HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1F
Item 3.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS DILLS October 1, 2009
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND THE
REMOVAL OF 2 HERITAGE OAK TREES. LANDS OF PARIKH; 26880 ELENA
ROAD; FILE# 181-08 ZP-SD-GD
FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the new house and driveway and the
requested Grading Policy exception for the driveway and yard area, subject to the recommended
conditions of approval in Attachment 1 and findings for the Grading Policy Exception in
Attachment #2.
BACKGROUND
The existing residence was constructed in 1953 with no major additions or alterations since that
time. Access is maintained via a shared driveway with 26875 Elena Road.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
This application is not eligible for the Fast -Track process under section 10-2.1305.1(a)(3), as the
applicant requests a Grading Policy Exception for the driveway/turnaround, and yard area and
garage. The Zoning and Site Development sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate
proposed projects including floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height,
setbacks, visibility, and parking requirements.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area:
1.19 acres
Net Lot Area:
1.19 acres
Average Slope:
22.32%
Lot Unit Factor:
0.879 -
Floor Area and Development Area (in square feet)
Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Remaining
Development Area 9,124 8,014 7,178 836 1,110
Floor Area 5,000 4,970 2,256 2,714 30
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 2 of 11
Site and Architecture
The applicant proposes to construct a 4,970 square foot, two-story residence with 3,066 square
feet on the main floor and 1,904 square feet on the second floor. The proposed home is
predominately two stories with the north and south ends stepping down to soften the visual effect
of the structure. The first floor contains a three car garage and the main living areas. The second
floor contains the master bedroom and three additional bedrooms. A small terrace is located off
of the master bedroom.
The parcel is located on a moderately steep sloping hillside with an average slope of 22.32%.
The existing residence is located primarily on a cut building pad from previous site grading. The
two-story building meets the setback,. height, floor area and development area requirements
established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.
The maximum height will be 21'-6 1/2", with a maximum overall height (including chimneys
and appurtenances) of 33'. The new residence will be located at least 35 feet from the western
(rear) property line, 32 feet from the northern (side) property line, 80 feet from the southern
(side) property line and 193 feet from the east (front) property line. Proposed exterior materials
include a tile roof, a stucco and stone exterior with wrought iron railings.
Driveway & Parking
The owner proposes site access from Elena Road. The proposed 14' wide driveway is designed
to maintain an 18% slope for the majority of its -:length. The Fire Department requires a hammer-
head style turnaround to provide the required access to the project site as most of the building site
exists more than 150 feet beyond Elena Road
Four (4) parking spaces will be provided, three within the garage and one on the western side of
the house near the garage.
Outdoor Li hg ting
Lighting on the proposed residence will comply with the Town Code requirements, with light
fixtures incorporating frosted or etched glass. Landscape lighting will be reviewed with the
landscape screening application required prior to building permit final per Condition #2.
Heritage Oak Removal
The uppermost and southern portion of the site maintains several large oak trees which meet the
definition of a Heritage Oak with a diameter of 12" or greater (Section 12-2.101 of the Town
Code). Two (2) Heritage Oaks are proposed to be removed for construction of the
driveway/turnaround. An arborist's report prepared by Barrie D. Coate (dated August 19, 2009
and October 1, 2008) outlines the characteristics of the trees and recommends removal of tree #1
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 3 of 11
due to its hazardous condition and tree #2 due to its decay. A tree protection plan is proposed
for the trees to be preserved (Attachment 6).
One 48" Valley Oak (marked as 41 on the arborist's map) and one 36" Coast Live Oak (marked
as #2) will be removed for construction of the driveway/turnaround. Pursuant to Section 12-
2.502(c) staff recommends a 3:1 replacement with 24" box oak trees (Condition 42) 6
replacement trees shall be shown on the required landscape screen plan.
To ensure. protection of the remaining oak trees on site, staff recommends a condition of approval
requiring all remaining oaks to be fenced per the Town's tree fencing standards prior to the start
of work (Condition 44).
Grading Policy Exceptions
According to the submitted grading plan, grading quantities include 2,015 cubic yards of cut and
175 cubic yards of fill, with a net export of 1,840 cubic yards. The applicant is requesting the
following Grading Policy Exceptions:
1) Yard Area- the Grading Policy allows a maximum of (3') feet of fill for yard areas. Up to
6' of fill is proposed for the north eastern area at the front of the house. The total area
affected by this Grading Policy Exception is 80 square feet.
2) Driveway and Turnaround -the Grading Policy allows cuts of up to 4' for the construction
of a driveway and fire turnaround. Up 'to 13' of cut is proposed for the driveway and fire
turnaround, requiring terraced retaining walls of up to 7 1/2 feet along the western edge of
the driveway and along the rear of the residence. The area of cut with the tallest retaining
walls only occupies a small portion of the total length of the walls. In addition the walls
are terraced and will be screened from off site with the existing mature oaks and new
landscaping and partially by the new residence. The total area affected by this Grading
Policy Exception is 4,457 square feet. One additional area of fill is proposed at the
midpoint of the driveway requiring 3 1/2' of fill where the maximum allowed is 3'. This
location has a total affected area of 66 square feet.
