HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-21 City Council (17)City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
DATE:July 21, 1997 CMR:331:97
SUBJECT:920 LAUREL GLEN DRIVE: CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
REVIEW OF A NEW 5,220-SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY,
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH ASSOCIATED
IMPROVEMENTS (97-D-2, 97-EIA-4)
REOUEST
Review and approval of a Negative Declaration and a Site and Design application to
construct a new two-story, single-family, 5,220-square-foot dwelling with attached 3-car
garage, swimming pool and related improvements in the Open Space Zone at 920 Laurel
Glen Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and staffrecommend that the City Council approve the attached
Negative Declaration and Site and Design application for construction of a new single family
residence and associated improvements, in accord with the attached fmdings and conditions.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed residence complies with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Open Space
Development Criteria, as described in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated
June 25, 1997 (Attachment 3)
The following Comprehensive Plan goals, polices and programs apply to this application:
CMR:331:97 Page 1 of 4
Environmental Resources Element, Program 2: "Require replanting where vegetation
has been removed" .The conceptual landscape plan submitted with the application
indicates that graded areas will be revegetated with native plant material.
Environmental Resources Element, Program 7: "Encourage the planting of fire-
resistant plants and control of flammable chaparral vegetation in the foothills to
reducefire hazards." The conceptual landscape plan indicates that native, drought-
tolerant landscape material would be planted to be consistent with existing vegetation.
Open Space Element, Policy 4: "Protect conservation and scenic areas from
deterioration by either private or public actions." Through the underlying
subdivision, large portions of nearby natural open space will be preserved. Also, a
substantial portion of the lot, approximately 50 percent, would remain as open space.
Open Space Element, Policy 11: "Provide the maximum open space in residential
developments consistent with residents’ needs and economic feasibility." The
proposed development would retain approximately one-half of the lot as permanent
open space.
In addition to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, the proposed residence
complies with the Open Space Development Criteria, adopted by the City Council on
October 20, 1986 (see Attachment 6, Open Space Criteria). These ten criteria have been
developed to ensure environmentally sensitive and visually unobtrusive new development
in the foothills.
A more detailed project description and discussion of pertinent issues are contained in the
attached Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 3).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The lot on which the dwelling is proposed to be constructed was created in 1979 and, as part
of the underlying subdivision, a large open space dedication was made to the City. On June
25, 1997, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of this
Negative Declaration and Site and Design application. Issues discussed by the Commission
included project visibility from nearby properties and open space areas, relationship of the
project with the previous subdivision of the area, amount of impervious surfaces, proposed
drainage, type of landscaping, site fencing, grading and proposed use of materials and colors
of the dwelling.
The Commission determined that the siting of the proposed dwelling would not be
significantly visible from adjoining properties or distant open space areas. The proposed
CMR:331:97 Page 2 of 4
color and material would assist in reducing the visibility of the dwelling, and the
Commission added a condition that the Planning Department review the applicant’s final
selection of glazing prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that minimum reflectivity
will occur.
The amount of impervious surface proposed to be constructed on the lot is, in part, due to the
requirements of the Fire Department to ensure that adequate paved turn-around space for safe
emergency vehicle access be provided on the site. However, the project still complies with
the applicable impervious surface limitation for the site. The proposed development would
result in approximately 3.3 percent of the site covered by impervious surface, with the
maximum impervious coverage set at 3.5 percent of the site.
The Commission discussed proposed site grading. It was determined that the proposed
grading of the site, which would remove approximately 1,500 cubic yards of material from
the site, would be consistent with other, similar construction projects in the vicinity.
Proposed drainage will need to be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department, but the
proposed approach of on-site dispersion of water run-off has been used in other areas of the
City.
A concern was raised by the Commission regarding the appearance of the site after
construction, especially views of the site from nearby open space areas. The applicant
indicated that native, drought-tolerant plant material would be used to stabilize graded areas,
which will minimize potential aesthetic impacts with regard to open space areas.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no significant fiscal impact to the City from this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An initial study has been prepared, recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration
(Attachment 5). The proposed Negative Declaration finds that with standard City conditions
of approval there will be no significant impacts.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment 1: Findings
Attachment 2: Conditions
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)
Attachment 4: Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes of 6/25/97
Attachment 5: Negative Declaration
CMR:331:97 Page 3 of 4
Attachment 6: Open Space Criteria
Attachment 7: Letter from William E. Terry, on behalf of Laurel Glen Estates Architectural
Control Committee
Attachment 8: Letter from William E. Terry, adjoining property owner
Plans and Submittal Materials (Council Members only)
PREPARED BY: Jerry Haag, Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMIL~r-HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
co:David and Rosemary Hopkins, 954 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304
Gary Cross, Anderson Bmle Architects, 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 500,
Cupertino, CA 95014
Seyed Javadi, Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association, 3108 Alexis Drive,
Palo Alto, CA 94304
CMR:331:97 Page 4 of 4
Findings of Approval
Site and Design Review
920 Laurel Glen Drive
97-D-2
Attachment I
Q
The project will not have significant environmental impacts as indicated by the
proposed Negative Declaration for this project and that the proposed dwelling has
been designed consistent with the Open Space Criteria adopted by the City Council
to mitigate the impacts of development in the foothills area of the community;
The proposed design of the dwelling will be orderly, harmonious and compatible with
existing or potential uses of adjoining property, in that the proposed use and
improvements are similar in size, scale and design with other uses in the area and the
project has been designed and will be sufficiently screened so as not to impact the
neighbors’ privacy or enjoyment of their property; ’
The project will maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas,
in that the proposed design and size of the residence and related improvements are
generally consistent with existing residences on Laurel Glen Drive and nearby roads,
and that construction of the residence will be governed by the current Uniform
Building Code and other applicable codes, to assure safety and a high quality of
development;
The proposed design will observe sound principles of environmental design and
ecological balance, in that the design of the structure will follow existing contour lines
to minimize site grading and a significant number of mature trees will be retained on
the site;
The proposed use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that
the proposed residential use and related improvements comply with the OS zone
District site development regulations and conform to the intent of the Open
Space/Controlled Development land use designation to allow limited residential
development on larger sites to minimize physical impacts of development.
Attachment 2
Conditions of Approval
920 Laurel Glen Drive
97-D-2
As modified by the Planning Commission, 6/25/97.
Changes are underlined, italicized and boided.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
Utilities Engineering
1. If electrical Service requirements exceeds 200 arnps at 120/240 volts single phase, the
applicant shall provide space on-site for a pad-mounted transformer (approximate pad
size: 5" x 6’). The location of any transformer shall be indicated on building plans and
shall be approved for aesthetics and screening by the Planning Department.
All electrical substructure from the designated service point (the high voltage vault
between.929 and 927 Laurel Glen Drive) shall be installed by the applicant per utility
standards for installation.
o The new electrical service shall be undergrounded and shall be indicated on building
plans. Utilities Rule and Regulation #19-G(1).
o The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation.
°Each dwelling unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meter
and sewer lateral connection. Only one electrical service lateral is permitted per
parcel. Utilities Rule and Regulation # 19-G(2).
o A new 2-inch water service line installation for domestic usage is required to fumish
customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project.
A new 6-inch water service line installation for fire system usage is required to
fumish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. The
exact service location will be determined when the fire sprinkler system are submitted
to the Engineering Department.
o An approved single detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new
water connection for the fire system to comply with the requirements of the California
Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7606, inclusive. The Detector
Check shall be installed on the owner’s l~roperty adjacent to the property line.
Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe
between the city connection and assembly.
o A new 1-inch gas service line installation is required to furnish the customer’s demand
specified in the load sheet presented with this project.
10.A new sewer lateral installation is required, with the size to be determined ~by the
Engineering Department. A sanitary sewer clean out must be installed at the back of
curb per Utilities Standard SD-02.
Fire Department
11. An NFPA 13D (1996) Residential Sprinkler System shall be installed per PAMC,
Section 15.04.170 (dd).
12.The Fire Department access road/driveway for emergency vehicle access shall be
designed in accord with the Uniform Fire:Code. Central Station monitoring shall be
required if over 100 sprinklers are installed.
13.An on-site hydrant will be required if any portion of the new dwelling is located more
than 150 feet from a public water source.
14.Roof covering of the structure shall be shown on building plans and shall be of Class
A or Class B, fire retardant
15.Residential smoke detectors shall be shown on building plans and installed for
bedrooms and hallways with battery back-up in accordance with the UBC.
16.Spark arresters shall be shown on building plans and installed in all chimneys as part
of project constriction.
Public Works Engineering
2
17.Any changes to submitted plans, other than those provided in this review, must be
approved by the Public Works Engineering Division.
18.The applicant shall integrate the recommendations of the Soils Engineer as presented
in the report "Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Single Family Dwelling at
920 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto" dated October 6, 1996, into the final design of the
excavation, grading and foundation in the Building Permit submittal.
19.The project requires an approved Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA
Building Inspection Division. Included within this permit shall be an erosion control
plan for the performance of this work during the rainy season. This season starts at a
minimum on October 15 and ends on April 15, or when the rainy season actually
begins, whichever is earlier.
20.The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a copy of the plans for fire
protection system, including all Fire Department requirements. The exact location and
installation of all underground fire service and the single detector check valve with
a detector meter must be shown on site.
21.Submitted plans has been reviewed for compliance with applicable codes, but the
design remains the responsibility of the architect/engineer who prepared such plans.
Planning Department
22. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit
drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape
features. The Planning Department shall approve the_final glazing material for the
dwelling.
23.Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out
to the curb shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department.
