HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.23.�
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS April 14, 2005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT AND
MODIFICATION OF CONDITION OF MAP APPROVAL LIMITING FLOOR
AREA; LANDS OF BREETWOR; 12681 MIRALOMA WAY; #226-04-ZP-SD.
FROM: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Senior Planner
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission
1. Recommend approval of the request to modify the condition of map approval limiting
the maximum floor area for the property; and
2. Recommend approval of the Site Development Permit for the secondary dwelling
unit, subject to the conditions in Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on the southwest comer of Miraloma Way and
Summerhill Avenue. Surrounding uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels
to the north and west, across Miraloma Way to the south, and across Summerhill Avenue
to the east. The property is developed with a single -story home, pool and spa.
The subject parcel was created as part of a 2 -lot subdivision approved by the City Council
on June 7, 1989 (Lands of Varsanyi, TM4-88). One of the conditions for the Tentative
Map approval was to limit the MFA (maximum floor area) of the property to 4,750
square feet. (Attachment 3) According to the permit records and minutes of the Planning
Commission and City Council meetings, it appears that the floor area restriction was
imposed because of neighborhood concerns about the potential visual impact of the new
residence.
On May 7, 1997, the City Council approved a Site Development Permit to construct a
single -story new residence, pool, and spa on the property (Lands of Breetwor, SDP# 21-
97-ZP-SD-GD) In addition, the City Council also approved a modification to the
condition of map approval increasing the MFA from 4,750 sq. R to 4,952 sq. ft. and
reducing the MDA from 15,000 sq. ft. to 14,798 sq. ft.. (Attachment 4)
The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development permit for a 946 square foot
detached secondary dwelling unit. Because of the MFA limitation on the property, the
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Breetwor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 2 of 11
applicant is also requesting a modification of condition of map approval to increase the
MFA from 4,952 to 5,897 sq. ft..
Per Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Ordinance, an application for a secondary
dwelling unit requires an administrative review. The Zoning and Site Development
sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate second units including building
siting, floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height, setbacks,
visibility, and parking requirements.
This application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation because the original conditions of the tentative map were imposed by
the City Council and any modification to the conditions of map approval would require
Council action.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area:
1.00 acres
Net Lot Area:
1.00 acres
Average Slope:
7.0%
Lot Unit Factor:
1.00
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area (sq. ft.)
Maximum per Tentative
Map Condition, TM4-88
June 7,1989
Maximum per
SDP# 21-97-ZP-SD-GD
May 7,1997
Maximum per Sections
10-1.502.503 of the
LAFIMC
Development
15,000
14,798
15,000
Floor
4,750
4,952
6,000
Area (sq. ft.)
Existing
Proposed
Increase
Development
11,547
13,073
1,526
Floor
4,951
5,897
946
Site and Architecture
The proposed second unit will be situated in the rear of the property north of the existing
house and pool. The single -story building has 946 sq. ft. of living area which includes a
living room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and exercise room. Proposed
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Breetwor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 3 of 11
exterior materials include vertical board and batten siding, brick columns and wood shake
roof to match the main residence. Four (4) skylights are proposed on the building and
requirements to reduce light emission from skylights are included. (Condition #10)
The second unit meets the setback and height requirements established in Title 10,
Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The structure is
located a minimum of 30' from the side and rear property lines. The maximum building
height on a vertical plane and the maximum building height measured from the lowest to
the highest point is 14'6".
Driveway & Parking
Pursuant to Section 10-1.601 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, "each second
dwelling shall provide surfaced off-street parking facilities for a minimum of (1) car in
addition to the four (4) required for the primary dwelling." There are currently five (5)
existing parking spaces on the property including three (3) garage spaces and two (2)
outdoor parking spaces.
Outdoor Lighting
Four (4) new wall lights are proposed for the secondary dwelling unit as shown on the
Floor plan. The applicant has submitted lighting specifications indicating that fixtures will
be downshielded to reduce visibility from offsite. Staff has included the standard
condition of approval (#7) for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be downshielded,
low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties.
