Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.15.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 17, 2008 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A 5,735 SQ FT NEW RESIDENCE WITH A 2,845 SQ FT BASEMENT. LANDS OF ROELANDTS; 26401 ESHNER COURT (FILE #255-07-ZP-SD-GD) FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner ;W1 APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Deny the request for a site development permit for the new residence and Grading Policy exception based on the findings in attachment 1. ALTERNATIVE Offer the applicant the option to continue the project and return with a plan that conforms to the Town's Grading Policy. The subject property is a vacant lot located on the western comer of Eshner Court. The lot was created as a part of the Lefevre subdivision in 1998 (parcel map # 711, December 8, 1998). The surrounding uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the west, north and south, and a vacant property across Eshner Court to the east. The applicant proposes to construct a new two story residence with basement and detached garage. CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-2.301 (c) of the Municipal Code, this application for a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The Zoning and Site Development sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate proposed projects including floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height, setbacks, visibility, and parking requirements. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 1.34 acres Net Lot Area: 1.34 acres Average Slope: 20.2% Lot Unit Factor: 1.047 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17,2008 Page 2 of 18 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sgfr) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 12,200• 0 12,177 12,177 23 Floor 5,748 0 5,735 5,735 13 Basement - 2,845 "Includes 500 sq. ft. development area bonus per Section 10-1.502 (b) (6) (Solar Ordinance) Site and Architecture The applicant is requesting the approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a 5,735 square foot two story residence with a 2,845 square foot basement and a detached garage. The property has a moderate to steep sloping hillside from the center to the rear of the lot. The average slope of the property is 20.2%. The proposed residence is located on the steeper portion towards the rear of the property. The new residence meets the setback, height, floor area and development area requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The basement level of the new residence has 2,845 square feet of area which includes a theater, exercise room, game room, equipment room, wine bar, family room, and a bedroom with a bathroom. The basement is wholly underground and exempt from floor area calculations pursuant to Section 10-1.208 of the Municipal Code. The main level has 2,845 square feet of living space with a foyer, living room, a bedroom with a bathroom, officellibrary, dining room, family room, breakfast room, and kitchen. The second level has 2,160 square feet of living space which is comprised of the master bedroom and master bathroom, laundry room, and three (3) bedrooms all with bathrooms. The proposed exterior materials consist of a stucco facade, precast columns, wood stained windows, clay tile roof, and balconies with wrought iron railings. Hei t The applicant has increased the property line setbacks to 39' for the sides and rear and 52' for the front in order to take advantage of increased building height per Section 10-1.504 of the Municipal Code (Attachment 10). The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 29' and the maximum overall height of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) is 29'6". In order to comply with the basement and height ordinance, the architect has designed a detached garage which has no internal connection to the main residence. However, the buildings are connected via a terrace which extends from the iaV Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 3 of 18 fust floor of the main residence over to the roof deck on top of the garage. If the proposed garage is considered a part of the main structure, the project will not comply with the basement ordinance and the overall building height would be 38'6", exceeding the Towns maximum height limit. AM ...... .... U\.i _. .. ... !� petactQ Garage _ - Building Section A -A Nwbed Garage Gradin¢ Policv Exception 38'6" Front Elevation Total grading quantities for this project include 2,950 cubic yards of cut for the house and detached garage, 40 cubic yards of cut for the driveway and 140 cubic yards of fill for the driveway. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed grading plan and concluded that it is not in conformance with the Town's grading policy. , I " Front Elevation Total grading quantities for this project include 2,950 cubic yards of cut for the house and detached garage, 40 cubic yards of cut for the driveway and 140 cubic yards of fill for the driveway. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed grading plan and concluded that it is not in conformance with the Town's grading policy. StafRepon to the Planning Commission Lands ofRoelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2009 Page 4 of 18 The applicant is requesting a grading policy exception for areas along the rear and side of the house. The Towns Grading Policy allows up to 8' of cut for a house excluding basements. The proposed grading occurs on a hillside at the rear of the property and the excavation for the house will result in retaining walls with a height of up to 24'6". The retaining wall includes a cut of 12'6" for the Lightwell and an additional cut of 12' for the upper stories of the house. An expanded lightwell proposed on the north side of the residence requires a cut of up to 16'6'; 10' of cut for the basement and 6'6" for the main level of the house, the retaining wall extends above the natural grade and will be 18' high. W ....-._ Pre-ExQin&Grade ® - Area of Grading Policy Exception Building Section A -A The lightwell proposed for ingress/egress access extends over almost the entire rear (west) side of the house. The widths of the lightwells exceed the 3' minimum required for ingress/egress per the California Building Code. The lightwell width varies between 5' to 11'. According to the Town's Building Official, the length of the proposed lightwell is not required per the California Building Code because ingress/egress access is needed for bedrooms only. 9. Propose igGMel1 5' N 1 -Proposed d _ / - Li I�itwroll ....-._ Pre-ExQin&Grade ® - Area of Grading Policy Exception Building Section A -A The lightwell proposed for ingress/egress access extends over almost the entire rear (west) side of the house. The widths of the lightwells exceed the 3' minimum required for ingress/egress per the California Building Code. The lightwell width varies between 5' to 11'. According to the Town's Building Official, the length of the proposed lightwell is not required per the California Building Code because ingress/egress access is needed for bedrooms only. 9. Propose igGMel1 5' N 1 -Proposed d _ / - Li I�itwroll W Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 5 of 18 The Grading Policy is 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. The proposed design for the retaining walls is far in excess of any other Grading Policy exception requests that have come before the Planning Commission. Staff is unable to make findings of approval for the Grading Policy exception based on the following; • The proposed grading is not in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Element • The proposed grading exceeds the minimum necessary for the new residence • The proposed lightwell is encroaching well