HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.3Item 3.3
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 5, 2009
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE
WITH A BASEMENT AND THE REMOVAL OF 6 HERITAGE OAK TREES.
LANDS OF LIU, 27755 EDGERTON ROAD (TO BECOME 27300 URSULA
LANE); FILE# 166-08-ZP-SD-GD (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 5, 2009)
FROM: David Keyon, Associate Planner p%
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning DhectorTk
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit subject to the recommended conditions
of approval in Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
This application for a Site Development Permit with grading policy exceptions was
continued from the February 5, 2009 Planning Commission hearing by the Commission
with direction to redesign the house to preserve a 36" blue oak (Tree # 35 in the mborist's
report by McClenahan Consulting, LLC, dated 4/22/08).
The applicant originally intended to construct a 4,921 square foot, two-story residence
with an attached 852 square foot basement, which required the removal of eight (8)
heritage oak trees, including a 36" blue oak located at front entrance of the proposed
home. (Tree # 35).
The applicant submitted revised plans on February 19, 2009, showing a house design that
preserves Tree #35 by relocating the house further to the north and following the contour
of the hillside. The revised footprint is smaller than the original design, as more floor
area will be located on the lower floor. A 15" blue oak (Tree# 30) located to the east of
the house originally proposed to be removed will also be preserved.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
This application is not eligible for the Fast -Track process under section 10-
2.1305.1(a)(3), as the applicant requests a Grading Policy exception for the
driveway/tumazound.
DISCUSSION
Site Data
Gross Lot Area:
2.14 acres
Net Lot Area:
1.86 acres
Average Slope:
37.3%
Lot Unit Factor:
0.67
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 2
Floor Area and Development Area (in square feet)
Maximum
Proposed
Existing
Increase
Remaining
Development Area 7,500
6,409
0
6,409
1,091
Floor Area 5,000
4,979
0
4,979
21
Basement n/a
803
0
803
n/a
Site and Architecture
The applicant proposes to construct a 4,979 square foot, two-story residence with 3,365
square feet on the main floor and 1,626 square feet on the lower level attached to an 803
square foot basement. The maximum height will be 29 feet with increased setbacks, as
allowed under Town Code section 10.1.504.
Minimal yard area and landscaping is proposed, mainly due to the constrained nature of
the site and the requirement to preserve the blue oak to the front of the house (Tree #35).
Setbacks and Height
The house height is 29' due to an increase in setbacks as allowed by Town Code Section
10-1.504(a).
The proposed residence meets the increased setbacks as outlined in the following table
* Height increase from 27' to 29' allowed per Town Code Section 10-1.504(a) with 3' increase in side and
rear setbacks and 4' increase to the front setback
Driveway & Parkine
The owner continues to propose site access from Ursula Lane rather than Edgerton Road,
as access from Edgerton Road is deemed unfeasible due to the steep slopes (in some areas
over 50%) and the presence of many heritage oaks. The proposed 14' wide driveway is
designed to maintain a slope of less than 20% and to preserve a 42" oak within the Ursula
Lane right-of-way.
Four (4) parking spaces will be provided, three within the garage and one on the southern
side of the house near the front entry.
Town Standard
Increased Setbacks
Proposed
Front setback
40'
48'*
172'
Rear setback
30'
36'*
34'
Side setbacks
30'
36'*
115' to east, 67' west
Height
27'
29'*
29'
Overall height
35'
35'
29'
* Height increase from 27' to 29' allowed per Town Code Section 10-1.504(a) with 3' increase in side and
rear setbacks and 4' increase to the front setback
Driveway & Parkine
The owner continues to propose site access from Ursula Lane rather than Edgerton Road,
as access from Edgerton Road is deemed unfeasible due to the steep slopes (in some areas
over 50%) and the presence of many heritage oaks. The proposed 14' wide driveway is
designed to maintain a slope of less than 20% and to preserve a 42" oak within the Ursula
Lane right-of-way.
Four (4) parking spaces will be provided, three within the garage and one on the southern
side of the house near the front entry.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 3
Outdoor Lightin
Lighting on the proposed residence will comply with the Town Code requirements, with
light fixtures incorporating frosted or etched glass. Landscape lighting will be reviewed
with the landscape screening application required prior to building permit final per
Condition 2.
Heritage Oak Removal
The house has been redesigned to preserve two heritage oaks (Trees #30 and #35) and
now only six (6) heritage oaks are proposed to be removed for construction of the
residence and driveway/turnaround. According to Kielty Arborist Services letter dated
2/17/09, tree protection measures outlined in the arborist report should be implemented to
protect the 36" blue oak (Tree #35) in the front of the house from grading and
construction.
A previous arborist's report prepared by McClenahan Consulting dated 4/22/08 outlines
the characteristics of other significant trees on the property and recommends a tree
protection plan for these trees. (Attachment 5)
A 35" heritage oak (Tree # 4) is still proposed to be removed for construction of the
driveway. The specifications for the required fire engine turnaround require the driveway
at the proposed location. Re -configuration of the fire engine turnaround would require
additional grading and site disturbance and would likely result in the removal of the 20"
oak to the immediate north of the driveway which will provide screening for the downhill
neighbor, as well as retaining walls in excess of the 13.5 feet.
Town Code Section 12-2.502(c) gives the Planning Commission the authority to require
the replacement of each removed heritage oak by up to five (5) trees of reasonable size
and the payment of a multi-year bond to ensure the trees are maintained and cared for.
Due to the heavily wooded nature of the site, staff recommends a 1:1 replacement with
48" box oak trees (Condition 2).
To ensure protection of the remaining oak trees on site, staff recommends a condition of
approval requiring all remaining oaks to be fenced per the Town's tree fencing standards
prior to the start of work (Condition 4). An ISA Certified Arborist must provide a letter
stating that all recommendations in the McClenahan and Kielty reports regarding
preservation of the remaining oaks were implemented during construction (Condition 5).
Grading Policy Exception
Per the revised grading plan, grading quantities include 1,200 cubic yards of cut and 600
cubic yards of fill, with a net export of 600 cubic yards. The applicant is requesting a
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 4
Grading Policy exception for the driveway and turnaround, but is no longer requesting
exceptions for the underfloor and yard areas.
The Grading Policy is used by staff in evaluation of development projects and making
recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. Individual sites may
dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning
Commission or City Council
The project site has slopes of 20-25% covering most of the southern portion of the
property (the area closest to Ursula Ln.), with slopes increasing to about 50% to the north
of the site along Edgerton Road. No flat areas exist to provide a reasonably flat
driveway/tumaround area. Therefore, up to 13' of fill and 5' of cut is proposed for the
driveway and fire turnaround, whereas the Town's Grading Policy allows up to 3' of fill
and 4' of cut without an exception. The total area affected by this Grading Policy
exception is 2,188 square feet of fill and 55 square feet of cut.
A retaining wall of up to 13 'h feet will be required for the driveway and turnaround,
which will be partially screened from adjacent properties by the existing oaks to the north
of the driveway. Requirements for additional screening vegetation may be required
during the landscape screening application stage to further soften the visual impact of this
wall.
Drainaae
Existing natural drainage sheetflows to the northwest to a swale or to the northeast into
Matadero Creek. The proposed drainage system consists of storm drains along the south
and west side of the residence which collect runoff from the driveway/turnaround,
southern portions of the house, and the "front" yard area and daylights into an energy
dissipater before flowing into the natural drainage swale along the northwest property
line.
Geotechnical Review
Cotton, Shires, and Associates, the Town's Geotechnical consultants, reviewed the
proposed plans, Geotechnical Report by Milestone Geotechnical (6/11/08), and
Engineering Geologic Report prepared by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G. (5/9/08). Their
review concluded that the design recommendations for the project identified in the reports
generally appear appropriate for the conditions on site, subject to conditions requiring a
final Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, a Geotechnical Plan Review letter, and a
Geotechnical Field Inspection (Conditions 27 through 29).
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 5
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and requires a fire engine
turnaround area (Condition 30). The driveway slope is 20%, but was reviewed deemed
acceptable by the Division Chief.
Committee Review
Pathways Committee
The Pathways Committee recommends that an off-road pathway easement across the
property from Ursula Lane to Edgerton Road be dedicated to the Town per the 2005
Master Path Plan, and that a native path be constructed. The Committee determined that
a native path is better suited to the terrain than a type IIB path, but gave the property
owner discretion as to the placement of the path and easement.
A 10' wide pathway easement with a 5' wide native path is proposed roughly parallel to
the western property line. The pathway will be constructed according to Town standards
for a native path, with roughening of driveway surfaces where the pathway crosses the
driveway (Conditions 21-23).
Environmental Design and Protection Committee
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented on the removal of the
35" oak proposed to be removed for construction of the driveway and the removal of the
blue oak grove at the location of the proposed residence. The 35" oak tree is proposed to
be removed to comply with Fire Department turnaround requirements.
Open Space Committee
The Open Space Committee reviewed the project and recommends an Open Space
easement be dedicated below the 565' contour line and the portion of the site within 25'
of the top of bank of Matadem Creek (Condition 14). This dedication preserves the
steeply sloped and heavily vegetated portion of the site along Edgerton Road.
Neiehbor Comments
A letter from Tatjana and Lennart Olsson, neighbors to the south, was received on
February 26, 2009 (Attachment 7), and an e-mail from Kimberly Lee, neighbor to the
northwest, was received on February 27, 2009 (Attachment g). Letters and e-mails
submitted prior to the February 5, 2009 hearing we included in the original staff report
(Attachment 2).
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOAI
The proposed new residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15303(a).
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Staff report and attachments from the 2/5/09 Planning Commission hearing
3. Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes dated 2/5/09
4. Arborist's letter prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated 2/17/09
5. Arborist report prepared by. McClenahan Consulting LLC dated 4/22/08
6. Letter from John Chau, Assistant Engineer for Town of Los Altos Hills, dated 2/25/09
7. Letter from Tatjana and Lennart Olsson, neighbors, dated 2/26/09
8. E-mail from Kimberly Lee, neighbor, dated 2/27/09
9. Development plans: site, topographic, grading & drainage, floor, elevation, section,
roof, and lighting plans
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 7
ATTACHMENT
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A NEW RESIDENCE
LANDS OF LIU, 27755 EDGERTON RD (To Become 27300 URSULA LANE)
File #166-08-ZP-SD-GD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Any further changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required
landscaping shall be first reviewed 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, landscape lighting, and erosion control plan for
review. The landscape screening and erosion control plan is subject to a public
hearing. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to
break up the bulk of the residence and preserving the existing screening. The
landscape plan shall include the replacement of all removed Heritage Oaks on a 1
for 1 basis at a minimum of 48" box size. All landscaping required for screening
purposes, replacement, and for erosion control (as determined by the City
Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection. All lighting must comply
with Town Policy.
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. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all Heritage Oaks are to be fenced at
the drip line. Chain-link fencing shall clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff
must inspect the chain-link 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 chain-link 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.
5. The applicant shall implement tree protection and mitigation measures detailed in
the arborist reports prepared by McClenahan dated 4/22/08 and by Kielty dated
2/17/09. Prior to final inspection, an ISA Certified Arborist must provide a letter
stating that all recommendations in both the McClenaban and Kielty reports were
implemented during construction.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
Much 5, 2009
Page 8
6. A certified arborist shall be present during excavation below existing grade and
within the drip line of all heritage oak trees to be retained to determine if roots of
the surrounding oak trees may be damaged/severed. Any root severed or damaged
during excavation shall be pruned and treated per the specification in the report. A
final letter from a certified arborist shall be submitted to the Planning
Department attesting to the health of the oak trees prior to final inspection.
In the event that oak Tree #35 is damaged beyond reclamation during
construction, the owner shall replant a mature specimen oak tree (minimum
20' tall x 10' wide) at the same location prior to final inspection.
7. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall have frosted/etched glass enclosures or be
shielded light fixtures. Seeded or bent glass is not acceptable. No lighting may
be placed within setbacks except as shown on the approved plan. The applicant
shall provide the Town with a lighting detail or manufacturer's specification on
the fixtures to be used, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All
lighting must comply with the Town's Lighting Policyprior to final inspection.
8. 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 comply with the location shown on the approved plans
relative to the 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 approved plan." The applicant shall submit
the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a
foundation inspection.
9. 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 complies with the 29'-0" maximum structure height (with increased
setbacks per Town Code Section 10-1.504(a)), 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 letters)
to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection.
10. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting
may be placed within skylight wells.
11. Air conditioning units shall be located a minimum of 40' from the front property
line and 30' from the side and rear property lines.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 9
12. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction
13. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require
review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation.