24.Prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit, the project arborist shall notify
the Planning Arborist in writing that a field inspection has occurred and that required
protective tree fencing has been installed.
25.Trees 1,3,5,6 and one unnumbered 15-inch tree at the "y" drive intersection are
approved for removed as noted in the Arborist Report for this project dated 3/21/97.
All other trees listed in the Arborist Report shall be preserved and receive treatments
as outlined in the Report, including but not limited to pruning, rot pruning in
3
proximity to grading, fertilizing and spraying. The City’s Planning Arborist shall be
notified in writing that each phase has been accomplished.
26.To ensure protection for the Coastal Live Oak (tree #7 on arborist report dated
3/21/97), the following shall occur:
The final grading plan for the drive~vay shall indicate that grading activities
shall not occur within ten feet from the base of the tree, as per the project
arborist report;
b.The tree crown may require minor elevating to accommodate sufficient
clearance as part of project construction.
27.While protective tree fencing is not needed for a majority of the tree due to safe
proximity to construction, the following trees or grouping of trees shall be protected
by fencing on the driveway side only: 2, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 25, 26 and 27-30. Where
needed, silt fencing shall be used. These trees shall be protected with six foot high
chain link fences mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron pipe driven into the
ground to a depth of at least two feet, with posts no more than ten foot spacings.
Fences shall be erected prior to construction and remain in place until final inspection
of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plan to
be done under trees to be protected (see Public Works Department Standard
Specification Detail 505). The Planning Arbofist shall be notified in writing that tree
protective fencing is in place prior to demolition and construction permit issuance:
unless otherwise approved by the Planning arborist.
During Construction
Utilities Engineering
28. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the
Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before
energizing. Utility Rule and Regulation # 19-A(1).
29.All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before
backfilling. Rule and Regulation # 17-A214.
Public Works Engineering
30.. It is unlawful to discharge construction debris (soil, concrete, asphalt, sawcut slurry,
paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. The
4
Permittee shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for stormwater
pollution prevention into all construction operations. Typical BMP’s are outlined in
a series of brochures published by the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution
Prevention Control Program and are available from the City of Palo Alto Engineering
Department.
31.Construction within City fights-of-way (i:e. curb
Construction in th~ Street, which is obtainable
Department prior to the commencement of work.
cuts) must have a Permit for
from the CPA Public Works
32.
33.
34.
The Permittee is responsible for the maintenance of the integrity, including the
usefulness, health and safety, of adjacent properties.
No storage of construction materials or vehicles is permitted in any City right-of-way.
The applicant shall be responsible for the upgrade of any utility facilities and boxes
that will be relocated in the proposed driveway. This upgrade could include the
replacement with a standard traffic-rated box.
35.Any construction within CPA right-of-way, easements or other property controlled
by the City of Palo Alto must conform to standards established in the CPA Standard
Specifications for the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department.
Planning Department
36. All neighboring trees that overhang the project shall be protected from impact of any
kind.
37.All trees to be retained on the site, as noted in the Arborist Report dated 3/21/97, shall
be protected during construction. All recommendations included in the Arborist
Report shall be included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any
modifications to such requirements shall be approved, in writing, by the City’s
Planning Arborist. All trees to be retained shall be shown on the tree inventory and
protected during the construction process. The following tree preservation measures
shall apply to all trees during construction:
ao No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted
within the tree enclosure area.
5
The ground around the tree canopy shall not be altered, except as specified in
the arborists report.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to
ensure survival.
38.After grading, the project arborist shall inspect the protected trees to determine if fill
has accumulated near the base of any trees. If so, then a root collar excavation shall
be performed to return grade to a safe level.
39.The following tree inspections shall occur during construction:
ao On a monthly basis, unless needed otherwise, the project arborist shall monitor
protective fencing, tree health and note changes and developing situations that
may require action in written form forwarded to the Planning Arborist.
The Planning Arborist shall be notified in writing o inspect and approve rough.
grading, including compaction, cut and fill, drainage and trenching, and, if
required, aeration systems, tree wells, drains, special paving and cabling.
40.Irrigation of all new trees on site shall include a minimum of two bubblers,.each on
a separate valve ~om other shubbery and ground cover as per Palo Alto Water
Efficiency Guidelines.
Prior to Finalization
41.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to finalization of the
permit. All off-site improvements shall be fmished prior to this sign-off.
After Construction
42.All activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Noise
Ordinance, Chapter 9.10.
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
To:Planning Commission
From:Jerry Haag, Planner Department:Planning
Agenda Date:June 25, 1997
Subject:Planning Commission recommendation to City Council on a Site
and Design application at 920 Laurel Glen Drive to approve a new
5,220 square foot two story single family dwelling with a three
car garage, swimming pool and other improvements on an existing
2.6 acre lot and to consider a Negative Declaration for the project
(File No’s 97-D-2, 97-EIA-4)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission .recommend that the City Council approve the
attached Site and Design application for a new two-story single family dwelling with attached
findings and conditions and a Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project will not result in
any significant environmental impacts.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION
The site is located in the foothills near the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club and is zoned Open
Space (OS). The applicant desires to construct a new single family dwelling and related
improvements on an existing lot an in compliance with all OS Zone development standards.
Although the legal notice for this project referenced the need for a variance to exceed the maximum
impervious surface coverage for the site, additional information submitted by the applicant and
calculations prepared by staff indicate that no variance is actually required (see Discussion section
of report).
Pro_iect Description
Site and Design approval has been requested to allow construction of a new, detached single family
dwelling on a 2.6 acre parcel of land. The dwelling would consist of 5,220 square feet of building
area on three levels with a 3-car attached garage, swimming pool and exterior decks. Access is
S:[PLAN[PLADIVIPCSR[920Laur.sr Page 1
06-25-97
proposed to be via a new private driveway off of the cul-de-sac terminus of Laurel Glen Drive.
The lot proposed for development is steep (average slope of 31%), with portions of the lot having
dense native tree cover.
The proposed dwelling would be of a contemporary design, with a combination of shed and fiat roofs
and a stucco exterior. Proposed building colors would,include a mottled gray roof, warm beige field
colors and darker beige trim. A color and material sample board will be provided at the Planning
Commission meeting.
Site grading and extensions of existing utilities would also be needed to construct the proposed
dwelling.
Site Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, Assessor’s Parcel number, Comprehensive Plan
designation, zoning designation, land use and parcel size is summarized below.
Table 1. Project Information
Applicant Anderson Brule Architects
Owner
David and Rosemary Hopkins
Assessor’s Parcel Number
182-54-04
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Open Space/Controlled Development
Zoning Designation
OS-Open Space
Existing Use
Vacant
Surrounding Land Use
North Single Family Residence
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI920Laur.sr Page 2
06-25-97
East:
South
West:
Single Family Residence
Single Family Residence
Vacant
Parcel Size
2.6 bores
PROJECT HISTORY
The lot on which the proposed dwelling would be built was part of a larger subdivision (Tract
6723), approved by the City and recorded in 1979. The subdivision provided for permanent
dedication of open space on the property in return for smaller than the 10 acre minimum lot size
normally required in an Open Space District. The subdivision does not include any easements or
other restrictions on this particular lot which would preclude development of the proposed single
family dwelling.
The current Site and Design application was filed on March 31, 1997.
A Site and Design application for single family dwellings is required to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council for final determination (PAMC
Chapter 18.82).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The following Comprehensive Plan goals, polices and programs apply to this application:
Environmental Resources Element, Program 2: "Require replanting where vegetation has been
removed." The conceptual landscape plan submitted with the application indicates that graded
areas will be revegetated with native plant material.
Environmental Resources Element, Program 7: "Encourage the planting of fire-resistant plants
and control of flammable chaparral vegetation in the foothills to reduce fire hazards." The
conceptual landscape plan indicates that native, drought-tolerant landscape material would be
planted to be consistent with existing vegetation.
Open Space Element, Policy 4: "Protect conservation and scenic areas from deterioration by
either private or public actions." Through the underlying subdivision, large portions of nearby
natural open space will be preserved. Also, a substantial portion of the lot, approximately fifty
percent, would remain as open space.
S:[PLANIPLADIVIPCSRI920Laur.sr Page 3
06-25-97
Open Space Element, Policy I 1: "Provide the maximum open space in residential developments
consistent with residents’needs and economic feasibility." The proposed development would
retain approximately one-half of the lot as permanent open space.
In addition to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, the proposed residence
complies with the Open Space Development Criteria, adopted by the City Council on October
20, 1986 (see Attachment 5, Open Space Criteria). These ten criteria have b~n-tleveloped to
ensure environmentally sensitive and visually unobtrusive new development in the foothills.
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis
The analysis for this project relates to site grading and fill, aesthetics and views in relationship to
adjacent open spaces, site coverage and drainage, landscaping, natural features and trails, and
architectural design.
Site Layout: The new dwelling would be located on an existing "flag" lot, which has a long,
relatively narrow portion offofthe west side of Laurel Glen Drive, with the bulk of the lot away from
the street. The project architect has proposed siting the dwelling generally in the center of the lot on
the flattest portion, with the driveway extending to Laurel Glen Drive. This configuration ~would
require the least amount of grading to accommodate the proposed structure and would also minimize
loss of existing trees. The structure would be designed in a relatively linear, semi-circular fashion
complementing topographic features and would also be partially built into the downslope on the lot.
Architectural Design: The proposed dwelling reflects a contemporary design, characterized by a
combination of flat and shed roof lines, large picture windows and an overall angular design. Several
decks would be constructed off of various rooms. The design appears to blend in with the numerous
trees on the site and would not be out of scale with other nearby dwellings.
