HomeMy WebLinkAbout0531.0001
1
' .
• o ~.
. , '. :. "'~. ,.;;'
October II, 1990
HDNDRABl E CITY COUNC! l
falo Alt~, California
Site, and Design AppHca .. t=-i"o"nc-=.=-.9",2,,',--,laurel Gler:J Drive
Members of tne Cou"ti':
~ort ill Bdef
o
T~js application is for site an~ design approval of a request to construct a
two-story, single-family resldence and pool an a 2.49-acre, Open Space-zoned
site located at 924 Laurel Glen Drive, im the Palo Alto foot~ills. The
original application was approved by the (it~ (ouncil on Jul$ 19, 19B3, but
the approval lapsed.
rlis application was continued from the (it~ (owncil meetings of April 16,
19~O and May ]4, 1990. The applicant requested tne (ontinuance t~ revise the
project design fn response to neighbors' concerRS about its Ylsual impacts.
'1o."n;"9 Commission Actt911
The Planning Commission reviewed the application on Marc~ 28, 1990 and voted
unanimously t~ reccmmend approval of the appTication~ InclQdea i~ tneTr
action were some modified conditions of app~QvaT. These modifications
fovolve~ ilTowing a delay im i~stallatioo of portions of tne required
landscaplng provided erosion control measures ~ere installed (Condition No.
10). and el;~i"ation of a (onditfon ~h;c~ required written approval fram
neighboring property owners of lands~aping proposed along the east property
line (previous Condition No. II). A ~ore detailed description of the project
is provided i~ the attached Planning Commission staff report dated Marc~ 23.
1990. The Planning Commission's actlon is furtner described in tne attached
(ity ~a,.ger·s ,taff report dated April 12, J99D.
Revisfons J.!!.. __ the Prolect
The applicant has made i numher of revisions to the proposed project in
response to neighboring property owners' concerns about its visual impacts.
The most sfgniffcant changes to the pTans were made to tne lfwing room wing of
the house located O~ tne east side of the proposed nouse. This portTo~ of tne
hOGse was conSidered to be the most ~isible to neignboring properties located
CMR:53J:O
1 rT 9 hi a. elf,]' /5<:
'.'
JO/JJ/90
Poge 1
"",~.' " .
','.' ~"" ..
-
•
\
,/
_. ---"--. ---...;....;.---........ ~
o
Ilong ~Pger laurel Glen D~ive to the south and east. 1he height and floor
area propo$ed in t~ls area was reduce~ in response to-~oncerns expressed from
some of these neighbors. A substantia' amount of additional screen land
scaping was also proposed' a10n9 the pr{)'pi!rty's south ar'Jd east property lines..
The ch3nges to t~e project are as fcl1o~s:
8u1141ng Changes
Roof 5t~1.: [hanged from gable roof to a less steep hip roof (roof pitc'
changed fro~ 5:12 to 4:11).
Bul1'iog Heights:
Height of the bignest portion of the upper living room wing
reduced by l.S feet at the b;g~est peak and 3.5 feet at the
iverage helgM (mfdpoiI'Jt of roof),
Hefght of the remaindEr of the l;~lng room wing reduced by 1 feet
from the peak and 6 feet at the average heig~t, and
-Hefg~t of the bedroom and (am~l~ room .;ngs reduced between l to 5
feet at t~e peak and at t~e average roof he;g~t.
floof' Area:
-Elimination of J,17C·sQuare-foot loggia (~4in level),
[li~inatfcn of l,166·sQuare·foot conservatory (maia 1e~elJ,
flim;nation of 231·square·foot exerci~e roo~ (lower level)?
-£lfmi~ation gf ~70·5quare-feet of basement irea (lcwer level),
Addition of 41 square feet to the garage,
Total living area reduced fro~ 1],109 square feet to 8,53l square
f •• t.
Other BuIlding Cnanges:
Mai~ entry relocated to tne nortn to be screened fro~ view.
ElimlMation of the fire place and c~imney previouslJ proposed i~
t~e conser~atory.
flflllfnation cf the main le .... ·el deck located off t"-e 1 hing room
(180 sq"are feot).
CKR;S31:0
lr1g1oa.cmr/sc
10/11/90
Page 2
• •
• • o o
~eductioD in building height and e1imi~aticn of the tDfiSer~at~ri
also resQlt in loss of 1,720 ~quare feet af second floor
eQuiwalent (iir space} in the li~ing room ~ing.
l~ndstape and Site Flan Changes
-Increase in the number of oak trees and ~ative evergreen shrubs
proposed along the sO'!..lth and East property lines {7 additional
trees, 125 additional shrubs} and a substantial nUDber of
additiona1 evergreefl f'1aUve shr\.Jbs on the remair.der of t~e site
(301},
-length of the front ~al~ reduced (le~~ 397 square feet of pa~ing).
$u~stitutl0n of c~mbination turf block and j~terlocking pavers for
t~e asphalt portion of driveway.
Addition of a c~afc link fence along south. southwest and north
property lines to p~otect np.~ vegetatiofi from deer and p~ovide
securlt1 for t~e pool~
-Pool patio en1arged {+422 squar2 feet) and terraced.
Reduced building footprifit (1~s5 1,12S square feet)~
-Net reduction of L038 square feet of fn:perv10us (overage
proposed.
The applicant has met ~th surrounding property owners indiyidua111 to review
their concer~s and discuss the revised project plans and has provided letters
from the majo~lty ~f these neighbors indicating their approva1 of the rev1sed
,7ans. Copies of these lelters are attached.
Staff considers the re"lsed pl ans to be an irr,~ro ... .ement over those pre'l'iously
submitted. but .. ouTd' note that el irninatior; of the remall'ling clerestory located
above the 1 hing room could further redtAce He tunaing lu:dght arid visl:lal
impacts ~thout i further reduction in floor lrea~ It is recognized, ~owaver,
that an~ development of t~is site ~ould be visible frDm pro~€rties to the
south and ~ast, and t~at the location of the 5tructure is great1y constrained
by site topograp'hy and spech1 buildlng setbacks which were estab1i$hed' at the
time of a.pproHl of the s'Jbdl'4''is~on wfl~c,," created Uls lot. Special bi.rt1d'in9
setbacks WEre originally €stablished by the City along the so~tn and east
propertJ li~es as J ~ans of reducing the .isual impact of f~ture development.
(I\I\:S31:0
lrlglna.cl)\c!s<;
ii~'!i:ri·
.. <:'~:~ .. "S_"~ -:.....,
10/11/90
Page 3
•
\
•
,,'.
•
\.
l-
1.·~~~~1£~L~~c_~-,--':'_:~_~_~ _/ _______ -.~~'-. _,~ ___ ;
--
o
Re-co lJ!l1 en dation
Tbe Planning Commission and staff r~commend appro~al of t~ls site and design
application subject to the fQllowing fipdings and conditions.
findings!
t. That the project will not ~a~e any significant enviro~mental impacts, i~
t~at the project is designed to ~;~i~ize grading, and dfsruption of site
soils and r~tail e~lstin9 trees;
2. The proposed design will be order1J. ~armonious~ and compatible with
eX\$Ur,g Of' potential !Us.es of adjoi"ft1"ng pro'pert,~ ir.t. ttlat the propose\!
use and improvements will be sirnflar to other ~ses i~ the area. and
measures ~ave been incorporated into the project t~ screeR the project
from adjacent Bses,
3. The project will maintai~ desirability of investment i~ the same O~
adjacent areas. 11 that tne required on-site improvements and
la~dsciping and constructfo~ standards go~erned by the current Uniform
Buildiog Code (UBC) or cther current codes ~ill assure a ~igh Q~a1ity of
deve1opment;
4. lhe proposed desfgn will obser~e sound princi~Tes of environmental
deslgn and eCGlogical baTa~ce. im that the selected location and
concentration ~f the ne~ structure and improveme"ts limit disruption of
the slte and ~easures incorporated fmto t~e project design will help to
mimlmize eros fan and belp to offset ~isual impacts;
5. The proposed Ilse 'Wi 11 be iJ accord wi U the falQ Alto (ompre1'!ensive
'lan. im that the proposed residential ~se and re1ated improvements
ccnfcrm to the intent of the O~en Space ... ContrQ11ed Development
designation to allow lfmited res;de~t;il developme~t on larger sites to
~in;mile pbysicil impacts of ~evelopment_
Cond'itiol'ls:
I. Tne new reSidence shall meet ill pertinent requirements of Tit1e 24.
State Energy Code.
2. A detailed grading and draiMage plan s~all ~e submitted to t~e
Department at Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of
i building per~it. All roof drains shall outfall to pa~ed surfaces o~
drainrock. or other pr~tected arEiS. approved ~y the Department of
Pub11c Works. Construction detiils fer the percolation trenches s~all
be submitted ~t~ the detaiTed dral~age plan.
C~R:531,O
lr191n •. c~rJs<:
i
IO/JI/90
Page ,
• •
•
• <
!-~
..
.,
•
I
-
5.
6.
8.
,-
o o
All topsoil from areas to be graded s~al1 De removed and stockpiled for
re~use after grading is completed.
~raded slopes shall be stabilized ~y reseeding ~;th a rye griss
wil~flower mix and ~$e of staked jute mesh (flameproof Jon percent
bfodegradab1e) •
All grading and develGP~ent O~ the site shall confo~m with all aspects
of the project soils report recommendations. The project s~11s
Engineers wi11 be required to certify that the grading ~lS ~cne in
accordance 'With their recoiM':endations~ prior to finalizaUon of the
building permit.
No grading sha11 be J:'.ermHted ouring the rainy s.eason {October IS -
April 15} ~ithout appro~al of the Public ~orks Department.
A~ automatic fire spr1n~1er s~stern and fire hjdrant will be requlred for
the residence~ Se~arate permit and plans m~st be re~fewed by the fire
Oepartment.
The r1ew structures shall conform witt\ ;;.11 the requirements of Appendix
f.~ as amended ... of the cun'ef1t Uniform fire Code for strudures in. tne
hazardous fire area. A (Tass ·A~ or equivalent fire-retardant roof wilT
be required.
Site grading and construction activities sha1l comply wit~ the
recommendations contained ir] the project's ,.I!.rborist reports. In
addHion t il lice,"lsed Arborist s~al1 be present during grad'ing acthitJ
occurring w;t~im the drip lir.e of the twa speCimen oaks located next to
t~e r.e~ resjdence~ to assure proper protectlon and pruning of tree
roots. A Tetter conffrmfng compliance with t~ls conditiQn snall be
required from said Arborist prior to final inspection of the new
structurE' •
10. Prfor to issuance of a building permit, submit a detailed landscape plan
and irrfgation pl an to the Pl anning Department for revie"w' arrd approval ~
The revised ~Ja~ shall include the COil~O~ and botanical names of all
s.pecies (.Isecf. llLOll;ber~ size, type, locatiJn and spadng of all plant
materiils~ The plan should also include s.pecifications for ma!ntenance
of the exfstlng oak trees during construction and recommendatl0ns for
soil mixes or other measures need to prevent erosion and assure adequate
and co~tinu~d coverage of denuded slopes. Implementation of the
approved landSt:ape p1an sl'1all comp1y'With the folloll/ing:
The ~omplete landscape p1an shall be installed prjor tD issuance
nf an occtlpancy perl1lit for the residence, unless drought
conditions continue ar~d d€ferfa1 nf installation of l portinrt of
thE! 1ancls..caping is approv£>d by the Phr,ning Department yith filture
Cl1R;53J:O
h1g1na.cmrjs.c
lO/lIj90
Page 5
•
"\ -,
•
/
, :'
o
i~sta'lation guaranteed f~ a manner acceptable to the Citl.
Tne portion of Streen landscaping {Including ne~ trees) to he
locited ~itMi~ t~e 30-foot setback from the sautherR propert} line
and approved erosion control measures fo~ all dfsturbed portions
~f the site shall be installed prior to October 15 of the
cnnstruction year.
~;nor modifications to t~e plan ~ay be made during ;m~Tementation
subject to the F1ann1ng Department's approval.
11. The gravel driveway shall be compacted to s"pport 33,000 pounds.
12. Exterior llg~ting s~al1 be high efficiency. low lllum~nat1cn~ lo~
fntensity ind low height fixtures designed and located so is to ml~imize
~lsib;lit, from nff-site.
Respeo(f.l1j su~itted,
;;;I~~
~enl0r 'hnn.rlll.l.~ ~I ~~~
~[NNEIH R. SCHREIBER
Oirecto~ of Planning and
Community Environment
Assistant Cit, ~aniger
Attachmel1ts: City Manager'. St.ff Repert dated April ll, 1990
Plannlog Commission Staff ~eport dated ~arc" 23, 1990,
[neluding Excerpt Planning Commission ~inutes of 3/28/90
tetters wt~ list of Changes to lne Project prepared by
cc: .Appl icant
the Applicant's Representatives
letters rro~ Neighbors
Plans (Council ~ember5 On11)
Photos (Council ~.bers Onl,)
Property <hiners
landscape Arc~itect
~;d-PeniAsulJ Regional Cpen S,ace District, r/a Del Woods
Nonnette Hanko
P.la Alto root~ills Homeo~€rs Association
Amy Chan, 938 laurel Gl.n Dri,., Fala Alt. CA 94304
Mr. Pelzani, 950 laurel 'len Dri~e. Pale Alto C~ 9~3Q4
Mr. and Mr •. Terrl, 925 l.urel 61en Drive, Palo Alto CA 94304
Sharon Bogerty. 951 laurel &1eA Drive, Pi'~ Alto CA 9~304
John ~oc\, 2S23 Alma Street, P.lo Alto tA
CMR;S31;O
1r191 ,..cmr/sc
10/11/90
fage &
•
\
•
I
I
•
-.
,
~' -.
~ " , .
-~~ , ,,\" . ,
April Il. 1990
HormRABu CITY COUNC Il
Pa10 Alto, CaliforGia
924_1aurel GTe~ D"ive Sit~ __ and _~_~_~_r} ____ ~£~tLQ_~
~mbers of the Council:
$_~ __ c:J~g_ro u n d
TRis is a reapplication of a p~e~iouslJ appro~ed application to construct a
11~IOa square-foot, two-story~ sing1e-familJ residence. pool and related s,te
improvements O~ a 2.49 acre site located ;~ tne Palo Alto foot~llls~ The Cit,
Council approved tne previous application on JulJ 18, ]983. The approval
lapsed because a building per~it was not obtained wit~in the required t~o year
perlod~
In.e proJect site is one of U,e ten lots of the Graham
was appro\led 'by the (it] Counc.il on A'Jgust 13, 1979.
subdi~isiQO became part of the ArastraaerQ Open Spa~e
Planni.rJ9 (cmrtl5ssion __ ~lktTon
r.ullen subdi,ision
One lot Df tfrds
Pres.2r'~e.
whic"
The Planning CommIssion considered t~;s application at its meeting Qf ~arc~
28, 1990~ and unanimously recommended approval subject to conditions. JR
taking tnelf action~ tne Commission modified staff recommended ~ond;tfons 10
and 13. and eliminated ~ond;tion 11 (refer to att~~ned PTanning Commission
staff report dated March 23, 1990 and the conditi~ns 11st ~hich follows i~
this report witk c~anges underlined).
Condition number 10 was modified to alTo~ for delay i~ installation of
portions of the required landscaping if necessary erasion control measures
were 111stalled and hture il'lstalTation of the Jands..caping: was guaranteed.
These c~anges were made to reflect the applicant's request for greater
f1exibjlitJ la the timing of landscape installatfon? the neighbors' con~erns
about need f~r ~ore immediate ~reen Tandscaping and t~e
Commfssioners'concer~s about nerd for erosion ca~trQT measures.
The Commission voted to eliminate ~ond;tfon number lIt which was a carryover
from the list ~;te and aesign approval~ The condition in~olve~ compliance
with i requirement for approval from specifTc neighboring property owners for
any land>caping t~ be located wit~ln ~ special lS-foot setbact establi~hed
along the east property 1 ine at the time of the subd'i:"lsion approval. The
CMR:150:0
•
\
~Mi.-
{:.> .
o o
Commission voted to eliminate t~fs condition because they considered it to be
.a ,private matter betweer:; propnty o.mers and not a condit'fon the Citjl' must
enforce~ Subsequent ttl t~e Commis~, 'i·o" meet ;ng~ staff researched the original
subdivision files and t1as determi.fed that this condition was not {lriginalty
imposed by the Council, b~t was~ ia fact. part of a private agreement. Staff
therefore agrees that the condition should be deletea. Prjer to the Planning
Conmission meeting. the applicant t\ad' obtained appro'w'a.l frorn. all of Ue
identified propertJ owners ~it~ t~e e~cp.ption of one who lives outside the
country and ~ho ~ad endorsed the substantially similar plans for the
previo'JslJ appro .... ed aprl ieat iOfl.
The fo1lowing conditions ~ave been renumbered to ref1ect the elimination of
thfs condition.
Condition number 13 was modified to require site lignting to be of low
imtensity and height to reflect Commission and neighbors concerns t~at the
impacts fr~m any site lighting be minimlzed.
Reco~_'§!ndatf_()_!!
The Planning Commissfc~ recommends approval of the site and design application
subject to the following findings and conditions.
findings:
1. That tne pr~ject ~ill not have any sig~if,cant en~ironmantal impacts~ i~
tAat the pr~ject is designed t~ ml~imlze grading, and disruption of site
soils and retai~ existing trees;
2. The proposed design will be order1J. ~armonious~ and compatible with
existing or potential uses of adjoining property, 1m that the proposed
"se and improvements ... ilT be sir'Rilar to other uses in the area, ancf
measures ~ave been incorporated into the project to ~creen t~e pr~ject
from adjacent uses;
1. The prr:rject will maintain desirabnity of investment i~ the same or
adjacent areas. in t~at the required on-site improvements and
landscaping, an~ construction standards governed by the current Uniform
Bullding Co.':fe (UBC) or {)ther cur-rent codes "ill assure a bigh quality of
~evelopment;
4. The proposed design will observe sound principles of envlronmental desjgn
ana ecological bal ance, ill t"at (he selected location and concentTition
of t~e new str~ct~re and improvements limit disruption of the site and
measures incorporated into the project design wi11 help to minimize
erosion and help to offset wis~al impacts;
5. The proposed use will be iD accord with the Palo Alto Compre~en5;ve Plan~
i~ t~at the proposed re)idential use and related improvements conform to
the imtent Qf the Open Space ... Cantrolled Development designation to
~11ow limited residential cevelopme~t On larger sites to roinirnrze
ph~sical impacts of developrnent_
CMR:Z50:0
ITlg1en
--
~/I1!90
-/-
-"~tj'~n :~
>*.;" '; t' -
•
'---a~'
L
,
I
t
-
o
Cand it ; ons:
t. The new residence sha1l ~eet ill pertinent requirements Qf Title 24,
State Ener'9Y CoOe.
