Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 3.2
Item 3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 5, 2009 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TWO STORY NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, CABANA AND SWIMMING POOL; LANDS OF KAHNG; 26750 ROBLEDA COURT; FILE #247-08-ZP-SD-GD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner�� APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director �j P RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission Approve the requested Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool, cabana and the Grading Policy exception for the driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage but deny the Grading Policy exception for the cabana and yard areas subject to the recommended conditions in Attachment I and Findings of Approval in Attachment 2. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Robleda Court. The surrounding uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the west, north, south and east. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single story residence and swimming pool and construct a new single story residence with basement, swimming pool and cabana. CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-2.301 (c) of the Municipal Code. This application for a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The Zoning and Site Development sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate proposed projects including floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height, setbacks, visibility, and parking requirements. DISCUSSION Site Data Gross Lot Area: 1.00 acres Net Lot Area: .993 acres Average Slope: 14.45% Lot Unit Factor: .898 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Rating 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 2 of 16 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sg.Jt) Maximum Existing Development 11,971 13,808* Floor 5,188 2,822 *Non conforming development area Site and Architecture Proposed Increase Remaining 11,498 -2,310 473 5,156 2,334 32 (Basement 3,623) The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a 5,156 square foot single two story residence with a 3,623 square foot basement (which includes a 480 square foot basement garage), a 746 square foot swimming pool and a 442 square foot cabana. The existing residence is located primarily on a flat building pad, adjacent to a cut slope from previous site grading. There is a moderately to steep sloping hillside at the rear of the lot. The average slope of the property is 14.45%. The proposed new residence is sited on a flat portion of the lot in the same vicinity as the existing house. The new residence meets the setback, height, floor area and development area requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The new residence is located a minimum of 135' from the north (front) property line, 40' from the west property line (side), 50' from the west (side) property line, and 58' from the south (rear) property line. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 26'6" and the maximum overall height of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) from the lowest point to the highest point is 35'. Proposed exterior materials consist of cement plaster exterior, mission tile roof, and balconies with wrought iron railings. The basement level of the new residence has 3,623 sq. ft. of area which includes a theater, snack room, fitness center, massage room, game room, wine cellar, entertainment lounge, an pair room, storage room, mechanical room, wet bar and a two (2) car garage. A 429 sq. ft. enlarged basement lightwell is located on the south side of the residence and serves the dual function of an egress as well as a sunken patio for the basement The basement is wholly underground except for the daylighted basement two (2) car garage on the east side of the residence. The main level has 3,301 sq. ft. of living space with a grand foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, library, master suite with a bath and a two (2) car garage. The second floor has 1,360 sq. ft. of living space with master suite with a bath, two bedrooms with bathrooms and a laundry room. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 3 of 16 Driveway & Parking The existing driveway will be removed and replaced with a new driveway. At approximately 95' from the front property line, the driveway splits into two (2) driveways that run along the east and west property lines. Both driveways will be located entirely in the side setbacks. The two (2) driveways along the side property lines will be 12' wide. In the location where the driveway splits a fire truck turnaround will be constructed to comply with the Santa Clara County Fire Department requirements. r._..... t �e J ti j j .yI Pursuant to Section 10-1.601 of the Municipal Code, a total of four (4) parking spaces are required. Two separate garages are proposed, one of which is a two (2) car garage located in the basement along the east property line and the other is a two (2) car garage at grade level which will accessed by a driveway along the west property line. Grading Policy Exception Total grading quantities for this project include 4,195 cubic yards of cut for the basement, front, rear and side yards, driveways, backup area, swimming pool area and cabana. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed grading plan and concluded that it is not in conformance with the Town's grading policy. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 4 of 16 1. Area behind the pool, cabana and yard areas Per the Town's Grading Policy, the maximum allowable cut for decks, yards and accessory structures is 4'. The applicant is requesting up to 10' of cut for the cabana, 7' of cut for the area behind the pool and 6' of cut for the lawn at the rear and side yard. The purpose of the Town's grading policy is to assure that construction retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. In reviewing the proposal, staff does not recommend approval of the excessive grading for the following reasons: 1) Compliance to the grading policy would not prevent the property owner from constructing a cabana or establishing useable outdoor living space because there is adequate room on the property to accommodate the proposed development without a Grading Policy exception. The area behind the pool is proposed to be cut to expand the usable yard area but can remain as is with a retaining wall behind the pool, the cabana can be relocated and the flat lawn area can be reduced to minimize the amount of proposed cut. 2) In reviewing similar proposals, staff has consistently directed applicants to redesign their projects to adhere to the Town's grading limits. This property is not unique in that many other sites in the Town are similarly constrained similar terrain, access, and existing vegetation. 2. Driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage The applicant is proposing up to 13' of cut along the east property line to accommodate the driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage. Per the Towns Grading Policy, "Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet W) for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. " Additionally, requirements for building siting are addressed in Section 10-2.702.c of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code: ,'The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape. The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings. Additional grading may be allowed for the purpose of lowering the profile of the building provided that at the completion of the project the visual alteration of the natural terrain is minimized. The removal of vegetation and alteration of drainage patterns shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed structure." Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 5 of 16 If the proposed grading were to occur on a hillside or ridgeline property, the excavation for the driveway and basement garage would result in massive retaining walls that are highly visible and substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain in violation of Section 10-2.702.c of the Site Development Code. However, in this case, the affected area is relatively flat and the proposed grading will help lower the profile of the new home. The three retaining walls will be terraced (5' in height) with planting areas in between to minimize the visual impact to surrounding neighbors. If the Commission decides to approve the Grading Policy Exception for the driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage, Findings of Approval in Attachment 2 should be cited. X r to 6 Li Y� y w. _to -7 i I j s ' tU}]4010 L_ IKW r _ '.W - - "" Up Io 13' Grading Policy Exceptions Residence and Cabana i; The Planning Commission has generally approved exceptions to the grading policy for necessary improvements such as driveways or main residences. The Planning Commission has determined that the installation of amenities such as pools, decks, and lawns should generally conform to the limitations of the Town Grading Policy and the existing hillside terrain. However, the Planning Commission has the discretion to approve grading levels beyond standard requirements when the individual site dictates the need to deviate from the criteria. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 6 of 16 If the Planning Commission decides to approve the Grading Policy exception for the area behind the pool, cabana and rear and side yards staff should be directed to prepare findings for approval of the Grading Policy exception. Outdoor Lighting The applicant is proposing twenty four shielded lights located on the exterior of the main residence at the doorway, and six (6) on the cabana. (Lighting plan sheets EMI, EM2, EM3 and AIO). Staff has included condition #12 for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be down shielded or frosted glass, low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted lighting specifications indicating that all proposed fixtures will be shielded, downlights, or have frosted glass. Trees & Landscaping The existing landscaping consists of a variety of trees including oaks, acacia, palms, pepper, pines, and cypress. There are three (3) heritage oaks on the property, the applicant had an arborist inspect the trees and prepare a report and tree protection plan to protect the trees during construction. (Attachment 8) There is also a mix of shrubs on the property. According to the tree removal plan, a total of eight (8) trees are proposed to be removed and two (2) palms are to be transplanted somewhere else on the property in order to construct the new residence, pool, and cabana. Trees to be removed include five (5) Monterey pines along the south and east property lines, one (1) six inch oak, one 30" palm tree and a acacia tree. The location and list of the trees to be removed are detailed on the tree removal plan (Sheet Trees) to ensure that all remaining significant trees will be protected throughout the construction period; staff has included condition of approval #5 requiring that the trees within the vicinity of the construction be fenced for protection. A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after framing of the new residence. (Condition of approval # 4) Furthermore, any landscaping required for screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection, and a maintenance deposit to ensure viability of plantings will be collected prior to final inspection. Drainage Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected in a 6" storm drain pipe around the site and carried to an onsite storm infiltration system with a capacity of 1, 197 cubic yards, located at the at the north side of the property. There are also two (2) energy dissipaters which collect sheet flow from the swales along the east and west property lines and directs it to the north side of the property. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 7 of 16 Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Department will review and approve the final drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as - built" grading and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection. Neighbor Concerns To date, staff has received letters from six (6) neighbors supporting the project. (Attachment 3) Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring a fire truck turnaround and a sprinkler system throughout all portions of the new residence. (Attachment 4) Geotechnical Review The Town's geotechnical consultant Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc has reviewed the soil and foundation report prepared by Wayne Ting & associates, Inc dated 16 a & b. (Attachment 5) Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends a pathway in -lieu fee. (Condition #27) The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented on the driveways along both side property lines do not leave much room for landscape mitigation. (Attachment 7) CEGASTATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a) & (e) Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 8 of 16 ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Findings of Approval 3. Letters from Neighbors 4. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated September 19, 2008 5. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates dated February 9, 2009 6. Recommendations from the Pathways Committee dated September 22, 2008 7. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated October 6, 2008 8. Arborist Report 9. Grading Policy 10. Worksheet #2 11. Development plans: site, topographic, grading & drainage, floor, elevation, section, roof, lighting plans and tree removal plan Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of haling 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 9 of 16 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, POOL AND CABANA LANDS OF KAHNG, 26750 ROBLEDA COURT File # 242-08-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. 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 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 determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. The areas of grading for the proposed cabana, area behind the pool and side and rear yards which exceed 4' of cut are not approved. The applicant shall redesign the areas to conform to the Town's grading policy. 4. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Site Development Committee. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. 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. 5. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 10 of 16 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. 6. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly the heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. 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 new residence, roof eaves and cabana are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence and cabana matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection and prior to final inspection. 8. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence and cabana complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35 ) foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection and prior to final inspection. 9. Standard swimming pool conditions: a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 11 of 16 b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c. Pool equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides with a roof for noise mitigation and screening. 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. No new fences we approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. The fence along the front property line shall not encroach or obstruct any easements. 12. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on sheet EMI, EM2, EM3 and A10. There shall be one light per door or two for double doors. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or be down lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 13. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 14. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 15. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofKahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 12 of 16 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 16. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated February 5, 2009, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls and pool prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant should inspect foundation excavations to verify satisfactory embedment into anticipated bearing materials. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection. For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., dated February 5, 2009. 17. Peak discharge at 26750 Robleda Court, as a result of Site Development Permit 242-08, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 13 of 16 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. 18. 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. 19. 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." 20. 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. 21. 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 grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Robleda Court and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and puking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Green Waste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 14 of 16 22. 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. 23. The property owner shall dedicate a 50' radius public right of way to the Town over Robleda Court. 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 ofplans for building plan check. 24. 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. 25. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer hook up permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. 26. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $50.00 per linear foot of the average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 27. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clam County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 28. 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Kahng 26750 Robleda Court March 5, 2009 Page 15 of 16 CONDITION NUMBERS 15,16 a, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of this notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after Much 27, 2009 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until March 5, 2010). 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 year ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR DRIVEWAY AND BACKUP AREA ADJACENT TO BASEMENT GARAGE LANDS OF KAHNG, 26750 ROBLEDA COURT FILE 4 242-08-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed grading is consistent with Section 10-2.702.c of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, the proposed grading will help lower the profile of a portion of the structure and render it less visible from off-site. 2. The proposed area of grading is not on a hillside and will not result in the substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain. The property's existing contours and basic landform are retained. 3. The proposed grading will not result in the placement of retaining walls that are highly visible from off-site. 4. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 5. The Grading Policy emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. The proposed underground garage requires no fill. Attachment 3 Michael J. and Jolon M. Wagner RECEIVED Altos Hills, CA 94022 Feb. 18, 2009 Debbie Pedro, Planning Director Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Proposed Residence: 267SO Robleda Court Dear Ms. Pedro and Planning Commission Members, FEB 13 2069 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS After both of our elderly neighbors, Frank and Francis Brandel, passed away, we were aware that their property would be sold and there was a fair chance that the house would either undergo a major remodel or complete replacement. Our main concern, if the latter were to happen, is that any new house would 'fit in' with the character of our neighborhood. Once Stephen Kahng introduced himself as the new property owner, we learned that he and his wife intended to build an entirely new home, which was understandable. Stephen has stopped by on several occasions, shown us the plans with his architect, and he seems excited about the plans and project. We join in their enthusiasm for improvements on their property and look forward to becoming acquainted with our new neighbors. Robleda Court has not undergone many changes in ownership over the years. (In fact, the majority of homes on this cul-de-sac have changed ownership through family members.) Most of us living on this court are content with the modest and friendly atmosphere of our neighborhood in comparison to others that seem over -built with security gates. When we considered remodeling our ranch style home, we decided to mostly modify our home from within and added a wing along one side rather than to add a second story or radically change the look of our home. We did this so that our home would continue to 'fit into the neighborhood'. The Kahng's plans indicate a fairly sizeable house on one 'footprint', although Stephen assured us that two people would be living there. Some of the living space will be included in the basement along with one of the two garages, though. The house won't appear to be oversized on the lot -for which we are grateful. The Tuscan design is popular and pleasant -looking and we hope that the new house will eventually look as if it was always there. There are just a few considerations that we'd appreciate seeing addressed during the planning, demolition, excavation, and building phases: o Cement mixers, supply trucks, additional truck traffic, and other heavy equipment can affect both the surface and traffic on our street. When we brought this up during our meeting with Mr. Kahng and Mr. Stotler, Stephen indicated that most of the vehicles would be parked on their property during construction and he