14. The applicant shall pay any applicable 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.
15. The property owner shall grant an open space easement to the Town over the
northern portion of the property below the 565' contour line and within 25' of the
top of bank of Matadero Creek, as shown on the site plan (Sheet 1). 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 grant document. The grant document, including the approved exhibits, shall be
signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to
issuance of the building permit.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
16. Peak discharge at 27300 Ursula Lane, as a result of Site Development Permit 166-
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
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.
17. 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.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 10
18. 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 66=8
months."
19. 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.
20. 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 Ursula Lane 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
GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with
the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
21. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement along the west
property line to the Town. The property owner shall provide a 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 of plans for building
plan check.
22. The property owner shall construct a native pathway through the property
connecting Ursula Lane to Edgerton Road. Two copies of a pathway improvement
plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, and the pathway
must be installed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final
inspection.
23. 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.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 11
24. 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
25. A permit for a septic system shall be issued by the Santa Clara County Health
Department prior to acceptance of plans jar building plan check. All conditions
of the Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final
inspection.
26. The property owner shall dedicate a 30' wide half -width public right-of-way to
the Town over Edgerton Road and Black Mountain 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 o(plans for building plan check.
27. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant should complete the geotechnical engineering investigation of the
subject property and submit the final report prior to issuance of building permit.
As part of this investigation, the consultant should evaluate areas in the vicinity
of the proposed improvements underlain by surficial materials (e.g., fill,
colluvium, and alluvium), and provide geotechnical design recommendations for
all proposed improvements. The investigation should include, but not necessarily
limited to, the following:
a) Subsurface conditions should be investigated and representative earth
materials (i.e. bedrock, colluvium/alluvium, artificial fill, etc.) should be
sampledand tested to provide an engineering basis for recommended
geotechnical design criteria.
b) Geotechnical design criteria and recommendations should be provided,
including but not limited to recommendations for: site grading, foundations
for proposed structures and walls (including stability of temporary basement
cuts), uplift forces in areas of expansive soil and bedrock materials (if
applicable), surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and mitigation
options for any recognized fill materials and expansive earth units. Design
criteria for restrained walls should be addressed.
c) Recommendations should be provided for a capillary break system beneath
slab -on -grade floors and the potential need for an axial subdrain beneath the
basement floor should be considered.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 12
d) The consultant should evaluate the apparent geotechnical suitability of the
proposed septic leach field including the potential for surfacing of effluent or
adverse slope stability impacts.
e) 2007 CBC seismic design parameters should be provided for use by the
structural engineer in the design of the residence.
28. 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 Geotechnical Plan review shall be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review
prior to building permit issuance.
29. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test
(as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The
inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and
grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for
foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 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 (granting of occupancy).
FIRE DEPARTMENT
30. 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.
31. Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum
unobstructed width of 14 feet, a vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, and a
minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside.
32. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara 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.
33. The project is located within the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area.
The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
March 5, 2009
Page 13
Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance
with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to final approval. Check with the Planning
Department for related landscape plan requirements.
34. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: Gate installations shall conform
with 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.
35. 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
background. NOTE: the current address on Edgerton Road must be changed to
Ursula Lane to allow for proper and timely emergency response.
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.
CONDITION NUMBERS 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 AND 26 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY TOWN STAFF PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE
OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT.
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 yea 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 February 5, 2009
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE
WITH A BASEMENT AND THE REMOVAL OF 8 HERITAGE OAK TREES.
LANDS OF LIU, 27755 EDGERTON ROAD (TO BECOME 27300 URSULA
LANE), FILE# 166-08 ZP-SD-GD
FROM: David Keyon, Associate Planner d K
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director P
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit subject to the recommended conditions
of approval in Attachment 1,
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a pie -shaped lot with frontages on both Edgerton Road and Ursula
Lane and a panhandle that extends along the Ursula Lane right-of-way to Black Mountain
Road. Driveway access is proposed from Ursula Lane, requiring a change of address to
27300 Ursula Lane from 27755 Edgerton Road. No structures or development currently
exists on site.
The property is 2 acres with an average slope of 33.7%, and is heavily wooded with oak
trees (34 are Heritage Oaks as defined by Town Code Section 12-2.101). The property
was created as part of a 10 -lot subdivision approved in 1976 (Tract 5762).
CODE REQUIREMENTS
This application is not eligible for the Fast -Track process under section 10-
2.1305.1(a)(3), as the applicant requests Grading Policy Exceptions for the front yard,
driveway/tumaround, and house.
DISCUSSION
Site Data
Gross Lot Area:
2.14 acres
Net Lot Area:
1.86 acres
Average Slope:
37.3%
Lot Unit Factor:
0.67
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 2
Floor Area and Development Area (in square
feet)
Maximum
Proposed
Existing
Increase
Remaining
Development Area
7,500
7,433
0
7,433
67
Floor Area
5,000
4,921
0
4,921
79
Basement
n/a
(852)
0
(852)
n/a
Site and Architecture
The applicant proposes to construct a 4,921 square foot, two-story residence with 4,194
square feet on the main floor and 727 square feet on the lower level attached to an 852
square foot basement. The predominately 1 -story design keeps the residence within the
height limit and minimizes visual impacts by reducing the two-story portion to the
western end of the residence.
Minimal yard area and landscaping is proposed, mainly due to the constrained nature of
the site with steep slopes and oak groves. A front yard with tile and grass of up to 15 feet
in width is proposed along the front of the house, which along with two decks and
balconies provide the property with usable outdoor space.
Setbacks and Height
The house height ranges from 17'-7" to 22' for most of its length, increasing to 28' at the
western end where the lower level (master bedroom) daylights. The maximum height is
proposed at 28 feet. Per Town Code Section 10-1.504(a), the house is eligible for an
increase in structure height subject to an increase in setbacks.
The proposed residence meets the increased setbacks as outlined in the following table:
Town Standard Increased Setbacks Proposed
Front setback 40' 44'* 178'
Rear setback 30' 33'* 34'
Side setbacks 30' 33'* 98' to east, 65' west
Height 27' 28'* 28'
Overall height 35' 35' 30'
* Height increase from 27' to 29' allowed per Town Code Section 10-1.504(a) with 3' increase in side and
rear setbacks and 4' increase in front setbacks.
Driveway & Parkin
The owner proposes site access from Ursula Lane rather than Edgerton Road. With
slopes around 50% and a large concentration of oaks at the northern end of the site along
the Edgerton Road frontage, access from Edgerton Road is deemed unfeasible absent
significant grading and removal of Heritage Oaks. The proposed 14' wide driveway is
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 3
designed to preserve a 42" oak within the Ursula Lane right-of-way. The Fire Department
requires a hammer -head style turnaround to provide the required access to the project site
as most of the building site exists more than 150 feet beyond Ursula Lane.
Four (4) parking spaces will be provided, three within the garage and one on the southern
side of the house near the front entry.
Outdoor Lighting
Lighting on the proposed residence will comply with the Town Code requirements, with
light fixtures incorporating frosted or etched glass. Landscape lighting will be reviewed
with the landscape screening application required prior to building permit final per
Condition 2.
Heritage Oak Removal
The site is heavily forested with 38 oak trees, 33 of which meet the definition of a
Heritage Oak with a diameter of 12" or greater (Section 12-2.101 of the Town Code).
Eight (8) heritage oaks are proposed to be removed for construction of the residence and
driveway/tumaround. An arborist's report prepared by McClenahan Consulting (dated
4/22/08) outlines the characteristics of every tree on site and recommends a tree
protection plan for the trees to be preserved (Attachment 7).
One 35" oak (marked as no. 4 on the arborist's map) will be removed for construction of
the driveway, which the Environmental Design and Protection Committee requests to be
preserved. The specifications for the required fire engine turnaround require the driveway
at the proposed location. Re -configuration of the fire engine tumaround would require
additional grading and site disturbance and would likely result in the removal of the 20"
oak to the immediate north of the driveway (which willprovidescreening for the
downhill neighbor), as well as retaining walls in excess of the 13.5 feet currently
proposed.
Seven additional Heritage Oaks are proposed to be removed, all in fair condition with
diameters of 12 inches to 20 inches. Due to the heavily wooded nature of the site it is
impossible to construct a residence without the removal of some Heritage Oaks.
Town Code Section 12-2.502(c) gives the Planning Commission the authority to require
the replacement of each removed Heritage Oak by up to five (5) trees of reasonable size
and the payment of a multi-year band to ensure the trees are maintained and cared for.
Due to the heavily wooded nature of the site, staff recommends a 1:1 replacement with
48" box oak trees (condition 2).
To ensure protection of the remaining oak trees on site, staff recommends a condition of
approval requiring all remaining oaks to be fenced per the Town's tree fencing standards
prior to the start of work (condition 4). An ISA Certified Arborist must provide a letter
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 4
stating that all recommendations in the McClenahan report regarding preservation of the
remaining oaks were implemented during construction (condition 5).
Grading Policy Exceptions
According to the submitted grading plan, grading quantities include 1,200 cubic yards of
cut and 600 cubic yards of fill, with a net export of 600 cubic yards. The applicant is
requesting the following Grading Policy Exceptions:
1) Yard Area- the Grading Policy allows a maximum of four (4) feet of out for yard
areas. Up to 8' of out is proposed for the patio/yard area at the front of the house.
The total area affected by this Grading Policy Exception is 1,437 square feet.
2) Difference Between Existing Grade and Finished Floor -the Grading Policy states
that the height of the lowest finished floor of a structure should generally not be
set in excess of three (3) feet above existing grade. A difference of up to 10'
between existing grade and the proposed finish floor elevation is proposed under
the family room. The total area affected by this Grading Policy Exception is about
447 square feet.
3) Driveway and Turnaround -the Grading Policy allows fill of up to 3' for the
construction of a driveway and fire turnaround. Up to 13' of fill is proposed for
the driveway and fire turnaround, requiring a retaining wall of 13 '/2 feet along the
northern end of the driveway. The total area affected by this Grading Policy
Exception is 2,188 square feet.
The Grading Policy is used by staff in evaluation of development projects and making
recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. Individual sites may
dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
The project site has slopes of 20-25% covering most of the southern portion of the
property (the area closest to Ursula Ln.), with slopes increasing to about 50% to the north
of the site along Edgerton Road. No flat areas exist to provide a reasonable building
envelope and flat driveway/tumaround area.
The applicant seeks an exception to allow up to an 8' cut to create a 15' wide yard area
along the front of the house. Together with the decks and balconies, this will be the only
reasonably usable outdoor space on site. The retaining walls will be terraced (none
exceed 4' in height), and will be hidden from view of surrounding residences by the
house.
The configuration and location of the house is designed to follow the contour lines and
"step with the slope" to the greatest extent feasible, but due to progressively steeper
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 5
slopes at the northwest portion of the building site the height of the finished floor exceeds
three feet in height above the existing grade along the northern and northwest portion of
the residence. The project Architect used most of this space to construct the master
bedroom, but unused underfloor up to 10' in height remains and the applicant requests a
grading policy exception for these areas. Despite the requested exception, the house
maintains a relatively low -profile for most of its length, and existing oak woodland
downslope will provide mature screening to minimize off-site visibility.
Finally, the 13' of fill proposed for the driveway and turnaround is required to comply
with Fire Department driveway and turnaround standards. The 13.5' retaining wall will
be partially screened from adjacent properties by the existing oaks to the north of the
driveway, with requirements for additional screening vegetation possible during the
landscape screening permit.
Drainage
Existing natural drainage sheetflows to the northwest to a Swale or to the northeast into
Matadero Creek. The proposed drainage system consists of storm drains along the south
and west side of the residence which collect runoff from the driveway/turnaround,
southern portions of the house, and the "front" yard area and daylights into an energy
dissipater before flowing into the natural drainage swale along the northewest property
line.
Geotechnical Review
Cotton, Shires, and Associates, the Town's Geotechnical consultants, reviewed the
proposed plans, Geotechnical Report by Milestone Geotechnical (6/11/08), and
Engineering Geologic Report prepared by Steven F. Conelly, C.E.G. (5/9/08). Their
review concluded that the design recommendations for the project identified in the reports
generally appear appropriate for the conditions on site, subject to conditions requiring a
final Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, a Geotechnical Plan Review letter, and a
Geotechnical Field Inspection (conditions 27 through 29).
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and requires a fire engine
turnaround area (condition 30). The driveway slope is 20%, but was reviewed deemed
acceptable by the Division Chief (Attachment 6).
Committee Review
Pathways Committee
The Pathways Committee recommends that an off-road pathway easement across the
property from Ursula Lane to Edgerton Road be dedicated to the Town per the 2005
Master Path Plan, and that a native path be constructed. The Committee determined that
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 6
a native path is better suited to the terrain than a type IIB path, but gave the property
owner discretion as to the placement of the path and easement.
