HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.13.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 6, 2008
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 10,975 SQUARE FOOT TWO
STORY RESIDENCE, 960 SQUARE FOOT SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT,
SWD/IMING POOL, AND HORSE BARN; LANDS OF LOS ALTOS HOMES
LLC; 26462 PURISSIMA ROAD; FILE #166-07-ZP-SD-GD. CONTINUED
FROM THE JANUARY 17, 2008 PLANNING COMMISISON MEETING
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner3F
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the new residence, subject to the
conditions of approval in Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a new residence, secondary
dwelling unit, swimming pool and horse barn on January 17, 2008 and continued the
application with specific suggestions and modifications (minutes attached). The
Commission's primary concerns included: possibly resiting the main building and
immediate landscape screening. These issues and others discussed at the hearing are
noted below.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission gave direction to the applicants regarding the project, and the
applicants have modified the plans in response to the comments. These changes include:
1. An immediate landscaping plan should be included with the application for
the new residence.
The applicant has provided an immediate planting/screening plan comprised of perimeter
trees and shrubs. Condition #2 requires that all proposed plantings shall be installed prior
to issuance of Building Permits. The planting list includes 313 native specimens to be
installed:
Tree:
Size:
Quantity
Coast Live Oak
48" Box
17
Coast Live Oak
36" Box
13
Marina Madrone
48" Box
8
Marina Madrone
36" Box
3
Western Sycamore
24" Box
5
California Ba
24" Box
3
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
March 6, 2008
Page 2
The proposal includes 243-5 gallon and 21-15 gallon native shrubs.
The project will also return to the Planning Commission following rough framing for
review of the landscape Screening plan. (Condition #3)
2. Study the implications of resiting of the main building by 15-20 feet.
The applicant has asserted that although resiting the building to the south seems to be a
benefit to some neighbors it comes at the detriment of the neighbor at 26430 Purissima
Road. The applicant has commented to staff that the proposal meets or exceeds all of the
Town's requirements and prefers to follow the Zoning Code rather than choose between
neighbors. They also believe that moving the main building 15-20 feet will not greatly
improve impacts to the property at 26470 Purissima Road.
The applicant wishes to address the Planning Commission further on this issue at the
public hearing.
3. The landscape deposit should be increased to $20,000.
Staff has amended recommended condition #4 to show this change.
4. The proposed concrete wall along the property boundary and the potential
for noise reflection.
The applicant has removed the concrete wall and instead proposed a board on board six
(6) foot tall fence as shown on the screening plan.
5. Construction parking shall be accommodated onsite.
This issue has been addressed by inclusion of condition #19. The applicant will submit a
construction operation plan to the Town for review of construction parking, prior to final
inspection.
6. The trash and A/C units should be screened or relocated.
The applicant has relocated and proposed screening for the A/C units. The newly
proposed location is on the other side of the garage (away from 26470 Purissima Road).
The trash area will be screened by the proposed perimeter screening and a proposed six
(6) foot board on board fence. The proposed screening for the main residence A/C units,
the secondary dwelling unit A/C unit and the fencing for the trash area will be installed
prior to final inspection. (Condition #3)
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
March 6, 2008
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOA
The proposed single family residential addition and remodel is categorically exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section
15303(a)&(e).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised recommended conditions of approval
2. Staff report and attachments from the January 17, 2008 Planning Commission
Meeting
3. Minutes from the January 17, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
4. Proposed landscape plans and reduced copies of the proposed development plans
(Commission only)
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
March 6, 2008
Page 4
Attachment 1
RECOMENDED CONDITIONS (REVISED) FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND SWIMMING POOL
LANDS OF LOS ALTOS HOMES LLC, 26462 PURISSIMA ROAD
File #166-07-ZP-SD-GD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as first
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning
Commission, depending on the scope of the changes.
2. All proposed tree and shrub plantings shown on the plans prepared by
Michael A. Tebb Design shall be installed and inspected by Town staff,
prior to issuance of Building Permits. The proposed screening for the
main residence A/C units, the secondary dwelling unit A/C unit and the
fencing for the trash area shall be installed prior to f nal inspection.
After completion of rough framing and prior to the time of the pre -
rough framing inspection by the Planning and Engineering
Departments, the applicant shall submit a landscape screening and
erosion control plan for review by the Planning Commission. Particular
attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the
view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets.
Particular attention shall be paid to landscaping that will help break up the
view of the house from the adjacent properties. All landscaping required
for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the
City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new
residence.
A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $20,000 shall be posted
prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure
adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the
installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings
remain viable.
All new exterior lighting fixtures shall have white/rostedletched glass
enclosures or be shielded light futures. Seeded or bent glass is not
acceptable. No landscape or site lighting is approved with this plan.
Landscaping and site lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape
screening plan. All lighting must comply with the Town's Lighting Policy
prior to final inspection.
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
March 6, 2008
Page 5
6. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location
of the residence and roof eaves are no less than 40' from the front
property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The
elevation of the residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that
"the elevation of the residence matches the elevation and location shown
on the Site Development plan" The applicant shall submit the stamped
and signed letters) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a
foundation inspection.
7. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No
lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
8. Air conditioning units shall be located a minimum of 40' from the front
property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines.
9. No new walls, fencing or gates shown on site plan sheet AM are
approved with this permit. Any new walls, fencing or gates require a
Fence Permit and shall require review and approval by the Planning
Department prior to installation.
10. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction.
11. For swimming pools, at least one of the following safety features shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Town Building Official:
a. The pool shall be isolated from access to the residence by an enclosure
(fencing).
b. The pool shall be equipped with an approved safety pool cover.
c. The residence shall be equipped with exit alarms on those doors providing
direct access to the pool.
d. All doors providing direct access from the home to the swimming pool
shall be equipped with a self-closing, self -latching device with a release
mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor.
12. Standard swimming pool conditions:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Pool equipment shall be enclosed for noise mitigation and screening. The
pool equipment enclosure shall be screened with landscaping and may not
encroach into any required setbacks.
13. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea),
River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. mdis), Honey Gum
(E. melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
March 6, 2008
Page 6
property located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be
removed prior to final inspection of the new residence. Removal of
eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the
end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of
Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first
conducted and there is a detemlination that there are no active nests within the
tree.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
14. Peak discharge at 26462 Purissima Road, as a result of Site Development
Permit 166-07, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak
discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated
into the project to reduce the anticipated peak discharge to the pre -
development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic
model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value
prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a
10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to
reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. All
documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies)
shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Prior to
final inspection, a letter shall be submitted from the project engineer
stating that the detention storage design improvements were installed as
shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their
recommendations.
15. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be
approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take
place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with
prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within
ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the
driveway access.
16. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed
underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after
issuance of building permit to start the application process for
undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months."
17. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and prior to
final inspection, the location and elevation of the new residence shall be
certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
as being in/at the approved location and elevation shown on the approved
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
March 6, 2008
Page 7
Site Development plan. At the time of framing inspection for the new
residence, the height of each building shall be similarly certified as being
at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan.
18. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner
shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES
permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet
of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill
slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the
native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy
season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
19. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be
submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City
Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check All construction related parking for the proposed
improvements shall be accommodated onsite. The grading/construction
operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and
vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Purissima Road and surrounding
roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary
facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for
construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on
site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made
with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a
franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town
limits.
20. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair
any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private
driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and
release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with
photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior
to acceptance ofplans for building plan check.
21. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened
where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior
tofinal inspection.
22. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary
sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer plan that is prepared by a
registered civil engineer shall be required to be approved by the City
Engineer prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check An as -built
mylar copy of the sewer plan shall be required to be submitted to the Town
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
March 6, 2008
Page 8
prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the
Town's Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public
right of way prior to start work. A sewer hook-up permit shall be required
by the Town's Public Works Department prior to submittal of plans for
building plan check.
23. The property owner shall dedicate a 30' wide half -width public right of
way to the Town over Purissima Road. The property owner shall provide
legal description and plat exhibits that we prepared by a registered civil
engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the
dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved
exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned
to the Town prior to submittal ofplans for building plan check.
24. The property owner shall construct a type 2B pathway adjacent to
Purissima Road to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to
final inspection.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
25. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the
street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their
background.
26. The applicant shall install an approved fire department engine driveway
and turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet
inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details
and Specifications D-1, prior to final inspection.
27. The property owner shall provide an automatic residential fire sprinkler
system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department throughout
all portions of the new residence. Three copies of plans prepared by a State
of California licensed fire protection contractor shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. The foe sprinkler plans shall be approved by the Fire Department
prior to issuance of building permit. The sprinklers shall be inspected
and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection.
28. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, to the satisfaction
of the Santa Clara County Fire Department, prior to final inspection.
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
March 6, 2008
Page 9
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
29. Properties must pay School District (Los Altos or Palo Alto) fees prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check from Los Altos Hills. The
applicant must take a copy of required fee payment forms that have been
completed by the Town to both the elementary and high school district
offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their
receipts.
Please call 650-941-7222 extension 235 to schedule a final inspection with the Planning
and Engineering Departments at least two weeks prior to scheduling the final building
inspection approval.
CONDITION NUMBERS 2, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, AND 29 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY TOWN STAFF PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE
OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT.
NOTE: This Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
March 6, 2009). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and
work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and
completed within two years.
Attachment 2
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 17, 2008
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 10,975 SQUARE FOOT TWO
STORY RESIDENCE, 960 SQUARE FOOT SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT,
TENNIS COURT, SWIMMING POOL, AND HORSE BARN; LANDS OF LOS
ALTOS HOMES LLC; 26462 PURLSSIMA ROAD; FILE 4166-07-ZP-SD-GD.
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director-*
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the new residence, subject to the
conditions of approval in Attachment 1.
ALTERNATIVE:
Continue the project to a future Planning Commission hearing and direct the applicant to
work with neighbors to address the issues raised.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on the west side of Purissima Road. The flag shaped
property has a net size of 2.00 acres. The site is undeveloped with an average slope of
7.3%. The site is largely devoid of trees except a row of pine trees that will be preserved.
The proposal complies with all of the Town's development standards and was heard at a
Fast -Track hearing on October 23, 2007. Nine neighbors attended the hearing and voiced
project concerns. that were not resolved and the hearing was rescheduled for Planning
Commission review. The applicant has met with neighbors to discuss and attempt to work
through the issues since the October hearing.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Per Section 10-2.1305.1 (c), The Planning Director shall submit an application for a
project to the Planning Commission if the Director determines that there is substantive
neighborhood opposition to the project.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area:
2.032 acres
Net Lot Area:
2.004 acres
Average Slope:
7.3%
Lot Unit Factor:
2.002
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
Jaaumy 17, 2008
Page 2
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left
Development 30,060 30,029 0 30,029 1
Floor 11,935 11,935 0 11,935 0
Site and Architecture
The design of the proposed residence and site amenities utilizes all of the developable
square footage for the site. The design, however, does not include a basement. The
exterior materials include smooth stucco and concrete tile roof.