2. A detailed grading and drainage pran s~all be submitted to t~e Department
of Public Works for rewie~ and approval prior to issuanc~ of a building
~ermit. All roof dr~;n5 5~all outfaJl to paved surfaces or drainroci, or
other protected areas. approved by the Department of Puhlic Wo¥ks.
Construction details for tne percolation trenthes shall be submitted with
tne detailed drainage plan.
3. All topsoil from areas to be graded shall be remDwed and stockpiled for
re-use after grading is completed.
4. Graded slopes shall be stablilized by reseeding wit~ a rye
grass/wildflower mIx and ~se of staked jute mes~ {flameproof ]00 percent
biodegradable}.
~. All grading and deve10pment on the sitE shalT confor~ with all aspects of
the pr~ject soils report recom~en~ations. T~e project soiTs engineers
~ll be r2Quire~ to certify t~at the grading was done i~ accordance with
their recommendations~ prlor to fi~alfzition of tne building permit.
5. No gradi~g snall be permitted during the rainy season {October 15 -April
15J wit~out approvil of the Public Works Oepartment.
1~ An automatic fire sprinkler syste~ and fire bydrant will be required for
the residence. Separate permit and plans must be re~lewed b1 the fire
Department.
8. The new structures sha1l conform with ill the requtrernents ~f Appendi%
[siS amended~ of the current Unjfor~ Ffre Code for struttures ia the
hazardous fire area. A Class ~A~ or equi~alent fire·retardant roof will
be required.
9. Site grading and construction activities shall comply wita the
recommendations <ontained in t~e project~s Arborist reports. rn
addition. a litensed Arborist shall be present during grading acti~ity
occurring within the d~ip line of the t~o specim€~ oaks located ne~t to
the new residence, to assure proper pratectlan and pruning of tree roots.
A letter confirming compliance with this condition shall be required fro~
said Arborist prior to final inspection of the new structure.
10. Prior to iss~ance of ~ building per~it. submit a detiiled landscape plan
and irrigation plan to the Planning Department for revie~ and appro~al.
The re~jsed plan s~~ll include the common dnd botanical names of ill
speCies ~s~d. numb€r. size. type, location and spacing of ill plant
~aterlals. The ~lan should llso include specifications for mai~tenance
of the existing oa\ trees during construttion and recommendations for
soil mixes or other measures !'1eeded to pr.~'lIent erosiQ_~_and issure
adequate and continued co~erage :J denud~d slopes. IJ!lf!Jem~ __ r1Jation sf the
~PlJrQ \(e~Ll~_n c!s~_~ ____ £Jniin'! s ~ all c Q_rTl.E.ll:_ wi tJ~_~ ___ J.o 11 OW1"g: -
CMR:150:0
1.1g1,o
, .
I~_e compJetl? ____ ~')dsc_ii_P~ __ p_J..i.!!.2:~all ____ ~_~in~staJ.~Jl_T5nQr to issuance 01
E._r1_(l_<:cu.P.an<::J ____ .P_~ _ _"'mi tnfo!, t~g ____ ~t~enc!!. _u_~J ess drought cond_i_ t fo_ns-
•
• _ '-l
t ~;:~~~.
1
~"; ,., .. -.
:~~ <
;
t
f
I ,
f
~ ~ ,
L,
ir-.
I~ .
[ r
t
~ .
" ,
t ," ~ ,-
> I
,.
l-
f
I r
f
. ,
, ,
I
lI'·'·,·····.···', .,
. • l
,
IL
12.
o o
E!!. n t ; rHle a ~4 _____ <t e f ~n:_a 1 0 F ; n s t a 11_~J5 on 0 f.......!...QQ_rJJQ_~_~_L!.~ __ ~ J._c1 __ r'!_<:f_~_~_ap} __ rl_g
t~ ______ a __ ppro~e-d by He PJ ___ ~ __ ~.~_~_!.::!ment ___ ~_ith (IJ.ture lnsta:1lation
guannteed ___ ~~ ____ lnantlEr ar.:cept~ __ ~1e ___ J_c,--the C,t~
I~_~ ____ portJ_()_tI of ~reen-landsc~.2~JJncl u_1 __ L~9.....ne~ ___ J_"-"_t=; __ ~_~~ to be loc~ted
wH"h lb_~ 3D-foot se~bad. ____ fTOill_J_~_~ southern prope.r:!1 ____ .. dne ~'!_~
~~ed erQ.~J.Q_~ __ c::g_'.'ltrol measure~_ for __ ~Jl dist.~bed PQrttQ __ r1 __ ~~f..J. __ h_~ ~ i te si'iiTIbe ; ns t aJJ~_J?_.rJ.Q!.._JQ Dc tq_~_~T __ --.l? _____ ~J ____ ttl __ ~ ______ (on s t ruet l on ye ar.
~inor modifications to the pTa~ may be made during if!1p __ lem€nt~JJgn
subject t(l the Planning Department's appruval4 -----
The gravel dri'.'e .... ay s1oral1 be compacted' to support 33,000 'pol.lnds~
Exterior lfghting s~a'l be bfgh efficiency. 10v illumiMation. low
intensity and low ~ei9nt fixtures designed and located so as to mlDimile
wls1bilitl from of -s1te.
~espectfully submitted, /alaL tkmt/, ~'1/d7~' ;(:':J:A''';A~
.' SARAH CHENEY tI'
Sen10r 'Tanner
)\~ ~~tant Cit1 ~anager
rENNET~ R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachments: rTanning Commfssion Staff Report dated ~arch 23. ]990
Letters fr;m Adjoining Property Owners
Photos (Council ~ember5 only)
Plans {Council members only)
c(: Applicant
Propert:.. Owners
la~s.tape ArcMtet:t
Mid-PeninslJh. Regional Cpen Space District, c/o Del llIoods
'Nannette Hanko
Palo Alto foothills Komeowners Association
MY C~an~ 93S laurel S1en Od .... ~. Pa111 AHo tA. 94304
rtr_ Pezzani. 9S0 laur~l filer'! Driye. Palo J\1to CA 94304
~. and Mrs. Terry. 925 Laurel S1en Drive? Pa10 Alto (A 943~4
Sharon Bogerty. 951 lau~el G~en Drive. Pal~ Alto ~~ 94304
Jonn Xoct, 2a23 Alma Street, Pila Alto CA
CMR:250:0
1r191en
4/12/90
-..
~'''IIIIIi''''''''''''=''''''r=-.~ ... -.-: -..,.---~'.-"'~-'-.. -.: --
L... "-
;",.
-.,.
•
·-.. '
" ,
o Ut~ 01 Tato )lito 0
, , II.?I l~"~()
Udl .~lO C. ~O(lJ
le: PALO ALTO Pl~lHG CCKMISSIOK
flL£ NO", 89·0·25
PREPARED BY, Sar.h C •• neJ
DATE: M,rc~ 23, 1990
PIIOJ(CT lNFORII.I.T!OM,-__
location:
Applicant:
PIIOJ£CJ_ ~",M",I\,I.=Rr,--____ _
---'---
924 laurel t1en Drive
Allen ~. Skogsberg
P. O. Bo, 4003
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
M.r. and' li'tr5. Vernon Al tman
1269~ 'icc1n~ ~oad
Los Alto. Hill., CA 94011
Approval ~f Site and Oe)ign application to
cot'lstr;Jct a 5 fng1e-family residence
Reapplication of a previousl,-approved application to construct a
1),100-square-foot, two-story. single-fami11 residence, pool and relatEd site
imprQvements on a l.4S acre site Jocated in the Pa10 Altc foot~ills_
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend' appro~al of the s,te and
design application subject to the flnd~~9s and c~nd~t~ons 'i$t~d en pages four
through seVe:1.
SITE lJiF0R.ilAl,",-'"",ON",-____ . ___ _
~.rcel Size·:
AS5_~_ss.or's Parcel Number::
[xistfn9 lon5.E.3:
Comprehensive flan
DeSlgnaHo~:
[xist,n; Land Use:
Surr~und)ng La~_~s~:
2.49 acres
181·!4·5
os~ Open SpacejContro11ed Developmf~t
Open Space ___ C~ntrDlled De~elDpment
U"de~eloped sing1e-family lot
Unde~eTope~, single-family lets to north and
east. exist,ng s,ng1e-familj residen<e to
southeast and AristraderQ Open Space Preserve to
the soutk and ~est
July 15, ISS3; Polo Alto (it, Council appro,ed
site and design application to c~nstruct a
lI~lOO-so.uare-fDot. ho-story ~,ome ard pMl .at
'" '-i::'~ -\.'
;~!!~J' ..
-:---
•
.'
i , f •
." ....
I ,)121' ~~~ ____ ~" _" ____ ~ ____ > __ ----'-_"~_':: __ ": __ "~" __ ~~_~_.'~_"",*",_--"'_
-' --,--
(;) (:) t~is site. The applicant d~ot file for a
buH:Hng permit wit"fn the required tlllO 'years and
the appro~a' lap~ed4
Awgust 13, 197~: The City Council approved the
fiMl subd;~ision map for t"-e Gra"aill~JoIullerl
s~bdi\'s~On, i lO-lot subdivision wit~ six lots
at Ue i'nd of laLlrel Slen Drhe. UreC! lots at
the end of Alexis Drive and one remainl~g lot
~~i(h beC3~e part of the Aristra~ero ODe~ Space
Pre Sf" rve ~
Man~_i!!9T y Ac tj 0 n _~ __ t~.t~l :
EFl\/"iro~menJ.~J. ___ ~~
f-s s-e __ ~ __ s_rT1_~nl <;
Site Desc..QpJ.fg~
An hitfal Study recommending a negative
decTar~tfon is attached.
Tl:lis sHe is an ;rregu1arly~shaped parcel located at the far ... est end {If
laurel ~len Drive. The site is an unde~eloped westerly tn southwesterly
slo~ing rTdge~ The proposed de~eTopment is locate1 a10ng t~€ crest and upper
flanis of the rIdge area, ~ardering two large e~istjng oak trees. Site
vegetation consists of chaparral, grasses and oak trees~
Specific development restrlctinns were placed ~n the 10t as a condition of the
subdiyisfon approvi1~ A 75-foot setback was established along the
southeasterm border of the 51te. prohibiting an1 improvements. 9rading or
changes in the natural terrai~ within this area. A further restrictiDn
pro~iblts the location of any principal structures within the portion of tne
site at the crest of the ridge (identiffed is BSBl on Attachment 3). Vritten
approval frem ill surrounding: property owners is req'Jired to allo ... the
proposed land~ape fmpro~emer.ts within the 75-foot setback. Both the
immediate neighbors to tne east {the Ccleman~s) and laurel 'len Estates, and
t~e Arc~itectur.l Re~Te~ Board approved tne proposed landscaping with the
7S-foot setback at the time of the last approval a~d again for this
application~ The applicant must still obtaln approval fro~ the otner property
owners before the City (oune; 1 acts on He project. The appl icant tlas
contacted these property owners and expects to provide written approval from
tne~ at the Commission r.eeting~
The project is ~ two-story. IJ,lOO-square-foot residence wit~ six-tar garage
(t~ree tan6ern s~acesJ. pool and spa. Ac(ess ~ill be provided from a
230-foot-}ong gravel drivewa1~ and turn-around area in the ~ore 1evel portion
of t~e site wltA a steeper~ shorter isp~a1t connection ta the garage arei_
11.f;!s ign (onc~..!
Site topography. combined with tree locations and the increased setbaCKS and
development constrai~ts p1aced ~n tne site at tne time of the subdi~ision
apprcvill lIave largely determir1ed He building locatio:'). The U-shaped~ stepped
.ltm,. 3/23/90
sc -2-
_~"I111/_,"',\,"I"C~"' ---:~~ ==~
,:;,-~' --! . -.",.;. -"""'-
'--t:ff~i§~~r ,"
. ..~ .. :..~
I:
I
l
, 4-: •
"
•
.-.
... '. {~",:~~ "-,:-~~~ . • ,~-::-r-l~~:H '" .. f:~ ;. ':::." ;.....;.;<'""-;..;.-"-""-o.~-~·--·~~~~'·~"··c"'''..;:'..,,~~'-./::i':-....... -.•. "''' _'""""""""C"'·""~I·
~ • r '. ~r .. I q .
':1 down ,la", WdS designed to rrnnliJllZe remollil of trees. site disruption, 'risual
,-impacts and amount of gradir.g. The driwe~ay ~as bee~ caref~)11 aligned wil~
" the slope to reQ'J'ire minimal grading and retail! all existing trees. The house
J ~as been situattd to take ad¥antage of the screening ivailatle (ro~ two
~~ specimeQ oats locate~ to the sout~ and southeast Qf t~e house and pool_ The !
.~ U-s~aped design was chosen to priser~e and feature a large specimen eak, w~lc~ t
,~ will be locited in t~e mid'dle of He proposed patio. ,
I
-
Tbis applicatlon is a reswb~tttal of a site and design application
previausl.J-apprlJ'oIed bj' the (it,. Council iro! 1983_ The project ls identical to
t~e p~ewious appilcation ~ith the following Exceptions.
Minor revisions ~a'ole been ma~e t~ the rOQf design to go from a 3:12 to a
5:12 pitth to accommo~ate ~se of t~e concrete tile roof_
The ~atio benind the home ~as been enlarged; t~e pool reconfigured and oil
new spa prop~sed west af t~e pool.
One existing oak tree will he removed instead of relocated, with five
box eaks to he provided to offset t~e loss of t~is tree.
-~ino~ changes hawe been made in the proposed landscape plan as
recommen~ed ~y staff to eTimi~ate use of inappropriat~ species.
Additional oaks are nc~ prnposed instead of the birch and a5~ trees.
BecausE of difficulty i~ directing all storm run-off to the street, tfie
proposed drainage system ~as hEen redesigned to make ~se of percolation
trfnches at outfall locations.
Ardite.cttira' St,le/Design
The propose~ building is of (ontempQrary sty1e. The proposed building
~aterials have been se1ected te blend with the natural surroundings. Tongue
and groove redwood siding ~ith a semt-transparent stai~ is propos~d for the
mal. ~tructure with soli~ manogany to be used for exterlor trim and mill ~o~l.
The roof is to be a brown concrete tile_ Exposed aggre9ate w;11 be used for
the patio. fhe applftant will pra~fde material samples at the Planning
(ommission meeting. Space heating is to bE solar (it passi'ole s~hr
conser~atory is ~ part of the house design) wit~ two bac~-~p systems. Some
outdao~ lighting is prcposed~ primarily around the mai~ entry and ~it;o areas.
This lighting will be hi~h efficiency. lo~-il1umination fixtures_
landsupjoll
The landscape plan calls for t~e addition of 53 new trees, including 33 caks_
T~ree Qf the oaks are to be 36-inch box sp~cimens and two are to be 24-fnc~
box specimens to pro~ide a marE immediate wis~al scree~, and to offset the
removal of one existing oak.
Special meisures ~ll be required to assure the continued hea't~ Df the oak im
the ~atio area and another existing oak located just sout~ of t~e eastern wing
Df the bowse. Compliance ~it~ the recommendations ~f the Arborfst's report to
protect ancf ,prts.ene these trees is proposed" is i condHion (If project
ipprovil~ f~ addition it is recommended t~at an arborlst be pre~ent during
excavation activities o(c~rrjng ~ith;" t~e drip lines Df either tree to issure
prDper cytting and protection ef tree roots.
il tman
sc
.'
\
'-
•
r~~i~;;:.·.
";-,';'," "-,'
.:.."
. -'
-
. ,
'.0'
o
r~e 5ubstantill number of trees are proposed to ~rovide a new wis~al Screen~
The lI1ajo("it,)' of these are to be located irlto Ue south and eist of the
str~ture. Many includin~ t~e box ~ak5 w)ll be located within the 75-foot
setback ta help scree~ t~e new residence from _iew. Use of ornamental species
is ]f~ited to tne area aroun~ the immediate perimeter of the ~ouse.
Planting af native grasses (a rye grass and wildflower mix) combined ~itn jute
~esh is p~oposed to stabilize all disturbed areas~ A low preci~itltiQo
frrigation system ~sfng I combination of stream rotor heads and drip
irrf9atio~ is pro,osed.
The neighbors to the east {the Coleman's) ~ho wilT be most ~jsuallJ impacted
by the new str~(ture ~a~e appro~ed the proposed land>caping.
Qrc:111age
The project ~ll increase impervious surface area on the site by ]4,170 square
feet. equivalent to 3.4 percent of a ]O-acre site. A pro~1sion of the
subdiwision map creating t~is lot~ per~itted t~is site to ~ave a maximum
amount of fmper~;ous surface area equiwalent t~ 3.5 percent of ]0 acres.
Orl,~age is to be dfrected to pave~ areas w~ere it will be collected in catch
basins·or area drain inlets and dis(~arged ;B percolation trenches located
downslope of t~e house. The preliminary dralr.age plan is acceptab1e. A final
drainage Jlan iocluding details for the percolation tre~ches will be required
for approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
§.~adiE..9
lnstallltion of the driveway~ residence~ pool and related terraces will
require removal of apprDxfmatel, ],800 cubic yards Qf site $011 and placement
~f J~70~ cubic yards. i nearly balanced c~t and fill.
[1 s ~ a 1 JIn~~.fl
The ne~ house and related improvements will be screened from adjacent
res14ential lots by existlMg a~d proposed trees+ The ~ou~e will be fairly
well screened from properties and the portien of the Arastradero Preser~e to
the north and northwest, but ~,ll be more !xposed from the sout~ and
s~utheast. It is cdUcal that the oaks to the-soutllJ of tne pool and eastern
~ing of t~e ~ome be saved+ Retention of these trees ~he~ combined with tne
$cree~ing effects of the substantial number of new trees proposed shoul~
provide sufficient screening of the residence over time.
RfCOMl1£NDA TlON_ .... _____ _
Staff recommends tnat the Plannlng Commisslo~ flnd:
t. That the proJect will ~ot have an1 $!gnificant enVironmental impacts~ i~
t~at the project is des;gned to mi~imile grading, an~ disruption of site
soils and retala eXlsting trees;
2. The proposed design will be order1,. ~armonious. and compatible witft
eXisting or potentfal uses Df a~joiain9 prop€rty. in that the prDpo~ed
~se and improvements ~ill be similar to ot~eT ~ses i~ the area. and
measures ~ave beeA incorporated iDto the project to Screen the prGject
frnm adjacent uses;
a.ltman
"
·.>L----
':'.-. +.',
3123/9~ ,4,
•
•
'.'
•
\ \ .
.'