Materials, Aesthetics and Visibilily: Proposed materials of the dwelling would be consistent with a
contemporary theme, tO include a concrete tile roof, stucco finish and aluminum-framed windows.
proposed colors would include grey/mottled roof tiles, a warm beige color for the stucco and a darker
shade of beige for window and door trim. Windows would be non-reflective and will likely be tinted
to reduce solar heat gain. The proposed dwelling would not be visible from Laurel Glen Drive, due to
the distance from the street and the slope away from the street. Distant views of the proposed
dwelling could be obtained from properties to the west, although the existing tree cover would
obscure much of the pro_posed dwelling.
Landscaping and Tree Preservation: An arborist report submitted with the application indicates
that four native oaks would need to be removed to accommodate the driveway near Laurel Glen
Drive, as well as one smaller non-native tree. The driveway would be routed in such a manner as to
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI920Laur.sr Page 4
06-25-97
retain more than 26 mature native oaks on the front of the lot. Section 8.10.020 of the PAMC allows
protected trees to be removed to provide site access and the proposed tree removal program has been
reviewed and approved by the Planning Arborist.
The dwelling has been sited so that no other trees would need to be removed. The conceptual
landscape plan for the project indicates that new landscaping would be done with native plant
materials.
Impervious Surfaces: Site improvements related to the proposed development would result ina total
impervious surface for the lot of 14,442 square feet, including the house footprint, driveway and
terrace, pool and deck area. Since this development is within a cluster subdivision, Section 18.71.080
of the PAMC allows a maximum impervious surface coverage on the lot of 3.5% based on the norma.1
10-acre minimum lot size for the OS District. As applied to this lot, the maximum impervious surface
coverage would be 15,246 square feet. The proposed development is therefore below the maximum
coverage.
Site Grading and Access: The development proposal would include grading for a driveway from the
street to the approximate center point of the lot. The drive would be approximately twelve feet wide
in the narrow portion.of the lot and would widen into a circular/oval drive in front to the dwellihg.
This configuration was selected to provide an adequate on-site turn around space for emergency
equipment and to minimize the need for vehicles to back onto Laurel Glen Drive when exiting the
site. The driveway would have various gradients, depending on the underlying topography, ranging
from 2% to 11-15% in two portions of the drive. Retaining walls would need to be built along
portions of both sides of the drive, ranging from approximately one to five feet in height.
The driveway would connect at the cul-de-sac terminus of Laurel Glen Drive, which is a fully
improved City street along the lot frontage.
A relatively large flat pad would be created on the south side of the lot to accommodate the main
dwelling unit, swimming pool and a small rear yard area. The preliminary grading plan indicates that
approximately 4645 cubic yards of cut would be required and 2915 cubic yards of fill material. With
a shrinkage factor, approximately 1438 cubic yards of material would need to be exported from the
site. Based on an average capacity of 10 cubic yards per truck (as supplied by the Public Works
Engineering Division), approximately 144 truck trips would be needed to remove excess material. A
condition of issuing a grading permit for the project would require the applicant’s contractor to use
only City-approved truck routes to dispose of the excess material.
Approximately one half of the site would not be graded as part of this project. Grading to construct
the proposed driveway would remove four oak trees and one other non-oak tree, which is discussed
earlier in the staff report:
Drainage: Two new underground drain lines would be built that would collect storm water run-off
from the site and allow release of the water on the site at a lower elevation than the dwelling utilizing
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI920Laur.sr Page 5
06-25-97
energy dissipaters. According to the project engineer, there are no nearby City storm drain lines to
connect into, and the proposed overland release will assist in off-setting the amount of impervious
surfaces to be built on the site. Detailed final drainage plans must be approved by the City’s Public
Works Department.
Utilities: Extensions of municipal utilities would be required in order to serve the proposed dwelling,
to be provided by the City of Palo Alto. A new underground water line would be constructed down
the proposed driveway from the terminus of Laurel Glen Drive to the dwelling. A new 4-inch sanitary
sewer line would be extended from the lot to the east onto the subject property. New underground
natural gas and electric lines would also be extended to serve the new dwelling.
Public Participation
Notice of the Planning Commission meeting was provided by publication of the agenda in a local
newspaper of general circulation. Property owners and utility customers within a three hundred (300)
foot radius of the project site were sent written notice. A copy of this staff report was also sent to the
representative of the Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the project as proposed.
2. Recommend modification of the project.
3. Recommend denial of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact to the City will result from this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been prepared to assess the potential impacts of this
project, and, based on the conclusions of the EIA, a Negative Declaration is recommended for this
project, with the finding that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Final Design and Environmental Impact Assessment will be reviewed by the City Council. A public
heating has been tentatively scheduled for July 21, 1997. If approved by Council, the applicant would
need to comply with the conditions of approval and obtain necessary permits.
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI920Laur.sr Page 6
06-25-97
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment 1: Findings
Attachment 2: Recommended Conditions of Approval
Attachment 3: Location Map
Attachment 4: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 5: Open Space Criteria and supporting information from project architect
Attachment 6: Letter from William E. Terry, on behalf of Laurel Glen Estates Architectural
Control Committee
Attachment 7: Letter from William E. Terry, adjoining property owner
Plans and Submittal Materials (Commission only)
COURTESY COPIES
David and Rosemary Hopkins (project owner), 954 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto CA 94304
Gary Cross (project architect), Anderson Brule Architects, 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 500,
Cupertino CA 95014
Seyed Javadi, Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association, 3108 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto CA, 94304
Prepared By:Jerry Haag, Contract Planner
Managemem Review: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
S:IPLAN[PLADIVIPCSRI920Laur.sr Page 7
06-25-97
ATTACHMENT 4: ~xcerpt of
draft minutes of the 6/25/97
meeting of the Palo Al~o Planning
Commission.
The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 1997 at 7
p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairperson Cassel presiding.
ROLL CALL
Present:Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink and
Schmidt "
Absent:None
Staff Present:John Carlson, Assistant Director of Public Works
Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Jerry Hang, Contract Planner
Marvin Overway, chief Transportation Official
Joe Saccio, Senior Financial Analyst
"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairper-~_ Cassel: The first item on our agenda is oral communications. At this time,
any member~the public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Seeing no one who
~iSGh;S t2;p eak ,~IcI_IAN GE 2°;~ ;TnI t~~hse ~eN~ a~eEn~~ i~~2~S
Chairperson Cassel: We h~ge which Commissio"er Schink willspeak to.
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I su’~g~st that we move Item 5 forward for
consideration at this time. ~
SECOND: By Commissioner Ojakian ....
~
MOTION PASSES: Chai~: All those in favo~y aye. All opposed? Thatpasses on a vote of 7-O. _- .............. ~
5 ~: Appeal of the zoning administr~’s approval of
a conditional use pe~ate outd0or recrea~ service
(tennis facility) on the site. of the for~ er Ch.uc.k T_homps.on.’s Swim. and Trois
Center, including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts, ~
A:lPCMins6[pc6025.reg Page 1
06-25-97
920 LAUREL GLEN DRIVE: Planning Commission review and
recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed construction of a new,
detached single-family dwelling on an existing vacant flag lot parcel of 2.6 acres.
The dwelling will consist of 5,220 square feet on three levels with a 3-car garage,
swimming pool and exterior decks. Environmental Assessment: A negative
declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-D-2, 97-EIA-4, 97-V- 11.
Chairperson Cassel: Lisa, please introduce the staff member.
Ms. Grote: This is Jerry Haag, who is the contract planner and is the project manager for
this item. He will make some brief comments.
Jerry. Haag: Thank you Lisa, Madam Chair and members of the commission. I will make
a brief presentation for the applicant, his architect and the audience this evening to give
you a more complete description of the project. As you mentioned in the introduction,
the applicant proposes to build one single-family, multi-level new home of about
5,200 square feet. The lot on which they propose to build is 2.6 acres.. It was part of a
cluster, open space controlled development subdivision approved by the city in 1979, in
which there was a ten-lot large subdivision. Nine lots were created for residential
dwellings, and those lots ranged in size from about two to three acres. This one is 2.6
acre. The very large tenth lot was dedicated to the city and purchased for open space, so
the way the subdivision worked was for a large, open space area and nine smaller,
residential lots. The original tract map is posted on the wall for you. It shows that there
were nine lots and one very large open space lot which has not been developed.
The site layout, as proposed, is a semi-circular house. The lot is a flag lot with a very
long, narrow strip leading to the terminus of the Laurel Glen cul-de-sac which would be
the main driveway of the house. That has been designed in a semi-circular fashion to
allow fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to access the site. They can drive onto the
site and turn around without having to back up. When we originally advertised the case,
we believed that there was more than the allowed impervious surface on the site,
however, additional calculations and review by staff indicate that they are very close to,
but do not exceed, the amount of impervious surface that would be allowed.
The architectural design_, of the house is relatively modem. A color board has been
prepared for you, indicating that it will be a stucco exterior with large, plate glass
windows and a flat tile roof. There are a large number of trees on the site, with many
clustered near the cul-de-sac terminus of Laurel Glen. They have prepared an arbodst
report. They will have to lose four oak trees and one unspecified tree in order to get the
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 21
06-25-97
driveway in. The city’s arborist has reviewed both the plans for removal and the plans for
preservation, and he has found it to be acceptable.
Some amount of grading will be needed to build the house. The portion of the site where
they have proposed to build the house is relatively flat, however, to ensure that proper
drainage is maintained, some amount of grading will be required. There will be some
excess amount of material that will need to be removed from the site, approximately
1,400 cubic yards.