The proposed residence complies with floor area, development area, setback, and height
standards per Title 10 of the Municipal Code. The proposal would also comply with the
recently heard Estate Homes Ordinance (although the timing of this review makes this
proposal exempt from the Estate Homes requirements).
Driveway & Pardo
The proposed driveway will enter from Purissima Road and extend approximately 400
feet to the residence. The building design incorporates an attached, four (4) car garage
and one uncovered parking space. The proposed driveway conforms to Fire Department
standards for a Fire Truck Turnaround.
Outdoor Liehtine
Outdoor lighting is shown on the floor and elevation plans (sheets A-2.1 and A-3.3).
Standard lighting is requested, with two (2) per double door exit, 1 light per single door
exit, and building perimeter lighting. The standard lighting condition (##4) for outdoor
lighting, requires that fixtures be downshielded or have frosted/etched globes. The
applicant will submit landscape lighting details with the required landscape screening
Plan.
Accessory Structures
The applicant proposes to fully develop the site. The proposal includes:
• A detached singlo-story secondary dwelling totaling 960 square feet sited to the
southwest of the main residence.
• Swimming pool and pool decking totaling 3,120 square feet of development area
south of the main residence.
• A tennis court totaling 3,520 square feet of development area.
• A horse stall totaling 215 square feet of development area
Planning Co=mmission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
January 17, 2008
Page 3
Neighbor's Concerns
Nine neighbors attended the October 23, 2007 Fast Track hearing. The primary issues
raised were site drainage, building bulk and visibility, and potentially increased freeway
noise due to reflected sound from the new building. Neighbors have also written letters to
the Planning Department documenting project concerns (Attachments #7-10).
Site Drainage -Neighbors have written the Planning Department noting the
existing drainage patterns in the area and seasonal flooding. There is concern that
increased runoff will result from the proposed development and increased
flooding. The Town currently requires that all new residences and major projects
be accompanied by hydrology calculations and drainage system designs to
mitigate increased runoff due to development. The system must be designed to
capture runoff so that post development calculations match the predevelopment
calculations. The calculations are based on an Intensity -Duration -Frequency (IDF)
chart established by Santa Clara County for use by engineers in calculating runoff.
The proposed drainage design consists of down spouts tied to perforated pipes and
an underground detention facility that has a storage capacity of 945 cubic feet or
approximately 7,500 gallons of water. The design complies with the Town's
requirements based on the County's IDF chart.
Building Bulk and Visibility -Several neighbors at the hearing noted the
possibility of resiting the building to the south of the proposed location because of
the size and magnitude of the proposal. The applicant has responded by increasing
the setbacks to comply with the Estate Homes standards (although not enforceable
at this time). The Planning Department also received a letter from the adjacent
neighbor at 26430 Purissima Road who is not in favor of relocating the building
to the south side of the property because it will severely impact his views and
privacy. (Attachment 411)
The proposed building complies with all height, floor area, and setback standards.
Bulk and visibility of a structure is an issue that can be addressed during the
landscape screening hearing. Staff is recommending that the landscape screening
plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission for this project (condition #2).
Reflected Sound -Freeway noise in the neighborhood is a concern and neighbors
raised the issue of increased noise due to reflected sound off of the proposed
building. The applicant has submitted an acoustical analysis prepared by Mei Wu
Acoustics (Atachment #3). The study takes into account potential for increased
noise levels from four (4) locations:
1. 26469 Purissima Road -Lands of Broydo
2. 26470 Purissima Road -Lands of Kirkpatrick
3. 26500 Purissima Road -Lands of Hickman
Planning Co®ission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
January 17, 2008
Page 4
4. 26462 Purissima Road -Applicant
The study summarizes that the predicted noise reflection will at location #2 -lands
of Kirkpatrick is the most susceptible to a noise increase. However, the predicted
noise increase at location #2 would be 0.2 dBA, an increase that is not considered
significant and is not audible to human hearing.
Grading
The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of
approval as specified in Attachment 1. Grading quantities include 3,470 cubic yards of
cut and 700 cubic yards of fill. The maximum cut depth is four (4) feet.
The Engineering Department will review the final grading and drainage plan prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final grading and drainage will be inspected
by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected
prior to final inspection.
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has required that the
building be sprinklered and the driveway to accommodate a standard Fire Truck
Turnaround.
Committee Review
The Pathway Committee recommends construction of a Type 2B pathway along the
property frontage adjacent to Purissima Road-
The
oadThe Environmental Design Committee commented that there should be no lighting in the
proposed skylight wells and that the existing trees on site should be retained for screening.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEOA)
The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act by provision of Sections 15303(a)&(e).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Fast -Track Hearing Fact Sheet, October 23, 2007
3. Mei Wu Acoustics -Acoustic Evaluation, December 17, 2007
4. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated August 16, 2007
5. Recommendations from Pathways Committee dated August 27, 2007
6. Recommendations from Environmental Design Committee dated August 20, 2007
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
January 17, 2008
Page 5
7. Letter from Neighbors dated October 14, 2007
8. Emails from from Bob Kirkpatrick, 26470 Purissima Road dated 1/9/08, 11/19/07,
11/13/07, 11/8/07, 10/28/07, 10/27/07, and 10/22/07
9. Letter from Samuel and Lina Broydo, 26496 Purissima Road dated October 17, 2007
10. Letter from Keui-wu and Leslie Tsai, 26510 Purissima Road dated October 18, 2007
11. Letter from Palaniappan Jambulingam, 26430 Purissima Road dated November 20, 2007
12. Proposed development plans (Commission only)
Attachment 1
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
January 17, 2008
Page 6
IlECOMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND SWIMMING POOL
LANDS OF LOS ALTOS HOMES LLC, 26462 PLR2ISSIMA ROAD
File 4166-07-ZP-SD-GD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as first
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning
Commission, depending on the scope of the changes.
2. After completion of rough framing and prior to the time of the pre -
rough framing inspection by the Planning and Engineering
Departments, the applicant shall submit a landscape screening and
erosion control plan for review by the Planning Commission. Particular
attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the
view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets.
Particular attention shall be paid to landscaping that will help break up the
view of the house from the adjacent properties. All landscaping required
for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the
City Engineer) must be installed prior to fmal inspection of the new
residence.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted
prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure
adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the
installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings
remain viable.
4. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall have white/frosted/etched glass
enclosures or be shielded light futures. Seeded or bent glass is not
acceptable. No landscape or site lighting is approved with this plan.
Landscaping and site lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape
screening plan. All lighting must comply with the Town's Lighting Policy
prior to final inspection.
S. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location
of the residence and roof eaves are no less than 40' from the front
property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The
elevation of the residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that
"the elevation of the residence matches the elevation and location shown
on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
January 17, 2008
Page 7
and signed lenerlsf to the Planning Department prior to requesting a
foundation inspection.
6. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No
lighting maybe placed within skylight wells.
7. Air conditioning units shall be located a minimum of 40' from the front
property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines.
8. No new walls, fencing or gates shown on site plan sheet Al.l are
approved with this permit. Any new walls, fencing or gates require a
Fence Permit and shall require review and approval by the Planning
Department prior to installation.
9. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction.
10. For swimming pools, at least one of the following safety features shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Town Building Official:
a. The pool shall be isolated from access to the residence by an enclosure
(fencing).
b. The pool shall be equipped with an approved safety pool cover.
c. The residence shall be equipped with exit alarms on those doors providing
direct access to the pool.
d. All doors providing direct access from the home to the swimming pool
shall be equipped with a self-closing, self -latching device with a release
mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor.
11. Standard swimming pool conditions:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Pool equipment shall be enclosed for noise mitigation and screening. The
pool equipment enclosure shall be screened with landscaping and may not
encroach into any required setbacks.
12. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea),
River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum
(E. melhodom), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the
property located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be
removed prior to final inspection of the new residence. Removal of
eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the
end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of
Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
January 17, 2008
Page 8
conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the
tree.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
13. Peak discharge at 26462 Purissima Road, as a result of Site Development
Permit 166-07, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak
discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated
into the project to reduce the anticipated peak discharge to the pre -
development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic
model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value
prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a
10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to
reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. All
documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies)
shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Prior to
final inspection, a letter shall be submitted from the project engineer
stating that the detention storage design improvements were installed as
shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their
recommendations.
14. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall fust be
approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take
place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with
prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within
ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the
driveway access.
15. All public .utility services serving this property shall be placed
underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after
issuance of building permit to start the application process for
undergmunding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months."
16. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and prior to
final inspection, the location and elevation of the new residence shall be
certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
as being in/at the approved location and elevation shown on the approved
Site Development plan. At the time of framing inspection for the new
residence, the height of each building shall be similarly certified as being
at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan.
17. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
January 17, 2008
Page 9
plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner
shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES
permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet
of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill
slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the
native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy
season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
18. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be
submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City
Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check The gradingloonstruction operation plan shall address truck
traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic
safety on Purissima Road and surrounding roadways, storage of
construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for
construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction
personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for
collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the
Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a
franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town
limits.
19. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair
any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private
driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and
release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with
photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior
to acceptance of plans for building plan check
20. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened
where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior
to final inspection.
21. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary
sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer plan that is prepared by a
registered civil engineer shall be required to be approved by the City
Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check An as -built
mylar copy of the sewer plan shall be required to be submitted to the Town
prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the
Town's Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public
right of way prior to start work. A sewer hook-up permit shall be required
by the Town's Public Works Department prior to submittal of plans for
building plan check
Planning Commission
Lands of Los Altos LLC
January 17, 2008
Page 10
22. The property owner shall dedicate a 30' wide half -width public right of
way to the Town over Purissima Road. The property owner shall provide
legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil
engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the
dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved
exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned
to the Town prior to submittal of plans for building plan check
23. The property owner shall construct a type 2B pathway adjacent to
Purissima Road to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to
final inspection.
1�17N77h7_\�Il�lll
24. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the
street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their
background.
25. The applicant shall install an approved fire department engine driveway
and turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet
inside. installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details
and Specifications D-1, prior to final inspection.
26. The property owner shall provide an automatic residential fire sprinkler
system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department throughout
all portions of the new residence. Three copies of plans prepared by a State
of California licensed fire protection contractor shall be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. The fire sprinkler plans shall be approved by the Fire Department
prior to issuance of building permit The sprinklers shall be inspected
and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection.
27. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, to the satisfaction
of the Santa Clara County Fire Department, prior to final inspection.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
28. Properties must pay School District (Los Altos or Palo Alto) fees prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check from Los Altos Hills. The
applicant must take a copy of required fee payment forms that have been
completed by the Town to both the elementary and high school district
offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their
receipts.
Planning Commission
[ands of Los Altos LLC
January 17, 2008
Page 11
Please call 650-941-7222 extension 235 to schedule a final inspection with the Planning
and Engineering Departments at least two weeks prior to scheduling the final building
inspection approval.
CONDITION NUMBERS 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, AND 28 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY TOWN STAFF PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE
OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT.
NOTE: This Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
January 17, 2009). All required building permits most be obtained within that year and
work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and
completed within two years.
Attachment 2
Town Of Los Altos Hills October 23, 2007
Fast Track Hearing Fact Sheet
Project Description: New Residence, Secondary Dwelling Unit and Swimming Pool
File Number: 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Site Address: 26462 Purissima Road
Owner(s): Los Altos Homes LLC
Staff Planner: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner
Site Data
Net Lot Area: 2.004 acre
Average Slope: 7.3 %
Lot Unit Factor: 2.004
Floor and Development Area:
Area Maximum
Proposed
Existing
Increase
Left
Development
30,060
29,765
0
29,765
295
Floor
12,024
11,922
0
11,922
102
Height:
Maximum
Proposed
On Vertical Plane
27 feet
27 feet
Lowest to Highest
35 feet
27 feet
Setbacks:
Minimum Proposed
Front -
40 ft.
300 ft.
Sides
30 ft.
31 ft.
Rear
30 ft.
31 ft.
Parking: Required spaces: 5 out of setbacks. Proposed: 5 (4 garage spaces)
Grading: 3,470 cu.yds. cut
700 cu.yds. fill
Sewer/Septic: Connect to sewer.
Environmental Design Committee: No lighting skylight wells. Preserve existing trees.
Pathways Committee: Install Pathway in the right-of-way along Purissima Road.
Attachment 3
$10 Mei Wu Acoustics DEC 28 2007
Experts in acoustics, noise and vibration TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
To: Dipesh Gupta, LC Engineering
Date: December 17, 2007
Subject: Los Altos Hills Residential Reflected Traffic Noise Study
MWA Project - 07060
A sole, new housing development is under constmction at 26462 Purissima Road in Los Altos
Hills, CA. The location of this new two story house is approximately 500 feet from Highway 280
and approximately 200 feet from the nearest neighbor's house. The close proximity of Highway
280 and the particular geometry of the traffic noise incident on the future house have brought a
request by the neighbors to review how this new house will reflect traffic noise. This request is to
specifically review reflections of traffic noise off of the new house and determine if these
reflections will produce bothersome noise problems at the neighbors' houses. The reflected noise
will be considered bothersome if, based on measurement and calculation; the noise is determined
to violate any noise ordinances for the City of Los Altos Hills or if there is a predicted increase
in the neighbors' yards exceeding 5 dB.
1. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
CNEL stands for "Community Noise Equivalent Level". It represents the average (the
original did not say energy average) noise level during a 24-hour day, adjusted to an
equivalent level to account for the lower tolerance of people to noise during evening and
nighttime periods relative to the daytime period (this means adding 5 and 10 "penalty"
decibels to the actual evening and nighttime noise levels, respectively). It is usually used for
airport noise. The usual criterion is that the interior CNEL due to aircraft noise is 45 dB or
less in all habitable rooms.
2. Los Altos Hills Noise Ordinances
The city of Los Altos Hills provides noise ordinances using the CNEL scale. Based on the
document titled General Plan: Noise Element 10/17/07, the rating of noise is dependant on
how close a residence is to a major road or highway. The CNEL ratings range from 65 CNEL
on the highways and major roads, to 60 CNEL for areas that are along a highway or major
road, to 55 and lower CNEL for all areas that are further from highways and roadways. A
composite map that includes the Purissima Road site and CNEL designations is shown in
Figure 1, The CNEL ratings for the red, yellow, and blue lines are 65, 60 and 55 CNEL
respectively.
Mel Wu Acoustics
The new residence is on the border of the 60 CNEL level with two neighbors houses in the
55 CNEL and one neighbor in the 60 CNEL. All houses current noise levels were found to be
within their associated CNEL limit.
3. Traffic Noise Measurements
Traffic noise is considered a non -continuous line source and an accurate measurement can be
accomplished when extended time averages are performed (sound pressure level averaged
over 20 minutes). Four different measurements were completed using a Norsonic-118 Type -I
sound level meter with a windscreen. Each measurement was taken from four locations that
were separated by more than 50 feet, and within the perimeters of four different properties.
The locations of measurements are shown in Figure 2. Each location is chosen based on the
neighbors in the community that requested this study be completed.
Figure 2: Measurement Locations
The results from these measurements are providing octave band data as well as the overall
noise level (Ley) in Table 1 with the corresponding graph in Figure 3.
Location
Le (dBA)
L,
63 1
125
250
Frequency
500
(Hz)
1000
2000
4000
1 8000
1
52.1
57.9
52.1
49.0
49.1
48.3
43.0
39.1
34.8
2
51.5
60.4
57.3
49.5
48.6
47.5
42.5
31.4
22.7
3
51.0
64.5
54.6
47.5
46.7
46.3
44.3
34.7
30.3
4
54.6
65.0
59.2
47.9
46.0
50.6
49.2
3B.7
26.8
Table 1: Measured Traffic Noise Data (Lw) BOLD denotes highest level)
The distance from the Highway 280 is furthest at measurement location #1 (-600 feet NE)
and the closest location #2 (160 feet NE). Measurement location #4 was taken at the
approximate location of the future building fagade. The measurement at location #4 will help
to estimate the amount of reflected noise towards the other three locations. It is noted that
measurement #4 was performed on Monday, October 29'a between the hours of 4 and 5pm,
with the other three measurements performed on Thursday, November IR between the same
hours. It was of interest to perform measurements occurring while traffic density was high
and avoiding traffic gridlock conditions.
Mei Wu Acoustics
Figure 3: Plots of Traffic Noise from Table 1
4. Geometry of Neighborhood
The general distances and angles of the Purissima Road neighborhood (Figure 4) encompass
an area of approximately 8 acres, and include four properties (including the proposed new
residence). An accurate depiction of the geometry of this neighborhood is necessary for
determining how traffic noise will behave with the addition of the new two story building.
Geometry is based on topographical contour maps, and distances are determined by
architectural scale drawings. Satellite imaging software (Google Earth) is used for
approximate distances outside the scope of the architectural drawing.
Initial observation of the neighborhood puts location #2 as the worst case scenario for
possible reflected noise, the geometry of this house can be viewed in Figure 5. This figure is
drawn based mainly upon the drawing and contour maps provided by LC Engineering dated
9/10/2007, 9/12/2007 and 12/04/2007. These maps were mandatory in determining the
accurate elevation of the residence at location #2, Highway 280, and the location of the
future residence. The new residence in all geometry and mathematical calculation of sound
propagation is defined as the worst case situation. All partitions of the new residence are
defined as worst case surfaces; which infers that east exterior wall is a smooth, rectangular,
absolute reflecting surface. Absolute reflecting is defined by no loss of sound energy due to
absorption by any incident sound waves upon this surface. Ground and atmospheric
absorption is ignored in all directions.
Mei Wu Acoustics 4
This designation of the neighborhood is to provide predictions of noise levels based on the
source noise of traffic at location #1 and #2, reflections off of the future residence, and any
distance attenuation occurring between the houses and Highway 280.
Total 290 feet
Figure 5: Location #2 Geometry to New Rouse (not drawn to scale)
5. Methodology and Calculation of Reflected Traffic Noise
Determining the amount of noise reflected off of a perfectly reflecting surface back towards
location #2 will be done to review the worst case scenario. This enables that a real-world
result will have unaccounted factors that will further reduce the predicted value of noise due
to absorption, atmospheric diffraction, and non -perfectly reflected sound waves.
The amount of noise incident upon the new residence will be esfimated based on the closest
location measurement (location #4). Location #4 had a time averaged value (Lt) of 54.6 dB
(CNEL 55 dB), and this value will be used as the amount of noise at the future facade of the
Mei Wu Acoustics
east wall of the new residence. The location #2 noise value was measured at 51.5 dB (CNEL
52 dBA) and is assumed to be lower than other measurements due to the barrier effect of the
Kirkpatrick's residence.
The sound power level (PWL) of noise can be used to predict the amount of noise that will be
reflected back towards the Kirkpatrick's house. Sound power level can be extrapolated by the
sound pressure level (SPL) by using the total area of reflection (entire east wall). Based on
the 9/10/2007 drawings the east wall has a maximum surface area of 1,998 ftz (186 m2). This
represents the amount of noise that can reflect off of this wall, the angles of incidence upon
this surface are shown in plan view (Figure 6).
The plan view shows the theoretical angles that incident traffic noise would be possible to
reflect back towards location #2. The angles of incidence from the traffic noise regarding the
elevation of the houses is anticipated as being blocked from line of sight from the
Kirkpatrick's (Figure 5) and/or the new residence will be well below the ridge line of
Highway 280. The calculated noise value at location #2 from reflected noise will be
approximately 38 dBA. When this is added to the originally measured value of 51.5 dBA the
total noise is 51.7 dBA (CNEL 52 dBA).
Mei Wu Acoustics
The predicted change in traffic noise at the Kirkpatrick's house due to reflections will be less
than I dB (0.18 dB) which is not a large enough differential to produce an audible change in
noise level.
6. Remaining Purissima Road Residences
The proposed new residence does not appear to have any significant surfaces that may cause
traffic noise to reflect towards the neighbors at 26496 and 26500 Purissima Road. The
residence of 26500 (Hickman's) does not present any angles of reflection for traffic noise.
There is also the possibility that a new residence built may act as a noise barrier from traffic
noise, reducing the measured noise at location #3. The residence at 26496 (Broydo's) has a
very acute angle (Figure 7) that could allow for reflections of traffic noise. This acute angle
and the increased distance between houses would not appear to increase the current traffic
noise levels. It is calculated that the noise reflected from the new residence to the Broydo's
back yard would be approximately 32 dB, and when combined with the current measured
level 52.1 dBA (CNEL 53 dBA) increases the noise by 0.05 dB, an insignificant difference.
7. Los Altos Hills Noise Ordinances
According to calculations the amount of increase in noise to any of the surrounding
residences will be very minimal. This leads to the understanding that all city noise ordinances
for the city of Los Altos Hills will remain the same or similar to their current noise levels.
According to the drawings and reviewed plans for this Purissima neighborhood no noise
ordinances will be violated.
8. Summary
• The traffic noise measured at the four locations along Purissima Road has CNEL ratings
below 55 dBA.