~
,
,
!
i ,
5
-
3,
. ' -
-..
o
The prQject will ~aintlin desirablllty of ;n~estment in th~ same or
adjacent areas, f~ t~al t~e required on-site improvements and
Jandscaping. and construction standards 90~erned by the (urrent Uniform
Building (ode (UBC) or ot~er c~rrent codes ~il1 assure i hfgh Quality of
developmerlt;
4. T~e proposed ~esjgn will observe sound principles of environme~tal design
and ecologicil balance, ;~ that the selected Jocation and (oncentratiDn
~f the ne~ structure and improvements limit dfsruption of the site and
~eas~res incorporated f~to the project design will ~elp to ~i!irnrze
eros;oD and ~elp to offset ~;sual impacts;
5. The proposed ~se will be in accord wit~ the Falo A1to Comprenensive Plan,
i~ t~at th~ proposed residential use and related impro~ements conform to
the intent of t~e Open Space~ Controlled Development designation to
allow limited residential development on larger s,tes te mi~imlze
p1Jysic.al impacts of developr.-.ent: and
Recommend approval of tne site and design application, with the fol)o~ing
conditions:
t. The new resldence s~a11 meet all pertinent requirements of Title 24.
State Energy (DO-e.
2. A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be submitted to the Department
Df Public Works for re~i€~ and appro~al prior to issuance of i building
per2H~ All roof drains sl1a11 outfall to pa~ed surfaces or drainrod:.. Of'
other protected areas~ approved by the Department Df Public Vorks~
3,
(:O'lst rue.! ; on creta H s for the perea 1 atiofl t renct1es shall be submit ted wH~
the detailed drainage plan4
All topsoil from areas to be graded J shall be removed and stockpiTe~ for
re-~se after grading is completed.
t. traded slopes s~all be stablilized by reseeding with a rye
griss~ildfJower ~i% and ~se of staked jute mesh (flame proof 100 percent
bi o<fegr.~' b 1 e),
S. All gradj~g and ~e~elopment on the site shall conform with ill aspects of
the projec.t soils report recommen~ations. The project soils englneers
will be reQ~ired to certif1 that the grading was done in accordance with
t~elr recommendations, prior to finalization of the building ~ermit.
6_ Pia 9·rading shall be perillitteli during He ra;~y season !October J5 -Apri]
IS, without approval of the Public Works Department.
7. ~ automatic fire sprinKler system and fire ~ydrant wilt be required for
t~e residen~e_ Separate permit and ~Tans must be re~;ewed by the fire
{)epartll'l€nt.
8. The new structures shall conf~rM ~it~ a11 the reqUirements of Appendfx f
JS amended, of the current Uniform Fire Code for structures 1ft the
lIazardou5 fire area. A (lass .". or equh'a1.ent ffre retardant roof wi)]
be requ j red.
a1 tlllan
>C
3/23/90
-5-
•
\
rtt; it: :'"
~'
l , •
!
( ,
~ -.
}
I
i • I
I
f
I
I
I ... _-....
,
•
•
t , ,
"
o 0
9. Site gradi~Q and construction activitfes s~all tempTs wit~ the
recommendatfons contlined fQ t~e project's Arbor~st rtports. I~
additfD~. I Ifcensed Ar~rist 5~alt be prfsent during grading actly;t,
occ~rring wit~il t~e drip line cf the two specimen oaks located ne~t to
the new resfdence~ to assure proper protection and pruning of tree TootS.
A letter confinlling c,·,.,liance wit/la t";s condit ion shall be required from
said Arborist prior to final fns~ection of the new $tructur~.
]0. Prior to iss~ance of a bu;lding permlt, sub~it i dEtailed lan~scape plan
and irrlgation pTa~ to t~e Planni~g Department for review and approval.
T~e rewfsed ,lan shall include the common and botanical names of all
species used. number~ sfze~ type. 10<ation and spacing of all plant
~aterials4 The plan sho~'d also include specificatfons for maimtenance
of t~e existing oa~ trees during constructlon and recommendations for
sotl sTxes or other ~easure$ ~eeded to assure adequate and continued
coverage of denuded sTopes. The approved Jandscape plan s~all be
iRstllled prior to October 15 of the construction year. ~inor
modifications to t~e plan ~ay be made during installation, subject to the
Planning De~artment~s approval.
ll. ~ritten approval from the surrDunding property owners for the proposed
landscapfng with;. the 75·foot restricted setback area s~alt be obtained
prior to City Council revIew.
]2. The gravel driveway shall be compacted to support 33.000 pounds.
13. {xterior li~~tin9 s~all be 'igh efficiency. low illurni~ation fj~tures
designed and located so as to minimize wisibilitJ frc~ off-site.
ATTACHI!£IITS ------------------~----
£I,t.
locaticD Jlfap
~ap of Site Set Baco. (Attacnment 3)
Applicant's tetter
tetter from Adjolafng Propert, Owners
Plans (Commissioners on1,)
Pbotos (CommiSSioners oDly)
COP I ES_S£_NT~ ___ _
Applicant
PropertJ .owners
landscape Arc~ltect
~id·PenfQ5~1~ Regional Open Space Distrftt. c/o Del Voods
Nonnette .Hanko
PiJ, Alto foot~111s Homeowners AssO(iation
illtman
S<:
3/Z3/90
. i ~
----......--~-~~-. . L
;t,r
:~
-
" •
1
-
•
/
o o
LMvironmental Documents -City of Palo Alto
Project Descriptiorv'Title: Site and Cesis)1. Appllca't:ion for sinqle-ta:nily residence in the open space district __________________________________ _
~ocati~n/Address: 924 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto. CA
sponsoring Agency/Applicant: Allen H. Skogsberg
Address and Telephone of Applicant: ,P~.~O].~Bo~X~4~Ot2~)~~~~~~c===== (S05) 543-2095 _________________ Ean Luis Obispo, CA 9~'03 _____ _
Application for: Site~~~d~o~e;sr=i~g~n~-~._~~~~~-~==CT>=~~~,_~~. {e.q.~ zoning change# subdivision of proper-ty. architectural review, t:se
pennit)
Zoning at Project Location: os Fee Receipt No.: _______ _
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Based upon review of the project files, the undersIgned member of the Plan
ning Department has concluded:
l!"r Jregative Denc:::)a!,.ation: The project has no signIficant environmental im
pact. No Environmental Impact Report is required. ~he reasons for a
Neqative Declaration are: in the attached init~al study. A reco:r-d oJ
project acti~1} is available Cor rev.ieW' at the Palo Alto Department of
Planninq and COm1nunit~y.! __ r~~ent located at 25,0 Hamitton Aven,ue. 5th
!.loor, Palo Al ~o.
I_I An Enviro~-
Planning Director:
The ~roject has
The project has been denied.
Revised 8-1-79
'317/12
I J
Oate:
Date:
File No.: 90-EIA-14
90-EIA-14
1
o
2. ~i!. Will t~. propos.1 res.a 10:
i. Substlntial ~;r t~issfons or deterio~~
tlon ~f ambient lir qUilitJ?
b. The ~reition of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration Qf air ~Dvement, moist~re
temperature~ or any c~ange 1. climate~
either 1~1111 or regiona11
3_ W.ter. Will t~. propo •• l ro •• lt in:
I. (hinges 11 absorptfon rites, drainage
patterps. or t~e rate Ind Imount of
surfact wat~r runoff?
b. A1teratlons to the tours~ Q~ flow Qf
flood wahrs?
c. Disc~arge iata surface witers~ or in any
aTteratfon of surface ~ater qUI' it"
including but not )i~ited to temperature,
dissolved o~Ygen or turbidit,?
d. Alteration of the direction Qf rate af
flow cf ground waters?
e", EJeposure of people or ,prc,pert] h w.ater
related flazards such is flaocicg Dr
tidal wa ... es?
f. (~ange fl t~e q~~~tit1 of ground ~t!rs.
either t~rough ~irect additions Dr wit.~
drawals~ or through jmterce~tions of an
aquifer by C~t5 Qr excavations?
c. Pla~t tife. Will the prepoSil resglt rl~
o
.L
a. Change im the diversft, ~f s~e<;es. or ~
eh90I~.
St;
Durn~er Df any specie$ of plants (includ-
f~g tr!es. s~rubs. grass. crops •• ;cro-
flora and .qu.tic ,lants)?
b. Reduction cf the numbers cf anJ unique.
rare or endangered species of ,1,nts?
c. Introductfo~ of new specfes of ,lants
lDtc a~ area, or il I barrler t. the
nermal replenishment of exfsling species?
d. Reduction fI acreage If 1111 agrfultuni _
crop?
.... illlllllli;":,~ ... ~~~LI"""'·· ... "':_O,!,,! -.-----.-,,-.~-'
~" ,!;t,·
'~-~~ .>;
_ ..
1
..L
I
I
_L
9C-£lA-I(
2
•
I
--
'.
o
S. A~imil lif~. Vill tht pro~csll resu1t ia:
). thange in the diver51t1 af sp!cies~ ~r
of any species of ani~als (birds, land
an5mals including reptiles, fis~ and
s~ellfls~, ~ent~i( organisms, fnsects or
microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numhers of any unique,
rare or ~ndangerEd species cf animals?
c. Introduction of new specfes of animals
imto an area, or res~lt il a barrier tc
the ~lgratfon or ~ovement of animals?
6. Deterioralfon i~ e~lstin9 fish Qr wild
life habitat?
6. ~oise. Will t~e ~rcposal res~lt ;;:
I. I~creises in existIng noise levels?
b. Exposure of people tQ severe noise
levels?
1. light an~ Glare. Will the proposal pro~"c.
tlew-119M glare?
S. ~nd O~e_ Vill the ~roposal res~lt fa a
sub~tantfal alteration of the present or
planned land ~$e ~f in area?
9. £ner9y(Naturil Resources. Will the prGposal
resI!1t ia:
I. Yse cf substa~tiil amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantfal increase i! demand upon
ex\sting sources of energy, cr re~uire
the development of new sources ~r
eneryy:
c. Increase i~ the rate of ij~ ~f any
"at ural resources?
d. Substantill dep1etfon of any nonrenew·
ab1e naturil resource?
10. tisk cfl1jlset. Does the propos.1 iovolve •
risk of an explosion or the release Qf
~azar~ous substances (incl~d~ng, but not
lf~ited to~ cfl~ pestiCides, (~emfca's or
radiation] i. the event ~f an accident o~
I.Ipset?
.i.90Ha
S(
. ".L·-.
.
'~
o·
_1_
90· U ... • IC
3
\
•
,.'
I
-
o
11. Pop~l~tiQ"/Haus1ng.
I. Wilt the ~o~osll alter tbe lccition~ ~
distribution, dens;tJ, or gro~th rite
Qf the buma~ pO~ulltion of in are~?
~. WIll the propos.l .ffect .xistin;
!tolJshtg, or" crute a demand for addi-
tional 1'Iousing?
12. Transportat;on/Circu'itiQ~. Will thf proposal
result h:
I. Ceneration of substantial ,ddition~l
vebicul.r ~o~ement?
~. Effects on existing park;ng ficilit;es~ ~
~r demand for new parking?
c. A1terations to present patterRs of
cfrcuhticH'] or mo· .. ement of people and/
or goods?
4. Increase 18 traffic ~a2ird5 t. ~otDr
vehicles, ~icyclist5 or p'de~triins?
13. Public Ser~ice5. ~ill the proposal ~ive in
effect ijpon, or resalt i. ) need for ne~ or
i'te~ed governmental serV1CtS fl 1~1 of the
fe11\)-';n9 neas:
I. fire protection?
b. P~llce protectlon?
c. S<:.haals.?
d. Parls or other recreational (at,1itfes?
e. ~.imtenance of public facilitfes~
including reads?
f. at~er governmental services?
14. 01;1;li05. VflJ the ~ropo$.l r,s.lt fl • ne.d
for new systtms. ~r substintial .Tterations ta the
following ut1Titjes:
eii9014.
SC
a~ Power or naturil gas?
t. Communications systems?
_1_
90·[1 ... ·14
C
J
--... "-",
1
•
I
~ ...
I
J
I
-
•
o
c. Va-ten
d. Sewer Dr septfc tank?
t. Star. water drainage?
f. Solid waste and dfsposal?
lS. ~uman Hea1t~. VilJ t~e proposal resalt i~:
a. Creation of any heaith ~azar~ or
potent,a1 hel't~ halard (excluQ)ng
"ent.l health)?
b. (Kpcsure of people to potential hei't~
IIazard's?
16. Ae5t~etic5. Will t~. proposal res.lt ;, the
obst,uct;~n of any scenic wista or view
open tQ the publfc J or ~il1 the proPQsal
res~lt 1& the creation of an I€sthetical',
!IIffensilie s;te open to p"ubl ic "lew?
11. Recreation. Vi11 t~e ~ro~o5al rtsalt 1ft an
impact ~pon the Quality or QUintitJ Gf exist
iog recreational opPQrtunlties~
19. Cd' tl:J_~~.t Res-ources.
.io90l~.
SC
i. ~ill the proposal resu1t in the altera
tion ef/or the destructlcn of i
prehistoric or .is[or1C arc~ae01ogical
site?
b. Wtll the prQPosal resu1t i~ adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to i
prehistori( or ~15toric bui1din~~
structure;~ or object2
c. Coes the proposal ~ave t~e pote»tial
to causes a phisical change ~7C~ would
affect unique cultural _alues2
If. Will the proposal restrict e~i5ting
religious or sacred ~ses ~thll the
potent iiI impact area!
0
YES AAYSE 110
..L
..L
..L
1
..L
L
_I-
L
L
L
90-E1A-14
S
•
\
i<$"
"-
i
"
. ,
o
19. ~andatory Findings ~f Sfgniffcance.
I. Does tbe project have the potential tG
degride the quality of the environment.
substantl.ll, reduce t~e ~abit.t of •
fish or ~ildl;fe species, cause a fish
or wildlife populot!o, to drop below
self-suttii.fng levels. t~reiten to
eliminate I ,lant or animal communit,.
re~uce the number Qf restrict the range
af a raTe or endangere~ plant or animal or
elimir.lte lmportant examples of the ~ajQr
perfods of (aliforaia ~istcr1 or prehfstorl?
b. Does the project ftave the potentfal to
ac~ieve s~ort-term, to t~e disidvantage
of long-term. environmental goals. {A
short-term impact O~ t~e environment is
one ~ich occurs j. a relatfvtt, brief,
def{Qitive period ~f time ~h,te Tong-tera
impacts will endure __ well fnh the !.tliTi!.)
<. Does the project ~ave impacts W~i'R Ire
lnd'~id~illJ lim'ted~ but cumuTitively
considerable? (~project ~il impact OD
two or ~ore sepirlte reso~rces ~here the
impact on ~ac~ resource is relltive1,
small. but where t~e effect of the total
~f those impacts on the environment is
.'s·Hie<nt.)
d. Ooes the p~Qject ha~e en~lronmentil
effects vhic~ ~ll cause substintfal
adver$~ effects on human beings. either
dfrectll or fndirectT,?
,~ (xpTanatioD Df ·yes· answers in enyfronmental checklist.
See ottached.
r~~\iJ'}
. ~~: :"~~~-~
90· EIA.· \C
6
/
0-
~~~.e,f' (art.. (onstructfon ~f t~e new house. po~l, patio and drlveway
~ill dlsrupt site soils and topography. Proposed s1te gradicg will iD~oT~e
approximately 1~800 cubic ~ards of cut and J,700 cubic Jirds Gf filJ~ The
~ajorjtJ of t~e cut soil Wilt come from tne removal cf apprDximatel, five feet
from t~e top of t~e 'ill to creat. a pad for the hoys.. T~ •• ajoritJ .f t~e
fill will b •• s.~ to cre.te a le.el patio are. t. the west of the house. T~.
size of the proposed bouse is large relati~e to the 2.49 icre s;te and the
proposed grading w111 cover apprQximatels one third af the site.
The house and driveway ~ave been located to align with the ex;stfog tcpography
to reduce need for grading and tree removal. Tne ~se of retaiaing ~al1$, site
land~caping and the proposed drainage plan should liRfmfze potential fer site
erosion. The landscape p1an includes reseeding disturbed sOi1s ~ith a rye
grass wild flower ~i~ im combi~ation ~ith staied jute ~esh.
Tne site is lO(ate~ in a seismic area ~f ~o~erite ~ist. subject to very strong
ground s~aking in t~e event of an earthquake. NJ landslides or fa~lts ha~e
bee~ mapped in the near YiclmitJ of the site. Tbe closest a~tive fault trace
to t~e subj~ct ~lopertJ is the San Andreas fault .~ic\ is ~apped is being
located].S lIiles southwest of the site. h addition traces of the 8errcc.al
and ~onte lista fauTts ar! mapp~d as being located 2/3 and 3/4 of a mile fro~
tne !ite 9 respective1,.
The ~ew house and improvements .ill be subject to compliance wit~ the
;rovisions cf t~e current Uniform Building Code. ;crtions ef~hich are
direct~d it reducln; exposure tG selsmic risk ind loss Df life and property in
the event Df an earthqua~e. Site develop~nt ~ll a1so be subject to
<om~lfance ~tM the recommendations contained ;1 the pr,ject~s soils report
prepared by J(P &eolog1st (ngineers. [nco dated "ay 26. 1983 and soils report
update prepared September ]t, J989.
3 C.l Water. The prBject will add apprQ~1mateTJ 14.770 square feet of
impervlous surface area to the site. The f!lcrease h imper'tious <c .... erage on
the site will fncrease site runoff. The prelim;"a~l drainage Flan calTs for
directio~ sf all drainage to (attA basins Dr Irai. i!J~ts ~hic~ will convey
the runoff to percolation trenches located ~thil the down sTope area around
t~e peri~ter of the ~ouse. A detaTled drainage plan vill be required for
reV1e~ and approval pr10r to application for i building permlt_
C fa' 'lant life. The project will re~uire remo~al of one existing oak tree
and ~ll be bUllt close to two large specim!Q Daks~ Tne application includes
an irborist report (letters from Herbert fong. licensed arborist, dated
Novem~er 6. 1989 and December 25, 1989) detailing the specific measures need~~
t~ assure the co~t;nued health of these two trees.
One of the ~ats ~11 be located ~thfa a proposed concrete patlo area.
surrounded b, a IS foot diameter ,1anter~ Spec;.l ~eisures including li~iting
construction actf~itl and grading withi. t~e drip line ~f the tre~ and
creation ~f gravel aeration c~annels and vent ,ipes radiating frem the e~ge of
the tree FTanter are proposed t~ protect the tree and ~ai.tafl ~ecessar)
aeration and drainage for t~e tre~ roots.
Jl~other doub1e-trunked ~al is located just nort~west or t~e souther. ~ng of
t~e proposed house. Jhis tree Is f,f.eted with a le.f and twig blfg~t and oak
,it scale. ~eccmmended prunfog and spraying ~ave bee~ done t. CDrrect t~js
...... ,,"' -;-.
90-[IA·le
7
•
\
, -,--• .$
i.
I
f
r
I
•
':"" I'~ ~?~'>.
.~ "
,
\ , ,
" \
•
.. -..
