Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1Item 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 6, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Cormnission SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 27,254 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE NEW; LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA LLC; 27270 NATOMA ROAD; FILE #25-10-ZP-SD-GD. FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Plaimer J F_ APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit and Grading Policy Exception for the new residence, citing the findings in Attachment 92 and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment #1. ALTERNATIVE: Offer the applicant the opportunity to continue the project to a future Planning Commission hearing with specific direction to redesign per Article 7 of the Site Development Ordinance. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Natoma Road. The nearly square shaped property has a net size of 4.902 acres and an average slope of 9.5%. The site is developed with a two-story residence that was built in 1976 and a barn. The site is largely devoid of trees and shrubs except in the northwestern corner of the site and the screening plantings near the existing residence that includes small trees and shrubs. The applicant requests a Grading Policy exception for, driveway cut up to 10 feet. The remainder of the proposal complies with all of the Town's Zoning and Site Development standards. The applicant reported performing neighborhood outreach during the design phase of the project. Five (5) neighbors have contacted staff to voice project concerns and a petition was submitted. All written documents received from the neighbors are located in Attachment #7. CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed residence is an Estate Home per Section 10-1.508 and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is also required to review all proposals for Grading Policy Exceptions per the Town's Grading Policy. Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 2 DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area Net Lot Area: Average Slope: Area Maximum Development 73,530 Floor 29,412 Site and Architecture 4.902 acres 4.902 acres 9.5% Proposed Existing Increase Left 34,167 14,259 19,908 39,363 27,254 7,765 19,489. 2,158 The 4.902 acre site has a 9.5% slope that consistently descends from the southwest corner to the northwest corner. The design of the proposed residence utilizes most of the allowable floor area. The proposed site layout includes the primary building, the vehicular circulation plan, and several patios and decks. The exterior building materials include a combination of vertical cedar siding and stone veneer with a cedar shingle roof. The building layout is primarily a tall single -story with increased ceiling heights. Two- story elements have been incorporated at the east wing of the residence. Building height varies from 14 feet to 29 feet along the approximate 430 foot long building. The two- story elements are visible from the north and east elevations (from downhill). The west and south elevations (from uphill) show a building profile that is primarily 15-19 feet tall. The proposed roof ridge will be at an elevation that is lower than the existing residence to be demolished. The proposed residence complies with floor area, development area, Estate Home setbacks, and height standards per Title 10 of the Municipal Code. It is anticipated that a more detailed plan of exterior facilities will accompany the Landscape Screening plan, which will come before the Planning Commission for review. Driveway & Parking The proposed driveway will enter from the newly created cul-de-sac, Palomino Place. The driveway follows the existing driveway for the first 200 feet. The next 250 feet of driveway run parallel to the western property boundary at a distance of approximately 35 feet from that property line. The current driveway takes a more gradual turn and varies from 50 feet to 70 feet from the western property boundary along this section. Portions of the driveway adjacent to the proposed residence include a circular turnaround, fire truck turnaround, a standard two -car garage, three surface parking spaces and associated back up space. The portions of the driveway and associated vehicular circulation elements adjacent to the residence are the reason for the requested Grading Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 3 Policy Exception (see additional information in Grading section below). Another feature of the proposed driveway includes two access points to a partially lowered 12 car garage. The access points connect to the primary driveway aisle to create a circular vehicular flow. pattern. Outdoor Lighting Outdoor lighting is shown on the floor plan (plans sheet A-2.02). Standard lighting is proposed, with two (2) fixtures per double door exit, one (1) fixture per single door exit, and several building perimeter fixtures at distance from exits. The standard lighting Condition #7 for outdoor lighting, requires that fixtures be down shielded or have frosted/etched globes. The applicant will submit outdoor landscape lighting details with the required landscape screening plan. Neighbor's Concerns The site has a common property boundary with nine (9) developed single family parcels. Planning staff has received comments and concerns from four (4) households as of the writing of this report. The raised issues include the following: • Building size • Loss of views • Loss of property value • Driveway is near property line and headlight glare • Noise from roof mounted A/C units • Landscape screening mitigation needed Neighbors from four (4) properties have written letters to the Planning Commission documenting their issues. The Planning Department also received a petition with 22 signatures representing 12 properties (Attachment #7). The following is a summary of the issues in the letters and staff responses: Loss of Views -The possibility of resiting the building down slope and lowering the building pad has been suggested because of the size and magnitude of the proposal. One letter notes that views of Moffett Field, city lights, and the ridges of the East bay will be lost. The letter cites the purpose Section 10-2.701 of the Site Development Ordinance which states: "...insure that the site, location