Mei Wu Acoustics
• The predicted noise from reflections is 38 dBA, and the existing noise level at location #2
is 51.5 dBA. This will give a net noise of 51.7 dBA, a differential of 0.2 dBA. The house
at location #2 is considered to be the most susceptible to any reflected noise. This
increase in noise is not audible to human hearing.
• The planned location of a new two story residence at 26462 Purissima Road will not
introduce any significant increases to noise levels to any of the neighboring houses.
Mei Wu Acoustics
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(406) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • w .sccfd.org
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
LODE C.
UFC
Appendix
IIA
UFC
1003.1.2 as
Amended by
L HMC
8-8.0.1
SHEET
2.
REOUIREMEM
Attachment 4
A9e^ry
PIAN PEVEW NUMBER 07 2265
BLDD PER. NUMBER
F -NeaN, 166-07-ZP-SD
!w site plan for a new proposed 11,935 square foot single family residence
960 square foot secondary unit and an attached garage.
on cover sheet indicate applicant proposing fire sprinkler system
ghout all portion of the main residence and the secondary unit.
Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and
water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be
construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with
adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make
application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
construction permits.
Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual
pressure. As an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow has
been reduced by 50%D establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 1500 gpm at 20
psi residual pressure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and
fire hydrant(s) which are not spaced at the required spacing.
Vic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in
of 2,000 GPM shall be protected throughout by an automatic fire sprinkler
L, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
rd g13D.
State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans,
Iculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this
parhnent for review and approval prior to beginning their work.
CRY PW $ SPECS NEW B7L AS
OCCUPANCY
CONST. TYPE
ApppwNna NP
MTF
PAGE
LAH ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
TD BUILDING DESIGN
6/16/2007
1 3
OF
SEChIAOR
APEA
LDAD
DESCRPTpN
Residential Construction
Amadkani, Fred
NANEDFPBDJECT
�BY
LD
SFR�26462
2011
Purissima RdPurissima Rd
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clam County and the communi9es of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Get.. Monte Sereno, Mogan Hill, and Saratoga
4PpwLrzA pop FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 ^ (408) 378-9342 (is.) • w .sccfd.org ma,,,,ev.y�wiw
Apxrcy
PIAtI NEVEW xuxaER 07 2265
aLOG vmwrxus®m
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS neNomm 166-07-ZP-SD
oDE/SEC. SHEET NO. REWREYENF
3. FireA.Eparatus(Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway
2.4.1 with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet,
vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet
outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall
conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1.
The proposed driveway meets the Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1
requirements.
C 4. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway TRequired: Provide an
Tdix approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of
36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department
Standard Details and Specifications D-1. The proposed fire department tum
around meets the Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1 requirements.
C S. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements; Gate installations shall conform with
11.2.4.1 Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not
obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or
driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to
installation.
6. Gates across the emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved
access devices. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key -
switch shall be installed, if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox
padlock shall be installed.
qty PIANR SPEDS NEW ANDL M occa Ntt DOHSr.T E APMIu2Nm GATE PAGE
r.H ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ TD BUILDING DESIGN 8/16/2007 2 of 3
:moon A1EA Loan oEscRurtaN m —
Residential Construction Amadkani, Fred
WEOFPRWMT LOCATIDN
SFR 26962 Purissima Rd
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
SeMn3 Sumo Clam County and the.... riltles of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Al4 Hili, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mo gam Hill, and Samtaga
,SP �1.AHq C,OG FIRE DEPARTMENT
�T SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • t .sccfd.org
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
COOS M I SHEET I NO.I REOUIREMEM
UFC
901.4.4
Internetiowly Am,a,Ied
At—,
o NBswnNNUMBER 07 2265
BL4a PE Urr NUMBER
RLENUMBER 166.07-ZP-SD
uses Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and leglble
the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their
LAH N ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
SFR
mt plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental
Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan
ils and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan
TD BUILDING DESIGN 18/16/2007 1 3
Residential Construction IAmadkani, Fred
26462 Purissima Rd
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
&ru rg Santa Clam County and the mmmunitles of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hllls, Los Gabs, Moate Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Somtoga
Attachment 5
Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee DRAFT
Minutes of Meeting August 27, 2007
1. ADMINSTRATIVE
Chairman Ginger Summit called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM
Members present Jim Bliss, Courtenay Corrigan, Nick Dunckel, Ginger Summit,
Bill Silver, Bob Stutz, Jolon Wagner, Chris Vargas, Sue Welch
Members absent Anna Brunel, Nancy Ginzton,
Council Members present Councilman Mike O'Malley
Town Staff present Brian Froehlich, Associate Planner
Members of public present Orrs, owners of 26285 Altamont Road
Linda Yee and Dipesh Gupta, representing owners of 26462
Purissima Road
Lili Milano, architect, 26990 Arastradero Road (Lands of Ng)
The agenda was approved as amended below.
1. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review of pathway in -lieu fee calculation. Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, LAH Planning
Department, presented a summary of different methods to calculate pathway in -lieu fees
based on 1) square root of square footage of lot; 2) average width of lot; 3) perimeter of lot; 4
) length of street frontage. Brian favors using the square of square footage of lot because it is
more consistent and objective than other methods and thus spreads the cost of the Town
pathway system more equitably among all property owners. It is also the easiest to calculate.
The LAH General Plan specifies that the in -lieu fee should be roughly proportional to the cost
of installing a pathway. PWC members will review the wording about calculating the fee in
the General Plan Additional questions about in -lieu fees were raised (e.g., whether an in -lieu
fee must be paid every time a property sells). Brian will return to the PWC with the
regulations addressing these issues.
B. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations:
26285 Altamont Road (Lands of Orr). The reason for pathway review is construction of a
new residence. The property owners (the Ons) were present The property is at the
comer of Altamont Road and Corbetta Lane adjacent to Packard property. Driveway
access will be from Corbetta. A dirt pathway exists on this side of Altamont, which is
heavily used. Construction of a IIB path along Altamont would enhance access and
safety. Corbetta Lane has public access in the road and no pathway is needed. Bob Stutz
moved that the PWC request the owners of 26285 Altamont Road bring the pathway
along Altamont up to IIB standards. Nick Dunckel seconded. The vote was
unanimously in favor.
ii 26462 Purissima Road (Lands of Los Altos Homes). The reason for pathway review is
construction of a new residence. Linda Yee and Dipesh Gupta were present representing
the owners. This is a flag lot on the southwest side of Purissima and is incorrectly
marked as 26270 Purissima on Town parcel maps. According to LAH Resolution 38-96
(May 1996), Purissima Road should have roadside pathways on both sides. Purissima is
heavily used by both cars and pedestrians. Chris Vargas moved that the PWC request
that the existing pathway along Purissima on 26462 Purissima be upgraded to IIB
pathway standards. Bill Silver seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor.
DraftPWC_Min _082707
X&W z L/-
Attachment 6
Environmental Design and Protection Committee
New Residence/Remodel Evaluation
Applicant Date,'�_�_
Name 195 O5 Z�90 es /% .�f
Address_lp'YIPa
Reviewed by: —& 5917)Ot/, Ii �/ 7
Site imnaet/livhtinv/nnh.
Grading:
Creeks, drainage, easements:
I
Significant issues/comments:
J
Attachment 7
723
�tEG'�iv:u�
Purissima Neighbors
3UlgN CIF M_15 E•_E�J& FP.CLs October 14, 2007
Debbi Pedro, AICP
Planning Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Ms. Pedro:
This letter is from the neighbors of the currently empty lot located at 26462 Purissima
Road ("the Loft which was recently purchased by speculative builders operating under
the names of Shashi Corporation and Los Altos Home LLC (collectively "the
Developers'7. At the initiation of the Developers, a meeting was held with some of the
neighbors at our home at 26470 Purissima Road, which is directly behind the Lot, on
Saturday, October 13, 2007 during which the Developers shared their plans for the Lot.
While the neighbors respect the right of the Developers to profitably develop the lot for
resale ("the Proposed Project"), there is concern that the Developers' desire to maximize
such profits comes at the expense of an adverse impact on the adjacent properties and
upon the general character of the neighborhood.
A follow-up meeting with respect to the concerns of the neighbors has been scheduled on
October 25, 2007 (two days after the public hearing on the Proposed Project) at which
time the Developers indicated that they would share their findings with respect to at least
some of the issues set forth below.
Maenitude of the Proposed Proiect
The homes surrounding the Lot are relatively modest by Los Altos Hills standards,
ranging from approximately 2000-4000 square feet. The Proposed Project includes a
two-story mansion (the main house) of approximately 10,000 square feet, a two-bedroom
guesthouse of approximately 1,000 and other structures such as a horse barn. Also
included in the plan are a swimming pool, a tennis court, a sunken barbeque pit, a gazebo
and a reflecting pool. The total Proposed Project, in fact, comes within a few hundred
feet of the maximum development permitted on a two acre lot of this type in Los Alto
Bills.
The Proposed Project is clearly the desire of a "spec builder" to maximize its profits upon
the sale of the developed property. The design does not reflect a "dream home" by a new
neighbor and, in fact, the Developers indicated they haven't even begun to think of how
they will market the property. This is unfortunate because the intangible benefits of
owning a home in which you will live such as becoming an integral part of a close-knit
Page 1 of 4
neighborhood along with preserving some open space and privacy do not show up on the
balance sheet of the Developers.
It is the recommendation of the neighbors that the size of the Proposed Project be scaled
back to preserve additional open space and privacy with respect to the neighbors. It is the
further recommendation of the neighbors that the main house be redesigned as a one-
story structure.
Location of the Main house
The Lot is a flag lot located between Purissima Road and the 290 freeway. The main
portion of the Lot, which is the location of all of the Proposed Project other than the
reflecting pool and part of the driveway, is roughly rectangular. However, the main
house in the Developers' proposal is not located centrally with respect to the Lot but,
rather, is located in the northwest comer of the Lot directly adjacent to its neighbors at
26470 and 26500 Purissima Road. Due to the two-story design of the main house, the
privacy of the neighbors is greatly reduced since the new occupants of the main house
would be able to look into the yards and through the windows of its neighbors.
The only apparent reason for locating the main house in this comer of the Lot is to make
it maximally visible from Purissima road thereby increasing its "curb appeal." It is also
positioned so that the image of the house would appear in the proposed reflecting pool.
The location of the main house is, therefore, designed to stand -out, rather than to blend in,
with the surrounding environment.
The neighbors have recommended to the Developers that the main house at least be
moved more centrally to the main portion of the Lot. The neighbors pointed out that this
could be easily accomplished by moving the location of the tennis court to the northwest
comer of the lot where the main house is currently located. The neighbors have also
recommended that trees be fairly densely planted around the perimeter of the Lot to
reduce intrusion on their neighbors, and that outside floodlight be reduced in number and
permanently aimed towards the ground. It was pointed out to the Developers that the
perimeter trees would need irrigation and that they should be selected to have a root
structure which would not endanger the integrity of the neighbor's driveways.