Staff has prepared a draft negative declaration, and we find that with standard conditions
of approval that the city would normally put on a project of this type, there will be no
significant remaining environmental impacts. We recommend approval of the underlying
project, subject to the conditions as set forth in your staff report, and the negative
declaration, as well.
Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions of staff?.
Commissioner Schink: The zoning ordinance, as it affects R-I, would prohibit a two-
story home on a flag lot. Does that not come into play in the OS zone?
Ms. Grote: That is correct. That is only applicable in Rol. In both the OS and RE zones,
you can have second stories on flag lots.
Commissioner Schink: My next question relates to the drainage. I notice on the plan that
they are picking up the drainage, and it is then disbursed down the hill through some
outfalls or some energy dissipators. Could you share with us the rules and regulations
that control how you are allowed to disperse your drain water?
Mr. Haag: The public works department has reviewed the preliminary drainage plans.
They found them to be generally acceptable, however, the applicant will be required to
get a grading and drainage plan that will look at a more detailed level of information,
such as how much water is expected to be diverted down the two drainage channels.
They may need to have the actual outflow of the dissipators changed a little to ensure that
the amount of water would not harm other property owners. On the whole, the
engineering department-has found it to be generally acceptable. They have allowed this
in other cases in the hills.
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 22
06-25-97
Commissioner Schmidt: The staff report notes that something like 140 truckloads of soil
must be taken away to work with this design. Is that typical with a hillside house, or is
that a lot? Or a little?
Mr. Haag: That would vary pretty much on a case-by-case basis. Since I have never
-worked on any other gradingprojects in Palo Alt% I cannot say whether this is a lot, but I
would say the applicant has attempted to find the flattest place on the site to build, which
would minimize somewhat the grading. Lisa may know of some other cases.
Ms. Grote: The OS district design guidelines do require minimizing cut and fill. This
applicant has done this. The number of truckloads does vary from site to site, and this is
not out of the ordinary. There are other sites with flatter building areas that have less cut
and fill, but this is not unusual or out of the ordinary.
Ms. Bialson: It has been stated that the dwelling would not be visible from Lauren Glen
Drive, but distant views of the proposed dwelling could be obtained from properties to the
west. Do we hfive any sort of picture or other representation that might indicate to us
exactly what that site will look like from different perspectives?
Ms. Grote: The project architect is here and can furnish you with pictures in a few
minutes.
Commissioner Schmidt: The circular driveway is there to meet requirements for
emergency vehicles. Is that always a requirement even when there are relatively close
driveways for vehicle access on other properties?
Ms. Grote: A circular driveway is not always required. Part of the reason why a circular
drive is required in this instance is because the access road is so long. Fire trucks would
not have easy access to where the house is located. On other sites, they can either reach
the house from the street or from some other location on the site, and the circular
driveway is not required. So you will not see every house in the foothills with a circular
drive.
Commissioner Beecham: Do we have a colors and materials board? (Yes, and it is
passed around.) Have we had a session on how to do the clustering and impervious area
calculations previously? IfI missed it, I will go through it separately, but if not, I would
like to go through it now. I presume that where we are using a ten-acre site and this is a
2.6-acre, we have a lot of open space.
A:[PCMins6[pc6025.reg Page 23
06-25-97
Ms. Grote: That is right. The code in the OS zoning district does provide for individual
lots to have as much impervious surface on them as if they were 10-acre sites because in
the original subdivision tract, the clustering principle was used, and there is permanent
open space as part of the tract.
Commissioner Beecham: So is Parcel #10, which is now open space, approximately 100
acres, making it about 10 acres for the other nine’parcels each?
Mr. Haag: It is quite large. There were no acreage calculations made on the final map.
By eye-bailing it, it is very large and several times the size of the buildable lots.
Commissioner Beecham: That does not sound like it approaches 90 or 100 acres.
~: It is possible that it could, and --
Chairperson Cassel: But if you are saying they are 10 acres each, and each of these lots is
about 3 acres, then it would be 7 acres in reserve for each of them. So seven times nine
comes to 63 acres approximately in reserve. And does this open space property back up
to the Arastradero Preserve?
Yes, it does.
Chairperson Cassel: Is it a part of that reserve?
Mr. Haag: It very likely is, but I cannot say for certain.
Commissioner Byrd: To follow up on that question and the earlier question about the
visibility impacts on other areas surrounding the project site, what will be the visibility of
this project l~om public open space?
Ms. Grote.: It will be minimal. I believe the project architect has some information that
would verify that.
Chairperson Cassel: Perhaps she can verify that when she speaks.
Commissioner Schink: Do you know if the applicant is going to speak to the history of
the clustering of this? Or does staff want to give us more background?
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 24
06-25-97
Ms._Grote: I don’t believe the applicant is going to speak to the clustering. This was
originally subdivided in 1979. We were able to pull out from the files what you see on
the wall as far as where the lots were located and what was approved as permanent open
space and what was approved as buildable sites. That is about the extent of what we have
in our files regarding the history.
Ms. Cauble: I am not sure what your question is. The code provision, which applies to
this particular subdivision, provides that where a portion of a subdivision with clustered
lots of less than ten acres in size contains an area subject to the open space restriction, you
reallocate the impervious surface to each of the lots proportionate to the size that would
otherwise go to the open space area. I saw one map recently, although I am not sure if it
was this tract, where someone quite thoughtfully had done that calculation at the time of
final map. It made it easier for people buying lots to know without someone having to
calculate it later. The city did not require that in a couple of other subdivisions, but this
was one of those that the council did approve under the cluster principle. That has been
confirmed by staff.
Commissioner Schink: The point of my question was that I am trying to figure out what
my perspective should be in looking at this. I take myself back to the time when they
gave the land away. Now we can enjoy that property. Do we then come and look at their
property from the property that they gave away, and take a harsher perspective because it
is now property we get to use, or should we try to take ourselves back 18 years and say,
we should be looking at it from farther away. That is what I am trying to get at when
asking about the history of the subdivision.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: That is an interesting perspective. It is more of a philosophical
question than a specific one.
Commissioner Schink: Any history that the city has regarding how this subdivision came
about and what the intent was in giving the property over, in creating the open space, we
should take that into account.
Ms. Grote: It appears that it was meant to be visual open space. There is no indication
that there is public access onto this open space area, so no one would be standing there
using the open space, and as a result, be viewing this new house. It is visual open space
rather than public access open space.
Ms. Cauble: Right. I don’t believe this was dedicated to the city. It was enforceably
restricted as private open space. The code does not require someone to give us open
A:lPCMins6[pc6025.reg Page 25
06-25-97
space land to take advantage of this cluster requirement. They might, and that might be
one way they would choose to do it. I think that in maybe three cases of large
subdivisions that have come under this, in each case, they have had a private open space
restriction.
Chairperson Cassel: With private maintenance of it.
Ms. ~auble: Right, and no right of public access.
Mr. Haag: The property is also very steep, so that would work against a lot of public
access. It is thickly wooded, and part of it might be watershed to the creek, so that would
be another reason not to encourage a lot of access.
Chairperson Cassel: If there are no further questions, I will open the public hearing and
we would like to hear from the applicant first.
David Hopkins, 954 Laurel Glen Drive. Palo Alto: Good evening commissioners and
Ms. Grote. I currently reside just down the street from the project. My wife, Rosemary,
is also present tonight. I do not want to take much of your time away from the
architectural team. You have a lot of interest, I am sure, in knowing more about the way
in which we want to make this project fit the environment. I would like to make just a
few brief comments, and then turn it over to Ms. Brul~, our architect.
First, we ourselves have lived on Laurel Glen Drive for the past 25 years, so we know the
area well. Over that period of time, we have come to respect and appreciate the open
space environment greatly. Secondly, we have owned this lot for more than I5 years.
Our intention has been to build a house that is.designed to fit the environment and
preserve as much of the open space as we can for ourselves and our neighbors, both
immediate and distant. Thirdly, speaking of neighbors, we have known our immediate
neighbors of the new property ever since they moved in. As soon as we got into the siting
and design of our project, we started working with those neighbors, the Terrys and the
Altmans, to try and minimize the intrusion of our house on them and to harmonize among
the three of us. I believe you have letters in your packet which we included from those
two neighbors. If I may, I would just like to read those to you, first from the Terrys dated
February 22, 1997. "Dear David.and Rosemary: Thank you for reviewing with us the
plans for the house you intend to build on the lot next door to ours. We are pleased to
endorse these plans, and look forward to having you join our neighborhood." The second
letter is from Vernon and Mary Lee Altman at 928 Laurel Glen Drive dated March 27,
1997. "Dear Dave and Rosemary: Thank you for the concern, time and effort you and
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 26
06-25-97
your architect, landscape architect and builder have taken with us over the last two
months regarding the design and siting of your home. As we have worked together to
deal with our respective interests, we believe that we have achieved a solution that is
responsive to each of our needs. Although we are still awaiting your final house and
landscape plans, it is clear that our agreement is reflected in the vertical pole placement
and house footprint staking, as well as the attached letter from Anderson Braid Architects.
Accordingly, we are pleased to endorse your plan~ and look forward to having you as
neighbors." Attached to that is a letter from our architects to the Altmans, summarizing
the conditions that we worked out with them in regard to the maximum height of our
house.
Finally, let me just say a brief word about our architects. We spent several months
interviewing architects, because we were very particular in what we were looking for.
