Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.2.0 ` TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 4, 2008 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE. LANDS OF ROELANDTS; 26401 ESHNER COURT (FILE #255-07-ZP-SD-GD) (CONTINUED FROM JULY 17, 2008) FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner " 0 APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director -3)� RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested site development permit for the new residence and Grading Policy exceptions, subject to conditions of approval in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND This site development application for a new residence, basement, detached garage and Grading Policy exception was continued from the Planning Commission hewing on July 17, 2008 to allow the applicants the opportunity to address the following comments from the Commission: • Move the residence forward to preserve/protect the heritage oak trees at the rear of the property. • Reduce the amount of grading by reducing the size of the lightwells to the minimum required. • Relocate the detached garage to preserve the two (2) heritage oak trees at the south east comer of the residence. • Location of the solar panels. Draft minutes from the July 17, 2008 Planning Commission meeting is included in this staff report as attachment 3. DISCUSSION In response to the comments from the Planning Commission, the applicants have revised the plans to include the following: • Move the residence forward to preserve/protect the heritage oak trees at the rear of the property. 3.2 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofRoelandts 26401 Eshner Court September 4, 2008 Page of 13 The applicant moved the new residence an additional 8'2" away from the rear property line in order to minimize the impact of construction on the heritage oak trees behind the house Reduce the amount of grading by reducing the size of the lightwells to the minimum required The applicant has eliminated almost the entire rear lightwell except for the minimum needed (3' wide x 8' long) for natural light and ventilation per the building code. The lightwell on the north side of the residence has now been relocated to the south side and the width of the lightwell has been reduce3d from 11' to 9'. However, the applicant is still proposing a 10'cut for the basement and an additional 8'6" cut for the house. The total proposed cut is 18'6" with a 20' retaining wall. Relocate the detached garage in order to preserve the two (2) heritage oak trees at the southeast corner of the residence The Commission directed the applicant to relocate the detached garage in order to preserve two (2) heritage oak trees along the front of the residence. The applicant has reversed the floor plan of the house and relocated the detached garage to the north side of the residence. In addition, the garage has been rotated to minimize the appearance of a three story building as viewed from Eshner Court. With the relocation of the detached the garage, one of the two heritage oak trees will remain. However, because the main residence was moved 8'2" forward to preserve the trees along the back of the house, tree 410, a 15.3" heritage oak, is proposed to be removed to accommodate a terrace outside of the living room at the southeast side of the residence. pursuant to Section 12-2.306 of the Municipal Code, staff recommends replacement of the one (1) heritage oak tree with three (3) 48" box oaks. (Condition of approval 4) Location of the solar panels The Commission was concerned that the proposed placement of the roof mounted solar panels wouldn't effectively gain the maximum benefit of the facility. The applicant has revised the location of the solar panels which now run along the length of the western side of the roof. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 2640t Eshner Court September 4, 2008 Page 3 of 13 Gradin¢ Policy Execution With the redesign of the residence and detached garage, the applicant is requesting three grading policy exceptions. 1. Rear Terrace The applicant has removed the originally proposed lightwell which extended along the rear of the residence and replaced it with a sunken terrace that ranges from 5'10" to 8' in width. The terrace covers approximately 520 sq ft of area and requires a cut of up to 8' where 4' is the maximum allowed for decks, yards, and other areas. The additional grading will provide an outdoor living area along the side and rear of the house that is generally not visible from off site. 2. Detached Garage _ - Area of Grading Policy exception The Commission directed the applicant to relocate the detached garage from the south side of the property to the north side in order to preserve the heritage oak trees. The location of the new garage requires a Grading Policy exception for up to 8' where 4' is the maximum allowed for accessory structures. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofRoelandts 26401 Eshner Court September 4, 2008 Page 4 of 13 3. Expanded Lightwell - Area of Grading Policy exception The expanded lightwell that was located on the northern side of the residence has now been relocated to the southern side of the residence. The Commission directed the applicant to reduce the size of the lightwells to the minimum needed. The original plans had this lightwell as 11' wide, the applicant has reduced it to 9' wide. However, the lightwell still requires a 10'cut for the basement and an additional 8'6" cut for the house. The Town's Grading Policy allows up to 8' of cut for the house excluding basements. The combined total of cut needed to accommodate the expanded lightwell is up to 18'6". The retaining wall extends above natural grade and will be 20' tall at its highest point. Therefore staff recommends condition of approval 46 requiring the lightwell to be the minimum size need per Section 1026.5.1 of the California Building Code. _ - Area of Grading Policy exception Section though expanded lightwell Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofRoelandts 26401 Eshner Court September 4, 2008 Page 5 of 13 CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Section 15303 (a) ATTACHMENTS I. Revised recommend conditions of approval 2. Staff report and attachments from the July 18, 2008 Planning Commission meeting 3. Draft minutes from the July 18, 2008 Planning Commission meeting 4. Revised comments from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. dated August 7, 2008 5. Revised comments from the Fire Department dated August 6, 2008 6. Revised comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated August 8, 2008 7. Revised arborist report dated August 15, 2008 8. Worksheet #2 9. Development plans: site, grading & drainage, floor, MDA & MFA breakdowns, roof plan, elevation, and building sections Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofRoelandts 26401 Eshner Coon September 4, 2008 Page 6 of 13 ATTACHMENT REVISED 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 first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), 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 (META) 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. 