Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1.7 Item 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 6, 2009 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TENNIS COURT AND A BUNKER GARAGE; LANDS OF JJP REALTY; 11481 MAGDALENA ROAD; FILE #60-09-ZP-SD-GD (CONTINUED FROM JULY 2, 2009) FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner;/v APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director -3R RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Deny the Site Development permit and Grading Policy exception for the proposed tennis court and bunker garage located near the Northwest corner of the property, subject to the recommended findings for denial in Attachment 1. ALTERNATIVE Approve the Site Development permit for the original location of the tennis court and bunker garage with proposed sound mitigation measures, and a Grading Policy exception for the bunker garage and side yard subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 2. BACKGROUND This project was continued from the July 2, 2009 Planning Commission meeting with direction to relocate the proposed tennis court and bunker to an alternate location due to the noise concerns raised by the neighbors at 11281 Magdalena Road, directly to the west of the proposed tennis court. DISCUSSION On July 13, 2009 the applicant submitted revised plans as directed by the Planning Commission with the tennis court and bunker garage relocated north of the original location within the bend of the driveway. With this relocation, the project now requires a greater amount of cut and fill, larger retaining walls to be built around the perimeter of the tennis court, and removal of two (2) heritage oak trees. Grading Policy Exception The proposed 7, 037 square foot tennis court and 6,395 square foot bunker will be situated over a hillside north of the main residence with a slope of approximately 25%. Total grading quantities for the revised plan include 4,475 cubic yards of cut and 80 cubic yards of fill for the site, tennis court, and bunker. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 Page 2 of 11 The applicant is requesting a Grading Policy exception for up to 16 feet of cut for the driveway access to the bunker where 4 feet is allowed, up to 14 feet of cut for the tennis court where 6 feet is allowed, and up to 7 feet of fill along the northern corner of the tennis court where 3 feet is allowed. left N .f � L'S I 16,,x•0 .:.22_ l.0 .1rT�85A1w Two sets of terraced retaining walls are proposed on either sides of the driveway entrance to the bunker garage. The walls on the left will be 10' and 3' tall. The walls on the right will be 10' and 5' tall. There are also retaining walls surrounding the entire perimeter of the tennis court with the maximum height of 13 feet. The amount of grading needed to accommodate the tennis court and bunker garage at the new location far exceeds the amount required for the original location. M K='r'j1 i alar �- Ik Grading Policy Original Proposal New Location Tennis Court Max. Cut 6' 0' 14' ) I Max. Fill 3' 0' 7' Retaining Walls 4' 0' 13'/3' (terraced) Bunker Garage Max. Cut 4' 14.2' 16' Max. Fill 3' 0' 09 Retaining Walls 4' T/3' (terraced) 10'/5' (terraced) Grading Quantity -- 2,950 c.y. 4,475 c.y. The applicant is requesting a Grading Policy exception for up to 16 feet of cut for the driveway access to the bunker where 4 feet is allowed, up to 14 feet of cut for the tennis court where 6 feet is allowed, and up to 7 feet of fill along the northern corner of the tennis court where 3 feet is allowed. left N .f � L'S I 16,,x•0 .:.22_ l.0 .1rT�85A1w Two sets of terraced retaining walls are proposed on either sides of the driveway entrance to the bunker garage. The walls on the left will be 10' and 3' tall. The walls on the right will be 10' and 5' tall. There are also retaining walls surrounding the entire perimeter of the tennis court with the maximum height of 13 feet. The amount of grading needed to accommodate the tennis court and bunker garage at the new location far exceeds the amount required for the original location. M K='r'j1 i alar �- Ik _ ,'Wc�4' , /�`�•; - - it _„csiiCt-: �. ) I .�i.�, �.. 1. Retaining Walls F�1'~"'_', U ` Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 Page 3 of 11 Since the relocation of the tennis court and bunker garage will create a significant amount of additional cut and fill, the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission re-evaluate the original proposal and take into consideration the sound mitigation measures proposed. (Attachment 6) The applicant has submitted an acoustic report prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated July 27, 2009 evaluating the sound impact of the original proposed tennis court and how it can be mitigated. According to the acoustic engineer, a new 335 foot long, 6 foot tall solid fence along the west property line and a 5' solid fence along the southern perimeter of the tennis court would reduce the noise levels (dB) for the adjacent neighbors to the east and south by up to 8 dB. The resulting noise level with the fence mitigation would be equivalent to relocating the tennis court to the northwest corner of the property. (Attachment 4) In addition, the Commission can consider allowing a fence variance for an 8' tall solid fence along the west property line, which would further reduce the noise of the tennis balls bouncing and hitting the rackets by up to 10 dB. Tree Removal The new location of the tennis court and bunker garage will require the removal of two (2) heritage oaks (12" and 16") and a 24" pine tree. Per Section 12-2.306 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, if the Commission decides to approve the tennis court and bunker at the proposed location, staff recommends that the two (2) heritage oak trees to be removed be replaced at a 3 to 1 ratio with 24" box oaks. Drainage Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected in an earthen swale around the tennis court and carried into a catch basin. It will then be carried though a 10" storm drain pipe and routed into a 40' long storm drain retention system located at the north property line. Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Department will review and approve the final drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as -built" grading and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection. Neighbor Concerns To date, staff received a letter in support of the alternative location from the neighbors along the north property line at 11635 Jessica Lane. (Attachment 7) Staff Report to the Planning Conunission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 Page 4 of 11 CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (e) ATTACHIy1ENTS 1. Recommended Findings for Denial 2. Recommended Conditions of Approval 3. Staff Report and Draft Minutes from the July 2, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting 4. Report from Charles M Salter Associates Inc dated July 27, 2009 5. Arborist Report dated July 21, 2009 6. Letter from Applicant dated July 28, 2009 7. Letter from -Norm Pond dated July 28, 2009 8.* Grading Policy 9. Original Location Development plans: site, grading & drainage, erosion control, sections, grading policy exception exhibit, and lighting plans. 10. Alternative Location Development Plans: site, grading & drainage, erosion control, sections, grading policy exception exhibit, and lighting plans. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 Page 5 of I 1 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR A TENNIS COURT AND BUNKER GARAGE LANDS OF JJP REALTY, 11481 MAGDALENA ROAD FILE # 60-09-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed grading is not consistent with Section 10-2.702.c of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. 2. The proposed area of grading is on a hillside and will result in the substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain. 3. The proposed grading will result in the placement of large retaining walls surrounding the entire tennis court, driveway access, and bunker garage. 4. The proposed grading will result in the removal of substantial vegetation and the removal of tw6 (2) heritage oak trees. 5. The Grading Policy emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. The tennis court requires 7 feet of fill. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 Page 6 of 11 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TENNIS COURT AND BUNKER GARAGE LANDS OF JJP REALTY, 11481 MAGDALENA ROAD File # 60-09-ZP-SD-GD h�aW."telli l IL101"VA S - T1WIW 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 first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. The proposed screening trees as redlined on the landscape plans dated July 22, 2009 (Sheet L-3) shall be installed prior to final inspection. 4. Additional landscaping may be required. Staff will visit the site prior to final inspection to determine if any additional plantings will be needed for screening or to restore areas disturbed by grading or construction. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection. 5. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 6. The planting area west of the tennis court located in the setback shall not be developed with hardscape. Staff Report to the Planning Conunission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 Page 7 of 11 7. There shall be no artificial lighting for the tennis court except the four (4) shielded wall mounted lights along the 2' tall wall on the east side of the tennis court. 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 tennis court and bunker garage are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30" from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new tennis court and bunker garage shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new tennis court and bunker 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 and prior to final inspection. 10. Fencing is approved as shown on the plans. 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 L-1. Light fixtures shall be down lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 12. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated March 31, 2009, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Supplemental Evaluation — The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the potential risks associated with constructing the bunker/tennis court over the identified fault trace. The type and magnitude of seismic displacements should be described along with typical associated structural impacts. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 Page 8 of 11 The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer and by the Town Geotechnical Consultant for review prior to project geotechnical clearance and prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, tennis court and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer 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 and pool prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection. For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc.., dated March 31, 2009. 13. Peak discharge at 11481 Magdalena Road as a result of Site Development Permit 60-09, 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 pealt 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 site grading and storm Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 Page 9 of 11 drainage system were constructed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations. 14. 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. 15. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to -grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 16. 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 Magdalena Road and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 17. 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 18. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire ° Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 Page 10 of 11 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. 19. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. 20. 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%. 21. Provide one on site fire hydrant at locations to be determined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum acceptable flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI residual pressure. Prior to design, the project civil engineer shall meet with the fire department water supply officer to jointly spot the required fire hydrant locations. 22. Installation of private fire service mains and/or fire hydrants shall conform to National Fire Protection Association standards and Fire Department Standard details. A separate installation permit from the Fire Department is required. 23. Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of framing or delivery'of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. 24. Required access roads, up though first lift of asphalt shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of combustible construction. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads maybe approved on a case by case basis. CONDITION NUMBERS 12 a &L b, 13, 15, 16, and 17 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 July 24, 2009 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 JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road August 6, 2009 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 July 2, 2010). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. y � Attachment 3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS MILLS July 2, 2009 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TENNIS COURT AND A BUNKER GARAGE; LANDS OF JJP REALTY; 11481 MAGDALENA ROAD; FILE #60-09-ZP-SD-GD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner:�gv APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director -�>� RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the proposed tennis court and the bunker garage and the requested Grading Policy exception for the bunker garage and side yard, subject to the conditions of approval and findings of approval in Attachments 1 and 2. ALTERNATIVE Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the proposed tennis court; AND Deny the requested Grading Policy exception for the bunker garage and side yard and direct the applicant to submit a revised grading plan that complies with the Town's Grading Policy. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the north side of Magdalena Road. The surrounding uses include single family residences to the north, south, west, and across Magdalena Road to the east. On March 8, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a 12,211 square foot new residence with a 5,101 square foot basement and a tennis court on this 6.0 acre property. The new residence has been under construction since 2000 but the approval for the tennis court has since expired. Other Site Development Permits for this property include a landscape screening plan approved on March 19, 2002 (SDP# 15-02-ZP-SD) and a 3,353 square foot swimming pool and decking approved on September 2, 2008 (SDP# 138-08-ZP-SD). On March 24, 2009, the applicant submitted a proposal for a 7,065 square foot tennis court in approximately the same location as the previously approved plan with an additional 7,065 square foot bunker garage underneath. CODE REQUIREMENTS Per Section 10-1.202 (Basements) of the Zoning Ordinance this application for the tennis court and bunker garage has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Bunkers can be approved when the Planning Commission finds that such structures do not encroach in setbacks, Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 2 of 12 area minimum of eighteen (18) inches below natural grade, are wholly underground except for required exiting, lighting, ventilation, and are counted as development area except when placed under a surface already counted as development area. (Attachment 9) DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 6.0 acres Net Lot Area: 3.02 acres Average Slope: 19.7% Lot Unit Factor: 2.39 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sgft) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Refraining Development 27,235 15,553 27,129 11,576 106 Floor - 13,209 12,211 0 0 998 (Bunker 7,065) The proposed 7,065 square foot tennis court with a 7,065 square foot bunker garage underneath will be located west of the new residence, 3.0 feet from the west property line. That applicant is proposing a 10' tall vinyl black coated chain'link fence with a green windscreen along portions of north, east, and south sides of the tennis court. The bunker garage is directly below the tennis court will be accessed off of the main driveway by a secondary driveway and requires a grading policy exception. Grading Policy Exce tp ion Total grading quantities for this project include 2,950 cubic yards of cut for the tennis court and bunker. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed grading plan and concluded that it is not in conformance with the Town's Grading Policy. Up to 5, of'cut7,, The applicant is requesting a Grading Policy exception for up to 14.2 feet of cut (1,153 square feet of area) for the driveway access to the bunker where 4 feet is allowed for accessory structures. The retaining walls will be terraced on either side of the driveway entrance to the bunker garage. The maximum height of the proposed terraced retaining walls will be 7 feet. The applicant is also requesting a Grading Policy exception for an area of approximately 1,136 square feet adjacent to the tennis court to the west for a yard area of up to 5.3 feet of cut where 4 feet is allowed. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 3 of 12 The Grading Policy exception will help lower the secondary driveway and the access into the bunker garage. If the proposed grading were to occur on a hillside or ridgeline property, the excavation for the driveway and bunker garage would result in massive retaining walls that are highly visible and substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain in violation of Section 10- 2.702.c of the Site Development Code. However, in this case, the affected area is relatively flat and the proposed grading will help lower the profile driveway and the access to the bunker garage. The terraced retaining walls will be below or at natural grade and will not be highly visible from surrounding properties. 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. Bunker Garage Pursuant to Section 10-1.202 of the Municipal Code, bunkers may be permitted by the Planning Commission when it finds that such structures: o Do not encroach within the setbacks o Are a minimum of 18" below natural grade o Are wholly underground except for the required exiting, lighting, and ventilation o Are included in the development area total except when placed under a surface already counted as development area The proposed bunker garage does not encroach into any setbacks. The entire bunker garage is 18" below natural grade except for the portion along the north side which is daylighted for garage access. There is sufficient exiting with the garage doors and a lightwell at the south end of the bunker. Outdoor Lighting The applicant is proposing down shielded path lights located outside of the property line setbacks except for two (2) driveway lights and four (4) shielded wall mounted lights which are mounted on the 2' tall retaining wall on the east side of the tennis court (Lighting plans sheet L-1). Staff has included condition #8 for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be down shielded or frosted glass, low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted lighting specifications indicating that all proposed fixtures will be shielded downlights. Pursuant to Section 10-2.1002 of the Site Development Code, "no artificial lighting is permitted for tennis and other recreation courts." No lighting is proposed for the tennis court. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 4 of 12 Trees & Landscaping The property has heavy oak tree coverage along with pine and pepper trees. There is an 11" oak and a 7" bay proposed for removal with this application in order to construct the driveway and fire truck turnaround. The applicant has sited and designed the new driveway in a way to preserve a 24" and 12" oak. An arborist has inspected the trees and prepared a report and tree protection plan to protect the remaining trees during construction. (Attachment 7) Pursuant to Section 10-2.901 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, "Recreation courts shall be landscaped and screened so as to be unobtrusive from off-site". The applicant is also proposing to install a total of 39 screening trees of various species and sizes to help mitigate the view and noise of the new tennis court (sheet L-3). The proposed screening trees are required to be installed prior to final inspection. (Condition # 3) Drainage Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected in a 6" storm drain pipe and routed into a 40' long storm drain retention system located at the north property line. Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the Engineering Department" has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Department will review and approve the final drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as -built" grading and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection. Neighbor Concerns To date, staff has not received any neighbor comments. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring a sprinkler system throughout all portions of the bunker, an onsite hydrant, a fire access driveway, and fire truck turnaround. (Attachment 3) Geotechnical Review The Town's geotechnical consultant Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., has reviewed the soil and foundation report prepared by Ting and Associates dated November 6, 1999 and recommends approval of the permit based on conditions 12 a & b. (Attachment 4) Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 5 of 12 Committee Review The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented that there is sufficient existing landscape mitigation on the site. (Attachment 5) CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (e) ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Recommended Findings of Approval for Grading Exception 3. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated April 6, 2009 4. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates dated March 31, 2009 5. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated March 27, 2009 6. Staff Report and Minutes for the March 8, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting 7. Arborist Report 8. Grading Policy 9. Basement Ordinance 10. Worksheet #2 11. Development plans: site, grading & drainage, erosion control, sections, grading policy exception exhibit, and lighting plans. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TENNIS COURT AND BUNKER GARAGE LANDS OF JJP REALTY, 11481 MAGDALENA ROAD File # 60-09-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 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 first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. The proposed screening trees as redlined on the landscape plans dated June 18, 2009 (Sheet L-3) shall be installed prior to final inspection. 4. Additional landscaping may be required. Staff will visit the site prior to final inspection to determine if any additional plantings will be needed for screening or to restore areas disturbed by grading or construction. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection. 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. 6. The planting area west of the tennis court located in the setback shall not be developed with hardscape. Staff Report to the Planning Conunission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 7 of 12 7. There shall be no artificial lighting for the tennis court except the four (4) shielded wall mounted lights along the 2' tall wall on the east side of the tennis court. 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 tennis court and bunker garage are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30" from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new tennis court and bunker garage shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new tennis court and bunker 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 and prior to final inspection. 10. Fencing is approved as shown on the plans. 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 L-1. Light fixtures shall be down lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 12. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated March 31, 2009, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Supplemental Evaluation — The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate the potential risks associated with constructing the bunker/tennis court over the identified fault trace. The type and magnitude of seismic displacements should be described along with typical associated structural impacts. G Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 8 of 12 The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer and by the Town Geotechnical Consultant for review prior to project geotechnical clearance and prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, tennis court and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer 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 and pool prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection. For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., dated March 31, 2009. 13. Peak discharge at 11481 Magdalena Road as a result of Site Development Permit 60-09, 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 site grading and storm Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 9 of 12 drainage system were constructed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations. 14. 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. 15. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to f nal inspection. 16. 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 Magdalena Road and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 17. 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 18. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 10 of 12 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. 19. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. 20. 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%. 21. Provide one on site fire hydrant at locations to be determined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum acceptable flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI residual pressure. Prior to design, the project civil engineer shall meet with the fire department water supply officer to jointly spot the required fire hydrant locations. 22. Installation of private fire service mains and/or fire hydrants shall conform to National Fire Protection Association standards and Fire Department Standard details. A separate installation permit from the Fire Department is required. 23. Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. 24. Required access roads, up though first lift of asphalt shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of combustible construction. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads may be approved on a case by case basis. CONDITION NUMBERS 12 a & b, 13, 15, 16, and 17 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 July 24, 2009 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 JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 11 of 12 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 2, 2010). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of JJP Realty 11481 Magdalena Road July 2, 2009 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS INTO THE BUNKER GARAGE AND YARD AREA WEST OF THE TENNIS COURT LANDS OF JJP REALTY, 11481 MAGDALENA ROAD FILE # 60-09-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed area of grading is not on a hillside and will not result in the substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain. The property's existing contours and basic landform are retained. 2. The proposed grading will not result in the placement of retaining walls that are highly visible from off-site. 3. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 4. The Grading Policy emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. The proposed bunker garage requires no fill. 5. The proposed grading for a portion of the yard west of the tennis court will allow the area to be less obtrusive to the abutting neighbors and allow for a storm drain system to collect the water around the tennis court to be carried to the retention system. ,� Attaclunent 3 os ' c°trDEPARTMENT q ?0U0 FIRE SANTA CLARA COUNTY r 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-181 VU' OF LOS ALTOS HILLSlot-r,, -0, COURTM&SEAVICE (408) 378-4010 a (408) 378-9342 (fax) o www.sccfd.org Internationally Accredited Agency PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 0 9 0769 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER DEVELOPMENTREVIEW COMMENTS FILENUMBER 60 -09 -2P -SD -GD CODEISEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC Proposed construction of tennis court and 6,555 square foot underground bunker directly beneath tennis court. The bunker will provide enclosed vehicular storage and access for persons. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinklers are required in all new and existing modified buildings when gross floor area exceeds 3,600 square feet or that are 3 or more stories in height. Exception: One-time additions to existing buildings made after 01 / 01 / 2008 that do not exceed 500 gross square feet. An automatic sprinkler shall be provided in all new structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplieantNama DATE PAGE LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ R-3 V -B WHISLER LAND PLANNING 4/6/2009 1 3 of SEC./FLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY 1 floor below grade 6555 sf Residential Development Harding, Doug NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR 11481 Magdalena Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga e CEIVED cam, ° FIRE DEPARTMENT -z °°�. APR 6) 7 2009 SANTA.,CLARA COUNTY >f FIRE 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1H OF LOS ALTOS HILLS (408) 378-4010 0 (408) 378-9342 (fax) a www.sccfd.org InternationallyAcaedited oouxreV & 5ER Agency PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 0 9 0769 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS X/SEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT Sec 3, per endix B Sec. 3, per -endix B C Sec. Sec. 4 FILENUMBER 60-09-ZP-SD-GD Private Fire Hydrants) Required: Provide 1 private on-site fire hydrant(s) installed per NFPA Std. #24, at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum acceptable flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Prior to design, the project civil engineer shall meet with the fire department water supply officer to jointly spot the required fire hydrant locations. Private On Site Fire Service Mains' and/or Hydrants: Installation of private fire service mains and/or fire hydrants shall conform to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #24, and Fire Department Standard Details and Specification W-2. A Separate installation permit from this department is required. (Note: if the fire hydrant is to be dedicated back to the California Water Service Company, installation will be per that agency). Timinz of Required Water Supply Installations: Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. private hydrants serving this property within 600 feet of the property lines on Magdalena and private water storage tanks, if any. 6 Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of XX 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 LH ®❑ ®❑❑ I R-3 I V -B I WHISLER LAND PLANNING 14/6/2009 12 of 3 :JFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY oor below grade 6555 sf Residential Development Harding, Doug .ME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR 11481 Magdalena Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga FIRE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED �o u,o* FIRE �`� SANTA CLARA COUNTY 1,1� i,a ��ttiJ 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 J4rernas:o' (408) 378-4010 a (408) 378-9342 (fax) a www.sccfd.or OF LESS Rli®S HILLS Intemationally Accredited rf1SA E Agency PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 0 9 0769 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTSBLDG NUMBER 60-09-ZP-SD-GD CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT ZFC Sec. 5031 CFC Sec. 5011 conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn -around Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. Timingof f Required Roadway Installations: Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall be installed and.accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of combustible construction. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads may be approved on a case by case basis. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY R-3 CONST. TYPE V -B ApplicantName WHISLER LAND PLANNING DATE 4/6/2009 PAGE 3 OF 3 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY 1 floor below grade 6555 sf Residential Development Harding, Doug NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR 11481 Magdalena Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga r& COTTON, ON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TO: Nicole Horvitz Planning Department TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Geologic and Geotechnical Review RE: Pan/ JJP Realty, Tennis Court and Bunker #60-09-ZP-SD-GD 11481 Magdalena Road Attachment 4 March 31, 2009 L0079 At your request, we have completed a geologic and geotechnical peer review of applications for the proposed tennis court and bunker using: ® Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Ting and Associates, dated November 6, 1999; Fault Investigation — Proposed Residence (report) prepared by Steven F. Connelly, CEG, dated November 8, 1999; Civil Plans, (7 sheets, various scales) prepared by Lea & Braze Engineering Inc, dated February 3, 2009; and Landscape Plans (4 sheets, various scales) prepared by Whistler Land Planning, dated March 20, 2009. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent data from our office files. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to construct and new tennis court with a subsurface bunker/ storage area beneath the tennis court surface. The proposed tennis court/ Northern California Office Central California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (408) 354-5542 - Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 o Fax (209) 736-1212 e-mail: losgatos@cottonshires.com www.cottonshires.com e-mail: cottonshires@starband.net Nicole Horvitz March 31, 2009 Page 2 L0079 bunker will be located approximately 30 feet east of the western property line. Proposed earthwork quantities are given as 4,910 cubic yards of cut and 75 cubic yards of fill. We understand that the bunker is for storage purposes only and will not be an inhabited structure. SITE CONDITIONS T'he property is- riderlain, at depth, by- bedrock materials of the Monterey Formation and Franciscan Complex which are juxtaposed by the Berrocal fault that crosses through the eastern portion of the property. The Project Geologist has previously identified locations of the Berrocal fault on the property and has concluded that the most recently active fault trace passes through the proposed tennis court/ bunker building pad. A second older fault trace (potentially active) is located approximately 30 feet east of the proposed structure. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Proposed site improvements are constrained by potential surface fault rupture, anticipated strong to violent seismic ground shaking, and to a lesser extent potentially expansive soil materials. Recommended setbacks from the identified fault trace have previously been presented for the proposed residence. The proposed tennis court and bunker are located over an identified fault trace. If possible, alternative sites should be considered that do not extend across the fault trace. If the applicant proposes to proceed with construction as currently planned, then we recommend that the applicant's Engineering Geologist provide a supplemental letter indicating the level of risk and potential impacts to the project from fault rupture (to confirm the applicant is fully aware of the risk involved with the project). Contents of the bunker may be at similar risk as the proposed structure. The applicant should understand and be willing to accept the risks of damages associated with building that straddles the fault trace. We recommend that the following items be attached as conditions for project construction: 1. Supplemental Evaluation — The applicant's Engineering Geologist should evaluate the potential risks associated with COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz March 31, 2009 Page 3 L0079 constructing the bunker/ tennis courts over the identified fault trace. The type and magnitude of seismic displacements should be described along with typical associated structural impacts. Results of this evaluation should be summarized in a letter and submitted to the Town for review by the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant . prior to project geotechnical clearance or acceptance of documents for building permit plan - check. 2. Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, tennis court and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Geotechnical Field Investigation — 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. 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. This geologic and geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, as well as pertinent COTTON, SHIRES ANIS ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz Page 4 March 31, 2009 L0079 office files. 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 imp lied. TS:DTS:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT C: . - Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. n �-� Environmental Design and Protection Committee Ea.ndscape/Hardscape Evaluation Reviewed by: Lys , R--- Applicant Name Address Nfitigation• Atrt- Creeps, drainage, ea /V 0 M i'�-2�Z- , t 7 'e"' l0 9 gOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Date �• Attachment 5 Planting Plan: issues/comments: Attachment 6 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 8, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND TENNIS COURT; LANDS OF PAN; 11481 MAGDALENA AVENUE; 4316-99-ZP-SD- GD. FROM: Carl Cahill, Associate Planner C G. APPROVED BY: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND The subject property is located adjacent to and on the north side of Magdalena Avenue near its intersection with Ravensbury Avenue. The triangular shaped 6 -acre property is bounded by other private properties on 2 sides with property frontage along Magdalena Avenue. The Planning Commission at its February 23, 2000 meeting first reviewed this project. A neighboring couple attended the meeting and expressed concern over their potential loss of privacy and drainage impacts on their property as a result of this project. The Commission's concerns included the possible visibility of the structure given its knoll top location, the excessive amount of lighting, the interior basement opening at the solarium, the impact on the adjacent neighbor's privacy, the large windows particularly at the second story level, the lack of excess parking, and site drainage. The Commission continued the item and recommended that the applicants consider changes to the home design, building location, parking, lighting and drainage plans to address these concerns. DISCUSSION The applicant delivered revised architectural plans, a revised grading and drainage plan and detailed narratives describing the revisions on Wednesday, March 1, 2000. The revisions appear to address most of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the neighbors' comments. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have. Planning Commission Lands of Pan March 8, 2000 Page 2 ATTACHIAXNTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Worksheet #2 3. Staff Report dated February 23, 2000 4. Narrative reports prepared by the project architect and the project civil engineer providing responses to comments and describing proposed revisions (4 pages). 5. Revised plans: site, floor & roof plans, building sections, elevations, grading and drainage and landscaping (13 sheets). Cc: Jing Jong Pan Nancy Anderson, Project Architect Great America Parkway, Ste. 532 2671 Crow Canyon Road Santa Clara, CA 95054 San Ramon, CA 94583 Planning Commission Lands of Pan March 8, 2000 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR NEW RESIDENCE AND TENNIS COURT LANDS OF PAN, 11481 MAGDALENA AVENUE File # 316-99-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans must be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending upon the scope of the changes. 2. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control plan shall be reviewed at a Site Development Hearing. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will help screen the site from neighboring properties and from the roadway. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection, unless the Planning Director finds that unusual circumstances, such as weather or site conditions, require that planting be delayed. In those instances, a deposit of an amount equal to the cost of landscape materials and installation, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be submitted to the Town. Landscaping shall in any event be installed not later than six months after final inspection, or the deposit will be forfeited. 3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or. certificate of deposit), equal to the cost of materials and installation for all landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer), but not to exceed $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 installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 4. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall use materials that have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less. White trim area should be minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, garage doors, columns, railings, and trellises. A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior to final inspection. 5. Prior to beginning any grading or construction operations, all significant trees in the vicinity of construction shall be fenced at the dripline. The Planning Commission Lands of Pan March 8, 2000 Page 4 fencing shall be of material and structure to clearly delineate the dripline. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading or construction. The fencing must remain in place throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the driplines of these trees. All grading or work to be done within the dripline (foliar spread) of Coast Live Oaks (#210, 4212, #213) must be supervised by a certified arborist and follow the recommendations of the arborist's report dated February 1, 2000 prepared by Tree Health Professionals, Inc. Tree #211 may be removed per arborist's recommendation. The arborist shall submit a letter prior to final inspection indicating the health of the trees and that any repair work on the trees has been completed. 6. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 7. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for the new construction. 8. No outdoor lighting of the tennis court shall be permitted. 9. Locations and specifications for outdoor lighting shall be submitted for Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape. plan. Lighting fixtures shall generally be downlights. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. Any security lighting shall be limited in number and directed away from clear view of neighbors, and shielding with shrouds or louvers is suggested. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties and the source or lighting should not be directly visible from off site. No lighting may be placed within the setbacks except for 2 driveway or entry lights, except where determined to be necessary for safety. 10. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated January 19, 2000, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall.review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the of the development plans (i.e. site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, tennis court and driveway) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town prior to the acceptance of plans for building plan check. Planning Commission Lands of Pan March 8, 2000 Page 5 b. 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 placement of steel and concrete. The consultant shall verify that new fill materials are properly keyed and benched into competent earth materials. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection. For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates dated January 19, 2000. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 11. 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 between November 1 and April 1 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 or where a variance has been approved. 12. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 13. 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 plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Magdalena Avenue and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; 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. Planning Commission Lands of Pan March 8, 2000 Page 6 14. 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 shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 15. 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 flow patterns. A final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by -the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 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 letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations prior to final inspection. 16. The property owner shall grant a conservation easement to the Town over all undeveloped portions of the property where the slope is 30% or greater. A provision shall be made in the conservation easement agreement to allow for the construction and maintenance of the approved septic system for the property. No fencing is permitted within conservation easement areas except open fencing that meets Town specifications and allows for the free movement of wildlife. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The grant document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 17. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $7.00 per linear foot ' of property frontage along Magdalena Avenue prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT 18. The access driveway shall be a minimum of 14 feet wide, shall have a vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches, shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads, of fire apparatus (40,000 pounds) and shall have an all weather surface. 19. The property address shall be placed on the property so that it is clearly visible and legible from the, street fronting the property. The address a Planning Commission Lands of Pan March 8, 2000 Page 7 numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with the background color. 20. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall install a fire hydrant to assure that adequate flow is available to the residence. The design and type of fire protection shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. A `Blue" dot (fire hydrant location identifier) shall be placed in the roadway (Magdalena Avenue), as directed by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection. 21. The required driveway and tum -around installations shall be in place, inspected, and accepted by the Fire Department. prior to the start of construction. Bulk combustible construction materials may not be delivered to the construction site until installations are completed as stated above. 22. Any proposed access gates shall not obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If provided, all locks shall be Fire Department approved. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-1. 23. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in the new residence. Plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, and the sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by_ the Fire Department, prior to final inspection. The applicant may propose alternate means of achieving an acceptable water supply in lieu of fire sprinklers, subject to the. approval of the Fire Department. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. CONDITION NUMBERS 4, 9, 10a & b, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 AND 23 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. The following items must be completed prior to building permit issuance: Applicants must pay School District (Los Altos or Palo Alto) fees before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of required fee payment forms that have been completed by the Town to both the elementary and/or high school district offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. planning Commission Lands of Pan March 8, 2000 Page 8 All tree fencing must be installed and inspected by the Planning Department. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until March 8, 2001). 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. 'OWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENTATTAC FIMENT Fremont Road ® Los Altos Hills, California 94022 ® (415) 941-7222 o PAX (415) 9413160 -t�CEIVE WORKSHEET 92 s-IA�-� G I E)GSTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR ARES,,. ® TURN IN MTH YOUR APPLICATION ""`` PROPERTY „�.I�SIFIL- OWNER'S NAME Jing Jong Pan PROPERTY ADDRESS 11481 Magdalena Road CALCULATED BY 1. DEVELOPME D. E. F. G. H. Dahlin Group, Inc. DATE 03-01-00 REVISED (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing. Proposed (NEW) ((*&be tms� House and Garage (from Part 2. A.) 3,785 _mo as ed) 12,019 Decking -0- 93 Driveway and Parking 6,620 4,607 (Measured 100' along centerline) Patios and Walkways 2,650 976 Tennis Court -0- 6,800 Pool and Decking 900 1,640 Accessory Buildings (from Part B) -0- An th Total 12,019 93 4,607 976 6,800 1,640. y o er coverage -0- -0- -0- TOTALS 13,955 26,143 26,143 Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) 27,235 ?. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTACE) A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor C. Attic and Basement d. Garage B. Accessory Buildings a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor C. Attic and Basement Existing Proposed (NEW) i� dd�vrrs��t;or>s To be Demolished) 3.164 9,322 1,617 5,101 1,080 -0- Total 9,322 1,617 5,101 not •includ �n total 1,080 TOTALS 3,785 12,019 12,019 Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet 91) 13, 209 TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY TATE -11 - i 2/26/'u L_Rt.- MA(: I Il)/OItICINAIS/I'I.ANNINC:/Wiukslx•cl u2 ATITACHMENTE `3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 23, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND TENNIS COURT; LANDS OF PAN; 11481 MAGDALENA AVENUE; 4316-99-ZP-SD- GD. FROM: Carl Cahill, Associate PlannerGC APPROVED BY: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 1). The subject property is located adjacent to and on the north side of Magdalena Avenue near its intersection with Ravensbury Avenue. The triangular shaped 6 -acre property is bounded by other private properties on 2 sides with property frontage along Magdalena Avenue. The property is populated with numerous trees and contains substantial area with slopes greater than 30 percent. There is an existing 3,785 square foot single story home with a pool on the site that will be demolished prior to construction. A long driveway off of Magdalena Avenue serves the residence. A portion of the existing driveway will be modified to accommodate the tennis court. CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-1.1104 of the Zoning Ordinance, this application for a new residence and tennis court has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Criteria for review from the Site Development Ordinance include grading, drainage, building siting, pathways, landscape screening and outdoor lighting. Zoning Code review encompasses compliance with floor and development area requirements, setbacks, height and parking. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 6.0 acres Net Lot Area: 3.02 acres* Average Slope: 19.7%* Lot Unit Factor: 2.39 *excluding area for proposed conservation easement per Zoning Code Section 10-1.502(4) Planning Commission Lands of Pan . February 23, 2000 Page 2 Floor Area and Development Area: Area Maxi7nu7n Proposed Existing Increase Left Development 27,235 26,084 13,955 +12,129 +1,151 Floor 13,209 12,027 3,785 + 8,242 +1,182 The applicant has excluded areas of steep slope from calculations and has included these areas in a proposed conservation easement. The Zoning Code allows the lot unit factor (LUF) and maximum development area to be calculated based solely on the flat portion of the property provided that the resulting LUF is more than 1.0 and provides a minimum 160 -foot diameter building circle within that area. The remaining steep slopes excluded from the calculations must be placed in a conservation easement and driveway access must be outside the conservation easement area. Site and Architecture The applicant is requesting approval of a site development permit for a 12,027 square foot partial two-story residence including 1,080 square feet of garage area and a 5,321 square foot basement. The applicant is proposing a regulation size tennis court. The plans also show a future location for a pool and decking. The future pool is included in Worksheet #2 development area calculations and will require a separate site development permit. The proposed house will be located on the existing building site at the top of the slope. The proposed structure combines a distinctive modem architectural style with a traditional Mediterranean influence _that includes a low-pitched clay barrel tile roof and an interior courtyard. 'The modem design includes floor to ceiling windows that wrap around room comers with external structural supports that project from the building. A considerable amount of stonework complements the stucco exterior. Story poles have been placed on the site for the Commission's review. Heigbbt and Visibility The home is located on a knoll -top setting and will be at least partially visible from Magdalena Avenue and several neighboring homes, and will visible from more distant properties on lower elevations. Existing trees should help to screen the home which is setback over 100 feet from Magdalena Avenue. The building height for any given section does not exceed 24 feet and the overall structure height measured from the lowest point to the highest point does not appear to exceed 28.5 feet. The second story of the home comprises only 14 percent of the overall floor area. However, the low roof pitch and high ceilings on portions of the first floor give the home a taller appearance than might be expected with such a minimal second story. The large ceiling to floor windows may also increase the visibility of the structure, particularly at night. The tennis court is being constructed below an adjacent ridgeline to minimize visibility and outdoor lighting will not be permitted for the court. Planning Commission Lands of Pan February 23, 2000 Page 3 In addition to public noticing, the applicant's architect has conducted two mailings to property owners within 500 feet of the project and offered to meet with them at their convenience and discuss the proposal. -The applicant was contacted by four neighbors and met with three. A summary of neighbor responses from meetings with the project architect is attached (attachment #9). Neighbors were mostly satisfied with the proposed residence. A few immediate neighbors expressed concern about possible loss of privacy and want the home to be well screened from view of their homes. Color Given the knoll top setting and the partial second story staff recommends that the standard color condition be applied. Condition #4 requires that the applicant meet the Town's minimum reflectivity standards. for the roof and exterior. The Commission should include a finding for this condition in its motion. Parking & Driveway The residence will have a three -car garage and a one -car garage and meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The upper portion of the existing driveway will be realigned to accommodate the placement of the tennis court and to meet Fire Department requirements. The applicant is adding a turnout and constructing a fire truck turn -around. Some retaining walls, no higher than 4 feet, will also be constructed along the new driveway alignment in order not to exceed the Town's maximum allowable 15% driveway grade. Outdoor Lighting Exterior lighting is shown on plan sheet 2. Lighting does not appear excessive. Staff has included the standard condition (#9) for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be downshielded with a,maximurn of one .fixture per exit except at the garage and front entrance. Outdoor lighting of the tennis court is prohibited per Section 10-2.1002 of the Site Development Code and is also a condition of approval (48). The applicant will be fications prior to landscape plan review and approval. required to submit lighting speci Trees & Landscaping There are numerous trees and shrubs on the site. The grading plan shows about a dozen trees to be removed. No oak trees will be removed except for one tree that has been recommended for removal by a certified arborist on account of its very poor health. A condition of approval (#5) requires the applicant to follow the arborist's recommendations for protecting the three oaks specified in the report dated February 1, 2000 prepared by Tree Health Professionals, Inc. The applicant is also proposing to relocate two mature Japanese Maple trees. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a landscaping plan for review subsequent to framing of the structure. Planning Commission Lands of Pan February 23, 2000 Page 4 Conservation Easement The applicant has offered a 2.24 acre conservation easement and staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the property owner grant a conservation easement to the Town over all undeveloped portions of the property where the slope is 30% or greater. It should also be noted that the applicant intends to abandon and revegetate the dirt road along the west side of the property. The road was graded by the previous property owner without benefit of Town approval. Gradin & Drainage The project meets Town grading policy. Total grading quantities include 6,740 cubic yards (CY) of cut, including 2,420 CY the basement, 660 CY for a crawl space under the house and 220 CY for the garage. An additional 1,600 CY of cut is for the tennis court and 1,250 CY for the driveway. There is also 100 cubic yards of fill for the driveway. The total grading quantity has decreased slightly from what is indicated on the grading plan due to minor basement floor plan changes. The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of approval as specified in Attachment #1. Drain inlets around the house connect to drainage dissipaters located downhill along the driveway. 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 shall be corrected prior to final inspection. Geotechnical Review The Town's geotechnical consultant has reviewed the project and has noted the location of a potentially active fault on the property and concurs with the proposed 20 -foot building setback. The consultant has no geotechnical objections to the project. However, the report notes that the property owner should understand that the intent of the Uniform Building Code is to prevent structural collapse but does not necessarily prevent cosmetic and economic damage including, but not limited to, damage to the tennis court in the event of seismic shaking. Cotton, Shires and Associates have consequently prepared conditions of approval for the project as designed (see Attachment #1). Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has determined that the flow capacity of the nearest fire hydrant will not be adequate for a home of the proposed size. The applicant is required to provide fire sprinklers, an on-site fire hydrant, and a fire truck turn -around to meet the Fire Department's requirements. • The recommendations have been included as conditions in Attachment #1. Planning Commission Lands of Pan February 23, 2000 Page 5 Committee Review AITACU'RIUM 3 The Pathways Committee had no comment on this proposal. A condition of approval will require the payment bf the pathway in lieu fee per Section 10-2.608 of the Site Development Ordinance. The Environmental Design Committee commented on the lack of guest parking and also suggested that the property owner may want to consider transplanting some of the citrus trees since they have shallow roots and are easily transplantable. The Committee further recommended that the dirt trail be revegetated to prevent erosion and that the applicant discuss their development proposal with adjacent neighbors. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Worksheet #2 3. Comments from Santa Clara County Fire Department, dated January 12, 2000 (four pages) 4. Letter from Cotton, Shires and Associates, dated January 19, 2000 (two pages) 5. Pathways Committee evaluation, received January 29, 2000 (one page) 6. Environmental Design & 'Protection Committee evaluation, received January 20, 2000 (one page) 7. Summary of neighbor responses from meetings with project architect 8. Color photo simulations of proposed residence 9. Development plans: Grading & drainage, site, lighting, floor and roof plans, elevations and sections (11 sheets) Cc: , Jing Jong Pan Nancy Anderson, Project Architect Great America Parkway, Ste. 532 2671 Crow Canyon Road Santa Clara, CA 95054 San Ramon, CA 94583 . UUN _. DAHLIN - ARCHITECTS a PLANNERS RECEIVED MAR 0 1 _20 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS FALLS Responses to Town of Leos Altos Hills Planning Commission Meeting February 23, 2000 HET Re: Pan Residence 11481 Magdalena Road In accordance with the motion to continue the Planning Commission hearing on the Pan Residence to March 8, 2000, to allow the applicant to consider the Commissions comments and make modifications, we submit the following plan modifications: Sheet C-1 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan Drainage: The civil engineer has provided three (3) additional catch basins on the South side of the existing driveway, which are at points where the on-site ditch currently diverges from the road All the runoff from the developed area will be conveyed directly to the existing storm inlet on Magdalena Road. Runoff from pervious areas including any minor improved landscape areas will be tied to a secondary drainage system, connecting to the primary system. A drainage narrative prepared by the Civil Engineer is included in this re- submittal, which addresses the concerns expressed by the adjacent neighbor and members of the Planning Commission. Location: The home siting as originally submitted has been maintained. It is 115 ft. from the northern property line and 145 ft, from the westem property line. Given these already substantial distances, it was felt that a small additional setback would not alter neighbor's perception of proposed home. Instead we have made a substantial modification to the rooflines and have eliminated more than 100 sq. ft. of glass that was higher than 10 ft. above the first floor. This leaves only 44 sq. ft. of glass higher than 10 ft. above the first floor on the nearest north elevations. Of that glass, 36 sq. ft. has adjacent second story floor that could possibly view to northern neighbors, we have committed to glaze this area with a translucent art glass so that there would be no second story views to northern neighbors from these near northern elevations. (See Sheets 7 & 8 Elevations) We intend to review this change with the Colet family. We have left messages twice with the Colets and as of this submittal (March 1, 2000), we have not received a response. 2671 CROW CANYON ROAD, SAN RAMON, CA 94583 925.8378286 FAX 925.837.2543 www.dahlingroup.com Pan Residence Re -Submittal March 1, 2000 'ACIAMERIi q Parking We are modifying the plan to provide a spillover parking area with grass cell reinforced turf (plastic honeycomb, completely below turf surface) immediately below the driveway switchback. This will be on the south side of the driveway, some 35 ft. from the northern property line. It is 24 to 30 ft. below the home finish floor and well below neighbor's views. We also have 4 -car garaging and can park 4 guest cars in the pull out area in front of the garage doors, a common guest parking area in residences. Sheet 2 -Outdoor Lighting Plan Fxterior lighting- It ightingIt was noted by one planning commissioner the number of exterior lights on plan was forty-six (46). Revised lighting plan is identifying twenty-nine (29) lights of which twelve (12) are required by code. Seventeen (17) lights have been eliminated from the original submittal; of this number, eight (8) were eliminated from the perimeter lights on downhill side of structure, and three (3) were eliminated at the driveway. Sheet 3 -First Floor Plan - Double counting of openings into basement It was argued that any openings within the interior of the home from the first floor to the basement would be counted twice if the height exceeded 17 ft. from basement floor to ceiling directly above. Substantial openings occurred in the entry area and the solarium area in the original proposal. These openings have been substantially reduced and what remains has been counted twice. Sheet 5 -Second Floor Plan Sheet 6 -Roof Plan 2 -story on hilltop: In compliance with the Town's municipal code, the original proposed residence has been designed with a sloping roofline with a stepped back upper floor that follows the natural contours of the site. Interior floor elevations conform to the existing building pad in order to minimize any major grading. Exterior clay roof tiles, stucco and stone have been selected from a color palette that blends with the natural landscape. The original submittal incorporated a second story level, which represented 14% of the total square footage. With revisions made to the upper floor, the square footage now represents 13.5 % of the total. More importantly significant roofline modifications for this re -submittal have reduced building rnass even further by reducing much of the higher ceiling volumes in the formal areas. (Entry, Dining, Living). Pan Residence Re -Submittal March 1, 2000 r AE Sheet 9 & g Perimeter elevations Expanse of high glass on bulldfng: The upper floor has been revised, eliminating the circular clerestory element over the formal dining room and overlook at the'formal living. Therefore, the second story glazing on the North and Northwest side of the residence has been substantially reduced and all second story view from these sides has been eliminated. A change in plate height of the roof has reduced the expanse of glazing by two (2) feet across the East wall of the main entry gallery and placed a 3 ft. overhang over the remaining glass. The stairwell solarium on the Southeast side has also been reduced four (4) feet in height to minimize the expanse of glass. This home, as is typical in custom homes of this quality today, will have a 100% scene controlled lighting system. This means that 3-5 lighting "scenes" will be programmed into each space. These vary from: very low "path of travel" lighting; to low level ambient lighting; to general use; to high activity. The typical normal use program is to maintain living areas in the early evening at low-level ambient lighting with motion sensors that watt up to general use in the occupied spaces. Under typical use only a few rooms will be illuminated to general use levels at any one time. As an additional measure, upper floor rooms can be programmed to drop to very low "path of travel" level when not occupied- Glazing ccupiedGlazing will have a slight green tint that reduces glare either way. This will further reduce light emanating from the home. Motorized vertical blinds or drapes will cover windows in Formal Living, Formal Dining, Family Living, Breakfast, and Master Bedroom. , �IIC nd— r_nc��-tree, lny, :, :civ oor .��,�, •:� Clv1L ENSFNgEE1s, •, LAND !§QRVEYDAS Dr-giinagi 4arrafive AT Pa* li�adence'.. ' 1146.73quEjd-alena,'Los Alt®s HMIs :. The piopased ori�sjte Stc3rr 'drainage. system Will collwt and convey viitually:all ' -bf the runoff being gsneraf ed 3rom'tlie _e*tin.g and praposcd irtipervious 'surfaces as. w611 as:a sign ficantpoitidn af' ewly l�hdsca cturea:acid:eXisring flows origiti'ating from adjaFerTC•uphill sources, : TIie iaW- +dll b16 direct:ed•by.a' piped syMr-m te;,Ae ex,isthi* : storm inset on luiagdi<3letia Rnof clpwnspit linall es..slitie'to a close=d, {ghtlie) syrn which vviil: aonuei�t : to .t ie larger pdWary.under9rO-U ci o>ra-site:.storm:dY'airrage iem:: : Siirface �uuof .fxorn ins envious site iris .r .veiiients" •Isotli existin : U `and d p ose g l e' i ed wi b collect tb sene� 6f imlets as: 'ark of :ffie'tin-si.dx na '�: - fain Pro' os as p -•'sits,imprbve�a s'jncl&; the. te-�is.eouaty`reafigned qjecess driveway, paxlring, =Gdt-4;•. and vehicuIa��furxiaround.areas:.Ih lover portltin ibf Me existing access:i1rive will : remain; Wbleh c�aemSl3t df�ii�s into axe exnsting itlterior ditch. .above �Iagdalena`arid� -n- spina intro theswal�icsn$sic�e I�fagdalena_:that sive i eriiptied'via a siarm:iniet ly Z4• -inch: pipe gnder. INl 0916na to jhe.