HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 SupplementalBrian:
I would like for the Planning Commission Members to get my previous
email that I sent you. Also, my suggestion to lower the highest roof
ridge line of Living Room Area and Family Room/Kitchen at least 3 feet.
As I mentioned in my previous email, this new revision has shifted the
Living Room and all the surrounding entry area to the right more
eastward which is more in our view corridor. The height of the top
portion of the roof ridge in the Living Room still remains the same as
before the revision. At least, I would like to see the highest portion
of the ridge lowered. The same is happening in the Family Room/
Kitchen Area. The highest triangular point of the roof ridge need to
go down or clipped three feet. The angles of the roof shapes have
changed, but the height of the highest points have not!
What happened to the flat roofs when AC units got removed from them?
I appreciate your attention to these matters. I hope we can implement
them before these become permanent obstructions that we need to live
with for ever.
Thank You,
Shohreh Malek
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shohreh Malek <shohrehmalek2@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Subject: Fwd: Letter to the Planning Commission Members and Staff/
27270 Natoma Road Project
To: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shohreh Malek <shohrehmalek2@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Subject: Letter to the Planning.Commission Members and Staff/ 27270
Natoma Road Project
To: Brian Froelich<bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Dear Planning Commission Members:
This letter is. respectfully submitted to the Los Altos Hills Planning
Commission in reference to the revised building plans submitted by
James and.Jenna Ellis for 27270 Natoma Road.
We are writing to you to request further consideration to our original
concerns which still remain to be issues about size of this project
which impacts the natural character of this hill site, the location of
building site of this magnitude in close proximity to the neighbors,
and height profile of the building remaining to stay at Maximum 21 feet
in very large areas of the house, which continues to block views of the
neighbors of the hill sites, neighboring city views and land marks.
This property has some limitations and the preservation of the views of
the established neighbors surrounding this land is the primary issue
here!
The neighbors have spent so much time and effort to make ourselves
available to express and discuss our concerns and make some
suggestions. There have been some changes, but the bulk of the house,
in the middle still remains in the same location, not shifted down
hill, but worse it is shifted to the east side! The Maximum allowable
height of 21 feet is still in place in the center, living room and
surrounding spaces and in the east side in the family room area. More
garage spaces are added facing the neighbors!
In order to respect and preserve the existing views and quality of life
of the surrounding neighbors, we ask for more consideration to be'
to protect and to respond to our requests.
Respectfully Yours,
Malek Family
From: Lisa Warren [mailto:la-warren@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:53 PM
To: Brian Froelich
Subject: Homa Natoma - Views to protect as PROVIDED to applicant for May 13 Neighbor
meeting at Town Hall
Brian,
Attached are the photos that defined Barkhau Views to protect as PROVIDED to
applicant for May 13 Neighbor meeting at Town Hall.
Please include these in the Planning Commission packets.
I will be sending a second email with July photos taken after design change and
new story poles.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
Brian,
Thanks for meeting with us today.
Be safe on the two wheeled beast.
I meant for this email message to be included as part of my'letter.
I want to be sure that the points at the bottom of the message are part of the
correspondence. I also want them to understand the reason for me sending the
pages copied from LAH documents.
Sorry I didn't mention it when I sent this initially.
Should I just send it directly to the commissioners in an email, or can you
somehow add it to what they get/got ?
Lisa
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Lisa Warren <la-warren@att.net>
To: Brian Froelich <Bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010 2:13:29 PM
Subject: Communication for Planning Dept and Planning Commissioners
To: Brian Froelich
Re: Lands of Homa Natoma project
From: Lisa Warren
The attached pages are a Summary of Communication made between the May -
6, 2010 Planning Commission meeting and today, July 29, 2010.
Different people have received portions of this information.
No one, at this point, has all of the items.
I am providing all of this to you so that you have a full copy in your file, and so
that you can include it in the Commissioners' packets.
I have also attached (in a second attachment) copies of pages of some
documents from the Town of Los Altos Hills.
These pages are to illustrate the reason that I/we believe that there should
be no question that offsite views should be protected/preserved and that
this should be a priority for ANY project submitted to the Los Altos Hills
Planning Department.
I am asking you to include the above described pages in the packet for
commissioners as well.
A good project in the wrong place is a bad project.
PLEASE NOTE:
As this project progresses, there is a possiblitiy that more concerns / issues will
come to light.
I mention this now so that any of these subjects, as they relate to this building
site and project, will be eligible for discussion at a later time, perhaps with
different public officials.
Things that may be of future concern are:
Setbacks / encroachment
Proposed parking areas and driveways
Other impermeable surfaces
Building elevations, components and materials
Issues related to actual Construction - hours, equipment, noise, dust/dirt, etc.
Noise - mechanical equipment, driveway traffic, etc.