•
-' \
/ .
,.., ",-..,--~ ... ----.:",~.r--~---"~"'-"l
o 0-
probTem. The arborist re~ort recommends that e~cavatfon damage to the root
syste~ cf t~is tree not exceed 30 percent and that pruning be done to offset
the fmpact on t~t root system. Use of a retail 109 .all and ~odifications to
the foundatjon desfg" {use of I pier foundation rat~er tha~ 51ab} are also
proposed to .ilimfze griding fmpatts DO the root 5yste~ of t~fs tree~
The tree protection measures (ontained fl the arborist reports are
incorpor~ted i~to this document by reference and are reco~nded as conditions
~r prmject approval. 1ft addition ft is recommended t~at I licensed arborist
be ,present during any grading acthft, occurring with]. the drip 1 ine of He
two above ~entfcned oak trees t~ assure proper protection and pruning of tree
roots ~
fift,-three additional trees will be added to t~e site including ]0 Ja11es
Oaks and 23 live Oaks. Tbree of these will be 36·inc. box oak' and two will
be lC·incb box oaks. ~hlc~ are proposed to mltigate the remo~al Dr the one
oil~ The new caks 1Mll be ;Taced to hel, sc!ee~ t~e new rEsidence from rfew.
As ~ost ~f t~e ornamental trees proposed ~ill be located vit~ln the immediate
perimeter Qf the house. t~eir use fs considered acceptable for the foot~l]Ts
setting. Provislon Qf numerous shrubs and ground covers will also be
provfde~. and flammable brush 15 t~ be cleared back to a lO-foot distance from
the house.
5 (dl An;~al life. Constructlon of I reSidence on a r~cant 'illside lot ~ill
elimi~ate some of the wfTdlife habitat ~ow existing Q~ t~at portion of the
sltt_
6 fa) Noise~ The project ~ill generate temporary construction noise.
Construction activities will be $~bject ta complfance ~t~ the CitJ~s Noise
Ord'inance.
1 ll9~t and'lare. light generated fro~ the project .ill not ~a~e an ad~erse
fmpact OD adjacent properties.
lJ t~) _Population/'Housing. The pnject Yill add Orte residential unit h Pala
~bousing suppll~
R (bJ TransportationlCfrclllition. The prajec.t is required to prov1d'e four
;arlUlDg spaces. Sfl covered spaces (three tandem) and two uncovered parking
spaces .i11 be provided~
13 (I' b) Public Services~ The site is i. the hazardous fire area ~f Pila
Alto. Requfreme~ts of Appendix [ af the Uniform Building Code regarding type ur roof, use of fire-retardant ,1ants J and an additional fire bydrant
f~stallatfoD are designed te pretect propert, i. the ~azardoys fire area.
]6 Aest~etics~ Tils slti is risible from areas wit~fl t~e Aristradera Open
Space Preserve propertJ and neighboring properties located along laurel Glen
Drjye. Site line studies ~ere ~erfor~ed by the applicant from bot~ of t~ese
properties to determine t~e potentfal fmpact of the hO~Sf. These studies
Indic.te that the eXi,tiog and proposed landscape buffers will substantia11]
reduce the ~fs~al impact of t~is ~ome~ lhe locatfoQ of the house on the site
~elps tm .ilfmlze ~is~al fmpacts from t~e Arastradera Open S~ace Preserve
becau'e It is set bact on the ii11 and is parti.l1, shielded frum .iew by
existfng legetatfon~ The ~ature mf the exterior laterjals will b1end intd the
!atural yegetatf~e 5urroundfngs and also beT, t. lilimfze the visaal impact.
eh~OH.
SC
90·£IA·14
8
•
r-.' ......... . 1--· .. ->
" . J
, '. ..
" ::.
./
~~·".o:"-e.-o:._' __ ~ _______ ;"_~~_'-~'.C"~<"::-_~~',,,,".~'~'Wno.;·1~~"''''''.Git~._ .... ·.~ __ s§o§o ...
lu{
Ii t ... \ ~ .
" .
I
. ' ." •• • ,. .,
• .'
-
\
~
I
----./
f' s·'''' ,. " "
r
f
~
f _,.,~;;""
.~';.
;.-.,
, .
•
",' '
J
J
J
I
I
•
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
')
i /-. •
/
,
\ ~\--------~~ I,j>.Vf...'e\,.. ,,\.,$~
:;.-
o
February 22,1990
To: Palo Ano Planning Commission
Re: A~man Residence Deslgn Program
924 laurel Gle n Drive
Palo Mo, CA
. --, , ... ,
, ..
Lt..',.~, ,.... ': •. :
Cilr 1..1-•. :,L.;.
The A~man plojed wi" be a 2·story single family dwerring with a swimming pool
and (-car paI1<ing 00 tJ1e 2.49 acre sfte Iocaled al the end ~ laurel Glen Drive
in Palo Mo. The surrounding lots are either single family homes or are
undeveloped at this lime. Access 10 the house 15 a gravel driveway, minimizirg
pave men! coverage and visual impact. Grading 15 minima! excep! lor fr,e
house and pool area. The two wings oIll1e house are stepped down 10
minimize grading and 10 break up Ihe mass oIlhe house. The e><ferior materials
hove been chosen 10 blend ,nlo the nalU<'al suaoundings. Siding win be
lOngue and groove red cedar with semi-transparent stain. and trim and min
work wiD be sorld mahogany. The ,oof wiD be concrete ble. Paflo and palhway
paving wiD be exposed aggregal e and brick.
The majorily ~ Ihe landscaping wiD be naflve trees and shrubs. Ornamen!als
are fimfted 10 the pool patio area and [ron! entrance area AJllhe exisfing trees,
except for one, will be saved on the sfte. FUllher. many new nafive trees, suc/l
as coas! five oaks wiD be added 10 the s~e. Screen p1anflng around the house
and plClperty [ne win be native shrubs such as Toyon and eanfornia Lilac,
blending in with Ihe sim~ar existing vegelafion. This screening pluS !he new
trees win subslanflally blOCK out neighboring views 01 [he house.
Irrigafion wiD be Iow-ga11onage stream Splays or rolors and drip
syslems,minimizing erosion and conserving waler. Disturbed hinsides win be
fu<!her slabllized by staked ~e meshing and seeded with naflve g<asses and
wl1d flowers.
PETER WRIGHT SHAW ASSOCIATES
tAl'..;.DSCN'E. AR(HITf.(Tl~R:l: • [Vo,'IRQ1'.iME"-,f,-U ART lbO FORiST A\ "£I\.:UE P,o\J.O ,"'J,. TD. (1\. 94.301 t41 5) ~2!·:-bq8
• .'
\
•
•
. ,
I . . . . I
'.' ... '. .... I 'J'. ',': • r __ , •
. ",. _--~ i -.' l
The drainage system in Ihe fleTd will consist of catch basins connected by 4"
rigid PVC chin pipe. Roof drainage win be directly COMecled 10 !his subgrade
system. AI. rool. pool patio and driveway runoff win be co"ecled and dispersed
inlo new percolation Irenches witl1in the property_
IJgMng win be high effICiency, low inuminalion lights and win be located mainly
in !he pool parlO area and Iron! entrance.
The design program has no! changed much since 1I1e approval of the Srte and
Design Approval in 1983.
"~
-
o
Planning lleparL""nt
Cit" of Palo Alto
250 RamU toa Avenue-
P.lo Alto, C&l!!orni& 94)01
•
./
5136 ! .. ur~l Clen f'Ir!ve
Palo Alt(). Ca)ifo.:[jia 51.,.)':~
June 15. 198)
The proposed .lua.n res3:dence cr!l Lot 5 of Laurel Clell
Estates, ccr:;t1gu<:lUS to our p!'operty. ls sltt.:ate-d. 3.0 sucb a
... at that it ."ust necessarily ir.,pine;e upon our viel,:s and Oli!'
privacy.
1b:". 11b.an has off~r-ed to !!Iitiga.te the 1lt,pact upon '.,;Z of
th.1s construction by proYld1l'l~ screen plantings betl.'een \.Os.
:Because +.r.ere 1s space availa.ble for such plant1nc!;s on1.1 in
the special setback Area B-5 ... 1".lcb \o-as created': to pr-c·~ect 1,..5.
~ a..oree that the natural state of the terrain of Area :5-5
be a.J.tered by th! 1nstalla.t!on of lllant IJIater1als. He selecticc
and position or lrh1c.b. are to be: determ!ned by-a.greeI;'.eot bet\o,,'een
'Us ilnd JIlr. 11 tma.!).
II the Planning Com!lll.ss!Qrt£>rs ap.I<!"ove t~ proposed
placement or lre structure. we request that they create an
:in.strtJ.ment for t~ p.;.rpose of insuring that th!s protection
1$ indeed ~ev1ded.
Tours most sineenly.
C~: Vernoo E. jltman ,~~' r C~f ~~_
fc",e..A~ 2-H'j"q:-x~ <f _ G:1~ __ --______
I~~~d .£? C-C-..-~---_ ,
--;::'L------'-----.--
; -,,~
''':'-..... {
';.~-. =
•
•
\
'.
, .. " .. " t ->-_ .
.. ~
j
1
I
I
')
j , I
1
i
!
-
I.
f ....
:;':~·~~~ ___ :_.,...,..~zc_.
0-
EXCERPT
'l.nning Comnlss!on Meeting
March 28, 1990
914 LAUREL GLEN D@IVE: ApplIcation for sIte .nd design approval of •
11,110 square-foot, two-story. single-f.mil, home ond swimming pool on a
2.49-acre lot i. t~e Palo Alto foothIlls. Environmental Assessment: No
significant Impact. Zone District OS. fIle Nos. 90-EIA·li, 89-0-25.
No staff comme~ts.
C~aino.n Chandler: [will now open the publIc hearing. flTst we will
hear from the owner.
lemon A't~an, 12690 ,jcc1ng Road. fila Alto: The project that we are
Iskfng far approval ;5 the project we submitted to the planning commission
and to the <It, counCil il 198). It Is .iTt.olly the same project we
submitted It that time. We ~ad to move to Boston for a few years but are
now back and woul~ lite t. build our ~ome. Tbe Open Space development
guidelines that have been published are guidelines th.t we feel are
appropriate tG t~e area. and we support the~ fl the1r entiretJ. The ~ouse
we 'haye designed we believe is accorrmodati~g tfJ the land. [t is a
relatively restricted lot because of the various setbacks that are called
for. We are siting the bouse h about the onl, ~1ace It can ~ sited.
Which fs on the <rest of the 'ill. We are doing that t •• ccommodate the
land conto"rs. with the house fitting on tho. soaeWhat lite a .addle. lhe
_aterjals are those wbich ~e believe afe consistent ~t~ the area --red
cedar s1dfng, aa~ogany tri~ and concrete t11e roof, 11 order to blend i~
and neet the ffre codes, as well. The landscaping Ises existing trees~
We are asking t~at one oat be removed, t. be replaced with t~ree spec;meR
oaks il other sttes on t~e lDt. There is i balance of cwt and fill on t~e
propertJ~ Ve are asing ~aturll ,lantings. and ia fact, Sarah Chene1~s
staff report suggested some changes to the ,lantlngs, which ~e have
accommod.ted into the design_ Ve bave .ccommodated the drainage and
erosio~ control. so I feel tnat we are now comfortable ia submitting the
prDject to YOD for review.
Tlis ';11 be I relat1~el, large bome. It nas been deSigned to break up
tne ~ass of t~e ~ouse, ~owever, i~ terms of tne w~ it steps down ~en t~e
propertl steps down. Our fmtent is to accommodate the land and e~ist;ng
trees as best ~e ca~. The restrictions unfortunatel, cill for the
pl.c .... t of the house i. suc~ • ~'1 th.t It will be .isible from t~e
Arastr. propert,. We are working to soften th.t .few. [t will also ~
riSible fro. surrounding nefghbors. rhose neighbors .ast closel, affected
are t~e Cole~ns, and they put some restrictions ia the plant1D9 wit~i. J
JS-foot setback irea~ ~ich ~e ~ave accommodated ~1t~ the (clemans. Other
~eighbors, of co~rse, ~11 be able to 5ee thfs bouse. It ~1) not be
possible to build i house that people cannot see. We ~a~e studied Ms.
Cheney~s 5taff report and ~ are 11 fundamental agreement with it. ~th i
couple of _inOf detiils ~e would like to talt abo~t in just i moment. But
first I ~ould like t •• sk AIle, Skogsberg and Peter Shaw t. speat. Allen
represents t~e fino, Dec Vest. which Is the architettural fino and
supplier of the .aterl.ls for the house. Peter Sh.w Is the landscape
.rchltect.
-I·
•
'--'"
i
f
I
t
I
•
I
"
\
,
\ ,
\ .
71.: .• : ..•. · .. _ .... 1.j.
:'" .
,
-1 ..
l Ij
, j
r"
-
•
\
,
----~-----"---....... --_. ~~~-~----__ ~ .. __ ~ ... ___ ._ .... c.~:. -'"-:--.~f
o o i
Allen SkQQsb~rg, ',0. Box 400). Sa~ tIts QhfsDO, (6: [am t~e agent for
t~e architect 1. this case~ The plan that was f,11owed for this bouse
~er1 closel, follows the ,lan t~lt was approved pre~louilJ~ Our desire
was to make the bouse fit the site as ~ituril1, as possible, following the
contours, re1ucfc9 gradfDg to i mi.imum t and not miSS any of the structure
f. anyone large .re. 50 that it would be partfc,larl, noticeable. ~e
~ave also selected llg~t and natur.l colors for .11 of the ~aterials on
the bouse. Tne trfm and windows ~;'1 be ~ahogany, and there are some
large samples Wit~ the staf. 00 the mahogany. The exterior ,iding will be
vertical red cedar. It also has i natural sta1l. The Sti1ft you see aD
the large sample ~111 appear I bit l1ghter, is it does on the drawing. is
it ages. The roof is i multi-blend of colors --browns and darler colors
--which, agail, w;11 meet wit~ the site. The onlJ major c~ange fro~ the
ilil;all, approwed plans {t~ere have been some minor ones ;~side~ suc~ is
doors aod wall' ~ved oround) ;s the c~.oge to • 5:12 ,itch. Ve did this
for both aesthetfc reasons and to accommodate concrete tiles on the roof,
wbich are fireproof. Concrete tiles are oat reco~nded OD the 3;12 roof
Fitc~ that we ~ad prev;ousl,.
II this ~hole project I ~ ~awe worked verJ ,lose1, wit~ Peter Shaw J the
land$Cape arc~itect. to screen and .ort the ~ouse imto the site. [would
like to tura the podiu~ over t~ 'iro at thfs time.
Peter Shaw, 160 Ferest Avenue, Palo Alto: As both Allen and reroon have
said. the landscape plan ~as been approved as it is today ;1 1983 fro~ t~e
original s~bmlssion. Tne modifications we ~ave ~ade to the ~lan are verJ
subtle. The concept of the F1an is tG ~ave ~ative ,lant ~aterfals, a
site-speciffc ,1antfng design as much as possib1e to ac~feve the screening
a~d litigating factors t~at we ~ant to do to ~awe the house blend and
i,tegrot. with the site. As regards oitigatlng and .ffecting the .ff·site
Ylews, _e are also creating privacy for the owner at the same tfme~ That
is about iL
~. Altman: There are a couple of ffndings and conditions that I would
like ta draw atteRtfon ta, and have you consider tODight. On Page 6 of
t~e staff report. lte~ ID ~o.i"g to do with the f"tallotion of
landscaping, ;t ~uld be our ,lan, if you approve our project. to begi.
construction t'is summer, ass~mi~g ~ can get it through the bul1d;og
department and get 111 the approvals. That would come ill connict ~ith
landscaping on October 15. It i, just not practical to f,ll, landscapo
the propertJ durfDg construction~ So what ~e would like to do is to
certailll provide for ~itewer erasfoD control is appropriate to t~e site
but bold off on the fi.al landscaping until the fi •• l construction year,
_hie' I as,ume wl11 be 1991. V. t~in\ this is • one-l.ar project.
~y second comment is aD Condition II]. Tiis requires that _e obtall
written approval fro~ the surro~ndfr.g propertJ ownErs of t~e proposed
londscaping withi. the IS-foot setback are •. The re.son we would ltke t.
raise I question about t~at fs that the re~son for t_is provision ~as to
accommodate t~e CDlemans who res'de adjacent to the property. At the time
t~fs development c~ imta being, they ~ere quite inSistent upon ~aYing i
]5-foot setback arei Wit~il which a principal str~ture could not be
built, whic_ we accommodate~. ThEJ ~lso wanted t. ~ave appr~val for anJ
l~ndscaping that ~as done fl that Irei. whic~ ~e certlill, understand and
~ove actonmodoted witk the C.lemaos. W. hve no prob1e~ With that. V.
~ave Ilso secured t~e Signature cf the Hopkins and the Terrys and the
"" ". '
t
I
I
f
I ,
r , ..
L
[
1'·-r' I
\
•
•
,
\
\
\
\.
('
'.-.-~
.-
',,' .
/~, , .
. -.--, :'
l
i
. ~
o o
Sc'P1oendorfs "ho .are three: of the other property OWflers. There is i total
~f sil iD laurel Glen [states. We ~ave now secured four. Additionally.
t~e Tehs liYe i. Hong ~ong, and the1 approved this same pTantiDg design in
J983. That ~iS not c~anged. There;s one other property owner iA t~e
Laurel $le. [stites, and that Is Lot 2 .cross t~e street .nd dow. t~e
'ill. Ve do.'t think t,is would Impact their sit •• tlon, and would lite to
~av. th.t waived. [sseotl.ll, what we would like t. suggest fs the
f.llowiog: That the wording of Condition III be da.ged to say, '~ritten
approval fr~ t~e adjacent propert1 owneT ((aleman) for t~e pro~osed
land~apiDg within the 7S-foot setback area.-[f that is poss;ble, we
would lite to have you conSider t~at. I spoke w1t~ Dave HapkiAs about
this again last Saturday, and he said the tQtal intent of restrictions on
,la.tlng .nthl. the 7S-foot area .as t. accommodate the Coleman" aod .e
~a~e done that, ind will continue to wori ~th the (olemans to ~ake sure
t~ey art satisfied wit~ t~e planting.
C~airmar. Chandler: I am co~cerned about this written approval reQuirement
_hie' you say carnes out of the ((IRs for t~e subdivision. Vhen lOU
foltlal11 applfed 10 1983, did Y'u obtai. the approval of .11 of the
owners at t~at time?
~. Altman: Te$~ [ did, ~. C~airman. At that time, there were on1, two
or three lots sold im that subdivisfen~ so by getting the Signatures ~f
David Aopkfns a~d Wayne Segal, I essentiall, ~ad the agreement of all the
propert, owners who owned lot •• t the time. The onlJ lot that ~ad bee.
sold w~e. 1 bought oln. was Mr. feb's lot, a.d h. did agree.