added that he would take some responsibility for mitigating damage to the street, which would be fair. How does the Planning Commission or Department handle this sort of thing? o Around LAH, we often see construction, service, or yard maintenance vehicles parked on or blocking the Town's Pathways Monday through Fridays and sometimes by visitors on weekends. Can anything be done to prevent this? o Having observed considerable building around Los Altos Hills, we are concerned about the length of time (often several years) that many of the projects have lasted. Although we are certain that the Kahng's first desire would be a rapid completion. However, unfortunately, it is quite common for projects to go on for years. Does the Planning Commission or Department have any guidelines or means to prevent such prolonged projects? [One thing that we, personally, have added into past home project contracts (here and in former cities) is to employ either a substantial 'hold -back' of final payment to help motivate the builder/contractor to finish a project, quickly — or we've written into contracts a'bonus' if the project was finished a month early, etc. Both of these seemed to work well — and, of course, avoidance of 'change orders'! We suggested these ideas to Stephen.] Mr. Kahng expressed that he and his wife have an interest in gardening. This would be a dramatic improvement because the property became neglected as the former residents' health declined over a 15 year period of time. Stephen said that they may include plans to capture rainwater run-off, etc., which we hope the Planning Department and Commission will encourage in ALL new projects. Whether or not mandatory drought conditions are determined this year or in the future, we must all recognize that landscaping should always include drought resistant or tolerant planting and well designed watering systems to conserve Precious water. We hope that with this in mind, the Kahngs won't 'over -plant' the property. The ravine and storm drain -designed for rain run-off between our property and the Kahng's - often becomes clogged with leaves, twigs, branches, and other debris — especially during inclement weather conditions. We mentioned this to Stephen, recently. With this in mind, we suggest that very few new plants or trees be put in along that side of their property. Any plants or trees which might be added would, hopefully, be mostly evergreen rather than deciduous. Although this next topic does not directly affect us, we should mention that there seems to be a natural spring that might impact the plans for the basement. Apparently, the spring used to be above ground where the current garage is. Water now makes its way further down the property and is diverted via a pipe to join the ravine and storm drain. The architect and/or landscape designers can likely divert this water away from or around the future home and perhaps capture some of it for landscaping purposes. A topographical survey might not show this spring but a geological survey (required for digging a basement?) probably would, if the surveyors know basically where to search for it. Taking this step would likely save time and money for Mr. and Mrs. Kahng in the long run. The 'story poles' began being assembled, yesterday, and continue, today. They will help the neighborhood to visualize the future house, at least to some extent. We understand that a hearing date is planned for March 5' and we will try to attend, unless called away on business or family matters. (By then, we will also have seen the 'story poles' up for a few weeks, as well.) To save time - rather than to answer our letter in writing, we hope our questions can be answered during that meeting. The manner in which Stephen has met with most of the neighbors on our court to acquaint us with their project and to ask for input is mutually beneficial and we appreciate his efforts. (We have written this letter at his request.) We wish Maria and Stephen Kahng well in the planning and building stages of their new home and we are certain that they, too, will enjoy many years on Robleda Court! We also appreciate and respect the Planning Department's and Commission's joint responsibilities during the process. Sincerely, Michael J. aand lolon M. goer Copy made available for Mr. & Mrs. Kahng RECEIVED FEP, , B coos ✓; � c�C�-a. C'aZ' ALTOS HILLS v RECEIVE© FEB 20 200] February 19, 2009 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Planning Commissioners Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 For your consideration: We have viewed the plans with Steve Kahng and his Architect Scott Stotler for the proposed residence for Stephen and Maria Kahng at 26750 Robleda Ct. Most recently profile modeling has been installed giving us a good view of the scope of new structure. We see the project as highly acceptable and an important addition to this area. We approve of the plan and view the changes as highly desirable use of the space. We have resided at for over 40 years and made a substantial investment improving our property including promoting the major addition of a sewer system several years ago. We are highly conscious of the need to keep the property up and well maintained. We are looking forward to attending the March 5 hearing at the town of Los Altos Hills in support of the project. Sincerely yours," Robert D eGrasse RECEIVED FEB 20 2009 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Feb. 14, 2009 Edward Yarolin, MD Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Planning commissioners Town of Los Altos Hills Ref: New Residence on 26750 Robleda Ct. Gentlemen: Last week, I had a chance to review the plans for Kahng residence. This letter is to inform you that I do not have any objects or concerns about the project. I would recommend that you approve the plan as it is currently presented. Sincerely, Edward Yarolin RECEIVED l;EB 20 2009 February 20, 2009 TOWN OF LCs ALTOS HILLS Mary and Tom Rees Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Planning Commissioners Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 We have lived on Robleda Court for over twenty five years. We love our neighbors and our neighborhood. Steve Kahng has considerately met with us on several occasions to include us in the design of his new residence. We have also met with Scott Stotler, the Architect, to review the plans. The home Steve Kahng hopes to build is beautiful and will only enhance the beauty of our neighborhood. He and his architect have obviously thoughtfully considered the homes placement with respect to the neighbors on both sides of his property. The design of the home is also in keeping with the beauty of the surrounding area. We are thrilled to have someone as thoughtful and considerate as Steve Kahng building on this piece of property. His home will obviously enhance the beauty of our entire neighborhood. We have no objections or issues with the current plan for the new residence. I would absolutely attend the hearing as a show of support for Steve Kahng if 1 were not attending class that night. I am currently obtaining a Masters in Clinical Psychology. My husband, Tom Rees, hopes to attend. He may be unable to if his business requires him to be out of town on Thursday, March S�. We sincerely hope the Planning Commissioners will approve Steve Kahng's plans. Sincerely, , Mary Rees Tom Rees FEB 20 2019 /DW d'LU OS HH S / m lt�LE�u j