Septic and Drainage
The neighbors pointed out that the Lot is on the beginning of a watershed which runs
generally northwardly towards Palo Alto. In consequence, the Swale at about the location
of the proposed reflecting pool turns into a swamp during the rainy season, and drains
though conduits provided under the driveways of the neighbors to the north. It has been
the experience of the neighbors that conduits leading under the 4 driveways to the north
(and the Proposed Project calls for a 5u` driveway) are not always sufficient to
accommodate the runoff from the Lot, causing a partial flooding of their driveways.
With the much greater ground coverage contemplated by the Proposed Project, this
condition is sure to get worse as water that would normally be absorbed into the ground is,
instead, collected in the Swale.
Page 2 of 4
The Developers have indicated that, in recognition of the drainage problems of the Lot,
they are going to extend the city sewer line down Purissima Road to the Lot. The
neighbors approve of this decision since, in our view, this is the only practical solution
for the development of the Lot.
Nonetheless, the neighbors to the north are concerned with increased runoff from the Lot
with the potential of flooding the downstream driveways. The neighbors recommend that
an engineering study be performed to determine how this problem can be addressed.
Noise
The Lot is a buffer zone between the 280 freeway and many of its neighbors. In its
undeveloped state, it serves as an absorber of freeway sound since the freeway is elevated
higher than most of the surrounding properties and, therefore, much of the sound that is
heard by the neighbors is downwardly directed. There is great concern that insufficient
thought has been given to the placement and configuration of the structures and/or any
proposed sound walls to ensure that the Proposed Project does not increase freeway noise
for the neighbors by the mechanisms of reflection and/or refraction.
The neighbors proposed that the Developers obtain the services of an acoustical engineer
to access the acoustical environment of the neighbors prior to finalizing the plans for the
Proposed Project with the assurance that after the completion of the project that the
neighbors are no worse off with respect to freeway noise than they were before.
Parking
Parking for the Proposed Project includes only a four car garage and one external parking
spot. There is relatively little street parking in our area, and what little there is, is quite a
hike from the proposed main house. This amount of parking is clearly insufficient, given
the fact that the Proposed Project is clearly designed as a showy entertainment home that
will attract many guests. As such, the limited parking along the street is likely to become
quite congested and may induce guests to drive down adjacent neighbor's driveways by
mistake or in search of additional parking.
The neighbors strongly recommend that additional parking be required for this project. If
the tennis court was moved to the northwest comer of the lot as recommended by the
neighbors, it could additionally serve as supplemental parking for large events and for
emergency vehicle tum -around.
Fast Track
The Developers indicated that they were applying for fast-track approval. The neighbors
respectfully submit that fast-track approval is inappropriate for a complex project such as
this. This is no simple project of a family wanting to build a home but, rather, a project
designed to maximize the profits of a spec builder. As such, full consideration of the
plans of the Developers is imperative.
Page 3 of 4
Vcry Truly fours.
O.R. Kirkpatrick
Cc: Shashi Corporation
Los Altos Homes LLC
Brian Froelich, AICP
Paul & Lina BRcbeocaHickntan =
Sam &Lina
Saroydo
Ken & Pat Daniels
Linda Yee
Page 4 ot'4
Attachment 8
Debbie Pedro
From:
Bob Kirkpatrick [
Sent:
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 8:41 PM
To:
Debbie Pedro
Cc: Brian Froelich; John Chau
Subject: Lot 166-07-ZZP-SD-GD
Debbie Pedro, AICP Purissima Neighbors
Planting Director January 9, 2008
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Ms. Pedro
This document is in response to the Mei Wu noise study the Town received on 12/28/07
A study was requested by the neighbors. Specifically the request was to compare the 1280 noise at report sites 2 and 4 to
evaluate reflected noise. Since freeway noise is quite variable, I expected the measurements to be made simultaneously. Since
the acoustics experts had only one Norsonic — 118 Type I sound level meter, the measurements were made serially. Therefore,
the data represents general noise level not accurate comparative noise levels.
Below are comments on the report but first are some paragraphs from the Town noise ordinance I noted as reference
720. Compatibility of land uses in Los Altos Hills is best achieved through analysis of each
proposed use on a case-by-case basis through the site development review process. To
ensure that new development is not adversely impacted by noise sources, or is itself a
source of noise, the Town uses land use compatibility guidelines as part of planning and
site development review.
721. The potential impacts of traffic noise and other unwanted sound should be identified and
mitigation measures required as needed to meet the Town's noise standards. The most
effective measures for noise attenuation include the following:
D Site planning that is sensitive to potential noise impacts
D Careful orientation of buildings and placement of windows
D Increased setbacks
723. In many communities, sound walls are used to reduce freeway noise impacts on adjacent
residences. In Los Altos Hills, however, sound walls are prohibited on private property
adjacent to Interstate 280, primarily because they block views of surrounding countryside
and tend to bounce sound to other locations.
Program 2.1 Evaluate noise impacts on surrounding land uses during the site
development review and permitting process.
Program 2.2 Utilize the Land Use and Noise Compatibility Guidelines as a basis for
determining the compatibility of land uses.
Program 2.3 To determine noise exposure, use the noise contour maps or more
detailed noise analysis if appropriate.
Program 2.4 Require the mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of
tn1/2008
Page 2 of 2
itet approval.
he last line of the report introductory paragraph; "or if there is a predicted increase in the neighbors' yards exceeding 5
" I found no reference to 5 dB in the Town document.
adentally, by the information in figure 5, the 500 should be 278, and the 200 should be 135.)
agraph 1 and 2 are of interest to the architect but of no particular interest to the neighbors.
agraph 3 again would be of interest to the architect but the data was not taken as simultaneous measurements as expected.
Hever, it is the only data available and the developers went to a lot of trouble to provide it
agraph 4 indicates the calculations are worst one for the reflecting surface.
agraph 5 uses a value of 1998 sq ft of a perfect reflecting surface.
determine the effect of reflected noise on location 2 from location 4, the existing level at 2 (51.5) is modified by adding a
mlated noise power reflected from location 4.
s was done by taking the 51.5 dB (relative value) and finding the absolute value:
aised to the power 51.5/10,
same was done to the 38 value shown at the bottom of page 6.
2 resulting values were added and returned to dB. That is: 10 log (sum) or 51.7 dB
;re is no indication of where the 38 came from. Ibis is the basis of the report conclusions.
Town sbould not aeopt this value without supporting information
we consider this as a sanity check for the unexplained number, 38.
rsider the 1998 sq it perfect reflecting surface as a 20 foot high by 100 foot long wall. (Similar to the proposed house wall)
able the wall length to 200 feet The sound power would double and the 38 would become 41.
reflected noise to be just noticeable on the Kirkpatrick patio, (a 3 dB noise increase) the reflected noise would have to
,ease from 38 to 51.5.
this change to happen, how long wood the 20 foot high wall have to bel 2240 feet!
s is a gross simplification but if the 38 has solid basis, the Town may be able to substantially reduce restrictions on sound
Is because any home 135 feet away, and on the receiving side, of a 20 foot high sound wall could not detect a noise level
erence..
agraph 6. The acoustic engineers may not have seen the development layout. They may not have known that much of the
ss between the Broydo back yard and 280 will be replaced with concrete and asphalt. Since 3 of the 8 octave noise bands
w the Broydo backyard measurements as the highest noise power, reevaluation of this situation is important.
rddition, no thought has been given to noise at the Tsai property.
agraph 8. Again, only the architect needs this number
Very Truly Yours,
GR Kirkpatrick
1/2008
Page 1 of
Brian Froelich
From: Bob Kirkpatrick [
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:46 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Brian Froelich
Subject: Lot 166-ZP-SD-GD
Debbie Pedro, AICP Purissima Neighbors
Planning Director November 19, 2007
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Ms. Pedro:
This e-mail addresses an aspect of encroachment of outdoor lighting that may not be routinely considered for site
development. It must be considered in this case.
The driveway of the proposed development approaches the garage on an up hill slope.
Projecting a line following this slope intersects our wall between our living room and dinning room
1 i 197/9nn7
In this picture, the projected line following the slope is created by
puking a vehicle on the proposed driveway with the headlights turned
on.
The target of the headlight is seen as the bright rectangle at the top
center of the photo. This is the wall of our home. To the left are living
room windows. To the right is the glass door that leads from our
dinning room to our deck. An individual sitting at our dinning room
table facing this door is subject to the full direct impact of headlights
about 100 feet away.
Although this situation is probably temporary, it will most certainly
destroy the mood at the table.
As a point of reference, the orange netting seen at the upper left comer
of the photo represents the comer of the proposed garage.
situation is not acceptable.
imn7
Page 2 of 2 .
From the standpoint of these neighbors, there is a more
serious problem.
To the left and above our living room is our bedroom
A time honored way of waking someone from a sound
sleep is simply to tum on the bedroom light.
This picture is a view of our bedroom wall and ceiling
taken with a vehicle parked in the proposed driveway.
Very Truly Yours,
G.R. Kirkpatrick
It shows a snapshot of the light that would wake the
occupants as it sweeps through the room as a car enters
the proposed garage.
Page 1 of 1
Debbie Pedro
From:
Bob Kirkpatrick [
Sent:
Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:48 AM
To:
Debbie Pedro
Cc: Brian Froelich; John Chau
Subject: Lot-166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Debbie Pedro, AICP Purissima Neighbors
Planning Director November 13, 2007
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Ms. Pedro
Earlier Cyrus Kainpour reviewed for me the Santa Clara County method of determining the required runoff storage
capacity for a project of this size and indicated the proposed plan exceeds this capacity. I now believe this
calculation is for a containment system used to prevent roadway flooding when unusual amounts of rain runoff
exceed the capacity of an existing culvert. When the rain rate decreases, the culvert is able to empty the
containment system in a mater of minutes. The fill time and the empty time are similar.
The proposed system is not connected to the culvert. This would defeat its purpose.
Contained water dissipates by percolation, not a connected culvert.
A search for perc rate specifications was found for other areas. The simple test is to create a hole in the test area, fill
it with water, and measure how quickly the water surface sinks. Acceptable perc rates for septic system drain fields
ranged from 1 inch per hour to 20 inches per hour. Since a summer time perc test was run on this lot, this broad
requirement was likely met. The proposed winter time containment system is next to the area where a pond often
forms at our culvert entrance. This ground is saturated. When the rain stops, the pond water flows through the
culvert. Small puddles remain. These puddles do not percolate at one inch per hour casting doubt on the
containment systems ability to achieve one inch per hon percolation rate. Even if the percolation rate in this
saturated area met the one inch per hon minimum, when full, the five foot deep gravel pit with the 36 inch
diameter pipes could take up to 2 1/2 days to empty after the rain stopped. With town staffs evaluation of the
containment system, the fill time and the empty time are vastly dissimilar. They would match well using a rain per
storm basis, not a rain rate over a short period basis. Since the rate of containment system output is unknown, an
acceptable containment system design is unknown.