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 one (1) heritage oak tree to be removed with three (3) - 48" box oaks prior to final inspection. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofRoelandts 26401 Eshner Court September 4. 2008 Page 7 of 13 The applicant shall follow the arborist reports dated October 19, 2007 and revised on July 7, 2008, February 6, 2008 and August 15, 2008 with tree protection measures for the heritage oak trees located on the properly. The applicant shall submit a report from a certified arborist regarding the health of the trees and that the tree protection measures suggested by the arborist were followed during the construction, prior to final inspection of the new residence. The applicant shall reduce the size of the expanded Lightwell on the south side of the residence to the minimum needed per Section 1026.5.1 of the California Building Code. 7. 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 yews after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 8. 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. 9. 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 51' from the front property line and 39' from the side and rear property lines." and "the location of the detached garage and roof eaves are no less then 30' from the side property line and 40' from the front property line ". The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence and detached garage 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court September 4, 2008 Page 8 of 13 10. 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 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. 11. No fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 12. 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. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or be downlights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 13. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 14. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 15. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 16. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated August 7, 2008, the applicant shall comply with the following: Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court September 4, 2008 Page 9 of 13 Grading, Drainage, and Landslide Mitigation Plan- a revised grading, drainage, and landslide mitigation plan shall be prepared depicting corrective grading of the small dormant landslide and the relocation of surface and subsurface drainage dissipation structures at least 30 feet away from the mapped old landslide, as recommended by the project Geotechnical consultant. Appropriate documentation to address the above item shall be submitted to the Town, for review by the Town Engineer, prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check. b. Geotechnical Plan Review — The geotechnical consultant and engineering geologist shall review and approve all geologic and geotechnical aspects of all final project building and grading plans (i.e. site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall 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 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 inspection. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court September 4, 2008 Page 10 of 13 For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., dated August 7, 2008. 17. 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 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. 18. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 19. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. 20. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court September 4, 2008 Page 1 I of 13 native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior tofinal inspection. 21. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Eshner Court and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 22. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check 23. The 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. 24. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer hook up permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. 25. The property owner shall restore the existing road side pathway to type 2B standards prior to final approval. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 26. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clam County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court September 4, 2008 Page 12 of 13 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. 27. 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%. CONDITION NUMBERS 15, 16, a, b, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 24 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 September 27, 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 September 4, 2009). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Attachment 2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 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 % APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director .T 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. BACKGROUND 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 (sgft) 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 rem 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, office/library, 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. Height 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 3 of 18 first 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. Detached Garage Building Section A -A 9M Front Elevation Grading Policy Exception 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 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. ® - 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 I1'. 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. Proposettlight ll 5' 9' ProposeA ul.i Ig_itweil Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Coun 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 we 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 9 11, a 25.3" heritage oak Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofRoelmdts 26401 Esher 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 framing 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 be 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 becauseit 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) puking 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 puking 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) CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Section 15303 (a) Staff Repan to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 8 of 18 ATTACHMENTS 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 Clam 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 Roelmdts 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 Roelmdts 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 f tgade as viewed from Eshner Court. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 1 l 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 :UU6 WE WIMVIVETA We a 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), 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 fust 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 or to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by tha-Site-) p ent 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. 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 Roehmdts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 12 of 18 property line adjacent to the Lightwell. 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. S. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the 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 297" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35 ) foot horizontal band based, Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelmults 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 constructed 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 of ReOwdts 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 ofplans for building plan 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 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 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 Roelmdts 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 Departmemprior 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 Eshner Court and surrounding roadways, storage of construction Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 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 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. 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 of plans for building plan check An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. 24. The property 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 Clam 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 w the Planning Commission Lands of Roelandts 26401 Eshner Court July 17, 2008 Page 17 of 18 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 requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two year. Attachment 3 Nicole Horvitz From: Rebecca -Sen Chan [aII88k@aol.com] 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 2006, 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 vr-wtv �-J ISO r ,. � p mm 74 .. Yfa l 74 .. Yfa 0 k, mo s • ,1,Pp1�4pop FIRE DEPARTMENT �Ef t SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUN 17 2008 1 (" 1 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 0 3784010 • (4081378-9342 (tax) • t v j OS HILLS P IENo W ■■Ipl PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS eeeMR�; CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended LAHMC CFC Sec. 508.3, per Appendix B NO.I MOUIPEMa" Attachment 4 Im<,neLoro4yAmedlwd Agercy 061674 Review of a proposed new 7,850 square foot 2 -story single family residence with an attached garage and basement. NOTE: plans are to be reviewed under the 2007 edition of 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 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 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 buildinas 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. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 2500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. LAH N ❑ N❑❑ I R-3, U I V -B I Ac&h Civil Engineers Residential Construction SFR-ROELANDTS 126401 Eshner Ct Seining Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno: WTryo Hill, and Saratoga 6/11/20081 1 Harding, Doug ,SP�LAcOp FIRE DEPARTMENT $ SANTA CLARA COUNTY �, maw 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 ..... (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • .,scdd.org mmrom,oM A.p,and Ag REV" 081674 NO. — PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PERM rb OFSEC SNFET NO. RFA111flEMEM sec. gquired Access to Water Supply (Hydrants): Portions of the structure(s) are greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. NOTE., Asa fire sprinkler system is already required by other provisions of the code, fire department access must extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the structure and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. Sc. 603 Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required• Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, am unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. NOTE. The circular drive configuration is not required to acherve compliance with this !cant must specify that a compliant fire sprinkler system will be installed show how fire department access will be provided to all protions of the Plans not approved. Do not issue Building Permit. H N ❑ ®❑❑ 1 R-3, U I V -B I Ac&h Civil Engineers 16/11/20081 2 or 2 SFR-ROELANDTS Residential Construction Harding, Doug 26401 Eshner Ct Sewing Santa Clam County and the mmm !Nes of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Ins Altos Hills, Los Gabs, Monte Sereno, Moryan Hill, and &rutoga COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. I_ CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TO: Nicole Horvitz Assistant Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Roelandts, New Residence 9255-07-ZP-SD-GD 26401 Eshner Court Attachment 5 February 15, 2008 L0357A RECEIVED FEB 19 2000 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 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 NorOsem Czli .o Office Central Cl .m.Office 330VOagelane 6417Dogto nRoad Ins Gatos, CA 95030-ToB San Mdxas, 0495249-9690 (408) 3545542 • Fax (408) 3541852 (209) 736 4 2 • Fax (209) 7361212 e-mail: losgaros@mttonsMres.= www.cottonshires.com e-mail mftnsb aCatarband.net Nicole Horvitz February 15, 2008 L0357A Page 2 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. CONCLUSIONS AND,REGOMMENDED ACTION Proposed site development is potentially constrained by anticipated very strongto 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, $HIRES & 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. 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 ensurethat 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 Geotechnical Consultant and Engineering Geologist in letters and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documents for building perndt plan -check. 4. 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 should observe the excavation during construction to identify any previously unanticipated conditions and provide 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. Respectfully submitted, -. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT TS:DTS:JS:kd Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 6 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee APPROVED Minutes of Meeting March 26, 2007 1. ADMINSTRATIVE Chairman Ginger Summit called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM Members present Anna Brunzell, Courtenay Corrigan, Nick Uunckel, Nancy Girton, 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 Blaclmwn, 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 of West Fremont Project LLC) 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 are no connections to off-road pathways on the property. Anna Brurell moved that the FWC recommend that 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 lane (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 existing off-road path runs west off the end of Orchard Hill Road. Current 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 Bnmzell seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. iii. 10250 Magdalena Road (Lands of Komn)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 -lieu fee from the owners of 10250 Magdalena Road. Bob Stutz seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. iv. 24221 Hillview Road (Lands of Kelly). 