Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1TO \V.N OFF LOS ALTOS MLLS August 5, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A 25,273 SQUARE FOOT NEW RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, AND TENNIS COURT; LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA LLC; 27270 NATOMA ROAD; FILE #25-10-ZP-SD- GD. CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISISON MEETING FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner /z"�� 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 and tennis court, citing the findings in Attachment #2 and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment #1. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a new Estate Home and Grading Policy Exception May 6, 2010 and continued the application with specific suggestions and recommended modifications (meeting minutes Attachment #4). The Commission's motion included the following directions: Resite the dwelling downslope at least 20-30 feet. s Lower the house elevation with additional excavation. e Relocate the air conditioning units to allow the roof profile to be lowered. a Work with neighbors to address their concerns. These issues and others discussed at the hearing are noted below DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area Net Lot Area: Average Slope: Area Maximum Development 73,530 Floor 29,412 4.902 acres 4.902 acres 9.5% Proposed Existing Increase Left 38,313 14,259 24,054 35,217 25,273 7,765 17,508 4,139 Item 4.1 Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 2 The Planning Commission gave direction to the applicant regarding the project, and the applicants have modified the plans in response to the comments. These changes include: 1. Resiting the dwelling downslope at least 20-30 feet. The project architect has increased all property line setbacks except at the eastern property line. The above grade portions of the dwelling have also been reduced in size by approximately 4,900 square feet or 18% when compared to the previous proposal. The west wing of the proposed dwelling has been reduced in size and rotated toward the center of the lot by 40 feet (downslope). The center portion of the dwelling has also been moved toward the center of the lot by a minimum of 12 feet. Project Comparison Table: i Floor Floor North^ r South East West i Structure Area Area Setback Setback Setback Setback Height (Above Grade) Previous 27,254 27,254 202' 45' 45' �E 50'--j 29' i 1 I Proposal � t. I Current 25,273 23,737 225' :{ 57' 45' 90' 27' Proposal �� i Change -1,981F`� i+ +12' F0 +� 40' — -2' 2. Lower the house elevation with additional excavation. The house has been resited downslope by approximately 12 to 40 feet in varying locations. The finished floor elevation of the main level is the same as the previously reviewed plan (705'). This results in an increased amount of fill due to portions of the building being located further from property lines and downslope. The applicant has asserted that the 705' elevation is an important aspect to their design and views. As an alternative to lowering the elevation, the building profile has been lowered by approximately three (3) feet to six (6) feet primarily by reducing the roof pitch from 8:12 to 6:12, removing the roof parapets that previously shielded the roof mounted A/C equipment and lowering the plate height from 11 feet to nine (9) feet through the majority of the residence. Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 3 Grading Comparison Table: 3. Relocate the air conditioning units to allow the roof profile to be lowered. The redesign has removed the parapet portions of the roof design and reduced the roof pitch. Below grade mechanical rooms have been added to the floorplan to accommodate heating and air conditioning equipment. 4. Work with neighbors to address their concerns. The applicant has coordinated neighborhood meetings on May 13, 2010 and June 28, 2010. The meetings were held at Town Hall. The applicant listened to each neighbor's concerns on May 13, 2010 and presented revised plans for review at the June 28, 2010 meeting. Other proposed project changes. The design of the driveway has changed to a more gradual left-hand curve and approach to the front residence entry and garages. The design increases the driveway setback from the western property line. The driveway has also been extended approximately 90 feet for access to two (2) proposed garage entries. A tennis court has been included on the proposed site plan. The location is at the northwest corner of the property in an area where an existing barn will be demolished. The tennis court is also in proximity to a multi -trunk heritage oak tree. The applicant has provided a summary letter of the proposed changes (Attachment #10) Heritage Oak Trees The site contains three (3) heritage oak trees (12" and larger diameter). One multi -trunk oak tree is in the area of the proposed leach fields and the proposed tennis court. The applicant has provided an arborist report that describes the tree as vigorous and in very good health. The project arborist has recommended measures for tree protection, demolishing the existing barn, installation of leach fields, and installation of retaining walls. These prescribed measures have been included as a condition of approval ------ --- -- - : -----._.._.. - I Cut Max. Cut — _............._ ; pill Max. Fill 1 Off Haul j Cu. Yds. I Depth Cu. Yds. Depth ' Cu. Yds. Previous ..... ... ...... -- --------- ( 6,570 10' __...__..._. 1,560 -- -- - 3' — — -- -- - 1 5,010 Proposal 3 j I Current Proposal 8,515 11' 4,638 8' 3,877 Change +1,945 j +1' +3,078 ,1.)3 3. Relocate the air conditioning units to allow the roof profile to be lowered. The redesign has removed the parapet portions of the roof design and reduced the roof pitch. Below grade mechanical rooms have been added to the floorplan to accommodate heating and air conditioning equipment. 4. Work with neighbors to address their concerns. The applicant has coordinated neighborhood meetings on May 13, 2010 and June 28, 2010. The meetings were held at Town Hall. The applicant listened to each neighbor's concerns on May 13, 2010 and presented revised plans for review at the June 28, 2010 meeting. Other proposed project changes. The design of the driveway has changed to a more gradual left-hand curve and approach to the front residence entry and garages. The design increases the driveway setback from the western property line. The driveway has also been extended approximately 90 feet for access to two (2) proposed garage entries. A tennis court has been included on the proposed site plan. The location is at the northwest corner of the property in an area where an existing barn will be demolished. The tennis court is also in proximity to a multi -trunk heritage oak tree. The applicant has provided a summary letter of the proposed changes (Attachment #10) Heritage Oak Trees The site contains three (3) heritage oak trees (12" and larger diameter). One multi -trunk oak tree is in the area of the proposed leach fields and the proposed tennis court. The applicant has provided an arborist report that describes the tree as vigorous and in very good health. The project arborist has recommended measures for tree protection, demolishing the existing barn, installation of leach fields, and installation of retaining walls. These prescribed measures have been included as a condition of approval Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 4 (Condition #13). Installation of the tennis court will necessitate removal of.three non - heritage trees. Neighborhood Input Several neighbors and other interested individuals addressed the Planning Commission at the May 6, 2010 hearing. Two letters have been received as of the writing of this report. Both letters represent the interest of the neighbor at 26861 Altamont Road (Attachment #10). The letters note that the design is improved but that there remain concerns about the views, increased driveway hardscape, number of garage doors, number of vehicles stored on site, possible lighting in the tennis court, and future property line fencing. 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 redesigned 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 and Protection Committee commented that there needs to be additional screening along the north and eastern property boundaries. 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). Punning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Grading Policy Exception Findings 3. Los Altos Hills Grading Policy 4. May 6, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. May 6, 2010 Planning commission staff report (no attachments) 6. Arborist Report prepared by Tree Decisions, July 28, 2010 7. Cotton and Shires Associates Letter, April 22, 2010 8. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, March 19, 2010 9. Fire Department Comments, February 25, 2010 10. Letter from the applicant, July 29, 2010 ' 11. Letters from Neighbors ordered by date received (starting with most recent) 12. Letters from Neighbors received prior to the May 6, 2010 hearing 13. Proposed development plans (Commission only) i lanning Conunission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND TENNIS COURT LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA LLC, 27270 NATOMA ROAD File # 25-10-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. 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 August 5, 2010 Page 7 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' fironz 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 physically 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 height shown on the approved plans, 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 measured from 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. Recreation/tennis court lighting is prohibited. 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. 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 Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 8 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. 1 L 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. 12. 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. 13. An ISA Certified Arborist shall certify in writing and state that "all of the recommendations in the Tree Decisions report dated July 28, 2010 were implemented during the construction process" The applicant shall submit wet signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final inspection. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 14. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their letter dated April 22, 2010, the applicant shall comply with the following: 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. Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 9 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. 15. 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. 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 J � Planning Commission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 10 issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. 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 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 Gr•eenWaste 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 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. 22. A permit for the .septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 23. Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final inspection. Planning Conunission Lands of Homa Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 11 FIRE DEPARTMENT: 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minim radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. 27. The applicant shall provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14', vertical clearance of 13'6", minimum circulating turning radius of 36' outside and 23' inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. 28. 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. 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. A Palomino Place address shall be assigned prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. CONDITION NUMBERS 10, 12, 14a, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25 AND 29 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF 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 August 30, 2010 provided the PIanning Commission Lands of Hom_a Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 12 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 August 5, 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 Homy Natoma LLC August 5, 2010 Page 13 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA LLC, 27270 NATOMA ROAD File # 25-10-ZP-SD-GD 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 combination cut and fill building pad and reduces overall visible bulk. The combination of cut and fill reduces the amount of material hauled off site. 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 MLLS LOBALTOSHILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 s Phone: (650) 941-7222 v mkr.losaltoshilis.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council — 4/2/97 Code Sections: . Section 10-2.702© of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed. to lower the profile of buildings." Section 10-2.703(a) requires: "Type 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 permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. C—,.ading 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,** 3' Accessory Bldg. 4' 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8') for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar- amount of cut. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. Attachment 4 Minutes ®11 a Regular Meeting Approved 06/03/2010 `'own ®f Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, May 6, 2010, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Clow and Commissioners: Collins, Harpootlian, Abraham, and Partridge. Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; and Victoria Ortland, Planning Secretary. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR — None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Regarding Item 3.1, Commissioner Collins had spoken with the applicant and three neighbors; Commissioner Harpootlian had spoken with the applicant, architect, and three neighbors; Commissioner Abraham had spoken with the applicant and architect; Commissioner Partridge had spoken with the applicant, architect, and four neighbors; and Chairman Clow had spoken with the applicant, architect, builder, and five neighbors. 3.1 LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA, LLC, 27270 Natoma Road; File #25-10-ZP-SD- GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 27,254 square foot residence with a partial two story element (maximum height 29'). The applicant is also requesting a grading policy exception for cuts of up to eight (8) feet to accommodate a lowered driveway, fire truck turnaround, and front entry. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) & (e) (Staff -Brian Froelich). Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for the proposed 27,254 square foot estate home and Grading Policy exception on the 4.92 acre parcel. A previously submitted application for a five -lot subdivision had been replaced with the approved two -lot subdivision plan after the applicant's purchase of the property. Newly created Palomino Place, required by the subdivision improvement plan, will serve as entrance to the lot. The request for the Grading Policy exception would allow vehicular traffic to access a lowered finished floor level of the structure. Los Altos Hills' geotechnical consultant had recommended a 25 foot setback from the Altamont fault trace that crosses the property. Neighbor and resident input both in support and opposition of the project had been received by staff. Concerns included views, landscape screening, and close proximity to the property line. Estate home requirements require a public Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6, 2010 Page 2 hearing for the residence and landscape screening, and increased setbacks (60 feet for the front and 45 feet for the sides and rear). Commissioner Abraham asked about the distance of the proposed structure from the setbacks, and the height of the new home compared to the current house. Staff explained about 50 percent of the new building is at the setback. The existing house was two stories at 28 feet in height. The proposed house is primarily single story when viewed from the uphill side and would be six to eight feet lower. Commissioner Collins asked about the timeline of the project and neighbor notification. Staff replied that initial meetings regarding the project were held in November, plans were submitted in February, and the neighbors contacted staff in March. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jenna and Jim Ellis, applicants, stated they had resided in Los Altos Hills for seven years and wanted to build their dream house on the Natoma Road site. The size, location, neighborhood, proximity to Westwind Barn, open space, and the views had contributed to selection of the property for their new home. The house had been designed to accommodate their family, including the children, parents, and future grandchildren. Effort was made to comply with Town ordinances and the Grading Policy exception requested only to lower the house for access. The Ellis' want to be part of the neighborhood and had tried to find compromises to neighbor's concerns to allow everyone to enjoy the view. They had met with neighbors in April after Town staff's plan review. As a result of neighbor input, significant changes to the plan had been made. One adjoining neighbor could not be contacted, despite repeated attempts. Bob Glazier, architect, said that a survey was conducted of the finished floor elevations for the surrounding homes to help preserve views that may be affected by the new residence. The new house was designed to be lower than the existing house to keep it below the finished floor of most of the homes on the uphill side. The roof layout is broken up by flat areas and cedar shingles are planned to soften the look. After meeting with the neighbors, concerns about views were addressed with revision to the plans. The roof slope was lowered and plate heights were dropped for a reduction in height of the house. Two chimneys were completely removed. The two car garage was moved into a bunker, the 16 foot high roof was moved back 62 feet, the game room and showroom garage was moved back 12 feet. The driveway would be moved and a portion dropped down to meet the floor of the bunker garage. The story poles were readjusted to reflect the revision to the plans. Commissioner Collins asked if any of the remaining house design changed with the rotation of the game room/showcase garage. Bob Glazier replied that there was no change in the rest of the house. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6, 2010 Pale 3 Commissioner Partridge requested clarification on which set of plans the Planning Commission was being asked to consider; the plans submitted with the application or the modified plans presented by Bob Glazier. Bob Glazier said the revised plans presented at the Planning Commission meeting were requested for consideration. Debbie Pedro said staff would like to have the opportunity to complete a thorough plan review and check for required additional grading. Commissioner Harpootlian asked if moving the house about 40 feet toward the center of the lot would create less of an impact to the view from Beverly Barkhau's property. Bob Glazier said that improvement had been made to the amount of view affected from Beverly Barkhau's house with the plan changes that moved the large roof completely out of view. He wanted other options examined before considering moving the house down slope. Jim Ellis felt that moving the house 40 feet would severely compromise their views from the new house. The conservation easement would become the primary view, a partial mountain view would be retained, but no bay view would remain. Commissioner Collins appreciated the effort made to design the new house so the top of the roof would be at or below the finished floor of the neighboring homes. This would be the perfect solution if the view was straight across the bay to the. mountains, but from the neighboring properties, the view to the bay is downward. She was not convinced that the roof to finished floor relationship was as effective in this case. Every room in the proposed house appears to have. a view of the water in the bay. Bob Glazier stated that determining the finished floor of the surrounding homes was a starting point in developing a strategy to maintain the neighbor's view and create a view for the applicants. The view from the master bedroom area would be more of trees than the bay, as the house bends at that section. Commissioner Partridge asked if an alternative plan for the roof wells containing the air conditioners was a possibility. Relocating the AC equipment would allow the height of the roof to be lowered and reduce obstruction of the neighbor's view. Bob Glazier said that the proposed roof design, lower than a roof line that would rise to a peak. roof area as possible. to accommodate the air conditioning units, was The house had been designed with as much flat Alice Arnold, Almaden Court, said that the existing house is about one fifth, one sixth, or one seventh the size of the proposed house. The comparison was not fair between the existing house, which is not destroying anyone's view, and the proposed house which will be destroying many people's view. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6, 2010 Page 4 Paul Staschower, Almaden Court, said that the new residence would effectively create a 24 to 29 foot high solid wall across the entire back width of his lot. No view space allowance would exist along the side of his house that currently has a view. From the pool deck of his home, the proposed house at the minimum setback would block not only the view but also air flow. A simple solution for compromise would be to move the house down the hill and preserve the openness of Los Altos Hills that he desired and has enjoyed for years. Shohreh Malek, Altamont Road, stated that she would be adversely affected by the project as would all the surrounding neighbors. She was concerned that the close proximity and site orientation of the long, large house would block the view from the five neighbors. Greatly increased setbacks must be required because of the bulk and enormity of the structure. The highest part of the house, at 29 feet, is directly in the narrow view corridor and blocks the view. The views affected in her home would be from the bedroom, living room, family room, kitchen, breakfast nook, and outdoor sitting area. The unprecedented size of the house will affect the rural character and openness of the neighborhood. She suggested increasing the setback, moving the house down the slope another 30 feet, lowering the profile of the structure 15 feet with grading and excavation, and lowering the ceiling height (especially at the tallest section on the east side). Yigal Brandman, Natoma Road, spoke in support of the project and thought the house would be a good addition to the neighborhood. He hoped the Planning Commission would approve the plan. Courtenay Corrigan, Fremont Pines Lane, supported the application and said that Jim and Jenna Ellis had searched a long time for the ideal property for their new home. The proposed project had been designed to meet the Town's guidelines and the applicants have been willing to make many compromises for the neighbors. Randall Kruep, Sunrise Farm Road, enjoyed the view of the spectacular property and gave his support of the project. Bill Shreve, Almaden Court, supported the project and appreciated the reduction in the final number of lots for the subdivision from five to two. He felt the impact on the view and neighborhood would have been worse with five houses. He hoped the Planning Commission would approve the application. Lisa Warren, Cupertino, daughter of Beverly Barkhau, Altamont Road, said she appreciated the recent efforts made to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. She felt the application was "one of a kind" and the size and amenities of the project classified it as more than an estate home. She commented on the process for project submittal, review, and approval quoting the wording from the Town's Site Development Review Process handouts. She noted that special consideration must be given during the development process to keep protection of views and scenic corridors a priority. Conducting neighborhood outreach before filing the site development approval is recommended. Considering the handout suggestions and reference to the General Plan, she requested that the Planning Commission require stricter standards for height, setbacks, site location, and size of the project. Increasing the setbacks would lessen the obtrusiveness of the structure and create a buffer for noise and privacy as the setback minimums for estate homes Planning Commission Minuttes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6, 2010 Page 5 would not mitigate the project. Because the house is situated backward on the site; it would be appropriate to designate the front of the lot as the south and west borders. Commissioner Harpootlian asked Ms. Warren where she had obtained her infonnation. Lisa Warren replied that the General Plan and Municipal Code of Los Altos Hills had provided the information. Sandy Katz, daughter of Beverly Barkhau, Altamont Road, urged the Planning Commission to closely examine the location of the garage and the height of the recreation room roof. Their view would be taken away by these elements because they are directly in the line of sight. The garage and recreation room could be relocated further down toward the center of the property to alleviate the problem. Although commendable, the plan changes to rotate the garage do not remedy the loss of view from the kitchen, the majority of the deck, and elsewhere. The rotated garage will be longer across the view, and as the view is down and not straight across, the bay view and city lights will be lost. Chairman Clow said that his understanding of the photographs, given to the Planning Commission, represented the views from the individual neighbor's homes. Sandy Katz replied that the photographs representing the view from Beverly Barkhau's house were taken only from the deck. Beverly spends most of their time inside the house so the view from inside the house (kitchen, living room, etc.) was very important. The new house will significantly compromise the current view from her home. Mitra Malek, Altamont Road, said that the majority of the photographs of her home were taken from the back yard and do not depict actual views from the living areas. When looking out from the inside of her house, much more of the view will be obstructed than the photos show. The story poles do not give a true depiction of the extent of the view blockage caused by the new house. She suggested moving the house down slope on the property. A possible compromise could be to reduce the number of rooms in the proposed house that have prime views, to help preserve the views from the existing homes in the neighborhood. Tracy Liu, 26751 Almaden Court, thought the new residence would increase home values in the neighborhood. She requested an increased setback because the proposed residence was located too close to her property line. She also had privacy concerns over the height of the new house and asked for installation of 15 foot tall screening trees. Mina Malek, Altamont Road, felt the new development would devaluate all the properties up slope of the site. The existing house may be taller than the proposed building; but it is so much smaller that it blocks only a sliver of the view, compared to the amount that will be obscured by the new residence. The proposed structure will completely block the view over the entire expanse over their property line. The entire beautiful view of the city lights from her bedroom window will be gone. She asked the Planning Commission to consider her cherished view when making their decision. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010 May 6, 2010 Page 6 Jim Ellis said the comparison with the existing house was used only as a reference point and not meant to misrepresent the scope of the project. In the presentation, they had tried to use photographs provided by neighbors to document the views that the neighbors had considered important. Bob Glazier explained that the plans for the project had been shared with the neighbors after he was confident that they were in compliance with Town ordinances. He said he had convinced the Ellis' that it would make a good argument for approval if the new house was kept below the finished floor of the homes behind. Even though a two-story house have been a possibility and would improve their views, they felt it was more neighborly to build a one story structure. Beverly Barkhau's view issue is difficult to address because her house is at nearly the same elevation and was non -conforming by its proximity to the property line. He felt that the.changes in the revised plan, with the 16 foot high roof moved 62 feet and the entire structure moved 12 feet, was a major response to some of their concerns about compromised views. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Abraham supported the project with the proposed revisions. The project complied with Town ordinances and the applicants had worked hard to accommodate the views of the neighbors while preserving some of their own views. The Grading Policy exception was justified and allowed for a lower garage. Commissioner Partridge felt that it would be very hard to make a decision on the revised plans without a review by staff. Increased setbacks would be helpful so the fagade would not appear as much like a solid wall. The driveway was too close to the neighboring properties and an increase in setback for both the house and driveway would be desirable. Commissioner Collins said the applicants had been considerate of the neighbors and made a remarkable effort to design the house within the ordinances. However, because of the impact on the neighborhood from the size of the house, more consideration must be given before a decision on the project. The proposed revisions to the submitted plans need to be thoroughly reviewed by staff. Los Altos Hill's Site Development Ordinance required structures to be unobtrusive when viewed from offsite, scenic views should be retained, and buildings are not to dominate the natural landscape. She suggested that to retain the views, the entire structure or portions of it, should be moved down slope. Commissioner Harpootlian asked staff if the height of any portion of the new house was higher than a single story. Brian Froelich replied that some of the floor area in the center part of the house had been counted twice (as floor area) because of the height. Commissioner Harpootlian said that portions of the house were counted as two stories. He felt a significant improvement toward preserving the neighbors' views could be made by moving the house down slope. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/20-1-0 May 6, 2010 Page 7 Chairman Clow said that a challenge for the house, even with the 45 foot setback, was its perception of massiveness. He felt the applicants had acted with integrity regarding the neighbors and the use of the photographs. He emphasized the importance of the neighbors sharing photographs with the applicants that documented the most important views from their properties. Thoughtfully placed landscape screening would help break up the facade of the new house. He thought continuing the project to a future PIanning Commission meeting was an option. Commissioner Harpootlian agreed that the project should be continued with the specific suggestion to move the house at least 20 feet down slope, and maybe with a goal of 30 to 40 feet. Chairman Clow pointed out that just moving the house would significantly impact the Barkhau's view and end up with a worse situation. Commissioner Abraham agreed that simply moving the house downhill would negatively affect the Barkhau's property. Commissioner Collins stated that an increase in cut for the Grading Policy exception may be needed with the relocation of the house. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Harpootlian and seconded by Commissioner Collins to continue the application to a future Planning Commission meeting and for the applicant to consider the following suggestions: move the house or part of the house down slope at. least 20 to 30 feet, lower the house elevation with more excavation, relocate the air conditioning units so the roof profile can be lowered, and work closely with the neighbors to address their concerns. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Clow NOES: None Jim and Jenna Ellis accepted the continuance of the project to a future Planning Commission meeting. Jenna wanted to know at what point before the meeting they should present the plans to the neighbors and when the story poles should be changed. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director said that staff would meet with the applicants after the public hearing. The story poles need to be changed to reflect the new plans. The applicant should share the redesigned plans with the neighbors and incorporate their suggestions if possible. Chairman Clow asked for a way to facilitate communication between the applicants and the neighbors. Debbie Pedro replied that a neighborhood meeting could be held at Town Hall. Commissioner Collins explained to the neighbors that the rooftop of the new residence cannot be completely screened. This item will be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. Attaclunent 5 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 6, 2010 Staff Deport to the Plaiming Con11,11ission 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 Planner ZF_ 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 #2 and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment #I 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 Natoina 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 oftrees '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 comer 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 Natonia 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: s Building size e Loss of views ® Loss of property value Q Driveway is near property line and headlight glare o Noise from roof mounted A/C units o Landscape screening mitigation need6d 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 AJC 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 \ VY 27900 27525 27550 12305 12300 - 27693 3785 12345 Q- �n 21888 27660 27363 . y� ZT500 27601 29855 27805 27417 OZ 27543 27671 12140 1 p 27575 27884 12745 27431 09 2745;1 � 12272 27644 273D1 MO THIN 12244 121 227 12271 � 27810 27645 27642 12139 27470 Hafiz m 12997 12970 1295027448 12230 27345 27625 12133 27197 n 12977 O 12213 27000 27478 12121 12871 129510 12933 27474 27323 V413 27435 p 27200 O 12921 12118 12930 27488 27500 12875 1 12922 77360 12840 A P'cNe Area 12835 12900 12840 12621 2 27240 12045 12800 z 0 i'l�e;,_ cRy"q 12833 27220 �'yy . � 26750 Tine 26600 28630 Byrne 27210 20056 Preserve 2 t � 28151 28777 26901 28872 26811 A 26 281188 2,885 l^1 2G 7 937 26 26925928 WW 26900 a TAAFFE /1 2 26WA 28991 _Til.N7f 26855 26870 2 27053 26982 28863 27089 26990 27001 25615 27071 28971 4, 27125 26995 WP,t 27033 27011 27690 27055 27ODD 26565 28838 27D40 26 27101 * - 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: o Relocating the two -car garage element of the 10 =car garage. o 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: 0 6,570 cubic yards of cut © 1,560 cubic yards of fill • 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 fill 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. Drainame 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 1 � Planning Cormnission Lands of Hoina Nato= LLC May 6, 2010 Page 7 foundations, retaining walls, site drainage, and grading. Cotton and Shires Associates concur with the reco-nniendations 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). ATTACHMENTS 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) Dennis Yniguez Registered Consulting Arborist Dennis@TreeDecisions.com FEE DECNONS Attacluuent 6 1428 Spruce Street Berkeley, CA 94709 510-649-9291 Tel 510-649-9292 Fax TREE REMOVAL AND TREE PRESERVATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD IN LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA 1-0 PLANNING APPLICATION IN LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA FOR DAVID DAPONTE, ARCHITECT HKS HILL GLAZIER STUDIO 925 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 IM DENNIS YNIGUEZ, CONSULTING ARBORIST TREE DECISIONS, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA treedec@aol.com JULY 28, 2010 Tree Health & Risk Assessment o Forensic Examination & Case Analysis � Appraisal of Tree Value Insurance Claim Evaluation 0 Land Development Consultation 4 Resolution of Tree -Related Disputes Contents Executive Summary Background and Assignment Observations and Discussion Recommendations Conclusion Photographs 1 1 1 3 4 5 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions 14 Appendices: A. Excerpt from the Grading Exception Plan B. Planting Mitigation Requirements of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code C. Special Considerations for Native Oaks D. Leach Field Proximity to Coast Live Oak TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development of a tennis court at 27270 Natoma Road in Los Altos Hills would necessitate the removal of three trees, and preservation of a healthy, attractive, and well- established coast live -oak. The applicant proposes to replace trees in accordance with the planting mitigation guidelines of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. If the tree preservation measures set forth in this report are followed, the coast live oak can be expected to thrive in excellent health. BACKGROUND AND ASSIGNMENT On July 19, 2010, I was retained by Mr. David Daponte of HKS Hill Glazier Studio to evaluate the potential effect of tennis court construction within the dripline of an established coast live oak at 27270 Natoma Road in Los Altos Hills, and to recommend measures to preserve the stability and health of the tree. The applicant will replace trees as required by the mitigation guidelines of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Municipal Code (Chapter 12-2.502 Removal of trees during the development process; see Appendix Q. Tree species and locations will be set forth in detailed landscaping plans elsewhere in the development process. OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION I visited the site with an associate on July 20, 2010, and met with Mr. Daponte. We reviewed the site plan that is included in relevant part within this report as Appendix A. The applicant proposes to construct a tennis court near the northwest comer of Parcel One, adjacent to the 30 -foot setback line that parallels the western border of the parcel. To build the tennis court at the proposed location, three non-native trees would be removed: two European olives (Olea europaea) and a grafted English walnut (Juglans regia). A well-established and vigorous coast live oak (quercus agrifolia) is growing adjacent to an aging wooden structure that has apparently been used as a storage shed or workshop for decades. The four trees are described in Table I and shown in captioned photographs included herein. The coast live oak appears to be in excellent health, as indicated by the lushness and density of foliage. The tree has three main trunks and attractive branch architecture originating from each trunk. It shows evidence of at least two earlier pruning episodes, and cuts appear to be sealing over well. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 2 The three trunks are growing adjacent to an aged shed, with a shallow concrete foundation pour at the perimeter of the structure. Over the decades, the radially expanding trunks have caused considerable displacement of the concrete. Fortunately for the tree, the superficial concrete sill was no match for the trunks' slow accumulation of hardwood. The buttress of each trunk has retained its flare, and large roots extend well beneath the shed. The tree appears to be well anchored in each direction. Radiating lateral roots have apparently not been significantly impaired by the trunks' proximity to the shed. A strong buttress flare bodes well for the tree's continued stability. The tree's root structure can be ascertained with greater precision as the shed is carefully removed. TREE INVENTORY (SPECIES, SIZE, CONDITION) DIAMETER TREE 4- CONDITION aboveground (1-10, POOR TO REMOVAL TREE NAME (INCHES) EXCELLENT) COMMENTS (X) Black walnut rootstock English and lower trunk walnut cylinder can be end - 1 (Juglans 20 7 sealed with paraffin, x regia) set aside, and used in several years for quality woodturning European Not a good candidate olive for transplanting: 2 (O/ea 11.5; 8.5 6 central decay columns x europaea) in two main upright stems Not a good candidate for transplanting: too European asymmetric and 3 olive 6.5; 7.5; 6.0 7 rootball is out of x (Olea proportion to single europaea) upright trunk that would remain if a side stem is removed. Coast live Will survive and thrive oak with use of appropriate 4 (Quercus 18; 18;19 8 tree preservation agrifolia) measures set forth in this report Table 1 DENNIs YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND ?RESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OAK PRESERVATION Removal of the Shed I strongly recommend that a Consulting Arborist, familiar with the vulnerabilities of native. oaks, should be on site before and during the time when the shed is carefully dismantled adjacent to the tree. This will prevent inadvertent damage to the trunks and an opportunity to discern the structure of significant radiating roots. Protective fencing can be installed immediately thereafter across the space previously occupied by the shed, in the location indicated in Appendix A. Protective Tree Fencing A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) would be delineated by a temporary fence consisting of 5 -foot metal stakes and 4 -foot high sturdy orange poly plastic mesh fencing. Most of the fence would be installed in a semicircular "open -C" pattern before the shed adjacent to the oak is dismantled (see Appendix A). The north -south linear section of the protective fence would be installed immediately after the shed is removed. No parking or storing of vehicles, construction trailers, equipment, machinery, or construction materials would be permitted, nor would dumping of oils or chemicals be allowed within areas delineated by the protective fences. Construction of Retaining Wall and Composition of Fill After the shed adjacent to the oak is removed, soil would be hand -excavated at the retaining wall location to determine the exact location of any major surface roots. The arborist would work in consultation with the engineer and architect to construct a retaining wall that does not wound or sever major lateral roots. The design would incorporate short-stem, pier and grade beam, or void forms as necessary to protect any significant lateral roots. Fill soil (averaging 18 inches in depth) and tennis court construction over this limited rooting area, as a percentage of the tree's total root area, would have no significant effect on tree health or stability. Special Considerations for Native Oaks Two of the greatest threats to well-established native oaks are heavily compacted soils and chronically saturated soils. It is imperative to prevent these conditions before, during, and after development of the site. Additional descriptions of soil pathogens and oak disease syndromes are found in Appendix C. DENNis YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD Bracing and Cabling of Trunks 4 After the shed is removed, the location of main lateral roots is determined, and the free- standing structure of the tree is more closely evaluated, the arborist may recommend moderate crown pruning as well as bracing and cabling of the three trunks. Bracing would be accomplished by application of one or more galvanized threaded metal rods through two trunks, and aerial cabling of the three trunks would prevent trunk separation as the tree continues to grow in weight and stature. Appropriate Understory Landscaping To avoid the above-mentioned damage and destruction of native oaks that can be caused by overwatering, the tree owner is advised to plant only drought -tolerant plant species within ten feet of the subject trees, and to minimally water plants as necessary to maintain their health. Appropriate understory plantings should only be lightly irrigated with drip irrigation until the drought -tolerant (xeric) plants are established. No plantings or drip emitters should be placed within 3 feet of the trunks. An excellent booklet entitled Compatible Plants Under and Around Oaks is available without charge by download from the California Oak Foundation website (http://www.cal ifomiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/Compatib lePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.Rdf). CONCLUSION Development of a tennis court as proposed at 27270 Natoma Road in Los Altos Hills would necessitate the removal of three non-native trees. The Applicant proposes to replace more trees than are required by the planting mitigation guidelines of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, using species selected from a city -approved list of native California trees. A well-established triple -trunked coast live oak would be retained. A healthy native oak in this location would continue to provide a wonderful shady retreat adjacent to the tennis court. The applicant has every incentive to maintain strict tree protective measures before, during, and after construction. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Yniguez Registered Consulting Arborist DENNIs YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 1. Tree No. 1 - English walnut (juglans regia; Tree No. 2 - European olive (Olea europaea); Tree No. 3 - Euro- pean olive (Olea eui-opaea); Tree No. 4 - Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia). Trees numbered 1 to 3 would be removed; Tree No. 4 is an established native oak that would remain after construction of the tennis court. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 6 , , 2. Tree No. 1 is an English walnut (Juglans regia) that is grafted on black walnut (Iuglans hindsii) rootstock. It would be removed to accommodate the tennis court. 3. These European olives (Olea europaea) would .be removed to accommodate the tennis court. For reasons made clear in the following photographs, neither tree (Tree No. 2 or Tree No. 3) is recommended for transplanting. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL PagD PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 4. This photo shows the asymmetry of an olive trunk as it emerges from the root crown. It is better to replace this tree (Tree No. 3) than attempt to transplant such a large rootball with a relatively small diameter remaining trunk. 5. This photo shows the importance of the main trunk to the architecture of this olive (Tree No. 2). Significant decay is visible in the central column of the main trunk. DENNIs YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 6. This is a close-up of an advanced decay column in the central trunk of this olive (Tree No. 2). 7. The main secondary trunk of this olive (Tree No. 2) also has advanced decay. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 8. This is the aged shed as viewed from the west. A yellow arrow indicates the broad crown of the triple -trunked coast live oak (Tree No. 4) that is to be preserved. 9. Photo indicates the triple -trunked coast live oak that is to be preserved, as viewed from east of the shed. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 10 10. The upper crown of the triple -trunked oak shows evidence of at least two prior episodes of significant pruning. Old pruning wounds are vigorously closing over and the tree retains a full crown of healthy limbs. 11. The upper crown of the triple -trunked oak retains a graceful branch architecture in all directions. It is an attractive specimen oak that can provide beauty and shade adjacent to the tennis court. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 11 12. The three trunks in this photo appear to originate from a common base. It is possible that the rightmost trunk is a separate tree. The subtleties in leaf, branch, and bark appear to be of similar genetic origin so I've considered this to be a single tree. 13. This photograph shows great similarity in bark appearance on all three trunks. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 12 14. The expanding trunks have distorted the shallow concrete perimeter foundation of the adjacent shed. 15. Healthy root flares extend beneath the shed. The concrete perimeter foundation has not prevented roots of the oak from becoming firmly established on the west (shed) side of the trunks. .DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOIAA ROAD 13 16. Dashed blue lines and orange cones indicate the location of a retaining wall that would not be closer than nine feet from the oak. The retaining wall would vary in height from grade to three feet, with an average soil fill depth of eighteen inches. DENNIS YNIGUEz TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 M TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 14 QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND LIMITING CONDITIONS Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be valid and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of, information provided by others.. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitrations, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. This report represents the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is not contingent upon making any particular recommendation. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Dennis Yniguez or Tree Decisions as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only the examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. DENNIs YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 19 S=0.02,`--:-"4 2- (K y1 I ENERGY 04WPA TEN IN V=Y9- 1. '. 9 II Q II d LLL- QZ ! W. N / F uP l I nLIV- (v. 11-711�.� 9" CL A +1 ++ z 71111 Q + I+ )+ + + T. + + + + ++ r +f+ ++ + + + + + + + FT. AA 6 L "'1142"P. 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f WIf QU Q - vgyu,419, AN" -!,4 0M, CL A +1 ++ z 71111 Q + I+ )+ + + T. + + + + ++ r +f+ ++ + + + + + + + + + 6 L 41 tp O 11 it *}*+ +1 ++ 71111 + + + I+ )+ + + T. + + + + ++ r +f+ ++ + + + + + + + + + + + I z - FS= 60• + +1 + + _ - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - Appendix A Green wavy line indicates the approximate dripline of the triple -trunked coast live oak. Blue line indicates the location of a low retaining wall from 0 to3 feet in height; average soil depth = 18 inches. Orange line indicates protective fencing: installation to be completed immediately after the shed is dismantled. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD A TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010 m Appendix B Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Title 12 PARKS AND RECREATION Chapter 2 TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS Article 5. Protection of Trees in Anticipation of and During the Development Process 12-2.502 Removal of trees during the development process. (a) The Zoning Administrator, the Site Development Committee, the Subdivision Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. in reviewing development proposals or subdivisions, shall seek to preserve and protect existing trees, especially Heritage Oaks and heritage trees, from unnecessary removal or damage by placing conditions on development approvals. Subdivision lot design and development plans shall accommodate existing trees whenever possible. The reviewing authority may require the developer to provide recommendations by an arborist as to the steps that should be taken to protect and preserve existing trees. (b) If the City Council finds, after a noticed public hearing, that the conditions of development approval regarding removal or damage of trees has been violated, it may direct a stop work order to be issued. A stop work order may halt processing of an application as well as any on-site work. The stop work order may remain in effect: (1) a plan of restitution has been approved by the City Council; and (2) the plan has been implemented or a bond has been posted to ensure compliance with the requirements of the plan of restitution. (c) The plan of restitution may include, but not be limited to, the replacement of each tree damaged or removed by up to five (5) trees of reasonable size and the payment of a multi-year bond to ensure the trees are maintained and cared for. (§ 5 (part), Ord. 332, eff. June 1, 1990) Appendix C Special Considerations for Dative Oaks Two of the greatest threats to well-established native oaks are heavily compacted soils and chronically saturated soils. It is imperative to prevent these conditions before, during, and after development of the site. Compacted soil Soil compaction is the reduction of the space between soil particles. It usually occurs when heavy construction equipment is driven repeatedly over soil. Compaction can restrict oxygen diffusion through soil, reducing the ability of roots to absorb sufficient water to keep a tree in vigorous health. Restoring adequate space between soil particles by remedial soil treatment can be difficult. The best way to eliminate soil compaction adjacent to these oaks is to prevent it by keeping protective fencing in place before and during construction. Saturated soil Native oaks have adapted to climatic fluctuations in water availability. In this area of Northern California, oaks often survive entire summers with little or no rainfall. However, homeowners often don't realize this and over -irrigate within the driplines of native oaks to the detriment of the trees. When soil becomes chronically saturated, oxygen no longer diffuses efficiently through the soil and root functioning is impaired. The spaces between soil particles fill with water, beneficial soil microorganisms die, and anaerobic bacteria proliferate. Roots are then forced to shift from aerobic to anaerobic respiration, producing toxic chemical compounds that destroy fine roots. If a native oak has become stressed from sustained drought, a moderate amount of water can help it to retain a leafy crown and to resist biotic and abiotic environmental pressures. However, irrigation must be minimal to moderate, soil must not remain saturated, and sprinklers must not be directed against the trunk. Crown Rot (Phytophthora cinnamorni) One byproduct of chronically saturated soil is a dramatic increase in the population of Phytophthora cinnamomi, a prevalent soil fungus that is found in minute concentrations under normal soil -moisture conditions. Chronically saturated soil encourages a massive, rapid, and sustained increase in the soil population of this fungus. Disease often infects the root crown (the interface of stem and roots) as well as delicate roots throughout the area of soil saturation. J Fine roots and root hairs are essential for the efficient uptake of water. The destruction of fine roots causes a paradoxically stressful condition: despite an overabundance of water, the tree cannot obtain enough moisture! The leafy crown continues to lose water through transpiration, but the lost water cannot be replaced through root absorption. The leaves increase their production of waxy cuticle (surface cells) to decrease transpiration, and also curl to avoid the drying effects of sunlight. The tree drops leaves prematurely, and newer leaves are smaller and less plentiful. Fortunately, this condition can often be reversed. When the soil returns to a non -saturated condition, the population of pathogenic Aytophthora fungi "crashes" and newly formed absorption roots can survive. The tree can again sustain a lush crown of leaves by constantly replenishing the moisture that is lost through leaf transpiration. Oak Root Fungus (Armillaria mellea) Oaks that have been weakened by excess summer irrigation are also often most susceptible to oak root fungus, a soil microorganism that is found in low concentrations in normal soils. Sprinklers should not spray directly against the trunk of an oak, because saturated soil is an ideal environment for the proliferation of this fungus, especially during summer months. The fungus will grow into living tissues until significant amounts of wood are weakened and destroyed. The vascular system of the tree is increasingly disrupted, making it ever more difficult for the tree to continue functioning as a homeostatic system. Once the tree begins to exhibit symptoms of advanced infection, such as massive leaf loss throughout the crown, it may well be too late to save the tree. Appendix D Leach Field Proximity to the Coast Live Oak On July 28, 2010, 1 was asked to review site plans for creation of a leach field at 27270 Natoma Road in Los Altos Hills and to evaluate whether installation of the leach field would significantly affect the health or stability of the triple -trunked coast live oak that is to be retained on site adjacent to a proposed tennis court. During a previous site inspection on July 20, 2010, 1 measured the maximum crown spread of the oak in four cardinal directions. Based on these measurements, I recommend that four primary leach field trenches west of the entrance driveway be shortened as illustrated on the diagram included with this Appendix D. The alteration would require that four trenches are shortened as follows: One trench would be shortened by 6 feet on the westernmost end, Two trenches would be shortened by 7 feet on the westernmost end, and One trench would be shortened by 10 feet on the westernmost end. With this reconfiguration, the total length of the primary leach field trenches west of the entrance driveway would remain at 403 feet. The westernmost end of the trenches would be at or slightly within the outermost reaches of the dripline of the retained oak. As long as the trenches are excavated from an easterly direction, there is no danger of soil compaction within the tree's dripline by heavy equipment used to perform the excavation. Protective fencing must be installed two feet within the dripline adjacent to the trenches before excavation equipment approaches the tree. No construction materials or soil may be deposited, even temporarily, within the dripline. If any roots one inch or greater in diameter are encountered, they would be cleanly and properly cut by the arborist to encourage maximum compartmentalization and decay prevention. The subject oak has never had artificial irrigation and has had to develop roots deep enough to consistently obtain adequate water from the water table. The tree's lush crown is a reflection of successful root development. The leach field is not expected to significantly alter the oak's ability to obtain water from the water table. If four leach field trenches are shortened in accordance with these recommendations, the leach field would have no significant negative effect on the health or stability of the retained oak. The oak may well benefit from a continuous new source of moisture and nutrients as fine roots develop outside the dripline. I recommend that a qualified consulting arborist remain on site during trenching operations at the westernmost end of the primary leach field west of the entrance driveway to ensure that tree protective measures are implemented. If four proposed primary leach field trenches west of the entrance driveway are shortened by a total of 30 feet, the total length of these trenches would be 403 feet. The westernmost end of the trenches would terminate at or just slightly within the outermost reach of the triple -trunked oak's dripline. Trenches would be excavated from an easterly direction to prevent soil compaction beneath the oak's dripline. The arborist should be on the site to install protective fencing prior to excavation and to ensure that the westernmost excavation of the leach field will have no significant affect on the tree's health or stability. Attachment 7 COTTON, S-ElffiRES AND ASSOCIATES., INC. ` -- 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 Geote&irucai a eer 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: Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Murray Engineers, dated April 6, 2010; ® 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 files. iliJC VTJ�1Y�lltlT 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 o Fax (408) 354-1852 www. cotton shire s.com Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736-4252 a Fax (209) 736-1212 Brian Froelich April 22, 2010 Page 2 T 5060A 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 Geoteclutical 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 Mace has geologic attributes that indicate 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 geotechnical co.-sultant in a letter. and sub pitted. to the `town 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 aCCP_pterl:p?'i11C113�aS and practices of the eotedhical1iofession. 11us warranty is ii%lieu P.- 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. rivironrgtental D—esigro� and P�rotect�,cfq-tl Co, aa a L n h New Residencef-Rerpodel Reviewed by- Appilcanut Nam e—. m, z / e Address Site im �W/Iiuhtin Attachment 8 Date ��/ Creeks, drainage, easements: -- Existing Vegetatfl6n: Significant issues/comments- 7 t7' (\t, k 3 l G4v� 1 COURTESY&SERVILE 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 a (408) 378-9342 (fax) a www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC Attachment 9 internationally Accredited Ca4.FUD `• Agency PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 1 0 0 4 2 2 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER FILENUMBER 25-10-ZP-GD osed 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 9 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY R-3, U CONST. TYPE V -B APPLICANT NAME HKS HILL BLAZIER STUDIO DATE 2/25/2010 PAGE 1 1 OF 3 SECJFLOOR 2 story AREA 26432 sf LOAD DESCRIPTION Residential Development BY Harding, Doug NAME OF PROJECT: HOMA NATOMA LLC SUBDIVISION LOCATION: 2J72%0 Natoma Rd I TABULAR FIRE FLOW: 4500 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS: 75%a I .Does RENotQUIRE Fre FIRE FLOler Fow Demand 20 PSI 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 COURTESY b SERVICE FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COQ IT 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 e (408) 378-9342 (fax) - www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS DDE/SEC. I SHEET I NO. I REQUIREMENT )07 CFC 3.3.5 d Health d Safety -de 114.7 -C Sec. )3 =C Sec. )3 _ .Z aVr— @ ��rcrnas:on^ '�O��[[q OF 1-0S AIM �t FeEEt�-p tionally Accredited Agency PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 1 0 0422 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER FILENUMBER 25-10-ZP-GD 300 square feet or less. (VOTE: Covered porches, patios balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. 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. Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire 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). 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. 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 ;AH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY R-3, U CONST. TYPE V -B APPLICANT NAME HKS HILL BLAZIER STUDIO DATE 2/25/2010 PAGE 1 2 OF 3 C./FLOOR story AREA 26432 sf LOAD DESCRIPTION Residential Development BY Harding, Doug .ME OF PROJECT: HOMA NATOMA LLC SUBDIVISION LocATION: 27270 Natoma Rd ABULAR FIRE FLOW: 4500 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS: ay 757a REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI': 1500 Does Not Include Fire Sprinkler Flow Demand 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 LO:IRTESY 6 SEFNCE FIRE Imo; EEP R7-MENT _Tv C _ l� T R_ GG,1�1 tk _F 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 0 (408) 378-9342 (fax) - www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODEISEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT . ryiv, Internationally Accredited �.,&Af CSS ALIUn. p e Agency PL �I'MR i U BER 1 0 4 2% BLDG PERMIT NUMBER FILE NUMBER 25- 11 0 - Z P - G D 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 iointly spot the required fire hydrant locations. CFC Sec. 501 7 'Timm of f Required Water Supply Installations: Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. 