Late in the winter, a perc test at the location of the containment system when there is a pond at our culvert must
show a minimum of 3 inches per hour percolation rate before approval of this containment system. This is in
addition to the requirement that there be no overflow during a theoretical 10 year storm.
Very Truly Yours,
G.R. Kirkpatrick
1/11/2008
Page I of I
Debbie Pedro
From: Bob Kirkpatrick [
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:36 AM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Brian Froelich; John Chau
Subject: Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Debbie Pedro, AICP Purissima Neighbors
Planning Director November 8, 2007
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Ms. Pedro:
Yesterday November 7, 2007 at the invitation of John Chen, I met with John and the town independent civil
engineering consultant, Cyrus Yknpour. The purpose of the meeting was to review proposed changes to the rain
runoff containment system.
Cyrus reviewed for me the Santa Clara County method of determining the required runoff storage capacity for a
project of this size and indicated the plan exceeds this capacity.
Cyrus asked why I felt the system is still inadequate. I asked what the rate of water dissipation by percolation would
be. To my surprise, no answer was forthcoming even though perc tests were run on the lot.
The answer to Cyrus's question is: if the rate of output is unknown, an acceptable rate of input is unknown.
I believe the equation presented is for a single event and required capacity must be based on an empty storage
facility. For a second event, available storage is likely unknown. In an earlier note, I provided some measured data
(multiple events over 28 days). Staff simply set this aside because it was an extreme case. Granted, it was an
extreme case but data that is more typical has not been forthcoming. For multiple events, when the rate of
percolation is unknown, failure must be the only reasonable conclusion.
I was pleased when John suggested moving storage pipes up hill toward the house. Then connect a small pipe near
the center of the storage pipe. The small pipe would be set so that water would gravity feed to the existing culvert
partially draining the storage pipe over time. This in itself is not a solution but the breakout thinking is very
welcome.
At an earlier meeting between the developers and the neighbors, the developers were asked to relocate the main
house to the south comer of the lot. We were told that town grading restrictions prohibited this change. I asked John
and Cyrus about this and was told there were no grading restrictions preventing this relocation. We would be
grateful for the towns' support in this matter for several of our concerns stated earlier.
Very Truly Yours,
G.R. Kirkpatrick
1 n 1 /7nr1R
Debbie Pedro
From:
Bob Kirkpatrick [
Sent:
Sunday, October 28, 2007 9:36 AM
To:
Debbie Pedro
Cc:
Brian Froelich
Subject:
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Purissima Neighbors
October 28, 2007
Debbie Pedro, AICP
Planning Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Ms. Pedro:
This e-mail is an addendum to the October 27 2007 e-mail
Page I of I
The 450 cubic feet of rain runoff storage capacity was my recollection of the value given by the developers. With
numbers on the plan, the pipes would hold 565 cubic feet with additional storage in the 1835 cubic feet of gravel.
Using higher numbers and even doubling storage is not a solution to the runoff problem. Again, we request the
town acknowledge this problem and seek solutions.
Very Truly Yours,
G.R. Kirkpatrick
1/11/2008
Page I of 2
Debbie Pedro
From:
Bob Kirkpatrick [
Sent:
Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:43 AM
To:
Debbie Pedro
Cc:
Brian Froelich
Subject:
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Purissima Neighbors
October 27, 2007
Debbie Pedro, AICP
Planning Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Ms. Pedro:
This letter is a review of some things discussed during a meeting of the neighbors and the developer at the
Kirkpatrick home on October 25 2007. The meeting you were unable to attend.
There was some interest of homeowners along Purissima to connect to the proposed private sewer line at some later
date. This is a separate issue and will involve only interested parties.
The developers provided a sound level meter to test noise at various locations. The measurements showed about a 4
dB higher level at the new house relative to our patio. Our concern that there will be objectionable reflected sound
is real. The developers will bring an acoustical engineer to our next as yet unscheduled meeting.
Several issues of privacy were discussed with repeated requests to move the house to the south comer of the lot. We
were told that town grading requirements prohibited placing a 2 story house at this location. We request the town
clarify this problem and seek solutions. -
Again, drainage was discussed.
The following excerpt is included to verify that the neighbors and the developer are working with the same
requirement.
Sec. 10.2.502. Drainage standards.
Drainage systems shall be designed to minimize the effects of erosion, situation, and flooding on immediate or distant
downstream neighbors. They shall follow regional patterns and use natural swales wherever possible.
Provisions shall be made to prevent surface waters from damaging the cut face of an excavation or any portion of a fill.
All drainage ways and structures shall carry surface waters to the nearest practical street, storm drain, or natural
watercourse approved by the City Engineer as a safe place to receive such waters. The City Engineer may require
drainage structures to be constructed or installed as necessary to prevent erosion damage or to prevent the saturation
of the fill or material behind out slopes. Drainage facilities and impervious surfaces shall be designed to prevent
adjacent properties from receiving runoff from a project site, except through approved drainage channels. Drainage
facilities shall be constructed according to standard specifications developed by the City Engineer.
To avoid additional down stream flooding the change in runoff is to be controlled. During an extensive discussion,
the developers pointed out that common civil engineering practice uses a coefficient of 0.9 in calculating runoff
from an impervious surface and 0.5 for an undeveloped surface. Using these guidelines, the runoff increase of an
impervious surface is the difference between 0.5 and 0.9 giving a coefficient of 0.4 for the 29,765 square feet of
1/11/2008
Page 2 of 2
elopment. For simplicity, I will use 100 percent runoff from 12,000 square feet. (about 0.4 times 29,765)
ecalculation of plan suitability using the known data from the October 25 2007 e-mail and the developer's plan
about 450 cubic feet of storage which is emptied only by percolation follows below.
he meeting, no one felt qualified to guess the daily volume of water that would percolate from the bottom
face of a 12 by 40 foot gravel pit given a 5 foot pressure head This factor will make an unknown difference in
calculation; however, considering how long standing water stands in this area, percolation is probably not a
;e factor to consider.
rain fall of 11 inches in February 1998 or 11/12 feet per month times 12,000 square feet is 11,000 cubic feet of
ess runoff during this month.
riding the monthly quantity by 28 days yields almost 400 cubic feet of average excess runoff per day. Since the
-age capacity of the system is about 450 cubic feet, it would fail completely on the second day and remain in the
ed condition for at least 3 weeks.
developer suggested willingness to double the storage capacity. This is not a solutiom
t of town code Section 10-2.502 is written to avoid additional down stream flooding caused by this
elopment. The current design will not do this. A solution was suggested by Kirkpatrick and Broydo but was not
braced by the developer since the town accepted their plan. We request the town acknowledge this problem and
k solutions.
Very Truly Yours,
G.R. Kirkpatrick
1/2008
Page 1 of 2
Debbie Pedro
From:
Bob Kirkpatrick
Sent:
Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:05 AM
To:
Debbie Pedro
Cc:
Brian Froelich
Subject:
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Purissima Neighbors
October 22, 2007
Debbie Pedro, AICP
Planning Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Ms. Pedro:
This letter is in addition to the letter dated October 22, 2007.
It is an additional review of the Developers Proposed Rain Runoff Storage.
At the planning meeting on Oct. 23, 2007, I asked town staff to identify rain amounts for a typical storm. Since that
time, I located relevant data on the net.
http://www.sfmuseum.org/histIO/98wx.html
A SERIES OF STORMS CONTINUED THROUGH FEBRUARY AND BY MONTH'S END... MONTHLY RAINFALL
TOTALS HAD BROKEN RECORDS. IN SAN FRANCISCO... 14.89 INCHES OF RAIN FELL... BREAKING THE
PREVIOUS RECORD OF 12.52 INCHES IN FEBRUARY... 1878. OTHER FEBRUARY RAINFALL RECORDS INCLUDED
REDWOOD CITY WITH 12.46 INCHES... SAN JOSE'S 10.23 INCHES AND MONTEREY WITH 15.00 INCHES.
RAINFALL ACCUMULATIONS DURING FEBRUARY WENT A LONG WAY TOWARD SETTING RECORDS FOR THE
1997- 98 RAINFALL SEASON. SAN FRANCISCO'S RAINFALL TOTAL FOR THE WATER YEAR ENDING JUNE
30 ... 1998 WAS 47.22 ... THE SECOND WETTEST YEAR ON RECORD.
I believe this is a strong indication that Los Altos Hills received about 11 inches of rain in February 9 years ago.
My understanding of the proposed system is that it is a passive percolation system.
Using 11 inches of rain, or 11/12 feet of rain, times 29,765 square feet of impervious surface, divided by 28 days
yields about 900 cubic feet of average runoff per day to percolate.
To add some perspective, this is 9 (water company 100 cu ft per unit) units per day. I believe that 9 units is close to
the typical monthly domestic water use for homes connected to a well proven septic tank and leach field system.
The proposed passive percolation system occupies less area than a typical leach field. To expect it to be anywhere
near 28 times better is very unlikely.
I suspect a desperate measure to show apparent success of the plan would be to increase the depth of the gravel pit
to allow the disaster of direct access to the underground water supply.
I believe this alternative simple analysis shows the proposed runoff storage plan is inadequate
1/11/2008
Page 2 of 2
Very Truly Yours,
G.R. Kirkpatrick
>ejoin as this afternoon at 5:30 at our home.
L/2008
Purissima Neighbors
October 22, 2007
Debbi Pedro, AICP
Planning Director
Town of Los Altos Hills RECENEU
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road OCT 2 3 2007
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Dear Ms. Pedro:
This letter is from the neighbors of the currently empty lot located at 26462 Purissima
Road ("the Lot") which was recently purchased by speculative builders operating under
the names of Shashi Corporation and Los Altos Home LLC (collectively "the Developers
This letter is in addition to the letter dated October 14, 2007.
It is a review of the Developers Proposed Rain Runoff Storage.
As a solution to the rain storm runoff problem, the architects' specifications show
three 80 foot long perforated pipes 3 feet in diameter providing about 1700 cubic feet of
runoff storage. The nmoff comes from about 30 000 square feet of area.
Ma)dmum runoff capacity is reached when rain depth is:
1,700 cubic feet divided by 30,000 square feet This equals 0.057 feet or 0.68 inches
(About 3/4 inch of storm rainfall)
Our AVERAGE annual rainfall is 21 inches.
For each storm to be limited to 3/4 inch of rain there would be 21 divided by 3/4 or 28
rain storms of equal precipitation amounts during the year. Clearly, this is not the case.