A 10' wide pathway easement with a 5' wide native path is proposed roughly parallel to
the western property line. The pathway will be constructed according to Town standards
for a native path, with roughening of driveway surfaces where the pathway crosses the
driveway (conditions 21-23).
Environmental Design and Protection Committee
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented on the removal of the
35" oak proposed to be removed for construction of the driveway and the removal of the
blue oak grove at the location of the proposed residence, They also expressed a desire for
an open space easement along the northeast property line (parallel to Matadem Creek).
The 35" oak tree is proposed to be removed to comply with Fire Department turnaround
requirements.
Open Space Committee
The Town's Open Space Committee reviewed the project and recommends an Open
Space easement be dedicated for the entire portion of the property below the 565' contour
line and the portion of the site within 25' of the top of bank of Matadero Creek (condition
14). This dedication preserves the steeply sloped and heavily vegetated lower portion of
the site along Edgerton Road.
Neighbor Comments
As of January 29, 2009, the Town received 2 e-mails and one letter from neighbors
regarding the proposed project (Attachments 9-11).
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOA)
The proposed new residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15303(a).
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval.
2. Grading Policy
3. Environmental Design & Protection Committee comments, dated 9/8/08.
4. Pathway Committee Minutes, dated 8/25/08.
5. Comments from the Central Fire District, dated 10/3/08 and 9/25/08.
6. Arborist report by McClenahan Consulting, LLC, dated 4/22/08.
7. Geotechnical Review letter from Cotton, Shires, and Associates, dated 8/6/08.
8. Letter from John Chau, Town Engineer, dated 12/15/08.
9. E-mail from Stephen Pahl, neighbor at 27431 Black Mountain Rd.
10. E-mail from Elaine Nelson, neighbor at 27261 Black Mountain Rd.
11. Letter from Tayana & Lennart Olsson, neighbor at 27343 Ursula Ln.
12. Site plan showing requested Grading Policy Exceptions, prepared by Giulliani &
Kull, dated 1/28/09.
13. Proposed development plans, prepared by Chu Design and Engineering, received
1/15/09.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 8
ATTACHMENT
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND GRADING
EXCEPTION
LANDS OF LIU, 13571 27755 EDGERTON RD/27300 URSULA
File #166-08-ZP-SD-GD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. Any further changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required
landscaping shall be first reviewed 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, landscape lighting, and erosion control plan for
review. The landscape screening and erosion control plan is subject to a public
hearing. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to
break up the bulk of the residence and preserving the existing screening. The
landscape plan shall include the replacement of all removed Heritage Oaks on a 1
for 1 basis at a minimum of 48" box size. All landscaping required for screening
purposes, replacement, and for erosion control (as determined by the City
Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection. All lighting must comply
with Town Policy.
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. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all remaining Heritage Oaks are to be
fenced at the drip line. Chain-link fencing shall clearly delineate the drip line.
Town staff must inspect the chain-linkfencing 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 chain-link 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.
5. Prior to final inspection, an ISA Certified Arborist must provide a letter stating
that all recommendations in the McClenahan report of 4/22/08 regarding
preservation of the remaining oaks were implemented during construction.
6. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall have frosted/etched glass enclosures or be
shielded light fixtures. Seeded or bent glass is not acceptable. No lighting may
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 9
be placed within setbacks except as shown on the approved plan. The applicant
shall provide the Town with a lighting detail or manufacturer's specification on
the fixtures to be used, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All
lighting must comply with the Town's Lighting Policyprior to final inspection.
7. 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 comply with the location shown on the approved plans
relative to the 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 approved plan." The applicant shall submit
the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a
foundation 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 complies with the 28'-0" maximum structure height (with increased
setbacks per Town Code Section 10-1.504(a)), 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.
9. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting
may be placed within skylight wells.
10. Air conditioning units shall be located a minimum of 40' from the front property
line and 30' from the side and rear property lines.
11. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction.
12. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require
review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation.
13. The applicant shall pay any applicable 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
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 10
14. The property owner shall grant an open space easement to the Town over the
northern portion of the property below the 565' contour line and within 25' of the
top of bank of Matadero Creek, as shown on the site plan (Sheet 1). 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 grant document. The grant document, including the approved exhibits, shall be
signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to
issuance of the building permit.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
15. Peak discharge at 27300 Ursula Lane, as a result of Site Development Permit 166-
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
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.
16. 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.
17. 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."
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
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 11
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 The
grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding
dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Ursula Lane 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
GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. 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 dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement along the west
property line to the Town. The property owner shall provide a 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.
21. The property owner shall construct a native pathway through the property
connecting Ursula Lane to Edgerton Road. Two copies of a pathway improvement
plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, and the pathway
must be installed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final
inspection.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. A permit for a septic system shall be issued by the Santa Clara County Health
Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All conditions
of the Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final
inspection.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 12
25. The property owner shall dedicate a 30' wide half -width public right-of-way to the
Town over Edgerton Road and Black Mountain 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 ofplansfor buildingplan check.
26. Geotechnical Eneineerine Investigation - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant should complete the geotechnical engineering investigation of the
subject property and submit the final report prior to issuance of building permit.
As part of this investigation, the consultant should evaluate areas in the vicinity
of the proposed improvements underlain by surficial materials (e.g., fill,
colluvium, and alluvium), and provide geotechnical design recommendations for
all proposed improvements. The investigation should include, but not necessarily
limited to, the following:
a) Subsurface conditions should be investigated and representative earth
materials (i.e. bedrock, colluvium/alluvium, artificial fill, etc.) should be
sampled and tested to provide an engineering basis for recommended
geotechnical design criteria.
b) Geotechnical design criteria and recommendations should be provided,
including but not limited to recommendations for: site grading, foundations
for proposed structures and walls (including stability of temporary basement
cuts), uplift forces in areas of expansive soil and bedrock materials (if
applicable), surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and mitigation
options for any recognized fill materials and expansive earth units. Design
criteria for restrained walls should be addressed.
c) Recommendations should be provided for a capillary break system beneath
slab -on -grade floors and the potential need for an axial subdrain beneath the
basement floor should be considered.
d) The consultant should evaluate the apparent geotechnical suitability of the
proposed septic leach field including the potential for surfacing of effluent or
adverse slope stability impacts.
e) 2007 CBC seismic design parameters should be provided for use by the
structural engineer in the design of the residence.
27. 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.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 13
The results of the Geotechnical Plan review shall be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review
prior to building permit issuance.
28. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test
(as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The
inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and
grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for
foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 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 (granting of occupancy).
FIRE DEPARTMENT
29. 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.
30. Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum
unobstructed width of 14 feet, a vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, and a
minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside.
31. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara 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 frral
inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
32. The project is located within the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area.
The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building
Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance
with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to final approval. Check with the Planning
Department for related landscape plan requirements.
33. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: Gate installations shall conform
with 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.
Planning Commission
Lands of Liu
February 5, 2009
Page 14
34. 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
background. NOTE: the current address on Edgerton Road must be changed to
Ursula Lane to allow for proper and timely emergency response.
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.
CONDITION NUMBERS 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, AND 25 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY TOWN STAFF PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE
OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one yew from the approval date (until
February 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 yens.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS WSAMSIia1S
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222 'y
w .losaltoshillsxa.gov CALIFORNIA
Grading Policy
Approved by City Council -4/2/97
Code Sections:
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 II
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. -
� uC�- . L-- i U
Environmental —esign and Protection Committee
New Residence/RemodelloEvaluatiion
Reviewed by:/, C--�•�-dc-i� P- Date %. I
Applicant
Address D-7% S� e-ex-9e-N� RC
(awe ¢-s-ti--- uv�>
Site impact/lighting/noise:
Creeks, d®raina,e, easements:
ycc+-'co�P a o 0��/
W LLC C.t
Significant issues/ comments: pt
4 (s a-Ct cs bl1�S sw
PAT14WAYS e ®OWII TTLF- IMLITFS
was referred to Town staff to answer his questions about specifications for path
construction.
iv. 12244 Windsor Court (Lands of Somasundaram). Windsor Court is a cul-de-sac off
Black mountain Road; it serves only five properties. This property is a flag lot off the
north side of Windsor Court and also has a border along Natoma. An existing path on
the property along Natoma needs maintenance. The Town may not ask for a pathway
in -lieu fee because a pathway already exists on a property. Courtenay Corrigan moved
that the homeowners be asked to restore and bring up to IIB standards the existing
pathway along Natoma Jolon Wagner seconded. The vote was unanimously m
favor.
v. 26880 Elena Road (Lands of Parikh). Tom Mope, landscape andutect, was present
representing the owners. The property is on the west side of Dena at the intersection
with Robleda Road. The opposite side of Elena is the preferred side for a roadside
pathway. Chris Vargas moved that the Town request a pathway in -lieu fee from the
owners of 26880 Elena Road. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was
unanimously in favor.
vL 14300 Miranda Road (Lands of Udinsky). The property is on the east side of Miranda
at the comer of Miranda and La Larne Court A pathway exists on the opposite side of
Miranda. Although Miranda is not designated in Resolution 38-96 (May 1996), as one
of the Town roads that requires paths on both sides, Miranda is a major feeder to Bullis
School and is heavily used by residents. Chris Vargas moved that the PWC request a
IIB on 14300 Miranda Road along Miranda Road, Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The
vote was unanimously in favor. It was also suggested that the PWC review and
update the fist of "two-sided roads" and propose a revised list to City Council for
approval.
vii 13330 Burke Road (Lands of Soltanzad). The property is on the east side of Burke Road
across from the intersection with Chapin. Easement maps show that the Town already
holds a pathway easement along Burke on this property. A well-maintained pathway
exists on the opposite side of Burke Road. A pathway was not required along Burke on
the adjacent property (13241 Burke) and this part of Burke is not heavily used. Nick
Dunckel moved that the PWC ask the Town to verify that an easement exists along
Burke on 1330 Burke Road and if it does exist, to require the homeowner to show it
on his maps. If an easement does not exist, a pathway in -lieu fee is required from
the owner. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor.
®� viiL 27755 Edgerton Road (Lands of Liu). The property is on the west side of Edgerton
Road between Edgerton and Ursula. The homeowners plan to site the house close to
Ursula Lane, which will provide access. The 2005 Master Path Plan shows an off-road
pathway through this property connecting Edgerton and Ursula. This off-road path
provides an important connection between Town open spare in Byme Preserve and the
pathway from Edgerton along Matadero Creek, which has been designated a Scenic
Pathway andis frequently used by equestrians. Because of the terrain, a native path
rather that a IIB path is appropriate. Bill Silver moved that a pathway easement on
27755 Edgerton Road be dedicated to the Town and that the homeowners be
required to install a native path through the property connecting Ursula to Edgerton
Road The location of the pathway on the property may be at the discretion of the
owners. XX seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor. It was also suggested
that the Town install posts at each end of this pathway to mark the path.
DraftPWC Min 002506 10/15/08
FMS DEPARTMENT
RECEIVED
SANTA CLARA COUNT`.' OCT 0 3 NOE
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 '"•m•^^"'
(408) 3784010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • w .scdd.crg Too OF LOS ALTOS HILLS„; . As1, A , B:d
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 0 Q 281 S
BLDG PERMR NUMBER
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS FILE NUMBER
ODMEC.
...E I NO.) REQUMEMEW
plan only for 27300 Urusula(formerly 27755 Edgerton).
iew 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
pted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make
lication to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
;truction permits.
driveway exceeds the County Fire Standard for grade, but is accepted by
mty Fire after review by the Division Chief.
Is approved. Any changes to this approved plan must be approved, in advance
in writing, by this office.
Chy PIAN$ SPECS NEW RMOL AS
OCCOPANLY
COMET. TYPE
APp11rJMNetti
DATE
PAGE
GIULIANI & KULL INC
10/1/2008
1 OF 1
LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑
sllh—OR
AREA
LOAD
DESCRIPTION
BY
Residential Development
Harding, Doug
nrading only
NAME OF PROJECr
LOCO"
SFR
1 27300 Ursula Ln
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving sort. Clom County and the romm nW. Mor mn Hill, and Saratoganns Altos,
Ins Altos Hills, Los Gotos, Monte Sereno, ga
cr cFIkE DEPARTMENT `iECEIVEf)
SANTA CLARA COUNTY Lr
m F OCT 3I 2008
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 '�:,,,,:.�•`'
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • uww.scdd. ml®»sm,My namnm
Of LOSptil}Sl91 AES
PUN ..NUMBER 0 8 3 01 0
BLDG PERMR NUMBER
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS nLENUMBER 166.08-ZP-SD-GD
GDDE5EC.
CFC Sec.
903.2, as
adopted
and
amended
by LAHMC
SKEET
REOUIREME.
,n review of proposed new 4,976 squre foot 2 story single family residence
attached garage.
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.
This project is located within the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire
Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California
Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in
compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check
with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements.
2 Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinklers are required in all new
and existing modified buildings when gross floor area exceeds 3,600 square feet or
that are 3 or more stories in height. Exception:One-time additions to existing
buildings made after 01/01/2008 that do not exceed 500 gross square feet.An
automatic sprinkler shall be provided in all new structures located in the
desienated Wildland-Urban Interface area. .
A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans,
calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this
department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. ^
CM PIANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
OCCUPANCY
CONST. TYPE
APPRUMNM
DATE
PAGE
LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑
R-3
v -B
CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING
10/23/2008
1 OF 2
6EOh7R
MEA
LOPO
DESWMTIOH
BY
2 story
4976 sf
Residential Development
Harding, Doug
NAME OF PROJEBrLOCATION
SFR - LIU
27755 Edgereton Rd
as the Santa Clara Countv Central Fire Protection District
Sennng Santa Clvry County and the communities Gf Campbell, CBDenino, Las Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Lo GDtos, Moue Sereno, Morgan Hill, vnd Svmtvga
F[kjE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fae) • v>,uwsccfd.org
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
OOUEISM I SHEET
08
FC Sec.
FC Sec.
REOUREMENT
im:,o.Lwowv p�minm
Apmry
PIN PEVEW NUMBER 08 3010
BLDG Men NUMBER
FREHUMBEB 166-08-ZP-SD-
3 Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required- Provide an access driveway
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 20%. Installations shall conform
to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. Non-standard
slope approved under separate application.
,nartment [Engine) Driveway Tum -around Required: Provide an
ed fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of
outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department
rd Details and Specifications D-1. Turn -around as shown appears to be in
rises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their
¢round. Noted on Plans,
ant 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
E. ■ Et MEWII��-
2 story 14976 sf
SFR - LIU
CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING 110/23/20081 2 of 2
Residential Development I Harding, Doug
27755 Edgereton Rd
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Ins Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
9/P./300G 11 FM FROM: Fax Taence A—Gate TO: 369]339 GE: O10 OF Ol0
hiNl �_ �o vy.ay ne�ill nlnn. o:. 71wa p.l�
1 ) w ..fit ! ,. '` \ .: •\ J
.1-0, 11L sic 8l,, +,� -
zt.l'i}sl �
• } �� it ,zr+
e I
ic:f —.
IjI t
�FRi�411t�2 ?_E.�3_3_
. Y i& Eos I 3 rn u�f1monsmcwewuuw ^•••�•••••••••� �• - nmlcr a �.wc
0 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
August 6, 2008
L0178
TO: Brian Froelich
Assistant Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review
RE: Liu, New Residence
166-08-ZP-SD-GD
27755 Edgerton Road
At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the subject
application for the proposed new residence, using:
• Geotechnical Investigation — Progress Report prepared by
Millstone Geotechnical, dated June 11, 2008;
• Engineering Geologic Investigation (report) prepared by Steven R
Connelly, C.E.G., dated May 9,2008;
• Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan (1 sheet, 20 -scale)
prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc., dated June 11, 2008; and
Architectural Plans (8 sheets, various scales) prepared by Chu
Design & Engineering, Inc., dated June 16, 2008.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office
files and completed a recent site inspection.
DISCUSSION
Based on our review of the referenced documents, the applicant proposes to
construct a neva residence with partial basement, septic leachfield system, and
N.M,m Cahfomie Office
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95030.7218
(408)354-5542 • 1.(408)354-1852
e-mailaosgatos� cottonshires.com
www.cottonshires.com
c—n A callfomia office
6417 Dogtown Road
San Andreaz. CA 95249-9640
(209) 736-0252 • Fax (209) 736-1212
e- mail: cottorisldms@starband.net
Brian Froelich August 6, 2008
Page L0178
associated residential improvements. We were provided with estimated earthwork
quantities of 1,915 cubic yards of cut and 430 cubic yards of fill, with a total export of
1,485 cubic yards of material. Access to the property is provided via a private driveway
extending from Ursula Drive in the southwestern portion of the property.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is generally characterized by a gentle to moderately steep
north -trending ridgeline, flanked by moderately steep to very steep northeast- and
northwest -facing flanks. Seasonal drainage swales exist along the western and eastern
property lines.. Edgerton Road runs along the base of the slope north of theproposed
building envelope. Cut slopes adjacent to Edgerton Road may be subject to shallow
sloughing but these area appear to adversely impact the proposed house site. The site
was undeveloped at the time of our recent site visit. Natural drainage at the site consists
of sheetflow toward the northwest and northeast into the existing drainage swales.
According to the Town Geologic Map, the subject property is underlain by
greenstone bedrock of the Franciscan Complex. According to the exploratory boring
logs presented in the referenced geotechnical investigation, weathered greenstone
bedrock is overlain by 4 to 7 feet of colluvial materials in the vicinity of the proposed
building envelope.
The nearest traces of the potentially active Monta Vista, Berrocal, and Altamont
faults are mapped approximately 400 feet north, 1,650 southeast, and 2,200 feet south of
the subject property, respectively. According to the Town Geotechnical Hazards Map,
the property is located within the boundaries of a "D" zone, classified as a zone of
potential ground deformation and surface rupture within 660 feet of the trace of a
potentially active fault. Additionally, the active San Andreas fault is located
approximately 2.7 miles southwest of the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed development is potentially constrained by anticipated strong
seismic ground shaking, expansive colluvium, and shallow downslope creep of surficial
materials. The Project Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist have
performed recent investigations of the property and provided preliminary geotechnical
design recommendations for the proposed development which, generally, appear to be
appropriate fbr the identified site conditions.
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Brian Froelich
Page 3
August 6, 2008
L0178
We do not have geotechnical objections to the layout and recommended design
criteria for the proposed improvements. We recommend that the following conditions
be attached to applications for site improvements:
1. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation — The applicant's
geotechnical consultant should complete the geotechnical
engineering investigation of the subject property and submit the
final report. As part of this investigation, the consultant should
evaluate areas in the vicinity of proposed improvements
underlain by surficial materials (e.g., fill, colluvium, and
alluvium), and provide geotechnical design recommendations for
all proposed improvements. The investigation should include, but
— - n6t necessarily be hn -ted to, the following: ,
Subsurface conditions should be investigated and
representative earth materials (i.e., bedrock,
colluvium/alluvium, artificial fill, etc.) should be
sampled and tested to provide an engineering basis
for recommended geotechnical design criteria.
Geotechnical design criteria and recommendations
should be provided, including but not limited to
recommendations for: site grading, foundations for
proposed structures and -walls (including stability
of temporary basement cuts), uplift forces in areas
of expansive soil and bedrock materials (if
applicable), surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and mitigation options for any
recognized fill materials and expansive earth units.
Design criteria for restrained walls should be
addressed.
Recommendations should be provided for a
capillary break system beneath slab -on -grade floors
and the potential need for an axial subdrain
beneath the basement floor should be considered.
The consultant should evaluate the apparent
geotechnical suitability of the proposed septic
lead -field including the potential for surfacing of
effluent or adverse slope stability impacts.
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Brian Froelich
Page 4
August 6, 2008
1,0178
2007 CBC seismic design parameters should be
provided for use by the structural engineer in the
design of the residence.
The results of d'ds investigation should be summarized by the
Project Geotechnical Consultant in a report, with appropriate
drawings, and submitted to the Town for review and approval by
the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to
acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check.
Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
tcie 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 Geotechnical Plan Review should be
summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and
submitted to the Town Engineer along with documents for
building permit plan -check.
Geotechnical Field InsRection - 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 and retaining walls prior to the
placement of steel and concrete.
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. he Town Engineer for i:eview prior to
final (as -built) project approval.
LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to
assist the Town with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to
review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our
opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Brian Froelich
Page 5
August 6, 2008
L0178
and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other
warranties, either expressed or implied.
TS:DTS:JS:kd
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Principal Engineering Geologist
CBG 179,5,
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
December 15, 2008
TO: David Keyon, Associate Planner
FROM: John Chau, Assistant Engineer
RE: McKeegan Residence
27755 Edgerton Road
File# 166-08-ZP-S D -GD
New Residence
At your request, the Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject
property's site development plan using:
Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc. dated
December 10, 2008 and received December 11, 2008.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on our review of the referenced plans, it appears that the project engineer and
designer have generally not met all the requirements of the Engineering Department. The
applicant understands that the proposed project is not in conformance with the Town's
grading policy and is requesting that the project be considered in its current state. The
project does not conform to the grading policy as follows:
a) Up to 8' of cut is proposed for the patio.
b) Up to 10' differential between existing grade and proposed finish floor elevation.
C) Up to 13' of fill is proposed for the driveway.
d) Up to 13.5' high retaining wall is proposed for the driveway.
Consequently if the project is approved, we recommend the following conditions of
approval:
1) Peak discharge at 27300 Ursula Lane, as a result of Site Development Permit 166-
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
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 ofplans 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.
2) 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.
3) 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."
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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 Ursula Lane 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
GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with
the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
7) 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
8) The property owner shall dedicate a 301 wide half -width public right of way to
the Town over Edgerton Road and Black Mountain 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 ofplans for buildingplan check.
9) The property owner shall construct a native pathway through the property
connecting Ursula Lane to Edgerton Road to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department prior to final inspection.
10) Two copies of a pathway improvements plans shall be submitted by the property
owner for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to acceptance ofplans
for building plan check.
11) The property owner shall dedicate a pathway easement along the proposed native
Pathway to the Town. 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.
12) 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.
13)A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health
Department prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check.
14) Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final
inspection.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions concerning this letter.
David Keyon
From: Debbie Pedro
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:42 AM
To: 'Stephen D. Pahl'
Cc: David Keyon
Subject: RE: Lands of Liu - 27755 Edgerton Road
Mr. Pahl,
Thank you for taking the time to send us your Comments about the proposed new residence at 27755 Edgerton Road.
Your email will be included in the staff report.
JI. I—M
Debbie Pedro, AICP, LEED AP
Planning Director
Town of LOS Altos Hills
Phone: (650) 947-2517
Fax: (650) 941-3160
www losaltoshills ca oov
From: Stephen D. Pahl [mailto:
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 12:10 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Subject: lands of Liu - 27755 Edgerton Road
Mr. Pedro: We are residents of directly to the southeast of this proposed residence. We
have spoken to the applicant and appreciate his efforts to reach out to their neighbors for feedback and Comments. We
support the application and welcome them to our neighborhood.
Confidentiality and Privilege. TMs e-mail message. Including atlachments, is intended solely for review by the intended reclplent(s) and may contain congdenual
and privileged information. Any, uneuthor¢ed review, use, disclosure, or distribution Is prohibaetl. Review by anyone other than the intended redpient(s) shall not
cornute a waiver of any ATTORNEY,CLIENT PRNILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION net may apply to this communication. If you are not
the intended reopart. please found the sender by Mum e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or carmen tax advice confined in this small message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot be used
by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties Nat may be knotted on Me taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury
Regulations governing tax praNceJ
1/26/2009
Page 1 of 1
David Keyon
From:
Sent:
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:07 AM
To:
David Keyon
Subject:
Site development plans for Liu property
Hello David,
I have 3 suggestions for amendments to the currently proposed site plan:
1) A shorter driveway: The driveway as currently configured lays down more concrete next to the
already very large concrete cul-de-sac of Ursula lane, removing a good swathe of the natural
environment. Ursula Lane is a public street and cul-de-sac; why can't the entrance be directly from the
cul de sac?
2) Not removing the great oak that is situated near the pad for the homesite. This oak is not in the way of
building the house itself. Some judicious pruning would frame the parking pad and allow for turnaround
access.
3)Location of port -a -potties: As soon as the driveway is accessible, locate the port -a -potties close to the
site, away from the cul-de-sac, to mmirniz unsightly visuals and smells from the cul-de-sac during what
is often a lengthly process to build a new house.
Regards,
Elaine Nelson
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See your, in just 2 easy steps!
1/28/2009
Planning Commission January 29, 2009
Att: David Keyon, Associate Planner
Los Altos Hills Town Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Your notice of January 23, 2009 in regard to Site Development Permit for 27755
Edgerton Road (proposed address change to 27300 Ursula Dr), #166-08-ZP-SD-GD.
In regard to above mentioned permit application, we hereby request that the Planning
Commission consider following concerns that we, the undersigned, have as a result of
having reviewed the development plans today at the office of Los Altos Hills.
Our own address is i.e. one of the lots right next to the proposed
construction.
First of all, it is positive that the lot at 27755 Edgerton Road (hereafter The Lot) is being
considered for development, as it for years have been a manifest source for poison oak,
other unattractive weeds etc. However, having reviewed the current plans for The Lot,
several major concerns emerge in regard to the specific proposed structure, in particular its
size, the suggested driveway to the house, and the removal of some beautiful oak trees as
described below.