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 Brunel] 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. 90 Ha). V. 26401 Eshner Court (Lands of iiul 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 road -side 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 Eshner Court restore the existing road -side pathway to IIB standards. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. B. San lose Pedestrian and BiQLrIc Advisory Committee Anna Brunzell, 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. �. Earth Day Celebration at West Wind Barn 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 4:00 PM. Bill Silver volunteered to set up the table; Anna Brunzell will staff it from 1:00 to 2:00; 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 runs 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 -acre lot this is about $10,000; for a two -acre lot, about 15,000; and for a three -acre lot about $17,500. 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 in -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. Anna 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. Anna Brunzell will draft a proposal for this method for committee review. AppPWC_Mia_o32607 BFP,F .. Environmental Design and Protection CommittSEC 2 0 2001 Attachment 7 TOWN OF Lu5 ALTOS HILLS New Residen ,/Remodel Evaluation J Reviewed by: �� � C�—•�� �� Date 1 .2 . 20 .07 Applicant nn Name eb'F-L-A/J3 L S Address P—� 40 1 is a" F- E' 05-g e 1 . Site impactflighting/noise: Creeks, drainage, easements: Existing Vegetation: Significant issues/comments: Attachment 8 Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTR.A=R'S LICENSE NO. 276793 CERTIFIED FORESTER CERTIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONrROL ADVISORS AND OPSRANRS RICHARD L. H . OTON 535 BRAGAM ROAD, SM A PRR MWr SAN CARLOS. CA U07(Mcug IERON.EY INGALLS TELEPHONE (650)593- CONSIILTANTERIMATOR FACSWIL£ Q>SB) 59}ACC3 October19,2007 EMAIL: info®mayngrcc.wm (Revised July 7, 2008) Mr. Shad Shokralfa P.O. Box 3104 Los Altos, CA 94024 Dear Mr. Shokralla, RE: 26491 ESHNER Cr, Los ALTOS BILLS 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 — 69 Good 90 — 100 Excellent Lastly, a comments section is included to give more individualized detail for each tree. 26401 Eshner lit, Los Altos Hills - 2 - October 19, 2007 (Rev. July 7, 2006) Tree Survey Tree Species @BH Condition Height Spree Comments 0 (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 45.6 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 Black 15.9 50 30 42 Root crown covered; epicornic sprouts Walnut around base. Several old cuts around base; codominant top @ T. 5 Valley Oak 47.4 60 55 117 Long heavy branches with several old wounds from failed leaders. Ganoderma 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 95.3 50 35 36 Two -stem @ 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 apicornic 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 n/a n/a n/a n/a Has been removed. Tree # 26401 Eshner OL, Los AJtas Hills Species SBH Condition (inches) (percent) - 3 - Height Spree (feet) d (feet) October 19, 2007 (Rev. July 7, 2008) Comments 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 04.3 50 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 7; 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 light 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' fmm 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 fonany 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 ran 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; loppers, or a handsaw. Any roots to be exposed longer than 8 hours should be covered with budap or a similar material and kept moist until backfilled_ 26407 Eshner U. Los Altos Hills -4- October 18, 2007 (Rev. July 7, 2008) Trees numbered fourteen through twenty-two, located along the bade fence, will be partially impacted by the construction of the light wells. Because the nearest point of excavation to any one trunk (tree number sateen) 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 weft. 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 wellsi 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 frees. The type of excavation being proposed is a concrete wal(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 deanly with a pair of loppers, hand pruners, or a handsaw': bade 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 top of the root Keeping this material moist wren 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 construction to be only minimally affected by the upcoming construction. If the tree 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,: Q�PStd1Ut g�i� Jeromey A. Irigalis m a Certified Arborist WE#7076A mA Fo anti JAl:pmd Attachment 9 JUL 03 N59 [OWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR -S LICENSE NO. 276793 GRADUATE FORESTER CERTQ9EDARBORLSTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HUNT INGTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A SAN CAR1Aj CA 940 Mn& PR SIOEN TELEPHONE: (650) 593-1400 KEVIN R KIELTY February 6 2DD8 FACSIMILE: (650) 593A443 OPERATIONSM GER EMAII: mfo(o�^eYMrce.cam Mr. Shad Shokratla P.O. Box 3104 Los Altos, CA 94024 Dear Mr. ShOkralta, RE: 26401 ESHNER CT:, LOS ALTOS HILLS . The purpose of this letter is to discus the impending driveway construction around a wast five 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 tow 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 safely. (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 tows away from the trunk If water collects or funnels toward the trunk, the overall health of the flee will be in jeopardy. In summary, by establishing a bee 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 aAwricultural principles and practices. Since ly, Jerorr eyA.Ingalls Certified Arborist WE #7076A JAI:pmd 2 _ February 6.2006 26401 Eshnar CL, LosMx Klls TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 w Josaltoshills.ca.gov Code Sections: Attachment 10 UAL10SM � . t CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council — 4/2/97 Section 10-2.702m 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 out 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 out. 