The project site has steep slopes covering most property with slopes in excess of 30% directly
below the building site. No flat areas exist to provide a reasonable building envelope and flat
driveway/turnaround area. The proposed new home sits in the general location of the existing
home with an expanded footprint.
The 13' of cut proposed for the driveway and turnaround is required to comply with Fire
Department driveway and turnaround standards. The 13.5' retaining wall will be partially
screened from adjacent properties by the existing oaks to the south and east of the driveway, with
requirements for additional screening vegetation possible during the landscape screening permit.
Staff has prepared findings of approval for the Grading Permit Exception.
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 4 of 11
Drainage
Existing natural drainage sheetflows to the east to a swale adjacent to Elena Road. The proposed
drainage system consists of an on site metering retention system for the main house.
Additionally on site storm drains direct water to two new riprap outfall structures on site before
flowing into the natural drainage swale along Elena Road. The proposed system retains and
delays the release of water onto the hillside and will not release more than the predevelopment
flow rate according to the Lea & Braze Engineering Hydrology Study.
Geotechnical Review
Cotton, Shires, and Associates, the Town's Geotechnical consultants, reviewed the proposed
plans and concluded that the design recommendations for the project identified in the reports
generally appear appropriate for the conditions on site, subject to conditions requiring a final
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, a Geotechnical Plan Review letter, and a Geotechnical
Field Inspection (Conditions #13 and #14).
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and requires a fire engine
turnaround area (Condition #28).
Committee Review
Pathways Committee
The Pathway Committee recommends a pathway in -lieu fee.
Environmental Design and Protection Committee
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee recommends significant screening along
the north property line in order to help screen house from the neighbors' outdoor area.
Neighbor Comments
The applicant has met with the neighbors regarding the driveway design and location and has
modified the plans to meet their concerns.
CEQA Status
The proposed new residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15303(a).
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 5 of 11
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval.
2. Recommended Findings of approval for Grading Policy Exception.
3. Environmental Design & Protection Committee comments, dated 8/29/08.
4. Pathway Committee Minutes, dated 10/15/08.
5. - Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department, dated 9/7/09.
6. Arborist reports by Barrie D. Coate, dated 8/19/09 and 10/1/2008.
7. Geotechnical Review letter from Cotton, Shires, and Associates, dated 8/21/09.
8. Worksheets #land #2 dated 7/31/09.
9. Proposed development plans, prepared by Lea & Braze Engineering, received 8/20/09.
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 6of11
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW
RESIDENCE AND GRADING EXCEPTION
LANDS OF PARIKH, 26880 ELENA ROAD
File #181-08-ZP-SD-GD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission depending
on the scope of the changes.
2. After completion of rough framing and prior to the time of the pre -rough framing
inspection by the Planning and Engineering Departments, the applicant shall submit a
landscape screening, landscape lighting, and erosion control plan for review. The
landscape screening and erosion control plan is subject to a public hearing. Particular
attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the bulk of the
residence and preserving the existing screening. The landscape plan shall include the
replacement of all removed Heritage Oaks on a 3 for 1 basis at a minimum of 24" box
size. All landscaping required for screening purposes, replacement, and for erosion
control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection.
All lighting must comply with Town Policy.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final
inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and
maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at
that time if the plantings remain viable.
4. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all remaining Heritage Oaks .are to be fenced
at the drip line. Chain-link fencing shall clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must
inspect the chain-link fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of
grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance
of the inspection. The chain-link fencing must remain throughout the course of
construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip
lines of these trees.
5. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall have frosted/etched glass enclosures or be shielded
light fixtures. Seeded or bent glass is not acceptable. No lighting may be placed within
setbacks except as shown on the approved plan. The applicant shall provide the Town
with a lighting detail or manufacturer's specification on the fixtures to be used, prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check. All lighting must comply with the Town's
Lighting Policy prior to final inspection.
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 7 of 11
6. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the new residence and
roof eaves are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear
property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing
to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown
on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed
letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection.
7. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall. certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence
complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance -at
any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below
natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof
materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state
that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-
five (35') foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished
grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest
topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the
stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final
framing inspection.
8. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be
placed within skylight wells.
9. Air conditioning units shall be located a minimum of 40' from the front property line and
30' from the side and rear property lines.
10. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction.
11. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and
approval by the Planning Department prior to installation.