-Gr6elz oft the nppo4te.side-of the rd We, pica}iQse' .1htrccptrng.all othe-riwol from the developed areaat the point where.tlie on-sitelitch. ctirrentl}�.diverges froirilhi xoad•and•Gortve3 ng -ft directly fo the.existirig: storm• inlet on. :. Mz3.gsfaler3a. • ::.. .. . • • ... � ° .' •... •: •. _ . ' • • ' . ` . . Rtino fr�i1 pei'Yrbus are&s.including' iy'minor ii Prov d landsca ae ai`eas are -#o be tied to a seco drainage *''stein that vAR-confiect to•ther primary system, • Likewise. those exigtiixg flows. gch�i ad" ac6nt'properties r01 bii divested as riepcssary,-v- d'co11`eetc i within -the. Oin-site 'system: �T1�a •exception fo :that'witI includ6 flow patterns:which are nat - - " " impacted by .the proposed.developmeiit, P•resentlx a.Portion:of upiu I Aminage sbeeffla`tvs in'ari easterly and of thv ly' ditecfiior; beyond thy -iri�p -areas, 'UVe db-nut,ptopose Walter thosb.flaUv patterns.' : There fire also.on'=sife'tt�rerfand fJ1Q* :downhill frorri-the existing home Ap the South arid' east that shad fici imam vizrtuallYIanchaAgbd..: A.sproposed the net:ef€eeLan adjacent propef't6 will bo a runofT VW me either..;, _ ` unchanged or reduEed:in Feia(tiori.ta the'current:. fine,' ; Final°•'grading: ar�d dralriagp plans* will be lir parecb to address design• details and. `will be revrevtited b "the "Town''pnor to o47nstr`uctiori: _ _ 994? DRkINA'G1' 1'dAAkATAVE.doc 8102: Eden L•ariding-'P', B&,' Buite V* e,- 'Haywai-d,'CA A54:5'.P (51 �) 887640BS O FARC Ela 1.0] $B7 3019" I Minutes ®f a Regular Meeting Town ®f Los Alt®s Hills PLANNING COMMISSI®N Wednesday, March 8, 2000, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #5-00 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Approved 4/12100 The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners Gottlieb, Wong, Jinkerson, Cottrell & Schreiner Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Ola Balogun, Associate Engineer, Carl Cahill, Associate Planner; Suzanne Davis, Interim Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF PAN, 11481 Magdalena Road (316-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and tennis court continued from February 23, 2000). Doug Dahlin, project architect representing Mr. Pan, reviewed the modifications that had been made to the plans. He noted that the slope at the south end of the existing house is a fill area which the house extends over. The siting of the house, which has not been changed since the last meeting, has been pulled back from the fill slope. The tennis court has been dropped in so the fence will appear to be only six feet high. Semi -pervious material such as grasscel will be used for the guest parking area. The new house will be 22 feet closer to the north property line than the existing house, but will be further from Magdalena Avenue. Exterior lighting has been reduced from 46 to 29 fixtures. These lights are all required by code. The portion of the house with the two-story appearance has been reduced through removal of the high volume ceiling. The circular element in the dining room was eliminated and there is no longer a view from the gallery since the glass areas above the living and dining rooms has been removed. There are no longer any views to the north from the second floor as a result. Commissioner Schreiner asked how much floor area has been eliminated? Mr. Dahlin said that the reduction in actual floor area is minor, but the high volume area was reduced significantly. The roof slopes down to the first story from the former location of the second tier windows. On the south side, the solarium has been reduced from 14 to 10 feet in height. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 2 Approved 4/12/00 Commissioner Schreiner asked how much glass is left on the second story? Mr. Dahlin stated that he could not answer that immediately, but he could scale the plans and produce an estimate. He noted that the gallery views will be into the courtyard only. He provided photos of models showing the original and revised designs. The photos are regenerated images showing the view from neighbors (Pond and Colet) to the existing house and the new house with both the original and revised plans. He discussed tree preservation measures, and noted that Mr. Pond supported the project and that he had written a letter retracting his earlier letter stating concerns. Peter Wright Shaw, landscape architect, showed areas of screening around the site. He stated that there are a number of pines and oaks along the driveway. Some of the pines need to be removed, and will be replaced with six oaks each. They will work with the neighbors to provide adequate screening, and trees will be strategically placed. There is a grove of Eucalyptus growing among native oaks that they would like to remove and replace with new oak trees: They will also be planting shrubs to fill in. Commissioner Gottlieb asked about the large window on the northeast side of the house and whether any mitigation would be provided? Mr. Dahlin said that the photos show the existing landscaping, and the proposed planting was not included. Jeff Lea, Lea "& Sung Engineering, project engineer, summarized the proposed drainage plan. He noted that they have tried to catch as much of the run-off as possible and will tie into the existing catch basin and culvert under Magdalena Avenue which will divert water to the creek. A swale runs across the northeast comer of the property. They will also be improving the drainage around the house. Commissioner Gottlieb asked about drainage for the sunken tennis court. Mr. Lea stated that there will be inlets and a trench drain with gravity fall -out at one end. if the back-up drain were to clog the water will back up onto the tennis court. Commissioner Wong asked about the neighbor across Magdalena Avenue who was concemed with drainage. Mr. Lea said that they could bury dissipation fields (a bed of gravel) as a buffer if so directed. This would be a costly item that he was not sure is justified, but it can be done. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the Town Engineer has studied this, and what was his opinion on the proposed drainage? Mr. Balogun said that the applicant will be required to demonstrate that run-off will not exceed the capacity of the existing culvert, and the increased run-off that will be generated shall not negatively impact adjacent properties. Mr. Lea noted that the development area figure on worksheet #2 is incorrect. The increase in impervious coverage would be about 4,000 square feet, not 10,000 as originally indicated. Discussion ensued regarding drainage. Mr. Dahlin_ suggested that the incremental increase of 4,000 square feet was small and that the Commission could condition the project to require no increase in flow for a 10 year storm event. a Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/12/00 March 8, 2000 Page 3 Liz Roberts, 11630 Magdalena Avenue, lives at the corner of Dawson Drive at the bottom of the hill. She expressed concern about the impact on her property. Dave Roberts, 11630 Magdalena Avenue, stated that water flows downhill towards Dawson Drive and then crosses the road diagonally, directly toward his property. Chairman Jinkerson disclosed that he visited the site on Sunday, and that he also visited the Colet property and viewed the project site from their home. Ralph Colet, 11630 Jessica Lane, stated that most of his concerns still remain. He met with Mr. Dahlin and Mr. Hao on Sunday. He complimented the architect on the design. His main concern is privacy. Commissioner Schreiner asked if Mr. Colet was concerned about the siting of the house rather than it's height and size. Mr. Colet said that he would like to see the house moved back towards Magdalena Avenue. Commissioner Wong asked if landscape screening would help? Mr. Colet pointed out that trees could be cut down, or might never be planted. He asked if the view is not important, why is there so much glass? It would be easier to move the house than to build it and plant trees to try to hide it. He is also concerned about drainage. Sy Hannan, 11663 Jessica Lane, stated his concern about drainage. He doesn't have a problem with siting or colors. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design & Protection Committee, met with Peter Shaw voicing confidence that he can successfully mitigate the house. The existing trees should remain until the house is built and the landscape plan is approved. If a conservation easement is obtained, she suggested that orchard trees be planted, and recommended apricot trees on the steep slope that is currently vacant. Mr. Dahlin said that they would accept a condition not allowing tree removal until the landscape plan is approved. Commissioner Cottrell asked about moving the house. Mr. Dahlin said that he did not want to push the house out over the fill slope as it would be difficult to meet the grading policy. He . showed drawings of possible changes and said the house could be shifted 11 feet further from the Colet property. Mr. Lea noted that he has a vested interest in making the drainage work. He intends to design a drainage system that will be effective and will not impact the neighbors. This is not a difficult site to improve the drainage on. Mrs. Colet, 11630 Jessica Lane, stated her concern about privacy in the master bedroom. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 4 Approved 4/12/00 Mr. Dahlin stated that they have tried to maintain the Colet's privacy. He can't say that they won't see part of the house, but the window to window exposure has been eliminated. It is much easier to screen one-story windows. The new house is 10 feet_ narrower than the existing house which will give a better foundation for privacy landscaping. Commissioner Gottlieb asked about the height. It was indicated that the house would be 23 feet seven inches from grade to the highest part of the house. She asked for clarification on the tennis court grading and whether it was acceptable to locate it on a fault trace. Staff noted that the grading was within the limits of the grading policy, and that the Town geotechnical consultant had reviewed the tennis court and found the plans acceptable. If the fault ruptures the tennis court will be lost. Seven thousand cubic yards of excavation is required for the project. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Gottlieb said that basements are legal and the tennis court may have cuts of up to six feet under the grading policy. She was concerned with the two-story profile of the house on a ridge. She suggested working withneighbors to improve drainage. She was pleased to see the offer to move the house back, although there is a high amount of excavation associated with the project. Commissioner Schreiner stated that the issues are the siting, drainage, two-story and glass, the basement, exterior lighting, color and landscaping. The applicant has been responsive to neighbors. The basement and lighting have been addressed. Colors are muted and will blend nicely. She was concerned with landscaping. It is a wonderful planting plan, but she doesn't want to depend on it. Commissioner Wong stated that the main issue is drainage and how to assure that the lands are properly drained. The applicant should work closely with staff on drainage. Commissioner Cottrell commended the applicant on working with neighbors. He was not too concerned about the two-story portion of the house. It is lower than some one-story homes, and is a minimal part of the floor area (13-14%). He felt it is not fair to ask the applicant to fix drainage problems in the area, although they can be asked to adequately handle on-site drainage. Chairman Jinkerson commended both sides on their presentations. The applicant has done one.- of neof the best presentations that he has seen, the house is well designed and it is a beautiful home. Because it is on a hilltop and is visible, the Commission has a responsibility to the neighbors and the community to carefully review the plans. He was concerned with the house being two stories on a hilltop. It is very visible and impacts neighbors. Other than that he wholeheartedly supports the project. Mr. Williams stated that requiring apricot trees to be planted in the conservation easement would set a precedent. Typically native plantings are mandated and the intent of a conservation easement is to maintain the natural state and to minimize the impact. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 5 Approved 4/12/00 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell to approve the project as submitted with added conditions to (1) move the house 11 feet further from the northerly property line as suggested by the applicant; (2) work with staff to obtain adequate drainage; (3) appropriate landscaping shall be done to mitigate the house as much as possible; and (4) exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum. Condition # 2 was modified to include 20 to 30 foot high oaks (initial planting height) and the landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong. AYES: Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb & Wong NOES: Commissioner Schreiner and Chairman Jinkerson This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.2 LANDS OF TRIFELOS & RYAN, 13581 Wildcrest Drive (283-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition (continued from February 8, 2000 Fast Track meeting). Mr. Williams introduce this item stating that the project was referred from the Fast Track process. They held the hearing and there were some neighbors with substantial concerns. Commissioner Gottlieb stated that the plans say garage when it is supposed to be a carport. There is a conservation easement over the creek in the Atherton Court area. Is there an easement over this property? Mr. Williams said that a conservation easement can be over the portion of the creek on the applicant's site. Commissioner Schreiner asked if this is a complete teardown? Mr. Williams answered that it is a substantial change and much of the existing house will be removed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Stephanie Trifelos, applicant, said that the carport will have only a front door and a rear wall. The leachfields have been approved by the County Health Department. The first story will remain as they are working with the existing foundation. The house will have natural colors (taupes) and will have stone accents, mahogany doors and slate roofing. They have shared their plans with neighbors, one of which was ill and another did not respond. The project is within the height limits, is 90 feet below the hillcrest and is a good distance from neighbors. There are a substantial number of trees to screen the house. She presented photos and color samples to the Commission. Howard Lee, 12933 Atherton Court, said that his house is across the creek at the same elevation. He presented photos to the Commission. Mr. Lee was concerned with visual impacts as the house will be much larger than what is there now. The height and bulkiness are substantially greater. He suggested reducing the bulk by rounding corners and lowering the roofline. Lights at night will be obtrusive and he was concerned about privacy with the number of windows on the rear elevation. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/12/00 March 8, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Wong asked if the second floor windows will look into his house, and Mr. Lee responded yes. The oak trees are not high enough to screen and they are already mature, so they won't grow much higher. Vazgen Babayan, 12940 Atherton Court, had the same concerns as he will see much of the house. If the view can be mitigated, it will be okay. Commissioner Gottlieb stated that Mr. Babayan was denied a two-story home when he built his house. Mr. Babayan concurred. David Ryan, applicant, said that the house is in a valley. Wildcrest Drive is well above it and is surrounded by trees. Lee's house is at 375 feet and theirs is at 365 feet (elevation). There are many trees around his house and the project site is not on a ridgeline and is not impeding any views. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner said that her basic concern with this house is it is on a 40% slope. Architectural details can mitigate bulk as noted in the Design Guidelines. She is well aware of the two-story elevation of this house. It doesn't follow the land and she thinks it would be extremely prominent. Commissioner Wong agreed. The house will be very visible and will impact the neighbors. Commissioner Cottrell agreed also with his colleagues — the house doesn't step down the hill. A roof change would decrease the bulk, and the second floor should be set back. Commissioner Gottlieb also agreed with previously made comments. She suggested dropping the ceiling to lower the profile. She asked for and received clarification that the carport will be open on two sides. Chairman Jinkerson said that this house, in his view, given it's location and surroundings, should step down and needs to be redesigned. Mr. Williams said that the second floor could be stepped and some changes could be done for mitigation, but the first floor can't be stepped as it is in place. They could lower the platelines to help lower the profile, and a roofline step down is also possible. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb to continue the application for redesign as discussed. The second floor should be stepped down and the bulk reduced. Motion seconded by Commissioner Schreiner. AYES: Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb, Schreiner & Wong and Chairman Jinkerson NOES: None This decision is not subject to appeal. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2000 Page 7 Approved 4/12/00 3.3 LANDS OF SCHNEIDER, 24708 Olive Tree Court (112-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Mr. Cahill introduced this item by stating that condition #1 should be modified. The trellis over the carport is minimal — the applicant just needs to provide a roof plan clearly showing the trellis. Worksheet #2 has been modified to include development area for the carport (the deck on top does not count as development area). Commissioner Schreiner asked about the cupola. Abby Ahrens said that it has been eliminated from the plans. Commissioner Schreiner asked how far the house would need to be moved from the oak tree in front. Mr. Cahill said a few feet. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Abby Ahrens, 329 South San Antonio Road, Los Altos, representing the applicants stated that this is a unique site and is very private. The entire length of the existing house is in the setback. The new house will have only a small wing in the setback. Most of the house will be on the flat area. They will be using earthtone exterior colors. Regarding moving the house, she said that the Fire Department turnaround is needed and would be reduced by moving the house. The house has been designed to preserve all large trees. They are proposing to relocate the oak in front. If this is not successful, they will replace it with whatever number of trees the Commission feels is appropriate. She asked if the conservation easement could be reduced to not include so much of the property. Mr. Williams suggested including the area below the 790 foot contour. This was acceptable to the applicant. Chairman Jinkerson asked where development area can be deleted for the carport expansion? Ms. Ahrens said they will work with staff to accomplish the required 80 square foot reduction. In response to a question about the roofing for the cupola Ms. Ahrens noted that it will be copper or the same tile to be used for the rest of the roof. Von Haws, Abigail & Haws, 329 South San Antonio Road, Los Altos, designer of the house, said that two domes are proposed. One with a 12 foot diameter over the breakfast nook that will be 25 feet high, and a 14 foot diameter dome over the living room that will be 19 feet above grade. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design & Protection Committee, recommended a three to one replacement if the oak tree is removed or dies. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/12/00 March 8, 2000 Page 8 Commissioner Schreiner said they should strike condition #1 because there are so many limiting factors. If the oak tree has to be removed, replace it with three 15 -gallon oaks. She was delighted to see the footprint less and the height is the same. Commissioner Cottrell said that subject to the recommended conditions, the project is fine. Commissioner Wong agreed and said the project is great. Commissioner Gottlieb said she would prefer to see the tile roof on the domes or to have the copper roof patina so it is not shiny and reflective. Chairman Jinkerson asked if the floor area counts twice in the domes since they are higher than 17 feet? Mr. Haws clarified that the interior height will not exceed 17 feet, so the floor area is not double counted. Chairman Jinkerson asked if the copper roof could have a patina if that material is used. Mr. Haws said the domes will not be visible from the front and the back of the house is well screened by trees, but that they would love to patina the copper roof. It would end up that way anyway. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell to approve the project subject to the conditions, modifying #1 to eliminate the wording about moving the house, and adding to condition #2 to plant three 15 -gallon oak trees if the relocated oak dies, and the copper roof shall meet the reflectivity requirements. The conservation easement will be below the 790 foot elevation and shall be open to wildlife. Motion seconded by Commissioner Wong. AYES: Commissioners Wong, Schreiner, Cottrell, Gottlieb & Chairman Jinkerson NOES: None This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees.. None 4.2 Discussion of Development Criteria for Constrained Lots Commissioner Cottrell suggested for lot with LUF under .50 that the minimum floor area be 2,000 square feet plus 400 square feet for the garage, and additional development area of 2,500 square feet (4,900 square feet inclusive of floor area). Chairman Jinkerson wants to add the Commission's opinions and then hold the public hearing. Commissioner Schreiner said that the numbers should provide an objective level. Approvals have been far too subjective in the -past. The maximum development area should be 2,200 to 2,500 square feet more than the floor area. The one acre lot maximum numbers should be halved if the LTJF goes below .50 of required minimum. Requiring a two -car garage is a good approach. We should be fair to everyone. If the house is smaller, there will be more development area for other uses such as a pool. Discussion on how much floor area should be given ensued. Commissioner Wong said having minimum numbers is a good guideline. He thinks it should be more than 1,500 square feet; 2,000 is more reasonable. 5. NEW BUSINESS -none Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/12/00 March 8, 2000 Page 9 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for March 2nd, Commissioner Jinkerson, reported on the meeting. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for March 16d' - Commissioner Wong 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of minutes -Minutes for February 23rd not available due to vacation. 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK HEARINGS — FEBRUARY 29, 2000 8.1 LANDS OF VARGAS, 13825 Templeton Place (3-0=ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 1,430 square foot addition, including a new second story, and remodel of an existing residence. Approved with conditions. 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING -MARCH 7.2000 9.1 LANDS OF GOESE, 13640 Burke Road (329-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 393 square foot first floor addition and a 80 square foot second story addition. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF HOOPES, 26765 St. Francis Drive (29-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a basement and two (2) foot increase in height. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, j� -. Suzanne Davis Interim Planning Secretary 'age 1 of 3) FRDM TREE HEALTH PRDFESS I DNALS, I IJO PHONE 1.10. : 402+871+02-84 #tProfessionals, Tree Health EVALUATION OF FOUR TREES @ h481 MAGDALENA ROAD LOS ALTOS BMLS, CALIFORNIA Prepared At The Request Of: Mr. Patrick Whisler W hisler Land Planning 101 Lucas Valley Road Suite 261 San Rafael, C.A. 94903 Site 'Visit By: Gil Mitchell Registered Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist April 28, 2009 May 8, 2009 Attacllment 7 May. 11 2009 10:22 RECEIVED MAY i 200g TOWN OFF LOS ALTOS FALLS 137 E. Hamilton Ave., Suite 201 m Campbell, CA 95008 a (?08) 92.9-3040 o Fax (408) 871-0234 Ate; ow s� rtircvw, treebe althpros. com ROM : TREE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC PHONE NO. : 406+671+0284 May. 11 2009 10:23RI P2 EVALUATION OF FO1JRTREES C� 11481 MA.0 DALENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS 14iL•LS, CALIFORNIA May 8, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Assignment arcus ¢grifa7ia) trees that are The assignment was to evaluate the health and the structure of four coast live oak (Qu located around or adjacent to the driveway and the bunker. The evaluation was done from the ground and the trees W, not climbed. The drip line was drawn for each tree, and the tree protection zone was drawn on a site plan for each tree that is suggested for retention. Tree protection and preservation specifications are provided for the treC3 that are suggested to be retained. psSUnPtions and 1t hnitatitans I have seen a drawing that shows the planned layout of the new driveway and banker. Suggestions for removal and retention are based on the health and the location of the trees. The evaluation: was limited by the fact that 1 cannot evaluate -the enact number or percentage of roots/root system that will be damaged or removed during the construction of the new driveway andlor new retaining walls nor can I evaluate the damage that will be done during tbe.process of raising the soil grade to accommodate the now driveway. The -trees e numbered #2144217. Tree 4!217 is located in the arca of the new driveway and will be removed. The three other trees are suggested to be retained. Site Map One site reap (SHEET 1,3 TENNIS COURT & LANDSCAPE PLAN) is provided as -a visual aid. The scale is one inch -equals tett feet. The map shows the location and the drip line of each tree along with the free protection zone (- - - - -) highlighted id yellow for each tree to be retained. The drip line is the outer edge of the foliar canopy. photographs FFrve photographs are provided as visual aids in the discussion of the trees. Tm Protection Zone The treeprotection zone is defined as the area of a tree's root zone that should be protected during the development 6.f'the propc_rty. This arca needs special attention when the goal is to protect the long term health of a tree. There -are various. ways of calculating the tree protection zone. The City of. San Jose defines the tree protection zone U -the area under the canopy of a tree, with the boundary being the drip fine. The City of Palo Alto defines the area within 'the tree protection zone in a slightly different manner. The tree protection zone is the area within a circle with the tfaiik.of the tree bemg at the center of the. circle. The radius of the cizcle is calculated as 10 times the tmnk diameter (in-feeL).• For example, a tree with a two foot diameter trunk (measured at four and one half feet above ground line) .has.a20f6ot radius tree protection zone. The tree protection zones shown on the site plan were calculated based on. . 'th6 formula used by the City of Palo Alto. Esistfug Coiadiitions T=.#214 has a trunk that measures 1Z.7.inches in diameter at a height of four and one half feet above ground line. the radius of the tree protection zone is 10.6 feet The tree appears to be in average health judging by the color, the size, and'the amount of foliage present The structure is fair only because one side of the canopy has been suppressed by the adjacent tree. This tree is suggested to be retained. Tree, #215 -has--a-trunk that measures 24 inches in diameter at a height of 24 inches above ground line and just below the tree protectionecauszone is 20 feet The tree appears to be is average to tie prnnary.crotch of ibe tree. The radius of :'racy good health Thc'structuxe is poor to fair because. of -two old wounds that are decayed. A retaining wall will be constructed at the edge of the tree protection zon e. This tree is suggested to be retained. 3'ree #216 has a trunk that Measures 10.6 inches in diameter at a height of four and one half feet above ground line. The radius of the tree protection zone is nine feet The tree appears to be in fair health and has average structure. ge 3 of 3} FROM : TREE HERLTH PROFESSIONRLS, I1AC PHDIAE NO. : 40a+a71+0224 May. 11 2009 10:23RM P3 EVALUATION ()f POUR TREtS ? 11481 MAGIDALENA ROAD, L.OS ALTOS DILLS, CALIFORNIA May $, 2004 Page'.3 of 3 Almost SO percent of the tree protection zone will be affected by the construction of the new driveway. A portion of the =opy will probably need to be pruned for vehicle clearance. This tree, is suggested to be retained. Tme #217 has a trunk that measures 12 incbes in diameter at a iieigbt of four and one half feet above ground line. The Tree is in average health and has, fair structure. This tree is planned for removal. pro-Constracttion Requiiretments 1 suggest that pre -construction requirements be established prior to the construction of the new driveway and the retaining walls, 'These requirements would 'include but not necessarily be limited to: 1. On all development plans have the trunk locations, the drip lines, and the tree protection zones accurately plotted for tach tree to be retained. Have the TREE PROTEC 1ON & PRESERVATJON SPL'CINiCA.T(ONS on all copies of the development plans. 2. Thc.pro}ect arborist or contractor shall verify in writing that all precenstruction conditions have been met (tree fencing, erosion control, pruning, etc.) and are in place prior to demolition or grading. 3. The demolition; grading and underground contractors, construction superintendent and other pertinent personnel are required to meet with the project arborist at the site prior to beginning work to review procedures and tree protection mPasums. and to establish haul routes, staging areas, contacts, watering, etc. Tree Protection & Preservation Plan Refer, .io the TREE PROTECTION & PRESERVATION SPECIFICA"PIONS that are enclosed with this report_ Respectfully submitted, 4 /G Gil: Ntch$l, RCA #317 ISA Certified Arborist WE -0134A Enclosures: Photographs TREE PROTEC" 1`ION & PRESERVATION SPECIFICATIONS Site Map Statement of Limiting Conditions � � �I 4 i�KP',i yLn 14 .'•i i�.w i -it t r � :, � sem. �•+[f t^� .�f a.•a'mt;.� � � t ,� .;'. 4 w. ... Li. - ,s - j 21; GAL,. J TY L_ I D KI yrz, 40 `;06PERTY �-Wf' k N PROTECT oiqii 1: INH I L 1 0 A/K S Sy mb oA K , ri 7 E'w U I r ;Z rr.Z ­ DRI -ELUAY F VIN Ifl -1c: LL b 217 41,11 W16E 'y, 4) MATERIAL ti F�AVERS, .r-'C)N Trpjc.A'L OR C• ONCRETE TQ.Q EXI9T,DRIV` f�,,. , ,�,,�,,,n„„!:. .P�4��,!'�•;�6i%�'�,,;t .�y. '•tea-” LOCATJOH Dip VIII N, ELE;W -2w-p0 lel41fv�­,o Co- 441bbMAX -5 i�-HINC EJSl'Aci OT I tl- A OHALL Zia. AM, MULcHr=D, 6H I -L E3E PACI COA5T LIJ If ... ......... 17: PRr�R Lin S'Ea.Ud-A­ &- EMP. BOC;UEL' A —(440�— INYR194 CALIFORNICA cu mill- zu, Pi wg i�q < gat, k.li T = Tree Health Professionals, Inc. TREE PROTECTI.ON& PRESERVATION SPECIFICATIONS For 1 I481 ..Maadaleaa Road, Los Altos Hills, California A. Remove anchor prune. trees as necessary prior to the construction of the new driveway and retaihir g walls: This would include raising foliar skirts, reducing or heading back foliage for demolition equipment access. B. Wrap trunks with three Iayers of wire lath snow fencing to eight feet above ground Iine on trees where demolition or construction will take place within five feet of the trunk. C. Apply a four to six inch layer of wood chips within the tree protection zone (TPZ) of each tree to be retained. where accessible. D. Ido a hydraulic sub -surface fertilization with either a ratio of 2-1-1, 3-1-1, or 3-2-2 high organic nitrogen fertilizer. Injection, points should be on two foot centers within the TPZ of each tree. E. Erect construction period fencing. The fence material should consist of chain link fence that is a minimum of five feet in. height and secured in a fashion that will keep out even foot traffic. The fencing should be at the edge of the TPZ or at the edge of what will be the new driveway and/or retaining walls. F. I suggest that a qualified arborist (or the project arborist) be retained to supervise any excavation: below existi:ng.grade azxd within the TPZ of each tree to be retained. Roots damaged during excavation should be. pinned and treated per the'following: Roots less than two inches in diameter shall. be cut cleanly with Ioppers or hand saw. Roots that are two inches or larger shall be cut cleanly with a hand saw and covered with a plastic bag that is secured with tape or a rubber band. G, I suggest that monthly irrib tion should be done during the development of the property and during the months. of May through October. FI I suggest that a hydraulic soil injection of a, high organic nitrogen fertilizer be done once a year durin& the development period to promote root growth and reduce stress. Once again, the time period would be May through. October. 61-P 137 E. Hamilt nAxre , Suite 201. Campbell, CA 95008 a (4-08) 929-3040 e.. Fax (408) 571-0285. i¢Mn It tk1^s=w.treehealf.hprcmcorn i Tree Health Professionals, Inc. Statement of Limiting Conditions Please note: Recommendations given by Cil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, .Inc. are based upon research and recommendations from the agriculture, and .horticulture departments of major universities in the United States, primarily the University of California, and also from the International Society of Arboriculture. Due to the variability and unpredictability of plant materials, hidden defects, soils, clirrlate', workmanship acid various other factors, Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc, can make no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding any recommendations "given. The owner or person(s) responsible for implementirig any recommendations given by Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. assume{s)all risks involved, and agree(s) to indemnify Gil Mitchell of Tree. Health Professionals, Inc, and hold Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals; Tnc. harmless from any loss, cost of damage, including but not [united to attorney fees and defense, costs of claims by the undersigned, or by third parties. Regarding, gees: The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservatida of the trees mentioned in this report and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is n.ot however, a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever. reason. Because a significant portion of the roots are fat beyond the driplin.e of the tree, even. trees that are well protected during construction often declinei fail. or die, Because there may be hidden. defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that times with no obvious defects can be subject to failure Mthout warain�. Y 1.37 E. Hamilton Ave., Suit= 201 t Carrapbe11, CA: 95043 q (40S) 9'-9-5CLA Q rrx (408) 871-184 %a�aa st .. � . iavvlaS.t.reehen.IcllgrrJs.ctYa TOWN OF LOS ALTOS FILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov Code Sections: Attachment 8 IOISALTOSINLI,S � e CALIFORNIA Grading P011Gy Approved by City Council — 4/2/97 Section 10-2.7026 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" and structures down sloped hillsides, 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 exportof soil, to or from a site, it is recognized that the Town's policies and the guidelines below may encourage export as cut is generally preferred over fill. These policies are intended to be used by staff in evaluation and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding site development applications, and as guidance for applicants. Individual sites may dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Grading Policy Page Z policy. Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally ll e e consideredssive and t nt nec scary contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only tminimum , to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step down" the hill*: 1 Cut Fill House Accessory Bldg. 4' 3' Tennis Court 6, 3' 4'*** Y Pool Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other thane main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill maybe permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. -rally not e set In 2. The height of the lowest finished floors) of ade oc assure thatLim t structures step bwith the excess of three (3) feet above the existing gr slope. 3.- Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of sa�that haeet s been lowered with a for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage t similar amount of cut. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent it thaguidelines se forth drainage for each type of structure, but shall be the minim purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. TOWN OF LOS ALTS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 WWW.I osaltosh ills. ca. gov Sec. 10-1.208Basement Attachment 9 casement ordinance "Basement" shall mean a floor level, or portions thereof, which has: (1) all portions directly below a building and Effective Date: 9/1/06 (2) the finished floor elevation of the building level above shall not be greater than tnty 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 an side abutting one side of a road. Daylighted basements shall com 1 Y of a lot requirements of this ordinance, Basements includin cellars and b all he and setback within the footprint of the building above, ma be e bunkers, which are not located it finds that such structures do not encroach in setbacks ea��� o I g In hes when natural grade, are wholly underground except for required exitin f 18 orches below are counted as development area except when laced g' lighting and ventilation and development area P under a surface already counted as Note: Daylig17ted basements shall comply -with the Towns grading policy. T7ie Gradin used by staff' in evaluating and making recomrnendations to the Pldnni. Com g Policy is City Council regarding site development applicatioyir .and as g n7jssion and/or Individual sites 7nay dictate a need to deviate from the truer a, tot guidance eo Hitt applicants. Planning Commission and/or City Council. P ed by the Floor Area Definition "Floor area" shall mean the gross horizontal area of the several doors of all buildin s garage space and carport space, measured to the outside of exterior walls, g including Mice Svhen the vertical distance between the upper surface of the floors and the u� et s counted the floor or the underside of the roof directly above it, is greaterseventeen PP surface Of portion of an attic is considered floor area when the distance between the u� er 17D feet. That attic floor and the underside of the roof above it is seven (7D feet in height. For the °f the this definition, all attic spaces are considered to have floor surfaces. purposes of of a basement is exempted from floor area_ Area meeting the definition (Effective date: March 7, 2002) Policy: Basement Ordinance Page 2 'Nr�YiA�f';• i;l!'rai• Y " f .i�<'rii `':> .:,il`':i'r'i?J� �: � E �S!ill"tt •:. i �LiiiTci" ); ;i ;;-• [i1'r•''^vi H:riii: :liF'r.; !s';t,:L..;. .i•. glq,l'r j,i�€F�?4�i'i'ircL sr`i ifil :-,:n:;;, : l:i•J;'ri,:N. in.: RR ;!11� `:ii I �' :..: `:`ii•4i;iJ,�?::i �iE. � !: ,, : .., .i. t .:ri.s':::Jt!Iti :;34s 1:JJJiF :li iti,l a.i,: Un. ,:..I. :;ijt('N:..;:�::E;•,.:�E3,1•„:k@e;:E>'•.s.,rr••Ml:,:::::ii.:,F: ;i.: •, ;�l:pi:4�J,.:i :::igr ; :N,.: khi;: ;t„•-;+: i;illJ �. Ii:: :,,•,;.:>::I ;ter.; fYev�> :fiEiit.� i:L'", 'r;!i;iii'iiFit!lfJll .,:.�:r,^.co-i•'i! n-it,a• Natural .tlt�•�i(is"•;f":i,!;, it:.. .,.N:d: .,,1 .. Grade Natural 1 Story 1 Story Grade� ® EL 239.52' Finish Grade _;_ Floor Area �,, �,.,.�..� .._.....� r, . _.. .....kw Finish SECTION Grade O ar" 3 sides, or at least i?F'�`F,�,L*•:•fid I �i4:. yiit 75% of perimeter : I4 � G -1'i, Cf ti"'y i r j^: Jt'.. �':�;�=;;;`'r!�'^ '.{.:i:,�:J,::�•.z,, 1 r D length wholly- 4th side or 25 /o of .:,-:e,i1 i L9a^ -`'r 1F`�1•'..ii Y;:�i•GEa4:Jii'!r;l;i:E f.. perimeter length Natural 1 Story Backfill Grade Floor Area Floor Ansa_ ..;.: 1 Not Basement EL 239.52' L — — ® v e ® — — - Finish PLAN Grade i BASEMENT RETAINING WALL AND FLOOR FRAME DETAIL • J FNISRED, FLOC* I ' l • I W FLOOR JOIST c � X a Finished floor elevation of the FIMSH PAD SLOPEFRCM ,� T m .m. building level above shall not be °x'•'°�': — _ �*A� greater than twenty-eight (28") �j/, j���j CM inches above the adjoining \/ /\ j��j�/�/ FM S$ED GRADE I` natural or finished grade, jwhichever is lower. TOWNT OF LOS ALTOS HML9 98MRIM PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road . Los Altos Hills, California 94022 . (650) 941-7222 - FAX (650) 941-3I60 WORKSHEET # MAY a 5 2009 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT =TTONA-Iftb""OS ��TURN IN WITT3 YOUR APPLI rFcurr-rcl x UWNJ--K'S -NAM-b JJP Realty Enterprises LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS 11481 Magdalena Road - Tennis Court -Bunker Project CALCULATED BY Patrick Whisler, Whisler Land Planning Landscape Architects DATE Apr (Note: House & Decking from Dahlin Group worksheet 03-01-00, Pool & Pool Equip. Rm. permitted bL 1. DEVELM—N EN ARRA Existing Proposed (SQUARE FOOTAGE) (Additions/Deletions) A. House and Garage (from Part 3. A.) 12,019 B. Decking 93 C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 100' along centerline) Attachment 10 not yet constructeer :T_— Total 12,019 93 2. TOTAL EOPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS 15,553 11,576 27,129 I 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 (Additions/Deletions) 9,322 1,617 x5,101) .1,080 Pool Equipment Room 192 Maximum Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from Worksheet #1) 9,322 1,617 5,101 (not incld. in total) 1.080 7,065 Bunker sg. ft, not counted 192 12.211 13,209 TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY DATE Rev 3120/02 Page 1 of 1 Town of Los Altos Hills 2056 20561,422 2, 056 D. Patios and Walkways E. Tennis Court ^_ 7,065 7,065 F_ Pool and Decking -3,249 3,249 G. AccessoryBuildings from Part B g ( ) un er-- 192 (pool equip rm) - 65 192 (pool equip rm) H. Any other coverage stair & drive to bunker 1,033 1033 TOTALS 15,553 11,576 27,129 Maximum Development Area Allowed - NIDA (from Worksheet #1) 27,235 1. 2. TOTAL EOPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS 15,553 11,576 27,129 I 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 (Additions/Deletions) 9,322 1,617 x5,101) .1,080 Pool Equipment Room 192 Maximum Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from Worksheet #1) 9,322 1,617 5,101 (not incld. in total) 1.080 7,065 Bunker sg. ft, not counted 192 12.211 13,209 TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY DATE Rev 3120/02 Page 1 of 1 Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Minutes Draft July 2, 2009 Page 7 Commissioners Collins, Harpootlian, Abraham, and Chairman Clow supported the project as submitted. Commissioner Partridge supported the project but commented on the water needs of the lawn in time of drought. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: Motion made by Commissioner Harpoothan and seconded by Commissioner to Abraham to approve the requested Site Development Permit and Grading Policy exception for 11267 Magdalena Road, Lands of Singh, subject to the recommended conditions of approval and fmdings of approval. AYES: Commissioners Collins, Harpootlian, Abraham, Partridge and Chairman Clow NOES: None This item is subject to a 22 day appeal period and will be forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council. 5.3 LANDS OF JJP REALTY ENTERPRISES, LLC, 11481 Magdalena Road; File #60-09-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 7,065 square foot tennis court and a 7,065 square foot bunker garage. The applicant is also requesting a Grading Policy exception of up to 14.2 feet of cut for the bunker garage. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (e) (Staff - Nicole Horvitz). Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report for the application for a tennis court with bunker garage. The Planning Commission approved the new residence (which is still under construction) and a tennis court in 2000. The tennis court approval hadsince expired. The landscape screening plan had been approved in 2002 and a swimming pool approved in 2008. The requested tennis court with a bunker garage was proposed in the approximate location of the previously approved tennis court. A Grading Policy exception of up to 14.2 feet of cut is requested for the bunker garage access with terraced retaining walls, and up to 5.3 feet of cut along the west side of the tennis court for a yard area. Landscape screening for the tennis court will include 24" box redwoods, 15 gallon wax myrtles, 24" box Chinese pistache, 24" box Carolina cherry, 24" box coast live oak, 24" box bay laurel, and 24" box olive trees. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Patrick Whistler, landscape architect, explained that drainage from the tennis court would pass through a vegetative swale before entering the storm drain system. Commissioner Harpoothan asked about the water source for irrigation purposes and if lighting was planned for the tennis court. Patrick Whistler replied that there was no well on the property and irrigation water would come from domestic sources. The only lighting for the tennis court would come from louvered down lights for landscaping positioned 18" above the playing surface. Planning Commission Minutes Draft July 2, 2009 Page 8 Ken Greer, Magdalena Road, had concerns that the tennis court was positioned too closely to his house and backyard. The lot is large and a different location for the tennis court should be available. Mrs. Greer, Magdalena Road, said that she had been told that there was an alternative plan for the tennis court and relocation may be possible. Patrick Whistler stated that another location for the tennis court had been discussed but would need a greater Grading Policy exception and large retaining walls. Chairman Clow asked if the proposed landscape, screening would be agreeable to the Greer's. Mrs. Greer replied that the tennis court would be in line with their view through the hills to the city lights. She did not know if the landscaping would disrupt the view. Ken Greer said that the planned redwood trees would completely block their view. Patrick Whistler stated that he had no problem with removing the redwood trees from the plan and would work closely with the neighbors. Commissioner Collins said that noise from the tennis court was an issue. Landscaping would not mitigate the noise. Commissioner Abraham asked about suitability of the alternative location for the tennis court. Staff explained that the site is on a down slope which would require substantial fill. Jim Crowther, Magdalena Road, had concerns about the potential sound from the tennis court. He wanted mitigation measures installed to protect the neighbors from the annoyance of the noise. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Collins felt there were limited locations for the tennis court on the lot. Moving the tennis court ten feet closer to the house would make no difference in noise reduction for the neighbors. Sound attenuation must be required. Commissioner Harpootlian said moving the tennis court was a feasible and better alternative than attempting to mitigate the sound. Commissioner Abraham supported moving the tennis court and requiring sound mitigation. The neighbor's view must not be obstructed by the height of the trees in the landscaping. Commissioner Partridge supported requiring two layers of sound mitigation for the tennis court; one at the edge of the tennis court and one at the property line. He preferred staff s recommended alternative to approve only the tennis court or a reduction in the Grading Policy exception cut for the bunker. Planning Commission Minutes Draft July 2, 2009 Page 9 Chairman Clow stated that the applicant must work with the neighbors to assure that the mature height of the trees would not ruin their view. He was undecided on whether to allow the tennis court. If the tennis court was approved, the bunker should be also and sound attenuation with solid walls would be required. MOTION MADE, AMENDED, AND FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND: Motion made by Commissioner Collins to approve the requested Site Development Permit for the proposed tennis court and bunker garage and requested Grading Policy exception subject to the conditions of approval and findings of approval in Attachments 1 and 2. The tennis court will have sound attenuation with a sound mitigating fence along the tennis court as well as one along the property line. The applicant would work with the neighbors on the choice of screening along the property line to preserve their views. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND FAILED: Motion made by Commissioner Partridge, seconded by Commissioner Collins, and failed by the following roll` call vote to approve the requested Site Development Permit for the proposed tennis court only; subject to the conditions of approval and findings of approval in Attachments 1 and 2. The tennis court will have sound attenuation with a sound mitigating fence along the tennis court as well as one along the property line. The applicant will work with the neighbors on the choice of screening along the property line to preserve their views. AYES: Commissioners Partridge and Collins NOES: Commissioners Abraham, Harpootlian and Chairman Clow MOTION MADE AND FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND: Motion made by Commissioner Harpootlian to relocate the tennis court to the alternative location allowing a bunker of the size possible with up to 14 feet of cut and/or fill. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Abraham and seconded by Commissioner Harpootlian to continue the requested Site Development Permit directing the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with plans showing a relocated tennis court and bunker. AYES: Commissioners Harpootlian, Partridge, Abraham, Collins, and Chairman Clow NOES: none This item is will be forwarded to a future meeting of the Planning Commission. 5.4 MANDATORY UPDATE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION. One of the mandatory elements of a General Plan is a Housing Element that analyzes housing needs and adopts goals, policies, programs and quantified objectives to provide for housing needs. State law requires each town, city, and county to prepare a Housing Element that must be updated once every five years. The 2009 Housing Element is the statutory update of the Town's Housing Element which was adopted by the Town and certified by the State in 2002. The Housing Element Update is subject to CEQA tj. Charles M Salter Assoc x� x r Consultants in Acoustics Audio/Visual System Design and Telecommunications 130 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454 info@crosalter.com www.crosalter.com Chafes M Salter, PE David R Schwind, FAES Anthony P Nash, PE Eva Duesler Thomas A Schindler, PE Kenneth W Graven, PE Eric L Broadhurst, PE Philip N Sanders Robert P Alvarado John C Freytag, PE Durand R Begault, Ph.D. Michael D Toy, PE Thomas J Corbett Ross A Jerozal Jason R Duty Cristina L Miyar Joey G D'Angelo Eric A Yee Joshua M Roper Troy Gimbel Randy D Waldeck Peter K Hoist Andrew L Stanley Christopher A Peltier Timothy G Brown Jeff Clukey Ethan Salter Elaine Y Hsieh Alexander K Salter Jeremy L Decker Ryan McClain Claudia Kraehe Brian Good Candice Huey Josselyn Salter Heather Migut Marva D Noordzee Debbie Garcia Jasmine Recidoro Alison Whitson 27 July 2009 Patrick Whisler. Whisler Land Planning 101 Lucas Valley Road, Suite 261 San Rafael, CA 94903 Email: pat@whislerlandplanning.com z t iaCo's Inc Subject: 11481 Magdalena Road, Los Altos Hills Analysis of Tennis Court Noise CSA Project No. 09-0245 Dear Patrick: Attachment 4 As requested we have calculated the expected noise levels from the two tennis court locations being considered at 11481 Magdalena Road in Los Altos Hills. We have analyzed the tennis court noise levels without mitigation and with mitigation (e.g., solid fences located along the property lines). Our analysis is based on the following: • Noise data from measurements of tennis court noise measured at West Valley College in Saratoga, CA • Elevations shown on the various landscape drawings along with elevations provided by Google Earth • Barrier locations shown on Sheet L-3 dated 13 July 2009 for the "Base" location and as shown on Sheet L-3 dated 20 July 2009 for the "Alternate" location Table 1 summarizes the results of our analysis. The residence locations are depicted on the landscape drawings included with this report. Patrick Whisler 11481 Magdalena Road, Los Altos Hills — Analysis of Tennis Court Noise 27 July 2009 Page 2 Table l — Calculated Tenn is Court Noise Levels dB at Nearby Residences * The Base location includes a 5 foot solid wood or concrete fence along the so uthern perimeter of the tennis court (see the landscape drawings). ANALYSIS The following conclusions are evident from Table 1: • North Residence: Due to the local topography (i.e., the residence to the north is higher than the proposed tennis courts), a barrier along the north property line does not significantly reduce noise from either tennis court location. West Residence: For either tennis court location, a barrier along the west property line reduces noise by at least 7 dB, which is a significant reduction. • South Residence: A 5 -foot tall barrier along the southern perimeter of the Base tennis court (in conjunction with the west property line barrier) reduces Base tennis court noise by 8 dB, which is significant. The west property line barrier does not significantly reduce Alternate tennis court noise. This concludes our analysis of tennis court noise. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. W(t �((,t/C — Randy D. Waldeck, P.E. Principal Consultant 2009_07_23 11481 Magdalena Road Tennis Court Noise Analysis (09-0245).doc Charles M Salter AssocIates 130 Sutter Street, Suite 500 San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415.397.0442 Fax: 415.397.0454 6 Foot North 8 Foot North No miti2ation _ Property Line Fence Property Line Fence North Residence Base / Alternate Base / Alternate Base / Alternate Front Yard 49/53 48/53 48/53 Pool 47/52 47/51 47/50 6 Foot West 8 Foot West No mitigation ____Property Line Fence Property Line Fence West Residence Base / Alternate Base / Alternate _ Base / Alternate Side Yard 62/55 55/47 52/45 Pool 57/49 49/40 48/38 6 Foot West 8 Foot West No mitigation Property Line Fence_ Property Line Fence South Residence Base / Alternate Base* / Alternate Base* / Alternate Rear Yard 52/45 44/43 44/43 * The Base location includes a 5 foot solid wood or concrete fence along the so uthern perimeter of the tennis court (see the landscape drawings). ANALYSIS The following conclusions are evident from Table 1: • North Residence: Due to the local topography (i.e., the residence to the north is higher than the proposed tennis courts), a barrier along the north property line does not significantly reduce noise from either tennis court location. West Residence: For either tennis court location, a barrier along the west property line reduces noise by at least 7 dB, which is a significant reduction. • South Residence: A 5 -foot tall barrier along the southern perimeter of the Base tennis court (in conjunction with the west property line barrier) reduces Base tennis court noise by 8 dB, which is significant. The west property line barrier does not significantly reduce Alternate tennis court noise. This concludes our analysis of tennis court noise. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. W(t �((,t/C — Randy D. Waldeck, P.E. Principal Consultant 2009_07_23 11481 Magdalena Road Tennis Court Noise Analysis (09-0245).doc Charles M Salter AssocIates 130 Sutter Street, Suite 500 San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415.397.0442 Fax: 415.397.0454 Patrick Whisler 11481 Magdalena Road, Los: Altos Hills — Analysis of Tennis Court Noise 23 July 2009 Page 3 (Page 2 , of 10) ,r FROM : TREE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC PHONE NO. : 408+871+0284 #f Tree Health Professionals, Inc. EVALUATION OF FOUR OAK TREES @11481 MAGDALENA ROAD LOS ALTOS MILLS, CALIFORNIA Prepared At The Request Of: Mr. Patrick Whisler Whisler Land Planning 101 Lucas Malley Road Suite 261 San Rafael, CA 94903 Site Visit By: Gil Mitchell Registered Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist July 21, 2009 July 21, 2009 Jul. 21 2009 04;3'. Attachment 5 137 E. Hadlton Ave., Suite 261 o Campbell, CA 95008 • (408) 929-3040 a Rax (408) 871-0284 AW6M;er www.treehealthpros.cnm EM 3 of 10) FROM : TREE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC PHONE NO. : 408+871+0284 Jul. 21 2009 04:38PM P3 EVALUATION OF FOUR OAK TREES @ 11481 MAGDALENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS juiy 21,2009 Page 2 of 3 Assignment The assignment was to evaluate the health and the structure of three coast live oak (Quercus ogrffolia) trees and one valley oak (Quercus labata) tree that are located within or adjacent to a proposed tennis court and/or ramp. The evaluation was done from the ground and the trees were not climbed_ The drip line was drawn for each tree, and the tree protection zone was drawn on a copy of a site plan. Tree protection and preservation specifications were provided in an arborist report dated May 8, 2009. Assumptions and Limitations I have•seert-portions of a drawing of the planned layout of a tennis court and a ramp from the tennis court.to the driveway. The evaluation was limited by -the fact that I cannot evaluate the exact number of roots or percentage of roots/root system that will be damaged or removed from tree Summary The trees are numbered #310-#313. All of the trees are affixed with numbered aluminum tags. The trees range from average to very good health. One tree has poor structure and the other trees range'from fair.to average structure.. All four trees will need to be removed if the tennis court is built in the proposed location. Site Maps . A portion of the site map is provided on two sheets of 8 Y2 x 11 inch paper. Page 1 shows trees #310, #3111„ and #312_ Page 2 shows trees #311 and #313.1 have not reviewed an entire full size copy of the site map. The scale of the copies is one inch equals 10 feet Photographs Five pt otographs are provided as visual aids in the discussion of the trees, Unfortunately two of the four trees are imbedded in a grove and did, not photograph very well. Tree Protection Zone The tree protection zone is defined as the area of a tree's root zone that should be protected during the devefopmentof the property. This area needs special attention when the goal is to protect the long term health of a tree. There are various ways of calculating the tree protection zone. The City of San Jose defines the tree protection zone as the area under the canopy of a tree, with the boundary being the drip line. The City of Palo ,Alto defines the area within the tree protection zone .._ in a• slightly different manner. The tree protection zone is the area within a circle with the trunk of the tree being at the center of the- circle. The.radius of the circle is calculated as 10 times the trunk diameter (in feet). For example, a tree with a two foot diameter trunk. (measured at four and one half feet above ground line) has.a 20 (foot: radius tree protection lone- The tree protection.zone shown on the site map was calculated based'on-the formula used by the City of Palo Alto. Exfsting Conditions Tree -,#.310 is a•.coast live oak tree that has a trunk that measures 10.75 inches in diameter at a heleht.of four and -one half feet above ground line. The radius of the tree protection zone is nine feet.. The tree.appears to be in average health judging by the color, the site, and the amount of (Page 4 of 10) FROM : TREE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC PHONE NO. : 408+871+0284 Jul. 21 2009 04:36PM P4 ,VALUATION O1? FOUR OAK TREES @ 1.1481 MAGDALENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS July 21, 2009 Page 3' of 3 . . foliage present. The structure is poor judging by the primary crotch which includes two co- dominant leaders with weak branch attachment. I suggest removing this tree. This tree would be located in the tennis court. Tree #311 is a coast live oak tree that has a trunk that measures 18A inches in diameter at a height of four and one half feet above ground line. The radius of the tree protection zone is 15.3 feet The tree is in average to very good health and has fair to average structure. This tree would be located in the tennis court. 'free #31.2 is a coast live oak tree that has a trank that measures 9,7 inches in diameter at a height of four and one half feet above ground line. The radius of the tree protection zone is eight feet. The tree is in average to very good health and has fair structure. The trunk of the tree is located three feet from the edge of a red line which I assume is the area that needs to be disturbed in order to construct the tennis court The tree is located outside the tennis court. I would expect up to 50 percent of the feeder roots of the tree could be either damaged or removed during the construction of the tennis court. Tree #1313 is a valley oak tree that has two trunks_ They measure 12.3 and 9.5 inches in diameter at -height of.four and one half feet above ground line. The trunk of the tree measures 19 inches in diameter at a height of 32 inches above ground line and just below the primary crotch. The radius of the tree protection zone is IS feet. The tree is in average health and has fair to average structure. The trunk is located within 29 inches of the driveway gutter and within what would be a ramp from the driveway up to the tennis court. Conclusion If anyvf the four trees remain on the property' then I suggest following the "Pre -Construction Requirements" and the "Tree Protection & Preservation Plan" specifications that are found in my reportofMay 8, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Gil Mitchell, RGA #317 ISA Certified Arborist WE -0134A Enclosures: Photographs Site Maps Statement of Limiting Conditions 5 of 10) FROM : TREE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC PHONE NO. : 408+871+0284 Jul. 21 2009 04:39PM P5 Tree #310 is located in among a grove of coast live oak trees. It is located inside the proposed location for a tennis court. The primary crotch of tree #310 includes weak co-doMitant branches. •. w (Page 6 of 10) i t FROM : TREE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC PHONE NO. : 408+871+0284 Jul. 21 2009 O4:39PM P6 Tree #311' is in the middle of the photograph. Tree #312 is to the left. Tree #312 is located three feet from the edge of the tennis court. Approximately SO percent of the feeder roots could be lost during the construction of the court 7 of 10) FROM : TREE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC PHONE NO. : 408+871+0284 Jul. 21 2009 04:40PM P7 Tree #313 is located 32" from the driveway gutter. The tree -is located within a proposed ramp. 1 �1 v ��♦� �� �,.! ��� .r►n .�� ^�r.,�7,n .►,�� r •ten►•■ r'v`f '��aa•r..�►� � ♦ � a L jMWOR W.1 �e►a .arc ave �� s' at'\ : Ix•d ����� Q �� ufunauaanennnau .............. ia u�.�iiinnraa�iaiiaa� � � t 1 fir• t t ; � :•� wp , •1 •1 _ Al EMMMIS u «• •NIS • 1.'' ♦ 9. 1+ D� iia �.• 1 F +n iii � �r +rr. ♦5- :�°: _:�s'_�=al.::::rr�wr�a.: _•�: :awe-'_�_._ •�3,,:::,�;.-S:Ptg;+•:.$. � ,r ���� IL41 IFNI SO J T JT o S f J3 �E) 397.0±\ 4 CNm Ln (E) CB m ti RISE 393.00 n a a ZY sQ s • 3Ii 3 I �`� � I' UAW 410,M lTvw 403.00 .` _ < m Ln Ln v to !. NNT 14VXG 2 I A 0 7s 4� -� - f ,� co "-- Rid s I 03 ew �*� *o + Tw G 410.44�� m ` C — 410.00N)00.55± - NJ Bw G 4�O.Oa Ln03 03 0. C}i.Qf JC TG 311194 1� kUl 1 I N L.- N • 1 " G 417 0 �"' Nm BW G 4 0 m w418 KE �� PROTECTION i:()Wl N ., al 3 TW c 414,50-- N l ' IL41 IFNI SO J T JT o S f J3 �E) 397.0±\ 4 CNm Ln (E) CB m ti RISE 393.00 n a a ZY sQ s • 3Ii 3 I �`� � I' UAW 410,M lTvw 403.00 .` _ < m Ln Ln v to !. NNT 14VXG 2 I A 0 7s 4� -� - f ,� co "-- Rid s I 03 ew �*� *o + Tw G 410.44�� m ` C — 410.00N)00.55± - NJ Bw G 4�O.Oa Ln03 03 0. C}i.Qf JC TG 311194 1� kUl 1 I N L.- N • 1 " G 417 0 �"' Nm BW G 4 0 m w418 KE �� PROTECTION i:()Wl N ., al 3 TW c 414,50-- ;Page 10 of 10) A i FROM : TREE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC PHONE NO. : 408+871+0284 $1 Tree Health Professionals, Inc. Statement of Limiting Conditions Jul. 21 2009 04:43PM P10 Please note: Recommendations given by Gil Mitchell of Tree Reaith Professionals, Inc. are based upon research and recommendations from the agriculture and horticulture departments of major universities in the United States, primarily the University of California, and also from the International Society of Arboriculture. Due to the variability and unpredictability of plant materials, hidden defects, soils, climate, workman.ship and various other factors, Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. can make no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding and recommendations given. The owner or persons) responsible for implementing any recommendations given by Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. assume(s) all risks involved, and agree(s) to indemnify Gil: Mitchell of "Gree Health Professionals, Inc. and hold Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professiolaals, Inc. harmless from any loss, cost of damage, including but not limited to attorney fees and defense, costs of claims by the undersigned, or by third parties. Re.gardhig'trees: The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection*and preservation of the trees mentioned in this report and to help in their short acid long term health and longevity. This is' not however, a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of the roots are far beyond the drip line of the tree, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die. Because there may be bidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees. with no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning. :137 fi. klarmilton Ave., Suite 201 • Campbell, CA 95008 • (408) 929-3040 a Fax (408) 871-0284 AINC70T www.treehealthpros.com. � w WHISLER LAND PLANNING 101 Lucas Valley Rd. Suite 261 San Rafael, Ca 94903 PH 415-472-3600 FAX 415-451-7662 MEMO DATE: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 TO: NICOLE HORVITZ ASSISTANT PLANNER TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING DEPT. 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94022 FROM: Patrick Wh1SIeP RE: TENNIS COURT SITE DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL Pan Residence 11481 Magdalena Road, Los Altos Hills, CA MESSAGE: Attachment 6 !RECEIVED lu 2 -169 TOWN 0f LO's ALTOS SILLS Nicole I would like to request that the Planning Commission review the original application location for the Tennis Court with the newly proposed sound attenuation measures as well as the revised Alternative location at the Planning Commission hearing on July 6th. Documents have been submitted for the original as well as the alternate location with a sound fence at the west property line along with a sound evaluation report by Charles Salter Associates for consideration by the planning commission. Thank you Patrick Whisler VO (Nicole Horvitz From: Norm Pond [Npond@intevac.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:41 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: JJ Pan hearing Attachments: JJPan IMG 2185.JPG Nicole, Thanks for showing me the latest proposed layout and landscape drawings. Attachment 7 I have looked at the situation and have no objection provided that the existing trees between the JJ Pan residence / proposed tennis court and my property are maintained with the exception of those that must be removed in order. to create the tennis court. As you are aware an agreement was created on March 8, 2000 covering Mr. Pan's commitment to maintain a tree screen. Attached is a current photo of the Pan property from my back yard. I will be out of town until August 10 and will not be at the hearing. If you need to contact me I can be reached at 408 718 9586. Best regards, Norm Pond 7/29/2009 4 01 Attachment 8 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS MILLS LOSALToSMS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council — 4/2/97 Code Sections: Section 10-2.702© of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "The amount of grading, excavation, or fill. shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings." Section 10-2.703(a) requires: "Type U foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." Intent: The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It is also intended that the policy provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides, and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. While balanced cut and fill is desirable to minimize import or export of soil, to or from a site, it is recognized that the Town's policies and the guidelines below may encourage export as cut is generally preferred over fill. These policies are intended to be used by staff in evaluation and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding site development applications, and as guidance for applicants. Individual sites may dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Grading Policy Page 2 Polic : 1. Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step down" the hill*: Cut Fill House 8'** 3' Accessory Bldg. 4' 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8') for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer.