meter, fire hydrant, telephone and electrical, are located at the end of Alexis Drive
within the fight of way and are available to serve the proposed development.
The adjoining properties to the west, northwest, south and southeast are parklands owned by the
City. The adjoining property to the northeast, 3210 Alexis Drive, is an undeveloped single family
residential parcel, on which several mature oaks are growing. The following table (Table 1)
provides Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations on the project site and adjoining sites:
~ST~G ~S~ DE~GNA~ONSI~.~ ~O~G PROPER~,
Location ~~h " ’ ~
No~ of
3230, e~yacht residenfi~ p~cel,
s~gle f~ly’residenti~Open Spaceof 3220 3210 ~e~s DHve
No.-of Foo~lls F~k ~d CiV Open Space/Con~ofied PF~)3220 o~ed open sp~e Developmem ~ublic.Facilities,
Site ~d Desi~)
Sou~ Foo~lls P~k Open Sp~e/Con~oll~
~Development "Public F~ilifies
E~t Foo~lls P~k Open Space/Con~olled -
~ ~Development Public F~ilities
West Foo~lls F~k ~d CiV ~en Space/Con~olled PF~)
, o~ed open space Development ~ublic F~ilifies,
~,Site ~d Desi~)
Project site
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The larger of the two single family residences would be located on the southwest-facing slope of
the knoll on Lot 7. The curvilinear shape and siting of the home follows the existing topography.
The split-level home would step down three levels from northeast to southwest and would be cut
into the slope. The house contains 13,400 square feet, including an underground three-car garage
with a triple-wide vehicle door. The floor plans include a basement living area, a ground floor
s:Iplanlpladivlpcsflalexpc.wpd
Page 3 97
living area, and a crow~s nest/study. Site improvements would include a lap pool, five uncovered.
parlfing spaces, two vehicle turning courts and terrace areas. A total of 15,063 square feet of
impervious area (building and impervious paving combined) is proposed. Approximately 1,995
square feet of the total impervious 15,063 sq. feet. will be "garden roof" area over the basement
bedrooms and exercise room, planted with meadow grass or similar vegetation.
The smaller house would be located, on the south-facing slope of the saddle-ridge and would
\ contain 3,359 square feet including a four-car garage with two tandem spaces and one floor of
~.l iving area that opens to the pool area. The garage is accessible via one double wide vehicle
door, and the adjacant storage and pump room are built into the slope. Site improvements
¯ ~ ~ing a pool, turnaround area, three uncovered parking spaces and terrace areas. A total of
~ square feet of impervious area (building and paving combined) is proposed.
Combined development
Total floor area (including garage area) proposed for the site is 16,759 square feet, with a
building footprint of 11,112 in total. The vegetati~,e area remaining on the site will be
approximately 126,894 square feet, or 84% of the total site. Vehicular access is proposed via one
driveway accessible from Alexis Drive. The driveway branches offto a visitor parking and ¯
¯ loading area near the easterly property line, and then continues to the turning court next to the
first garage, ending at the turnaround/guest parking area next to the garage of the sr~aller
rcsidcnee.
The building materials for both houses include natural stone walls with slate roofs in earthtone
colors, natural wood doors, windows, columns .and trellises, and bronze anodized skylights. The
hardscape materials on the site include 13,267 square feet of permeable paved area. The
permeable pavers include "Rima" stones on a sand bed and base rock over 10,204 square feet
(driveway: turn~g courts), permeable turf block over 3,063 square feet (parking areas, loading
space, fire access lane), and the two pools (according to an established interpretation of the Pale
Alto Municipal Code per CPA Resolution 5293). The impervious hardscape area includes
several poolside terraces (8,476 square feet of"semi-pervious" pavers creates a total impervious
area of 4,238 square feet), concrete steps (1,561 sq.f[.), retaining walls (2,090 sq.fi.) utility
enclosure pads (720 sq.fi.) and pool edge coping (384 sq.fl.).