12. The applicant shall pay any applicable School District (Los Altos or Palo Alto) fees prior
to acceptance of plans for building plan check from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must
take a copy of required fee payment forms that have been completed by the Town to both
the elementary and high school district offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the
Town with a copy of their receipts.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
13. The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that their
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 8 of 11
recommendations have been properly incorporated. Design detailing of the combined use
of slab -on -grade floors and pier and gradebeam foundations (floating elements or
structural connections) should be evaluated from a geotechnical perspective. The results
of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in
a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer along with documents for building permit
plan -check.
14. The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be
limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and excavations for foundations, and retaining walls prior to the
placement of steel and concrete. The consultant should specifically inspect all
geotechnical aspects of completed project drainage structures. The results of these
inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described- by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to
final (as -built) project approval.
15. Peak discharge at 26880 Elena Road, as a result of Site Development Permit 181-08, shall
not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the properly. Detention
storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the
pre -development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s)
utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post
development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a 10 -year return period storm
and provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the
pre -development value. All documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2
plan copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Prior to final inspection,
a letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the detention storage
design improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance
with their recommendations.
16. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as
revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering
Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to
April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place
within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway
access.
17. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The
applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the
application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months.
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 9 of 11
18. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. ' The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate
requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment
control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut
and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native
soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be
replanted prior to final inspection.
19. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the
property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior
to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction operation plan
shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic
safety on Elena 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.
20. 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.
21. The property owner shall dedicate a 30' wide half -width public right of way to the Town
over Elena Road. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits
that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town
shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved
exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town
prior to submittal of plans for building plan check.
22. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed prior to final inspection.
23. A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health Department
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
24. Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final
inspection.
25. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $50.00 per linear foot of the average width
of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 10 of 11
FIRE DEPARTMENT
26. The project is located within the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. The
building construction shall comply with the provisions of - California Building Code
(CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC
Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval.
27. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire
Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a
sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700
Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be
inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the
new residence.
28. Provide an access driveway and fire department engine driveway turnaround with a paved
all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13
feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, as
shown on sheet C-3 of the plans dated 9/9/08.
29. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such
a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property.
Numbers shall contrast with their background.
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 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23 AND 25 SHALL BE COMPLETED
AND SIGNED OFF BY TOWN STAFF PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF
CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until October
1, 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.
Planning Commission
Lands of Parikh
October 1, 2009
Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION
LANDS OF PARIKH, 26880 ELENA ROAD
File # 181-08-ZP-SD-GD
1. The proposed grading is consistent with Section 10-2.702.c of the Los Altos Hills
Municipal Code, .the proposed grading will help lower the profile of a portion of the
structure and render it less visible from off site.
2. The proposed area of grading will not result in the substantial visual alteration of the
natural terrain. The property's existing contours and basic landform are retained.
3. The proposed grading will not result in the placement of retaining walls that are
substantially visible from off-site due to the existing mature Oak trees, the placement of
the new residence and the required landscape screening.
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 driveway
requires minimal fill.
Environmental .,esign and Protection Committee
New Residence/Remodel Evaluation
Reviewed by: --'I c�` _
Applicant
Name RCY,Q (1,' I+
Address 2 6 My `— qAr q �
Attachment 3
Date•,
Creeks, drainage, easements:
Rxictinff VevetafiAn-
Significant issues/comments:
Attachment 4
was referred to Town staff to answer his questions about specifications for path
construction.
iv. 12244 Windsor Court (Lands of Somasundaram). Windsor Court is a cul-de-sac off
Black mountain Road; it serves only five properties. This property is a flag lot off the
north side of Windsor Court and also has a border along Natoma. An existing path on
the property along Natoma needs maintenance. The Town may not ask for a pathway
in -lieu fee because a pathway already exists on a property. Courtenay Corrigan moved
that the homeowners be asked to restore and bring up to IIB standards the existing
pathway along Natoma. Jolon Wagner seconded. The vote was unanimously in
favor.
v. 26880 Elena Road (Lands of Parikh). Tom Klope, landscape architect, was present
representing the owners. The property is on the west side of Elena at the intersection
with Robleda Road. The opposite side of Elena is the preferred side for a roadside
pathway. Chris Vargas moved that the Town request a pathway in -lieu fee from the
owners of 26880 Elena Road. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was
unanimously in favor.
vi. 14300 Miranda Road (Lands of Udinsky). The property is on the east side of Miranda
at the corner of Miranda and La Lanne Court A pathway exists on the opposite side of
Miranda. Although Miranda is not designated in Resolution 38-96 (May 1996), as one
of the Town roads that requires paths on both sides, Miranda is a major feeder to Bullis
School and is heavily used by residents. Chris Vargas moved that the PWC request a
IIB on 14300 Miranda Road along Miranda Road. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The
vote was unanimously in favor. It was also suggested that the PWC review and
update the list of "two-sided roads" and propose a revised list to City Council for
approval.