Trees & Landscaoine
There are various mature trees and shrubs around the property that provide landscape
screening along the north, east, and west property lines. A landscape screening plan will
he required after final framing of the proposed second unit to assure adequate screening
of the addition. Particularly attention should be paid to the areas along the east property
line adjacent to the neighbor at 24600 Summerhill Avenue who has requested additional
screening in the form of trees or shrubs.
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.
No significant trees will be removed as a result of the proposed construction. However,
two heritage oak trees with 26" and 24" trunk diameters are located within the vicinity of
new second unit. The Town retained the services of arborist Barrie Coate to determine
whether the subject trees will be negatively impacted by the proposed construction. In the
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
lands of Breetwor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 4 of 11
arborist report submitted on January 12, 2005, Mr. Coate stated that with proper
mitigation, the oak trees should be unaffected by the constmction.(Attachment 5)
Recommended mitigation measures provided by the arborist to ensure protection and
preservation the existing trees are included in Attachment 1. (Conditions #4, #5 and #6)
Grading and Drainage
Proposed grading is in conformance with the Town's grading policy and includes 210
cubic yards of cut for the building foundation. 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.
Storm water runoff generated from the new development will he collected and carried to
a 6.67'L x 6.67'W x 2'H storm water detention chamber. The outflow is then metered
out to a 4" pipe which releases the water into the existing swale at the northeast comer of
the property. The applicant's engineer has provided a storm drainage analysis and
calculations showing that the proposed drainage improvements will mitigate impacts of
the site development and the quantity and flow rate of onsite surface runoff will not
increase beyond the pre -development level.
Furthermore, the Engineering Department will review and approve the final drainage plan
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as -built' grading and drainage
will be inspected by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to
be connected prior to final inspection.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Breetwor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 5 of 11
Committee Review
Pathways Committee - The Pathways Committee recommends the construction of a path
along Miraloma Way. A research of Town records indicates that a native path was
installed along Miraloma Way in 1997 as a condition of site development approval
(SDP# 21-97-ZP-SD-(1D, May 7, 1997). Staff inspected the property on March 30, 2005
and found that the subject path is currently unusable because of overgrown vegetation.
Furthermore, a mail box located east of the driveway is obstructing the pathway and
needs to be relocated. The Engineering Department recommends relocation of the mail
box and replacement of the existing native path with a new 4' wide Type IIB path along
Miraloma Way between the road and the drainage swale. (Conditions #21 and #22)
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Brwtwor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 6 of 11
Environmental Desikn Committee - The Environmental Design Committee
recommends landscape mitigation on the southwest side of the property.
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department is requiring the installation of an on-site fire
hydrant or a fire sprinkler system for the secondary dwelling unit (Condition #23)
NEIGHBOR'S COMMENTS
On March 16, 2005, the applicant submitted a letter to the Town summarizing the results
of their meetings with surrounding neighbors regarding this site development proposal.
The neighbor at 24600 Summerhill Avenue expressed concerns regarding height and
visibility and requested that the wall height of the building be lowered. In response, the
applicant lowered the wall height from 9'6" to 8'6". Several neighbors indicated that
they had no issues with the proposal and one adjacent neighbor at 12631 Mimloma Way
wrote in support of the project. The neighbor response summary is included in this staff
report. (Attachment 6)
CEOA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 of the State CEQA Guidelines
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Site Map
3. Conditions of Approval for Tentative Map #4-88 dated June 7, 1989
4. Condition of Approval for SDP# 21-97-ZP-SD-GD dated May 7, 1997
5. Arborist Report prepared by Barrie D. Coate dated December 29, 2004
6. Letter from applicant with neighbor response summary dated March 15, 2005
7. Recommendations from Pathways Committee dated January 24, 2005
S. Recommendations from Environmental Design Committee dated December 17, 2004
9. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated December 9, 2004
10. Worksheets #1 and #2
11. Development plans: site, topographic, grading & drainage, floor, elevation, roof, and
lighting plans
cc: Cheryl Breetwor Daryl Harris
12631 Miraloma Way RH Associates Architects
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 10091 Streeter Rd. #13
Auburn, CA 95602
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Brmmor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 7 of 11
ATTACHMENT I
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR A DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT
LANDS OF BREETWOR, 12681 MIRALOMA WAY
File # 226-04-ZP-SD
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. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control
plan shall be reviewed by the Site Development Committee. Particular
attention shall be given to plantings that will be adequate to break up the
view of the secondary dwelling unit from surrounding properties and
streets. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion
control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to
final inspection.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit) in the amount
of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the
landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be
made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that
time if the plantings remain viable.