CODER EC. CFC Sec 508.3, per Appendix B CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC SHEET REOUIREMEW posed new 8,949 square foot two-story single-family residence with basement attached garages. Plans also include a detached 442 square foot pool cabana h an outdoor fireplace. sew of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be trued as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with )ted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make ication to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable traction permits. aired Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual sure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire ,ant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinklers are required in all new existing modified buildings when gross floor area exceeds 3,600 square feet or are 3 or more stories in height. Exception:One-time additions to existing sings made after 01/01/2008 that do not exceed 500 gross square feet. A State alifornia licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, tlations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CM PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS FIRE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED Attachmeut4 tPcOoo SANTA CLARA COUNTY 2 Ra ZDD8 '". R-3, U 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818SEP STOTLER DESIGN GROUP 9/19/2008 1 2 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • v,vv.sccfd.org OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 1'wn mi 4yA Rr ARFA LOAD DESCRMNOH Ae.e 2 story+bsmt 8949 sf PLAN REVIEW NUMBER BB 2708 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS BLDG PE LOCATION SFR - KAHNG 26750 Robleda Ct FILENUMBER 242-08-ZP-SD-GD CODER EC. CFC Sec 508.3, per Appendix B CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC SHEET REOUIREMEW posed new 8,949 square foot two-story single-family residence with basement attached garages. Plans also include a detached 442 square foot pool cabana h an outdoor fireplace. sew of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be trued as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with )ted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make ication to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable traction permits. aired Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual sure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire ,ant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinklers are required in all new existing modified buildings when gross floor area exceeds 3,600 square feet or are 3 or more stories in height. Exception:One-time additions to existing sings made after 01/01/2008 that do not exceed 500 gross square feet. A State alifornia licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, tlations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CM PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONBr. TYPE APP`7Nnn DATE PNCE LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ R-3, U V -N STOTLER DESIGN GROUP 9/19/2008 1 2 of EEO.-LOOR ARFA LOAD DESCRMNOH BY 2 story+bsmt 8949 sf Residential Development Harding, Doug NAME Or PROJECT LOCATION SFR - KAHNG 26750 Robleda Ct Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District SCRAng Santa Clam County and the Cammunities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Caton, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Same a FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378 4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • Uw vsccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODER EC. I SHED CFC Sec. CFC Sec. REDUIREMEM I„m„wm�mHa«�anea env PIAN REVIEW NUMBER 08 2708 BLDG PERMM NUMBER FILENUMBER 242-08-ZP-SD-GD 3 Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn -around Required, Provide an 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. Shown on Grading and Drainage Pains. 4 Premises Identification• 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 int plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Conditions shall be addressed as "notes” on all pending and future plan ills and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan LAH N ❑ N 0 1 R-3, U I V -N 2story +bsmt 18949 sf 5FR - KAHNG STOTLER DESIGN GROUP 19/19/20081 2 Residential Development Harding, Doug 26750 Robleda Ct Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Seming Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Ls Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga .12 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 5 CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS RECEIVE? February 5, 2009 L0258A FEB G 2009 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS TO: Nicole Horvitz Planning Department TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Kahng, Proposed New Residence #242-08-ZP-SD-GD 26750 Robleda Court At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the subject application using: • Supplemental Recommendations and Response to the Town of Los Altos Hills (letter) prepared by Wayne Ting & Associates, dated January 14, 2009; • Grading and Drainage Plan (7 sheets, various scales) prepared by Lee Engineers, latest revision dated January 15, 2009; • Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Kahng Residence (report) prepared by Wayne Ting & Associates, Inc. for Stephen Kahng, dated July 14, 2008; and • Architectural Drawings (10 sheets, various scales) prepared by Stotler Design Group, dated August 21, 2008. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent maps from our office files. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to construct a new residence, pool, and cabana at the subject property. In our previous geotechnical peer review (letter dated October 7, 2008), we recommended that supplemental geotechnical evaluations be completed prior to project geotechnical approval. Supplemental evaluations were related to expansive earth material conditions and details of residential foundation and pool design. Nnethern California Office 130 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030.7218 oar) 054-5542 • Fax (408) 3641862 email: losgams®coctonshires.mm www.cottonshires.com Central California Office 6417Dogtovm Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736 252 • Fax (209) 236-4212 e-mail: coUmshires@starband.net Nicole Horvitz February 5, 2009 Page L0258A CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The subject property is geotechnically constrained by existing site fill materials and native earth materials with high expansion potential, and anticipated strong seismic ground shaking. The referenced Supplemental Recommendations (letter) prepared by Wayne Ting & Associates satisfactorily addresses the geotechnical questions of our previous peer review. We do not have geotechnical objections to the recommended design criteria or proposed layout of site improvements. We recommend that the following conditions be attached to the geotechnical approval of permit applications for project construction: 1. Geotechnical_ Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should reviewand approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, pool, and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documentation for building permit plan -check. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations, retaining walls, and pool prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant should inspect foundation excavations to verify satisfactory embedment into anticipated bearing materials. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. LIMITATIONS This geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz Page 3 February 5, 2009 L0258A Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre 0 Principal Engineers g G=clegst CEG 1795 David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 6 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee DRAFT - Minutes of Special Meeting September 22, 2008 1. ADMINSTRATIVE Chairman Nick Dunckel called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM Members present Jim Bliss, Anna Brunzell, Courtenay Corrigan, Nancy Ginzton, Bob Stutz, Sue Welch Members absent Bill Silver, Ginger Summit, Chris Vargas, Jolon Wagner Members of public present: John Freel, Oak Knoll Properties, representing the owners of 24044 Oak Knoll Circle Fred Dorbir, Architect and Mr. Shakenda, owner of 26630 Purissima Road The agenda was approved as amended. 1. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR A. Brief discussion ensued on how to move the PWC meetings along (e.g., by limiting discussion on property reviews that are straightforward and uncontroversial), while still allowing sufficient time to be sure all issues are covered. 2. NEW BUSINESS A. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: 24044 Oak Knoll Circle (Lands of Larson). The reason for the PWC review is a remodel.. John Freel of Oak Knoll Properties was present representing the owners. The property is on the north (outer) side of Oak Knoll Circle and is down-slope from the road. A pathway that needs repairs exists along the roadside here. Roadside paths exist on both adjacent properties. This side of the street is the preferred one for a roadside pathway. Because a pathway already exists on the property, no pathway in -lieu fee is required from the owners. Courtenay Corrigan moved that the homeowners at 24404 Oak Knoll Circle restore the existing IIB path along Oak Knoll. Anna Brunzell seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. u. 26630 Punssima Road (Lands of Shakernia)The reason for the PWC review is an addition The architect, Fred Dorbir, and the owner, Mr. Shakemia were present. The property is a flag lot on the southwest side of Purissima Road with no frontage along Purissima. Access is via a shared driveway along the south side of the lot. Nancy Ginzton moved that because 26630 Purissima is a flag lot a pathway in -lieu fee should be collected from the owners. Sue Welch seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. iii. 24920 La Loma Court (Lands of Zhu/Xu). The reason for the PWC review is an addition. The property is a flag lot off the end of La Loma Court Because this cul-de-sac serves only six properties, a pathway is not needed. In addition, La Loma Court does not connect to any off-road pathways and the road is sufficiently wide for pedestrians to walk safely. Courtenay Corrigan moved that a pathway in -lieu fee should be collected from the owners of 24920 La Loma Court. Nancy Ginzton seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. iv. 26750 Robleda Court (Lands of Kahn -g)_ The reason for the PWC review is new development. The property is at the end of Robleda Court, a cul-de-sac that serves eight properties. A pathway along the concrete drainage ditch on the west edge of this ReAPWC_Mm 09IIOB 11/13A8 property, combined with other easements in the area (e.g., easements off Deerfield Road) could provide potential connections to Deerfield, Burke, and Robleda. Because this proposed off-road path is not on the Master Path Plan, the PWC cannot recommend an off-road easement for 26750 Robleda at this time. Jim Bliss, who owns the adjacent property, has expressed interest in donating easements on his property to complete connections in the area. He will discuss the issue with neighbors and report to the PWC. In addition, the PWC will review this area when potential updates to the MPP are considered. Courtenay Corrigan moved that a pathway in -lieu fee should be collected from the owners of 26750 Robleda Court XX seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. 2. OLD BUSINESS A. Update on Ongoing CII' projects. Chairman Dunckel updated the PWC on the status of ongoing CIP projects. i. Fremont Road. This project is to be completed in October. There have been complaints that the path is being used for parking here. ii. Taaffe Road. The ERR for this proposed project is available for review on-line at the Town website. The City Council will reviewed it at the September 12, 2008 meeting. The path will be four feet wide and two wooden bridges will be constructed. B. Update on 12615 Mira Loma Road. The PWC reviewed this property in May 2,008 and recommended that the drainage ditch along the road edge be covered over and a pipe installed so that a IIB roadside pathway could be constructed there. The PWC recommended that the owners work with the Town engineer on this. The owners apparently do not want to cut the adjacent oleanders and do not want a path The PWC recommendation should stand because this street meets criteria requiring a roadside pathway and a roadside pathway is shown here on the Master Path Plan approved by City Council. C. Error on Parcel Maps. An error was noted on the new parcel maps (showing roadside pathways) in the numbering of properties on the northeast end of Mira Loma Way. The address 12681 (the fust lot on the comer of Mira Loma and Summerhill) is missing. Town staff will be informed of this error. D. Update on 11520 Old Ranch Road. The PWC recommendation that off-road pathway erty easements on this propbe dedicated to the Town can not be followed because the Town has no jurisdiction over these private easements in the Old Ranch subdivision (See minutes for August 2008). E. Reports from PWC members who attended City Council or Planning Commission i Story Hill Road (former Town -owned cel). The PWC's unanimous recommendation (August 2007) was that a IIB pathway be constructed on this property along Page Mill Road from Story Hill Road to the drainage ditch. This would provide connection to the off-road path on the opposite side of Page Milk A member of the Planning Commission was opposed to installing a pathway here because he thought it would be too difficult to engineer. The PC allowed the PWC recommendation to stand. ii. Town Ownership of Chaparral Wa . Chairman Dunckel provided maps showing the mixed ownership of road rights-of-way along Chaparral. Some parts are owned by the town and others are privately owned. Some Council Members are concerned that this road is narrow and may be dangerous for pedestrians and equestrians. The Town is considering options either to give up the easements or to take over maintenance of the road and charge homeowners a fee. The estimated cost for maintenance is about $20,000 pa11PWC_MA_CBROB 11/11A0 /lam -si Environmental Design and Protection Committee Attachment 7 New Residence/Remodel Evaluation Reviewed by: -6 I) �� Date �� Applicant OCT o S nn Name TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Address Site impact/lighting/noise: Significant issues/comments: Attachment 8 »b Joe Bathurst Certifier! Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certificate # WE -5191A License # 148961109 REnF' " 408-423-0018 Joe Bathurst' 1241 Sanfilippo Court' San Jose' Caliiom954�1�:� September 20, 2008 Attention: Stephen Kahng Re: Tree Inventory/Arborist Report Site: 26750 Robleda Court Stephen, Here is the tree inventory/arborist report you requested for 26750 Robleda Court. I have paid a site visit to evaluate and document the existing treescape. Each tree has been assigned a number that corresponds with the inventory sheet and the proposed plans provided by you. The tour begins at the lower right side of the existing driveway, then proceeds counter clockwise around the perimeter of the property. The inventory also includes trees growing just beyond the property tine of which i assume belong to the neighbors. The tour finally ends at the lower left comer of the property near the existing driveway. Most of the trees on the property are growing well within and beyond the setback. Impact to these trees will be minimal to none. However, care needs to be taken not to use the setback 'especially the west property line" as a stockpile area. My measurement of DBH "diameter at breast height" may differ from those already documented on the plans. Quite often plant identification and diameter are mistaken by the survey crew. Cont> Page 02 Tree #01& #24 are a pair of well established Hollywood Cypress located at the foot of the driveway. Watch these trees for insect problems. Activity near these two appears to be minimal. 100110 Trees #02, #04, #05 & #06 is a row of well placed Coast Live Oaks. They are growing near or just outside the property line and within the setback. Adjustments may be required during the installation of a new fence. Other than that, no additional action needs to be taken to preserve these trees. Tree #03 is an Acacia tree with many structural defects. Failure is likely. This tree should be removed. Tree # 7A & #78 are two Canary Island Palms. They are good candidates for transplanting. This should be done before grading. Protective fencing should be installed around the trees beyond the anchor points. This will prevent damage to the guide wires by heavy equipment. Tree # 08 appears to be a well developed California Pepper. However, closer Inspection reveals a tree that has been cut to a stump. As a result adventitious shoots have grown out in a horizontal fashion leaving no room for the proposed driveway. This tree should be removed. Trees # 09, #10 & #11 are a continuation of the row of trees along the west property line. They are growing near or just outside the property line and within the setback. Adjustments may be required during the installation of a new fence. No action needs to be taken to preserve these trees. Tree #12 is the third Canary Island Palm on the property. Transplanting is not an option with this one. Removal should be considered. Trees #13, #14, #15 & #18 Are a row of basic beetle invested Monterey Pines. All four are in a state of decline and should be removed. Tree # 17 is a Coast Live Oak with a DBH 06" The proposed retaining wall should have minimal impact on the tree. The location of the wall allows adequate space for root development. Transplanting this tree is another option. Tree #18 is another Coast Live Oak with sufficient set near the property line. Impact to this tree should minimal. No action needs to be taken to preserve this Tree. Tree #19 & #20 are a nice pair of Coast Live Oaks growing near the upper southeast comer of the property. Adjustments to the proposed landscaping will be needed to prevent any grade change within the drip lines. Protective fencing must be installed at the drip line of these trees as separate units. Page 03 Tree #21 Is a Monterey Pine in fair health for now. The tree has been poorly pruned in the past to include large flush cuts and excessive grow raising. There are moderate signs of bark beetle infestation and prior limb failures. The proposed driveway will cause additional damage beyond repair. This tree should be removed. Trees # 22 & #23 are a pair of Coast Live Oaks growing near the property line and within the setback. They are also in close proximity to the proposed driveway. Protective fencing should be installed at and around the drip line of each tree as a proactive approach to tree preservation. Tree #24 is mentioned at the top of the list with tree #01. I am available for further consultation whether by phone or additional site visits. Submitted By: Certified Arborist WE 5191A 408 423 0018 Tree inventory for Robleda Court By Joe Bathurst Cern red Arborist Seotember 2008 Pase 01. Tree# DBH Species Health Stability Comments 01 12" Hollywood Cypress Good Good Suf0cient setback, no action. 02 18" Coast Live Oak Good Good Sufficient setback, no action. 03 11'x13' Acacia metanoxylon Fair Poor Poor overall structure, prone to limb failure, Remove. 04 06" Coast Live Oak Good Good Neighbors tree, sufficient setback, no action. 05 06" Coast Live Oak Good Good Neighbors tree, sufficient setback no action. O6 15' Coast Live Oak Good Good Neighbors tree, sufficient setback, no action. 7A 24" Canary Island Palm Good Fair Candidate for transplant. O8 Multl<6' California Pepper Fair Poor Coppiced, Poor recovery, Remove. 09 06" Coast Live Oak Good Good Neighbors tree, sufficient setback, no action. 10 12' Coast Live oak Good Good Neighbors tree, wflicient setback, no action. 78 28" Canary Island Palm Good Fair Candidate for transplant. 11 13"x12" Coast Live Oak Good Good Neighbors tree, sufficient setback, no action. 12 30' Unary Island Palm Fair Fair Candidate for transplant or removal. 13 13' Monterey Pine poor POW Infested with bark beetles, in decline,. Remove. 14 W Monterey Pine Poor Poor Infested with bark beeties, in decline, Remore. SS 12" Monterey Pine Poor poor Infested with bark beetles, in decline, Remove. 16 18" Monterey Pine Poor Poor Infested with bark beetles, in decline, Remove. 17 06" Coast Live Oak Fair Fair In decline, extreme drought conditions, Remove. 18 13" Coast Live Oak Good Good Near property line, sufficient setback, no action. 19 16" Coast Live Oak Good Good Avoid grade change within protective fencing. 20 29" Coast live Oak Good Good Avoid grade change within protective fencing. 21 22" Monterey Pine Fair Poor In decline, prone to insects and failure. Remove. 22 12" Coast Live Oak Good Good Sufficient setback, tro action. 23 10" Coast Live Oak Good Good Sufficient setback, no action. 