vii. 13330 Burke Road (Lands of Soltanzad). The property is on the east side of Burke Road
across from the intersection with Chapin. Easement maps show that the Town already
holds a pathway easement along Burke on this property. A well-maintained pathway
exists on the opposite side of Burke Road. A pathway was not required along Burke on
the adjacent property (13241 Burke) and this part of Burke is not heavily used. Nick
Dunckel moved that the PWC ask the Town to verify that an easement exists along
Burke on 1330 Burke Road and if it does exist, to require the homeowner to show it
on his maps. If an easement does not exist, a pathway in -lieu fee is required from
the owner. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor.
viii. 27755 Edgerton Road (Lands of Liu). The property is on the west side of Edgerton
Road between Edgerton and Ursula. The homeowners plan to site the house close to
Ursula Lane, which will provide access. The 2005 Master Path Plan shows an off-road
pathway through this property connecting Edgerton and Ursula. This off-road path
provides an important connection between Town open space in Byrne Preserve and the
pathway from Edgerton along Matadero Creek, which has been designated a Scenic
Pathway and 'is frequently used by equestrians. Because of the terrain, a native path
rather that a HB path is appropriate. Bill Silver moved that a pathway easement on
27755 Edgerton Road be dedicated to the Town and that the homeowners be
required to install a native path through the property connecting Ursula to Edgerton
Road. The location of the pathway on the property may be at the discretion of the
owners. XX seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor. It was also suggested
that the Town install posts at each end of this pathway to mark the path.
DraftPWC Min 082508 10/15/08
R .?'EIVED Attachment 5
FIRE DEPARTMENT
�� SANTA CLARA COUNTY AUG 11 2009 ',i, a:
=FIRE
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 '�<«. a.3ons`
CCUP7ESY 65Ei1NCE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfdTM OF LOS ALTOS HJUS Internationally Accredited
Agency
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 0 9 1968
BLDG PERMIT NUMBER
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO. I REQUIREMENT
CFC Sec.
903.2, as
adopted
and
amended
by LAHMC
FILENUMBER 181-098-ZP-SD-GD
Proposed new 7,053 square foot two-story house with attached garage and
basement.
Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access
and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be
construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with
adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make
application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
construction permits.
This project is located within the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area.
The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building
Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance
with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the
Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements.
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
APPLICANT NAME
DATE
PAGE
LAH N ❑ N ❑ ❑
R-3, U
V -B
LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING
9/7/2009
1 1 OF 2
SECJFLOOR
AREA
LOAD
DESCRIPTION
BY
2 Story + Basement
7053
Residential Development
Harding, Doug
NAME OF PROJECT: SFR
LOCATION: 26880 Elena Rd
I
TABULAR FIRE FLOW:
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS:
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW
20 PSI:
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 m:ssioo
°A ° FIRE DEPAR`�I�`°
SANTA CLARA COUNTS d`r
FIRE
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 U G i 1 20Q�
coURTESY 69EWCE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org Internationally Accredited
ToipN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Agency _
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 0 9 1968
BLDG PERMITFLE NUMBER 181-098-ZP-SD-GD
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO. I REQUIREMENT
C Sec.503
3
Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway
with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet,
vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet
outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 157o. Installations shall
conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. Our
office will accept the revised driveway as shown on this edition of the pians.
?C Sec.503
4
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. Our office will accept the turnaround as
shown on this edition of the plans.
FC Sec. 505
5
Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their
background.
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
OCCUPANCY
CONST. TYPE
APPLICANT NAME
DATE
PAGE
LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑
R-3, U
V -B
LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING
9/7/2009
2 OF 2
°CJFLOOR
AREA
LOAD
DESCRIPTION
BY
Story + Basement
7053
Residential Development
Harding, Doug
4ME OF PROJECT: SFR
LOCATION: 26880 Elena Rd
%BULAR FIRE FLOW:
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS:
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW
C@ 20 PSI:
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
Attachment 6
AN UPDATE ON AN ARBORIST'S REPORT FOR
26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA
Prepared at the Request of:
Heena Pitchaikani
Box 885
Los Altos, CA 94023
For:
Mihir Parikh
26880 Elena Road
Los Altos Hills
Prepared by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
August 19, 2009
Job 4 10-08-176-09
AN UPDATE ON AN ARBORIST'S REPORT FOR 26880 ELENA RD, LOs ALTOS HILLS
ASSIGNMENT
Mr. David Keyon, Associate Planner of the Town of Los Altos Hills asked Heena
Pitchaikani for an updated arborist's report regarding two trees for which removal has
been requested.
I prepared a report regarding the trees on this property on October 1, 2008.
SUMMARY
In my opinion, Tree #1, an old Valley Oak, should be removed since it is so vulnerable to
losing a very large, south -facing limb
Tree #2, which I understand the Parikhs wish to remove, has a very large flush cut in the
lower part of the main trunk which will cause trunk decay in 15 — 30 years and which
pLay cause its failure in 50 years +/ In my opinion, this tree should not be removed at
this time.