and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from off-site; that scenic views are retained; that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape... " Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 4 The Planning Commission and City Council have the express authority per Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance to require additional setbacks, reduced floor area and development area, and reduced height limits. In this case, the proposed building is primarily a single story structure when viewed from uphill and is not at the maximum allowable height or floor area. Also, the building footprint is primarily sited beyond the increased Estate Homes setback standards. It should be noted that the applicant has proposed a project that is not pressing the limits of the quantitative code allowances; however, the unusual magnitude and size of the project may warrant consideration of alternatives per Section 10-2.702. Driveway is near property line and headlight glare -The neighbor at 27220 Carrington Circle commented that the proposed driveway is close to the property line and that headlights will shine into the windows of the home. The proposed driveway primarily follows the existing driveway. The proposed driveway is approximately 10 feet closer to the property line for a length of approximately 150 feet. The proposed driveway is a minimum of 30 feet from the property line in this location where the required setback is 10 feet per Section 10- 2.1102(h). Car headlights are not an issue that is addressed in the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. This issue has been adequately addressed by the Landscape Screening plan with previous projects. Landscape screening mitigation needed -The neighbor at 27220 Carrington Circle also commented that significant landscape screening will be needed to screen the building. The Landscape Screening Plan for this project is required to come before the Planning Commission for review per the Estate Homes Ordinance requirements. One possible issue with landscape screening is the location of the leach fields. The fields are proposed at the Santa Clara County Health Department minimum 10 feet from the property line adjacent to the concerned neighbor. Condition #10 includes a recommendation that the leach fields maintain a 20 foot setback from the property boundary to allow for adequate perimeter screening. Noise from A/C Units -Noise output is regulated by Section 5.2-02 of the Town's Municipal Code. The solution is typically in the design of equipment enclosure and by selecting units that produce low noise levels. Condition #11 has been added to ensure that this issue is addressed prior to Building Department plan review. Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 5 ....... 2757$ 27550 -"Y �,..,,. 12385 72300 � 27693' ., \7 MOO ­­ 12345 27343 1p 27500 PO 27888 27680 .29655 27W1 27845 27447 Z 27543 27671 12140 1 PD 27575 !t 27664 12145 27431 27450 12272 27694 273D1 MO TAIN 12244 121 227 � 27645 12271 27610 12139 27642 9 27470 U462 ! m 12997 12970 27" 12230 27626 12133 27197 12977 12950 27345 O 12233 27808 27478 12121 12951 0 12933 27323 27413 27435 p z7zuD o� 12971 12921t 27474 12119 12930 27468 275DD 12675 1 Z7350 12840 12922 PM A- 12035 12900 12840 �4 12821 2 27210 12845 12800 2 0 � Y s 12833 27220�T`� �TTB 26000 20930 Byme 27210 20556 Preserve2C7 28151 26777 X872 26811 g99Il 444 2 9D7 26880 26385 =Am �A 28937 28929 2 26925 1'V !H 26900 281a TAAFFE �A'�( 28991 � .20" 26855 2 26870 2 ' 27053 O 28932 20083 27089 26990 27001 _27ENr7 26E46 i7D71 20911 P 27125 26995 27890 27033 27011 27055 27000 285855 28838 27D40 26 27101 26896 - Denotes households that signed the petition. Applicant's Response Planning Department staff has relayed the neighborhood concerns to the project applicant and suggested that the project team explore alternatives and responses to the issues. The applicant has communicated to staff that efforts were made'in the building design to lower the house as much as possible while retaining on site views. The applicant has also stated that they are exploring possible changes including: v Relocating the two -car garage element of the 10 =car garage. s Eliminating chimneys • Lowering ceiling heights and roof pitches at the east wing of the residence The applicant has commented to staff that the proposed siting of the house with a finished floor elevation of 705' is critical to the design and optimization of their views. Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 6 Grading The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of approval as specified in Attachment #1. Grading quantities include: • 6,570 cubic yards of cut • 1,560 cubic yards of fill 0 5,010 cubic yards export The maximum cut depth is 10 feet to accommodate portions of the driveway adjacent to the residence. The proposed residence generally follows the contours of the site and the building pad is cut to elevation 704'. Fill of up to three (3) feet is proposed within the building footprint at the east wing of the residence to create the building pad. Also, along the north side of the proposed building All depths to three (3) feet are proposed to create a level yard and walkout area. The Planning Commission has express authority to allow exceptions to the Grading Policy. The Grading Policy requires that cut be limited to four (4) feet for driveways. The applicant proposes ten feet of cut, exceeding the Grading Policy allowance by six (6) feet. The additional cut allows the building pad to be lowered, which is "generally preferred" per the Grading Policy. The privacy and view issues heard by the neighborhood are somewhat mitigated by the additional proposed cut. The applicant has communicated to Planning staff that efforts were made in the building design to lower the house as much as possible to preserve views from offsite. Drainage The drainage design directs water around the uphill site retaining walls and away from the uphill side of the building into 8" pipes. The downspouts and runoff from the downhill side of the structure are collected in catch basins and conveyed into 8' pipes that connect to two (2) underground drainage basins. If the basins fill to maximum capacity, overflow water is conveyed to an energy dissipater. Runoff from a lower portion of the driveway is conveyed to a separate energy dissipater. Geotechnical Review