~~airman Chandler! And there is 00 substantive change since theg1
~. Alt~an: No. ~vne. That is cerrect.
Commissioner Christensen: Would you explail the nature of the lightiog?
~. Altman: The lighting plan has Dot been completed. We understand from
Ms. C~eney~s report t~at it is ta be ~lgh-efffciencl. low-intens;ty, and
that seems reasonable to ~s. We understand t~at a lightiDg plan has t~ be
submitted, and t~at will be done by Mr_ Sha •.
Commissioner Christensen: I am concerned about th~ lighting, because that
sit! is going to be very 'is;b1e, slttfng is it does on the top of the
crest. [would like to see the lighting be is low to the ground as
possible.
~. Altman: We would i.tend to have mllimal li;hting along the driveway,
just to ll1umi~ate the driveway for access te the house. There .auld be
sooe pat!. lightiog, but .othing bright. Ve probabl, .culd lite to have
burglar aTar. lighting t~at on1, ~oes on w~en t~e burglar alarm goes on.
Comml$sioner (.lle~: I a~ little confused about the ~ahogany trim; the
board 15 shown as teak.
~. Altman: The teak is the stal" on tne ma~oganl.
(.onmissioner C.l1eA: f am also c-onceroed about brown concrete tHes. f1ut
the llttl. ,iet"r. we had ;n~icate~ sha~es. Ar. they t. look like shakes1
L
---".-. ~~"~ -'-,"" ...... -;, "
\
\ ~' ..
\
\ \
"
•
I
I . I
I
i
:.:-.
-
I .
... "-
': ,
o o
Kr. Skogsberq: That i. correct.
Amy (han. '38 laurel Glen Drive. Palo Alto: W! are the neighbor adjacent
t. the propert,. and thought we would be the one. most slgnificantl,
fmpact~. We read the report which we just received itte t~fs afternooD.
We were DOt notlffed t~at this pr~pert1 is being ~eard tonight, so we Ire
not rellts prepared to iddress t~fs issue. looklng at the plan, and
considering the requirement Gf ZS feet, we ~a~e concer~5 because from OUT
sih Jookir,g UP. we see the whole souU! side of th'E! property. Tne I!ighest
pOiot to .s appeared to be almost 40 fe.t from the base to the roof. Also
we notice-that there is I balcony Oil the same side., anc! ..,e \mderstand
there will be Quite a bit of planting, but I i~ not sure whether t~e
,lanting. even at its mature height, will screen out the balcony. So
tho~e ire some of our concerts.
We ilso have some concera in the report taltlng about nelghbors and
getting approvil~ etc. We seem to be excluded fro~ t~is. THis is the
first time we have ~eard about it, fro~ one of our neighbors, that this
item fs being consfdered before YOLl tonight.
Tne owner earlier talked about cQnsfderatfon for c~anging Ite~ lO~ t~e
landscapfog requirement fro~ October 15. and I t~ink .is request is
reasonable. Tbe onl, request I ~ave for you tc consider fs that some of
H,e landscaping along the setback area probabl, would not ilTljlact the
construction, and wtether you are ;oiog te consfder approvil of that
requested c~ange. you coold ~ake that stfpuTltion saY109 that landscaping
w1t~f. the .etback has t. te ,. place by October l~.
I would also like to get clarification, if you are going to consfder [tern
]1 on Page 6 of the staff report, ~ether ~e ire consfdered part of the
owners and will be notlff~ of future meetings. We ire not prepared to
talt tODfg~t because 1 O;CTOCK was the first time we read t~e report and
saw the ,lans tonfght. [s t~ere a c~a~ce t~ continue this item to gT~e us
nore time ta study it? One af the reaSDns _e purc~ased the ,lace last
August was for prr,acy reisonS4 There are some bomes beiog sited right
now, a~d the privac} issue fs r!ally disappearing. A few ~nths ago ~e
aSKed about what ,lans you ~ave for the site, and we were not giveR any
flforaation except to say that if anything is going on. we would be
notiffed t and not to worry about it4 Being a little na;~e about the
process, we did not pursue it. So we would like to have yoa continue this
it~ ta give ~s more time ta study t~e plans~ Thank YOU4
Chairman C~andler; Regarding the reference to approval of surrounding
property DWners. was t"at intended to si~pl1 incorporate the prDvfsio~ 1m
the (C&Rs for the partic~lar subdf~ision?
MS4 (heney~ That is correct. It was for that parti(~lar subdfYision~ It
did not fnclude propert, owners Dutside t~e subdivisfcn.
(hai~an C~andler; So t~e only ~nes ~thil the 5ubdiY;sion ire those
wit~l~ t~e OS zone?
~5. Cheney: That is correct.
Commissioner HYber: If J understand it correctly. ~5. Cheney, no approval
would be required if there were to be no landscapiDQ ~ithil th! 15-foot
·c·
•
\
\ -
•
": ..
.-.
>
..,,::::, ,-<
c ~-, ,. ,
! , :;
'i
\ ,
" I: ,
i.
f , ,
~ r
~ ~-'
t". t , • ,
""-.
~ .
~.
:",
1
1
I
i
-.
J •
0-
setback area?
es, Cbeoev; That fs ~orr!ct. iccordlcg tD the t!ras of that agreement
between private property owners. However. I believe we would be ver~
reluctan~ to approve I site and design application without requiring some
s(reen landseapfng.
",s. Chan, Tne 75·foot setback re.l1, does not include the side on our
property. We on1, ~ave at best a 40·foot setback.
Chairman C~andler: Ms. Cheney, could you show us w~ere t~e 75-(00t
setback Is l~at fs being referred to?
~. Cheney: Tlis is the lot fl question. There is a special prowisfon
t~at no principle struct~res be allowed il t~is portion Qf the lot; t~ere
is I spetfal 15-(oot setback 1100g the easter. propertJ line t and the
standard 30-foot setbacks aTo~g the remaiaing propert, lines, The Coleman
residence is located to the east~ and the Chans' bome is located tm the
sout·southeast. T~'I both ba" access off of laurel Glen Drive higher
up.
h response to wflat I bel ie\t"e was Conmfssioner Huber's fIItent ill .is liSt
questior, no requirement Is required fro~ adjoialng propert¥ owners for
ap,prou'l Clf a: structure if ft is located outside of tfte setbacks. The
apprDva:l from the neighbors is for the landscaping onlJ~ withf~ t~e
75·foot .etb.ct. That Is, fro~ the neighbors withf. the original
subdi'isfon~ ~lC' are so named 1~ a private agreecent between private
propert1 owners. fbere are six lots s~own i~ the OS Distrjct. T~ls area,
which is _here t~e Chans ~ave theif PrQpert,. is 11 the R£ district, and
t~ey are not a: part ~f that agreement.
Jan [trry. S2S laurel 'TeA Drive, Pal' Alto: The (ClRs are organjzed suc~
that ~ have an architectural re~Tew commlttee, af ~h;ch Dave Hopki~s is
the bead, and my ~usband is on t~at c~lttee. We have provfded ftr.
Altman ~th appro~al of the landscaping and ~f any other CQn(erAS whlch
are addressed by the (tIRs, which inclode styl. of ~ouse, .dequate
pariing, is we do not want any RVs on the street, t~ings of t~at nature.
Tha! requirement ~as been f.lfilled.
[ ilsa want to cDmment that your re,or~s are real1J out ~f date. Our
address ;s not even 00 yo~r records. I know you get this fro~ the count,.
but ever! wit;. us tflling you. that Jour recQrds are incorrect and our
neighbol"S canrlot get adequat.e notiHc.ation, nobody takes anI flithtive to
make any pencilled notes o. there. I re.ll, think t~at ought to be
faprQv~. Tbe Jackllches are the ones who got t~e notite. That is vhy
the C~ans dfdn~t get it. because the postMan ~on't deliver tm the
JactHclles. Vhere~er thell1oved, t~at is .htre the notice went. So it is
I real disserwice n~t to be notified. I a1sa got the same runaround when
I colled.
Regarding ~. ~lt.an's development, I feel t~.t Jer. Alt~an h.s be., very
s!raig~tforward and went to as •• ny neighbors as be could find to try and
e.plal. 'Is project, and I feel he h.s done a very good job f. tenos .f
trying to •• et all of the OS restrictions. Ra,fng gone through this
process for t~e last fj~e years, and being guided by Sarah Cneney, I know
What be Is goIng through. It t.kes tremendous fortitude. That Is no! a
•
•
t
,
-\
\ ,
\
"0'" \
..J
I
.,
-<
,
j
1
1
i
-
.. ~ ~-,-
,
.'
•
,-. , . _________ ~~ __ '""""""";;r~ ___ _
o
comment agliAst Sarah C~eney. She ~as bee~ tremendous to deal ~th. but
t~ere are I lot of ~ther peQPle ~e will ha~e to deal wlt~ that Ire not as
understanding fl the Tong term as Sarah ~as.
Whlle ] sympat~ize wit~ the Chans, because landscapfng is why W~ live im
the .i115. ~e ~ave an impendl~g water [risis coming uP. and we were cau9~t
fl a Catch~Z2, ~ere you were roating ~s give you a 510,000 bond because we
did not want to p~t i~ land$caping ~en we tauld not water_ I think you
sho~ld take thfs f~tD consid€ration when asking the Altmans to p~t ia
landscaping. You cannot ~ave a droug~t-tolerant oak when it has just (ome
fr~ the nursery. Tau have to nurt~re ~t aTong for quite I while. So
,lease beaT that in .ind in te~s of how tn ~andle landscaping
requirements far him, given our drought (o"ditions~
Angelo Pezzan'. 950 Laurel Glen Dri~e. Palo AltG: I~ all due respect to
the applicant and to the lady ~hQ just spoke. I t~in\ you ire ~ore than
polite, Mrs. (~in, and I think you ou~ht to be a little more aggravated.
These two maps are deceiwing when yo~ look at t~em. There s~ems to be an
fndicat;o~ that these sfx lots are separate and dlstinct from the rest of
the neighbor~ood. If you are fa~iliir with the area, e~eryone who lives
on laurel GTen Drive fro~ [d Walker's house CD d~wn to the (hans, even
though we m.y not be ;0 the .elect OS group •• re reilly affected by t~is
bouse. The arc~itect and t~e applicant see~ t~ be ~asters of
understatement ~en they say this is a rel~tiveT, large house. ] t~ir.k
t~is is I ~issfve str~cture, especlally when you look at it fro~ the back.
where we look at it. It is quite imposing. I walked the site agaln in
t~e earl, marRing and at Qfg~t, and I don't care wnat vegetation is
proposed l even if ~e brougnt stuff in fro~ the jungle, t~e house cannot be
dis9u!>e4. I. ,II due respect to the people who wrote t~is report. they
say that im time, it ~ll afford some ~r'¥acy. ~aybe i~ 50 or ]00 years
It will, but it reall, isn't gOlng to s~tlsfy the intrwsion t~at t~is
dwelling is goiog tn make on the entire neighborhood. You see it (raro
Laurel Glen. and if you stand anywhere on ~rs. t~ar.'s lot, she is going to
see t~is t~i09. Whe. they light it uP. it is going t. look li~e a landing
stTl, for i ~elicopter pad. Tbis house will domi~ate the entire area
around it. me HUh tr.at t~ey hive now with Ue orange tape can be seen
from my bouse. It is real11 quite ~lsible. [don't understand ~ow ycu
can say it is 2, feet ~Tgh. From ~~at we see, it is 40 feet high.
JIIr _ Peu_~i: What are CC&Rs?
!s JanS{n! Conditions, (ovenants and restrictions. They generalT,
relate to the specific development of suhdiwfsion areas. You may ~ave
conditiDns, covenants and restrictions on ya~r propert,. but they would
not be applicable to the Open Space zone. The~ are not (it1 restrictions.
Jhe1 are private restrictio"s.
1!Ir00 __ f_~l?:ani:-If"llle are in sue" close prol!imitJ tel the OS. how came the as
is onl¥ limited t~ six lots?
Ms. Jansen! That was th~ original subdi~is1on map. Wit~ each subdiwisicn
~ap, there are (CARs t~at apply to the lots wit~iA t"at subdf~lsion. so
that set of (CIRs appl~ only to t~c<e six lot. located withi. th,l Open
Space zone propertJ.
Sfti.!"on Bogert,. 951 laurel 61 en Dri1L....i_~I~_ Altg: I aTso wander about the
-6-
' .
.-1
'-,
1
1 , 1
1
-
,-'
0-o
Ilghtlog. Vo will lao. down 00 thl. ontlre propert,.
gbing to hfde anything from ~S. In the are~ w~ere ~o
is allowed, ~at is the reason for that?
No screening is
prl~cipal structure
~$. Cheney: It is due tc visual impact, to keep the principal structure
from beIng loc,ted .t the top of the crest of the .lope.
IIrs.~: The ~aps show yO" no topography. Act •• lly, there is IIOre
,isual impact at the top of the crest l~an down below for t~ose of us ~ho
live on the rest of the street. I was partie.laTl, f~terested in t~e
lighting, as t~is is a fairT, large amount of square footage t~at will be
involved ~it~ pool, patfo and spa. If there are permanent lights Dut
there, it could look lite a landing strip. I realfze ~e are not i. the OS
zone. b~t li9hti~g will affect ws more t~an an~body, especiall, for
example. i~ the OS zon2 7 people w~o live down on the other side of the
'111 car.not eVeR s~e those lights. That 15 a big concern of ours. The
~ouses ~'1 blend I. veil during the day, but at .Ight, those lights viII
stand ouL
John Moe!, 2&23 Alma Street. Pal. Alto: J ~ave not visited t~is specIfic
Sit~7 but [ ~ave done the Christmas bird count two of t~e past four y!ars
fa the area, a~d [ will concur .ilh t~e prevfous remarks that t~at ar!a is
~omplicated topologicall,. I alsD want to raise the concerR t~at even
though the vegetatron will screen the ho~se from the Arastra Preserve 50
years from now, I would like tD ~ake sure that the vegetation screen t~at
propertJ fair11 Quickl,. The Arastra Pre~rve is a fairl, sensitlve area
and a matter of some cootroversJ. Thank you.
Chairman Chandler: Since I have no Dt~er cards fro~ members ~f the
publfc~ I will close the public bearing and retur. this it~ t~ the
planning corrmissioo. Does the applicant 'havE! any light lle wants to s'fled
on any of the~e Questfons? I am confwsed bl some cf the items discussed.
~~ Altman: It is j~terestlng to me that the di$CYssion about the fiTst
agenda ite. tonIght ~ad to {o with putting "p f.nces so that you could not
see t~e house, a~d now we are tilting about the proble~ of the house beieg
vi s ; b 1 e.
I a~ as impacted by the Chans and ~r. Pezzanl as theJ are b$ me. Mr~
Pezlanl has insu1ted mY house about as ~uch as he could. I happen to
dislike Tudors, whfc~ is ~at he lives im. Tbat probabl, .o~Td not have
beeR approved il th~ Open Space dlstrict. rlis ~ould ~ave been a lot
s1mpler (or me if t'is were oot an Ope~ Space district and was, instead 7
an RE. ~ith respect to the C~ans, I a~ wery concerned about how they sse
our hou>e. The Jackllt'fles had t~e good wisio~ years ago to plant a stand
of Monterey pines. ~hic~ are nOW 30~4Q feet ~ig'" betweeq their propertJ
ind ours. That goes a long yay toward shielding. I (an barelJ see their
house throug~ those pfnes. I also sympat~'ze ~t~ t~e Chans because
"nfortunately, they were told by the Jacklic,es that there would be no
bouse bu11t eh t~at propert,. t~at it ~iS OpeR Space, so I can understand
the C,ans being very upset by the fact that they vere told there vou1d
never be i ~ou~e b~lTt there, and now one is being built, hopefilly.
I .ould lite to respond to the Chans~ request t~at we get some ~lantfng i.
t~at setback ire. during t~is f.ll. We would certoi.11 be ~;lli,g t.
iccommodate t ... at. rt "auld flail! te be done ill slich .I way that t~e
•
" "'--,---. ...
l
!
I
•
I
I
f
'" .".
""
"
\
\
\
,"
"c
\ . I
\':.-
'.', ~"i
~~--~ ..
" .~
. -, -.
/
o o
construction is not fm~aired~
Commission!r Christensen: Could you or )our la~dscape architect de$Cribe
the planting t~at is Flanned for t~at irea?
~. S~aw: That are~ ~il1 have three 36--box evergreen oaks goiog tm
there. One of t~e. goes rlg~t i~ front of that balcony. Thos~ trees ~;11
be 12-15 feet tall wben tbey are planted, and tbe botton of the balcony Is
line feet above f\~fs~ed grade, so t~at bal,ony ~111 be streened
immediitel, upon planting. Also, ~e ~ave e~aggerated the screening of
t~at and per the conditions of the recommended approval that have alread~
bee~ set forth by staff requfre a final planting design for a building
penlit apprDva', so we fully intend to address the concerns that come up
tonignt to make s~re that the fi~al plan is one t~at is appropriate for
the concerRS, ~aimtli~ing the ~aturil landscape design at the same time.
COmmissioner Christensen: I~] ~oncerned about that partic~lar side. The
Monterey ,Ines are there, but th.y didn't look very ~eolthy When I ~as out
thera todiJ. It looked like a number of them are not 1m good shape. The
drought ~a, be taking its toll on them. So the screeging that is there
now may not be there that long. and that is a particularly sensitive area.
Me Shaw: As lernon 5ai~, ~e are willing to accommodate getting t~at area
hndscaped for the Chans for the October 15t~ deadlln •.
Commissioner Cillen: I am a little eonf~sed about the heig~t of this
building. On the plans. it looks lite ~e are measuring the end of tne
buildiDg, and it is 20 J 2S feet. But as I look at the 3-storj elevation.
I can't believe that i5 25 f.et there_ What is the heigbt 00 that
particylar elevation?
ftr Skogsberg: If I may address that t part of the problem iB looking at
t'he tle;'ghts and trying to detertline ~f1at is required,. if you are lIeas 'Jring
the bouse i~ relatfon t~ t~e ground that is c10sest to t~at part of the
house. t~at is the way staff does it, on averages. If you look at the end
plan of the ~ouse and measure it, it would appear to be approximatE1J 40
feet high_ But the part of it that is closest to you Is les5 than 20 feet
.fgh. S;nc~ t~e house walks up the site as the iill ~lts UPt you are
never above tne iVerage grade of it. An aralo9Y I cou1d give is tJlat if
you built on iI long .illside, you ecuid b{Jlld a one-stor.1 ftouse that ~ent
ill tbe way down tbe ~ill, but if you looked at it straight on fro~ the
p'a" it would be is t.ll as the ~ill ;s toll.
(ommfssioner C~'Te~: But we ha~e a new regulatfon t now, an the ~aximu~
~efght as measured from the grade level to the peak cf the roof.