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. TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshllls.oa.gov Attachment 11 ASAG7 ffM CALROENIA Basement Ordinance Effective Date: 911106 See. 10-1.208 Basement "Basement" shall mean a floor level, or portions thereof; which has: (1) all portions directly below a building; 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 are& Note: Daylighted basements shall comply with the Town's grading policy. The Grading Policy is used by staff in evaluating and mating 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 (IT) 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 Natral GraGde rade BASEMEATEXAWILtzb 10 story FlNsh Grade Ltb O Nahaal Grade t' story E1239.57 Area ` Finish SECTION Grade OtN=B��tt 3 skims, or at least 75% of Perimeter length nth side or 25% of �ly \ pei'unatsr largth Natural Backfill Grade Floor Area 1 1 ` EL 239.57 Finish PLAN Grade — FT -EM RETAINING WALL I -ENT AND FOOR FRAME DETAIL I Finished floor elevation of the building level above shall not be greater than twenty -sight (28') inches above the adpining natural or finished grade, mom„ whichever is lower. basement 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') feet 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 (ii) 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: (i) 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 (4 1/2') 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') fool 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 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) feet 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) - (i) 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. 369, eff. August 15,1997; § 1, Ord. 421, eff. August 17, 2002) httn-//www hncnet.cnm/codes/losaltosbills/ DATA/TITLE10/CHAPTER 1 ZONING/S... 7/11/2008 'TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HIL.Attachment 13 PLANNING DEPARTMENT NrCfIV6C' 9 Road • Los Alms Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-3160 Ev�SWORKSHEET #2 JUN 20 2008 E}CISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FIUCDd+ MMALTOS HILLS ' TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION' PROPERTYOWNER'SNAME Wtm Kg6a-ndts avid MoL6a CDnstan+r)o PROPERTY ADDRESS 2G4o(6shner C{- s Al}os 4 -Fills cA c)40z CALCULATED BY CAS PAChI{eCF-S InG DATE G/20/0$ I. DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE POOTAGE) (Addi6ans/Ddetions) A. - House and Garage (from Pan 3. A.) I 7 35 S 7 3S B. Decking Cj'&0A1eS) 13S — j 3S C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 10(Y along camuline) — 21922. 21922 D. Patios and Walkways 2,290 2/290. E. Tennis Court F. Pool and Decking (�L)ph} V'L'(jS) 11095 I D 9 S f G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) - H. Any other coverage - TOTALS 12,177 12;17 Maximum q2 Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) Ilar Q 0 D t 2. TOTAL VdPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUAREPOOTAGE) - TOTALS _ 1Z, 17% - 77 12,1 >�_t' 3. FLOOD AREA Existing A. House and Garage a. istRoor ` b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement d. Garage _ B. Accessory Buildings a 1st Floor - b. 2nd Floor - c. Attic and Basement _ TOTALS Maximum Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from Worksheet #1) TOWNUSBONLY ICHECKEDBY Proposed (AdditionvDeletions) 2,645 2,160 <2)64s> 730 Total 2,845 21 Go 730 u�' Rev. 3/20102 Page I of 1 Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Minutes July 17, 2008 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Attachment 3 DRAFT 5.1 LANDS OF ROELANDTS, 26401 Eshner Court, File 4255-07-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 5,735 square foot two story new residence with a 2,845 square foot basement (maximum height: 29'). CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (Staff -Nicole Horvitz). Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Clow visited the site, spoke to the applicant and a neighbor; Commissioners Abraham, Collins and Cottrell visited the site and Chairman Harpoothan visited the site and spoke to a neighbor. Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report stating that the project site on Eshner Court is a vacant 1.34 acre lot with a 20 percent average slope. A new residence with a basement is proposed with increased setbacks to accommodate the 29'6" building height of the structure. Grading policy exceptions are proposed for the rear and side of the structure. At the back of the house a 12'6" cut for the lightwell and a 12' cut for the house was proposed which would create a 24'6" high retaining wall and a nine feet wide lightwell. The lightwell on the side of the house would be up to i l' wide. Two heritage oak trees in the vicinity of the detached garage were proposed for removal. Eight heritage oaks may be impacted by the rear lightwell and new residence construction. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion made by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Abraham to limit continent time for the applicant's presentation to ten minutes, applicant final comment response time to three minutes and public comment time to three minutes. Commissioner Cottrell remarked that there are instances during public hearings when the Chairman may allow the time limitations to be flexible. Shad Shakralla, project manager, stated that this is a heavily wooded site and the two oaks proposed for removal are not ideal specimens and would be replaced by six new trees. The impact on the trees affected by the lightwell excavation should be minimal due to their root structure and the mitigation measures planned to protect them. The garage was designed as a separate structure to allow the basement and garage to conform to the Town's ordinances. Shad explained that their geotechnical consultant had identified two landslide areas on the property and recommended the residence should be located 30 feet back from the landslide limits. The position of the house is limited by property line setbacks, the landslide setbacks and the location of the oak trees. Anthony Matisi, architect, explained that the proposed design situated the house in the most strategic location on the site for the benefit of the homeowners and the neighbors. Commissioner Collins and Cottrell felt the house could be moved forward and the garage switched to the other side of the lot. Commissioner Cottrell asked if terracing of the rear retaining wall had been considered. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2008 Page 3 Commissioner Abraham commented that he felt that the reason for the large lightwells at the basement level was to avoid counting the area in the MFA calculations. Commissioner Collins asked why such a wide lightwell was needed. Shad Shakralla said the proposed cut for the lightwell was to bring more light and a feeling of openness to the back of the house. Commissioner Clow asked why the garage was located on the south side of the house and not the north side. The two heritage oak trees would not need to be removed if the garage was built on the north side of the lot. Keeping the two oak trees would provide screening of the new residence from the Cleary's home on Silent Hills Lane. Shad Shakralla explained that locating the garage on the south side of the house made more design sense. The new house would possibly be under the canopy of the two trees even if the garage was not in that location. He felt that adequate screening could be provided at the time of the landscape screening plan. Commissioner Cottrell asked if the garage could be located closer to the landslide line. Shad Shakralla felt that the geotechnical consultant would not be agreeable to moving the garage closer to the landslide and the house could not be moved toward the front of the lot without raising the height of the house. Chairman Harpootlian asked staff if the inability to move the house because of the landslide setback had been discussed previously. Debbie Pedro said that the Town's geotechnical consultant had not commented on the potential of moving the house within the landside setback. Chairman Harpootlian asked about the use of the 500 square foot development area solar bonus and effectiveness of the solar panels placed in the northwest location of the roof. Shad Shakralla explained that the decision for the location of the panels had been made after a neighbor on Julietta Lane had concerns over possible view of the solar panels from their property. The solar panels were moved to accommodate the neighbor. Commissioner Abraham stated that solar panels installed in that location would not function well. Chairman Harpootlian said that there must be a location on the roof for the solar panels to be installed where the sun would shine on them. Commissioner Abraham asked the reason why the garage was changed from the previous location in the basement. r � • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2008 Page 4 Shad Shakralla replied that the garage had been removed from the basement to the detached location outside of the residence because the basement then would not be counted as floor area. Commissioner Abraham said that even though the garage is not technically connected to the main structure, the view from the street makes the residence appear as a three story structure with a height of 38'6". Chairman Harpootlain felt that more than 50 percent of the basement was exposed and so did not meet Basement Ordinance guidelines. He wondered if the entire level should be counted as floor area. Willem Roelandts, applicant, stated that the basement was totally underground OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Charlie Perrell, Eshner Court, liked the design and location of the proposed house and garage. He asked that the contractors follow the Town's construction hours, keep the neighborhood free of litter, practice fire safety, use precautions to prevent disruption of underground utility services and restore Eshner Court and the pathway to preconstruction condition. Ginger Summitt, Lenox Way, expressed concern over the danger presented by the deep cut in the hillside for the rear lightwell. It would present a safety hazard for people and animals that may fall 24 feet down onto the hard surface. Sandy Humphries, Fremont Road, asked if the Town had abandoned the idea of requesting that homes fit with the land. In the past, homes were designed to "step up" with the hillside rather than be straight up in the back. She felt that if the proposed garage was moved to the other side of the site and the house "stepped up" with the hillside, the residence would better fit the property and the trees may not need to be removed. Chairman Harpoothan commented that unintended consequences had come with passage of the Basement Ordinance that allowed designers to present interesting alternatives to gain floor area. Nancy Ginzton, Natoma Road, felt that moving the house would help it stay within the grading guidelines. Chi-Foon Chan, Julietta Lane, explained that his property shares approximately 200 feet of property boundary with the Roelandts. The master bedroom, bathroom and music room of his home face the site and new house. He requested that the existing trees that screen his home from the proposed residence remain on the site to provide privacy. More screening trees should be planted but not so to block the other neighbor's views. Terry Oldberg, Julietta Lane, expressed concern in preserving the view of the Santa Clara Valley from his home. He said that replacing the two heritage oaks proposed to be removed with six more oak trees would not be in his favor and would not conform to the Town's View Ordinance. He felt there were better choices for landscape screening than oak trees for the Roelandt's project. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 17, 2008 Page 5 Vicki Oldberg, Julietta Lane, said the view from her home was a panorama of the bay. She has seen many oak trees grow up over the years and is very conscious of the potential growth rate of the oak trees. Planning now to prevent the height of the trees from blocking the view is much better than future pruning. She did not want the solar panels to be visible from her house. Shad Shakralla stated that he would be happy to work with the Oldbergs, the Charts and staff to locate the replacement trees. The solar panels would be located in an area to allow them to be useful. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Harpootlian felt there was a question of the meaning of the tern `wholly underground" in the Basement Ordinance. The proposed house looked like a three story structure. He did not read the Basement Ordinance to allow that type of design. Commissioner Cottrell felt the project was testing the limits of the Planning Commission for allowing grading exceptions. The project should be continued to allow the applicant to make design changes. The house could be moved forward and to the side of the site to reduce some of the grading in the back, the retaining walls could be terraced, the lightwells made standard and the garage relocated. Commissioner Collins agreed and thought it was possible to design the project to more closely to follow the Town's ordinances. The house could be moved forward and the lightwells narrowed to the minimum in depth and length. The neighbors can work together to develop a landscape screening plan. Roof mounted solar panel installations are encouraged by the Town and rewarded with a development area bonus but the systems should work to reduce energy usage in the residence. Commissioner Abraham concurred and would like the applicants to return with a plan that has the house positioned further down the hill. He was concerned for the health of the trees that abut the retaining wall and the damage that might be caused to the root systems during construction. He felt the location of the garage gave the house a three story appearance and could be moved elsewhere on the site. He hoped a plan that was more consistent with the grading policy would be designed. Commissioner Clow agreed and stated that approving the requested grading policy exception would set a precedent for the Town. Standard lightwells and placing the house against the hillside could be possible. The solar panels should be placed in a location on the roof to be functional without cutting limbs off the oak trees. Chairman Harpootlian reiterated concern for the oak trees abutting the 24' high rear wall and suggested the possibility of moving the house and wall forward. He didn't agree with removal of the two oaks in the front of the house to accommodate the garage, which could be relocated. Terracing of the rear wall was possible. He thought the incremental use of an intended safety measure (the ligbtwell) to basically add an entire floor above ground was cause for concern. Planning Commission Minutes July 17, 2008 Page 6 DRAFT MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion made by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Collins to continue the project, if the applicant is willing, and return with a modified plan to a later date. AYES: Commissioners Abraham, Clow, Collins, Cottrell and Chairman Harpootlian NOES: none 5.2 LANDS OF BURGER, 11580 Old Ranch Road, File #12-08-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 5,833 square foot new residence with a 1,322 square foot basement (maximum height: 27 feet). CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (Staff -Brian Froelich). Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Clow had spoken to a neighbor. Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for the project. The existing residence, driveway and swimming pool are proposed to be demolished and replaced. The site constraints include a 15 foot wide equestrian easement that runs along the southern and eastern boundaries of the property. Perimeter mature trees are on the site and two non -heritage size oak trees and one walnut tree are proposed for removal. The new residence will be located in the same area as the existing house. The new swimming pool will be behind the house slightly downhill of the current pool on the same level as the daylighted basement. The proposal met all zoning and site development requirements. A grading exception of five feet is requested as the cut depth for access to the backyard from the daylighted basement The size of the grading policy exception is 584 square feet. The applicant had obtained eight signatures from neighbors supporting the design and the benefit of the reduction in the bulk of the new residence. Commissioner Cottrell asked if the existing equestrian easement was written in the property deed as being restricted to use by the original development only and that a Town pathway does not currently exist. Brian Froelich confirmed the Commissioner's statement and that the recommendation of the Pathways Committee is to create a public pathway easement. Commissioner Abraham did not think it was proper to require the public pathway easement because the pathway is not shown on the master Pathways Map. Chairman Harpootlian asked about the 20 percent slope for a section of the driveway. Brian Froelich replied that the driveway design had been approved by the Fire Department Zack Bums, architect, said that the new residence was designed around the existing 22" heritage oak. The views from neighboring properties will not be affected by the new house as the finished floor will be 18" lower than the existing house. Neighborhood outreach had been conducted and eight neighbors had given support of the project. Zack Bums explained his understanding of the existing private equestrian easement as a use agreement among the neighborhood's land owners who kept horses. He claimed the equestrian i • COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TO: Nicole Horvitz Assistant Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Roelandts, New Residence #255-07-ZP-SD-GD 26401 Eshmer Court ac4EiVED AUG 1)8 1s-ry TOWN (. '. Attachment 4 August 7, 2008 L0357B At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the subject permit application for the proposed new residence using: Architectural Plans (8 sheets, various scales) prepared by CAS Architects, Inc., dated November 29, 2007, last revised August 1, 2008; and Grading and Drainage Plan, (1 sheets, 10 -scale) prepared by A.C. & H. Civil Engineers, dated August 1, 2008. In -addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files, including previously received reports and plans concerning this project. 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 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 e new driveway extending from Eshner Court in the northeastern portion of the site. In our previous review letter, dated February 15, 2008, we recommended that specific project design items be addressed prior to geotechnical approval. Items included plans showing proposed landslide mitigation measures, including isolation piers, and relocating the drainage dissipater at least 30 feet away from the margin of the mapped old landslide as recommended by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Proposed site development is potentially constrained by anticipated very strong to violent seismic ground shaking, potentially expansive soils, potentially unstable existing cut Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 3545542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 e mall. losgatos@cottovshires.com www.cottonsbires.eom Central Califomla Office 6419 Dogtown Road San Andreas. CA 952499640 (709) 736 4252 • Fax (209) 7361217 e mail munnshiresOstarbandnet Nicole Horvitz August 7, 2008 Paget L0357B 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 geotechnical conditions, and provided appropriate geotechnical design recommendations to address identified site constraints. We note that the southern portion of the driveway loop is located within the mapped limits of an old landslide, consequently the applicant should be willing to accept potential damage to that portion of the driveway within 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. Based on our review of the referenced grading and drainage plan, it appears that the location of the percolation trench and bio-swale have not changed from previous drawings. The proposed design is not consistent with the consultant's recommend=_tien to locate the drainage dissipater at least 30 feet away from the margin of the mapped old landslide. We recommend the project drainage design be modified to conform with recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Consultant. Also we note that the Geotechnical Consultant has recommended repair of the small dormant landslide located south of the proposed residence. Recommendations include removal of slide material and recompaction as engineered fill. These. recommendations should be depicted on the updated grading and drainage plan. We do not have other geotechnical objections to the layout and design of the proposed development. We recommend geotechnical approval of permit applications for the proposed development, with the following conditions: Grading, Drainage and Landslide Mitigation Plan - A revised grading, drainage, and landslide mitigation plan should be prepared depicting corrective grading of the small dormant landslide and relocation of surface and subsurface drainage dissipation structures at least 30 feet away from the mapped old landslide, as recommended by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. Appropriate documentation to address the above item should be submitted to the Town, for review by the Town Engineer, prior to acceotance of documents for building permit plan -check. 