We were looking for a combination of an architect that had a good working knowledge
and appreciation for modem architecture, and secondly, one who had experience in
working projects in hillside communities. Thirdly, one who demonstrated a sensitivity to
the open space environment. We are very, very pleased that we found Pamela Brul& We
think she flts the bill extremely well, and we are very happy with the work she has done,
and we hope that you will agree. Let me now turn it over to Ms. Brul6, and she will
introduce the rest of the team.
Pamela Brul~, Anderson and Bml6 Architects, 160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 500,
San Jos_.e: Madam Chair and planning commissioners, I am pleased to submit the plans to
you tonight, and I do have a lot of different materials that you may want to pass. I will
start by giving you the aerial photo. It has an arrow indicating where we will be building.
It gives you a view of the private open space that is next to it. I have with me tonight
John Aldrich, our landscape architect, and Gary Cross, the project manager and architect
with us. They are not going to be speaking unless you have questions for them. We will
be more than glad to answer any questions about landscaping and drainage and other
questions that you have brought up.
I should start by saying that the design was very much as Mr. Hopkins said, focused on
both meeting the intent of the open space district development criteriaand also working
with the neighbors. They have owned this lot for a very long time, and they have become
friends with everyone around them, so it was very important to make this a team effort as
we build the house, we chose to build the house in a very particular way in order to meet
some of the environmental concerns that you have already brought up. I will be glad to
answer any questions you have about those.
A:lPCMins61PC6025.reg Page 27
06-25-97
As you look at the photo, the house is placed in a clustered area, as dictated by the
development criteria. We are close to both the Terrys’ house and the Altmans’ house,
leaving as much as 50% of the site open to natural landscaping, not changing it at all.
Also, the house is pushed near to the flag lot access and into a cluster of oaks to the north.
So there is actually a beautiful set of trees in front of this house, giving it a nice view
from inside the house and also, it protects the view from across the way. We believe this
makes the house less conspicuous. The other thing we have done is that the house is built
on a slope. The hillside bends, and so does the house with it. It is difficult to see it in an
elevation because it is difficult to read elevations that bend, but I wanted you to see that
there are three main pieces to the house. First is this piece where the kitchen and family
room area is, and then the living room-dining room area, and the master bedroom area..
The house is never more than two stories. Each of these comers is actually at grade. That
is what we have attempted to do. The grading that we are doing is so that when you walk
out of the house, you are at the natural grade. The back of the house is dug into the hill in
order to achieve that, bringing the front entry up at grade, as well. The only place where
you would have ever seen three stories was that basement piece, and we have deleted that
now. It no longer exists in the plans. Everywhere else, it is two stories, and at grade at
the edge, which was very important to us.
Part of breaking the house up and bending it around the hill means that it is very village-
like. The main elements of the house that you see in the elevations here, and again, it is
difficult to see elevations when something is turning, but as the house bends around the
hill, there is never a single large mass. It is broken up into three smaller masses. Also,
the owners have chosen to build a house of approximately 5,000 square feet. With ten
acres, they are allowed to build something quite a bit bigger, but they do not care to.
They want to keep the site as natural as possible, keeping the house a reasonable size to
enjoy the property rather than having a massive house there.
The house is simple massing, simple elements. There are some flat roofs, some sloped
roofs, and the material board is there. One of the things we did was to gather some of the
natural grasses that were out on the site, which are included. We have come up with
materials that we think are compatible with both the winter greens and the summer dry
yellows. So they are very natural colors and finishes.
As Mr. Hopkins stated, _vce have met with the neighbors and have done everything we can
to bring the house down on the hill and bring the elevations down with it so that the
views, particularly of the Altmans, are not interrupted and they can enjoy the yard that
they have enjoyed for years without anything in front of it. At the same time, it allows
A:lPCMins61PC6025.reg Page 28
06-25-97
the Hopkins to build on a relatively flat area of the site, allowing them some outdoor area
that is at natural grade.
Exterior lighting is being kept to a minimum. It is mostly small down lighting, so that at
night, this will be mostly views out, not in. Important I think is the fact that we are
adjacent to the Arastradero Open Space District, but the land directly adjacent to that
which you see in the photo is actually the private open space that was dedicated when
these lots were created. That completes my comments, and I will be happy to answer
questions.
Commissioner Schink: What color is the glazing?
Ms. Brul~.: At the moment, we do not want to tint it very much, if at all, because we want
to allow the Hopkins as much of a clear view as possible. It will be Low-E glass, and we
need to do some studies before choosing the exact glass. We do not have any real intent
to have a highly tinted glass, just slightly, because there are views. Some of these
elevations face west, and we need to consider their interior comfort and energy efficiency.
Chai~erson Cassel: Is it a part of the conditions that you will come back with that?
Ms. Brul6: Currently, I believe it states that we are going to be using Low-E and
potential for tinted glass. We have not selected .that glass, so we could come back with it.
But again, we are going to use the least amount of tinting possible to obtain energy
efficiency.
Ms. Grote: At this point, it is not a condition that it would return. If you choose to make
it a condition, staff would recommend that it retttm to staff rather than to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Chairperson Cassel: We will now hear from the remaining members of the public.
Vernon Altman. 928 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto: My wife and I live just adjacent to
the Hopkins’ property. We were before this commission back in 1990-91 to go through a
similar process with our. house, so we understand the process to some degree.
I will be brief, and just want to say that we have felt from the very beginning that our
friendship with the Hopkins was never in danger with the house they want to put here,
which is nice. They have gone out of their way with their architects and landscape
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 29
06-25-97
architects to work with us on numerous occasions. You would have to see the properties
to appreciate the potential conflicts we may have had. Our concern was for views, and
theirs was too, which meant moving the house up the hill. We think we have worked
very well together, and they have a plan that we very much. support. So we are very much
in favor of their proposal to you, and would strongly endorse that and suggest that you
approve it.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, Palo Alto: The environmental impact assessment
attached to the staff report is dated June 10th, which would indicate that there have only
been 15 days available for review, when 20 days are required. I believe the additional
time is needed, because I believe more information is needed about the views from public
park land. Regarding Impact #13a, the aesthetics, there is a significant impact, I believe,
on the Arastradero Preserve, since the house is in a prominent location, which I believe
will be visible and intrusive. We need a line-of-sight analysis from the preserve,
particularly from the Corte Madera Trail and the Meadowlark Trail, and also from Vista
Point in Foothill Park. That information would need to be in the EIA and available for
public review prior to a hearing.
I would like to quote to you from City Council minutes of October 15, 1990 at Page 65-
11, the first paragraph, when another lot in this subdivision was reviewed. "Vice Mayor
Woolley discussed the issue of houses in the OS zone. She and Council Member
McCown had put a memo in the packet, but Director of Planning and Community
Environment Kenneth Schreiber asked them to remove it for very good reasons. She
believed that an important message should be sent to the Planning Commission and staff
regarding conditions brought up during the discussion which would be repeated for other
applications in the OS zone. Council Member McCown mentioned photos, Council
Member Sutorius mentioned the staking, and she mentioned the color. Two were
techniques and one was an issue which needed to receive special attention when the house
was visible from some public property. The Hopkins property, the last undeveloped piece
of property in the Laurel Glen area, would probably be exceedingly visible. She hoped
staff and the Planning Commission would not think that because one thing was right for
one piece of property that it would necessarily be right for all. As Mr. Schreiber had
pointed out, each was unique."
I don’t know if there were poles for the public or commission to see, but there was no
notice that the property was staked. You would need to have story poles or stakes and
flags of different colors for the different portions of the building at different heights so
that you can distinguish what the home would look like. Also to indicate grading,
A:lPCMins6[pc6025.reg Page 30
06-25-97
because it appears that about half the site is graded, with extensive grading to the north
and west of the building pad.
The history I could discuss with you in some detail if you have questions, but I do not
Want to take up my five minutes with that. Briefly, the entitlement for nine lots of OS
zoning was the result of a law suit settlement arisi.ng from the downzoning of 50 acres in
a prominent location within a direct sight line from Vista Point in Foothills Park. The
planning staff indicated in a memo of December, 1984 in regard to the development of
another site in the subdivision that the site and design process permits the Planning
Commission and council to impose greater restrictions on impervious coverage, if
deemed necessary. So one question I have is, why is there so much grading outside of the
building pad? Previous approvals in the OS zone have conditioned on grading that
graded slopes be stabilized with reseeding, for example, the rye grass and wildflower mix
and the use of staked jute mesh which is flameproof and 100% biodegradable. The report
indicates a large flat pad in a small rear yard area. My question is, how much is that in
square feet, since half the site appears to be graded? Landscaping is needed both to
screen the house and to screen any fencing. The landscaping plan should be implemented
before a use and occupancy permit is granted, as in previous approvals, with possible
bonding as a condition to see that the landscaping grows.
Limit the area of the site that is fenced. The fence is indicated as painted black. I assume
that is a flat black. It would be better if it was baked on in the factory rather than having
it painted atterward where it could peel off over.time due to weathering.
The colors of the house should be included as conditions of the approval, which I suggest
is exactly what you are doing. Again, those should have been available during the
environmental review process.
If the amount of cut and fill was matched, you would not need all of those truckloads
going out. That again gets back to the large amount of graded area on the site b~yond the
footprint of the house.
The lighting, in relation to the Arastradero Preserve and all open space in the area is
dedicated park land. There are only 25 acres, which is the lotted area, that is private.
Jan Terry. 925 Laurel Gien Drive, Palo Alto: My husband and I have known the Hopkins
since 1985 when we first bought our property there. We went through a very arduous
process with the ARB, which they no longer have to go through, also the Planning
Commission and City Council. I am very familiar with all of the studies that have to be
A:lPCMins6]pc6025.reg Page 31
06-25-97
done, the line of sight, the photographs from the Arastradero property, etc., and we have
followed with the Hopkins and the Altmans through their process. Their process has been
the same as everyone else has had in the OS zone.