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-om 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 QF 3 SEC./FLOOR 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: % 5 °fo REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 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 Attaclunent 10 Jim and Jenna Ellis 11871 Hilltop Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 July 29, 2010 Planning Commission Members The Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: Proposed Residence at 27270 Natoma Road To the Planning Commissioners: As we approach our next public hearing on August 5th, 2010, we thought it would be helpful for the Commission to understand the changes that we have made in our proposed project with the goal of addressing the suggestions and concerns of the Commissioners and our neighbors. We met again with all the neighbors on May 13, 2010 at the Town of Los Altos Hills to discuss their concerns regarding the proposed residence. Chair Clow and Ms. Pedro and Mr. Froelich with the planning department were kind enough to help organize and attend this meeting. We heard from each-- - neighbor regarding their concerns and received photographs representing their principle views. With that information in hand we began studying alternative approaches to address each issue to the best of our ability. Since some suggestions from one neighbor would have negatively impacted another, we attempted to balance our ultimate revisions to hopefully address those most impacted and retain some of the elements of residence most important to us. We then met again with the neighbors on June 28th and 29th and discussed the design revisions. After two months of extensive redesigning we settled on a plan with substantial adjustments from our initial proposal: o Moved the residence down the hill away from the rear (South) property line an average of 20' to a distance ranging from 57' to 83'. © Rotated the eastern portion of the house 2 degrees and moved it down slope by 34' for a total of 83' from the south property line. © Moved the residence further away from the side (West) property line to a current distance of 90'. o Reduced the footprint of western end of the building near the Barkhau residence by 1,550 sf. ® Reduced the total project MFA by 2,000 sf. o Lowered portions of the roof by over 5 feet by adjusting both the roof pitch and ceiling heights. Removed all the roof wells. Removed all the roof -top mounted HVAC units e Removed two chimneys • Lowered the driveway and entry court by 4' We recognize that through this process we are not able to completely satisfy the desires of all parties impacted, including our own. We do hope that the Commission finds that the material adjustments made to the project go a long way towards reaching a balanced solution consistent with our desire to be good future neighbors and members of the LAH community. Thank you for your time. We all look forward to discussing our proposal with you at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on August 5th. Kind regards, Jim and Jenna Ellis E, Attachment 11 JUL 2 9 2010 After sending an email to all Planning Commissioners on July 13, 2010 1 was asked a question by Rey Collins. TO M 8 OF US AIT HILLS Io 0£V I d The question was: 'I believe the applicants were instructed by the Planning Commission to move the house down the lot. Did they do this?" Unfortunately, there was not a simple or short answer to the question.. I replied this way: Yes and No. In many areas the structure has been moved away from the South and West property lines so that many of the structure setbacks from the concerned neighbors have been increased. Unfortunately, the height of the new design has either not decreased.or has decreased minimally. ' The best way that 1 can describe it is that it has been moved OUT, but NOT "DOWN'. It seems that while the applicants did lower the finished height of some roofs by 3-4 feet, some of the roof tops in the foreground or background may still be at the original height. Without having a set of plans from either/both versions, and having the ability to really compare them, it is difficult to say exactly. At the June 28th meeting, when we asked "what is the change in overall height from area to area, we didn't get any concrete answers other than that in some areas the change was one foot lower and in others it was up to 4 feet lower. There are areas that have been reconfigured and the changes include'living. space below the main floor. It feels like the idea that moving things DOWN the slope would work in concert with other things to LOWER the height did not really have that effect. That space was 'filled'. From what we were able to gather when viewing the story pole progress yesterday (July 12); my mother will regain portions of her view from her three key areas (kitchen, deck, living room). This is due to the shortening of the overall length of the entertainment wing, which is good. The portion of this wing that remains looks to be a bit higher than it originally was.... still blocking everything in its 'area', including far mountain tops. So some things have surely improved, but not all. I personally feel that the words "Insure that 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" mean that, among other things, NO offsite scenic view should be lost. It is possible to build on this site without obstructing existing views from offsite. While we continue to hear that ordinances are being followed, I maintain that for that to be accurate, any plan would need to follow the ordinances in the proper pecking order. For example, IF one is'allowed' to have a setback minimum of 30 feet, BUT heritage tree(s), fault lines, or some other feature prevent anything less than a 65 foot setback, THEN the minimum setback is effectively 65 feet (not 30 ft) regardless of the other guideline. Similarly, when there is an existing view to be preserved, then that is priorily and all other ordinances need to be adjusted to save the view. This idea does not even address the statements that structures/buildings are to be unobtrusive and should not dominate the natural landscape. I don't see how a structure of this size can be anything but obtrusive and/or dominating. There was discussion at the May 6th PC meeting that no one imagined that a building larger than 18,000 sq ft (still difficult to be unobtrusive) would ever be proposed as a residence in LAH. It is clear that this is more than just a 'residence'. Does it fit the 'semi rural' goal of the Town and its General Plan ? Lisa .................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................... Outcome of May 6, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting regarding this project: MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Harpootlian and seconded by Commissioner Collins to - continue the application to a future Planning Commission meeting and for the applicant to consider the following suggestions: move the house or part of the house down slope at least 20 to 30 feet, lower the house elevation with more excavation, relocate the air conditioning units so the roof profile can be lowered, and work closely with the neighbors to address their concerns. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Clow --- On Tue, 7/13/10, Lisa Warren <a-warren@amnet> wrote: From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> Subject: Request for meeting - Lands of Homa Natoma To: "Eric Clow" <eclow@hinagroup.com>, "Jim Abraham" <jima.pc@gmail.com>, "John Harpootlian" <john.harpootlian@gmail.com>, "Ray Collins" <raykcol@yahoo.com>, "Richard Partridge" <richard.partridge@comcast.net> Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 9:40 AM Dear Commissioners, I am sending all of you this message to request an opportunity to personally meet at the home of Beverly Barkhau at 26861 Altamont Road, LAH. The reason for meeting is to discuss the developement of the Lands of Homa Natoma. I, along with a small group, visited town hall yesterday in order to view the newly submitted plans for the Ellis project on Natoma Rd. (Palomino Place). As of yesterday afternoon, the new story poles were not yet completed, however, the work that has been done is allowing new information to emerge. I expect that by today, or tomorrow, the poles and mesh will be complete. I (we) would like the opportunity to visit the site with you and discuss the impact of the newly proposed design. I realize that we can not all meet at one time but am asking for each of you to reply as to your willingness and availability. Thank you, in advance, for your response. Ideally, I would like to set something up with at least some of you for this Thursday, July 15 in the late afternoon, or early evening. Below, I have included the email that I sent on July 1, related to my initial thoughts/impressions of the information presented to a partial group of neighbors (not all invited neighbors were available for the June 28 meeting) at the end of June. The email includes key information summarized from a May 13 neighbor meeting. Shohreh Malek and Sandy Katz had added some of their own comments to my July 1 email and those were sent to Debbie Pedro, Brian Froelich ,and Commissioner Clow on July 4 by Mrs. Malek. I did not include that information here as I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with Shohreh Malek. Respectfully, Lisa Warren 408-472-9879 la-warren@att.net P.S. Congratulations to Commissioners Harpootlian and Partridge for their re -appointment to the Planning Commission ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> To: Debbie Pedro <dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; Brian Froelich<Bfroelich@losaltoshilis.ca.gov> Cc: Eric Clow <eclow@hinagroup.com>; sandy katz <sandybkatz@yahoo.com>; Shohreh Malek <shohrehmalek2@gmall com>; Mitra Malek <MitraMalekl@gmail.com> Sent: 01 ImO Subject: Fw: Meeting at Town Hall - Lands of Homa Natoma Hello Debbie and Brian, I had hoped to have sent this communication earlier in the week, but time got away. I am sending this message in order to express how I felt after our neighbor meeting on Monday of this week (6/28): As you know, we last met as a group on Thursday, May 13. The email message below was sent (the following day) to everyone who attended that meeting and has an email address (with the exception on Mitra Malek) The message contains the neighbor summary of what was discussed and requested. This information is, of course, not all inclusive of what was said, but sums up the key points. We, as neighbors, had also submitted photographs illustrating key off site views that we expect will be preserved. Our expectations are based on statements, purposes and guidelines published in Los Altos Hills documents; specifically the General Plan and Municipal Code. The city's Site Development Ordinance is, of course, a key document. The architect requested a copy of the measurements that we made in an attempt to illustrate the view corridors from the four surrounding neighbors who were present. Brian Froelich was able to make photo copies of this for us to share with the architect. While the applicant and architect have obviously worked hard during the six and a half week period between neighbor meetings, it felt as though much of the neighbor input was minimized or missed. As the newest plans were presented, there were many basic questions asked that we did not get answers to. For example, it is difficult for me to believe that the height of the flat roof garage and the large family room adjacent to it could be unknown at this week's meeting. There were comments made that left me feeling that the building height at this end of the structure may not have changed at all. I understand that what we were shown illustrated a shortening in the overall 'length' of the previous plans, and this is helpful in addressing a portion of the blockage of view from my mother's property. I do not currently believe that enough has been changed in order to preserve the views from off site. While I am encouraged that setbacks had been increased in many places, the 'neighbors' all feel that this was only one of several changes that are needed to work in combination so that we will retain existing views and decrease encroachment. There were some roof design changes that help somewhat with lowering overall height in some areas, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions. There are some design changes that may have created new issues. While we all agreed that story poles will help to clear up several things, many of us left the' meeting feeling that we would have liked more answers to the questions we asked based on the two dimensional information. I would have liked to see a 'section' drawing of the portion of the structure that is closest to my mother's house, but that was not presented. At this point in time, I have no knowledge related to the conversation that took place when the applicant met with Alice Arnold and Paul Staschower on Tuesday, June 29 to present the current plan. It is my understanding that the applicant plans to submit the new plans to your department on July 7. Please let me know when the plans are received. We would like to be able to see them as soon as possible. You may email or call, whichever is more convenient for you. Thank you, again, for your time. Lisa Warren 406-472-9879 From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net> To: ellis.jenna@yahoo.com Cc: Robert Glazier <rglazier@hksinc.com>; David DaPonte <ddaponte@hksinc.com>; Eric Clow <eclow@hinagroup.cofn>; Brian Froelich<Bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; sandy katz <sandybkatz@yahoo.com>; Shohreh Malek <shoh&r malek2@@ mail.com> Sent: f Al Subject: Re: Meeting at Town Hall Jenna, Thank you for acknowledging. Obviously this was not sent In the exact manner Intended. I must have Inadvertently cc'd everyone that Sandy or Shohreh was going to communicate with. As a result, you got the information a bit 'raw', but it Is there. So... I have created a neater summary of what the neighbors tried to convey in yesterday's meeting.... (Information Is the same) Thank you. Lisa Paul spoke of: 1. Setback of more than minimum for even Estate home 2. AC removals and roof adjustments 3. Moving down slope 30-40 Feet 4. Lowering ceiling heights 5. Overall goal of all these modifications is to lower height by 9-10 feet across the south side. Alice spoke of: 1. Increasing setbacks, moving away from her house Shohreh spoke of L The length of my view corridor Of 45 feet, facing east starting fi om the comer of the existing house 2. Suggestions of underground garage and underground theater and tucking in the recreation area in its place 3. In addition agreeing to what everyone else said, share the same view problems and solutions as Paul,and remain concerned about the effect on Beverly Barkhau group spoke of: Suggested that by incorporating a combination of alterations, goals can be met. Reduce ceiling height and roof pitch, vaulting/bunkering mechanical equipment off of roof tops, increase setbacks, move down slope (and further grading if needed) 1. The overall size, square footage of the West wing roofs needing to be reduced. "Big Blob" of roof. Suggest submerging or detaching garage 2. Reduce height in order to preserve existing off site views from kitchen to end of deck. Retaining full view of mountains, bay and foreground city scapes. 