into driplines of several heritage oaks • The proposed Grading Policy exception is not consistent with the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-2.702 (c) Recommended Findings of Denial is included as attachment 1. If the Commission decides to approve the project as proposed, conditions of approval in attachment 2 should be cited and staff should be directed to prepare findings of approval for the Grading Policy exception. The applicant has noted that the retaining walls are behind the house and not highly visible from off site. Oak Tree Removal In order to construct the new residence, a total of 2 heritage oak trees in the vicinity of the proposed garage will be removed. Pursuant to Section 12-2.306 of the Municipal Code. Staff recommends replacement of the two (2) heritage oak trees with six (6) 48" box oaks (Condition of approval 4). Trees & Landscaoine There are eight (8) heritage oak trees located along the rear of the property within the vicinity of the proposed expanded lightwell, which may be impacted by the construction. The wall of the lightwell will encroach within the driplines and is as close as 7' from the trunk of the closest oak tree. An arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. dated October 19, 2007 and revised July 7, 2008, has been submitted by the applicant addressing the impacts and tree protection measures for these particular trees. The report states that with the proper tree protection and excavation measures, the trees will survive the construction with minimal stress. (Attachment #8) Staff is including condition of approval # 5 to ensure the tree protection measures suggested by the arborist are followed during the construction of the new residence. Tree # 11, a 25.3" heritage oak Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelan tts 26401 Fshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 6 of 18 tree located to the east side of the proposed circular portion of the driveway was also addressed in separate report dated February 6, 2008. (Attachment #9) To ensure that all remaining significant trees will be protected throughout the construction period, staff has included condition of approval #7 requiring that the trees within the vicinity of the construction be fenced for protection. A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after training of the new residence (condition of approval #3). Furthermore, any landscaping required for screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection, and a maintenance deposit to ensure viability of plantings will be collected prior to final inspection. Driveway & Parkin A new circular driveway is proposed along the front of the property. The required portion of the driveway will he constructed with grasscrete pavers in order to take advantage of a 50% development area credit and will be 14' wide to comply with Fire Department requirements. The remaining portion of the driveway will be constructed with permeable pavers and will not receive a development area credit because it is not required for access or for the fire department access. Pursuant to Section 10-1.601 of the Municipal Code, a total of four (4) parking spaces are required for the new residence. A detached three (3) car garage is proposed at the front of the residence, and one (1) exterior uncovered parking space is located outside the setbacks on the south side of the property. Outdoor Lightine The applicant is proposing 18 frosted lights located on the exterior of the main residence at the doorways. Staff has included condition #11 for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be down shielded or frosted glass, low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted lighting specifications indicating that all proposed fixtures will have frosted glass. Drainage Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected and carried to an onsite grassy swale, then carried into two (2) percolation field trenches located along the northwest and northeast property lines. Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Department will review and approve the final drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as- Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 7 of 18 built" grading and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring a 14' wide driveway and a sprinkler system throughout all portions of the new residence. (Attachment 4) Geotechnical Review The Town's geotechnical consultant Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc has reviewed the soil and foundation report prepared by American Soil Testing, Inc., dated February 15, 2008 and recommends approval of the permit based on the conditions 15 a, b & c. (Attachment 5) Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends restoring the existing roadside pathway to type 2B standards. (Condition #24) The Environmental Design Committee noted that as long as the existing vegetation remains along the side and rear property lines, not reduced in thickness or height, mitigation will be adequate. (Attachment 7) Neighbor Concerns An email from the neighbor at 27150 Julietta Lane was received on July 10, 2008. (Attachment 3) CEOA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Section 15303 (a) Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 8 of 18 1. Findings of denial for the Grading Policy Exception 2. Recommended conditions of approval 3. Email from neighbor at 27150 Julietta Lane dated July 10, 2008 4. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated June 11, 2008 5. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates dated February 15, 2008 6. Recommendations from the Pathways Committee dated March 26, 2007 7. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated December 20, 2007 8. Arborist Report dated October 19, 2007 and Revised July 7, 2008 9. Arborist Report dated February 6, 2008 10. Grading. Policy 11. Basement Ordinance 12. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-1.504 13. Worksheet #2 14. Development plans: site, grading & drainage, floor, MDA & MFA breakdowns, roof plan, elevation, and building sections Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 9 of 18 ATTACHMENT 1 tECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION LANDS OF ROELANDTS, 26401 ESHNER COURT File #225-07-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed grading is not in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.1 which states that "Uses of land shall be consistent with the semi -rural atmosphere of the community, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design and landscaping". In addition, Program 2.2 of the Land Use Element states "Limit grading on hillsides to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures. Structures should be located so that they are consistent with slope contours and compatible with the terrain." The requested grading exceptions exceed the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed new residence. The applicant is requesting a grading exception in order to construct lightwells that are 5' to 11' wide where a 3' wide lightwell would suffice to meet Building Code requirements. The maximum allowable cut for a house per the Town's Grading Policy is 8'. The height of a typical basement lightwell is 8'-10'. The applicant is requesting a grading exception to accommodate 12' of cut for the upper level of the house plus and additional 12'6" of cut for the basement lightwell. The combined total of the retaining wall required for the grading will be 24'6", far in excess of any other Grading Policy exception requests that have come before the Commission. In addition, the proposed 24'6" retaining wall behind the house will encroach within the dripline of several heritage oak trees. Even though the applicant's arborist has provided tree protection and excavation measures to mitigate the potential impacts to the heritage oaks, it appears that the house can be relocated farther away from the west property line to lessen the potential impacts to the heritage oak trees. The subject property is not unique in its size, shape or topography which would prevent the design of a new residence and associated lightwells and retaining walls which would minimize disturbance to natural terrain and natural vegetation. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 10 of 18 2. The proposed grading exception is not consistent with Section 10-2.702 (c) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code which states that "The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape. The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings. Additional grading may be allowed for the purpose of lowering the profile of the building provided that at the completion of the project the visual alteration of the natural terrain is minimized. The removal of vegetation and alteration of drainage patterns shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed structure." One of the reasons for the requested grading exception is to site the house at an elevation where the entire basement level of the new residence would be exempt from floor area calculations. The additional cut requested will not serve to lower the profile of the house because the additional cut will not result in a building with a single story appearance as viewed from off-site. In addition, the siting of the proposed detached garage will result in portions of the house having the appearance of a 3 story facade as viewed from Eshner Court. Stall Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 11 of 18 ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT LANDS OF ROELANDTS, 26401 ESHNER COURT File # 255-07-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise fust reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. mdis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final inspection of the new residence. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Site Development Committee. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. 4. The applicant shall replace the two (2) heritage oak trees to be removed with six (6) 48" box oaks prior to final inspection. 5. The applicant shall follow the arborist reports dated October 19, 2007 and revised on July 7, 2008 and February 6, 2008 with tree protection measures for the eight heritage oak trees located along the rear Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Fshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 12 of 18 property line adjacent to the fightwell. The applicant shall submit a report from a certified arborist regarding the health of the trees # 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 22 and that the tree protection measures suggested by the arborist were followed during the construction. If any of these trees die due to the impacts of the construction, they shall be replaced at a 3 to 1 ratio of 48" prior to final inspection. 6. 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. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly the heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. 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 new residence and roof eaves are no less than 52' from the front property line and 39' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection. 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, measured as the vertical distance at any pointfrom 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, Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 13 of 18 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. 10. No fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 11. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on sheet A2.1.There shall be one light per door or two for double doors. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 12. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and consmucted to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 13. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 14. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 15. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated February 15, 2008, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Grading, Drainage, and Landslide Mitigation Plan- a revised grading, drainage, and landslide mitigation plan shall be prepared depicting the proposed landslide mitigation measures as well as all surface and subsurface drainage collection and dissipation structures. All isolation piers or other mitigation measures to address slope stability issues should be specifically designed, depicted, and detailed on the plans. A note on the grading plan should indicate that all excavations for the proposed residence and project fill placement require inspection and approval by the project geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill materials. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofRoelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 14 of 18 Appropriate documentation to address the above item shall be submitted to the Town, for review by the Town Engineer, prior to acceptance ofplansfor buildingplan check b. Geotechnical Plan Review — The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of all final project building and grading plans (i.e. site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, isolation piers and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been property incorporated. For conformance with prevailing local standards of geotechnical practice, consideration should be given to minimum pier reinforcement. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant and engineering geologist in letters and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check C. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Due to the large excavation for the proposed basement, the project engineering geologist shall observe the excavation during construction to identify any previously unanticipated conditions and provide appropriate supplemental rerommendations, as necessary. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., dated February 15, 2008. 16. Peak discharge at 26401 Eshner Court, as a result of Site Development Permit 255-07, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 15 of 18 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. 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 6-8 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 (ofinal 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 Eshner Court and surrounding roadways, storage of construction Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roe1writs 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 16 of 18 materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 21. The properly 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 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 be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer hook up permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. 24. The properly owner shall restore the existing road side pathway to type 2B standards prior to final approval. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 25. 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. 26. The applicant shall provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14', vertical clearance of 13'6", minimum circulating turning radius of 36' outside and 23' inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Esher Court July 17, 2008 Page 17 of IS CONDITION NUMBERS 14, 15, a, b, 16, 19, 20, 21, and 23 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of this notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after August 9, 2008 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until July 17, 2009). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiting a building permit shall be commenced within one yew and completed within two year. Attachment 3 Nicole Horvitz From: Rebecca -Sen Chan [ Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:57 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: Roelandt/Eschner Court To: Planning Commission Public Hearing Re: Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eschner Court In the response to the letter informing us of the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, 17 July 2008, we would request to have our concerns heard regarding the new structure. Our concerns would include the listed variances including height of the new structure and grading of the land, removal of heritage oak trees and all other vegetation and the character and style of the new structure. We have very serious concerns that the new structure greatly impacts our privacy. We would like to discuss the possibilities of immediate planting of large screening trees and vegetation to protect our privacy. Sincerely, Chi-Foon and Rebecca -Sen Chan R - It PrR L', 9M. -M N _ m l 11 a r I / r 1 ' r .fI .! CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended LAHMC CFC Sec. 508.3, per Appendix B FIRE DEPARTMENT REP,' aF�a SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUN 17 2008 1 00 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 0 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) hKff&r TOS HILLS APLANPEVIEVIo REVIEW COMMENTS FEANR" REQUFENUFT Attachment 4 08 1674 of a proposed new 7,850 square foot 2 -story single family residence with an J garage and basement. NOTE: plans are to be reviewed under the 2007 If the California Fire Code. project is located within the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire . The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California ling Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final aval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan 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 designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, alculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department or review and approval prior to beginning their work. red Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2,500 gpm at 20 psi residual ire. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) are spaced at the required spacing. LAH ® ❑ N ❑ ❑ R-3, U V -B AcBh Civil Engineers 6/11/2008 1 1 aE 2 SECh Oe I MEA LONG JO RIV N Residential Construction F Harding, Doug SFR-ROELANDTS 126401 SerWny Los Afros Hills,, a L. Gams, Monro Sereno, Morgan Hill, anddSamtoga Altos, ao¢.sEe. sNEET xo. xx<auwexs:xr sec. I C Sc. 503 FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Bhd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 -1408) 378-9342 (lax) • wynv.sccrd.org PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS rthan 150 fee fire hydrants. muro.swwq nw.dn.d az..ry xeiuiew" 081674 Ne. — e Na vsxrsrr w Portions of the structure(s) are centerline of the roadway containing _. As a fire sprinkler system is already required by other provisions of the fire department access must extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the ire and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story as measured by an ved route around the exterior of the building. ooaratus (Enaine)Access Driveway Re ulred Provide an access ray with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, d clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating fuming radius of 36 feet e and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations *nform to Fre Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. ": The circular drive configuration is not required to acherve compliance with this must specify that a compliant fire sprinkler system will be Installed how fire department access will be provided to all protions of the ns not approved. not Issue Building Permit. AH ® ❑ N ❑ ❑ 1 R-3, U I V -B I Ac&h Civil Engineers Residential Construction SFR- ROELANDT S 6/11/2008 Serung Santa Gam County and the comm nixes of Campbell, Cupertino, ins Altos, Las Altos Hills, Los Caton, Mono Serena, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga Harding, Doug Attachment 5 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS February 15, 2008 L0357A RECEIVED TO: Nicole Horvitz Assistant Planner FEB 19 noo TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Roelancits, New Residence. #255-07-ZP-SD-GD 26401 Eshner Court At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the subject permit application for the proposed new residence using: • Engineering Geologic Update (letter), prepared by Steven F. Connelly, CEG, dated February 4, 2008; . • Proposed New Residence (letter), prepared by GeoForensics, Inc., dated February 5, 2008; • Architectural Plans (7 sheets, various scales), prepared by CAS Architects, Inc., dated November 29, 2007, last revised January 30, 2008; and • Grading and Drainage Plan, Topo Survey (2 sheets, 16 -scale), prepared by A.C. & H. Civil Engineers, dated January 2008. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files (Yanez, L0033) and completed a recent site inspection. DISCUSSION Based on our review of the referenced documents, we understand that the applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story residence with partial daylighting basement and associated improvements. We were provided with estimated earthwork quantities of 2,800 NoMnn Off. Ofexe C.W California Office 330 VMg. lane 64171logto.Road Los Gatos. CA95a36T118 San Andwa, CA95249-9690 (408) 3545542 • Fax (408) 359-1852 (209) 7364252 • Pax (209) 7361212 .fl: losgatos@Pcoito,uhires.mm www.cottonshires.com e- :mttonsbls starband.net Nicole Horvitz February 15, 2008 Paget L0357A cubic yards of cut and 110 cubic yards of fill, with a net export of 2,690 cubic yards of material. Access to the proposed development is to be provided by a new driveway extending from Eshner Court in the northeastern portion of the site. In our previous review letter, dated December 12, 2007, we recommended that a number of items be addressed prior to geotechnical approval. These items included seismic loading design criteria for the wall upslope of the residence, evaluating the drainage dissipater located in the mapped old landslide, and clarifying setback or isolation pier mitigation measures addressing the hazard posed by the mapped old landslide. CON _CLi�5ION5 AND, RECOMMEND - AC17t�N Proposed site development is potentially constrained by anticipated very strong to violent seismic ground shaking, potentially expansive soils, potentially unstable existing cut slopes, mapped landslide areas, and small areas of potentially non -engineered fill. It appears that the Project Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer have, in general, satisfactorily characterized site earth conditions, and provided appropriate geotechnical design recommendations to address identified site constraints. Based on our review of the referenced documents, we conclude that the currently proposed isolation pier walls have addressed the previously recommended landslide mitigation measures. However, because the southern portion of the driveway loop is still located within the mapped limits of the old landslide, the applicant should be willing to accept possible damage to that portion of the driveway due to potential renewed movement of the mapped old landslide. If this is not acceptable, then the Project Geotechnical Consultant should recommend appropriate measures to stabilize the southern portion of the loop driveway. We concur with the consultant's recommendation to relocate the drainage dissipater