4. Prior to beginning any construction or grading operation, the heritage oak
trees around the new secondary dwelling unit shall fenced with a 5' high
chain link fence per the plans prepared by arborist Barrie D. Coate dated
December 29, 2004. A certified arborist shall inspect the tree
protection fencing and submit a letter to the Planning Department
summarizing the findings of the inspection prior to issuance of the
building permit. The tree protection fence must remain throughout the
course of construction.
5. No storage of equipment, vehicles, soil or debris shall be allowed within
the drip lines of the heritage oak trees.
6. No trenching shall occur within the fenced area between the new building
and the property line fence or underneath the canopy of any heritage oak
trees.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Breetwor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 8 of 11
Excavation shall occur as needed to 2' or less in depth and at 11' or more
away from heritage oak tree #1 as shown on the plans prepared by arborist
Barrie D. Coate dated December 29, 2004. Any roots of 3" diameter
encountered during grading must be cut with a saw, and the stub end
covered with a plastic sandwich bag tied on with a rubber band. A certified
arborist shall inspect the excavation site and root preservation before
excavated areas are filled. A final letter from a certified arborist shall
be submitted to the Planning Department summarizing the findings of
the inspections and attesting to the health of the oak trees prior to final
inspection.
8. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the approved site plans. No
lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway
lights. Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or
reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall not be
visible from off the site. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved
by the Planning Department prior to installation.
9. No portions of any terraces, patios, or landings shall encroach within the
property line setbacks.
10. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
11. 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.
12. No new fences are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require
review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation.
13. All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School
District or the Palo Alto Unified School Districtl, as applicable, before
receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant
must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to school district offices (both the
elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos School District), pay
the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
14. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be
designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the
runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Breetwor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 9 of 11
flow patterns. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the
Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction
of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A final letter shall
be submitted from the project engineer stating that the site drainage was
constructed in conformance with the approved plans and recommendations
prior to final inspection.
15. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall first
be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take
place during the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with
prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within
ten feet of any property line.
16. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed
underground.
17. The location and elevation of the second unit shall be certified in writing
by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor m being in/at the
approved location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development
plan prior to final inspection.
18. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner
shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES
permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. All areas on the
site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion
control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final
inspection.
19. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair
any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private
driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and
release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with
photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior
to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
20. 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 Miraloma Way and surrounding roadways; storage of
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Breetwor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 10 of 11
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.
21. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary
sewer prior to final inspection. A copy of a permit for the second unit
from the City of Los Altos shall be required to be submitted to the Town
prior to submittal of plans for building plan check.
22. The property owner shall construct a 4' wide Type IIB path along
Miraloma Way between the road and the existing swale prior to final
inspection.
23. The existing mailbox shall be relocated behind the new Type IIB path and
maintain a one (1') foot minimum clearance from the edge the pathway.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT:
24. The property owner shall either provide an on-site fire or provide an
automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara
County Fire Department throughout all portions of the second unit. A State
of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit three copies
of plans and calculations to the Town of Los Altos Hills for routing to the
Santa Clara County Fire Department for review and approval prior to prior
to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The sprinklers shall be
inspected and approved by the Fire Department prior to final inspection.
CONDITION NUMBERS 4, 18,19, 20, 21 AND 24 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND
SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER
PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK
BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 23 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 May 7, 2005
provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Breetwor
12631 Miraloma Way
April 14, 2005
Page 11 of 11
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
April 14, 2006). 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.