Tree #4, a Coast Live Oak 50 feet below the existing deck, has a hollow trunk and leans
at an oblique angle toward the west. It poses some probability of failing but at present,
no significant target would be affected by its failure.
The revised leach field design removes conflict with significant trees if fences around
those trees prevent equipment from driving beneath canopies.
OBSERVATIONS
Tree #1 is located on the existing deck 6 feet east of the new building and has a 32 inch
DBH. It is 25 feet tall with a 50 foot branch spread.
The structure is composed of one 35 foot long, 24 inch diameter south -facing limb which
is supported by a cable attached to a 16 inch diameter upright limb. There is a large,.old
decay site near the base of the south -:facing limb.
This combination of a smaller diameter trunk supporting a 35 foot long, larger diameter
limb with a large decay site near its base is a recipe for major limb failure, with the cable
pulling the top of the tree out.
If this south facing, hazardous limb were removed, it would remove 60' percent of the
foliage and branches from the tree, leaving a worthless tree.
In addition, the foundation of the house is scheduled to be installed 6 feet west of the
trunk in an area containing major buttress roots from this tree.
When all factors are considered, Tree 41 is, in my opinion, too likely to fail to be
retained. It should be removed.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST AUGUST 19, 2009
AN UPDATE ON AN ARBORIST' S REPORT FOR 26880 ELENA RD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Tree #2. A large wound was created when a large trunk was flush -cut back to the main
trunk at 3 feet above grade,
Cuts like this always decay into the main trunk, but not for 15-30 years, and even then the
tree is unlikely to fail for another 20 years. This can continue to be a useful, safe tree for
many more years, and in my opinion, need not be removed.
Tree #4. This Live Oak is located 50 feet downhill from the existing deck. A large co-.
dominant trunk broke out on the east side several years ago, leaving the trunk hollow.
Since it leans at a 50 degree angle toward the west, it has the potential to break off and/or
fall over.
If it failed, it is unlikely that it would strike anything and since it is very healthy, the
Parikhs may wish to keep it, but a case can easily be made for its removal, due to the
combination of a hollow trunk and its severe lean.
The revised leach field design should not harm any of the significant trees, but I would
recommend that 6 feet tall chain-link fences mounted on 2 inch diameter galvanized iron
pipe pieces, driven 2 feet into the ground be installed at the drip -lines of all of the oaks
below the existing deck before any excavation equipment is allowed on-site.
Respectfully submitted,
Barrie D. Coate
BDC:eg
Enclosures: Assumptions and Limited Conditions
Map
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST AUGUST 19, 2009
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Hodcutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
40813531052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for
matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless
subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than
the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the
appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be
reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and
should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and
procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects
which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil
around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We
cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend
measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to
accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms
that fail in ways we do no fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot
guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise; remedial
treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to
eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
RpFugrn01
OWN V. HILLS
A RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS REQUEST FOR ARBORIST
REPORT FOR THE PARIKH PROPERTY
26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared at the Request of:
Heena Pitchaikani
PO Box 885
Los Altos CA 94023
For:
Mihir Parikh
26880 Elena Rd.
Los Altos Hills
Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
October 1, 2008
Job #10-08-173
BARRI E D. COt. d E
and ASSOCIATES
Horficutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos. CA 95033
4081353-1052
RpFugrn01
OWN V. HILLS
A RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS REQUEST FOR ARBORIST
REPORT FOR THE PARIKH PROPERTY
26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared at the Request of:
Heena Pitchaikani
PO Box 885
Los Altos CA 94023
For:
Mihir Parikh
26880 Elena Rd.
Los Altos Hills
Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
October 1, 2008
Job #10-08-173
IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS REQUEST FOR ARBORIST REPORT FOR THE ]
PARIKH PROPERTY
26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Assignment
On October 1, 2008, I met Ms. Heena Pitchaikani, representative for the Parikh family at
26880 Elena Road to answer comments in the City of Los Altos Hills letters dated
August 7, 08 and July 28, 08.
In that letter on page 2 under the title Trees/Arborists Report item 8 and page 2 in the
July 28, 08 letter item 6 are questions which require comment from a Certified Arborist.
The questions are:
1. Removal of existing Eucalyptus trees located within 150 feet of any building or
roadway.
There are no Eucalyptus trees on this property so this subject is moot in this case.
2. The request is to revise the grading plan so that no grading or construction work
occurs within the dripline of existing oak trees.
I note that the proposed infiltration system has been relocated to the far east side
of the property and away from any trees.
I note that the symmetrical tree driplines shown on Sheet titled Septic System
Plan, page 1 of 1, dated 9/14/08, do not represent the actual dimensions of the
trees canopies. I've drawn more accurate driplines on this plan.