2. Geotechnical Plan Review - The Project Geotechnical Consultant and Engineering Geologist should review and approve all geologic and geotechnical aspects of all final project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan reviews should be summarized by the Geotechnical Consultant and Engineering Geologist in letters and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documents for building permit plan -check. COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. e ; i Nicole Horvitz August 7, 2008 Page L0357B 3. Geotechnical Field Ins ecp tion - 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 should observe the excavation during construction to identify any previously unanticipated conditions and provide appropriate supplemental recommendations, as necessary. The results of these inspection,: and tb_ a,-btult conditions n. "he p:o e:t 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. LIMITATIONS This supplemental 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 and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:JA:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 lel' �, . David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. COOMEC. CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended LAHMC CFC sec. 508.3, per Appendix B A��4Po��ooL ti� .L SHEET I NO, I REUOIREMEM FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • w .sccfd.or9 RECEIVED Attachment 5 AUG 0 8 2008 TOWN OF 1 ?S ALTOS HILLS Aoenry PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PIAN NEVIEW 06 2247 No. Sol. PERMn No. of a proposed new 7,850 square foot 2 -story single family residence with an I garage and basement. NOTE: plans are to be reviewed under the 2007 If the California Fire Code. 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 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 2500 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. Clly PUNS SPECS NEW NMOL M OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE APPIiuMNeme OATS PRGE LAH N ❑ N ❑ ❑ R-3, U V -B Cas Architects Inc 8/6/2008 1 2 OF SEChIOOfl ARFA LOAD pESCflIPT10H BV Residential Development Harding, Doug namE lPPflwEGT LOCATION SFR - ROELANDTS 26401 Eser Ct r ...�_64'0 .Ihn_. Serving Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga COOE/SEC. =c sec. 13 =C Sc. 503 sec'"""eoL FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • wwu'.sodd.org ..EFT I NO. i PEOUMEMENT PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS in�e..acw,.rygmmnm Agenry REV.EEW 08 2247 No. 6LW PEPMO No. Portions of the structure(s) are 6rline of the roadway containing NOTE: As a fire sprinkler system is already required by other rovisions of the code, fire department access must extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the structure and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 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 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1 All items herein have been addressed and noted by the applicant(s) on Page A0.1 of the plans. Plans approved. OK to issue Building Permit. CMY PIANS SPECS NEW RMOL AS OCCWRNLY LONST. TYPE AppIbMN�nw ORTE PAGE -AH ® ❑ ® 11❑ R-3, U V -B Cas Architects Inc - 8/6/2008 2 of 2 £ChLOOR AREA LORD OESCRMTXIN BY Residential Development Harding, Doug NAME OF PROJECTLOORTION SFR - RCELANDTS 1 26401 Eshner Ct Serving Santa Clara County and the cornu hies of Campbell, Capemno, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Samtoga /Glli' M�INZ-- ' • Environmental Design and Protection Committee Attachment 6 New Residence/Remodel Evaluation Reviewed by: � A(14CEIVED Wte Applicant �� AUG n 8 2Q�B Name e-6 S Mika 051111 S Address_a6'}`�/J�i1i�✓%/iC� Site impact/lighting/noise: Creeks, drainage, easements: Existing RECEIVE[ Attachment 7 AUG 18 2808 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793 CF FED FORESTER CERTIFIED ARRORISTS FEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HONTINGTON YRLSIDEM 535 RRAGATO ROAD. STP.. A SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6225 IEROMEY INGALLS TELEPHONE: (650) M9 W mNsu�rnlrrmsnnlarDR August 15, 2008 g F AIL II,F,'. mayn�650) i93 -44x3 EMAIL'. inti�Emaynelrtx.com Mr William Ho CAS Architects, Inc. 1023 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94043 Dear Mr Ho, RE: 26401 ESHNER CT, LOs ALTOS HILLS At your request, I reviewed the proposed site plan that you sent to my office on June 15, 2008. The removal of tree number ten will be necessary for the construction of the new house. Tree number nine will only be partially impacted by the proposed construction. Roughly fifteen to twenty percent of the root zone will be affected leaving eighty to eighty-five percent untouched. It is very important that tree protection fencing be installed around this tree before the construction begins. This fence is to be maintained throughout the construction project and the area it contains is strictly off limits to construction materials or activities. Protection of the untouched portion of the root -zone will be directly linked to the survival of the trees. All other tree protection measures have beendescribed in the previous arborist report The tree protection plan in that report shall be on site at all times during the construction project This will ensure that any questions regarding the protection of the trees during construction can be answered. If I can be of further assistance please contact me at my office, Sin— `o�o�t ti 4Y 95 J ey A. Ingalls a< Cert ed Arborist WE#7076A tb.YYE-707eA z_ JAI:pmd 26401 Eschner Ct., Los Altos Hills 2- August 15, 2008 T . , TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Attachment 8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 76379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-3160 - TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS WORKSHEET #2 G ROPOSED.DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION P 0 AME Wim Roe(ardtS aad r4ria- Coosta-ntMo PRP DRESS 2&401 E.shner Ct. Loy/jl+cS H lls , CCA 94oL2 UL CALCATED BY o"s ^ rc-h i iCGi S. I n G . DATE (� o a 1. DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) (Addidons/Deletions) A. House and Garage (from Part 3. A.) - 5 t73 S S 7 3 S B. Decking (fpalcoof'.) - _ IlaS IloS C. Driveway and Parking (Meamned100'alongcenterline) _ 3,2,70 3,270 D. Patios and Walkways _ - 2, (nS o - 2 0; 0 E. Tennis Court - - F. Pool and Decking (I-;cllttwt.PS) G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) - H. Any other coverage - TOTALS Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #I) 700+ (2,200 Qioo amu✓ 2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS 3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement d. Garage B. Accessory Buildings a. Ist Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement TOTALS Existing Proposed Total (Additlons/Deletioos) - 2_84s Z,S4S 2,1 bo - <2,64S� - 730 790 Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY DATE S 23 � s,�48 Rev. 320/02 Page I of I Town of Los Altos fells