1) The suggested driveway to the structure from Ursula Lane is of major concern:
(i) The proposed driveway is extremely narrow with beautiful oak trees to one
side and the corner of our lot to the other, 2-3 feet away. It seems very clear
just from the experiences we all have with trucks coming to Ursula Lane that
trucks to the proposed driveway will hit the oak tree, our fence etc
repeatedly. Previous engineers and architects evaluating The Lot have all
stated these concerns as prohibitory for building the suggested driveway.
This is also the reason why most realistic suggestions for development of The
Lot have focused on the entrance being from Edgerton Road.
Also, the construction of the house itself will have to be conducted with
turning a large pat (including along our fence towards Ursula Lane) into a
construction area thereby disturbing profoundly the calmness and attraction
to live In a house at Ursula Lane.
(iii) Therefore, during the construction, access to the fire hydrant at Ursula Lane
may be limited or even blocked from time to time. That will obviously be
absolutely unacceptable for everybody.
2) Removal of 8 oak trees. We obviously recognize that every new construction will
have to result in removal of a few oak trees. However, the proposed trees to be
removed are some of the trees we enjoy from our house and the view towards the
Bay. Thus, if the suggested trees are removed it will fundamentally change the view
from our house, in particular because the length of the proposed structure. Instead
of the current pleasant mixture of trees, Bay and houses, all major reasons for us to
buy our house, we will look at the proposed construction. Not a positive
develooment.
11 Pa ge_...
3) Previous evaluations of The Lot by engineers and architects seem all to have reached
the conclusion that the area of land for development (building a house) on The Lot is
very limited, because of the steep slope of The Lot. Thus, the factual MDA of the lot
is significantly less than lot size, not only because of the slope, but also because a
significant part of the lot is between our lot and the asphalted part of Ursula Lane. It
has therefore been the consensus in previous evaluations that only a smaller house
could be build.
One of the major problems with the current proposal, apart from the entrance from
Ursula Lane and removal of some very beautiful oak trees (previous proposals did
include structures that would allow entrance from Edgerton), is thus that the
proposed structure is to the very maximal size that even would be allowable for a lot,
where the area possible to develop would be a major part of the lot.
4) We understand the "setback" from the address should be 40'. If the address is
changed to Ursula Lane, it seems unclear whether the setback from our fence
towards the front of the proposed house also should be 40'.
In light of these concerns, we kindly request the Planning Commission to recommend
the following changes to the proposed structure:
A) The entrance to The Lot should be at the current address at Edgerton Road as this is
possible to construct and as the proposed entrance from Ursula Lane represents a
non-functional solution that will be very disruptive and negative for the majority of
the houses at Ursula Lane.
B) Suggest to the planner of the structure a small house, thereby also enable
preservation of some of the oak trees, we all enjoy today. Their removal will be a
major disruption of an otherwise very harmonious Nature and environment in a
beautiful part of Los Altos Hills.
Sincerely,
Tatjaha and Lennart Olsson
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
21 Pa g
1 4
E G i � F GSE �• q A� I A
Mq`CN LINE SEF BELOW +�+�
all
C t
It
pp
,tee
r.r Y L F It
aql t 9 •'. � : � R @ a
1 q q s
m
Y
4
y r
t ��s
•\ •s�. NaW /�
1]300 GRSOLA LANE ��pGIWfaN •Nvµ ao<
GRACING EXCEPTION t
e•
a Exmert-
LOS a xius, eweoaxu
Additional correspondence from neighbors
prior to Feb. 5th Planning Commission Hearing
Lands of Liu (McKeegan)
27755 Edgerton Road (27300 Ursula Lane)
Permit Application # 166-08-ZP-SD-GD
Planning Commission February 1, 2009
Art: David Keyon, Associate Planner
Los Altos Hills Town Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Notice of planning Commission Public Hearing
LANDS OF LIEU, 27755 Edgerton Rd #166-08-ZP-SD-GD
My family has lived in this neighborhood since the early 1960's and my husband and I
presently live at We appreciated the fact that the new owner of the lot
in question, Mr. Tim McKeegan, took the time to tell us about his plans for construction.
However, based on his explanation, several concerns remain:
1. Concern for the health and beauty of the oak trees is perhaps uppermost in our minds.
As we understand his plans, entry to the house will be from Ursula Lane and the
construction will require removal of 8 large oak trees. This is to provide a tum around
space for the fixe department and for the footprint of the house itself. It seems that both a
smaller house, and entering from Bdgerton would alleviate the removal of many of the
large oak trees that affect the Ursula Lane residents' views.
2. We understand from Mr. McKeegan that the fire department requires a turn around for
fire trucks at the proposed house because of it's distance from the present fire hydrant on
Ursula Lane. None of the nearby existing houses have such a tum around. Wouldn't it be
more sensible to locate an additional fire hydrant on his property? This would avoid the
requirement for a tum wound space, which in tum would avoid removal of some of the
beautiful trees. In addition and very important, this would give more fire protection to
those living lower on Ursula Lane, and reduce the amount of concrete cover which is better
for the environment.
3. We have great concern about the health of the large tree that is adjacent to the
proposed new start of the drive. We have personally taken it upon ourselves to have this
tree checked and have removed soil which was left against the tree when trenching was
done previously for pipes. We have already lost several large oaks on Ursula Lane. The
utmost protection for hanging branches and the roots of this tree should be required for
any building and transport new this tree.
4. The removal of many of these oaks alters our view and that of other residents on
Ursula Lane. We will look directly into the garage area of the new house. The new
owner, Mr. McKeegan has verbally offered to plant landscape trees of our choosing to
block our view, and at the location we choose on his, or our land. Because the loss of
these large oak trees affects us all, we feel that a landscape plan that accomplishes this,
should be required for issuance of the building permit.
In summary, we understand that this is a difficult lot for development but nearly 5000
square feet is a very large house given the restrictions of this lot. That seems exacerbated
by the fire department's requirement for a tum around area resulting in removal of heritage
oaks and additional concrete, both of which are a disappointment to us.
We respectfully submit these comments for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Patricia Spector and David Mans
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
January 31, 2009
Planning Commission
David Keyon, Associate Planner
Los Altos Hills Town Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: Proposed site development permit for 27755 Edgerton Road, #1 6M8 -7P -SD -GD, dated January 23, 2009
Dear David:
I am writing in response to your notice dated January 23, 2009 regarding the proposed site development permit for 27755 Edgerton
Road, #166-08-ZP-SD-GD. My wife, Kimbedy and I, along with our two daughters and golden retriever, reside at
which immediately borders the proposed site development lot to the north. We have been residents in Los Altos Hills since 2004 and in
the past 5 years have come to appreciate all of what characterizes living in Los Altos Hills including its natural beauty, extensive open
spaces and the desire of its resident's commitment to protecting its limited natural resources.
Having reviewed the site development proposal for 27755 Edgerton Road, visualized the proposed structure's on-site wooden frame and
speaking once to Mr. McKeegan on by telephone on January 28, 2009, 1 have the following concerns regarding the site development
proposal:
Practicality
- my understanding of the 27755 Edgerton Road Lot is that it has been owned the the Liu Family for over 30 years and throughout that
period the Liu's have entertained selling it a number of times
- in fad, in just the past 5 years, the property has been represented by no fewer than 3 different realtors who have each approached
us, including the Lius, about whether or not we were interested in purchasing the lot or knew of any friends who might be interested
- each conversation ended in a similar disappointing way in that the lot demonstrated significant constraints to building with respect to
its steep slope, unstable soils, difficult accessibility from either Edgerton Road or along the narrow pan -handle along Ursula Lane
and a myriad of other natural hazards (ie, water runoff gorge along the entire northern border and rampant poison oak)
- the realtors conveyed that a number of engineers and architects, based on the original MDA calculation provisions, which all of the
existing homes on Ursula Lane were held accountable to when constructed, incorporating net lot size, average slope and lot unit
factor less than unity (1.0), the largest structure that could be built was only 1600 sf, hardly making any investment in developing
worthwhile
- I understand a recent MDA calculation revision now allows a standard maximum Floor area of 5000sf regardless of the net lot size,
average slope and lot unit factor
Massive Scope of the Proposed Structures
- any new proposals for site development should take into consideration cunent existing structures and lot layouts such that proposed
structures are ideally centrally placed in an uncrowded fashion within the lot and ultimately fit harmoniously with Its
surroundings, rather than 'sticking out like a son: thumb"
- there are currently 4 homes with Ursula Lane addresses
27343 Ursula Lane: lot size 1.5 acres, home 4,607 sf
27330 Ursula Lane: lot size 1.4 acres, home 4,537 sf
27299 Ursula Lane: lot size 1.8 acres, home 3,069 sf
27271 Ursula Lane: lot size 2.1 acres, home 3,200 sf
- as such, the average lot size on Ursula Lane is 1.7 acres and the average home is 3,853 sf
- the proposed site development permit for this 2.1 acre lot with a net lot area of 1.9 acres is for a 4,921 sf home with a 852 sf
basement totaling 5773 sf
I understand the 852 sf of basement space is not applicable, but massive nonetheless at 4,921 sf
1/3
- the obvious impact of the massive scope of the proposed structure represents several standard deviations larger than what is
currently existing on the cul-de-sac and would neither be congruent or appear harmonious with the current homes along Ursula
Lane
- the proposed driveway off of Ursula Lane appears impractical and unnatural
any attempt to "shoehom" a driveway along the narrowest possible pan -handle portion of the property creates a bizarre 7 -shape"
path with two 90'tums within 20 feet of each other, making I hardly accessible to large delivery or fire trucks without going off
road at tangents that come within inches of a number of century old majestic heritage oaks, not to mention, already encroaching
upon their drip lines which puts them in constant harms way
- in other words, "just because you can build it, doesn't mean you should build it'
Removal of Eight Century Old Majestic Heritage Oaks
- as with any construction project on undeveloped sites, the removal of trees is unfortunately a reality and euphemistically falls under
unintended 'collateral damage"
- however, in a community that prides itself over its natural beauty and ardent protecfion of it limited natural resources, such as
century old majestic heritage oaks, as spelled out in the Conservation Element of the Los Altos Hills General Plan
the removal of these century old majestic heritage oaks cannot be taken lightly or deemed easily replaceable
many of us, I don'tthink, would be willing to wait a century for the new oaks to grow into place
- the proposal to remove eight of these century old majestic heritage oaks, many of which have multiple secondary trunks, each
reaching over 50 feet high, seem excessive and unacceptable
- in fact, several slated for removal, are located along the approach from Ursula Lane and currently act as the primary natural privacy
screens that would actually help to soften the impact of a large structure as stipulated in the proposal
Intrusion of Privacy
- as the neighbor immediately adjacent and below, we are specifically impacted by the full view we would have of the towering nature
of the massive proposed structure, staring directly down onto the approach of our entry driveway
- additionally, we are impacted because the proposed structure is in direct line of sight view from the most private spaces of our living
quarters
the windows of our master bedroom, the windows of our master bathroom and the windows of the our master toilet closet
the proposed massive structure would sit front and center and be in my direct line of sight off the master suite
- in fact, it is the current views of the rolling hillside, water gorge and trees outside of these particular windows that greet us every
morning and night which we have come to treasure over the past 5 years, having played a critical role in our decision to purchase
our home and reinforces our decision, on a daily basis, to have made Ursula Lane in Los Altos Hills our home
- given the significant elevation above the water runoff gorge, I am doubtful that any landscaping would be able to soften the impact of
the proposed towering impact of the proposed structure
- a tree planted on my property would have to be over 100 feet tall to even reach the footprint of the proposed structure elevation
Exploration of Alternative Plans
It is certainly is not our intention to prohibit Mr. McKeegan from developing the site on 27755 Edgerton Road. I suspect your office
processes many claims with dubious or questionable justification. However, given the massive scope of the site development proposal
and its immediate impact on our appreciation of our property, privacy and its views, I feel that our concerns outlined above are fully
justifiable and would appreciate I you and your Planning Commission would recommend the following:
- reconsider any and all alternatives to maintain the main entry of the 27755 Edgerton Road lot off of Edgerton Road where the
property was originally planned for and zoned given that the majority of the property line borders on Edgerton Road as opposed
to the current proposal which appears to be an over crowded attempt to enter along its narrowest panhandle outlet to Ursula
Lane
reconsider any and all alternatives to relocate the proposed structure centrally along the lot to maintain an even spacing amongst the
immediately bordering property's homes and keeping it out of direct line sight view from current existing homes on Ursula Lane as
it would also contribute to an "overcrowding effect"
2/3
reconsider any and all alternatives that would propose a smaller footprint elevation with perhaps a larger basement to encompass all
of Mr. McKeegan's needs while meeting the visual impact that would be more harmonious with the current properties and homes
along Ursula Lane
reconsider any and all alternatives that would spare any century old majestic heritage oaks that are currently functioning as privacy
screens between bordering property's homes in exchange for removing other oaks more centrally located on the lot that would not
affect any of the bordering property's privacy and views
To this effort, we would gladly volunteer our time to meet with Mr. McKeegan and his amh@ects and engineers at a mutually convenient
time to assist in any way possible to arrive at a common goal of a mutually pleasing plan that would meet all of the concerns and
sensibilities of all the parties involved.
Sincerely,
Felix and Kimberly Lee
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
3/3
Planning Commission Minutes DRf Attachment 3
February 5, 2009
Page 4
Staff stated that the drainage design for the site would be inspected by the Town and signed off
by a civil engineer that it had been installed according to the approved plans.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioners Cottrell, Abraham and Chairman Harpootlian supported the landscape plan.
Commissioner Collins did not support the lighting plan and had concerns about the high water
demands of the landscaping during a drought period.
Commissioner Clow supported the landscape plan and the lighting plan as long as the lighting
was not visible off site.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion
made by Commissioner Abraham and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to approve the Site
Development Permit subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment One.
AYES: Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Abraham and Chairman Harpoothan
NOES: Commissioner Collins
This item is subject to a 22 day appeal period and will be forwarded to a future meeting of the
City Council.
3.3 LANDS OF LIU, 27755 Edgerton Road (proposed address change to 27300
Ursula Dr.), #166-08-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a
4,921 square foot two story new residence with a 852 square foot basement and
the removal of eight (8) heritage oak trees. CEQA Review: Categorical
Exemption per Section 15303(a) (Staff -David Keyon).
Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioners Abraham,
Collins and Cottrell visited the site; and Commissioner Clow and Chairman Harpootlian
visited the site and spoke with a neighbor.
David Keyon, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for the proposed new residence on the
steeply sloped, heavily wooded site.
Discussion ensued regarding the placement of the driveway, the need for tree removal and the
pathway requirement.
Tim McKeegan, applicant, stated that much work had been done to locate the septic field around
the oak trees. The driveway with the fire truck tum around configuration is a requirement of the
fire department and necessitates the removal of one heritage oak tree. The wooded lot provides
good screening of the house. Many changes have been made in the plans for the project to
develop the best placement of the new residence with the least impact on the site. Mr.
McKeegan responded to the neighbor's concerns regarding the size and orientation of the house,
driveway design and placement, oak tree removal and landscape screening.
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT
February 5, 2009
Page 5
Commissioner Collins asked if the house could be relocated to preserve the oak tree in front of
the proposed house.
Mark Helton, project engineer, stated that the house cannot be moved further downhill because
of the slope of the site.
Chairman Harpootlian expressed concern over the slope of the proposed pathway and the
protection from construction for the oak trees that will remain on the property.
Commission Clow asked if the driveway could be moved to prevent removal of the 35" oak tree
in the way of the fire truck tum around.
Mark Helton replied that moving the driveway was not possible considering its design. The
retaining wall height would increase, perhaps as tall as 17 feet, as the driveway is moved down
the slope.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Eileen Bimbaum, Edgerton Road, expressed concern about the steepness of the lot, the flow of
water off the property, the efficiency of the proposed dissipater during times of heavy runoff,
potential landslides, traffic disruption on Edgerton Road, the removal of the oak trees and the
reliability of the soils report.
Lennart Olsson, Ursula Lane, said the oak trees to be removed are important to their view. He
felt a smaller house would be more appropriate for the lot. The placement of the driveway did
not seem practical and is too close to the mature oak trees and his fence.
Ginger Summit, Lenox Way, commented that a pathway easement was shown on the old Master
Pathways Map. The Pathways Committee left the location of pathway to the discretion of the
property owner because of the constraints of the site but perhaps the proposed pathway route
could be moved more toward Edgerton Road in the Open Space area and out of the steep gulley.
Most off road pathways are native paths with no gravel base and may have steps to facilitate
pedestrian and equestrian travel.
Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, said the site contained
clusters of rare, slow growing heritage Blue Oak trees. She thought the magnificence of the trees
in this beautiful setting would outweigh the desire to build a home of the proposed size on the
property.
Felix Lee, 27330 Ursula Lane, had concerns about the massive scope of the structures, the
removal of the eight century old oak trees and the loss of privacy. He felt the lot had significant
constraints to development due to steep slopes, unstable soils and difficult access. The large size
of the home seems massive in comparison to the existing homes on Ursula Lane. He felt the
driveway was poorly designed and vehicles would pass too closely to the oak trees.
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT
February 5, 2009
Page 6
Commissioner Collins said that relocating the house down the property would create higher
retaining walls along the driveway that Mr. Lee would view.
Felix Lee replied that the retaining wall would appear as a handball court when viewed across his
yard. The new home would be in a direct line from his house and allow a clear view to his
master bedroom and bathroom.
Kimberly Lee, Ursula Lane, suggested that the landscape plan be considered prior to approval of
the new residence as privacy is an important issue. The oak trees planned for removal and the
large oaks at the proposed driveway entrance should be reviewed. Tall trucks entering the site
have already begun hitting the exiting oaks along the driveway route including an oak tree on her
property. Maintenance of the pathway is a concern especially because the area contains a lot of
poison oak.
Tim McKeegan, applicant, was willing to plant trees on his property and the Mann's and
Spector's properties to provide screening. Moving the house down the site would affect the area
of the septic field.
Commissioner Collins asked about possible design changes that would preserve the beautiful
large oak tree proposed to be removed for the house construction.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Cottrell wanted more oak trees preserved if possible and in particular tree #35
mentioned by Commissioner Collins. He suggested continuance of the application to allow an
increased effort to save the trees. The drainage runoff must not be greater after construction, so
the drainage system must be engineered properly.
Commissioner Clow was concerned about the visual impact of the high retaining wall and the
number of heritage Blue Oak trees planned for removal. A smaller home may need to be
designed because of the difficult lot and the many exceptions that will be needed. He wanted
oak 935 saved and more if possible. He supported the pathway recommendation. He did not
support the application based on the amount of grading and fill required and wanted to continue
the project.
Commissioner Collins agreed that the project needed more time for better solutions to be
examined and requested a continuance. She did not support the amount of cut and fill and
thought a different design or smaller house might fit better on the difficult lot.
Commissioner Abraham said the two acre lot allowed only a 5,000 square foot house because of
the slope and moving the structure downhill would require much more cut and fill. He saw no
way to save tree #35 short of reducing the size of the house. He proposed planting some of the
replacement oak trees to provide screening for the Lees. He felt the best effort had been made
with the location of the driveway and fire truck tum around. The pathway was on the Master
Pathways map and should be required.
Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT
February 5, 2009
Page 7
Chairman Harpoothan thought the design of the house could be changed to save oak tree #35.
The applicant has the right to build on the lot, but there are significant problems that need to be
addressed.
Commissioner Clow pointed out that constraints on a lot may limit the size of home that can be
built. Some lots may not be able to support the allowable 5,000 square feet because of difficult
site conditions.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion
made by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Abraham to continue the
application to allow the applicant to revise the site plan to save oak tree #35.
AYES: Commissioners Collins, Clow, Cottrell, Abraham and Chairman Harpoothan
NOES: none
4. OLD BUSINESS - none
5. NEW BUSINESS - none
6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6.1 Planning Commission Representative for February 12" — Commissioner Abraham
6.2 Planning Commission Representative for February 26" — Commissioner Harpootlian
6.3 Planning Commission Representative for March 12`h— Commissioner Collins
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.1 Approval of January 15, 2009 minutes
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell
and seconded by Commissioner Clow to approve the January 15, 2009 minutes with the
following changes:
Add Commissioner Cottrell's name to the Ex Parte Disclosure list for all public hearings for the
meeting.
Change to wording on page two, paragraph five, from "once or twice a day" to the word
"weekly".
AYES: Commissioners Collins, Cottrell, Clow, Abraham and Chairman Harpootlian
NOES: none
Kielty Arborist Services
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-525-1464
February 17, 2009
Attachment 4
Mr. Tim McKeegan
Site: 27755 Edgerton, Los Altos Hills, CA
Dear Mr. McKeegan,
As,requested on Monday, February 16, 2009, 1 reviewed the revised plans for the
proposed construction. The plans were revised by request of the planning commission to
allow for a large blue oak on the property to be retained. In this report I have included
tree protection measures that will lessen the impacts to this tree as well as other trees on
site.
Method:
The information that pertains to the 2 oak trees is from a previous report of April 22,
2008 (McClenahan). The lot was inspected from the ground. The trees were located on a
map provided by you. Each tree was assigned an identification number. This number
was inscribed on a metal foil tag and nailed to the tree near the ground. The trees were
then measured for diameter at 48 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast
height). A condition rating of 1 — 100 was assigned to each tree representing form and
vitality using the following scale:
1 -
29
Very Poor
30
- 49
Poor
50
- 69
Fair
70
- 89
Good
90
- 100
Excellent
The height of each tree was estimated and the spread was paced off. The location of each
tree was described. Lastly, a comments section is provided. Due to the abundance of
poison oak many of the trees were not tagged and their DBH was estimated.
27755 Edgerton, Los Altos, CA
February 17, 2009
Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SPComments
30 Blue oak 15est 60 35/25 Vigor is fair, foliage is sparse;
(Quercus douglasrr) form is good, poison oak on trunk.
35 Blue oak 36est 65 45/55 Abundance of lower deadwood.
(Quercus douglasli)
Summary:
The revised plans for the house will allow for an additional 2 trees to be saved. Tree #30
is a blue oak with fair vigor and good form. Tree #35 is a large blue oak with good
character. The new home will be located 14 feet from tree #35 and with proper tree
protection the tree will only be moderately affected. The excavation for the basement
must be done by hand where needed. The over excavation for all the foundations will be
kept to a minimum when roots are present. Tree protection zones must be established
and maintained for tree #35.
Tree Protection Plan
Tree Protection Zones
Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of
the project. Fencing for tree protection zones should be 6' tall, metal chain link material
supported by metal 2" diameter poles, pounded into the ground to a depth of no less than
2'. The location for the protective fencing should be as close to the dripline of desired
trees as possible, still allowing room for construction to safely continue. No equipment
or materials shall be stored or cleaned inside the protection zones. Areas outside
protection zones, but still beneath the tree's driplines, where foot traffic is expected to be
heavy, should be mulched with 4-6" of chipper chips. The spreading of chips will help to
reduce compaction and improve soil structure. The installation of the landscape buffer of
chips will be critical for the root zone of the oaks. The landscape buffer will critical for
the access road beneath the dripline of Tree#1.
Root Cutting
Any roots to be cut shall be monitored and documented. Large roots (over 2" diameter)
or large masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist,
at this time,. may recommend irrigation or fertilization of the mot zone. All roots needing
to be cut should be cut clean with a saw or lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period
of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. Extensive root cutting is
not expected on this site.
Irrigation
The oaks on this site should not need irrigation during the warm season. If roots of the
trees are cut, irrigation may be recommended by the site arborist. Irrigation would
consist of flooding the root zone with enough water to wet the entire root system.
27755 Edgerton, Los Altos, CA
February 17, 2009
Trenching
Trenching for irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand
when inside the dripline of a protected tree. Band digging and the careful placement of
pipes below or besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing
trauma to the tree. All trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted
to near its original level, as soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of
time, will require the covering of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The
trenches will also need to be covered with plywood to help protect the exposed roots.
Installation of the leach lines for the septic system
The location of the trenching for the septic system has been designed to minimiroot
loss. The distances from the trunks of the trees should, if at all possible, be 4 times the
diameter of the tree. An example: For a 20 inch diameter tree the trench should be no
closer than 80 inches or 6.6 feet. If the leach lines are to be closer to the trunks of
protected trees the trenches should be hand dug cutting no roots larger then 2 inches (see
trenching). The site arborist should be present for any trenching inside the dripline of
protected trees. The depth of the leach field and leach lines will be well below the root
zones of the protected trees. Damage to the trees from water at this depth is not expected.
Grade Changes:
Any changes in the natural grade inside the dripline of the protected trees must be
approved by the site arborist. The removal of soil inside the dripline of the tree can be
carried out to some degree (see root cutting). The addition of fill is often the cause of
root crown diseases if the fill is near the trunk. Additional fill inside the dripline away
from the trunk can be carried out if properly managed. Aeration systems that allow
irrigation, fertilizing and air flow can be designed to help mitigate negative impacts.
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound
arboricultural principles and practices.