My husband and I would like to go on record tonight as saying that every neighborhood
should be so lucky as to have someone like the Hopkins who are so sensitive to not only
the open space requirements, but also how the neighborhood feels about their plans. I
encourage each and every one of you to take a walk this weekend to Arastradero Park and
take a look back at our houses. In the seven years we have been there, our house has been
almost entirely .grown up with the oaks and other vegetation that we planted. If you take
a look on the right as you would be looking at our house, which is probably the most
visible to the open space, you will find a cluster of oak trees, and you will be lucky to be
able to see the comer of the Hopkins property peeking out on the left side. The fact that
they do not have more vegetation shows their sensitivity to what the naturallandscape is
for their lot. We live in an area where we have large, grassy open spaces, along with
forest-like oak sections that go down to Arastradero Creek and Arastradero Lake. So I
recognize by your comments that you made in the beginning that you don’t understand
our neighborhood very well. That is probably because it is so small, but please get
acquainted with it. Understand the history of it, and go and judge for yourselves visually
how you think it will be. We recommend that you approve the recommendations of the
staff. Thank you.
Chairperson Cassel: The applicants may now speak again for three minutes if they wish
to summarize anything.
Ms. Brul6: Mrs. Terry said a great deal of the things that needed to be said. This house
has been placed in a cluster of oaks that is quite large and will never be touched. They
are quite valuable to everyone from the Open Space district to the Terrys to the Altmans
and to the Hopkins. It has been placed in the flattest area possible in order to minimize
grading, and the grading that is being done is being done very carefully. The planting that
is being done after the grading is completed and the house is built is all natural. We are
doing everything to put the site back to its natural condition. There is a minimum amount
of lawn area and back yard area, but the rest of it will be put back in its natural condition.
If you like, John Aldrich can talk to that issue.
The house is simple. It is smaller than it certainly could be. The amount of grading that
we are doing is 1,000 square feet less than what is allowed. We have done everything we
can to minimize this home for everyone’s sake and still provide the Hopkins with the
house they have been waiting to build for over 15 years. So I feel that this is a sensitive
A:lPCMins61PC6025.reg Page 32
06-25-97
piece of architecture. It is sensitive to maintaining the open space views. It is sensitive to
the neighbors, certainly, and it was a lot of work to find a place for this.house that would
meet everybody’s needs. I believe it is in exactly the right location, and I hope you will
support the house this evening.
Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions by cgmmissioners? I have a question of the
architect. I know you are telling us that this is the flattest portion of this property, but I
did go out and walk this property, and I was struck by what I felt was the severe slope at
the site where this is being built. It is a very beautiful site for it, but the flatter area is in
where the oaks are and where the driveway is going to be. I looked at the story poles and
how high they were going to be, and I walked in that area. I felt there was quite a bit of
slope to that area. Yet you are telling me that it is the flattest part of this. I know it gets
even more severe as you go farther down towards the chaparral.
Ms. Brul6: The very flattest part is the open area adjacent to the house, as that will be
their outdoor area, and we are putting the house directly adjacent to that. So if you
walked the site and your back was to the Altmans’ house behind you, the poles were
there, and adjacent to that was the only area that comes close to being flat. The site is not
flat.
Chairperson Cassel: It is not flat at all.
Ms. Brul6: If you start to go down towards those oaks, you have conditions of trying to
grade driveways and getting the fire trucks in there, etc. and it becomes nearly impossible
to do so. You also create no fiat area, or you build the house where there is no fiat area
for outdoor use. So as you look at the model, you will see that we tried to site the house
against the trees, low enough that it is out of the Altmans’ view, and clustered in with the
Altmans’ and the Terry’s house, accessible to the fire trucks. It is very difficult to get that
driveway to work, and it does currently work. I think moving it down the hill towards
those oaks would not work. We tried looking at that at one point. It does provide an
outdoor area where we can keep it at natural grade as possible. This is in relative terms,
so be careful that you do not think we are building this on a fiat area.
Chairperson Cassel: So some of that grading is in the driveway area?
Ms. Brul6: Yes, that as Well, having to have that long flag lot and creating the fire
turnaround access. That is a great deal of the grading.
A:tPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 33
06-25-97
John Aldrich, 1602 Portola, Palo Alto: I am the landscape architect. The area that you
saw as being flat is about the flattest, but if the house were in that location, then the
driveway would take out a lot of the oaks, which is not allowable, per your ordinance. So
in order to have the driveway and the house and the open space, this is the configuration
that we came up with.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question for the landscape architect. In what is posed
as being paved or impervious surface, are you considering the use of something that
allows some water to go through, whether it be turf block or something that allows more
water to penetrate?
Mr. Aldrich: Because of the steepness of the site, we are using interlocking paving stones
to have less of an impact on the trees that we are near. That is only slightly permeable.
Ms. BruM: If you look especially at where the flag lot driveway comes in and the amount
of cross slope that there is there, if we were to try and use a material like gravel, which
would be nice, or something that is looser that allows that, we would have a huge
problem. It would be washing off, I think, so we need to be concemed with drainage, and
also making sure that the material we use in the driveway remains in the driveway. That
is why we selected the interlocking pavers.
Commissioner Schmidt: I did visit the site today, also.
Commissioner Byrd: I have a question for the city attorney. Has this environmental
assessment circulated for a sufficient period of time to enable us to make a decision
tonight?
Ms. Cauble: Yes.
Commissioner Beecham: Can you respond in more detail to the point that Herb Boroek
brought up?
Ms. Cauble: Yes. It is our interpretation that because the Planning Commission action
on this is advisory only, the time period for public review needs to be complete prior to
council consideration. We do ordinarily try to schedule the review so that it is fully
complete by the time it comes to the Planning Commission. Sometimes we are off by a
day or two, but it is our interpretation that the critical period for completion is to ensure
that all public review is complete by the time it goes to council.
A:lPCMins6[pc6025.reg Page 34
06-25-97
Commissioner Schink: Mr. Borock raised the point that it generally is required to have
the landscaping complete prior to final approval in the OS district. Is that your
understanding?
Ms. Grote: As far as the building permit is concerned, yes, it is generally city policy to
have all landscaping in place prior to finalization o,f a building permit.
Commissioner Schink: I did not see that requirement included with this application.
Ms. Cauble: If you look at Condition #23 in the long list of conditions Prior to Issuance
of a Building Permit, it does require the final landscaping and irrigation plans to be
submitted and approved by Planning prior to issuance of building permit.
Commissioner Schink: Are we to understand that that means it has to be installed and
completed prior to occupancy of the house?
Ms. Grote: Actually prior to finalization of the building permit. They would not be able
to occupy the house until they get that final building permit.
Commissioner Schmidt: I am not clear on that. Are you saying that they cannot get a
building permit until the landscaping is installed? ~ -
Ms. Cauble: They cannot get a building permit until the final landscape plans are
approved by the planning department. The building permit is not finalized, that is,
approved for occupancy, as per Condition #41, until all --
Commissioner Schmidt: Final.inspection is what you are referring to.
Ms. Cauble_: Right.
Commissioner Schink: So we might be able to make that a little clearer in our
deliberations.
Chairperson Cassel: I have a question on fencing. What kind of fencing is required? It is
not just black fencing is-it? There is a black chain link that now appears to be on edge of
the property. It appears to be a black plastic mesh fencing between this property and one
of the side properties.
A:lPCMins61PC6025.reg Page 35
06-25-97
Ms. Grote: We do allow chain link fence which can be either black-or green-coated chain
link fence. We have allowed that in other instances, as well.
Ms. Brul6: It is chain link, it is black, and it was a prefabricated finish before installation.
I believe it was installed about three years ago.
Mr. Hopkins: We did the fence together with the’Altmans about the time they were going
to occupy their property.
Chairperson Cassel: If there are no other questions by commissioners of the applicant or
staff, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the commission for our
discussion.
Commissioner Schink: I would like to make one comment on the cut and fill. I am a
strong advocate of approaching hillside development by actually cutting and removing
the material. A lot of positives occur when you do the excavation and you take the
material away. First,it allows you to inset the structure more into the hillside, which is a
real positive. When you are developing in the hills, you do not want to leave the material
there where it could become unstable. It is better for everyone involved to see it trucked
away. In this particular case, they are only talking about 140 trips. I do not find that to
be particularly significant. Part of the reason they are talking about as many trips as they
are is that they will obviously be using smaller size trucks. They could cut that number in
half if they used normal sized excavation trucks: They are clearly being sensitive to their
neighbors by using the smaller trucks, so in general, this is an excellent idea and is the
right approach to developing in the hills.
Commissioner Schmidt: It is obvious that the Hopkins have tried very hard to work with
their neighbors, and everyone is satisfied. As we saw earlier this evening, that does not
always happen. It is always very nice when that does happen. I think most of us feel that
it would be nice just to have open space in the hills and I guess have hillside houses, but
also, not build up there. Somehow those two things conflict a great deal.
This house is designed very well for the site. Indeed, from looking at the story poles that
are there, looking at the locations of the neighbors, looking at the contours, I think the
architect has done an excellent job of siting the house and taking advantage of the views
and the contours and land forms. I think the Hopkins will be very satisfied with the
house.
A:lPCMins61pc6025.reg Page 36
06-25-97
It would be nice if there could be less impervious surface. I don’t know if there is a way
to do that or not. Those are my comments for the moment.