Substantial native tree plantings are proposed surrounding the complex. The plantings on the site
include irrigated lawn area on the north side of the complex, providing a transition between the
terraces and native grass areas. Oak and Redwood planting areas are strategically placed at the
perimeter of the site in "early planting areas" to begin what will become a substantial vegetative
screen to mitigate visual impacts. No exterior building lighting has been proposed. Landscape
lighting will incorporate low voltage lights.
s:Iplanlpladivlpcsrladexpc.wpd Page 4
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
1998-2810 Comprehensive Plan
Policy. L- 1 of the 1998=2010 Pale Alto ComprehensivePlan encourages the City "...to retain
undeveloped land west of the Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with
allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of
the area...." The project site is west of the Foothill Freeway and is located witlfin the City’s
Urban Service Area (map L-2 of the Comprehensive Plan). The Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan
land use designation for the project site is Single Family Residential and one residence is
permitted on each of the two parcels of the project site. The proposed development’s impervious
coverage is less than the maximum impervious area allowed on the property. The project is
consistent with this policy. ¯
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological
Resource Area of "moderate sensitivity." Pale Alto is known to contain, widely dispersed
prehistoric sites with shall-ridden components, including human burialsand a variety of artifacts.
The mitigation measure addressing this issue, identified in the Mitigated Negative Decl .ar_afion,
has been incorporated into the project. This measure requi~es cessation of grading and
construction if any archeological or human remains are encountered, retention of a qualified
archaeologist to address the fred in the field, notification of the Santa Clara County Medical
Examiner’s office and, if native American remains are discovered, evaluation of the finds by a -
Native Amercian descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the
State of California and implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Policies N-l, N-3, N-4, N-6,.N-7 are applicable to this project.
Program N=6 calls for the installation of"story poles" for development that exceeds 6,500 square
feet.. Story poles were installed as a part of the project on February 15, 2000.
Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria
The Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria will be used by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council to evaluate the proposed project.
These criteria are set forth below, followed by analyses of the project’s compliance, with them:
The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view.
The proposed construction will be visible from Vista Point. in Foothill Park. The project
is sited toward Alexis Drive to minimize the visual intrusion upon Foothill Park, and .the
houses are nestled into the more recessed portion of the hill. Significant screening
vegetation and earth mounds are proposed to partially screen the structures and access
driveways from Vista Point in Foothill Park. The proposed trees, when mature, will
provide a softening of the development, as shown on the visual study submitted with the
application. The visual impact of the homes will also be minimized by the use of earth
tone colors and natural building materials, including a vegetated roof over 1,995 square
s:lplan[pladiv[pcsr~alexpc.wpd
P~e5 99
4~
o
feet of the basmnent living are~ The model and story poles will assist in a visual
determination by the Planning, Commission, Architectural Review Board and City
Council as to the impact of the proposed development.
Development should he located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the
nearest ridge line. The footprints of the two homes are not located on top of the knoll nor
on top of the ridge. The simple roof form of the larger residence follows the slope of the
adjacent sloping grade. However, the structures may be seen above the ridge line from
the vantage point of lower elevations. Again, the story poles will assist members of the
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council in their evaluation.
Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of
neighboring properties. The adjacent undeveloped property to the north, 3210 Alexis
Drive; is located approximately 46 feet from-the northernmost edge of the larger home,
and 96 feet from the easternmost edge of the larger home. The smaller house would be
set back approximately 102 feet from the 3210 Alexis parcel. Due to the siting of 3210
Alexis on the north-facing slope of the knoll, the primary view f~ that property will be to
the north. In addition, the existing oak trees on 3210 Alexis, the propose earth mound
and tree plantings on the subject property will mitigate views of the proposed structures
from 3210 Alexis Drive.
Development shouM be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding
it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce~fragmentation of
natural habitats.The proposal is for cl~’ter development into a single complex. The mass
0fthe larger home is set into and along the natural contours of the site. The buildings are
clustered together in the direction of Alexis Drive, which allows the retention of "
undeveloped area on the westernmost half of lot 8, and allows a reduction in the total
driveway area. An access easement proposed across 3230 Alexis Drive allows a
reduction in the number of drivewaYs, and the proposed 12 foot .wide driveway would be
of permeable earth tone materials and required turnouts would be turfblock.
Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines
should follow the lines of the ~terrain,, and treesand bushes should appear natural from a
distance. The use of split floor levels and b~low grade floor levels for the buildings which
roughly follow the slope of the knoll and saddle ridge is responsive to the natural
topography. The proposed grading on the site would rearrange the slopes of these natural
topographic features to provide additional screening. The simple roof forms would follow
the natural topography, and the ~house would step back in the direction of the slope. The
roof over approximately 1,995 square feet of basement living area will be a "garden
roof," planted with meadow grass or similar vegetation, to mitigate the mass. It will
be difficult to simulate a natural vegetation growth pattern from a distance, since the
existing knoll and saddle ridge are devoid of trees. However, the landscape plan provides
ample tree plantings to provide screening where feasible. The extensive plantings would
be native species with. "finger-like" extensions into the site.
s:]planlpladivlpcsr[alexpc.wpd P~e6
7.
10.
11.
Existing trees with a circumference of 37. 5 inches, measured 4. 5 feet above the ground
level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should
be retainedas much as possible. No healthy trees are to be remoyed from the site. There
is no vegetation on the knolls or valleys of the site, only along the southerly perimeter.
The Arborist Report has be~n evaluated by the City’s Planning Arborist, who has
suggested the removal of four Pines that are in average to poor health along the
property line. This issue is discussed further under the Significant Issues section of this
report. ~
Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and
should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to
minimize the need for grading.The cuts proposed for submersion of the garages and
basement areas are encouraged, because they enable development to blend into the natural
topography. The cuts proposed next to the two homes are two feet cuts on average,
and provide emergency vehicle access and turnaround areas,and l.evel outdoor recreation.
areas that will eventually be screened by mature plant material. ThE proposed fill is
proposed for screening purposes (sloped areas adjacent to the guest house and upper
parking area), to level out the driveway slope for smoother access across 3230 Alexis
Drive, and to provide a level terrace area adjacent to the guest house. The sloped area to
the west of the guest house is designed to provide screening of the filled terrace area.
To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of
impervious surfaces should be avoided. Impervious surfaces are used only for retaining
walls, utility enclosure areas, pool coping, and concrete steps. Semipervious surfaces are
proposed for the poolside terraces and other large flat expanses adjacent to the two
houses, such that half the area will be permeable.
Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural
building materials in earthtones are proposed. All proposed building materials are
natural, in earth tone colors that will blend with the surroundings.
Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately
adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as afire prevention technique.
An extensive native planting plan and irrigation plan is proposed. The conditions of
approval will ensure the use of fire retardant Plants in the final landscape design.
Exterior lighting should be low-inter~ity and shielded from view so it is not directly
visible from off-site. The hardseape and landscape plans submitted with the application
indicate these policies will be observed. The residences will create additional light and
glare, but window coverings will minimize light spill from the rooms to the outside at
night. The project is conditioned such that any landscape lights will be directed down to
avoid any impact upon surrounding property and open space lands.
s:lpla~lpladiv[pcsrialexpc.wpd Page 7
101
12.Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter,
and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.) The
access roads are proposed to be permeable "Rima" paving in an earth tone color, with no
curb, gutter or sidewalk.
13.For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general
conformance with Palo Alto’s Open Space District regulations. The project is within the
City limits and meets the O-S (Open Space) District zoning regulations.
Zoning
The Open Space zoning district contains the following regulations for individual properties: (1) a
minimum required lot area often acres,. (2) a maximum impervious area and building coverage
of 3.5 percent, and (3) a maximum height limit of 25-feet. The project meets all zoning code
requirements, as demonstrated in the following Table (Table 2):
Standard
impervious area & building
coverage maximum:30,492
.square feet allowed for
entire site*
size of site**
maximum height***
standard setbacks****
Zoning Code
total site
3.50 % of 10 "
acres, each
site allowed
15,246’
10 acres*
25 feet
front-- 30 feet
side - 30 feet
rear - 30 feet
4 spaces
(1 covered,
3 uncovered)
parking
3220 Alexis
(smaller house,
lot 8)
83,044
21’8"
more than 30’
¯ 30 feet
more than 30’
4 covered, three
uncovered
3230 Alexis
(larger house,
lot 7)
I
15,063 sq.fi~.~
68,195 sq.ft.