Sincerely,,,
rrt-=�
Kevin R KieltyCertified Arborist WE#0476A WE-0t7al
o e 'fie Jr '<'e:)
19
McClenahan Consulting, LLC
Arboricultrnists Since 19U
t hr:¢o-aem
Rd. Rube VaUcz C,% 1 a-ttor2
r`JoPBue 650) 316-37E]
Fax (oso) 54-1W
Mr. Tim McKeegan v. s.2csprc_:Icuh .
Site: 27755 Fdgenon, Los Altos Hills, CA
Dear Mr. McKeegan,
��,Attachment 5
-cCx_I iF"l
TUX OF LOS ALTOS HILI"a
April 22, 2008
Assionmeja
As requested, on Thursday, April 17, 2008, 1 visited the above location, to inspect and
comment on the significant trees that may be impacted by Lhe proposed construction. A
new home is to be built on this site. As rcquested, a survey of the significant trees on site
and a tree protection plan will be ixludad in this report,
summary
the trees on the site fiat may be affecA by the proposed construction are all native
oaks. The site is heavily treed with the oaks growing in a crowded grove. Ibis is quite
common for native oaks that rage not been disturbed. The oaks on P.te site are in fair to
good condition with no excellent trees. Poison oak has taken over the property and is in
the canopies of many of the oaks.
The proposed construction will require the removal of several of the oaks. The removed
oaks will be replaced at a rate and size to be determined by the town plannicg. The
remainder of the oaks, with proper tree prorealon will have minor to moderate impacts
ton their root zones and canopies.
Methodoloev
The lot was inspected from the gra.md. 'Che Lees were located on a map provided by
you. Each tree was assigned an identification number. This number was inscribed on a
metal foil tag and nailed to the tree near the around. The trees were then measured for
diameter at 94 inches above ground level (I)BI] or diamete, at breast height). A
condition rating of I —100 was assigned to each tree representing form and vitality using
the following scale:
1 -
29
Very Poor
30 -
49
Pour
=O
- 69
Fair
70
- S9
Good
90
- 100
Excellent
27'55 Films nDr., Les A hos fill, CA Aarit 22, 2006
The height of each tree was estimated and o -c spread oas paced off. ','he location of each
tree was described. Lastly, a com:nenls Becton is :ded. Due to the abundance of
poison oak many of the trees were not tagged and their DBI f ways estimated.
Tree Description/Observation
1: Valley oak (Quercus (cbala)
Diameter. 38.1"
Height: 35' Spread: 0'
Condition: 60 -Fair
Location: In front near Ursula.
Observation: Root cmc ,n is buried by 2' and has been exposed. Some decay from old
large cuts. Good vigor.
2: Blue oak (Quern Douglasii)
Diameter: 25,9"
Height: 35' Spread: 45'
Condition: 65 - Fair
Location: Near Ursula at entrance to neighbors' property.
Observation: multi leader at 4', good v,gor and fair form.
3: Blue oak (Querevs Dauglasir)
Diameter: _12.3'
Height: 45' Spread: 49'
Condition: ', 5 - Gnod
Location Near Ursula at entrance to ueighbors property.
Observatun: Good form and vigor. at edge of neighbor's drive.
4: Valley oak (Queress lobara)
Diameter: 36`est.
Height 45' Spread: 6i'
Condition: 60- Fair
Location: Near chain link fence, near south property fine.
Observation: Codominant at 4' vith included bark.
5: Valley oak (Quercus labara`l
Diameter. 20"ast.
Height 35' Spread: 40'
Condition: 60- Fair
Location: W est propeety line.
Observation: Codominant, poison oak to 25'. Good vigor.
1 RASTRAD�RQ ROAD, FOBrOI e, v4LLYY, lA--23-8
W:r tE1 (6Enj""M Fnx(W,?,t!267
UC ;mrghr CO,,,7 l.'JG, LLC 10.11
wuw.ryned hanmm
_7755 &igenon. tOS Aft"'-H:1ls,to Ap,J -NUS
6: Valley oak( Quercus Wow)
Diameter: 16 -est.
Height: 30' Spread: 2i'
Condition: 55- Par
Location: South side of IOL
Observation: Foliage is sparse, form is Cair, heavy lateral Inmos.
7: Coast live oak (Quercuv agrifob*a)
Diameter: 20"est.
Height- 35` Spread: 30'
Condition: 60- Fair
Location: West property line.
Observation: Vigor is good form is fair, poison oak on nuni:,
8: Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
Diameter. 12-14-14"est.
Height 35' Spread: 35'
Condition: 55 -Fair
Location: Center of property,
Observation: Mufti leader at base, good vigor.
9: Valley aak(Quercus !obatc)
Diameter: 12 -15 -lest -
Height; 40' Spread: 45'
Condition: 65- Fair
Locution: Center of lot
Observation: Codom;r-art at base; good vieor.
10: Coast live aak (Quercus agrrfollQ)
Diameter: 12-1$"est.
Height 35' Spread: 30'
Condition: 60- Farr
Location: Centerotproperty-
Observation: Cood vigor. po`.son oak on Trunk.
11; Blue oak (Quercus Douglarit)
Diameter. 20"esL
Height: 40' Spread: 35'
Condition: 70 - Good
Location: Center of lot
Observation: Good torn and vioor; poison oak. on L unk,
?RSI-iUD3c0 tt�vD, !gRiGLA l!? r1i' Y. G? VDZS-6012. fa {5507126-$i51 � fi4Y !@: p) g:Fl _e�
9Caar'eN MCGi.(iVllrerrCQxwt, %'NC.77720W
v�,w StmMrnaFNrtmm
;-'2 3 D9,62F cv r K=y a 'L35 nc
_'?s551i1.amm�. i.cs Affo N11s,(:A opal _.2609
12: Coast live oak (Querns agrfolia)
Diameter: 12"est.
Height: 15' Spread: 20'
Condition: 55- Fair
Location: Center of property.
Observation: Suppressed; heavy to the east.
13: Blue oak(Quercus Dcaglasu)
Diameter. 12-12"est,
Height 35' Spread: 30'
Condition: 60 - Fair
Location: Center of lot.
Observation: Tall for DBH; upright suppressed.
14: Blue oak (Quercus Douglasie)
Diameter: 12-12"est.
Height 35' Spread: 30'
Condition: 70 - Good
Location: Center of lot
Observation: Multileader at 61
.
15: Blue oak (Quercus DouglasiQ
Diameter: 14.2'.
Height: 30' Spread: 25'
Condition: 75 -Good
Location: Center of lot,
Observation: Good form and fair vigor; ]earls south
16: Blue oak(QueroLs Dmeglasii)
Diameter. 1R"est.
Height 30' Spread: 20'
Condition: 60 -Fair
Location: Center of lot
Observation: Good Vigor ar,d fav form.
17: Coast live oak (Quercua agrifolra)
Diameter: I Vest.
Height: 30' Spread: 25'
Condition: 60- Fair
Location: Center of property.
Observation: Ctidorninant at 4'; vigoris fair.
:'d5'IlL1J[ItC P.O/.tr,:'OR?CL0 YA_i1Y. ;:.4 93(CRiPQ • T'-'(5511 :4`876] .: •.y'65G185' 1-6"
-�''Cm;N �.'C1G8dItlNCpk5LL jA5�, (�,p +btg
277.155 Edgerton, ins Altos ; Iills -A
IS: Valley oak(Quercus lolala)
Diameter: 14"est
Height: 2S Spread: 20'
Condition: 60- Fair
Location: Centerof IoL
Observation: Suppressed,
19: Coast lice oak (Quer= agrifolia)
Diameter: 12"est.
Height; 40' Spread: 35'
Condition: 60- Fair
Location: Center of property.
Observation: Codominant at 4'; form is good; vigor is fair.
20: Coast live oak (Quercus agrifotia)
Diameter: 262'est.
Height* 35' Spread: 40'
Condition: 60- Fair
Loution: Center Of property.
Observation: Vigor is fair fort, is good.
21: Valley oak (Quercus lob,[,)
Diameter. 22"est.
Height: 35' Spread: 30'
Condition: 50- Fair
Location: Center of;oL
Observation: A large w dominant has failed years ace
22: Coast live oak (Quercus agr folia)
Diameter: 12"est.
Height: 40' Spread: 20'
Condition: 55- Fair
Location: Center o`prope: ty.
Observation: Suppressed; =nk leans south then upright.
23: Coast live oak(Quereus agrilofia)
Diameter: 19.1
Height: 40' Spread: 30'
Condition: 60- Fair
Location: Center of property.
Observation: Cadominant at 5' Ault poor crotch formation; vigor is :-air.
AP, 01, 20o6
PiW; ❑41L1t0 ROtp FO?I OSA V' r !A gYrFR' I' iEL {6'I ^'6-S'NI
FAX(W; fi d "
67
GCoPA�N�AfcC1sT(nep LlwSC�T,vp 'C3
n�v mmxkr,Wun uim.
217$5 Edgerton, Lax AI.os l tills, CA
24: Valley oak(Qlersus toba'o)
Diameter. l8"est.
Height: 45' Spread: 40'
Condition: 60- Fair
Location: Center of lot.
Observation: heavy to the south east. good vigor
25: Blue oak (Querc� Dovgluvii)
Diameter: 12"est.
Height -.30' Spread: 35'
Condition: 55 - Fair
Location: Center of lot.
Observation: Foliagethimlackofti9gor
26: Valley oak (Owreus lobata)
Diameter. 28"est.
Height 45' Spread: 60'
Condition: 65- Fair
Location: South east sideof :ot.
Observatiou: Vigor is exd form is fair; heavy lalcral limbs.
27: Valley oak (Quercus lobota)
Diameter: !;'est.
Height: 35' Spread: 20'
Condition: 55- Fair
Location: Southeast side of lot.
Observation: Suppressed by tree =26; poison oak on trunk.
28: Coast Ilre oak (Quercus ogrlfolia)
Diameter. 24"est.
Height 35' Spread: 40'
Condition: 65 -Fair
Location: SouJ},east side of oropery.
Obsenation: Good vieor form is fair.
29: Blue oak(Quercur Douglasn)
Diameter: 30"est.
Height,. 45' Spread: 50'
Condition: 80 - Good
Location: Center of lot.
Obsenation: Good Vigor cnd torn; good crotch formations
April-,2,'OC8
a-2>S-P.4�FIl?
RDA;) PORTJ1,A V,, ZY, U, `FU%Mr. I EL I65111262181 E4X (655' P54 -CS]
G.aFpepb AfaCL5.1'AftIN C'J-Y3'UG?F4v, l.(C2(A
.,. ccl_nxMaan
AP 2 o R_..�..
71-5 Ed„vw, L.v A:.... Hi:I, CA AP-�i x-1_.,00:
.30: Blue oak (Quercus Dou,lusiQ
Diameter. I S'est.
Height: W Spread: 25'
Condition: 60 - Fair
Location: Southeastem side of lot.
Observation; Vigor is fzua foliage is sparse; form is good. Poison oaf: on truck.
31: Blue oak(Quercus Douglasii)
Diameter. 14-14-14"est.
Height -45' Spread:35'
Condition: 55 -Fair
Location: South side of tot.
Observation: Multi at base; lack of vigor.
32: Blue oak (quercus DuuglasH)
Diameter; 121:est.
Height 40' Spread: 20'
Condition: 55 -Fair
Location: Southside of lot.
Obsenation: Suppressedbytreef33.
33: Blue oak (Quercus Dougiasii)
Diameter. 20"est.
Height: 40' Spread: 20'
Condition: 60 - Fair
Location: South side of lot.
Observation: Tal': and narrow; tack of vigor.
34: Blue oak (Quercus Douglcssii)
Diameter. 9D".
Height: 25' Spread: IS'
Condition: 55 - Fair
Location: South side of lot.
Observation: Suppressed by tree X35.
35: Blue oak(Quvrcus Douglavir)
Diameter. 36"est.
Height: 45' Spread: 55'
Condition: 65 - Fair
Location: South side of lot.
Obsen-ation: Abundance of l)werdeadwood.
IARASr,A4l.10ROAD, Iga101A Y4 UY CA 94'i28W2rM1,:65 U) "6.R:i l . 74v' 5nJ) 26'
iE;oprtgbr M<CaEmgdA,A�COXSUL^�G. 1!f p�µ�q
m� S�nK:ICt. ihN.Cam
z.. .., ;., � a.,:. r
KE,ir Kety
27755 Edgeecn, t.cs' Alw, Eills, CA 4pdi 22,' on8
36: Blue oak (Quercies Douglmssii)
Diameter: 28"est..
Height 40' Spread: 35'
Condition: 63 - Fair
Location: South side of lot.
Observation: Suppressed by tree; 35.
37: Blue oak (Quartos Douglassir)
Diameter: 24"est.