Commissioner Schink: I share Kathy’s comments. I would just add that it is wonderful
and refreshing to see a true architectural expression. It is great that someone has gone out
and has used some imagination and creativity inst.ead of trying to recreate some Italianate
Village in this location. Hopefully, I am not offending anyone, as I cannot remember
what else is in the neighborhood, although I just built an Italianate Village. I like the
design here and you should be commended. I have seen the landscape architecture’s
work in the past, and it has always been excellent. We are fortunate that he is working on
this site, and he has done a good job here. As Kathy expressed, none of us likes to see
houses built in the hills, but if you are going to do it, I feel you have done an excellent
job.
Commissioner Beecham: My only concern on this is that I do not have a lot of certainty
on how visible this is from other areas. Certainly you indicate in here that this is not
visible from most locations. In other applications, we have had pictures presented with
the package, especially of the story poles from some different perspectives, to help us to
understand how it might be seen. I would encourage you to have those as this goes
forward to the City Council so that that can be a little more clear.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: As stated above, I did go out to the site, and this will be seen from
Arastradero Park. You can tell that because you can see Arastradero Park from the site,
and you can look right into it. The slope here is not 33%, so you do have some real slope
constraints. That does not mean that this is not something that is allowable on this site. I
am getting the sense that Owen expressed when he stated the desire to have larger lot
sizes varied based on slope. But that does not apply to this site as this site has already ¯
been predetermined. This seems to work for this site under the constraints we have been
given and that we are working with. It will be seen, and I don’t think there is any way
that it will not be seen, and I don’t think that that is going to be something that we would
build in, because if they do that, then they are going to lose their view. One of the houses
next to this site is up on a hill, and the building is being designed so that it won’t be
visible from that site. That is on a fiat area up much higher, and you won’t see that as
easily unless you were coming up from a very high position. It would not be easily seen
from the park. This wiH be, because it is on the slope, and it is in there and it is going to
be tucked in in such a way that it will be seen. There is no way, I think, to avoid that, in
fact, that is part of the beauty of the house for them is that they are going to be looking at
the hills as part of their advantage in building the house at this site the way they have laid
it out, of course. I would presume they would not want to put oak trees in front of it,
A:lPCMins6[pc6025.reg Page 37
06-25-97
because then, they would lose their view. I believe we are ready for a motion to move
this on, as I don’t think this violates any of the constraints of our Open Space District
Guidelines..
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I move the staff recommendation. My previous
comments were sufficient.
SECOND: By Commissioner Bialson
Commissioner Byrd: I want to congratulate you on being as responsive as you could
possibly be under the circumstances to the impacts on the immediate neighbors and to the
community at large. Your color choices and the design reflect a good faith effort to work
within the constraints of the site. I would go one step beyond the comments that have
already been made about the desirability of this type of housing in our foothills. It really
does not add a great deal of value for Palo Alto, but it adds an enormous amount of value
for the people who will live there, and I am sure you will have a wonderful quality of life
and a beautiful home there.
This is the kind of project and its size and location that causes me to want to continue to
try and add restrictions through our Comprehensive Plan and through other mechanisms
to ensure that the remaining buildable lots get built out well and that we see as little of
this in the future as possible. A 5,200-square-foot house on a site where we are talking
about challenges from an impervious surface up .in the foothills seems to me to be
excessive, but clearly, it meets the code. I guess if there are challenges here that are
caused by a subdivision that occurred many years ago, it is no doing of the applicant, in
fact, the applicant has probably done the best possible job to minimize the impacts. So I
will be supporting the motion.
Commissioner Ojakian: I concur with the remarks made by other commissioners. I will
also support the motion, but I want to reinforce what Commissioner Beecham said. That
is, the need, when this goes to council, to have some evidence and proof that there is
minimal visual impacts from this project.
Ms. Brul6: I recently turned in a photo board with fully mounted photos of the site, so at
some point, it exists.
Ms___~. Drote: Yes, I will look for that for the City Council.
Ms. Bialson: Do those photos reflect what would be seen from various trails?
A:[PCMins61pc6025.reg Page 38
06-25-97
Ms. Brul6: What we did was, we hiked down across the way from where this is and shot
up towards the house. I believe the poles were up, and it was mounted so that you get a
360 ° view. The photographer took the pictures in sequence and then mounted them
together.
Ms. Bialson: It is only from one perspective, though.
Ms. Brul6: No, is is from various points. We turned it in quite awhile ago, but I believe
he really hiked the hills, and I think there are four or five locations and a little site
drawing showing where they are taken from.
Chairperson Cassel: The public hearing is closed, and I don’t think this is going to make
a difference in the way the vote goes.
MOTION PASSES: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor,
say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 7-0. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hookins: May I also say thank you for your very kind words. We appreciate it.
Chairperson Cassel: Good luck with your project.
A:tPCMins61PC6025.reg Page 39
06-25-97
ATTACHMENT 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency :
Site and Design Application;
Variance application to exceed maximum impervious
surface coverage on the lot
City of Palo Alto Planning Department
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Contact l~erson anct
Phone Number:
Project Location:
Application Numbers:
6. Project Sponsor:
Jerry Haag Contract Plan.ner, (415) 329-2441
920 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto CA
97-D-2
97-EIA-4
97-V-11
Anderson Brule Architects
160 Santa Clara St., Suite 500
San Jose CA 95113
o
General Plan Designation:
Open Space/Controlled Development
Zoning:Open Space (OS)
Description of the Project: Proposed construction of a new, detached single fmnily dwelling
on an existing parcel of 2.6 acres. The dwelling will consist of 5,220 square feet on three
levels with a 3-car attached garage, swimming pool and exterioi decks. The building site
is an existing parcel, a portion of a previous tentative tract map, and has an irregular
"flag" configuration, with a relatively long and narrow driveway (approximately 280 feet
long and 40 feet wide). The bulk of the lot area is located behind the driveway. Access is
Files 97-EIA-I 1, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
I-1
10.
proposed to be via a new private driveway off of the cul-de-sac terminus of Laurel Glen
Drive. The site is presently vacant with a relatively steep downslope (approximately 34%)
into a ravine below the parcel. A variance has also been requested to exceed the
maximum 3.5% impervious surface on the lot to provide for emergency equipment turn-
around space and a circular drive to ensure vehicular safety.
Surrounding Land uses and Setting: Surroundir,ng uses include single family residences
south and west of the site with vegetated open spaces to the north and east.
11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): None
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated.by the checklist on the
lbllowing pages.
X
X
X
Land Use and Planning X
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Water X Noise
Air Quality .X Public Services
Transportation and
Circulation
Utilities and Service
Systems
X Aesihetics
X
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation
Files 97-EIA-11,97-D-2, 97-V-11
I-2
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
! find that although the proposed ~roject could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A NIITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)’on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
(2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
E1R, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
X
Pro:
~.lto Planning Division
Director of Planning & Community Environment Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answ.
ers 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 i~s general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
Files 97-EIA- I I, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
I-3
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-sit.e,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required. ,
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than
Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain
how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,
"Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)
(3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinance.s). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and othersources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested format, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
Files 97-EIA-I 1, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
I-4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in
the vicinity?
(e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
1,5
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or
local population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing?
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
1,4
1
5
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
a)Fault rupture?
b)Seismic ground shaking?
c)Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential
2 X
2 X
2 X
Files 97-EIA-I 1, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
I-5
d)Seiche, tsunami,,or volcanic hazard?
e)Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g)Subsidence of the land?
h)Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
2
2
2
2
X
X
x
x
x
WATER. Would the prop.osal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?.
related hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality, including but
-1)Changes in the amount of surface water in any
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
tlu’ough direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
;) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality through
infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water
runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban
or industrial aciivities?
1
1,5
1,4
X
X
X
X
X
X
Files 97-EIA-11, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
I-6
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water 1 X
supplies?
i)Alteration of wetlands in any way?5 X
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:¯
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an exi.ting or projected air quality violation?1 X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 5 X
Alter air movement, moisture, orc)
temperature, or cause any change in climate?5
i) Create objectionable odors? 151 I I I
6.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?4
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.b)
~)
X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))?
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses?
l) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
4
6
4
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in:
X
X
X
X
X
X
Files 97-EIA-I I, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
1-7
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to plants,
fish, insects, animals or birds)?
~) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration ~orridors?
3
1,5
X
X
X
X
f. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the,proposal:
/a)Conflict with adopted energy conservation 1
~-,~I l~ nnn-r~new~hle re.~ources in a wasteful 6
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known 1
mineral resource that would be of future value to
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal invoh’e:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited 1, 4 X
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
3) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?1
:)The creation of any health hazard or potential 4 X
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 4 X
potential health hazards?
X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush, grass of trees?
10.NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a)Increase in existing noise levels? !
Files 97-EIA-11,97-D-2, 97-V-11
I-8
b)Exposure of People to severe noise levels?1 X
11.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new
a)Fire protection?4 X
b)Police protection?4 X
c)Schools?1 X
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including 4 X
roads or storm drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?4 X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems
b) Communications systems?4
c) ’ Local or regional water treatment or 4 X
distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?4 X
e) Storm water drainage or storm wate.r quality 4 X
control?
f) Solid waste disposal?4 X
g)Local or regional water supplies?4 X
13.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a)Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?5 X
b)Have a demofistrable negative aesthetic 5 X
effect?
c)Create light or glare?5 X
14.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)Disturb paleontological resources?,1, 5 X
b)Disturb archaeological resources?1, 5 X
c)Affect historical resources?1, 5 X
Files 97-EIA-I I, 97-D-2, 97-V-I I
1-9
d) Have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area?