That plan is enclosed with this report.
When more accurate driplines are drawn on the plan the affect on the existing
trees by the planned leach field design displays quite a different affect on those
trees.
Ironically the effect will be significantly less on tree #4 since the canopy of tree
#4 is leaning toward the south, as a result the planned location of the leach field in
the area north of tree #4 would be significantly less than that shown with the
inaccurate dripline locations.
I would suggest that the leach fields trenches identified as B and C in the enclosed
plan could move as much as 10 and 15 feet respectively toward tree #4 to within 5
feet of that tree trunk without causing unacceptable levels of root damage to that
tree.
This may allow reduction in the length of leach field trench A on its far north end
if desired but that trench should not move up hill or south from the location of
trench A shown on the plan.
Note that the protective fence location shown on the plan is not acceptable and
has been relocated as shown.
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
OCTOBER 1, 2008
IN RESPONSE TO THE CI i Y OF LOS ALTOS HILLS REQUEST FOR ARBORIST REPORT FOR THE 2
PARIKH PROPERTY
26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Fences must be of 6 foot tall chainlink material, mounted on 2 inch galvanized
iron posts driven 2 feet into solid ground. These fences must be in place and
inspected by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) consulting arborist
before any equipment arrives on site.
No grading should be allowed inside any area protected by a construction period
fence.
In my opinion, some thought should be given to removal of tree #1.
This old valley oak has only 3 very long limbs remaining and only about 10% of
the foliage this tree would normally have.
A long cable is currently the only support for the east facing 35 foot long limb.
Due to the assorted trunk cavities in this tree I believe that it presents too much
hazard to leave in this high -target area.
The property has been disced, including the area beneath tree canopies. This
practice cuts up the absorbing roots of the trees and should be prohibited.
The mature trees on the property have soil accumulated around root collars, above
original soil grade. This condition provides the environment for oak root fungus
infection (Armillaria mellea). All soil must be removed in an area 2 feet wide
around the trunks down to whatever depth is necessary to expose buttress loots on
all sides of the trunk.
Respectfully submitted,
�1 G
Barrie D. Coate
BDC/sl
Encl.:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Plan
Pictures
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
OCTOBER 1, 2008
IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY OA , jS ALTOS HILLS REQUEST FOR ARBORIST REPORT rOR THE PARIAH PROPERTY
26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Photo 2 --+
A large flush cut which will
Result in trunk decay in the
future
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
<— Photo 1
'free # 2
OCTOBER 1, 2008
IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF 2,OS ALTOS HILLS REQUEST FOR ARBORIST REPORT I -OR THE PARTKH PROPERTY
26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
T Photo 3
Tree # 1 with a structure
entirely dependent on a cable
T Photo 4
The root collar is below the deck
PREPARED BY. BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 1, 2008
01
r'-
7� sti. ri. •
•P1 .{ i� s
m :4fiV-
�
-
���&+��g��
IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY Or SOS ALTOS HILLS REQUEST FOR ARBORIST REPORT FOR THE PARIKH PROPERTY
26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
<—Photo 9
It lost a main trunk
in the past
Photo 101
Its root collar is covered
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTDIIG ARBORIST
OCTOBER 1, 2008
IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY OF -.�S ALTOS HILLS REQUEST FOR ARBORIST REPORT rvR THE PARIKH PROPERTY
26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Photo 11 T
The entire area has been disced
Photo 12--*
'free # 5 is a fine old valley oak
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
OCTOBER 1, 2008
BARRIE D. COATE
A 4nM— To'li,c L-i:y Orb, A7:os Ilius
R:qum I'ur,4Loris1 Rcpon Mor The i 61ch I7ol. ,y
and ASSOCIATES
16NA EI -3 R.M. Los Alio, Ilills
23SISS
11)0IR.aaa
,
4M$1-100
Tho � :b arladred to a flan done by arc,tla pdasio:ul. lire
f+ees� d IAD logo a nal kf the DI,D06e d dair:g ore61 lar
Cr Om bN uwwy m add h bmi aal or aboradww
��hll,allon to a plan pvWW N dhW•
pale; OCL 1, 2008
HORF=LTURALCONSULTANTS
CONSULTING ARSMSTS
.bb! .—.fJ
REOVIRFD FIRE
..` • �. TRUCK TURPf
PER SANTA CLARA Fotl
DEPARTMENT STAHOARI -• -'
>T
of), t _
•; i! X ): 90.0; r - - •. -
AN d4im- siofa and Ved I=wm _ e • i�� , _ �� ..:
're appoama:!. • • J%.' t.1 ? : - _ • •..... •;;ittAYERY�
..„/ �., y•,1 lt' rl.. .. � •_ faEfY'BI51)EC
CO
Jr., • , i • `• j'�e. FOR
vc
k•.,
% '.III. o / o,
J a
CC
•rte i': • { • �;, � -` \�', ' M ' ,; - ' ' 'r q � I ..,�,
O ` it• , ' 1 1. \ ! '•• i / ' a_
- Actual
Drip Line
Period Fence •
Construction :` '�' :� �' \ tr+) _
Period Fence I TREE PROTECTIDN
do •:,;,•z .