SITE MAP
Lands of Breetwor
12661 Miraloma Way
226-04-ZP-SD
Project Site
Al
AHl
K.N':.
PM. 92"m X12 B[r•ley'.1164AY LPD��'
Va1.62AC. NET
✓ ffi PCL I100.
Cl pgl�1� /
MAD.NET SI IlNO.
PL4a PCL
C L.I
x
PCL. I
LOT T
-1_ .I .!WT5 101A, Lak
Y LOTB x MALI
sr BOA,
5� 1
l 1.99k
1948k
IDOk I.c9k
ATTACHMENT ;-
iC
2
2ES
{P
pLL3 ' i
rygta__ - i
'3 Pu4
1pW X.
rero a
�T M.1
LOU&
MARGARITA TRACT
HALE RANCE SIIBD.
ATTACHMENTS
Tentative Map M4-88
Miraloma May
15. The 'future road right-of-way" shall be sh,/.m on tre Final
Map.
16. The record of survey referred to in the title report shall be
referenced, as appropriate. 2
17. The Maximum Floor Area on proposed Parceli-is to be limited
4,750 to MH•888 Square Lest. The maximum height of any struct•tre is
te
to be limited to H tt-- (Adds the Planning Commission •22 fent
at their meeting of .+pril 26. 1989.` VMMMM BY a_T13= 6/7/891
L'=:
18. Storm Draiange Fund:
2 lots a 9200.00 per lot S 400.00
19. Road In -lieu Pee: n/a
20. Path 4n -lieu Pee: n/a
21. Park and Recreation Pee
(Asscesed Valuation:(to be determined)
TOTAL PEES:
Ms. Cherfl Breetwor
May 7, 1997
Page 2
ATTACHMENT
6. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in
conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a
light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall use materials which have
a light reflectivity value of 40 ur less. White trim area should be
minimized, particularly on lenge surfaces such as doors, columns, railings,
and trellises. A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for appproval, prior to acceptance of plans for building Ian
check All applicrbIs structures shall be painted m conformance with the
approved color(s) prior to final inspection.
7. skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No
lighting may be placed within skylight wells
8. At the time of foundation inspection(s), the location, and el nation of the
new residence shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved locations and elevations
shown on the approved site development plan. At the time of framing, the
height of the structure shall be similarly certified as being at the heigbt
shown on the approved site development play The hardscape, driveway
and pool locations shall also be certified at time of installation.
9. One light at the garages and one light at the rear patio shall be eliminated
from the plan. Any additional outdoor lighting requirea approval by the
Planning Department prior to installation. Lrghting shell be down
shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties,
and the source of the ligating shall not be visible from off the site. No
lighting may be placed within setbacks except for two driveway or entry
lights. Any light fixnrrm that are visible from the roadways shall be down
shielded fixtures or shall have opaque glass.
10. A disclosure statement shall be recorded stating ilia the allowab. loor
area per condition of Parcel Map 621-M-6 & 7 is increased to 4,952 square
feet by the approval of this permit and that the project is at the maximum
floor area cu.-reatiy allowed by the Town. The maximum development
area allowed by the Town is reduced to 14,798 square feet by the approval
of this permit. The disclosure statement will be prepared bt the Planning
Department and shall be signed and notarized by the property owners
prior to acceptance ofplaufor buildingplan check
11. Standard s,, imming pool requires tents:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible tom off-site.
b. Drainage outfutl structures shall be r,.,nstructed and located to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineering Inspector.
c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety.
d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides for noise mitigation, and
the enclosure shall be seceencd with landscaping.