The applicant's geotechnical consultants, BAGG Engineers and Murray Engineers Inc. have submitted engineering geologic and a fault investigation reports. The reports were peer reviewed by the Town's geotechnical consultant, Cotton and Shires Associates (Attachment #4). The proposed residence is approximately 65 feet from the recommended setback. The reports conclude that an Altamont fault trace traverses the site north of the proposed residence. Murray Engineers Inc. recommends a 25 foot building setback from the fault trace. The reports also include recommendations for Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 7 foundations, retaining walls, site drainage, and grading. Cotton and Shires Associates concur with the recommendations and findings in both reports and have issued standard conditions of approval (Conditions #14 a & b). Trees & Landscaping The site contains four (4) heritage oak trees (12" and larger diameter). Two (2) of the oak trees are in the area of the proposed leach fields. Condition of approval #10 requires the applicant to provide an arborist report prior to installation of the septic system to identify appropriate installation and protection measures or to find an alternate location. The site contains alternative locations to relocate this section of underground pipe. One (1), 8" oak tree is proposed for removal and the majority of the screening shrubs associated with the existing residence will be removed. After rough framing of the residence, the applicant is required to prepare a Landscape Screening Plan for Planning Commission review per section 10-1.508 (h). Green Building Ordinance The applicant has submitted a LEED for Homes checklist in compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance. The building is designed to achieve 49 points in the LEED for Homes certification program. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has required that the building be sprinklered, a hydrant be installed on site, and that the driveway accommodate a standard Fire Truck Turnaround. The site plan shows the location of a conforming Fire Truck Turnaround. A new Palomino Place address will be assigned with the Building Permit. Santa Clara County Health Department Review The Santa Clara County Health Department has reviewed the proposed leach field and expansion field locations with the tank location and size. The Health Department has issued a preliminary approval. Detailed plans are submitted following planning approval and the County administers the review and inspection process. Town Committee's Review The Pathway in -lieu fee was paid with the Subdivision file #218 -08 -IS -ND -TM -GD. . The Environmental Design Committee commented that there needs to be additional screening along the north and eastern property boundaries. Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA) The proposed single family residential addition and remodel is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15303(a) & (e). R.107.107.011 "11 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Grading Policy Exception Findings 3. Los Altos Hills Grading Policy 4. Cotton and Shires Associates Letter, April 22, 2010 5. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, March 19, 2010 6. Fire Department Comments, February 25, 2010 7. Letters from Neighbors ordered by date received (starting with most recent) 8. Proposed development plans (Commission only) Planning Conmiission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA LLC, 27270 NATOMA ROAD File # 25-10-ZP-SD-GD 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission; depending on the scope. of the changes. 2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final inspection. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Planning Commission. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed Planning Commission hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection. 4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $10,000 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 required plantings remain viable. Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 10 5. 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 60' f -om the front property line and 45 ' f -om the sides 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 approved 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. 6. 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 structure heigh shown on the approved plans, measured as the vertical distance at any point f -om 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 measured f -om the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest point of the roof structure or appurtenance." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection and prior to final inspection. 7. Building mounted lighting is approved as shown on the approved plans. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or 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. 8. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 9. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 10. The applicant shall redesign the layout of the leach fields to maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet from all property boundaries. The leach fields shall generally not be located under the drip line of heritage oak trees. If alternative locations are limited, the applicant has the option to provide a report prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist that includes installation and protection measures. The applicant shall provide an updated leach field Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 11 plan to the Planning Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 11. The applicant shall provide manufacturer's noise output specifications for all proposed mechanical equipment to ensure compliance with Section 5- 2.02, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 12. At the time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance: a. A GreenPoint rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. 13. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building professional shall provide documentation to the Planning Department verifying that the building was constructed in compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED® certification. 14. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 15. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their letter dated April 22, 2010, the applicant shall comply with the following: Planning Connnission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 12 a. 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 and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall 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. b. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall 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 inspection. 16. . Peak discharge at 27270 Natoma Road, as a result of Site Development Permit 25-10, 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 grading and storm drainage improvements were constructed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations. 17. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take Plaiming Commission Lands of Homa. Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 13 place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 18. All public utility services serving this properly shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E , immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. 19. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 20. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction operation plan shall -address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Palomino Place and Natoma Road, 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. 21. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 22. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final inspection. Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 14 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. 1SM-09.\SIM 17M AI 25. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 26. The applicant shall provide an on-site hydrant at a location to be determined by the Fire Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The hydrant shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of framing or the delivery of bulk combustible materials. 27. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minim radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. 28. 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%. 29. This project is located within the designated Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. 30. 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. A Palomino Place address shall be assigned prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC May 6, 2010 Page 15 CONDITION NUMBERS 10, 11, 12a, 14,15a, 16,19, 20, 21, 23, 26 ANIS 36 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OF'F BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND/OR 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 action. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after June 1, 2010 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until May 6, 2011). 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 Homa Natoina LLC May 6, 2010 Page 16 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA LLC, 27270 NATOMA ROAD File # 25-10-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed additional grading will aid in the reduction of visual impacts from offsite. The driveway and building layout follows the property's existing contours and the basic landform is retained. 2. The proposed grading employs a cut building pad and significantly lowers the profile of the residence and reduces overall visible bulk. Cut foundations are "generally preferred" over fill per the Grading Policy. 3. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation that cannot be effectively mitigated. 4. The proposed grading will not increase the quantity of runoff or the alteration of existing drainage patterns: Attachment 3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS WSALTOSIIILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaitoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Grading.P®licy Approved by City Council — 4/2/97 Code Sections: Section 10-2.702(D 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 H 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 heextent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Grading Policy Page 2 Poli 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' * T 3' AccessoryBldg. 4' 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes. excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the Slope. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8`) for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. Attachment 4 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, I1 NC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS April 22, 2010 L5060A TO: Brian Froelich Associate Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 SUBTECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Homa Natoma LLC, New Residence 25-10-ZP-SD-GD 27270 Natoma Road At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the subject permit application for the proposed new residence using: files. ® Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Murray Engineers, dated April 6, 2010; o Architectural Plans, (6 sheets, various scales) prepared by HKS Hill Glazier Studio, revised April 6, 2010; and Topographic and Site Development Plan (4 sheets, various scales) prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc., dated March 31, 2010. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office DJL %_ USSXTQN The applicant proposes to construct a new residence with separate partial basements. Access to the residence would be provided by a new driveway extending from Palomino Place. We understand that all existing structures on the property are to be removed. Proposed grading includes 6,570 cubic yards of cut, 1,560 cubic yards of fill, and 5,010 cubic yards of exported material. In our previous project geotechnical peer review (letter dated March 2, 2010). We recommended that a lot -specific, design -level geotechnical investigation be prepared prior to completion of a project Planning Commission hearing. We noted that earlier subdivision investigation had resulted in the conclusion that the local Atlamont fault Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 - Fax (408) 354-1852 www.cotionshires.com Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736-4252 o Fax (209) 736-1212 Brian Froelich April 22, 2010 Page 2 L5060A was not located as depicted on the Town Geologic Map. We requested that the Project Geotechnical Consultant evaluate the feasibility of the proposed development plan. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Proposed project construction is constrained by potentially expansive earth materials, and anticipated seismic ground shaking. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has completed significant additional site subsurface investigation and concluded that the Altamont fault is located north of the proposed development (see report Figure A-2). The consultant has recommended a 25 -foot building setback from the fault trace which is observed by the currently proposed residence. The consultant notes that this fault trace has geologic attributes that indlicate it is relatively ancient and concluded that the fault rupture hazard at the site is relatively low. Full geotechnical design criteria for the project have been prepared. Recommended design parameters are in general conformance with current standards of geotechnical practice. We do not have geotechnical objections to the proposed layout of site improvements or recommended project design criteria. We plan to include a revision of the Altamont fault trace alignment (per findings of the referenced report) during the next revision of the Town Geotechnical Hazard Map and Geologic Map. We recommend that the following conditions be attached to the project building permit applications: 1. Geotechnical Plan 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, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnicalcor sulta_nt in a letter. and submitted -to the T o-,vn Engineer for review along with other documents for building permit plan -check. 2. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - 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. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian Froelich April 22, 2010 Page 3 L5060A 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 (granting of occupancy) 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 a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepteO,principles and practice's of the k7,-ek)t-ee�-LrdcEii'p:}of?ssion.. This warranty is ir�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 David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. circ-ms`s-avuert�� and A�eepoL N e v R �� i d p n P p1 'atnr��del Evaluation Reviewed by: Applicant Name— Address��� Site iin�a.eflgl ting/nO➢se: Attachment 5 Date Creeks, drainage, easements: --- Existing Vegetat-i6n: Significant issues/comments: GVIRA t- c°� �'.F11�� COURTESY 6 SERVICE FIRS E A, R 7 N I E N SANTA - �R� COUir - L 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 0 (408) 378-9342 (fax) - wvrw.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENT'S CODE/SEC. SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT (Proposer- garage. CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC Attachment 6 , ,E0 NE LLS Accredited LOS r`.J0Q, 6t:E.6�7 Agency PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 1 0 0 4 2 2 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER FILENUMBER 25-II®—ZP-GD new 26,432 square foot two-level single-family residence with attached 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. Wildland-Urban Interface: 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. 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 system shall be provided in all new structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. Exception: Any non -habitable structures accessory to single family residences that have a gross floor area of CITY PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY R-3, U CONST. TYPE V -B APPLICANT NAME HKS HILL BLAZIER STUDIO DATE 2/25/2010 PAGE 1—i— OF 3 SEC./FLOOR 2 story AREA 26432 sf LOAD DESCRIPTION Residential Development BY Harding, Doug NAME OF PROJECT: HOMA NATOMA LLC SUBDIVISION LOCATION: 27270 Natoma Rd I TABULAR FIRE FLOW: 4500 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS: 75% Does RENotQUIRE Fire RpD FIRE FLO Flow Demand 1500 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 SANTA CLARA COUNTIV 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) a www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS ODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT. �°�ernadoo TOWN OF )LOS ALTOS HhUationallyAccredited Agency PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 1 0 0 4 2 2 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER FILENUMBER 25-10-ZP-CAD CITY PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY 500 square feet or less. MOTE: Covered porches, patios balconies, and attic APPLICANT NAME DATE spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of California licensed LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ R-3, U (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall*submit plans, calculations, a completed HKS HILL BLAZIER STUDIO 2/25/2010 permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and -CJFLOOR AREA approval prior to beginning their work. 307 CFC 3 Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire C. 1 26432 sf protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any 13.3.5 Harding, Doug contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of d Health such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such d e Safety requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire 114.7 protection systems, and / or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). Fc Sec. 4 Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway 33 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 155'. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. FC Sec. 03 5 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. CITY PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE APPLICANT NAME DATE PAGE LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ R-3, U V -B HKS HILL BLAZIER STUDIO 2/25/2010 2 OF 3 -CJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY story 1 26432 sf Residential Development Harding, Doug 4ME OF PROJECT: HOMA NATOMA LLC SUBDIVISION LOCATION: 2/7270 Natoma Rd TABULAR FIRE FLOW: 4500 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS: 75%a Does RENDIQUIRE FIRSireprinkleE FLOWFlow Demand 1500 nized as the Santa Clara Countv Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the cornmuniiies of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ' F1� , COURTESY 6 SERVICE FIRE DEPARTMENT SA1%-TTA GL ARA C0U-TTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 0 (408) 378-9342 (fax) o www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT ELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT BLDG PERMIT NUMBER FILENUMBER 25-10-ZP-GD CFC Sec. 6 Private On -Site Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide one (1) private on-site fire 508.3, per hydrant(s) installed per NFPA Std. #24, at location(s)-to be determined by the Fire Appendix B Internationally Accredited Agency OSE f'� {jo PLRE91;c�NU(MB AL T 0422 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER FILENUMBER 25-10-ZP-GD CFC Sec. 6 Private On -Site Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide one (1) private on-site fire 508.3, per hydrant(s) installed per NFPA Std. #24, at location(s)-to be determined by the Fire Appendix B Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum and C acceptable flow of 1,500 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. CFC Sec. 501 7 Timingof f Required Water Supply Installations: Installations of required fire services) 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. CFC Sec. 8 Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all 505 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. NOTE: See Page A1.01 of plans for requirements noted herein. All fire suppresion and detection systems require separate review, approval and permits issued directly fi-oin this office. Applications and appropriate fees must be submitted, along with plans and proof of all required licenses and permits. directly to this office. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be restated 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 HKS HILL BLAZIER STUDIO 2/25/2010 3 OF 3 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY 2 story 26432 sf Residential Development Harding, Doug NAME OF PROJECT: HOMA NATOMA LLC SUBDIVISION LOCATION: 27270 Natoma Rd TABULAR FIRE FLOW: 4500 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS: F7_5To I REQUIRED FIRE FLOW Q 20 PSI Does Not Include Fire Sprinkler Flow Demand 1500 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 11az���`"'� C1C i April 28, 2010 Planning Commissioners and Planning Department Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022 Dear Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioners, Please accept this communication as a formal notification of my concerns related to the proposed building plans for the estate at 27270 Natoma Road (Lands of Homa Natoma). My mother's residence, of forty five years, is located at 26861 Altamont Road, and is adjacent to the lot where the estate would be built. I do not support the project as it was submitted to the Planning Department. The town of Los Altos Hills has several statements and phrases incorporated into its processes, municipal codes and supporting documents that are meant to guide Planning Commissioners and City Council members in instances where proposed projects "do not conform to the purposes of the processes". The town's Site Development Review Process states that'special consideration during the development process is given to a list of things. The first thing listed is protection of views. It is my opinion that the structure, as designed, is unnecessarily massive. It is fact that the location and height of the proposed structure destroy the 'view' from my family's property and home. It is also fact that other neighboring properties and residents are negatively affected by the proposed height, site location, and mass of the project. Given that there are very few homes of this "size built in Los Altos Hills, and indeed the County of Santa Clara, experience with mitigating related issues is limited. In fact, it is likely that no Planning Commissioner or Council Member will be involved with more than one project of this magnitude during his - or her term in office. You have the ability and the duty to "apply stricter standards to increase setbacks, reduce height, reduce floor area, and reduce development area ..." to insure that the objectives set forth in town ordinances are complied with. I urge you to consider all options as you move forward to insure that "the site, location and configurations of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from off-site; that scenic views are retained; that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape...". Please be diligent in exercising your ability to require alterations that will be beneficial to the community as a whole. Several neighbors have met to discuss this project and the issues it raises. There have been meetings with the architect and property owner. A group of neighbors coordinated visits to town hall to view plans and speak to the planning department. An impromptu "field trip" took place where one Commissioner was a participant. There is a coordinated effort, by concerned residents, to do what can, be done to protect scenic views, real estate values, privacy, and quality of life. Possible solutions have been discussed and suggested. Lowering the building site BOTH by grading/excavating AND increasing setbacks to move things further down the slope is perhaps the most effective way of protecting adjacent views, etc. There are other ideas as well. Even a good project in the wrong place is a bad project. With that said, I thank you for the time spent reading this letter and for the consideration of its statements. As this project progresses, there is a possibility that more concerns / issues will come to light. I mention this now so that any of these subjects, as they relate to this site, will be eligible for discussion at a later time, perhaps with different public officials. Things that may create future concerns are: Setbacks /encroachment Proposed parking areas Building elevations, components and materials Issues related to actual Construction — hours, equipment, noise, dust/dirt, etc. Noise - mechanical equipment, driveway traffic Privacy Lighting Fencing Landscaping Respectfully, Lisa Warren Past Los Altos Hills resident of 19 years Current supporter of property owners, and current residents, at risk of losing so much 10279 Judy Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 All statements in this letter that are found in quotation marks came directly from LAH documents. Man Froeflch From: Lisa Warren [la-warren@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 3:39 PM To: Brian Froelich Cc: Lisa Warren Subject: comments to accompany previously sent'before/after photo document' Brian, This email contents is meant to accompany the photo file that I sent to you in a previous email with attachment. Please confirm receipt of both emails. Thank you. Lisa Warren Also for Planning Commission packet COMMENT TO INCLUDE WITH BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS: Please note that the views from the''primary living area" * (kitchen and living room) of the Barkhau residence are equally, or more, obliterated by the proposed structure. According to Title 10 Zoning and Site Development Chapter 2 Site Development Article 7. Building Siting, Views Protection, Ridgeline Preservation, Creek Protection 10-2.701 Purposes. The purposes of this article are to insure that the site, location and configuration of structures are- unobtrusive reus7obtrusive when viewed from off-site; that scenic views are retained; that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape; that ridgelines and hilltops are preserved; and that the siting of structures is consistent with other provisions of this chapter concerning grading, drainage, and erosion control. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) 11.0-2.702 Siting. (a) Alternative Locations. The location of buildings and structures shall be selected so as to minimize run-off from the site, the volume of off-site drainage created, the destruction or alteration of natural vegetation, and the impairment of scenic views from off the site. Further, Los Altos Hills Municipal Code documents define 'views' this way: View means a scene from the primary living area* of a residence. The term "view" includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is.generaily medium or long range in nature, as opposed to short range. Views include, but are not limited to, skylines, bridges, landmarks, distant cities, distinctive geologic features, hillside terrains, wooded canyons, ridges, and bodies of water. Some additional examples are: San Francisco Bay, neighboring Silicon Valley communities, Lands of Stanford, Lands of MidPeninsula Open Space District, the Cities of San Francisco and San Jose, East Bay Hills, Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge and Dumbarton Bridge. (§ 1, Ord. 427, eff. July 5, 2005) WIN * Primary living area means the portion or portions of a residence from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence. The determination of primary living area is to be made on a case-by-case basis. 2 MoKif Field w7. �: a �� Z..�`��^.-" TML�..��nk�T+��� Tt+9��' ��� �"`k d�, £�r•;.1��+�' Yt'�.ti�'x}X � �."y F c r�,•.� d � 1 ' r4 VT I6 .a Zlk 11x34 }1 1 a �.1 =. l� ^Y • r Iib 1 .->! ; ;� n - � �i is i �.. ��, •+ h; {h �: a �� Z..�`��^.-" TML�..��nk�T+��� Tt+9��' ��� �"`k d�, £�r•;.1��+�' Yt'�.ti�'x}X � �."y F c r�,•.� d � 1 ' r4 VT I6 1 a �.1 =. l� ^Y • -. `•T". -. 74 �•�•'� �i rT^'i'i 2ti YA�"4'=�5�.�9.f FY LE• Zw 1 .->! ; ;� n - � �i is i �.. ��, •+ h; Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is being respectfully submitted to the Los AltostHills Planning Commission in reference to the building plans that have been submitted on behalf of James and Jenna "Ellis (floma Naoma LLQ for an estate located on parcel number 182-20-012 (pre sub- division) with address of 27270 Natoma Road (Palomino Place). We are writing this letter to request your consideration in protecting the views and privacy of the current residences of surrounding neighbors who will be adversely affected by the current proposed building plans of this project. Our home is located at 26801 Altamont Load. We live in one of the houses which fall directly behind the long stretch of this new development project. We have a narrow view corridor and with the cooperation of our neighbors, we have been able to maintain and enjoy our view for the last 24 years. We object to the location, height, and size of this proposed building project. The close proximity of this very high and long structure is completely invading and blocking the views and privacy of not only my home, but of all my surrounding neighbors. At the time of the sub -division, we were given the impression that the proposed building site would be lower down towards the middle of the parcel, where the height of the structure would not affect our views. To our surprise, the proposed building site is now designed with minimal allowable set backs to all the neighboring homes with 20 feet ceiling heights at some locations (not counting the chimney heights) blocking most everyone's view. I know the commission rejected the previous request of subdividing this land into five parcels. I think as far as we are concerned, that would have been better for our views, because it would have scattered these structures in five separate locations and taken couple of them in the lower parts of the parcel. What we have now is an enormous structure; five tall houses attached to each other in a long stretch on the top of the knoll, creating a wall, blocking the views of four neighbors in the back. In order to preserve and respect the existing views, real estate values, privacy, and quality of life of surrounding neighbors, we suggest lowering the building site by moving it further down the slope in addition to removing soil by grading or excavating. We appreciate your attention to this matter to preserve the rights and the property values of all neighboring residences. Respectfully yours, Moosa & Shohreh Malek PAUL STASCHOWM 76993 Almaden Ct. Los .otos Hills„ Ga. 94027 650 948 4949 650 948 6200 judyroni@eai-thlink.net April 28, 2010 Los Altos Hills Planning Board. We built our home in Los Altos Hills 43 years ago, and have Lived here ever since. The reason we are here is the natural beauty of the hills and the ability to enjoy the open space that the hills.convey. You have before you an application to build a house, that will destroy Most of the environments that we so enjoy. The plans call for a structure of 27000. Sq feet. Creating a solid wall Paralleling the entire back and view side of my acre lot. I ask your help in mitigating this loss. The building site compromises 5 acres. By shifting the building to the north by 65 feet, and lowering the building height by a few feet, We as well as 3 other immediate neighbors, will save partially what we enjoyed over the past happy years. Please help maintain what Los Altos Hills is so dear to us all. Yours truly, Bean Froelich From: yunchiehc@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:06 PM To: Brian Froelich Cc: yunchiehc@yahoo.com Subject: File # 25-10-ZP-SD-GD Hi Brian: I an the owner at 27220 Carrington Circle. Please put the following concerns into consideration of approving the project. 