Height:40' Spread:40'
Condition: 65 - Fair
Location_ South side of lot.
Observation: Good form; fair vigor.
Tree Protection Plan
Tree Protection Zones
Tree protection zones should he installed and maintained throughoutthe eatire length of
the project_ Fencing for tree protection zones should be 6' tall. metal chain link material
supported by metal 2" diameter poles, pounded into the ground to a depth of no less than
2'. The location for the protective fencing should be as close to the drlpiine of desired
trees as possible, still allowing room for construction to safely continue. No equipment
or materials steal I be stored or cleaned inside the protection zones- Areas outside
protection zones, but still beneath the tree's driplines, where foot traffic is expected to be
heavy, should be mulched with. 4-6" of chipper chips. The spreading of chips will help to
reduce compaction and improve soil structure. The installation of the landscape buffer of
clips will be critical for the rent zone of the oaks.
Root Qritina
Any roots to be cut shall he monitored and documented, large roots (over 2" diameter)
or Into masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the sire arborist. The site arborist
at this time, may recommend irrigation or fertilization ofthe root zone. Alf roots needing
to be cut should be cut clean with a saw or upper. Roots to be left exposed for a period
of Lime should be covered with lavers of burlap and kept moist. Extensive mat cutting is
not expected on this site.
brigation
The oaks on this site should not need any warm season irrigation. If roots of the trees are
cut, irrigation may be recomarended by tie site arborist, Irriamien would consist of
flooding the Foot zone w9.h enough water to wet the eathe root area.
IAR?ST XRoROeU,"TOLA tiALi-Y,C.A94M-FU12. TEL 050)32f.VAI. rte% ffiNp 954-1261
r+.so^aolmvlm�.mc
2"55 Eaeru, Los Altos HNs.CA
AprH 22. 20CS
Trenching
Trenching for irrigation, drainage, etcctrcel or any chef reason shall be done by hand
when inside the dripime of a protected tree. Hand digging and the cerefel placement of
pipes below or besides protected roots will sigtificamly reduce root loss, thus reducing
trauma to he tree. All trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted
to near its original level, as soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of
time, will require the coverina of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The
trenches will also need to be covered with plylvood to help protect the exposed roots.
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound
arboricuitural principles and practices.
We thank you for the opporturiy to be of assistance in your tree preservation concerns.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance in these concerns,
kindly contact our office at any time.
Very truly your,,
McCLENARAN CONSULTING, LLC
By: Kevin R. Kieny
Certified Arbarist, WEd0476A
Member, American Society of Comul ing Arbonsts
U.✓OA'Ii16A 0. UY,G'-.. v40"4111.77 rf> L13 6d at tPxiSer)c a -f 2Et
flCq+vrlRn,MFIF.p'GNdA CO:VSp'i?2+'G i!, 2906
r..w.gyvxrnalmo.acm
4
y�
I
1
]
�1
Attachment 6
February 25, 2009
TO: David Keyon, Associate Planner
FROM: John Chau, Assistant Engineer
RE: McKeegan Residence
27755 Edgerton Road
File# 166-08-ZP-SD-GD
New Residence
At your request, the Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject
property's site development plan using:
Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc. dated
December 10, 2008 and received December 11, 2008.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on our review of the referenced plans, it appears that the project engineer and
designer have generally not met all the requirements of the Engineering Department. The
applicant understands that the proposed project is not in conformance with the Town's
grading policy and is requesting that the project be considered in its current state. The
project does not conform to the grading policy as follows:
a) Up to 13' of fill is proposed for the driveway.
b) Up to 5' of cut is proposed for the fire truck turnaround.
Consequently if the project is approved, we recommend the following conditions of
approval:
1) Peak discharge at 27300 Ursula Lane, as a result of Site Development Permit 166-
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
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 ofplans 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.
2) 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.
3) 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."
4) 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.
5) 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 fust 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.
6) 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 Ursula Lane 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
GreenWaste Recovery, Inc, for the debris box, since they have a franchise with
the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
7) 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
8) The property owner shall dedicate a 30' wide half -width public right of way to
the Town over Edgerton Road and Black Mountain 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 ofplansfor buildingplan check
9) The property owner shall construct a native pathway through the property
connecting Ursula Lane to Edgerton Road to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department prior to final inspection.
10) Two copies of a pathway improvements plans shall be submitted by the property
owner for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to acceptance ofplans
for building plan check
11) The property owner shall dedicate a pathway easement along the proposed native
Pathway to the Town. 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
12) 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.
13)A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health
Department prior to acceptance ofplansfor building plan check.
14) Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final
inspection.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions concerning this letter.
Attachment 7
Planning Commission February 26, 2009 REfENM
Att: David Keyon, Associate Planner
Los Altos Hills Town Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
FEB 26?^"1
MWN 0'r LOS ALTOS HILLS
Re: Your notice of February 24, 2009 in regard to Site Development Permit for 27755
Edgerton Road (proposed address change to 27300 Ursula Lane), #166-08-ZP-SD-GD.
In regard to above mentioned permit application, we hereby submit respectfully following
concerns and comments in regard to the above mentioned development plan. These
comments also take into consideration the Commission's comments and recommendations
at the Commission's meeting on February 5, 2009.
Our own address is i.e. one of the lots right next to the proposed
construction.
1) The chairman of the Commission underlined several time during the last meeting
that the Commission would strongly recommend that the applicant should consult
and seek comments from the neighbors prior to submit a new plan. It has therefore
been a significant disappointment that no such effort has been done by the applicant,
despite he has been informed that a number of professional analyses have been
done on the feasibility to build on the proposed lot.
2) It was underlined by the Commission that the beautiful heritage oak tree on the lot
most be preserved and the house structure remodeled accordingly. Two horticultural
experts have looked at the current suggestion on the lot and it didn't take any of
them more than a very short evaluation to concluded that foundation for the house
in its current suggestion will result in destruction of the tree's roots and death of the
tree in a very short time. Thus, it doesn't appear that the applicant's has made any
effort to come up with a structure that truly will preserve the oak tree it was
underlined by the Commission to preserve.
3) Further, we would like to express our appreciation of the high focus that Commission
members have on the preservation of the beauty and heritage oak trees in Los Altos
Hills. As a long-standing member (+>25 years) of the Scandinavian Royal Academia
of Sciences and Letters Council for preserving forestry and environment with report
to the UN, the effort by the Commission is recognized. This hopefully also include
that the Commission considers the so-called Amazon effect, namely "the more trees
removed the bigger the effort to preserve the existing trees'. Thus, it is clear that a
number of oak heritage trees have had to be removed since the development of Los
Altos Hills started 40-50 years ago, but exactly of that reason we now have to be
particularly careful to preserve. This is a must, just in line with the Amazon principle
which now is been implemented.
4) Finally, our comments in our letter of January 29, 2009, remains unchanged with the
major concerns being i) removal of highly valuable heritage oak trees; ii) the fire
hazard with a construction site and entrance to the planned property from Ursula
Lane; and iii) the disproportionate very large size of the planned structure as
compared to the useable size of the lot. (The letter of January 29, 2009, is
attached).
We will therefore urge the Commission to request the applicant to produce a
construction plan that takes into consideration the issues above, including what the
Commission recommended to the applicant at the last meeting.
Sincerely,
Tatiana and Lennart Olsson
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
21
Planning Commission January 29, 2009
Att: David Keyon, Associate Planner
Los Altos Hills Town Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Your notice of January 23, 2009 in regard to Site Development Permit for 27755
Edgerton Road (proposed address change to 27300 Ursula Dr), #166-08-ZP-SD-GD.
In regard to above mentioned permit application, we hereby request that the Planning
Commission consider following concerns that we, the undersigned, have as a result of
having reviewed the development plans today at the office of Los Altos Hills.
Our own address is i.e. one of the lots right next to the proposed
construction.
First of all, it is positive that the lot at 27755 Edgerton Road (hereafter The Lot) is being
considered for development, as it for years have been a manifest source for poison oak,
other unattractive weeds etc. However, having reviewed the current plans for The Lot,
several major concerns emerge in regard to the specific proposed structure, in particular its
size, the suggested driveway to the house, and the removal of some beautiful oak trees as
described below.
1) The suggested driveway to the structure from Ursula Lane is of major concern:
(i) The proposed driveway is extremely narrow with beautiful oak trees to one side and
the corner of our lot to the other, 2-3 feet away. It seems very clear just
from the experiences we all have with trucks coming to Ursula Lane that
trucks to the proposed driveway will hit the oak tree, our fence etc
repeatedly. Previous engineers and architects evaluating The Lot have all
stated these concerns as prohibitory for building the suggested driveway.
This is also the reason why most realistic suggestions for development of The
Lot have focused on the entrance being from Edgerton Road.
(ii) Also, the construction of the house itself will have to be conducted with turning a
large part (including along our fence towards Ursula Lane) into a construction
area thereby disturbing profoundly the calmness and attraction to live in a
house at Ursula Lane.
(w)Therefore, during the construction, access to the fire hydrant at Ursula Lane may be
limited or even blocked from time to time. That willobviously be absolutely
unacceptable for everybody.
2) Removal of 8 oak trees. We obviously recognize that every new construction will
have to result in removal of a few oak trees. However, the proposed trees to be
removed are some of the trees we enjoy from our house and the view towards the
Bay. Thus, if the suggested trees are removed it will fundamentally change the view
from our house, in particular because the length of the proposed structure. Instead
of the current pleasant mixture of trees, Bay and houses, all major reasons for us to
buy our house, we will look at the proposed construction. Nota positive
development.
'I"* ,,
3) Previous evaluations of The Lot by engineers and architects seem all to have reached
the conclusion that the area of land for development (building a house) on The Lot is
very limited, because of the steep slope of The Lot. Thus, the factual MDA of the lot
is significantly less than lot size, not only because of the slope, but also because a
significant part of the lot is between our lot and the asphalted part of Ursula Lane. It
has therefore been the consensus in previous evaluations that only a smaller house
could be build.
One of the major problems with the current proposal, apart from the entrance from
Ursula Lane and removal of some very beautiful oak trees (previous proposals did
include structures that would allow entrance from Edgerton), is thus that the
proposed structure is to the very maximal size that even would be allowable for a lot,
where the area possible to develop would be a major part of the lot.
4) We understand the "setback" from the address should be 40'. If the address is
changed to Ursula Lane, it seems unclear whether the setback from our fence
towards the front of the proposed house also should be 40'.
In light of these concerns, we kindly request the Planning Commission to recommend
the following changes to the proposed structure:
A) The entrance to The Lot should be at the current address at Edgerton Road as this is
possible to construct and as the proposed entrance from Ursula Lane represents a
non-functional solution that will be very disruptive and negative for the majority of
the houses at Ursula Lane.
B) Suggest to the planner of the structure a small house, thereby also enable
preservation of some of the oak trees, we all enjoy today. Their removal will be a
major disruption of an otherwise very harmonious Nature and environment in a
beautiful part of Los Altos Hills.
Sincerely,
Ta and Lennart Olsson
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
21^I
Attachment S
David Keyon
From:
Kimberly Lee [
Sent:
Friday, February 27, 2009 11:35 AM
To:
David Keyon
Subject:
27555 Edgerton Road proposal
Dear David,
Thank you and your staff for informing us to the upcoming hearing for 27555 Edgerton Road. I was disappointed
to learn that new plans were already submitted to the Commission since there has been no further communication
with the applicant, as was recommended at the February meeting. 1 have seen the revised plans at your office
and have the following concerns:
(1) The proposed home remains at the maximum allowable floor area (nearly 5,000 sgft), when there was clear
concern about whether or not it was APPROPRIATE to apply the MFA given the significant constraints of the lot —
slope, oaks, and proximity to neighbors. Any request for variances (like retaining walls) certainly speak to this fact
and should not be disregarded, and I respectfully request that MFA limits be reviewed.
(2) In addition, the revised plans call for a 2 -level structure across nearly three-quarters of the rear elevation,
increasing the structure's height where it is most visible from our private living quarters — master bath, water
closet, and bedroom. Would it not be feasible to reduce the length or setback the building along the northern
(right) end where it towers over our home and save another majestic tree in the process? This is how our master
suite was designed to preserve a grove of heritage oak trees below.
(3) Given the applicant's lack of consideration for adjacent neighbors, I propose that preliminary Landscaping
Plans also be submitted for consideration prior to start of construction and funds held in escrow for such work.
The fact that all attempts to communicate have consistently been AFTER plans were submitted for approval to the
Commission is incongruous with the actions of an individual committed to the neighborhood or our town for "the
long haul". Once those oak trees are cut, the damage is irreversible. All indications call into question the actions
of this developer/realtor to cooperatively and responsibly build a neighborhood -friendly site without specific
oversight.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kimberly Eng Lee
2/27/2009