at least 30 feet away from the margin of the mapped old landslide. We do not have other geotechnical objections to the layout and design of the proposed development. Given the above understanding regarding the driveway, we recommend geotechnical approval of permit applications for the proposed development, with the following conditions: 1. Grading, Drainage and Landslide Mitigation Plan - A revised grading, drainage, and landslide mitigation plan should be prepared depicting the proposed landslide mitigation measures as well as all surface and subsurface drainage collection and dissipation structures. All isolation piers or other mitigation measures to address slope stability issues, should be specifically designed, depicted, and detailed on the plans. A note on the grading plan should indicate that all excavations for the proposed residence and project fill placement require inspection and COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz February 15, 2008 Page 3 L0357A approval by the Project Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of fill materials. Appropriate documentation to address the above item should be submitted to the Town, for review by the Town Engineer, prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check. 3. Geotedmical Plan Review — The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of all final project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, isolation piers and retaining walls) to ensurc that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. For conformance with prevailing local standards of geotechnical practice, consideration should be given to minimum pier reinforcement. The results of the plan reviews should be summarized by the Geotedmical Consultant and Engineering Geologist in letters and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documents for building permit plan -check. 4. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotedmical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Due to the large excavation for the proposed basement, the Project Engineering Geologist should observe the excavation during construction to identify any previously unanticipated conditions and pmvide appropriate supplemental recommendations, as necessary. 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 (granting of occupancy) project approval. COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz Page 4 LIMITATIONS February 15, 2008 L0357A This 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 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 CEG 1795 David T. Sclmer Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 6 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee APPROVED Minutes of Meeting March 26, 2007 L ADMINSTIIATIVE Chairman Ginger Summit called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM Members present Arora BTmrzll, Courtenay Corrigan, Nick Dunckel, Nancy Ginzton, Ginger Summit, Bill Silver, Chris vargas, Jolon Wagner and Sue Welch Members absent Bob Stutz Members of public present Carol Gottlieb Brian Kelly, owner of 24221 Hillview Road Brad and Mark Bladanart, West Fremont Project, LLC The agenda was approved as amended below. 2. NEW BUSINESS A. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: 25893 Fremont Road (lands!2f West Fremont Proect LLQ The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. Brad and Mark Blackman were present. Fremont is designated in LAH Resolution 38-96 as a two-sided road (i.e., to have roadside pathways on both sides of the road). The property is a flag lot at the end of a long, narrow driveway. There we no connections to off-road pathways on the property. Anna Brunzell moved that the PWC recommend But the Town collect a pathway in. lieu fee from the -owners of 25893 Fremont Road. Bill Silver seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. u. 26940 Orchard Hill Lae (Lands of Covell). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. Orchard Hill is a cul-de-sac with 11 properties. An e)dsting off-road path runs west off the end of Orchard Hill Road. Currant PWC road- side path maps recommend the roadside path be on the opposite side of the road from this property. Bill Silver moved that the Town collect a pathway in -lieu fee from the owners of 26940 Orchard Hill Lane. Anna Bnunzell seconded- The vote was unanimously in favor. ill. 10250 Magdalena Road (Lan f Komol The property is a flag lot with a long narrow drive off the south side of Magdalena Road. The driveway serves only this property. The west border of the property abuts Lone Oak Lane. There is a IIB path on the opposite side of Magdalena from the drive. Bill Silver moved that the Town collect a pathway in-Eeu fee from the owners of 10250 Magdalena Road. Bob Stutz seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. iv. 24221 Hillview Rod (Lands of K 4). Brian Kelly arrived after the PWC had made its recommendation. The property is located on the north-east side of Hillview Road. Current PWC road -side path maps recommend the roadside path be on the opposite side of the road from this property. Anna Bnrnzell moved that the Town collect a pathway in -lieu fee from the owners of 24221 Hillview Road. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. Ree r V. 26401 F hn our[ (Lands of H%rs)). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The property is a short cul-de-sac off Altamont serving three properties. AppPWC_Min_032607 A IIB roadside pathway was constructed on the property, but is in disrepair; it is over grown with weeds and need resurfacing and other work This pathway continues on the adjacent property and forms a useful connector that takes pedestrians off Altamont. Nancy Ginzton moved that the owners of 26401 Balmer Court restore the existing roadside pathway to IIB standards. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. B. San lose Pedestrian and Bfcvcle Advisory Committee. Anna Br 11, PWC representative to the San Jose Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee reported that BPAC requires that a second representative be appointed as a back-up for her. The meeting is once a month and covers pedestrian access issues for all kinds of roads. Representatives have an opportunity to advocate for pedestrians throughout Santa Clara County, including those in low-income areas where pedestrian -friendly infrastructure is often lacking. Chairman Summit offered to be the back-up representative and Bill Silver and Courtenay Corrigan both offered to back-up Ginger - 4;. Earth Day Celebration at West Wind Ban The PWC will set up an information table at the Earth Day celebration at West Wind Barn on Sunday, April 22 from 1:00 to 400 PM. Bill Silver volunteered to set up the table; Anna Bnmzell will staff it from 1:00 to 200; Courtenay Corrigan from 2:00 to 4:00, and Nick Dunckel from 3:00 to 4:00. PWC members are also needed to help register participants in the Fun Run on Saturday May 12, 2007. Scott Vanderlip is again organizing this event, which usually rends from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM. Chairman Summit volunteered to help with this. 3. OLD BUSINESS A. Pathway in -lieu fees. The Town's method for calculating pathway in -lieu fees was reviewed at the February meeting.. The current formula for the fee is $50 times the average width of the property in feet; for a one -are lot this is about $10,000; for a two -acre lot, about 15,000; and for a three -acre lot about $17500. Town Planning staff sent a copy of the method they use for estimating the average width of a lot. Planning staff has asked the PWC to comment on their proposal to change the formula to $50 times the square root of the area of the property (in square feet). The committee discussed the pros and cons of various formulas for calculating m -lieu fees