15.RECREATION. Would the propqsal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
1,5
,,b)Affect existing recreational opportunities?17 5
X
X
X
X
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality oI tl~e enviromnent, sut)~tmmm~y 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
co .n’matmity, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
envirotmaental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
X
X
Files 97-EIA-11, 97-D-2, 97-V- 11
1-10
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial .adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIK, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c)
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
.~I.?~?.;~,,~ ÷h~ .~;~;~,~t;,~n m?~l~ro~ xvh~t-h xv~r~, in~ornor~ted t~r refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project.
Authority: Public Resources ~ode Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrorn v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofffv.
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Comprehensive Plan/Comprehensive Plan EIR
2 Geotechnical Report for the site, Henry Justiano & Associates, October, 1996
3 Tree Surx;ey for 920 Laurel Glen Drive, Mayne Tree Service, March, 1997
4 Consultation with other City Departments
5 Site Visit
Files 97-EIA-11, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
1-11
Review of submitted development plan ’1
Files 97-EIA-4, 97-D-2; 97-V-11
1II-12
19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
3(a-c)
3(e-f)
4(a)
GEOLOGY
Palo Alto and San Francisco Bay region is subject to potentially significant seismic
activity, including fault rupture, groundshaking and seismic ground failure. Although
not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Seismic Study zone, the proposed
residence would be subject to ground shaking which could be significant. However,
the geotechnical analysis for the project has recommended a number of construction
techniques, as well as compliance with the Uniform Building Code, to ensure that
potential seismic impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance. Approval of the
project will be conditioned on the implementation of these methods.
GEOLOGY
The geotechnical report indicates that the surface and underlying geology for the site
is adequate to support the proposed new single family dwelling.
The possibility of erosion from storm water exists, which could degrade surface vcater
quality in local bodies of’qater. However, standard condition of approval DC10 will
be applied to this project, which will require the developer to prepare and implement
Best Management Practices during site construct to minimize storm water run off to
acceptable levels.
Mitigation Measures: None required
WATER
Construction of the proposed residence, including associated driveways, decks,
swimming pool and other impervious surfaces, will increase the amount of stoITn
water run-off leaving the site over existing, undeveloped conditions. As required by
standard conditions of approval SBP 22, SBP 23 and SBP 24, the developer will be
require.d to prepare a grading plan for approval by the City.
Mitigation Measures: None required
Files 97-E1A-4, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
III-13
6(a)
7(b,c)
10 (a,b)
TRANSPORTATION
Occupancy of the proposed dwelling will add incremental additional vehicles to Laurel
Glen Drive and other collector and arterial roadways in this portion of the community.
However, Laurel Glen Drive has been sized to accommodate the additional traffic
generated by the proposed dwelling.
Mitigation Measure: None required
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A tree survey for the property was completed by a qualified arborist. The site contains
many oak and other mature tree species. Thirty trees were identified as being near the
proposed drive access into the site from Laurel Glen Drive, including coastal live oak,
blue oak and valley oak. Of these, three Blue Oaks and one Coast Live Oak would
need to be removed to accommodate the drive. No other trees would need to be
removed for the project, although corrective action is recommended in the report for
several 0~her of the trees to ensure healthy growing conditions. The project will be
conditioned to provide adequate on-site mitigation for the trees to be removed and to
preserve other sigfiificant trees on the site. Standard conditions of approval IBP 3 also
requires posting of a tree preservation bond to the city.
Mitigation Me,a’sures: None required
NOISE
Construction of the proposed dwelling will increase noise emissions for existing
residences on Laurel Glen Drive and other nearby residential s~reets. Typical noise
sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading
and noise of constructing the dwelling and accessory structures. Such noise will short-
term in duration and would be mitigated by standard City conditions of approval DC7,
which limits hours of construction. Once completed, long-term noise associated with
the new dwelling would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are
anticipated.
Mitigation Measnre: None required
Files 97-ElA-4, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
I11-14
11 (a-e)
13 (c)
15 (a)
PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed project will incrementally increase the need for municipal services, such
as police, fire, schools, solid waste and maintenance. The project will be conditioned
to ensure that adequate mitigation for’public service impacts are obtained through
payment of required school fees, installation of fire protection and security devises as
may be required by the Police and Fire Departments and payment of other fees and
taxes to the City for maintenance of public facilities.
Mitigation Measure: None required
AESTHETICS
Construction of the proposed dwelling will add a new structure in a primarily open
space area. However, the lot proposed for development is the last vacant lot of an
approved single family subdivision and other homes have been constructed on
adjacent lots. The potential negative effects of the home on scenic vistas will be
reviewed by the Plamaing Commissi6n as part of Site and Design Review.
Mitigation Measure: None required
AESTHETICS
The proposed addition of a new single famiiy home on the site will add another source
of night lighting with a substantial open space area which is largely devoid of such
lighting. However, the project will be conditioned on minimizing exterior lighting,
installation of cut-off lenses on light fixtures and appropriate placement of lights to
minimize the potentially negative effects of new light sources in this area.
Mitigation Measure: None required
RECREATION
Construction of the proposed dwelling will incrementally increase the demand for park
and recreational facilities in this portion of Palo Alto. However, the dwelling will be
occupied by a single family so that the number of future’ residents will not be
significant.
Mitigation Measure: None required
Files 97-EIA-4, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
II1-15
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, DATED JUNE 10, 1997, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT
OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 920 LAUREL GLEN DRIVE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND
AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEP,~EIN.
Applicant’s Sign~ature
.L,/1o/
Date
Files 97-EIA-4, 97-D-2, 97-V-11
1II-16
ATTACHMENT 6 City of Palo Alto
Depa~t of Planning and
Com~nunity Environment
Open Space Development Criteria
(Adopted by the City Council on October 20, 1986)
PlanningDivision
=
o
The development should not be visually intrusive from public
roadways and public park lands. It should be sited so that it is
hidden from view as much as’possible.
Development should be concentrated, or closely grouped, in relation
to the area surrounding it. This is consistent with the "cluster
principle" whicti makes development less conspicuous.
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.
Where grading is needed to enable the development to blend into the
natural topography, it should, nevertheless, be minimized to prevent
erosion.
Large, fiat expanses of impervious surface should be avoided to
reduce the need for ~ut and ftll and to reduce potential runoff.
Buildings should use nittural materials and earthtone or subdued
colors.
=
10.
Landscaping should be native species which require little or no
irrigation (except immediately adjacent, to structures as a fire
prevention technique).
Lighting should be low intensity and shielded from view from
sur.rounding public points (road and parks).
Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character
(standard curb, gutter and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent
with the foothills environment).
Ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Aito’s
Open Space District regulations.
c:\pbhndout\openspc.hnd 250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 109_50
PaloAlto, CA9’4303
415. 329. 2441
415.329. 2240Fax
ANDERSON B R ULI~ARCHITECTS
Hopkins Residence
920 Laurel Glen
City of Palo Alto
OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Project Descdption Letter
3/27/97
1.The building is not visible f~om any public roadways. The development is only partially visible from
Arastradero open space and there is a oak forest on the north side of the property blocking all
visibility. The house is below the ridge except for a small area of roof over the study.
2.The building is grouped in one area making the development less conspicuous.
3.The building mimics the ekisting terrain by stepping down it. Landscape elements include a dining
terrace, a pool terrace, and a terrace between those elements. These terraces and the rooms in the
residence step up and down on the site to pick up elevation changes of the natural terrain. The
retaining walls, to form these terraces, are a maximum of 4’ tall and are hidden by native shrubs. ¯
From the open space, these terraces will not be seen.
4.The grading scheme utilizes cuts into the existing soil and then placing the residence and terraces into
this cut.
5.The largest impervious surface is the pool area and is-located on the naturally flattest area. There is a
lot of square footage of impervious surface in the driveway, but this is a flat lot with a 250’ long flag
that uses up the largest portion of our impervious surface limit.
6.Concrete walls and cement plaster wails will be colored to subdue the impact on surrounding land.
7.Landscaping will use native species of shrubs to soften impact of development, control erosion, and
repair the existing plants. Most of the lot will not have any changes to the existing vegetation.
8.Lighting in the landscape will be shielded, low voltage (and low intensity).
9.There are no access roads to this site, to arrive at this property you must take Laurel Glen.
10.See # 7 above.
Page 1 Of I Architecture, Interior Design & Planning
p ~hopk ns~doc es a r~ 70 27 do~na~e~rs~n~rlul]e ~,~c~ ~elc~s, J~c. ~ 60 V~es[ Santa Claro Street, Suite 500 San Jose, California 95] ] 3
Tel: 408 298 1885 Fax’ 408 298 1887
ATTACHMENT 7
925 Laurel Glen Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304
February 22, 1997
Mr. and Mrs. David Hopkins
954 Laurel Glen Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Dear David and Rosemary:
The Laurel Glen Estates Architectural Control Committee has reviewed your
plans for the house you wish to construct at 920 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo
Alto. I am pleased to report that the Committee has approved your house
plans, dated 2/14/97, as submitted. We wish to commend you for your efforts
to design a house that will blend into the environment and be aesthetically
pleasing. We look forward to having you join our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
William E. Terry
on behalf of the Architectural Control Committee
ATTACHMENT 8
February 22, 1997
Mr..and Mrs. David Hopkins
954 Laurel Glen Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Dear David and Rosemary:
Thank you for reviewing with us the plans for the house you intend to build
on the lot next door to ours. We are pleased to endorse these plans and look
forward to having you join our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
William and Jai~ Terry