B. FNOINEEnINC DEPARTMENT:
12. As recommended by William Cotton & Associates in their report dated
March 20, 1997, the applicant shall comply with the following:
SUGGESTIONS FOR
TREE PRESERVATION DURING
AT THE
BREETWOR PROPERTY
LOS ALTOS PULS
Prepared at the request of:
Debbie Pedro
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Prepared by:
Barrie D. Coate, ASCA
Consulting Arborist
December 29, 2004
Job # 12-04-256
ATTACHMENTS
RECEIVED
JAN 12 2005
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
BARRIE D. COATE
ASSOCIATES
and
HorhvAunal Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gams,CA 9503
-1095033
A08/3531052
SUGGESTIONS FOR
TREE PRESERVATION DURING
AT THE
BREETWOR PROPERTY
LOS ALTOS PULS
Prepared at the request of:
Debbie Pedro
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Prepared by:
Barrie D. Coate, ASCA
Consulting Arborist
December 29, 2004
Job # 12-04-256
ATTACHMENTS
RECEIVED
JAN 12 2005
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PRESERVATION OF OAK TREE AT BREETWOR PROPERTY
Assignment
On December 29i°, 2004, I met with Debbie Pedro at the Breetwor property to determine
whether the proposed construction could occur beneath the canopy of a large Coast Live
Oak (Quercus agrifolia) without causing unacceptable levels of damage to the root
system.
Summary
There are actually two trees which would be potentially affected by the proposed
construction. The tree in question is Tree # I on the enclosed plan; but Tree #3, a Coast
Live Oak, on the adjacent neighbor's property, most of whose canopy extends over this
property, has a potential for being affected by construction as well.
Observations
The tree in question, # 1, is a Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), with a DBH (diameter
at 4'/:' above grade) of 26" and a height of approximately 20' (the tree has been topped
by line clearing crews) and a 40' branch spread The proposed building would be
constructed under approximately 15% of the canopy of the tree, and if construction
activity is restricted to the actual construction area, this should leave the tree with an
adequate proportion of the root mass to carry on healthy, normal growth.
The canopy of Tree 93 extends 30' from the property line fence which describes the
location of the wall of the proposed building. For this reason, this tree's root system
should be unaffected ifthe construction period fence is erected as recommended here.
The canopy of tree #2 is entirely over the neighbor's property
Recommendations
1. Erect a chain link fence of 5' in height mounted on 2" galvanized steel posts
driven 2' in the ground 3' or less from the location of the proposed wall of the
building before any construction activity or construction equipment arrives on
site. Refer to enclosed plan section.
2. Excavate as needed to 2' or less, at 11 feet or more, away from tree #1 as
shown on the enclosed plan section.
3. Any roots of 3" diameter encountered must be cot with a saw, and the stub
end covered with a plastic sandwich bag tied on with a rubber band
4. No trenching for any purpose may occur within the fenced area between the
building and the property line fence or beneath any part of the canopy of trees
1 or 3.
5. No soil may be piled beneath the canopy of any preserved tree.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEhOER29, 2004
PRESERVATION OF OAK ,NEE AT BREETWOR PROPERTY
Inspections
1. A certified arborist must inspect the protection fences before construction or
excavation begins.
2. The excavation site and root preservation must be inspected before excavated
areas are filled
Respectfully submitted
Barrie D. Coate
BDC/phlg
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Site Plan
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER29, 2004
'
I
i
�
l
li
ri
1100
%i.P
�
Q
�
j
I
/
li
ri
1100
%i.P
I
i
I
/
li
1100
%i.P
�
Q
�
�
I
t
/
I
/
/
li
a
�
Q
�
g
'S
.
F
Protection Under Oak Treo During Construction at 12681 Mira Loma Way, Los Altos Hills, CA
Photo 1—The white lined comer of the
proposed building, I P from tree #1
Photo 2—The black line describes the
north wall of the proposed building,
30' from the fence.
The black lined corner shows the building under 15% of tree #1 canopy.
Photos By Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist December 29, 2MW
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Hors cuumi Consullenls
235355umm1[eoeG
Los Gems, CA 95033
4059531052
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not impl right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be re Ported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., In this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
EVANS CONSTRUCTION, INC. ATTACHMENT (b
March 15, 2005
Neighbor Response Summary
Town of Los Altos Hills
Debbie Pedro
26379 Fremont Road -
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: Modification to Condition of Parcel Map 621 Restricting Floor Area and
Construction of a 946 sq ft. Detached Secondary Dwelling Unit
12681 Miraloma Way
File # 226-04-ZP-SD
Dear Ms. Pedro,
On January 31, 2005 we sent out letters to all of the neighbors on the mailing list as supplied to the city
in the initial submittal requesting a meeting to view the project plans for design comments or
suggestions. The following is a summary of all responses that were received.