24 11" Hollywood Cypress Good Good Sufficient setback, no action. Submitted I's Certified Arborist WE 5191A r EE iii ally F Joe Bath urstWCertiiedArborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification # WE -5191A Office # 408 423 0018 - Cell # 408 346 3796 Joe Bathurst ` 1241 Sanfilippo Court' San Jose ` California ` 95128 ` February 17, 2009 Page 01 Attention: Stephen Kahng Re: Tree Preservation Plan update Site: 26750 Robleda Court Mr. Kahng. Here is the Tree Inventory/Tree Preservation Plan update you requested for 26750 Robeda Court in Los Attos. I have paid an additional site visit to review the existing treescape. The purpose of this update is to identify and document speck trees for preservation. Please use the Tree Inventory sheet dated September 2008 for reference. There are five oak trees on the property to be saved and two oak trees to be removed. There are three Canary Island Date Palms to be transplanted. I am not well versed in regards to transplanting palms. You will need to retain the services of an experienced professional in this field. The focus of this report will be the seven oak trees mentioned above. The trees will be addressed in numerical order as documented on the inventory sheet and site plan. Please continue> Page 02 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR 26750 ROBLEDA COURT Tree #02: Tree #02 is a coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia with a dbh of 18". The tree is healthy and structurally sound. The location of Tree #02 is beyond the existing slurry and grading setback. Impact to this tree will be minimal, as there will be no activity in this area. Care must be taken when removing tree #03 not to damage the canopy of tree #02. No other Tree Preservation steps need to be taken at this time. Tree #18: Tree #18 is a coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia with a dbh of 13". The tree is healthy and structurally sound. Tree #18 sits just inside the property line and within the grading setback. Protective fencing must be installed at a 10' radius from the main stem of the tree. The existing grade within the protective fencing must remain. All landscaping, above and below grade must accommodate this area. The protective fencing must stay in place and not be penetrated for any reason for the duration of the job. Tree #19: Tree #19 is a coast live oak Quercus agrifolia with a dbh of 16". The tree is healthy and structurally sound. Protective fencing must be installed at a radius of 15' from the main stem of the tree and totally encompass the tree. The existing grade within the protective fencing must remain. All landscaping, above and below grade must accommodate this area. The protective fencing must stay in place and not be penetrated for any reason for the duration of the job. Tree #20 Tree #20 is a coast live oak Quercus agrifolia with a dbh of 29". The tree is healthy and structurally sound. The tree has a natural horizontal growth habit due to phototropic conditions in the area. Protective fencing must be installed at a radius of 25' from the main stem of the tree and totally encompass the tree. The existing grade within the protective fencing must remain. All landscaping, above and below grade must accommodate this area. The protective fencing must stay in place and not be penetrated for any reason for the duration of the job. Page 03 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR 26750 ROBLEDA COURT continued Tree #23 Tree #23 is a coast live oak Quercus agrifolia with a dbh of 10".The tree is healthy and structurally sound. A 06" layer of medium coarse mulch should be spread below the canopy and beyond the drip line. Care should be taken not to mound the mulch near the main stem of the tree. Protective fencing must be installed 05' out from the main stem of the tree. The protective fencing must run parallel with the proposed driveway for a distance of 20' with the tree centered. The protective fencing must encompass the whole area including and parallel with the property line. The existing grade within the protective fencing must stay in place and not be penetrated for any reason for the duration of the job. Supplemental watering during the dry season may be required. Note: dbh is the diameter of the main stem of a tree measured at breast height, or 54" above natural grade. ADDITIONAL TREES TO BE REMOVED AT 26750 ROBLEDA COURT Tree #17: Tree #17 is a coast live oak Quercus agrifolia with a dbh of 06". The tree is in fair health. The overall stability is fair. The tree will not accommodate demolition of the surrounding landscape both above and below grade. This tree should be removed and replaced with a similar species. Tree #22 Tree #22 is a coast live oak Quercus agrifolia with a dbh of 12". Although the tree is health, the structural stability is questionable. Tree #22 will not accommodate the required retention field. Root growth will be inhibited at this location. This may destabilize the tree in the future. This tree should be removed and replaced with a similar species. Page 04 Mr. Kahng. I hope this Tree Protection Plan is helpful. Thank you for your commitment to tree preservation. I will be available at your request for further consultation, whether by phone or additional site visits. Submitted By: Joe Bathurst Certified Arborist WE 5191A International Society of Arboriculture member TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 w JosaltoshilIs.ca.gov Code Sections: Attachment 9 WSAIR'OS HILL9HILLS !N CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council — 4/2197 Section 10-2.7020 of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings." Section 10-2.703(a) requires: "Type 11 foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." Intent: The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It is also intended that the policy provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides, and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. While balanced cut and fill is desirable to minimize import or export of soil, to or from a site, it is recognized that the Town's policies and the guidelines below may encourage export as cut is generally preferred over fill. These policies are intended to be used by staff in evaluation and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding site development applications, and as guidance for applicants. Individual sites may dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Grading Policy Page 2 Policy: Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step down" the hill*: Cut Fill House 8'** 3' Accessory Eldg. 4' 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8) for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. T_ NN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Attachment 10 PLANNING DEPARTMENT A�FpII 26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (6#t 'Tt=stvu REVISIOROSED, WORKSHEETFEB I 20 gDEVELOPMENTT AREA AND FLOOR AREA •TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • lurtn Ur LOS ALTOS HILLS PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Steven Kahng PROPERTY ADDRESS 26750 Robleda Court, Los Altos Hills, Ca CALCULATED BY SCOTT STOTLER DATE February 11, 2009 1. DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing (to be Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) removed) (Additions/Deletions) A. House and Garage (from Part 3. A.) 2517 5101/2517 5101 B. Porch (Non -MFA) 84 55/84 55 C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 100' along centerline) 7344 3553/7344 3553 D. Patios/Walkways/egress/ lightwells 2924 1525/2924 1525 E. Cabana 0 442/0 442 F. Pool and Decking 718 746/718 746 G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) 221 0/221 0 H. Any other coverage (Terraces) 0 76/0 76 TOTALS 13808 11498/13808 11498 Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) 11971 2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUAREFOOTAGE) TOTALS 13808 11740 11740 3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total Addniom/Deletions) ( A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor 1965 3301/1965 3301 b. 2nd Floor 0 1360/0 1360 c. Attic and Basement (Non -MFA) 0 3623/0 3623 d. Garage 552 440/552 440 e. Porch (MFA) 84 55/84 55 B. Accessory Buildings a. 1st Floor 221 0/221 0 b. 2nd Floor 0 0 0 c. Attic and Basement 0 0 0 TOTALS 2822 5156/2822 5156 Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) 5188 TOWN USE ONLY CAECKEDBY DATE Rev. 3/20/02 Page 1 of 1 Town of Los Altos Wis