~. Skogsberg: II (~ct, an this house t~e .ig~est pOl~t, if you (ome down
t~e second one on the left s~de, to start ~t~. the 9ra~e t~at is at the
front door right n~w, the finished grade is five feet To~er than t~e
act •• 1 grade it the top of the .ill no~. The top of the ~il1 gets
excavated SD that the house sits down ontD the ~ill. That is part of ~at
l1a'kes it look tiller. On He lfft·~and side, the second line up froll the:
butt~ on the diagra~ lS t~e existing grade~ and t~e l1eisureme~ts ire ~ade
fro~ the eX1stlng gride to the top ~f the roof.
Commissioner C~lleR: Are we allowed excavation beTow grade level il order
-8-
•
, .
/
.
•
·~~~:~~.~c
. ' ... ~-
0;':
'. .'!.
'. \ , \
\
\ .
\-
j ... -;.:
..J
.:·t:~""'.'~
~.,--,.. ..... ,." -
or,",
. '.---...:, ....... \.;.~
"---.'
.,; .
-
, .
o
to fncrease t~e ~eight cf th~ house! I t~oug~t ~e _ere counting grade
level is the grade from whic~ all things are measured, not excavating
below t~at to get ~ore height~
M,. C~enev: Height i. (f,e footollls is measured. little differ.ntll t.an
it Is II the flatland,. To .. a,ure ~eight II the foot.l11" when you have
il '\l1side slope, lOU c~oos.!' i point fhe feet OI.Jt frol'll the property on
the .Igh end and five feet out fro~ the property on the lo~ end. If there
is I grade differential greater than ten feet bet~een the ~;gh and the low
pOint. you wo~Td meisure the ~eight fr~m a new stirting point, whic~ would
be te~ feet above~ So if you are on a hillside site, you cotild get a
ten-foot height credit~ if there was suc~ a se~ere grade different;.'. In
~ther ~rds. if the sTope ~as very, very steep~ r_is property does not
~a~e that signiffcant a c~ange iD ele~ation, so it is meeting the 2S-fcot
~eight as meisured from each end~ It is not average slope.
Commissioner Christensen: ~at is tne actual height ~f this portio~
(indicatiog .1e~raphJ?
~. Skogsberg: Off the top of ~y head, jt is approximately 20 feet.
Conmissioner Hjrsdl: Is that one or two stories there'?
~~oqsberg: T~at is two stories.
Chair!lan
n
Char'ldler: [loes the second story t1a~e l cathed'nl ceil ing il Hat
pcrtion?
~. Stogsberg; The space that she just indicated fs the solar collector
area on the front of the house, the ccnservatory area. That is I
two-story space. IQ tating I closer look at the planJ I would say t~at
Q~erallt it is about 23 feet. T~at is the .ighest poi~t~
"s~ Cheney; WheR }OU measure helgnt in t~e foot~illst }ou don't ~ave tD
measure the height from the very bottom to tne very top af all segments.
lou measure tne hefght of each segme~t agai~st t~e grade levels at that
pofnt. for e~ample, for properties t~at step down i sTope , you measure it
at the midpoiot of _~at would be grad~, even if that is below grade at
that pol~t. So eac~ indi~idual segment of a house .tic~ steps down a
slope cannot exceed 25 feet.
C~airman Chandler: The Questfon I have is that t~at may be the ~a1 we
measure it, but ~~at I hear neighbors asking about is, looklng at the
t~ing altogetner, ~at is the t~tal hefght ~f the structure from the
bottom to the top whe. looking at that olev.tlon, from the bottom of the
lo.e,t point t. the top of the ~jghest point. I t.lnk t~.t is the polot
some people are getting at.
"s. (hen~.t:: [wi 11 give you that in a moment.
("aina" Chandler: I have another question_ We ~ave iii number of
nelghborhoods i& the city governed by private CC&Rs ~ich were imposed at
the time the developme~ts were created. for instance, there are some II
nefghborhoods that have iii restriction te siegle-story ~eight. rf someone
i. t~ose neighborboods comes i~ for a second storl applicationJ for
exanpTe, do ~e deny it or do we require approval under tne ((lRs , or do we
·9-
•
--
'f
,~;'.;,t)-"
j~;tt~: .-,'---,~;;.....~
--.--~-.-,=",...,..,",,----, ...... ~
o
jUit grant it f! icc~rdance ~ith our zoni~g?
r"5. Jansen: Ve grant it ir1, accordance with our zoning.
Chairman Chandler: Why in t~is case did we choose to brlng il t~e city
eaforcement of (C&Rs to an applicition rather t~an Tea~jng it tQ the
typical remedy that is iVil1abl! under C(&Rs is a c~ntract bet~een privat~
indh'iduals?
~s. Janse~: r~at is a good questlvn, Chair~an (~andler, and normall" ve
would not do so. ID this particular subdhision, it was a condition of
the tentative lIap. the final map, so "'~ ',(Ere simply reimposing t"at as a
part of t~e development proposal that ~e ~ad before us. It is not
normall, done. arid is cerhinl, not normally OUi'" choice to do that,
because we do not 1ik.! tracking it, ilnd'llle do not like treating properties
differentiall, t~at are under the same loning.
(~airman Chandler: Is t~at different from other CC&Rs? Aren1t they all
tied int~ the map?
~s. Case: The C(&Rs for a project often cantaia t~e conditions of
appr~vil that are imposed by the city. They also contai~ a lot of other
thfDgS that are required by the DE;artment cf Real Estate. They are
private conditions that run wit~ the land, but often, at the cit}"s
reQue$t~ the1 often contaic city-imposed conditions as ~ell.
Ms. Jan~n: We have ~any CC&Rs cut there t~at iTe part of the subdivision
approval ilt the time (If appro'Hl t where ,"'e do not impose specific
conditions of those C(~Rs. That is correct. Is your question~ why was it
done Otfs time?
Chairman Chandler: Yes. I feel it ~as created a great deal of confwsion.
because the (CIRs affect only the people tn t~at particular subdivision
t~at was done under tne OS regolatio~s. The other neighbors on th~ street
~ant to know why their approval is rot beif.9 requested, and I think we
~av! cre~ted a lot of conf~sion lnd ~istr~st on the part of our <itfzenry
through bringing t~is matter iQ. I ~on~er why we are doing it 1m this
<:ase~
PIs. JanS;en: It is eas.ily reme,jied', b~t my cnderstanding is that it is
different frOID tla'ling CU.Rs separate fronl the conditions of the IMp. It
~a$ I specific condition of the map for this lot that it be treated i.
that lIanner. That is different frOID other subdhisions .ith C(IRs
throug~out the city. If you want tn remed~ that~ tnere fs an easy remedy,
but t~at is tne case here+
C{l'1l!lissi..(U1!~.r ... J __ l<i'llen; I t:'ink. that 'Was part of the ~ul1en e.xchange
conditions whic~ was i very speCial treatment by the city, and is not part
~f the ustlill procedure. When tf'1esi! s.maller lots were created with t~e OS
specification. the protection for those ~maller lots was the ((!Rs. At
that time, the RE district was not part of that. i~d 5t111 isn't. It was
I very speciil case for the Mullen exchan9~.
CQmmissioner Huber: Is Condition 11 in t~ls report the only one that
,Ie\s up on the ((iRs?
-10-
. .
•
. '
....
I
•
< ••
~' ,-
.', , .
_,. I
. , ,
I
I
I
i
j , ,
I
I
..:.-"
1.
0-o
~s. Chenev: Y~5~ it is.
COi!I1!issioner Huber.: It seems to ~e you don't put priwate rfgl'lts of
a(tfo~~ if you will, or enforcement procedures i~ these sorts of
documents. 1f we are going to move on t~is, I ~ou'd move to strike that
out. I do not feel it belongs there. The neighbors who are ift control of
the CC&Rs ~a¥e the rfg~t to enforce it, should they so choose~ I don't
thInk we have to.
(ornnhsio.ner Narsh: I would 1 ike to clarify the f)otification procedure.
~ere do we get the names of neighbors up there, if)d how do ~e update the
list? Who actually got notified in this case? Were there mfstakes made?
~. (~enev: What we do ;s require that al' applicants submit addresses on
~ailing labels of all property owners wit~i~ 300 feet. They prepare those
t~emselves at our front counter. They use microfiche, which contains
propert, owners as listed i~ tne Santa (lara County assessor~s roles,
.~;c~ are upaated biannually, and in addition, ~e ase ~tiljt1 mailings.
If t~ere are errors~ there are errors in the assessor's imformation J and
that is the best fnformatfon we ha~e available.
I want to respond to Commissioner C~11en's question earlier. ] just
sc.led off the height i. question. It is close to 40 feet from the lowest
segment to the peak it the hfghest segment, if you take a straight line
measurement.
CDmlfssfoner Ruber: Regarding the discussion regarding notlcing. Mrs.
C~an SI}d she ~as been there at least since AugustJ so if we are dOing it
both ways, [ can see ho~ the assessor could be behind, if it is every two
years, but they should ha~e bee~ picked up on the ut1lity list.
~s. Jansen: Ms. Cheney ~lr chec~ the 115t. (Ms. Chene, cnecks tne
list.) No. 938 is not shown on t~e list. I cannot explail t~at.
C~airman Chandler: So tne ~tility list was not ~sed f~r this noticing?
~s. Jan~n~ The utility list was ~sed. however. when the secretary sends
it out~ s~e comes back and refiles ;t~ and I am sa1ing it lS not yet ia
the file.
Conmfssl0n.e.r.J:;allen~ I did sH on the cornmiss;or'l ... he~ we had t~1s
application before ~s previa~s11. At t~at time, t~ere ~as almost no
development ia laurel 61£'0, and we felt t"is was it property that ~as
rat~er far rernQ~!d from the rest of the ~ioperties. I do not rememher
t~at anyone froR the Rf district c~me to say anything. We felt that the
tind of conditions that were put an the approval should and would take
care of most of the impacts that were identified. ~. Altman ~ade a good
poi~t ~heA he said that everyone impacts everyone else. He is impacted by
the properties surrounding bi~ as muc~ as he will be i~pacting other
properties. He bas gone to a lot of care to ~itigate so~ of tho~
i~pacts. I do thi~k it little ~ore workin9 with the (hans on the
landscaping that is contiguous td bot~ properties is in Qrder~ but I do
feel that there are a lot of t~in9s that have been considered here ~!r1
carer.ll" and are being tak~n care of~ The ~aterials being used fit im
lic.l, with t~e foothill Open Space district; I might hive preferred.
smaller house, b~t I am not the one building it. He is entitled td ~js
-II·
L
•
•
t ~~~.~~-
r' ,,::-. :r. ,
•
"~
\
\
\
\
,;.~.-~"-V·
,
"'
•
•
\ , .,
'-;~:.
"
-
•
/
-~--~~-.-' ------,-""'>--"...".-, •• ~..,...,~~--'~
property rjg~ts to de~elop within the de~~lopment standards Qf that
district. So I really feel we should recoamend approval witA the
conditions. and maybe change a fe'iI of Hem. Th2 landscaping condition of
havfng th! plan installed s~culd be prior to an occupancy permit rather
than prjo~ to the construction year. ] also think that there sho~ld be a
provision for working with the immediately adjaCErlt property owners --the
C~ans. ] ~ou1d 1fke to hear from my fellow commissioners, as well.
CorrrnissiofH;r Chri:stensen: I agre<!. I would not build this Mus.e on t)i!is
sHeo. but he is building '.dthin the envelope and the restrictions, is fir
as lot coverage is concer~€d. I wIJuld not like to see the land"s.<ape
requirement changed completely. Mr. ATtma~ ~as indicated a willingness to
lPstill the lar;dscaping within tha.t 30-foot setback that most affects the
Chans, and 'We shou1d hole:! hirl: to that commitment, and Uat he is willing
to instill it this },far pric,r to Oc;t(lber IS. So I 'Would not \rant to
change Uat totally. The sor:,ner t~at gE-ts in and g{)ing .. the better it ls
goi~g to be from their perspective.
I all very c{)ncerned: about th2 ligMing. ...auld not want to see any
lig~ting po~ts come down tnat driveway .. nor any ~lgh lighting around t~e
entry. Ground lighting a:'ld lew l~ .... el, and none of the ~igh-efficiencl
lig~t~ng that we ~se in the city --the orange sodium lights. ] don't
tnow who gets to see the lighting ,phn, but I do UJink that should be done
very carefully, and sho~Td ill be low level, bot'" intensitywis! and low to
the ground. [think it is ironic that we "ave this concerl about the
proposed 1andscaping _ithin a 7S-foot setback~ If they propose it~ they
have to get the permissicn,. and the or,1y part of that is-foot setback that
is. affected by i surroiJl1din·~ prop€:I""ty owner that has to sign the
perlission is the landscaping that ~o~ld be protecting them from the
dr-heway. I am not stIre what 'lie would accomplish with Uat restriction,
but I agree that it is probab11 best left out. It seems as tnou~h they
~ave c~ns91ted v;th the neighbors that they needed to consult with~ and
they do have the ~ppro¥al there.
~~ Commiss;on~_.r ___ Jnristensen: I move that we adopt the staff
recorrmencfaUo!l Df th:O' findings and clJnditior.s.
(QlTlTlissioner Hi_r._~£h: Irt"hat [ would propose ir. c.hanging Item 10 lIIould be is
the Uird from the last lir.e, chal'1ging the ward "install" to "implemerJt"
beca'Js! you don't il1stall p1a:'l5. In the second from He last line .. the
'WDrd "installation" shou1d' be changed to "implementation.1 I would add
before the list s£ntence~ -The plan s~all provide for the addition Df 53
Dew trees, including 33 oaks~-picking up on the first paragraph of t~e
la~dscaping section~ botto~ ~f Page 3 of tne staff report, and add
language it the end: ..... and s~all pro~ide for appropriate screening for
the nearby prop~rties in the ~E zone.~
(ommissfoner C~riste~sEn: No, [ think Mr. Altman's concern about t~is
condition was t~at t~e e~tire landscaping plan be implemented before
October 15. Hy concern is; nat n.ecessarily Hut the entire landscaping be
;Ashlled prior to that date .. but at least, the lands.caping in that
30-foot setback that separates th~ property from the [~ans be f~stilled
prior to October ]5. Mr. Altman has expressed his willingness to accept
thit~ That w~s t~e way I ~a~ted to cha~ge tnat condition.
J _auld like to in(lude that the lighting be low to the ground and Tew
-12-
{
I
,
•
-~~';:, ....
~>-.~ ..
<. "
",
,-
0--
leyel I,tensit, i. Condition 113.
I would like t. strite Condition III.
Ch~inftan Chandler: Tnere is i ~otlon on the flQo~ to appro~e the staff
reconmendattoD. ~t~ a~ addition to (onditicn f]3 that liS~tiog be
low-i~tens;tJ and low beight; an a~~ndment to Conditfnn '10 that the
portion of the landscaping t~at is wit.ln the 30-foot setback llong t~.
C~an proper!1 be installed before October IS of t~is ye.r, but t~.t the
additional landscaping not be required to be f~stal1ed before October IS;
and ffftal1y, t~at Condition IJi be struck.
~: B~ Commissioner ~lr>c~.
I bave l question regarding the detailed landscape plan. [s t~at before
~s tonfg~t? It says ~Sub~it a detailed landscaping plan.~ Do we have a
Fla~ that we are recommending for approval tanlght?
~s~ Chenev; Yes. you do. and you have a fiirl, detailed landscape plan~
What we ~]1 ~e later will be the construction documents~ wnic' will have
specific spaCing im greater detall. The locations and types of ~lants and
trees will be what )OU are recommending tonight.
Commissioner Hirsch: Does t~at implement that ~aragraph I was alluding to
before~ 11 t~e landscaping section of the staff report OD Page l?
~s~ C~ener; Yes, it does. Those destriptians were taken off of the ,lan.
Commissioner ~a~sb: ~~ ~nderstanding was that the October 15 deadline
related to erosion issues. 1rIo't',at ... e need to do, if -we are going tel c'flar'tge
the requfrement there, is tD also add a clause that appropriate steps be
implemented to control any effects of erosion during the ~i~ter months~ if
Jand~apin9 is not installed.
Ms. Jansen: We ~eed an erosion control plan if tne rest of the
landscaping is not be installed by October )5~ We ~ave no problem ~th
Its not being installed by October ]5 as long as we ~ave an erosion
control plan.
Co~issioner Christensen: Tnat was the prew;ous sentence. I ~as Dot
c~ang;ng that sentence, up to the approved landscape plan.
"So Jansen: Generilll, constructfon stops d~ring that period. What we
are saying fs t~at in that lull period during tn! rainy ~ason, ve would
like to ha~e an erosion control plan if landscaping is not to be
installed.
Commissioner C~ristensen: Yes, it ilready said that: ·~ .. recommendations
for soil .i1es or ct~er measures needed to issure adequate and contfnued
<overage of denuded sTopes.-I was not changing that part of it. Just
tne actual fi~al implem€ntation ot the full landscape plan.
Commisslo"er ___ HiTs.c~: I agree wit~ that, is seconder of the motion~
Commis5ioner Hu~~; Commissioner Cullen has suggestfd that prjo~ t~
iss~ance of an occopancy pe~it, the land>caping be done. Should_e
-Il-
•
I
I
, \ . ,
\
"
l
l
I .,
\.
\'
. ' .'-
r--. ' ..
I
1
\~',::;,,;r.'
,,", ""-~:;. -----------------------,-~.--------
o 0
include someth~ng lH~ t~.at ~i're. C'T is it au'!.c.1I2t1c? If it is not
a~tomatfc or if it is u~clear. I would ask t~2t ~e i~corpor'ate t~at into
t~e IDOt! on.
~s. Jansen: nat is iI gDod idea.
Conmissioner (611e'1: The reason] 'S'J9gested that is thilt we have tlad iI
couple Df examples Lip H.ere w~ere \ole appro lied a plan. and the landscaping,
whic" WiiS very deta71ed' on a pl-a.r'l~ 9r::t postpGr.ed and p,:'!stpor.ed. [wante-d
to inclode that sa t~at Hie neig"bors and He city are assured Hat the
landscaping, as pTa~nedJ vil1 a~t~ally be installed.
COlTlTliss;Qner Hirsc~: \IIrat ~app€i1s ; f we set ;-nto anoH-,ef year of i. full
blown drougH? We are asking for a let of 1 andscap1ng to go in. that will
reQ.uire a Jot cf water, a:'ld presLimably at a time w'hen they may be reQufred
to "old back 25 or 30 percent. \Ii'rat would nap~,en under thes€
circumstances?
1'15. Jansen: We have had' tt,at hapJ:'.en in the past. What we ~ave ,allowed
for is letters {)f agr€€'!:'Ient guara"Jt€eing Hat the-landscapi n9 lliould be
installed at I: future date,. once He drought i ss!.,;e is o'oler. We have 'had
no ~roblems wit~ this.