21’ 4"
more than 30’
30 feet
more than 30’
3 covered, 5
uncovered
Conformance
total site
151,239 sq.ft.
conform.~
conforms
conforms
*Total impei-vious acreage based upon 10 acres. Ten acres x 43,560 sq.t~./aere x 3.5% = 15,246.
**Although the O-S District requires a minimum of 10 acres for development of a residential
unit, the project site is exempt from the requirement as a result of the 1978 Settlement.
Agreement allowing for Tract 6723 to have nine lots on 25 acres subject to the dedication of an
undeveloped ten-acre parcel to the City of Palo Alto.
s:lplanlpladivlPcsrlalexpe.wpd P~e8
***The definition of height is the vertical distance above grade (elevation of finisbed or existing
grade, whichever is lower) to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof. The
height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building.
***.*Through use of a tying agreement, the shared property line between the two parcels can be
and has been determined to be a side prop~y line for both parcels (as opposed to a rear property
line for Lot 7 and front property line for Lot 8, the "flag" lot). The front property line of Lot 8
(flag lbt) is contiguous with the rear property fine of 3210 Alexis Drive, and the rear proper~y
line of Lot 7 is the longest line contiguous with the "flag pole" of Lot 8.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUE~
Site Desi_m~View from Vista Point
The proposed residential complex will be seen from Vista Point in Foothills Park. The larger’
residence and majority of the site development will occuron the site nearest Alexis Drive, which
is farther from Vista Point than the smaller house. The built area (buildings and paving) will
cover approximately 16% of the entire site, and additional area will be modified with contour
grading, irrigated lawn and significant vegetation. The site will be sculpted to provide landscaped
earth mounds in key locations for screening purposes, and to provide level outdoor areas for
poolside ten’aces and grass play areas. The pools and terrace areas are situated between the two
residences. The visual impact of the extensive poolside terrace area will be partially softened by
non-native trees within the terrace areas. However, the sloped planting area located next to the
dining room lanai of the primary residence needs to be enlarged to accommodate the three large
trees. The applicant has agreed to the mitigation measure requiring a redesign of this area in
order to provide ample soil area and hasten the growth of these screen trees. This redesign will
be presented to the Architectural Review Board.
Architectural Design ¯
The project submittals include a model, site¯sections, preliminary grading plans, and renderings
which describe the view fi’om Vista Point at initial construction and at such time as the
vegetation has matured. Photographs of the story poles erected on the site on February 15, 2000
will be presented to the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council.
The proposed significant plantings would serve to rninimiTe the visual impact of the
development. Consistent with the rural surroundings, the structures and site hardscaping will be
of natural, earth toned materials. These building materials and colors will blend harmoniously
with the site’s natural surroundings. To minimize glare from the windows and skylights, a
condition of approval requires these features to be constructed with non-reflective glass.
Creek Swale Setbaclf
The southerly property line of lot seven is adjacent tothe uppermost swale of what eventually
becomes Arastradero Creek west of the project site. Creeks and Riparian Areas Policies Program
N-7 requires a 100 foot development setback.from the top of the creek bank, within, which
s:[plan[pladiv[pcsr~alexpc.wpd
P~e9
103
structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas and ornamental landscaped .areas would
not be allowed. The project submittal included a partial site topography map indicating the
location of the centerline of the swale and showing.the location of the permeable driveway 100
feet from the centerline. Pl~ntings o.f riparian trees and native Redwoods are proposed within the
100 foot setback, and no structures or impervious surfaces will be constructed within the 100 foot
setback. A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a survey of the location of the
creek swale in relationship to the proposed project.