Number of letters sent to request input on project — 40
Total number of responses — 5
Number of negative responses — 0
Number of neutral responses — 3
1) From Robert and Sue Brenner,
(
Response from Bob Brenner on voice mail — "Property is of no concern to me. Good luck
with project."
2) From Mark and Racquel Brown, Los Altos Hills, CA
(
Response from-Racquel Brown on voice -mail — "I am sure whatever Cheryl does will
comply with Town Ordinance and that she will build it in a tasteful way."
3) Los Altos Hills, CA
(
Response from Cheryl Hyman — She said she did not think they would have a
problem. with it, but did not return call to view plans after story poles went up.
EVANS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
nos
Number of supporting responses — 2* *
1) From Karl and Margit Varsanyi, Los Altos Hills, CA
(
***Please see attached letter
This property directly abuts this property on the left side.
2) From Victor and Julia Vari, Los Altos Hills, CA
(
This property is directly behind the subject property.
Response from Victor and Julia Vari — They have viewed the plans twice in person and
have viewed the story poles. They requested three items:
1) Lower wall height to between 8'-9' from the 9'-10' height as
submitted.
Action: We have lower the wall height to 8'-9'
2) Do something decorative on the exterior nook wall that -faces their
property.
Action: We will install a trellis or arbor with a vine in this area.
This will be shown on the plans
3) Provide a screening plan for the pool house in the form of trees and
shrubs.
Action: Weare currently working on a screening plan.
**Two supportive responses are from two of the three neighbors most affected by the
project and whose lots directly abut the rear and/or side of the subject property.
For any questions, please call me at (
Sincerely,
Eric Evans
March 2, 2005
Town of Los Altos Hills
Debbie Pedro, Associate Planner
26379 Fremont Road.
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: 12681 Miraloma Way
Dear Ms. Pedro,
We live at 12631 Miraloma Way, Los Altos Hills, and our lot abuts Cheryl Breetwors'
lot. We have had the opportunity to view the plans for the proposed 946 sf second
dwelling unit at 12681 Miraloma Way. We support approving this project, as long as it
conforrns with Town Zoning and Building Ordinances. We understand approval of this
project requires modifying a subdivision restriction, which is stricter than the Town
Oroinances. Please note our support for this project. Thank you.
Date /
Loi Altos Hills
Date
Los Altos Hills
ATTACHMENT
The Ad -Hoc map committee is asking the council to consider the on road and private
pathways.
C. SCC Advisory Commission for the Disabled (DISCUSSION). Jim Bliss from the
Santa Clara County Advisory Commission for the Disabled will join us for a
discussion on issues relating to access for the Disabled.
Roger Petersen and Jim Bliss. ACC is a 15 member commission appointed by county
board of supervisor. The SCC commission advises super visor about making the county
accessible to people with disabilities.
VTA is required to provide para transit 3/4 of a mile from a VTA route.
O: Would there be funds available to provide a paved access route to foothill college?
A from Roger: Maybe through VTA.
Les: Curbs should be wheel chair accessible but are not typically built that way. There Is
an example of a person being stuck on one of the city's paths.
Ginger: What are the requirements or guidelines to build a path that comply with the
disabled needs.
Disabled is not only people with walking disabilities, blindness is also a disability. Signs
could have raised letters.
There Is one path around La paloma and purissima that the city put In for a blind resident.
Chris: The paths most likely to be considered for disabled access are the roadside paths.
Chris will send Jim and Roger's contact Information to the pathway committee.
Anna: Have they worked with any other city similar to LAH such as Portola Valley that also
she an extensive off road trail system and are the any learning from that work
Roger: PV is In San Mateo county and there are no similar examples in sante clary county.