3. Increase setbacks from South and Vilest property lines. 4. Move do -Am slope 30+ feet 5. Consider fencing options that will not effect existing views. Nothing 'solid' on West property line. ?.n c Appendix C - 1990 Housing Element Implementation Town of Los Bios dills 2002 Housing Element APPENDIX C 19,09 HOUSINIG ZLEMEN I' IMPLEMENTATION The following presents a program by program analysis of the Town's implementation of the 1995 Housing Element goals, policies, and programs. Iofoal reserve the existing character of the Town and provide housing opportunities for persons who desire to reside in a rural environment insure that all new residential development and reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing residences preserve the natural errvironmental qualities which significantly contribute to the rural atmosphere of the Tow includin the hills, ridgelines, views, natura water courses, and the native trees. A Policy Prohibit or limit residential development, in areas with significant environmental constraints through development prohibition, avoidance, setbacks, andlor in-kind replacement. C Policy Protect areas with exceptional natural value through development prohibition, avoidance, setbacks, in-kind replacement, and where feasible, obtain ownership or easements to allow stewardship via open space and conservation programs. ',insure that all new residential development and reconstruction, and rehabilitation of existing residences. s, as much as possible, existiniz views, hills, ridgelines, water courses, riparian vegetation, signs zcan open spaces, and native trees. E Policy Require landscaping to soften the impact of new development on the surrounding community. F. Policy Require storm water drainage and erosion control systems to be designed to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, existing water drainage patterns and to protect existing downstream lands from flooding and flooding related hazards. L Program Review all new residential development and reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing residences through the Site Development Permit reviewmocess, which focuses on development siting as well as issues of grading, drainage, access, and landscape screening as visual mitigation. (Policies A - F) Page 59 Adopted April 26, 2007 COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN 33. The Introch etion, the Elements and the Land Use Diagram constitute the official General Plan of the Town of Los Altos Hills. Each Element of the General Plan includes goals, policies and programs to guide the Town's actions. The General Plan has been developed pursuant to the state law governing Iocal planning as found in Chapter 3, Title 7, of the Government Code. Plans for sub -areas, when developed and adopted, become part of the General Plan. Appendices provide background information relevant to the General Plan. The appendices are supplemental information and are not intended to be adopted as part of the General Plan. Sons rs KGFc�xr k Def nitl; g� 7 A �A Goal:ts a gerlera�Xencq"r�oblective towards whlch theTown =Wtlldr ctif'sxeffortsn"_ { s 5 • L P s' t' € r' A ,Pbhcy a s{aerent VP ge�ieral; tllrection that t eeislonriakmgx� own sets po`llc'iestotfollow ins Or Br —.1fee I .�$S''s �?t `"? rp i � ,.�'�✓->� mss. �` x' :- „,�r :.. sz�•c � ,� , c rx ,,,. i+-�r �Afn ?rogram ishan �,actibn,�activltyIor,�Implemen�a�tlon�measuret: �ttai carlesbuYdopted pollc esFinorcieta4achle�e a spEClfic. 34. To facilitate future updates, the General Plan is organized in parts and sections so that amendments, when shown to be necessary, can be accomplished in an orderly manlier. For convenient reference, each paragraph is numbered. IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN 35. The General Plan will be implemented through the actions of the City Council,the Planning Commission, Town committees. and Town staff. Plan no icies will be carried out throuLyh the imp emen tion. of programs and the administration of ordinances, through annual budgeting and capital improvement programming, and through decision-making on development proposals. 36. The plan is intended to be a living document, to grow and change as local conditions change. It may at times be necessary to amend the plan. Amendments may be initiated by property owners, the Planning Commission, the City Council, or staff. All amendments require public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council and evaluation of the environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 37. Through continuing to use, evaluate and amend the General Plan, the residents of Los Altos Hills can ensure that the Town continues to develop in accordance with their vision of the future. Introduction Los Altos Hills General Plan Page 9 Article 7. Building Siting, View Protection, Ridgegine Preservation, Creek Protection concerning grading, drainage, and erosion control. ( 15, Ord. 299, efff. December 11 1985) 10-2.702 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. (b)Preservation of Ridgelines, and Hilltops. Ridgelines and hilltops shall be preserved by the siting of structures to take advantage of natural topographic or landscape features which would cause structures to blend with their natural surroundings. The Site Development Authority shall consider the following guidelines in approving the location of a structure: (1) Single story buildings and height restrictions may be required on hilltops and ridgelines. (2) Cut foundations should be used in place of fill on hilly terrain. (3) Native or naturalized vegetation should be used to conceal structures wherever possible. (4) Structures may be located on ridgelines or hilltops only when they can be rendered unobtrusive by one or more of the following techniques: (i) The use of natural vegetation and/or added landscaping; (ii) The use of a low -profile house, with a sloping roofline and foundation, that follows the natural contours of the site; (iii) The use of exterior roofing and siding materials and colors that blend with the natural landscape. (5) Hilltops or ridgelines shall not be cut down, flattened, or similarly graded to create a building pad in excess of the actual area covered by the principal residence. (c)Disturbance to the Site. The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape. The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures; unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings. Additional grading may be allowed for the purpose of lowering the profile of the building provided that at the completion of the project the visual alteration of the natural terrain is minimized. The removal of vegetation and alteration of drainage patterns shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed structure. F f. bf I - (d)Passive Solar Energy Conservation. Opportunities for passive solar energy shall be considered in the siting of buildings. (e) Creek Protection. Structures shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the top of bank of all creeks. Greater setbacks may be required along major creeks in the Town; however, lesser setbacks may be allowed where approved by the Planning Commission. Improvements required to all creeks shall be accomplished to appear natural and to maintain the natural meandering course of the existing creek. Creeks and banks shall be protected so as to remain in their natural state as much as possible. They should not be disturbed by the building or grading process. No grading shall be allowed in creeks or within the required setbacks from top of bank. Siting of structures shall be done with safety as a primary concern. Safety concerns and preservation of riparian habitat are required to be simultaneously addressed when designing development and required improvements to creeks. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985; §§ 6, 7, Ord. 370, eff. May 20, 1994; § 1, Ord. 504, eff. October 28, 2006) 10-2.703 Construction. (a)Foundations. The types of foundation to be used for primary and accessory structures shall be selected to ensure that at the completion of the project the visual alteration of the natural terrain is minimized. Type II foundations—step-on-contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof— shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen (14) percent. (b)Color and Materials. For large or highly visible surfaces on buildings, special attention shall be given to the selection of exterior colors and construction materials that are not highly reflective. (c)Appurtenances. Dish antennae, freestanding solar panels, and similar appurtenances as defined in Section 10-2.301 may be approved by the Planning Director under the following conditions: (1) The appurtenance is the minimum size necessary to adequately serve its purpose. (2) The appurtenance can be suitably screened by landscaping, the use of colors or materials that blend with their surroundings, or by natural features of the site without adversely affecting its operation. (3) Landscaping shall be placed to screen appurtenances such as solar panels and dish antennae in such a manner as to not significantly affect the basic function of such equipment. These structures shall not be permitted unless they can function in the presence of such screening. (4) The appurtenance is not placed in a conspicuous position or on a hilltop or ridgeline. The Planning Director may impose additional conditions on the size, location, and construction of appurtenances as the Planning Director deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. (§ 6, Ord. 384, eff. October 18, 1996) Les Aitos rills R4unicioal Code LIP Previous rdext i4ain Search prin't No Frames Title S PUBLIC WELFARE, MORALS AND CONDUCT Chapter 8 VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES For the purpose of this chapter, the meaning and construction of words and phrases is as follows: VArti- ons zhoutA heM +lDe -Mrmj3hos R cipa� Code, Arbitrator means a neutral person who will conduct a process similar to a trial, and who will hear testimony, consider evidence, and make a binding decision for the disputing parties. Binding arbitration means a legal procedure as set forth in Section 1280 et seq., of the Code of Civil Procedure. Initiating party means any property owner (or legal occupant with written permission of the property owner) who alleges that trees located on the property of another person are causing unreasonable obstruction of his or her pre-existing views or sunlight, Landscape screening means a method by which trees and vegetation are planted in order to separate and partially obstruct the view of adjacent and nearby structures and properties from one another. Landscape screening shall generally not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the primary structure. Mediator means a neutral, objective third person who assists people in finding mutually satisfactory solutions to their problem. Person means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal entity, excluding the Town of Los Altos Hills. Primary livving�ear1eans the portion or portions of a residence from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the C residence. The determination of primary living area is to be made on a case-by-case basis. Protected tree means any of the following: (1) Heritage tree means any tree that, due to age, size, location, visibility, historic nature, or other unique attribute, has been deemed by the Town to be a heritage tree and accordingly deserves special consideration for preservation and protection. (2) Heritage oak means any tree of the genus Quercus, including, but not limited to, Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), California Live Oak (Quercus kelloggii) and Black Oak (Quercus agrifola), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii) that has a trunk or multiple trunk thirty-six (36) inches in circumference (approximately twelve (12) inches) in diameter) at a point four (4) feet above the root crown. Removal means the elimination of any tree from its present location. Restorative action means any specific requirement to resolve a tree dispute. Stump growth means new growth from the remaining portion of the tree trunk, the main portion of which has been cut off. Sunlight means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence. Thinning means the selective removal of entire branches from a tree so as to improve visibility through the tree and/or improve the tree's structural condition. Topping means elimination of the upper portion of a tree's trunk or main leader. Tree means any woody plant with the potential to obstruct views or sunlight, including, but not limited to, trees, shrubs, hedges, and bushes. References to "tree" shall include the plural. Tree claim means the written basis for arbitration or court action under the provisions of this chapter. Tree owner means any person owning real property in Los Altos Hills upon whose land is located a tree or trees alleged by an initiating party to cause an unreasonable obstruction. ,Trimming