Drainage and Permeable
The project plans indicate the area on site that is to remain permeable will be 86.7% of the entire
site area. A condition of approval requires the proposal for semi-pervious terrace areas to be
sumitted in detailed plans for review by the Planning Division, to ensure at least 50% of the area
shown as semi-pervious will be permeable, and requires that no area represented as permeable
paving shall be converted to impervious paving unless an equal are of impervious paving is
converted to permeable paving.
The conditions of project approval also require that a drainage plan be s~bmitted which includes
drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties, and an erosion control plan. The
conditions also require the con~actor to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for
storm water pollution prevention in all cons{zuction operations, in conformance with the Santa
Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
Soils and Grading
Construction of the new buildings and site improvements will require extensive grading and will
increase the amount of impervious surface area from that which currently exists on the
undeveloped site. The Soils Reports submitted in January 1998 for two previous houses and site
modifications on the project site have been certified by the original author of these reports as
being applicable to the current project. These reports were considered in the initial studies for
the previously approved houses on the site and are incorporated into the documentation for the
current proposal. Conditions of approval require the submittal of these soils reports with
building permit applications, which will be taken in as separate applications for each residence,
and require measures to ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant.
Building and impervious area coverage, and gradingon the project site is regulated by the.Pale
Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.71. Section 18.71.140 states grading must be essential for the
establishment or maintenance era use and the design, scope and location of the grading must be
compatible with adjacent areas and result in the least disturbance of the terrain and natural land
features. The proposal includes an average cut and fill of two feet in various locations on the
site, with deeper cuts for the pools (four feet average) and house (five feet average.) The
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council, With the assistance, of
visual aids, will evaluate the project’s compliance with Section 18.71.140, and has discretionary
power to balance the need for minimal disturbance of the terrain and natural features with the
need to add earth mounds to partially screen the proposed development from the views from
Vista Point. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a final grading plan subject
s:lplanlplad.ivlpcsr~alexpc.wpd Page I0
to review by the Deparlment of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building
¯Vegetative Screenin_~ and Existing
Substantial native tree plantings surrounding the complex will eventually help to screen the
buildings and hardscape. Approximately 105 large evergreen and deciduous trees, ranging in
container size fi’om 24" box to 72" box, are proposed to screen the project from views from the
west, south and east. Tree pla~. tings at the site perimeter will be comprised of approximately 41
trees in "early planting zones’"to begin what will become a substantial vegetative screen. An oak
planting area at the northernmost property line will also be an "early planting zone" to screen the
property from the residential area down the hill. Until the trees are mature, the development will
be fully exposed to view from Vista Point in Foothills Park.
The City’s Planning Arborist has reviewed the renderings on sheet A. 13 of project plans, and
notes that the size of the initial tree planting appears to be realistic and achievable, and generall~
matches the planting plan, and that the View of Mature Tree Planting als.o appears to be realistic
and achievable, without over-emphasizing expectations. The Planning ,~rborist suggests that the
applicant explore switching tree species tO Coast Redwood instead of Valley Oak to. achieve
timely screening of the rooftop of the smaller house on the southerly side.
An arborist report reviewing existing trees on or adjacent to the site was submitted for planning
review. All native oaks in the vicinity are located on the adjacent property to the east, and will
be protected from development on the subject site. Coast Redwood trees and Monterey pines
located at the southerly edge of the site bordering Foothill Pa~k, the majority of which are located
on City property. These border trees are reported by the applicant’s arborist to be in average to
poor health. Their removal would allow space for the installation of healthy species and the
proposed drip irrigation system would encourage faster growth for screening purposes. Condition
of approval #10 requires removal of four failing pines on Foothill Park adjacent to the southerly
property line of the subject property, and requires protection of any healthy trees on and off-site.