D. Recommendation on properties: (ACTION)
i. 12681 Miraloma Way (Lands of Breetworl
ere is a ditch on va oma. Path can still be built with some kind of
bridge structure. Motion by ND to require owner of 12681 Miraloma
to put in a to -be -path along Miraloma, easement to be verified and to
be acceptable to town engineer. Second by JD. 9 in favor.
ii. 25701 Deerfield Drive (Lands of Unlu)
1. Motion by DM to request a road side path to put in on 25701
Deerfield subject to town engineer. second by NO favor 8, abstain 1.
iii. 26030 Newbridge Road (Lands of Rumi, new residence)
1. Motion collect in -lieu fee instead of a path. Motion by ND second by
JW. 9 favor.
iv. 11261 Magdalena Road (Lands of Kearns, 2nd unit)
1. Motion by RS: For path to be put in along Magdalena subject to the
town engineer. Second by ND. 9 in favor.
v. 23923 Jabil Lane (Lands of Jarvis, new residence)
1. Motion by DS to table this decision to the next meeting. Second by
MK. 2 favor 7 oppose.
2. Motion by GS: Motion to ask the Planning Commission to request an
easement for a pathway, IF the Council approves to retain a
connection on this property as part of the Offroad Master Pathway
Plan. If the Council does not approve a connection across this
property, the Pathway Committee will recommend an in -lieu fee for
this property. Second by NS. B favor, 1 oppose.
vi. 26910 Dezalfara Way (Lands of Beheshh) —Added
1. Not enough information prior to the meeting to discuss this property.
0
E,. ✓IRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE ATTACHMENT QJ
NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION
.c 17 2004
Applicant's Name: //`� i 1 w O
Address: -1- b}� M I R ft to f1 a U) ft
Reviewed by: ��/� , �,pb �,,� Date: I a • 0.
Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building
site. Recommended protection during construction.)
vt Fst s)"AA be, qiI' ki✓ed t �t
Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All
grading at least 10' from property line?)
Creeks and drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Sufficient
space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will
construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a
need for removal of invasive species?)
Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation
(height, color, landscapb).) I _
OtherComments: 1 `^"h9 Jvl��',I Wi�� t, L,, U-4�d pyt
CODMEC.
UPC
Ayyp
[II-Aend x
UFC
903.2
UFC
901.2.2.1
902.2.2.2
SHEET
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • w .sccfd.org
PIAN REVIEW NUMBER 04 3103
BLOC PERM" NUMBER ATTACHMENT
CONTROL NUMBER
RLENUMSER 226-04-ZP-SD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
REQUIREMENT
Review of sit plan for a proposed 946 square foot cabana.
of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and
apply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be
ed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with
I model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make
ion to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
?ire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1000 gpm at 20 psi residual
Che required fire flow is available from area water mains and fire
which are spaced at the required spacing.
2. Required Access to Water Supply fHydrantsl: Portions of the structure(s) are
greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway
containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR, provide an
approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building.
ired Plans and Permits: Permits are required for the installation of all Private
r Supplies, Tanks, and Hydrant Systems and must be issued to contractors
to the start of installation of such systems. Plans for fire apparatus access
and fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
w and approval prior to construction.
CA, PLANS SPECS NEW AS
OC AHOY
CONST. TTPE
ApglgnWme
DATE
PAGE
LAH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
7
GIULIANI & KULL INC
12/9/2004
1 2
OF
SEChLODR
ATEA
LOAD
Df3CRITION
SY
Residential Development
Rucker, Ryan
NAME OF PROJECrLOCATION
SFR- BREETWOR
12631 Miraloma Wy
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Seining Sant. Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, !os Altos,
Los Altos Hill, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • w .sccfd.org
MN NEYMW NUMBER 04 3103
BLDB PEBMR NUMBER
CONTROLNUMBER
RLENUMBER 226-04-ZP-SD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
ODUSEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT
ent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental
Conditions shall be restated as "notes" on all pending and future plan
als and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan
CRy BANS SPECS NEW RMDL P6
OCCIRANCY
OONBT. TYPE
GATE
ALOE
9H [1 11 11❑ ❑
GIULIAMI & KULL INC
12/9/2004
2 2
oP
ChLOON
ARFA
LOAD
OFSCRIPOON
eY
Residential Development
Rucker, Ryan
AME OF PROJECT
LOCATON
SFR- BREETWOR
12631 Miraloma Wy
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clam County and the oommumiles of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Alto ,
Los Altar Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS FALLS ATTACHMENT
26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, Califon da 944022 • (415) 941-7222 -PAX (415) 941-3160
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WORKSHEET #1
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE, LOT UNIT FACTOR
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND MA)M/ UM FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION
PROPERTY ADDRESS /---) i' 3,l M I P—V41� A (
DATE 1-,2-
A.