N52.05'00'
10.25'
K t•. r r� 1 10' MINIM M . jl --
- 7t I' f-ewe-cT��-_- N5? -05'.
— _
- - _
BARRIE D. COA
and ASSOCIATES
Hord cutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos. CA 95033
40x/353-1052
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided bj others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee .for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor .upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys;
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was -not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education., knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the Structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
Attachment 7
r&MCOTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
.CONSULTWG ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
August 21, 2009
L0208C
TO: David Keyon
Associate Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILTS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills,'California 94022
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review
RE: Parikh, New Residence
181-08-ZP-SD-GD
26880 Elena Road
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of
the applications for proposed site improvements using:
■ Updated Recommendations — Parikh Residence (letter) prepared
by Romig Engineers, dated August 12,2009;
• Hydrology Study (calculations) prepared by Lea & Braze
Engineering, updated July 30, 2009;
• Architectural Plans and Sections (7 sheets) prepared by Knorr
Architecture, dated July 31, 2009;
• Preliminary Geotechnical Conclusions (letter) prepared by Romig
Engineers Inc., dated June 25,2008;
• Grading and Drainage Plans, Details and Construction
Specifications (8 sheets, various scales) prepared by Lea and Braze
Engineering, Inc., latest revision date of July 31, 2009; and
• Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Romig Engineers,
Inc., dated July 8, 2008.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office
files and been in communication with the Project Geotechnical Consultant.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to demolish existing site residential structures and
construct a new residence, driveway and associated parking areas, as well as an
extension of the septic leachfield system. In our previous geotechnical peer review letter
dated (May 13, 2009), we recommended that the Froject Geotechnical Consultant
Morthem CaWarnia office Central California Office
$30 village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249.9640
(408) 354.5542 • Fax (408) 3541852 (209) 736.4252 • Fax (209) 736.1212
e-mail: losgatosOcottonshires.com www.cottonshires.com e -maul cottonshires®starband.net
David Keyon August 21, 2009
Page 2 L0208C
complete supplemental geotechnical evaluations related to addressing issues/concerns
related to proposed pavement, drainage and grading design prior to acceptance of
docaments for building permit plan -check. We were primarily concerned that drainage
improvements should be designed to avoid adverse geotechnical impacts to proposed
site improvements. In addition, we noted that some aspects of proposed grading should
be revised for conformance with standard building code requirements (i.e., final fill
slopes no steeper than 2:1).
Based on our review of the referenced revised project plans, it appears that the
overall scope of the project has been modified to include a new driveway align exit and
septic leachfield locations. The proposed residence is now shown to utilize slab -on -
grade floors. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has recommended that existing
artificial fill materials be excavated and recompacted beneath the northeastern portion
of the building area. The consultant has indicated that slab -on -grade floors may be
constructed over a properly prepared pad and that this floor design should be combined
with a pier and grade beam foundation supporting the residence.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMME-LADED ACTION
With the currently depicted slab -on -grade floors and revised grading and
drainage plans, the project has changed significantly from a geotechnical perspective
since the earlier plans of July 2008.
The referenced August 2009 letter from the Project Geotechnical Consultant
indicates that an evaluation of the July 2009 Grading and Drainage Plans has been
completed. Evaluations of this letter satisfactorily address the previously noted
geotechnical concerns with proposed project design. Final design details of slab -on -
grade floors and foundation should be examined and approved from a geotechnical
perspective by Romig Engineers prior to issuance of building permits.
We recommend that the following conditions be attached to geotechnical
approval of the subject application:
1. Geotechnical Pian Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and
grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been
properly incorporated. Design detailing of the combined use of
slab -on -grade floors and pier and gradebeam foundations
(floating elements or structural connections) should be evaluated
from a geotechnical perspective.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be
summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and
COTTON, SHIRES & AssOCIATEs, INC.
David Keyon
Page 3
August 21., 2009
L0208C
submitted to the 'Town Engineer along with documents for
building permit plan -check.
2. Geofeihnical Construction Inspections - The geotecl rucal
consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geotedbnical 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 wails prior to the
placement of steel and concrete. The consultant should
specifically inspect all geotechnical aspects of completed project
drainage structures.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the
project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a
letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to
final (as -built) project approval.
LIMITATIONS
This supplemental 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, and it visual review
of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally
accepted. principles and practices of the geotecht4ical profession_ This warranty is in lieu
of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
TS:DTS:kd
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC,
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
"'
Z- 4L�A
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotedmical Engineer
GE 2334
COTTON, SHIRES & ASs4CYATEs, mc.