(:OlJlT)l£:Sloner Hirsch; That ""culd s~tisfy my concern.
C~airman ____ C'"iHldl~..t: A motion has be~n made by Commissioner Ctlristensen and
s~conded by Commissioner Hirsch to approve the application as stated iA
the staff report, 'With the follcllIing changes: (1) Condition III is
deleted; (2} Condition #13 t5 modified to req'Jire lO\fl-intensitl,. low
height lighting. as well as t".e othe(' re{ju'fre::1.erts in u,at condition; (3)
iI cOflditicH'l is add.ed' t~at t~€ lln-:scape p:an must be implEmented before a
use and oC(lJpan(y pErmit is grar.ted, or if drought conditions make that
impo-ssible, tnat appropriate i!.1ternative arrangEments be R1ade by the shff
111 .conjunction with the property Q",ner; (4) th.e landscaping in the portion
of the propertl adjacent to tte Ch.'5 be installed by OctobEr 15 of the
:rear ira .. "hich c{)nstrll(ti~'il .cc~,€':nCE.S, ard an appropriate erosion control
IIlaD be irl place for the "ir.tEr mc-rrths during the period of constrlJction.
[5 there any further discussion 0n th;s ~Dtion? All those in fa'olor t say
Aye? All opposed? T~ct raSSE'3 unan~rr':,~sly. with Commissiuners Beedlam,
C.llen and Mars,", abser:t.
CtHnmissloner Plaqh: i do uppose ttlis occupancy dause. That is not
somethir'lg we have d~e ~efore. I th",l11t there are a lot of reasons u,at
la!'lds-caping might be approprf2tely staged. We tlH;e not had a problem 11
entering fnto agreements ~ith la~dow~ers in the past in getting
landscaping imp1emented' through tl;e me-arts u,i.l:t 'We t\a\ii!' ill ready employed.
I t"ink lie are putting an Ul'weCeSSiil'"Y road bloc!.:. in t1ere. I will
cerhillJ support He appltcatiD11, but I lI'ant it to be clear Uat I oppose
Uat segment of Ue rrrcticn.
Crnmissfoner Culler!: 'We have a(:t~ally rcquir""d bonds froltl peo,pT~ up tt1ere
te ensure Hat land5cap-i~·'3 be d,)!'1e. \lie !'lave tlad Stlcl'l things is penaltfes
written in for removal of trees that were considEred sigrlificanL So I
don't t~ink we are brea~~ng ne~ 5rou~d here, but are just ensuring that a
site wflich requires extensive lar .. :ls(a~irrg is g.Jin~ to gEt it.
L
•
\,
!
t
1
I
I
"
/
, :
o
Ckafrman (~andler; I a~ going to support t~e metlon, as ] feel it fits 1m
wit~ the re~uirements ~f the ~pen Space z9ne. We ire see~ng here an
effe-ct of His exchange w~ere we ~a'{e relit hell small properties subject
to the Open S~ace zone ~ich was designed for lO-acre properties~ The
Residenthl htate lone. under olJr -current zoning. is limited to .a lIaximum
bouse Slze Df 6,000 square feet, which fs appro_f~teT1 half the size of
t~fs proposed h~use, and probably more in keeping with the adj~i~;ng hJme$
whfc~. 11t~ou9h q~;t! large, I did n~t get t~e feelfng t~at they ~ere
11,000 square feet. Having seen the property and spoken with the propert,
owner last Saturday via bicycle with a 40-pound chIld cn the backf I can
attest to the interesting topography tMat pro~ides ~iews from different
locations. TMe landscape plan will pro~ide the type of scr~ening.
ultimately, and t~at is th~ most we can ask in t~is part of the communit~,
as well as fro~ the Arastra Property. w;t~ respect t~ the CC&Rs issues. J
join Commissioner Huber's r~mark t~at we should stay out of the CC&R
enforcement business_ It cr~ates confusion as to who is i~ and who is
Dut, and is not what our lcning is a~ut. so 1 bope ~e don't do that
agaio.
Comnission'i!T Hirsch: f. like Commissioners Christensen and Callen. am
~~mewhat disapPo1nted to see a h~use of t~at size go up i_ that area. but
I recognize t~at yeu are within the bUl1ding envelope and you ~ave the
rig'flt to do so. I am per5~ad'ed by your personal shtemel'lb and by the
~tatements of your representatives that the landscaping is important to
you. is ~ell~ Wit~ the Issur~~ces I heard tonight from your own
testimony) I feel confident t~at you ~ill do right by your neighhors and
make sure t~at the landscaping is appropriate to their needs. is ~el1 is
your Own4
MOTION' PASSES: ~_b_~_irman Chandler: Is thEre an.v f~rther discwssion Or!
t~fs ~tion? All those in faver, say Aye? All opposed? That passes
unanimousl,. ~ith CommisSl0ner Beecnam absent.
~s~ Jansen: That goes to cit, council April 16th.
-I s-
{~~fF~ .
,':< '-'.:
-
•
The PLanning Commission
The C., of Palo Alto
Palo Alto City H."
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Commissjoners,
"
March 24, 1m
fn 00' capacity as tfle Architectural Review Committee of laurel Glen Estates,
and as property owners within Laurel Gten Estates, we wish to inform you that we
have reviewed the plans of Mf'". and Mrs. Vernon E. Altman for th.e construction of
their home at 92( laurel Gten Drive~ and tflal we approve. those plans as submitted
for review at Jour March 28~ 1990 ml*!ting.
Sincerely }OUf'S.
David Hop'ki n 5
954 laurel Gten Dri ve
~C:£7
William Terry
921lauref Glen Drive
5
VEAsb
u: Sarah Chene),
•
\
I
j
1
I
\
-
The Honor.bfe M'JO< Q. Cobb
The City of PaJo Alto
P.lo Alto CttJ H.n
2SO Hamitton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
O .. r M.yo< Cobb,
(V)~~~!~1@
II\( frlM :' 199D j
C D&-1JlfMfNl Of Pl'" ",,"
ITt OF PALO AllV
M.y 2, 1990
My wife and I ire in the process of submittint site and design plans for
construction of our bome at 924 Laurel Glen Drive, Palo Alto. These plans were
originan, approved by the Paro Alto City Council in 1983 .. but this approval upired
wilen we rel'ocated to Boston for six ,.ears and were un able to begin coostruction.
Having new retLlirned to the area, we are seekinl approvar for au,," home again. and
mO$t recen try. our site and design "fans Wer!' approyed by the Pf a nning Com mission
on M.,ell 28, 1990,
Since: the Planning Commission meeting, t 'have been discussin, out'" plans wit"
our neighbors on Laurel Glen onve in an attempt to undemand anJ concerns that
they migf1t fine. and to address their concerns in the design of OUf borne, if
possible. Based on these discussions, I have ilsied our architect,. Men Skogsber&.
to maKe signifICant changes to our design. redudna: fleig'hts" footprint and square
K>ot:age. [have also asked our faMsupe archltect.. Peter Sf'law, to after the
landscape design so itS to afford additional screening of OUf home fof affected
neichbors. Although we bet'iewe these design cllanges .. ill be responsive to tfle
concerns of the affected neighbors. they win tale some time to comprete. and it win
not be possibTe for us to appear before Cit, Council on Ma, tC. as originady
sd1eduled. Therefore .. I .out .. lib to reque.t • continuance of our item from
JUlIO' M., 14, 11190 Cit), Counc:. _ •• unti • '-ter date, to lie r0'lu .. ted of
the Cit), C..... .)' the PI .... i... O.putment.
Than1c: JOU 'eT)' much for JOUf consideration. I look forward to seeing fOU at an
upc.oming Cit, Counei' meeting and to discussing our home with you at that time.
50::: <),.
Vernon E. Altman
12690 ViS«lino Road
I.e. Al!os H!"., C.A. 94022
c.c: Neighbors Orl laurel Glen Orin
Dr, BogertJ
Mr. Mrs. Cassidy
Mr. Mrs. Chan
Dr. Mrs. CoTeman
Mr. Hesfin " Ms. Hau
Mr. Mrs, Hoj;kins
Dr. Mrs, Jacobsen
Mr. Mrs, M.,elby
MI. Mrs. pezzani
Ju dge " Mr., Schatz
Mi, Mr •. Schoendotf
Mr. Mrs, Terry
Mr, Mr., W.llcer
Mr. Mrs, West
Mr. Mi., Yeh
". " .
Cit, of Palo Alto
Ms. Sarah Chene),
Planning Department
Ms. Groriil Young
CiI, Clerk
Mr. Peter Sh ...
Mr, Allen Skogsberg
•
. '
i
f
I
•
:),,'~:
~r~~:/_
1-•
' . .]'
I
I
1
I
i;
" ,
, -.
The Iionorabft: Miilyoro'ke Cobb
The C~J of Palo Alto
Pato Alto City H.n
2SO Hamilton A.nnue
Pato Alto, CA 94301
Dea.r Mayor Cobb~
L
C DEPAl\rMENT Of Plk."",,""
In OF PAlO Al11.J
May 2,1990
My v/tfe and. afe in the process of submittifll site and design plans kif"
c:ons.ttuction of our home at 924 liillJrel Glen Drive, Palo Alto. These pfans were
origin:atty approved by the Palo Alto City (ounc;l in 19B3, but this approval expired
when we re1o<Alted to BostOD lor six years and WUti unable to begin C(I"Istruction.
Haying now returned to fhe areii~ 'We .re seeking approval for our bome again, and
most recentJy.our site and design plans were approved by the Planning Commission
on MardI 28,1990.
Since tfle Planning Commission meeting, I hive been discussing our plans with
our neig'hb04"s OD laurel Glen Drive in an attempt to understand any concerns that
they might have,. and to address thtir concerns in the design of our home, ;C
pos,sible. SOlIsed' on these discu5sions~ J """fe iis'ked Our architect. Men Skogs-berg,
to make signirKant aal'lges to Ol,Sf design:> reducing f1eigflts, Iootpr'Lnt and square
footage. 'ha~e also a.s'k-ed' our Ia.ndscape ar(;.hitect, Peter Shaw~ to atter the
randscape design so as to affOfd' additional' screening of our home for affect.ed
neig1-.boofS. Afthou,h ~It berlev.t tkese &siCA "han,es. will be. responsive to tl\e
'Concerns of the affected [leighbors~ they will h'ke some time to complete,. and j.r win
not be possibTe fO( tiS to 4Ippur before City Council 0" May 14-, 3S Of'ig:'Lnany
scfleduled'. ThereJ«e. J would like to requHt • c.ontinUlince of OW' item from
your M.y :1.4. :I.;GO Cit)" Counc" -cenci. until • "tv •• te. to 'be: requute:d or
tho City cr." ~7 ,he PI"'nin, O.partmenL
Tnan1\; you very much for Jour consideration. I k>ok forward to seeing yoo at an
upcoming City Council meetilll and to cfiscus:sing O[J.l' hom~ witll you itt that time. so::: i
Vernon E Artman
12690 Visc.air'lo Roetd
los AIlos HinsJ CA 94022
c.c: Neighbors on LaUfer Gte"-_Oii'l,le.
Or,Bogerty
Mr. MIS. Cassidy
Mr. Mrs, Oan
Dr. Mrs. Coleman
Mr. Hesfin"
Ms. HalJ
Mr. Mrs, Hopkins
Dr. Mrs. hcobsen
Mr. Mrs. Magerby
Mr. Mrs. puzani
Judge" Mrs, Sc~.tz
Mr. Mrs. ScIloendorf
Mr. Mrs. Terry
Mr. Mrs. Walker
Mr. Mrs. West
Mr. Mrs, Ye~
'c,,·p ....... ' 1111 ...... "il!"'''''l, .. ; 0.,,,,,,-,," __ ..... '''' ."_'~-',~ . .~
~------
City of Pa.lo Alto
Ms. Sarah Cheney
Pfanning Department
Ms. Gloria Young
City cter~
Mr. Peter Shaw
Mr. Ane" Skogsb."
•
_.
--,-. -.:.."
o
P.O. BOX 4003
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93403
905-541·3329
MI!I~ S.ra Cheht'y
Plannln; Oep~rtmect
City of Palo Alta
Palo ~lto City Rall
2~~ Haml1ton Avenue
Palo Alt., C~ '4301
OCtober 5, 1990
Dea% ~s. Cheney,
subsequent to obt.lnln9 ~n.Dl.oa. Plannic9 commissloD
app~ov.16 Kr~ and Hra. Altman have made a ~Qmbe[ of cbanges to
theIr P%Opo •• ~ rea!denee, to b. located .t 124 Laur@l Gle~ ~oa~.
~hes. changes h.ve been made to accommodate tbe concerns of the
neighbors 4S vQlce~ In the Plannlnq Comm18aton ~ •• tlnq. My
purpose In ~ltlng I. to .u~rS~e thes. ~h.ngea~ whlch aay be
bl:okeft (Jown Into area reductlol"'j a":'~ to-Of line chao!:)e!!!!.
1. AREA REDUCTIONS
L
A4 Th. conselvatoxy h.~ beeD ell~ln~te~. ~he conee~vatozy,
ilvln~ toom, an4 entry .re. b.VD been c~n.ol14.te6 Imto a
liying room abO .ntEY Eeaaltln9 In a net xedQCttcD cf o~e
tho~ •• n4 one bon~red an~ alxty sJx square feet rl,l" $q.
ttl.
B. The entry bas been ~ov.~ from the cantel (root to rlqht
front of the h~cse.
c. Tbe l0i91a area .bove the IIyiog Loom has been
4eleted ell.1n.tl~9 one tbou.and ~ne h~n~r.d and .eventy
four aqua!:e fe-et (l,tHI IQ. ft.'.
Dr Tbe open volume .rea above the living room an~ t~e
forme~ con8ervatory hal beeu elimln&ted to re~ace tbe open
apace {afr) by one tbouaand seven ~undre4 and twenty squa%e
feet 11,120 SQ. ft.1
E. fbe basement .to~.9' Area ha. been r.dQce~ by nice
hondrt~ and aeventy 5quare feet f9'1 .~. ft.) and tb. qar.qQ
area Inc~ ••• e~ by forty one 8Q~.r. fe.t (41 5q. ft~l.
,. Th ••• terlor dec. aree h •• be.m Eed~ce4 by one ~undred
and: eIghty e:q·uere feet 010 .c;:. ft.).
G. fhe e~e[~'&~ room in the ba8tm~nt ha. b~~n ellatnat~d.
•
•
,
•
\
'\
\.
\
.~-\
c ••
"~j
,
I
t ,
I •
J
i
I
I
!
•
•
. ' -
,
\
< .~
,,"tL,· ._~_'_~ _____ '"
' ..
______ ,~~,.,,;>P."'=-,--~--.·
' .. ,""
-
o o
Chene), paqe ,
T~eee redaction. h.ve ,educed the building footptlnt hy ODe
thoa~and one hundt.4 6nd twenty five ~qu.te feet (1,12~ sq. ft.]
and tbe living ar •• by two tboca&nd !lv. hundred 6eveaty levee
squatt feet 12,511 aq. ft.).
2. HEI~T AND ROOF LINE CKANGES
~. All Eoofa have b.en c~ange~ fro~ a flve and t~elve pltch
to • four an4 twelve plteh~ K05~ of tbe toof. bave beeD
changed to • hip eonfI9u~.tl~n ~lcb t~.nelate6 into lQwe~
loofs and .ab.t.ntlall~ leas volume In the structure.
8. In tb. I1vlc9 Eoom, all Eo~f5 .te lovel than the
prtvioul ~e.l~n .n~ .t Borne pol~t. they axe lowe! by •• ven
feet (7 1 ). The .'nlmum overall height r.ductl~o In tbe
llv1ng room {Iectlob A) 1. one foot el~ inches tlt ,-). In
a4dltloD, the hlp conf19u~.tloD .~b.tantl~JJy Te~ace5 the
a~e. of the zoof ebove the .ve~a9. b.1ght line a~ ba5
permltted • complete ~e4e.'9n of the ~oo~ syatem, thereby
sublt.ntt.lly re6uclng volume.
c. In the tllnllllg EC.Q1Zl .ane the 11bz.~y tSec\;:lgnls C ana .8)
tbe highelt poIttt •• re ~lz feet (6 1 ) lowex tban the
pClvloo. d •• 19n.
O. la the iltchen wlD9 {S.etlon D), the bl~he5t point Is fav. feet (S') lower than the preYI~u. desIgn. On avera;e
the new eonflquratlon 1. four faet two Inches (t ' ]-)
lower.
E. In the bedroo. vJDg fSectlon £J, the hIghest poInt Ja
five feet (S') low.~ than In the orlqlDal design.
J9 concert th ••• roof chaDges 5ubatantlally r.~~ce the ~a55 of
xeal~enee whJl. developln9 a pleaSing «nd InteIE8tln9 r~!llne.
fA ~6dltfon to th ••• atroctuE&l cb.ni •• , a6dl~l~nal
screeDln9' and pl.ntlniB ~.~. b.en added to ~he lan~,cape plan
to fUrtber .c~een the resIdence. ~h •• e chanqes 5Ee shown OD the
revIsed landecap1n9 and gra~lng 91.ns and are beln9 commuDleate~
to you &epa~.taly by Petet Wright Ih~w.
ShQUld ~OQ h.ve q~estlon. r.gardlcq th~ee changes or should
you; zeq\l!re .cldltlonll JAtorMtlo-n ,,1 ••• * 4,0 not heesitate to
eo·ntact me: at tOO "2& l'l11.
", -,
•
o
Peter Wright Sha'N
•. ,_"1 ",":.',:,;'"
I : "I' t' • ,,' .' :,' I
• , ", .. ~ i .
Ms. Sara"h Cheney
Plano ing Department
City of Palo Mo
Palo Alto City Han
250 Ham~ton Averwe
Paro Mo, CA 94301
Deaf Ms. Cheney:
. ,
o
October 9, 1990
We have revised the landscaping of Ihe Alt-nan residence (924
laurel Glen Drive} 10 reflect concerns voiced by some of Mr. and Mrs.
Altman's neig/lbors at the PlaMing Commission meeting of March
28th. The following ~st summarizes !he changes made to mtegrate
!he house plantings into the existing landscape:
1. The add!tion of seven new trees and 126 large native·species
screening shrubs at the sou1h and east sides of the home.
2. The add!tion of lou< Coast live Oak trees, two Yaney Oak.
trees, and thirty· seven evergreerl native·species shlubs
directly at the edge of the pool paflO.
3. The addition of a Iotal of 301 evergreen shrubs, 244 of which
are native, drought·lolerant plants (these plants also act 10
deter the spread of wildf .... esl·
4. A chain· fink fence has been added along Ihe south. southwest and
north P'operty fines 10 pro:act Ihese plantings from deer and 10
5eCUfe the pool area.
5. The area of the pool patio has incfeased by 422 square feel
6. Turf~Iock has been subsfiMed for 840 SQLtare feet of the paved
d·rive.
-----~"
•
.'
·
o o
1. The area of \he impervious (paved) fl'Ollt walk has been. reduced
by 391 square feet
The previous submlssion as approved by the plan.ning commission
oK! addfess impo<1anl site concerns. The arcMecMal and
Ia~ changes which have been generated vom numerous
meetings with neigr.bO<s enhance the home's res;.ective
relationships with the si\e. TheM changes, combined with the
reduction in "eight, !loor plarl and volume 01 the eotite structure,
win siglliflCalltly redUC<l the building's visual impact irl the
landscape.
------,-----.... '
·. -
o
OclOber 3, 1990
Ms. Sarah Oleney
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto City Hall
25() HamillOll A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Ms. Oleney:
/
12690 YlXaino Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
As 1011 100w from my Iettu to the Palo Alto City Council yesterday, !he
review process with our neighbors lias gone quite wen. We have now mel with 14
of oar IS neighbors ane! have received favOOlbIe approval from an 14. • will
attempt 10 meet with our remaining neighbors, Judge and Mrs. Schatz, prior 10 !he
council meet'ng later this montlt.
Thus far, we have m:eivec! favOOlbIe appro ... Ietten from II of our
neighbors. • am attacbing !hose Iettus along with a 10( map of oW" neighborbood.
As we receive addi<ionallettus, I WIll forward !hem to 100.
Thank yoa for your assistance.
rr~ ~..x..."/----I,--__
Veroon E. Altman
Attachments
VEAlmc
•
, ,.
· .. ·r······ '.
,
/
t
..
" ':. .. ..
" .,
. "
• • ,,' ,
,
•
f
: HOpkins
,W 195.
:1
:j
___________ .......... :.. ....... ...-~w..._'c .,'(II'+' '/". , .. -) , " ,"' ..... ~
........................ -.. .. ......... .. .. ............. ..
.. .. . .. . . .. .......
' .. tf9pkins .' ..
.. II (~J.ndoVE!'lG~) ....... "'"
. ..,)0 ...... .. .' . , '. , ' I " , ,
...... ~
' .... ~~
-.-.. .. . ,. .... , ...... ...
' . ; .......... , ...... ..
.... IJ'erry ""
~-lt .. '\ .... .. .... "" ....... 't.
. , , , , . , , • , ~I • • , • • , ,
" , • I • • • • , , \ ...
\ • \ , .. • , • • , ' , • • , , • • , , • • • •
0
~ '/ , • I
,//'
LAU~BL GLEN D~IVB
PALO ALTO, CALlFO~IA
I I.
I k:,
I , ,
j
I ,
I
I' f'
I ~ I Jocot>""n j~ ~ ~.
'--,\ _'1 ,f~' ,,". :.r;:J" ,';; / •
... .lit,,' ~. }.'" ~_'. ,1t ,I,,~ ) I
• !' •• '; :' ') ;, -~" A'.,,-, y. N
• -• ! 'I
i
·,:;, ,p
I)
•
,
" ./
• ,
"
"
I
I
r--.....•• ·.o I ..... .
.,
Mr. Vernon AI tman
1269G Viscalno Rd.
o
Richara D. cas.14y
9S5 Laurel Glen Drive
Palo Alto~ CA 94304
Los Altos Bills, CA 54022
Dear Vern:
September 26, 1990
It was a plea~ure meeting with you the other day, to discuss your
tuture building plans" and the modifIcations you have made to
accommodate our concerns over the loss" or obstruction of our
view. I appreciate your willingness and teel confident that you
have made every effort to comply with our r~ests~ and still
maintain an architecturally desireable home for you and your
f, .. lily_
In reviewing ~~r conversatlon# I would like to complement you on
your new design which reflects a lowering of the roof line to
preserve our view. I bElieve this new eesign will not only
satisfy cur concerns, but will be an architectural complement to
the entire area. I wish that some or our other neighbors could
disp~ay the same .amount of -consideration ..
In closing, I would like to make one final request. Would you
please send me a copy of the elevation drawings you showed me in
our meeting, with a rough indication of the height of the
structure, in relation to the two oak trees we used as a point of
reference. I feel confident they will be satisfacto~r and I look
forward to seeing the final result.
I wish you and your fallily the very best and look for-ward: to
baving you as our Dew neighbors.
sincerely" .,
~.~~
Richard Cassidy
•
\
-.
• i
I
!I '.'.
....J
i
, I
o
Planning !>opartmon!
Cit}'" o£ Palo Alto
250 l!an!U ton .Iwnue
Pa.lo Alto .. C:a.lUonIa 94301
/
9)6 I.aurel G.len DrIve
Palo Alto .. Cali!'orn1&
J'UM 15. 1983
The proposed lltllaZ1 residence on Lot, 0'£ Laur.l Clell
Estate.s .. -:.ont~ou. to our p!'o,pert.T1 is ,dt.Yated 1n such a.
wa,. _ ~t U llUl.t necesoarUy 1J:.p1nge upon our views and our
priVacy •
• lk. Altman has offered to !litigate the 1.mpac-t upon us o.f
this construction by pt"ovid1n& ,:::reeD. lllant1ngs. 'teb-een us .
.Beca.use t1'le::re 1s 8pi.ce avaUa.ble for such plantings. on1,. in
tm" spoul setback Area B-,5 llhich was created-to protect us,
we 4!;ree.'thl.t thB natural .tate or t'f'e terraln ot .L"!'ea !!-5
be aJ.tere~ by t.hs install.t1on of Jllant materials, tre selecU<:ln
and positIon of wblcb are to "be deten1ned b,. ~emeDt betueen
us and Plr. .U t:.ma.t:..
U the Planning CoMtiss1oners approve tte proposed
placement of" t:r. .tructure, w request that the}'" crea.te all
1nst:rl:ment "£or tt. ,purpose o~ tnsur1ng that this ,protection
1.s indeed prov1ded.
Yours JIlOS t s lncerel.1,
\
eel rernOD E. 11 tman ~l .FC--L~
l!{V'~~ "-H'i'oCb-xa' I, (d~-~
"
/~<,{ .£3'C-e___."-e---__
•
"
-
. "
o
Tbe PWuling Commissioo
The CiIy 0( PalG Alto
Palo Alto CiIy Han
2SO Hamilton Avenue
PalG Alto, CA 94301
Dear Commissionen,
"
Sept.embez U, 1990
In our capacity .. !he Architectural Review Committee 0( Laurel Glen Est.lt.es.
and .. property owners within Laurel Glea Es!a!es. we wish 10 inform yoo that we have
:evie"'ed the reviled p1anJ 0( Mr. and Mn. Vernon E. Altman for the conslIuction 0(
their home at 924 Laurel Glen Drive. and lila! '" approve those p1aru as submitted.
Sincerely yours.
G1)j h4F-
David Hopkins
95'4 Laure1 Glen Drive
<:e: Vernon Altman
Sarah Cheney
-;oL'" '
.' ':" -
:
-. •
\
•
1R1c.1-UlP0.lACOI!ISEN.)oII: 0-. INC ;,b .. ;.,1.J e a.ECKEPt. tot. D .. [NC ALAN C. Jol.EI'tc,HANT .... O. 0
FUCHAJlD t.. ..... ERc;EFl. M. D .• &we.
I'OQ .. O"'"'T .... DIII~vC •• Un..O,HQ .,
... ou ... ,. .. ,'" ""ew. c: ..... 'OIilNIA '''0''0
Mr. rerno~ Altma~
12690 ri.caino Road
lo. Altos Hills, CA 94022
Dear ~. At~man:
April 30, 1990
~y ~ife and 1 have reviewe~ t~e plans for your ne~ residence on laurel
GleA D~jye. and we find the~ to b~ acceptable~ As you know. there was
thought to be an impairment of .1ew from our front dect. ~it~ the ne~
adjustments that you are ~atin9 ia your final ~lans. out .iew will be
unaffected. We hope that your construction goes well and that you ~il1
be happy on Laurel Slen Drive.
Dr. and Mrs. Jacobsen reside at 966 Laurel GleD Drive. Palo Alto
.. -. ,.,--_. -... '"
"
, '
• ,
I
I
o
',ril 29. 199()
rbe flSBmibg Commission
Tbe CitJ of Palo Alto
Palo Alto Cit! Ball
2~ Hamilton AYeD~e
Palo Alto. CA 94501
~ear ComMissiomecs:
o
~e have ~e.iewed the ,lans of Mr. a~d ~rs_ 'er~on f. Sltman for
tbeir home ~bicb is to. be coostrDcl~d at 914 La~rel Clen Ori~~.
We t\ink t~at t~e ~ome is well desilned (0 fit iato the dred and
ap?~Q~e lbe ,laBs. ~e cecomme~a that tbe PJaDQ]Qg Com~is~loD and
City COl3nc:i1 gr-aat tbe Altmams ,perm.issioa (0 COIis-trllC.~ t"'eir home.
SiBcerelJ ,oars
965 La.rel Gle1 Drive
Palo J,lto. cr
•
Mr. Vernon Altman
12640 VlS<:aino Road
QngelO M. Pezzani 0
950 LaLirel Glen Drive
Palo Alto, Cafifornia 94304
September 24. 1990
Los Altos HiJls, CA 94022
Dear Vernon:
My wife aOO I appreciate you and your land=pe architect visiting witll \IS several
Sundays ag" '" sIlow tlS tile revised plans for your new bome 10 be built at 924 Laurel
Gle" Drive. It was most belpful that both 0{ you also explained in some detail the new
plans and tile use 0{ tbe acetate overlays reany brought home the alterations in tile
architecture of the building as ",ell as ebonges in the landscaping as ",ell.
I cannot speak fo< the entire neighborhood. but I can tell you tIIat my wife and I
are quite satisfied with tile changes you sbowed us wbich answered mo;t oC our initial
objections. It is forr 10 say that the remed plans you sbowed us Dot only resolved our
original objections, but also present a dwelling and landscaped lot that we welcome 10
the neighborbood.
We would like 10 thank you and your wife for tile considerable effort you both
have made 10 accommodate the neigh1:>orboOO and 10 buW a bouse that fits in so wen
with tile land tIIa! we all so dearly me and hope 10 enjoy. Welcome 10 the
neighborbood and may we wish you tile best 0{ luck.
ANGEW M. I'EZZANI
-,
o
Th. PI.nnl., C:ommi .. lon
The City or P.lo Alto
Paro Alto City Haa
250 Hamilloa Ann ... p.r .. Alto. CA ~1
/'
o
I h ....... i<owed 1M pra,," or Mr. M ... V •• noa E AJtmon fa< .he construction
of t11t:'tt hom1l at H-4tattr«l' Gkn Oriv.~ .n4 apSH'o'le. thO$e plaM as submiUed for
r •• lew It ,our M.~, 28,1900 ",.eli",.
Sincetery !tlUl's ...
cc S."'" o..noy
•
o
The Planning Commission
The City 0( Palo Alto
Palo Alto City Han
250 HamillDn Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Commissioners,.
o
September IS, 1990
In. our capacity as the Architectural Review Committee of Laurel Glen Estates,
and as. property ownen within Laurel Glea Estates, lAte wish to inform you that we lla .... e
r-eviewed the revised plans of ~1r~ and Mn. Vernoc. E. Altman t:or the construction of
their home at 924 Laurel Glen Drive, and that we approve those plans as submitted.
Sincerely yours,
C15/~
David Hopkins
9S4 Laurel GIe. Drive
cc: Vernon Altman
Sarah Cheney
--·-E···~ ---_.
" , ,
-
, ,
·-
/
o 0
Kr~VerDon Altman
l~S~ Viscaino Rd~
Los Altos Eills. CA 94022
Dear Vern:
September 12. 1990
First, let us thank you for the opportonity to revie~ the
revised plans tor your new home to be le<ated at 924 Laurel
Glen Drive iu Palo Alto Bills.
Secondly. thank you for listening so closely and giving
careful <:o·nsideration to the objections ..... hich 'Were raised
over the original plans, approved by tbe Planning Commission
on March 28. 1990.
We consider y~ur r~vised plans to have addressed ~ur
eo·ncerns entirely.
Frankly" we are ·,rer:-y impress~d with the sweeping changes
which you have made in order to lower the profile and
r~tprint of the hoose in a~s~er to Qur request.
"'e feel that you na've done more than one could reasonably
expect of yeu.
We sin~erelT hope you can now ~inall7 go forward vith tbe
p~oject and cah reali~e your dream home in the near future~
Thank you very much 7
Your futore neighbors
/iI~~
Ed ~ Helga Walker
945 Laurel Glen Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94W4
•
\
f
o
Dear Yer ...
.' '. . .
/
o
J wanted' to write-this letter to express my appreciatIon foc your
effort in keepi.g the neighbors infor=d aooul your building plans.
The new plans thaI you sbowed us on your last visit look quite good.
I especially like the way. you bave made every effort to construct.
boose for you and your family which will fits in with Ibe
surrounding landscape. The selection of earth lones foe your exlernal
color scheme will certainly help to minimize any visual impact Ibat
might occur.
Thanks ooce again for you time and effort, and good luck on you
project.
Sincerely
/ ____ "'-t/~-
James D. West
q£, dtUULl&v. J.
-6=l<.> tuh, I.e-
•
. ,
:,\
r
, .. ....,-.----......
f! ' .. '.
r
1
.. 1
.~
1
j
1
i
f
!
-
/
o o
september 24, 1990
Hr. Vernon Altman
.12690 Viscaino Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Re: 924 Laurel G~~
Dear Vernon:
J aD. writing on behalf of my parents, Hr. and Mrs. Geoffrey
Yeh, the owners of 910 Laurel Glen DrIve in Palo Alto Hills. I
WOUld like to first express their app~eciation for reviewing the
the revised plans of your boDe to be located at 924 Laurel Glen
Drive with tbe~.
My parents understand that these plans have been revised in
response -to objections which were raised by homeowners in the
Laurel Glen Drive area over the original plans previously
approved by the Palo Alto Planning commission, and that the
changes include lowering: the profile and the footprint of tbe
proposed bouse.
My parents would like to give their approval of the revised
plans and recommend that the Palo Alto Planninq Commission and
City Council qrant you peralsslon to construct your new home
u·nder the revised plans.. w. look forward: t.o baving you as our
future n~ighbors.
Very truly yours l
Yvette Yeh
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Geoffrey Yeh
·~;~L·.-T,~;:-'---.,:, ',-~ ... ,.
"~", ; ,
•
\
Mr. Ve rn Al tlllan
12690 Visciano Road
Los Altos Hills. CA 94022
Dear Vernon,
'.
" /
October 3 .. 1990
I want to thank you very much for giving me a chance to look
at the revised plans for your new home. I yould like to
say that I and all the nei9hbors were very impressed with all
the effort you put in to do those revisions, and it is greatly
appreciated, knowing how time consuming and costly such a
thing iSr I was very pleased with the new plans and I think
it is q¢ing to fit in very beautifully with the area. I
very much look forward to baving you and your family as
neighbors.
Be st rega.:.as. ~.l-~ (} ~~,~~t-
Sharon A. Bogerty ~~
951 Laurel Glen Drive
Palo Alto~ CA 94304
SAB:pd
cc: Planning Commission ..
City of Palo Alto
o.
.
I
'.
• I ,
I
l
~,
~< •
il f1 u ~1
~ ,
!
J
l
j
~
1
i :;
-
o
M!l •• VERNOr; A~ TI'IAN
!Z6!O.VISCAINO ROAD
LOS ALTOS ~ILLS, CA 94022
OEAR VERNON:
'tIE WAliT TO LET YOV !(NO" we APPR~IATED TKf Ol'PORTUNIH TO R~VIE\o'
YOUR REVISED PLANS fOR YOUR NE .. HOME TO BE BUILT AT 92~ LAUREL
'LEN DRIV~.
NOT ONL1 ~~ WERE IMPRESSED WITH TOUR COMMITMENT IN TA~ING THE
NEI'H50~tS CONCERNS WITH YOUR ORI.INAL PLAN TKAT THE PALO
ALTO PlANNIN~ CCMMISSION APPROVED INTO CONSID£RATIONS, 'tolE THINK
YOU HAV! SVCC~SSFVL~Y RESOLVED ~ST I~ NOT ALL OF OUR INITIAL
Oe-JECTIONS.
AS WE MENTIONeD AT OUR MEeTINGS, fROM SOME Of THE NEIGH50RS'
POINTS OF VIE", THfY WOULD PRefER TO I'..&.VE NO STROCTURE TO BE
BUILT ON AND AROU~D YOUR PROPERTY. OF COVRSE THAT WOULD NOT
B~ fAIR TO YOU AND TO YOUR FAMILY. .IVEN T~ FACT THAT SOME
TYPE OF BUILDINGS WILL BE ON THAT SITE, WE FEEL YOUR PROPOSED
PLAN APpeARS TO BE THE BeST OPTION AVAILABLE.
AGAIN, WE THANK YOU PO~ YOU~ SIGNifICANT E"ORTS IN EXPL~INING
li'l D'ET:aJLYOUR PLANS .. ITK US. ALTIiOUGK W~ WOVLD tHE T~ $EE
~RE PLANTS ALONG THE SOUTHE~ BORDE~ OF Y~R PROPERTY AND OVRS,
W! FEEl. COt>ll'IDlNT THAT SI'IO\ILO THAT ~E NECESSARY, Y~ Will Bl
MORe THAN COOPER.ATIV~ TO ENSURE THE ISSUE OF PRIVACY IS ADORESSED.
FINALLY, WE ARE SORRY WE ARE NOT A~LE TO ATTEND THe C~CIL
MEETING O~ OCTOBER IS, 19i~ TO SUPPORT Y~R PROJeCT. PLEASE
00 FEeL FRee TO PASS ALONG ~R SUPPORT TO THE CITY C~CIL.
GOOD lUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT AND we ARE LOOK IN' fORWARD TO YOUR
6ROV~D BREAKING SOON.
BfY REGARDS, ~ ~~~
"l LAUREL GLEN CR[VE
PALO I>.LTc, CI>.. "g4lD~
'L
-"
..
I
t
I
I
i
, , ,
~ .
'" ~ f ..... :~-"
•
.'y
~l
!
f
,j
I • i
..... >.
.. /
Octo1>er 7. 1990
Jemon Altman
12£90 Visca1no Road
LGs Altos Hill~~ California 94D22
Dear ~. Altman:
As ~e briefly discusse~ over the pbone. my wife and I
bave no obJections to aD! plans 1QU might bave tor lour De~ bome
at 92q Laurel Gl~Or1ve 50 long as the ~ompl~ vitb all applicable
code and zoning regulations~ We ~15b fOU the best ot luck in Jour
upcoming ~eeting with the City Council.
SReSl~'-
Glea Drive
CalifornIa 943Q~
>.