and the best way to make fees fair and equitable. Issues discussed included: • whether the fee should be based on the number of residents living on a property, the habitable development area, the total development area, or total lot area • whether the fee should increase in direct proportion to the lot area or as the square root of the lot area • whether a pathway fee should be collected each time a property is sold. Nancy Ginzton suggest that a table be prepared showing property square footage and the corresponding pathway in -lieu fee. Arms Brunzell expressed concern that some property owners must spend significantly more money than others to construct pathways on or adjacent to their properties because of topography or other reasons. She suggested that all property owners pay the same fee (exact formula to be established) into a Town fund, and that the Town then is responsible for construction for pathways. This method would be more equitable and would allow the town to have more control over pathway construction. A disadvantage is that construction crews already working on site at a property can often construct a new pathway much more cheaply than contractors brought in specifically for path work. Arena Br nizeil will draft a proposal for this method for committee review. AppPWC_Min_032607 Environmental Design and Protection CommittSEC 2 0 2007 Attachment 7 TOWN OF Lai ALTOS HILLS New Reside /Remodel Evaluation TMOWJ Reviewed by: S . Date 12.20 .� Applicant nn Name eyi-L-AI.iD L S Address d.6 40 c iS flu ZR CCItJ 2T. Site impact/lighting/noise: Creeks, drainage, easements: Existing Vegetation: Significant issues/comments: Attachment 8 Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STA CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 216/93. CERTIFIED FORESr1R CERTIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON 535 BRAGATD ROAD, SM A P=mt SAN CA S, CA 99p70. = 3FEOFIEY EJOALLS T1].FPHONE: (659) 593J000 CONS=AM/ 'MN R FACSIMILE: (W).59314A3 October 19, 2007 EMAIL: inPommaYnw�.wm (Revised July 7, 2008) Mr. Shad Shokralta P.O. Box 3104 Los Altos, CA 94024 Dear Mr. Shokralla, RE: 26401 ESHNER CT., Los ALTos HILLS On September 10, 2007, at your request, I visited the above site. The purpose of my visit was to inspect and comment on the trees at this site. Method Each tree was given an identification number that is scribed on a metal foil tag placed at eye level on the trunk- This number has also been placed on a corresponding site map showing:its approximate location on the property. The height of each tree was estimated and the canopy spread was paced off to find the approximate width. A condition rating has been given to each tree for form and vitality using the following table: 0 — 29 Very Poor 30 — 49 Poor 50 — 69 Fair 70 — 89 Good 90 — 10O Excellent Lastly, a comments section is included to give more individualized detail for each tree. 26401 Eshnw CL, Los Altos Hills - 2 - October 19, 2007 (Rev. July 7, 2008) Tree Survey Tree Species DBH Condition Height Sprea Comments ti (inches) (percent) (feet) d (feet) 1 Coast Live 9.8 65 25 24 Sycamore borer present on trunk. Root Oak crown covered; slight lean. 2 Black 15.6 55 25 42 Root crown covered; codominant top @ 6' Walnut with included bark. Leans toward road. 3 Black 19.6 65 30 45 Root crown covered; good form; healthy Walnut full canopy. 4 Blade 15.9 50 30 42 Root crown covered; epicormic sprouts Walnut around base. Several old cuts around base; codominant top @ 7. 5 Valley Oak 47.4 60 55 117 Long heavy branches with several old wounds from failed leaders. Ganodarma appfanatum present at base. Several cavities present on limbs throughout canopy, root crown partially covered. 6 Coast Live 35.3 65 60 81 Root crown partially covered. Some Oak oozing @ base; slight lean uphill. Long heavy branches; two large cavities on lateral leader. 7 Coast Live 23.3 40 25 39 Large broken leader hanging in canopy Oak causing a hazard; root crown covered. Severe uphill lean; 3 large cavities on trunk @ 4', 5' & 8'. Poor form. 8 Coast Live 27.6 45 25 66 Root crown covered; severe uphill lean. Oak Sycamore borer present on trunk; heavy branches prone to failure. 9 Coast Live 23.7 55 35 36 Root crown covered; three stem top @ 4'; Oak sycamore borer present. 10 Coast Live 15.3 50 35 36 Twostem @ base; root crown covered. Oak Bay saplings growing @ base; healthy canopy. 11 Coast Live 25.3 60 25 54 Codominant leaders @ 3' with included. Oak bark. Root crown covered; sycamore borer present. Stub from old cut is resprouting epiconnic shoots; healthy canopy. 12 Coast Live 21.3 50 25 35 Four -stem @ base; several olive saplings Oak growing around base. Abundance of interior deadwood; healthy canopy. 13 Unknown We Na n/a n!a Has been removed. I 26401 Eshner a, Los Altos Hills - 3 - October 19, 2007 (Rev. July 7, 2008) Tree Species DBH Condition Height Spree Comments # (inches) (percent) (feet) d (feet) 14 Coast Live 24.2 65 30 54 Good foliar canopy; abundance of interior Oak deadwood; approximately 10' away from the proposed light well. 15 Coast Live 14.3 5o 30 27 Slight lean to the south; root crown Oak covered; about 11' away from proposed light well. 16 Coast Live 17.5 55 30 30 Northeast lean; root crown covered, about Oak 8' away from the proposed light well; codominant top at 18'. 17 Coast Live 13.8 45 30 33 Codominant stem at T; abundance of Oak large deadwood. 18 Coast Live '9.7 45 30 18 Codominant top at 20'; slight northeast Oak lean; about 10' from proposed light well; root crown covered. 19 Coast Live - 17.0 40 15 42 Two -stem at 4'; poor form; abundance of Oak deadwood about 14' from proposed right well; root crown covered. 20 Coast Live 14.3 55 30 45 Two -stem at base; root crown covered; Oak smaller stem has a strong northwest lean; about 14' from proposed light well. 21 Coast Live 13.4 50 30 36 Several codominant tops with included Oak bark; abundance of deadwood. 22 Coast Live 11.1 45 25 42 Strong northeast lean; abundance of Oak deadwood; about 14' away from proposed light well; root crown covered. Tree Protection Plan Tree protective fencing should be established at, or as near as possible to, the driplines of all trees that are to remain on the property, while still allowing construction activities to continue safely. This fencing should consist of 4 -foot tall orange plastic supported by metal posts pounded into the ground. No construction equipment or materials shall be stored inside the protected areas nor shall any equipment or materials be cleaned there. Trenching for;any reason inside the dripline of any tree should be dug by hand to minimize the damage to the roots. Exposure of any roots over 2 inches in diameter shall be left uncut until the site arborist can inspect, document, and make a final decision as to the fate of the root All roots to be cut should be cut cleanly with a pair of hand pruners; toppers, or a handsaw. Any roots to be exposed longer than 8 hours should be covered with burlap or a similar material and kept moist until backfilled. 