Light and Glare
No exterior building lighting has been proposed. An increase in light and glare will be generated
from the additional lighting within the building and glazing on the building. However, since
Foothills Park is closed at sunset, the light from the interior of the houses will not impact the
view from Vista Point. Landscape lighting will incorporate low voltage lights and light sources
will be screened from view. from Foothill Park. A condition of approval requires the submittal
of a detailed lighting plan that is sensitive to adjacent land uses and provides for the shielding of
lighting such that the light does not extend beyond the site, the lighting will be directional, and
that the source of’light is not directly visible. ,,
A condition of approval requires dust control measures to be employed at the site to reduce dust
emissions to acceptable levels during construction. Since the site is located in a strong seismic
risk.area, a condition of approval requires new construction to comply with the provisions of the
s:lplanlpladivlpcsr~alexpc.wpd Page 11
most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at mlnlrni~ing
seismic risk and preventingloss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Construction of the new buildings will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise
levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with grading and
noise of constructing the buildings. Such noise will be short.term in duration. A condition of
approval limits the hours of construction, and requires that the applicant to comply with the
requirements of the Pale Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC.
. Fire Prevention/Fire Access and Traflie
The site is in an area of high fire hazard. Conditions of approval by the City of Pale Alto Fire
Department will ensure all feasible fire prevention design features are included in the project.
The conditions include the installation of additional hydrants, sprinkler system and underground
water supply with adequate pressure and flow, clearance between tree limbs and the buildings,
the widening of the entry gate and the provision of Fire Department access to .the gate key box.
It should be noted that the locked gate that currently prevents vehicle traffic to continue to the
end of Alexis Drive will be removed by the Public Works Department to allow for emergency
access. The general public will no longer be prevented from driving to the end of the culdesac.
Parcel Tying Agreement and Access Easement
The application includes a document (Covenant and Agreement) which will effectively hold the
two parcels as.one parcel, without actually merging the lots. The document has been reviewed
by the City Attorney and the conditions of approval w~.’ll require the recording of final approved
documents prior to the issuance of building permits. The shared property line between the two .
parcels can be and has been determined to be a side property line for both parcels. This allows
the swimming pools to .encroach up to 24 feet into the 30 foot side setback. The front property
line of Lot 8 (flag lot) is contiguous with the rear property !ine of 3210 Alexis Drive, and the rear
property line of Lot 7 is the longest line contiguous with the "flag pole" of Lot 8.
An easement across 3230 Alexis Drive to access 3220 Alexis Drive will incorporate other
necessary easements for utilities services to 3220 Alexis Drive. Conditions of approval require a
private utility easement across 3230 Alexis to serve 3220 Alexis, and the submittal of an
easement legal description and plat map. The conditions will require the easement to be recorded
for the benefit of the 3220 Alexis Drive property. The plat map showing the proposed easement
area is attached to this report (Attachment H).
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Findings and conditions for approval of the Site and Design applications are attached
(Attachment D, E and F).
s:lplanlpladivipcsrIalexpc.wpd Page 12
P’UBLIC NOTI~-’E ~
Public Notice of the Planning Commission review of the project was provided by publication of
the agenda in a local newspaper ofgenerai circulation. In addition, property owners and utility
customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and
determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts
would result from the new homes, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact
on the environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning
February 14, 2000 through March 2, 2000, and-is attached to this staff report (Attachment C).
ACTION TIME LIMITS
Date of application:
Date application deemed compete:
Action time limit (180 days after deemed complete):
Optional extension at applicants’ request (90 days):
10/29/99
2/11/00
8/11/00
11/11/00
Following the Planning Commission hearing, the project applications are tentatively scheduled to
be considered by the Architectural Review Board on March 16, 2000 and City Council onApril
17, 2000.
ATTACI-IM~NTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Plans for current project (Commissioners only)
Location Map.
Applicants’ project statement.
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment
Findings for Approval, Site & Design Review
Findings for Open Space Criteria
Conditions of Approval
Reduced Site Plans to compare previously approved project & proposed project
Proposed Easement across 3230 Alexis Drive
Minutes of preliminary ARB review on 3/18/99
COURTESY COPIES:
Owners: Susan and Phil Goldman, 400 Fir Lane, Los Altos, CA 94024
Architects: Bergtraun Evard Architects, 947 Industrial Avenue, Paio Alto, CA 94303 and 5500
Doyle Street, Emeryville, CA 94608
Prepared by:Amy French, Planner
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Ray Hashimoto, Zoning Administrator
Lisa Grote, ChiefPlarming Official
107