I believe this simple analysis shows the proposed runoff storage plan is inadequate.
Again, when the storage system is hill., the neighbors to the north are concerned with
increased runoff from the Lot with the potential of flooding the downstream driveways.
The neighbors recommend that an engineering study be performed to determine how this
problem can be properly addressed-
Additionally
ddressed
Additionally the stored runoff must percolate between storms to restore the 1,700 cubic
feet of capacity. This percolation will raise the local water table and may seriously affect
the up stream septic system at
Very Truly Yours,
G.R- Kirkpatrick
Page 1 of I
Date: October 17. 2007
ilfi(rfu::
Attachment 9
l4{'✓sl rye t,�_ n:i;J3 � ,._,.
To: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director, Town of Los Altos Hills
From: Samuel and Lina Broydo, , Los Altos Hills
Subject: Public Hearing on October 23, 2007 Re: Site Development Permit
for Lands of Los Altos Homes, LLC, 26462 Purissima Rd., File 166-07-ZP-
SD-GD
Dear Debbie,
This is our third letter (replacing the first two) reflecting our concerns and
requests regarding the peak discharge, landscaping and noise as related to
this project.
PEAK DISCHARGE
Our lot, is the next lot North ("downstream") from 26462.
We are very concerned about any increase in peak discharge from 26462
that may result due to the proposed project. During any substantial rain the
lower part of the 26462 lot becomes a lake which serves as a holding pool
which reduces the peak discharge in a downstream direction. The water
flows North under two driveways, then flows through our lot and
exits our lot under two other driveways. All four driveways have 12 in.
diameter drainage pipes under them, which are barely large enough to
handle the peak discharge during a strong rain. Heavy utilization of the area
envisioned by the proposed development will drastically reduce the water
absorbing area of the 26462 lot and increase the speed of the runoff. This
will expose our lot to the danger of flooding and the four driveways, with
water flow over the top, to the danger of severe damage.
While the Recommended Condition #14 for the project states that.the peak
discharge from this lot "shall not exceed the existing predevelopment peak
discharge value of the property" and while it also sates that the "detention
storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the anticipated peak
discharge to the predevelopment value" the implementation of those
conditions is envisioned on the basis of calculations only. Those
calculations can not be perfectly accurate and their satisfaction can not be
practically tested. hi addition, those conditions are only recommended, not
demanded.
Therefore WE REQUEST the following:
1) The Recommended Condition #14 has to become a nonnegotiable
condition for project approval.
2) The area of the lot extending two hundred feet West from Purissima along
the planned driveway can not be elevated above present level, except for the
driveway itself. In other words, the part of Recommended Condition #14
that states "no grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line
except to allow for the construction of the driveway access" has to be
changed to "no grading shall take place within two hundred feet from
Purissima and within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the
construction of the driveway access."
3) The new driveway has to be elevated above the height of the parallel
driveway adjacent to the North boundary of the lot.
4) The diameter of the drainage pipe under the new driveway should not
exceed the diameter of the drainage pipes under the four driveways to the
North of the new driveway.
5) All five driveways should have 18 in. diameter drainage pipes installed at
project builder's expense (four existing drainage pipes with 12 in. diameter
to be replaced).
LANDSCAPING FOR PRIVACY
Recommended Condition #2 states that "particular attention shall be given to
plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence
from surrounding properties and streets". This is not clear enough, since the
element of time is not specified.
Therefore WE REQUEST the following:
1) The Recommended Condition #2 has to be modified to clearly state that
the landscaping must be adequate to `break up the view" right away, by
mature trees planted from the beginning, not after indeterminate number of
years of gradual growth. The above sentence should read: "Particular
attention shall be given to mature plantings which from the beginning will
be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding
properties and streets".
2) The modified Recommended Condition #2 has to become a nonnegotiable
condition for project approval.
REFLECTED NOISE ABATEMENT
The building of this size will have tremendous effect on the neighbors by
deflecting the highway 280 noise. There is no mention of the noise issue in
the Recommended Conditions.
Therefore WE REQUEST the following
1) Mature trees have to be planted from the start along the perimeter of the
lot in question to help minimize the effect of the highway 280 noise reflected
by the new large building towards the neighbors (another reason to modify
the Recommended Condition #2)-
2) The builder should be requested (and assisted to receive the proper
permits) to build a noise barrier wall on top of the hill next to highway 280,
with the proper height and width to be determined through a professional
acoustics evaluation.
Respectfully, �
Attachment 10
Dafe: Octobei 18, 2007
Te: Debbie Pedro, AWP, Planning Director, Tony of Los Altos Ffdls
Frome Dr. Kuei-wu and Leslie Tsai, Owners of , Los Altos Frills
(Mailing address.
Subject: Public Hearing on October 23, 2007 Re: Site Development Pewit
for Lands of Los Altos Humes, LLC, 25462 Putissima Rd., File 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Debbie,
We are the owners of the house located at 26510 Pursssima Road, Los Altos Illis. Due
to job relocation to Masaachusetts� we are not residing, but still own the house. We were
informed recently by our neighbors about the proposed developmeut at 26462 Punissima
Road which is adjacent to our house. We are very concerned about the potential negative
impact on oar house caused by tle aevrdcvelopmenc Some of the impacts arelisted as
follows:
Noise: The proposed new structure will reflect the traffic noise from adjacent freeway
280 to our house. A possible mitigation is the developer los build a sound barrier wall
along and immediately adjacent to freeway M. This is the most effective way for
freeway noise abatement for all houses including the new development
DraiaW and Septic: Theptoposed development can ruse flooding of the low level
areas to the north, including spat[ of my driveway. In addition, it can impact the
of activeness of existing.septic systems. These problems need to be addressed by the
developer.
Landstap'arg The proposed large house will drastically change the rural nature of the
neighborhood. Mature trees surrounding the new house should be apart of the proposed
development.
Ligttingz proper design of the outdoor lighting to avoid negative impact on neighbors
should be requited.
RECE@ED
OCT 18 2007
Kuei-wit and Leslie Tsai MWH Of LOS ALTOS HILLS
From
Palaniappan Jambulingam
Los Alms Hills, CA 94022
408-773-1695
To
Ms. Debbie Pedro, AICP
Planning Director
City of Los Altos Hills
CA 94022
Nov ' Attachment I I
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
November 20, 2007
Sub: - Site Development Permit for 26462 Purissima Road, File 166 -07 -ZD -SD -GD.
I attended the hearing on October 23, 2007 at the Council Chambers regarding the above
petition. I understand that there will be a fall planning commission hearing on the above
matter. Since I did not receive any farther notice regarding this, I wanted to state my
concern in writing about one of the alternate proposals that was discussed during the
hearing on October 23, 2007. It was suggested that the building be moved to the base of
"L" area, behind my house. I have captured this proposal as Alternate (1).
At that time, I had mentioned that I may not have any objections as long as there are
enough bushes and trees to protect our privacy. Last week, my wife and I studied the
building plan bather, and realized that if the building got laterally moved as is from
current location to Eastward behind our property at the current elevation (385+ ft), there
will be 31+ feet tall building roughly at 31 feet from our property line. It will be
impossible to hide such a tall building with bushes when the building is close to our
property line. Our property building is at approximately 381 feet
Alternate Proposal Being Objected
26462 Pu`tsatma
Altemate (1)
Lost Prtvacy & Va
28430
If this alternative is pursued, here are the implications to us:
- Our privacy will be severely impacted as the proposed building is a two storey
building and it is very close to our property
- This tall building will obstruct the natural hill views that are available today at our
backyard.
- Both of these will not only affect our quality of life but also future value of Our
property
Hence, my wife and I strongly object to laterally moving the proposed house towards
East, behind our house. We prefer the current location as presented now, because it
preserves our privacy and does not obstruct the natural views.
If the City and other neighbors object to the current location, following alternates could
be considered
- Alternate (2): Make the section of the house behind our property to be a single
storey building or have a basement
- Alternate (3): Right now, the building is proposed at the comer of the "L" shaped
properly. Instead, suggest this to be an elongated one that spans the base of the
"L" (a) giving about 50 ft clearance to our property (b) preserving some of the
available natural views for our property.
Altemate-3 Proposal
asaaz PuaasbM
eae„» M
In summary, we prefer that building be constructed as per the current plan. If there is any
cbange to this proposal, we request you take into account of the impact of any such
change to our privacy as well as the natural views and consider alternate (3).
Y urs tnily>
P
Thenmozhi
Copy to: Mr. Brian Proelieh
Attachment 3
Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 02/21/08
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, January 17, 2008, 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Chairman Carey, Commissioners Clow, Collins, Cottrell and Harpootlian
Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner; Richard Chiu,
City Engineer; Cyrus Kianpour, Consultant Engineer; and Victoria Ortland, Planning
Secretary
2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR - none
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
r-� 3.1 LANDS OF LOS ALTOS HOMES, LLC, 26462 Purissima Road, File #166-07-
ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 10,975 square foot
two-story new residence (maximum height: 27 feet), a 960 square foot detached
single story secondary dwelling unit, tennis court, swimming pool and horse bam.
CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) & (e) (Staff -Brian
Froelich).
Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Harpoothan attended the October 23, 2007
Fast Track public hearing for the project.
Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, presented the staff report for the project proposal of a two-
story 10,975 square foot residence, 960 square foot second unit, 200 square foot horse bam,
swimming pool and tennis court. The two acre vacant site with a 7.3 average slope is surrounded
by one-story and two-story homes. There had been neighbor concerns expressed over drainage
and visual impacts. The runoff from the property will be collected into a detention facility with a
total capacity of 1,890 cubic feet (14,000 gallons), flow through a four inch pipe to a culvert and
then offsite. The site currently has virtually no landscaping.
Commissioner Cottrell asked if the project had been originally scheduled for a Fast Track
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 02/21/08
January 17, 2008
Page 2
Debbie Pedro confirmed that the project had been scheduled for a Fast Track hearing because it
had conformed to all of the zoning requirements. Neighbor concerns raised at the public hearing
had caused the project to be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Cyrus Kianpour, Consultant Engineer, stated that the project met all the Town's engineering
standards. He explained that the Town's requirement for any proposed development project was
to maintain the amount of drainage runoff from the site to pre -development conditions. The
difference between the pre -development and the post development runoff must be detained in a
system and be released over a period of time. The project's drainage system was designed to be
self draining. It exceeds the storage requirement and the piping system had been moved up the
slope to give the system the ability to drain itself in 24 hours to prepare for the next storm. The
12 inch culvert under the driveway matched the size of other culverts downstream.
Chairman Carey asked what the distance was from the new buildings to the neighboring
Kirkpatrick and Jambulingam properties.
Debbie answered that the closest point to the Kirkpatrick's property was 38 feet from the comer
of the new garage and 33 feet to the Jambulingam's property.