26401 Esher U., Los Altos Hills -4- Odobw 1.9, 2007 (Rev. July 7, 2008) Trees numbered fourteen through twenty-two, located along the back fence, will be partially impacted by the constriction of the light wells. Because the nearest point of excavation to;any one trunk (tree number sixteen) is about seven feet away the maximum impacted root zone will be twenty-five to thirty percent This includes the over dig that is needed to create the final edge of the light well. For trees that are twelve feet or more away, the impacted root zone is about fifteen percent These distances create the possibility of retaining these trees and allowing the construction of the light wells.to continue. When the excavation of this area is started, excavation within the dripline of any of these trees shall be dug by hand to a depth of five feet or to a depth where no large lateral roots exist Because most coast live oaks are rooted only on the top four to five feet of the soil, any excavation beyond that depth should have little to no impact on the health of the trees. The type of excavation being proposed is a concrete wall with tiebacks drilled into the soil. The depth of this wall will be about eighteen feet below the natural grade; All roots that need to be cut should be cut cleanly with a pair of loppers, hand pruners, or a handsaw back to the wall of excavation. If the excavated roots are to be left exposed for longer than an eight-hour period, then burlap or a similar material shall be placed on tope of the root Keeping this material moist will help The exposed roots to stay healthy and reduce evaporation in the newly exposed surface area. Conclusion All trees that are to remain on the property should be far enough away from constriction to be only minimally affected by the upcoming construction. If the free protection plan is followed, I believe that the trees will survive this project with minimal stress. I believe this report is accurate and is based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, s 44 P Jeromey A. Ingalls mig a Certified Arborist WE 97075A 9 JAi:pmd �ogno-- " aacY RECE1VEQ Attachment 9 juL 03 20 TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTORS LICENSE N0.276793 GRADUATE FORESTER CERTIFtFDARBORISrS PESTCONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A RICHARD L HUNTINCTON SANCARLOS. CA 94070-6229 PRESIDENT TELEPHONE: (650) 5934400 KEVIN R KIELTY February 6, 2008 FACSIMILE: (650)593) 3 oRRRA $ M AGm EMAIL 6do@rnw arec.m Mr. Shad Shokralla P.O. Box 3104 Los Altos, CA 94024 Dear Mr. Shokralla, RE: 26401 ESHNER Cr., Los ALTOS HRLs The purpose of this letter is to discuss the impending driveway construction around a mast live oak, tree #11. The driveway is planned to be within 10 feet of the trunk of tree #11; the tree will be downhill from the edge of the driveway. Due to these issues, a tree well will need to be formed around the trunk of the tree, as dose to the edge Of the driveway as possible while still allowing traffic to move safety. (See Figure 1) This well is essential in protecting the main part of the tree's root zone. The sides of the tree well shall be made of dry -stacked stone or a similar interlocking retaining wall. The grade directly around the tree should be kept as natural as possible. Care should be taken to make sure water flows away from the trunk If water collects or funnels toward the trunk, the overall health of the tree will be in jeopardy. In summary, by establishing a tree well, only a small percentage of the tree's root zone will be affected by the grade change. I believe this report is accurate and is based on sound arborimltural principles and practices. Since ly, Jero ey A. Ingalls Certified Arborist WE #7076A JAI:pmd 264D1 ahner Ct., Los ARos H91s -2- February 6, 2008 Attachment 10 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS WSAlf MM 26379 Fremont Road �^ Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 v .losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council - 4/2197 Code Sections: Section 10-2.702® 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 malting recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding site development applications, and as guidance for applicants. Individual sites may dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Grading Policy Page 2 Policy. 1. Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step down" the hill*: Cut Fill House 8'** 3' Accessory Bldg. 4' 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8) for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. Attachment 11 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Losmlius 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 MM -1 wvi Josaltoshllls.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Basement Ordinance Effective Date: 9/1/06 Sec. 10-1.208 Basement 'Basement' shall mean a floor level, or portions thereof, which has: (1) all portions directly below abuilding, and (2) the finished floor elevation of the building level above shall not be greater than twenty- eight (28'� inches above the adjoining natural or finished grade, whichever is lower; and (3) have at least 3 sides, or at least 75% of its perimeter length wholly underground. That side of the basement not wholly underground shall not be located on any side of a lot abutting one side of a road Daylighted basements shall comply with all height and setback requirements of this ordinance. Basements including cellars and bunkers, which are not located within the footprint of the building above, may be, permitted by the Planning Commission when it finds that such structures do not encroach in setbacks, are a minimum of 18 inches below natural grade, are wholly underground except for required exiting, lighting and ventilation and are counted as development area except when placed under a surface already counted as development area. Note: Daylighted basements shall comply with the Town's grading policy. The Grading Policy is used by staff in evaluating 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. Floor Area Definition "Floor area" shall mean the gross horizontal area of the several floors of all buildings, including garage space and carport space, measured to the outside of exterior walls. Floor area is counted twice when the vertical distance between the upper surface of the floor, and the upper surface of the floor or the underside of the roof directly above it, is greater than seventeen (17) feet. That portion of an attic is considered floor area when the distance between the upper surface of the attic floor and the underside of the roof above it is seven (7) feet in height. For the purposes of this definition, all attic spaces are considered to have floor surfaces. Area meeting the definition of a basement is exempted from floor area (Effective date: March 7, 2002) Policy: Basement Ordinance Page 2 BASEUENT EXAMPLES µeq I Ipr i '41 1°lift 4 143 NaWral p d Grad. NaN21 1' Story 1° 5U)"Y =rode_ EL 239.52' Finish k= = G.de Floor Area e Finish SECTION Grade O3 sides, or at least + �( 75% at perimeter ,M�j;yh IengM wl,aly. 4d+side or 25% of 9 pedmeter length Natural id Story Backfill Grade till, Ar. 1 Area Floor Area 1 Not Basement L______ __ IEL 239.52' Finish PLAN Grade BASEMENT RETAINING WALL I AND FLOOR FRAME DETAIL I I - 1 wwaar sut Finished floor elevaflon of the n building level above shall not be i greater than twenty-eight (28) t— inches above the adjoining s natural or finished grade, bas®mt whichever is lower. m<.mm mau W 'Sec. 10-1.504. Height. Attachment 12 TITLE 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT" CHAPTER 1 ZONING Sec. 10-1.504. Height. (a) Structures. No structure or part of a structure shall be constructed or altered to exceed twenty-seven (27') feet in structure height in any permitted location, except that primary dwellings shall be permitted a maximum structure height of up to thirty-two (32') feet subject to all of the following requirements: (1) For each one (1') foot increase in structure height above twenty-seven (27') feet the minimum required side and rear yard setback lines, as defined by Section 10-1.505, shall each be increased, in distance from the property line, an additional three (3') feet. No portion of the primary dwelling structure shall be located between the property line and the setback line. (2) For each one (1') foot increase in structure height above twenty-seven (27') feet the minimum required front yard setback line, as defined by Section 10-1.505, shall be increased, in distance from the property line, an additional four (4') feet. No portion of any