means the selective removal of portions of branches from a tree so as to modify the tree's shape or profile or alter the tree's appearance. View eans a scene from the primary living area of a residence. The term "view" includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is generally 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) TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS LOSALTOSHILLS 26379 Fremont Road E� Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA SiteDevel0pment Review Process The Town of Los Altos Hills is committed to maintaining a community in which its residents enjoy a high quality of life, a healthy environment, and the freedom to develop individual lifestyles in harmony with their neighbors. To these ends, procedures have been established over many years to assist residents in the development and improvement of their properties. Most projects proceed with little difficulty, and Los Altos Hills has maintained a policy of having no formal "architectural review" in order to encourage a diversity of building styles and individual expression. However, certain problems may arise in which projects are denied because they do not conform to the urposes of the ordinances. In these cases, applicants may appeal Planning Commission _ decisions to the City Counci . Alternately, the City Council reviews all projects approved through the Fast Track process and the Planning Commission and may overturn a previous decision within a limited period of time. Notices are sent to surrounding homes when a major change to a property is being proposed so that all residents are given an opportunity to be heard and express their concerns. Notices are also posted on developing properties so that distant neighbors are aware of potential projects. Special consideration during the develo went rocess is given to protection of views, creeks and watersheds, natural vegetation, ridgelines and hilltops, scenic corridors, open and pathways. Landscape mitigation of new development is especially important to the Town. Significant participation by the public often accompanies development review, and neighbors are encouraged to work together to resolve issues of concern. Step 1: Getting Started Residents and their project representatives should familiarize themselves with the Town Zoning and Site Development Code and policies. The documents are available on our website or at Town Hall. We also suggest that residents and/or their project representatives make an appointment to consult with the Planning and Engineering staff in regards to potential development requirements and issues. Step 2: Pre -Application Conference Prior to submitting a formal application, it is recommended that a Town planner preliminarily review your project plans. Based on the information presented to the planner, a checklist of required items needed for application submittal will be completed. At this meeting, you will also receive a Site Development Application form and handouts to aid you in the process of preparing the submittal requirements and project plans. P 1 0f'Z Site Development Review process Page 2 Step 3: Formal Submittal of Application llaterMs Submit your application materials and fees with a check payable to the Town of Los Altos Hills. Allow 30 days for the initial application review. Your assigned planner will meet with you or your architect to discuss the project review comments from the various departments and consultants. Step 4: Administrative and Fast Track or Planning Commission If the submitted project falls within the scope of the administrative level of review and once the project is deemed "complete" (conforming to the Zoning and Site Development Ordinances and policies), the assigned planner will prepare conditions of approval, which are mailed to the applicant with a stamped "Approved" set of plans. In the case of projects that require a public hearing, 'a hearing notice and or staff report will be mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project property ten days prior to the hearing. The Planning Commission or Planning Director will conduct a public hearing for the project. The applicant or project representative should be present to answer questions from any interested member of the public. If there is no substantive neighbor opposition, the project will be approved at the hearing. Final conditions of approval are mailed to the applicant with a stamped "Approved" set of pians. Sometimes projects are appealed. -Any person may appeal the decision of the Site Development Committee and/or Planning Director to the Planning Commission by submitting an appeal letter and fee to the City Clerk. The appeal process is referenced in the Site Development Code of the Municipal Code. Step 5: Submit for Building Permits For each project, the assigned planner will prepare a list of conditions of approval, with certain conditions that must be satisfied prior to submitting plans for building permit plan check. Once the conditions of approval have been reviewed and approved by the corresponding department and the appeal period has expired, construction plans may be submitted to the Building Department. Please contact the Building Technician or Inspector the requirements for building permit issuance anytime during the planning review. Building and planning personnel are located in the same location for your convenience. ?24Z w � = T0WN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS LOSAWHILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 54022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Site Development Review FAA's What projects are subject to site development review? • All existing structures involving exterior modifications and/or expansion, all new structures, and any new coverage (decking, patios, walkways, etc.) must be reviewed for compliance with Town Zoning and Site Development Ordinances. At what stage do I fide for site development review? • You are required to apply for and obtain planning approval (site development permit) prior to applying for a building permit. • Most projects (those with any expansion of floor and/or development area) also require a zoning permit which can be processed along with the site development permit. • Some projects (new residences and major additions) also require a geotechnical report to be submitted for review by the Town Geologist. This review is done concurrently with the processing of the zoning and site development permits. Are my plans reviewed at a public meeting? • Depending on the scope of the project, a public hearing may be required. See attached "Site Development Review Process''. What must I do to file for site development approval? First, a site analysis meeting with a planner is required prior to submittal of an application. Engineering . Department staff will participate in the site analysis meeting when there are changes to grading or drainage, driveway modifications, road or pathway dedications or other engineering matters related to the project. • Second, a checklist will be completed by the planner at the site analysis meeting listing the submittal requirements, including applicable fees and deposits. Once all items on the checklist are ready for submittal then plans may be submitted to the Planning Department for review. ?IofI W 4 a Iaf my plRns are going io be reviewed by the Ple mranng CoMmEssiom, Fast Track or at a Site DeveBopment hearing, do I need to ettemd the meeting? Yes -it is very important that you or- a representative attend the meeting. The Planning Commission, Past Track or Site Development meeting staff may have questions of you, or may request changes to your plans. Neighbors may also be present, and it would be -important for you to hear their comments, and respond, if needed. ® It is recommended that you share your plans and discuss your project with your.�aeighbors before filing for site development approval. Very often, a concern of a neighbor can be resolved in the early stages of design. How are any plans judged? When reviewing your design plans, the approving authority considers the following: 0 How well the structure and other improvements fit the site and how the project fits into the neighborhood (height, elevations, and placement on a site . • Is the project obtrusive to neighbors (avoid unreasonable interference with views or privacy). m Visibility of the site and the need for screening or other mitigation. a have the proposed structures been designed to follow the natural contours with minimal grading, minimal impervious cover a and maximum preservation of natural topography and existing vegetation. e n sloped building sites, stepped foundations are encouraged (and may be required). e Geotechnical, slope, creeks, swales or other topographic constraints on the site. o Conformance to Town Zoning and Site Development Ordinances. Hour do I know if there is a proposed or'existing pathwaay on any property? s Refer to the 2005 Master Pathway Plan (available at Town Hall) and/or contact the Planning Department. How long does the site development review take? The amount of time taken for project review will vary with the, level of review your project requires (see attached Site Development Review Process). The following list provides a general time frame for the review process: ! i Attaclunent 12 1 �? e CJ' — n / /! ..-/ t / j � ' ;/ / `��-�. ice• 1/ � � `- f I' 'ii i/JY��i.: i/ • /��� /� 1' �� . / �. �' r' l- � � .!%�'':�v l� /.� �" .zf '.r �. c..y. s r- r_ 4v�12 n f ,OM@ OF LOS ALTO$ vdLL8 �,�%J /� (= " " s�.r +��. ��',�J' i���' ^' � �� G,' T r �''��1� lJF`•` �'IC%'fG-"y 1,'-L-,�T �!� YL(�✓G�"lf / ' r-7 zz- Ake, C--', GW,- %.�% C .moi �,�- , "��-- ��L.iF-� ./��'' • � r r j � Z� 1:2 I eo Z4� 1• 1 a 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. a Brilan Frog `6' h From: Lisa Warren [[a-warren@att.net] Sera: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 3:39 PM To: Brian Froelich IC c: Lisa Warren Subject: comments to accompany previously sent'beforelafter 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, View 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 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, draffiage, and erosion control. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) 10-2.702 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: y 'I y view means a scene from the primary living area* of a residence. The term "view„ includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is.generally 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, Fast Bay Hills, Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge and Dumbarton Bridge. (§ 1, Ord. 427, eff. July 5, 2005) I:r�l03 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. F4 ' •'ate' C;� � ;ti. Field • t r,,d! y c'�n 17 F, ✓. ,yam ;`. a� i � ' 0. l _ t f _ , - wfi,„� `� Y r � 4YY� `= �J •�-�'{ � �✓ %x ;Ia �y'4Y.+w�r t'Urw Z,y� C I r J D f. JJ k 7� -� 1iY F✓ r t __..t'1W �" � ✓' aN i�'� Y J^'1 J r i Important to note: grass is 3 % ft. tall - once cleared, building mass will be visually5 ALSO: Not only does the city and mountain view blocked, get entirely but the the field least. view i! encroaching vertical building mass. 'Double whammy', at ' •'ate' C;� � ;ti. Field • t r,,d! y c'�n 17 F, ✓. ,yam ;`. a� i � ' 0. l _ t f _ , - wfi,„� `� Y r � 4YY� `= �J •�-�'{ � �✓ %x ;Ia �y'4Y.+w�r t'Urw Z,y� C I r J D f. JJ k 7� -� 1iY F✓ r t __..t'1W �" � ✓' aN i�'� Y J^'1 J r i Dear Planning Cornniission Members: This letter is being respectfully submitted to the Los Altos l=ulls Planning Commission in reference to the building plans that have been submitted on behalf of James and Jenna Ellis (floma Naoma LLC) 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 Road. 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 & 5h�j Malek PAUL TASCHOWER- 26993 Adinade-n Ct. Les s ltas Dills;, Ca. 5.4027 6.50 0148 49-19 m 6.50 9400 62€0 ��El�_-oni (?ear-tlzlint; ._zet 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, <A0�%� Brian Froelich From: yunch iehc@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 am 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 s. April 2010 PRG E 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 (Roma Natoma LLC) for an estate located on parcel number 182-20-012 (pre sub -division) with address of 27270 Rlatoma 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) ARID moving building(s) further down the existing slope. K 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 Blame (4so) vq_ '�%9. s �� le- ;�G,�� 9 Y<S Lion % - g�/ h7/6W,,1770 Years Lived at this Address 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 (Noma 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 7-7 d Ca/ r Nyg.283 q ��rr 1��r►�— y s (.9 i- LN)rxweiaL �id Mille McIL� 0 a lbr-al , fii � my ,�7,a Fzlewl /ryrs Uo 7C, i WS - 550—Yrjr Y3 tilt,r\,a_ KcJt_V__ _ ZI— 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 (Noma 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. i�na�a9re Address Phone/email Name Years Lived at this Address 27 c/ice' r-bf' d 12 q0 I �- r4.� ?�� � �/t %�-- � � S• % (�L� •��Ii(�Vi/i `�� � � � alp �( �. %� C!/1 �'��� r2j �.� ,1 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 *aloe 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 V 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 (Noma 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 A