Commissioner Cottrell asked staff to comment on possible ambient noise changes for the
neighborhood and sound walls that had been removed from the plans.
Debbie explained that per the recently updated General Plan, sound walls were discouraged. The
applicant had proposed a 6 foot block wall on the comer of the property. The wall met all the
fence requirements and is not considered a sound wall. The professional acoustic engineer hired
by the applicant reported that there would be a negligible increase in the ambient noise after
constmction.
Manish Gupta, applicant, explained that meetings had been held with the neighbors to help
clarify their key concerns and listen to their suggestions for solutions. The resulting proposed
options were discussed with the Town planning and engineering staff. In response to noise
concerns, Mei Wu Acoustics, a firm with expertise in acoustics and sound, had been hired to
study the levels of proposed noise from the property. The new drainage system had been
designed to capture the increased run-off from the property and restrict it to pre -development
amounts. He stated they had increased the retention capacity to 1,890 cubic feet from 945 cubic
feet and created a self draining system. The proposed driveway had been designed with a slope
of 2.5 percent. The sewer mainlines had been designed to accommodate neighbors on the other
side of Purissima Road who wanted to hook-up. Six neighbors had shown interest in joining the
new sewer line. T -joints will be provided at time of construction for connection at that time or
will be installed for connection at a later time. There was neighbor concern over views and the
bulk of the house. Relocating the house was requested by one of the neighbors and had been
considered, but then a different neighbor asked that the house remain in the original location.
Commissioner Harpootlian asked what distance had been considered for relocation of the house
Planting Conunission Minutes Approved 02/21/08
January 17, 2008
Page 3
Ninh Le, engineer for the applicant, explained that one of the suggestions had been to move the
house to be clear of the line of sight from the Kirkpatrick's home. That would be approximately
40 to 60 feet to the south.
Mr. Gupta stated that the proposed home is 300 feet back from Purissima Road and conformed to
the setback requirement of the Town's Estate Home Ordinance. Planning department staff had
recommended that the Planning Commission review the screening plan and he welcomed that
opportunity. Twenty-three trees are planned for the north side of the property and fourteen trees
along the west side of the property. The trees being considered include Coast redwood, ash or
Live oak with a height of 14 to 15 feet tall at planting. The sound wall was removed from the
plan because it would reflect noise instead of absorb noise. A noise report was submitted to the
Town in December, 2007.
Chairman Carey asked what the impact would be on the plans for the site if the home were
relocated more to the southerly direction.
Mr. Gupta said that the plan would be significantly impacted considering their vision for the
other structures on the site.
Ninh Le, explained that as the location of the house is moved south it is also moved upslope and
would no longer meet the Town ordinance for the maximum cut and fill.
Chairman Carey asked why the previously proposed sound wall was no longer considered
necessary.
Mr. Le stated that the location of the previously planned sound wall would cause noise from
Interstate 280 to be reflected back toward Mr. Kirkpatrick's house.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Bob Kirkpatrick, Purissima Road, expressed his concerns about the accuracy of the noise study
as measurements are given in both feet and meters. He wished to have the noise issue re-
examined to measure the reflected sound from the new development on all the neighboring
homes. He felt the noise from the air conditioners in the proposed location would prevent the
ability to leave the doors and windows of his house open, especially at night. He thought the
headlights from vehicles using the proposed driveway for site arrival, parking and garage access
would be directed into the windows of his home. The number of people visiting the home could
cause a problem with cars using Purissima Road, his driveway or the Hickman's driveway for
parking. He felt that the home was designed to catch the attention of onlookers passing by on
Purissima Road, which could create a safety hazard. His privacy on his deck and in his home
would be compromised by the proposed house and the placement of the windows. He was also
worried about potential drainage problems on the project site.
Commissioner Harpoothan asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if moving the house 10 to 15 feet to the south
would make a difference in his privacy concerns. He asked what distance the house would need
to be moved to solve his problems with the project.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 02/21/08
January 17, 2008
Page 4
Mr. Kirkpatrick replied that 10 to 15 feet would make a difference in the privacy for the master
bedroom but not the loft. He thought that moving the house 60 feet to the south would be the
best solution.
Commissioner Harpoothan asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if a row of trees placed to block the headlights
from vehicles would be helpful for screening.
Mr. Kirkpatrick said the trees would be helpful as long as the house was relocated. The noise
and driveway problems would then be diminished. Moving the house just 10 or 15 feet would
not do much but moving the house 40 to 60 feet would do a great deal.
Commissioner Collins discussed with Mr. Kirkpatrick the relocation of the air conditioning units
and trash collection area.
Rebecca Hickman, Purissima Road, expressed support for Mr. Kirkpatrick's concerns and felt
that he would be the most impacted of the neighbors by the project. Moving the house a little
would solve a lot of the issues he has concerns about. Hickman's property will also be
significantly affected by the development from a visual standpoint with the proximity of the new
house's view into her lot and her view of the new garage area. She would benefit from the
house being placed in a more central location on the site.
Commissioner Harpootlian asked Rebecca how much she felt the house should be moved.
Ms. Hickman said the land is fairly flat and felt it was possible to move the house to a more
centralized place on the property. She would like the Planning Commission to consider the
relocation of the house.
Samuel Broydo, Purissima Road was concerned about the drainage from the project site. He was
pleased with the changes the applicant bad made to the system. He wanted to know the length of
time it would take to empty the detention basin. He was convinced that the reflected noise
impact deemed negligible was incorrect. The proposed trees will be important not only for
privacy but also as a noise barrier. Trees with a growth habit of bushy foliage near the ground
should be planted at the beginning of the project.
Palaniappan Jambulingam, Purissima Road, considered that the trees would provide sufficient
screening for privacy as long as they were mature at planting. He pointed out that the water from
his lot drained onto the applicant's site and wanted the new driveway constructed in a way as not
to make the water back-up onto his property. The proposed location of the house is fine and he
could agree to have it moved a little to accommodate the privacy of the other neighbors.
However, he would not like the house built directly behind his property because his views would
be impacted. His house is 5 to 6 feet lower than the proposed house and if it was moved to a
higher location, he would have no privacy.
Paul Hickman, Purissima Road, commented that the owners of the new residence will want
privacy too. The house in the current location has a major impact on the Kirkpatricks and an
impact on his property. He felt that if the house could be more centered in the large area it
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 02/21/08
January 17, 2008
Page 5
would minimize the average impact on all the neighbors and might be better for the future
owners.
Mrs. Jambulingam, Purissima Road, commented that if the house is moved further south it will
impact her view and privacy. The current view of the mountain from her home will be hidden
and only the new residence will be seen if the house is moved the suggested 40 to 60 feet.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Clow noted that the applicant had met all the requirements for a Fast Track
hearing except the agreement from the neighbors. The drainage issues had been addressed and
twice the required storage capacity was being provided. Extensive landscape mitigation,
including large trees, would be needed to reduce the impact of the project on the neighborhood.
The Jambulingams would receive the biggest impact and lose a view if the house was moved 40
to 60 feet. He would recommend leaving the plan as proposed. Trees could mitigate the issues of
headlights, the need for privacy and the increased noise. The applicant has done a good job of
making as minimal of an impact possible and the plan is a good one.
Commissioner Collins thought the location of the house should be moved about 30 feet so all the
residents share in the view of the new house. The City Engineer should determine whether
moving the house would require a grading variance. She supported planting the trees to mitigate
any sound for the Kirkpatricks and Broydos. The trees could extend the length of the driveway.
The air conditioners need to be moved to a location that does not impact any neighbors. The
drainage culvert under the driveway should match the size of the neighbor's culverts.
Commissioner Harpootlian felt the house should be moved 20 to 25 feet to the south. The air
conditioners should be moved to a different location. The drainage has been properly addressed.
The noise issues can be addressed with landscape screening.
Commissioner Cottrell noted that since the applicant had fully developed the property, the future
owner would have no opportunity to make changes as all available development area had been
used. The drainage issues had been addressed adequately. The view and noise issues can be
mitigated with proper landscape screening. The au conditioners should be moved and shielded
to the maximum extent. A condition of approval should require that during the construction
period, parking would be allowed only on the applicant's property. In terms of moving the house
more to the south between the Kirkpatrick and Jambulingam houses you don't seem to gain
much except along the driveway unless it would be moved a great deal. He felt that the moving
of the house was a subject for further discussion. He commended the applicant on his
extraordinary efforts to accommodate the neighbors, especially with the sewer system that will
be an asset for the neighborhood.
Chairman Carey felt that the landscape deposit should be increased to $20,000. He agreed that
the air conditioners should be moved. He thought the property line should be well landscaped
with trees added near the time that the house would be framed. He suggested that the
Commission consider continuation of the project until the grading issues and applicant's
comments on design considerations related to moving the house to the south could be further
discussed.
Planning Comnussion Minutes Approved 02/21/08
January 17, 2008
Page 6
Manish Gupta, applicant, agreed with the relocation of the air conditioning units and the
landscape screening for the project. He would welcome a recommendation on the species of
trees for screening. He stated that the highest point of the new residence was at Elevation 414 at
the roofline. The first floor's finished height of Mr. Kirkpatricks home is Elevation 410, so only
4 feet of the new house would be seen by a person on the first floor of his home. He asked the
Planning Commission to take that into consideration. The Jambulingam home is at a lower
elevation than the proposed residence and would have a view 39 feet tall of the new residence.
Ninh Le explained that the final layout of the driveway will be about 4 feet lower than existing
grade. To meet required driveway and fire truck turnaround requirements, the drive will have
less than a 5 percent grade.
Bob Kirkpatrick, Purissima Road, commented that with discussion of the vehicle headlights
directed toward his house from the proposed driveway, the slope of that driveway must be
considered.
MOTION AMENDED, SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and
seconded by Commissioner Clow to continue the project and direct the applicant to return to the
Planning Commission with a detailed landscape screening plan.
AYES: Chairman Carey, Commissioners Clow, Collins, Cottrell and Harpoodian
NOES: none
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Carey and seconded by
Commissioner Cottrell to continue the project and direct the applicant to return to the Planning
Commission with a study of the implications of moving the house 15 to 20 feet to the south.
AYES: Chairman Carey, Commissioners Clow, Collins, Cottrell and Harpoothan
NOES: none
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by
Commissioner Clow to increase the landscape screening deposit to $20,000.
AYES: Chairman Carey, Commissioners Clow, Collins, Cottrell and Harpootlian
NOES: none
--3 This item will be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting.
3.2 LANDS OF GOESE, 13480 Wildcrest Drive, File #205-07-ZP-SD; A request for
a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. CEQA Review:
Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (Staff -Nicole Horvitz).
Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Clow spoke to the project site
superintendent; Commissioner Harpootlian had met with the general contractor at the site.