structure shall be located between the property line and the setback line. (3) Eligible structures shall have sloped roof surfaces only with a minimum roof pitch of 4:12 that terminate at a ridge. (4) The maximum continuous wall height shall not exceed twenty-seven (27') feet. (5) Dormer rooflines shall not exceed a maximum height of twenty-seven (27') feet. (6) The current maximum overall building height of thirty-five (35') feet, as described in subsection (b) below, shall not be exceeded. (b) Special height limitation. No structure shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35') feet, measured as the distance between the lowest natural grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure. No point of the building may exceed thirty-five (35') feet above the lowest pad elevation of the building. (c) Exceptions. The following structures or elements of structures are exempt from the height limits to the extent indicated: (1) Chimneys and appurtenances can extend above the twenty-seven (27') foot height limit. However, the maximum height including chimneys and appurtenances shall not exceed thirty-five (35') feel and all points of the building must lie within a thirty-five (35') foot horizontal band based from the lowest visible natural or finished grade. (d) Walls and fences. Wall or fences (herein referred to collectively as "fences") shall not exceed a maximum height of six (6') feet when located between setback lines and property lines, provided, however, the height of any fence along a road shall be determined by the openness of the fence and its distance from a "reference line," and provided, further, that no fence shall be erected on the roadway side of the "reference line." (1) The "reference line" for a fence along any road shall be: (i) The existing right-of-way boundary line, or (it) A line located thirty (30') feet from the centerline of the right-of-way of the road, whichever is farthest from the centerline of the road. (2) The maximum height of a fence erected on the "reference line" for that fence shall be: (1) Three (3') feet for a fence with less than fifty (50%) percent open area (when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence). (ii) Four and one-half (41/2') feet for a fence with no less than fifty (50%) percent open area. (3) The maximum height of a fence erected on the property side of the "reference line" may be increased by one (1') foot for each ten (10') feet the location of the fence is moved from the "reference line" for that fence, provided, however, no fence shall exceed a maximum height of six (6') feet when located between the "reference line" for that fence and the structural setback line httD://www.bpcnet.com/codes/losaltoshifs/_DATA/TITLE 10/CHAPTER_1_ZONING/S... 7/11/2008 Sec. 10-1.504. Height. Page 2 of 2 . . for the property on which the fence is located. (4) Walls or fences shall not exceed a maximum height of three (3') feet in an area bounded by the center line of intersecting roads or easements for vehicular access, public or private and a straight line joining points on such center lines eighty (80') feet distant from their intersection in order to provide an unobstructed view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roads. The Planning Commission may prescribe greater restrictions than the height set forth in this paragraph where unusual conditions make such additional restrictions desirable in the interests of the public safety. (e) Trees and shrubs. In an area bounded by the center line of intersecting roads or easements for vehicular access, public or private, and a straight line joining points on such center lines eighty (80') feet distant from their intersection, all shrubs and plants shall be pruned to a height not to exceed three (3') feet above the road level at its nearest point. All side limbs of trees in such area shall be pruned to a height of not less than six (6') feel above the road surface. The purpose of the provisions of this section is to provide an unobstructed view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roads. The Planning Commission may prescribe greater restrictions on the heights and distances set forth in this section where unusual conditions make such additional restrictions desirable in the interests of public safety. (f) Ornamental garden structures. Ornamental garden structures without roofs and which do not exceed six (6') feet in height may be located between property lines and setback lines provided they do not exceed three (3') feet in height when located in an area bounded by the center line of intersecting roads or easements for vehicular access, public or private, and a straight line joining points on such center lines eighty (80') feet distant from their intersection. (g) Antennas and dish antennas. No antenna, whether freestanding or attached to a building, shall be erected or installed until any permit required by Section 10-2.301 shall first have been obtained and the allowable height thereby determined. The height to which any antenna may be extended, whether freestanding or attached to a building, shall mean the vertical distance at any point from the natural ground level of the property on which the antenna is erected or installed and which existed prior to grading for any structure, or from any building pad on the property if excavated below natural ground level, whichever elevation is lower, to the highest part of the antenna directly above. (h) Driveway light fixtures. Driveway light fixtures may extend no more than one (1') foot above the height limit for walls and fences as specified in Section 10-1.504(d). (1) The standards set forth in this section for height are maximum standards. The City Council and Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce height where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances and Design Guidelines are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include, but are not limited to, the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development, or high site visibility. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 326, eff. September 16, 1988; § 4, Ord. 370, eff. May 20.1994; § 3, Ord. 389, eff. August 15,1997; § 1, Ord. 421, eff. August 17, 2002) htto://www.bvenet.com/wdes/losaltoshills/ DATA/TITLE10/CHAPTER 1 ZONING/S... 7/11/2008 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HIL. RECEIVED Attachment 13 PLANNING DEPARThUM E_ Ist Road •Los Altos Hills, California EE • (650) 941-7232 •PAX (650) 941-3160 0WORKSHEET #2 1UN 20 2008 STING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND PIMM [ ULT03 HILLS • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNERS NAME Wim Fb6a-nits and MW4 Cbmta-Wft PROPERTY ADDRESS 26401 �.shoer C% s Al+os Rifts (-A �Mb22 CALCULATED BY C -4r✓ Archi{e-c+& , 1l)C DATE Co/2.0/08 . 1. DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) (Addiaons/Deteaons) A. House and Garage (from Pat 3. A.) _ - l3, 7 35 S-736 B. Decking Cr,�)GS) C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 100' along centreline) – 2,9 22. 2 /922 D. Patios and Walkways 2290 2/Z9D. E. Tennis Cour ' F. Pool and Decking (�1,l1ht V L,QS) 09S IID 9 S G. Accessory Buildings (from Put B) H. Any other coverage - - - TOTAI S 12,177 12;1°9 Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) 11 /700++ tD o12 Q O D Sd2*C pa 2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total' (SQUARBFOOTAC£y J7, 177l/ TOTALS 3. FLOOD (SQUAaEFOOTAGE) A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement d. Garage B. Accessory Buildings a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement Existing Proposed (A"tioosMeleftm) 2,Ms - 2,Ibo 730 Tota! 2 MS 21 60 730 TOTALS Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY DATE Rev. 3120102 Page 1 -of 1 TownofLos Altos Hills .,_