-,2-
CONTOUR LENGTH WITI-1114OF •
CONTOUR
LENGTH
(INCHES)
CONTOUR
LENGTH
(INCHES)
I = contour interval
CONTOUR
LENGTH
(INCHES)
An
CONTOUR
LENGTH
(INCHES)
Ola
I
I
e2Olo
l�'f^
I
as
lo.
I
doi
8.5
'
aoo
f.5
I
I
TOTAL ��.3
Convert inches to feet (multiply by map scale) = (L) _ rya (o feet
B. AVERAGE SLOPE W= NET AREA OF LOT
S = (0-0023) (1) (L)
I = contour interval
L = total length of.
An =net acreage
An
in feet
contours in feet
of lot
S = (0.0023)
nearest 0.1%
2 CALCULATION ATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
LUF = (An) (1 - [0.02143(S -10)]) _ 1.0
E> If the average slope is less than 10%, the LUF for the lot is equal to the net area.
b If the LUF is equal to or less than 0.50, you will need a Conditional Development Permit
Make an appointment with the Planning Director for further information.
RZV.9/1/94
Page 1 of 2
WORKSHEET #1
CONTINUED
CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA)
A. for S equal to or less than 10%
MDA = (LUF) (15,000) = %yr, Doc) square feet*
B. for S greater than 10% and less than 30%
MDA = (LUF) [15,000 - 375(S -10)] = square feet*
C for S equal to or greater than 30%
MDA = (LUF) (7,500) = - square feet*
* If the MDA is less than 5,000 square feet (and the LUF is greater than 0.50),
use 5,000 square feet for your MDA
CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
A. for S equal to or less than 10%
MFA = (LUF) (6,000) = (p0o-O square feet**
B. for S greater than 10% and less than 30%
MFA = (LUF) [6,000 - 50(S -10)] = square feet*"
C. for S equal to or greater than 30% _
MFA = (LUF) (5,000) = square feet**
`* If the MFA is less than 4,000 square feet (and the LUF is greater than 0.50)
use 4,000 square feet for your MFA
OWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY I DATE
3/1/94
Page 2 of 2
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
26399 Fn Rod -L Aa HiM, CA 94022-(650)941-9222- FAX (650)941-3160
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Cheryl Breetwor
PROPERTY ADDRESS 12681 Miraloma Way
CALCULATED BY PH Aerociates DATE 11130/2004
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
rr„+mn
Existing
Proposed
Total
A.
House and Garage (from Part 2. A.)
4,951
4,951
B.
Decking
0
C.
Driveway and Parking
2,840
2,840
(Measured 100' along centerline)
D.
Patios and Walkways
909
580
1,489
E.
Tennis Court
0
F.
Pool and Decking
2,760
2,760
G.
Accessory Buildings (from Part B)
946
946
H.
Any other coverage (Pool equip.)
87
87
TOTALS
11,547
1,526
13,073
{noRG� AL
cf
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1)
f�,04E:15,000
1--,"1RV
Existing
Proposed
Total
2.
FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
A
House and Garage
a. 1st Floor
4,186
4,186
b. 2nd Floor
0
C. Attic and Basement
0
d. Garage
765
765
B.
Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor
946
946
v"
b. 2nd Floor
0
C. Attic and Basement
0
TOTALS 4,951
946
5,897
s(,��q7
�
Maximun
Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1)
�atC.fo
�'9 6,000
qty....
5 2-
rr„+mn