Attachment 8
RECEfta
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
//t+ LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERIIJG. INC. AUG n
GwL EwWNELwLAwD SwPVCYOR., v (] GSC
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086 �
WORKSHEET#1 (o'rtY ��AI]'®S ILLS
CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE, LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF) AIT
(�
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA), AND MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
APN: 182-12-012
PROPERTY ADDRESS
26880 Elena Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA.
CALCULATED BY
R. West I DATE 7/31/2009
REFERENCE MAP:
Topographic Survey by Lea & Braze #2070185 I JOB# 2080223
1. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE EXISTING CONTOURS
EXISTING CONTOURS -AFTER 10' ROADWAY DEDICATION
A. NET AREA (An) 1.194 ACRES B. CONTOUR INTERVAL (I) 2 ft.
C. DRAWING SCALE I"= 20'
D. CONTOUR LENGTH WITHINNET AREA OF LOT (An)
CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES)
CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES)
CONTOUR LENGTH
(INCHES)(INCHES)
CONTOUR LENGTH
482 0.0
1
1
518 10.0
554
590
484 7.3
520 10.1
556
592
486 8.0
522 10.3
558
594
488 8.0
524 10.6
560
596
490 8.2
526 10.8
562
598
492 8.3
528 11.3
564
600
494 8.3
530 12.6
566
602
496 8.6
532 12.8
568
604
498 8.7
534 12.4
570
606
500 8.8
536 11.6
572
608
502 9.0
538 10.4
574
610
504 9.1
540 9.2
576
612
506 9.3
542 5.8
578 1
614
508 9.4
544 1.9
580
616
510 9.5
546 0.0
582
618
512 9.7
548
584
620
5119-'
550
586
622
516 9.9
552
588
624
TOTAL 289.7
CONVERT INCHES TO FEET (MULTIPLY BY MAP SCALE) = (L) _
E. AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT
S= (0.0023) (2.0 FT) (5794 FT) = 22.32%
(1.194)
2. CALCULATION OF LOT UNIT FACTOR (LUF)
LUF =(An)(1-[0.02143(S-]0)])= 0.879 egg..
3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA)
MDA= 9124 SQUARE FEET
4. CALCULATION FOR MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
MFA= 5000 SQUARE FEET
Note 1: If the slope is less than 10%, the LUF for the lot is equal to the net area.
Note 2: If the LUF is greater than 0.5, The MDA is 7,500ft' (minimum).
If the LUF is greater than, or equal to, 0.5, The MFA is 5,00oft2 (minimum).
Note 3: If the LUF is equal to or less than .50, you will need a conditional development permit.
make an appointment with the Town Planner for further information.
TOWN USE ONLY ICHECICED BY: DATE:
5794.0 FT.
-Uwg
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
3 LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC.
UVLL ENGINEERS . LAND SURVEYORS
CALCULATIONS BY LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING (510) 887-4086
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
BASED ON EXISTING CONTOURS - AFTER 10' ROADWAY DEDICATION
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
APN: 182-12-012
PROPERTY ADDRESS
26880 Elena Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA.
CALCULATED BY
REFERENCE MAP:
R. West I DATE 7/31/2009
Topographic Survey by Lea & Braze #2070186 I JOB# 2080223
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from worksheet #1 19124 Sq. Ft.
2. Floor Area (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
C. Attic & Basement
d Garage
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
C. Attic and Basement
Totals
Existing Proposed Total
* 2,307
1,904
s *
* 759
4,970
Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from worksheet #1 5000 Sq. Ft.
* denotes floor area supplied by architect
** 1>LUF>.5; allowable MDA = 7500s.f.(min), if LUF<.5, conditional development permit applies
�i *** 1>LUF>.5• allowable MFA=5000s.f.(min), if LUF<.5; conditional develonment nermit nnntiP
Existing
Proposed
Increase
A.
House and Garage (From Part B)
1,960
4,970 *
0
B.
Driveway & Parking + From Walk
3,304
2,521
-783
(measured 100' along centerline)
C.
Driveway > 14' Wide
0
0
0
D.
Patios & Walkways
281
523
242
E.
Elevated Wood Decks
1,337
0
-1,337
F.
Shed & Covered Carport
296
0
-296
Totals
7,178
8,014
836
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from worksheet #1 19124 Sq. Ft.
2. Floor Area (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
A. House and Garage
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
C. Attic & Basement
d Garage
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
C. Attic and Basement
Totals
Existing Proposed Total
* 2,307
1,904
s *
* 759
4,970
Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from worksheet #1 5000 Sq. Ft.
* denotes floor area supplied by architect
** 1>LUF>.5; allowable MDA = 7500s.f.(min), if LUF<.5, conditional development permit applies
�i *** 1>LUF>.5• allowable MFA=5000s.f.(min), if LUF<.5; conditional develonment nermit nnntiP