1) The new structure is so huge that impact beautiful scenery in the surrounding area. It is also too close to the property line and shall be constructed to the center of the property if possible to mitigate the impact. 2) The driveway is too close to the property line as well that the light of a car will shine through the windows of my family room at night. A driveway further away from the property line with lower grading is preferred. 3) Mitigation of the new structure shall be considered to reduce the impact towards my residence. Thank you Gary April 2010 PAGE 1 This document is being respectfully submitted to the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission. It is in reference to the building plans that have been submitted on behalf of James and Jenna Ellis (Homa Natoma LLC) for an estate located on parcel number 182-20-012 (pre sub -division) with address of 27270 Natoma Road (Palomino Place). We, as neighboring residents, do NOT support the project as des.igned. At this time, we primarily object to the height, location and overall size (square footage) of the design being proposed. We suggest lowering the building site by removing soil (grading / excavating) AND moving building(s) further down the existing slope. It is our hope that serious consideration be given to the existing views, real estate assets, privacy and quality of life of surrounding property owners, and residents. We value the open, rural character of the town and want to preserve it for all residents. View preservation for adjacent properties is critical. Signature Address Phone/email Name 0 1 -e)-9Vf-'y,0-07 /46�/_ZD WeW-10 L'00 Years Lived at this Address 43 PAGE April, 2010 Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Communication In reference to the building plans that have been submitted on behalf of James and Jenna Ellis (Homa Natoma LLC) for an estate located on parcel number 182-20-012 (pre sub -division) with address of 27270 Natoma Road (Palomino Place). We, as neighboring residents, do NOT support the project as designed. At this time, we primarily object to the height, location and overall size (square footage) of the design being proposed. We suggest lowering the building site by removing soil (grading / excavating) AND moving building(s) further down the existing slope. It is our hope that serious consideration be given to the existing views, real estate assets, privacy and quality of life of surrounding property owners, and residents. We value the open, rural character of the town and want to preserve it for all residents. View preservation for adjacent properties is critical. Signature Address Phone/email Name Years Lived at this Address "u-31 Sep Zoo 1 t9 1e Z _' l/g- 2� 3 % �'r►' jc l� !,&70 1 - X05- 550-4rrY3 M/�Mg Mul _ 'd 1 r M.lr�_ +NL�IC4 — Z_ PAGE____ April, 2010 Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Communication in reference to the building plans that have been submitted on behalf of James and Jenna Ellis (Homa Natoma LLC) for an estate located on parcel number 182-20-012 (pre sub -division) with address of 27270 Natoma Road (Palomino Place). We, usneighboring residents, doNOT support the project asdesigned. Atthis time, weprimarily object tuthe height, location and overall size(squanefoutaQe)ofthedeoignbein8proposed. We suggest lowering the building site by removing soil (grading / excavating) AND moving building(s) further down the existing slope. bisour hope that serious consideration 6agiven tuthe existing views real estate assets, privacy and quality of life of surrounding property owne6, and residents. We value the open, rural character of the town and want to preserve it for all residents. View preservation for adjacent properties iscritical. Signature � ud &dName Years Lived "^^^" this ^zAddress �^�^ Ah) Lail li- /V/4- 00 .~--_------_ IS ��� -`` ^' ^ - _____ PAGE April, 2010 Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Communication In reference to the building plans that have been submitted on behalf of James and Jenna Ellis (Roma Natoma LLC) for an estate located on parcel number 182-20-012 (pre sub -division) with address of 27270 Natoma Road (Palomino Place). We, as neighboring residents, do NOT support the project as designed. At this time, we primarily object to the height, location and overall size (square footage) of the design being proposed. We suggest lowering the building.site by removing soil (grading / excavating) AND moving building(s) further down the existing slope. It is our hope that serious consideration be given to the existing views, real estate assets, privacy and quality of life of surrounding property owners, and residents. We value the open, rural character of the town and want to preserve it for all residents. View preservation for adjacent properties is critical. S umu to Address Phone/email Name Years Lived at this Address V . fA 4ZA2 �,�2. Gr .� � 9`7ZI' �.��� �s . C7/�G./� C,)q4q-n2Aq Coosa PAGE April, 2010 Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Communication In reference to the building plans that have been submitted on behalf of lames and Jenna Ellis (Roma Natoma LLC) for an estate located on parcel number 182-20-012 (pre sub -division) with address of 27270 Natoma Road (Palomino Place). We, as neighboring residents, do NOT support the project as designed. At this time, we primarily object to the height, location and overall size (square footage) of the design being proposed. We suggest lowering the building site by removing soil (grading / excavating) AND moving building(s) further down the existing slope. It is our hope that'serious consideration be given to the existing views, real estate assets, privacy and quality of life of surrounding property owners; and residents. We value the open, rural character of the town and want to preserve it for all residents. View preservation for adjacent properties is critical. Signature Address Phone/email Name Years Lived at this Address 2X,42Z 2 �Zi_- -3 1& ��.