Privacy
Lighting
Fencing
Landscaping
;av
After sending an email to all Planning Commissioners on July 13, 2010
1 was asked a question by Ray Collins.
The question was:
"T 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 I 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
Rriorily 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 <la-warren@att.net> 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 Harpoodian and Partridge for their re -appointment to the Planning
Commission
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Lisa Warren <ia-warren@att.net>
To: Debbie Pedro <dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; Brian Froelich<Bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Cc: Eric Clow <eclow@hinagroup.com>; sandy katz <sandybkatz@yahoo.com>; Shohreh Malek
<shohrehmalek2@gmail corn>• Mitra Malek <MitraMalek1@gmail.com>
Sent I
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 My 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
408-472-9879
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 <eciow@hinagroup.com>; Brian
Froelich<Bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; sandy katz <sandybkatz@yahoo.com>;
Shohreh Malek <shohrehmalek2@@gma11.com>
Sent:
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 wlth.
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:
1. The length of my view corridor 0f 45 feet, facing east starting fiom the corner of the existing house
2. Suggestions of underground garage and underground theater and tucking in the recreation area in it's
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 West property lines.
4. Move down slope 30+ feet
5. Consider fencing options that will not effect existing views. Nothing 'solid' on West property line.
Imola. n Hvo,5 'n q
Appendix C -1998 Housing Element Implementation Town of Los Altos Hills
2002 Housing Element
APPENDIX C
1998 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
The following presents a program by program analysis of the Town's implementation of the
1998 Housing Element goals, policies, and programs.
I.Goal reserve the existing character of the Town and provide housing opportunities for
persons who desire to reside in a rural environment.
A. Policy nsure that all new residential development and reconstruction and
rehabilitation of existing residences reserve 'the natural environmental
qualities which significantly contribute to the rural atmosphere of the
TowdincludinI the hills, ridge ines, views, natura watercourses, and the
native trees.
B. Policy Prohibit or limit residential development in areas with significant
environmental constraints through development prohibition, avoidance,
setbacks, and/or 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.
D. Poli Ensure that all newresidential development and reconstruction, and
rehabilitation of existing residences reserves, as much as possible,
existing views, hills, ridgelines, water courses, riparian vegetation,
sign scan 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 review_ p c ss, 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 Introduction, 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 local 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.
f n� �-npxgsv +s >.":�".:�..•F 1 �r : 'r
1'4
t� L, §I #� dal ."
bali'a�generaf=end or obteciive owardsmwhich the To ,
will
W.
T5 r-
Policy aksta er0entp'tiocipWd general directwn that
1 iss ,—u s
? ez'ansi^a' ! kTin,g, `T5Yte�o"•iwn Ss.ietcslor,I'fts rptRos fic3i.eptx,bts� �rto=f'�fo°F
llrowfi
PeelrAl
�� qtr r�' zf� � �'< {r � •s:Y"`��s - t .i, �i
,}"r. t«„vFa ;' f
�A�Prodrarri is a 1 Coon, �� ianiy or lmp ern � anon;ta easi��e z
fid �s oft adopted polcres�inforderto a1ve a specif c,
�- zx av a z�
New,
3
:goalra�Syoble ive
rya. ��. '. La,`:fi3 `._�.. K.,. �`..�` ' x .. `;'.: �.aa'.'�.� ., F':,. :x,�, - ,�T..,��...��;.>:. •':
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 manner. For
convenient reference, each paragraph is numbered.
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
35. The General Plan will be implemented throu h the actions of the City Council, the Planning
Commission. Town -committees. and Town statt. Plan no ides will he carried not thrnnuh the
implementation 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, Ridgeline Preservation, Creek
Protection
concerning grading, drainage, 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.
(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 fir approving the location of a structure:
(1) Single story buildings and height restrictions may be required on hilltops and ridgelines.
(2) Gut 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.
(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, Iocation, 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)
p.2 of2-
Los Altos Hills Municipal Co
Up Prev_lous Next Main %earth Print No Flames
Title 5 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:
DeAni-hons should hold -live 'i!►raxjhu 11tinicipki 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 living . e cans 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.
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 cans a scene from the primary living area of a residence. The term' view" includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is generally medium or
View
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
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
oo^
3MV
Phone: (650) 941-7222
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
CALIFORNIA
Site Development 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 tote City ounci . 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 durinthe develo went rocess is given to protection of views, creeks and
watersheds, natural vegetation, ridgelines and hilltops, scenic corridors, o en space 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 oft
Site Development Review Process
Page 2
Step 3: Formal Submittal of Application Materials
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 plans.
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.
F 26f
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS LOSAL 1111s
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
18 r�
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
CALIFORNIA
Site Development Review FAQ'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 file 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.
?I of I
If my plans are going to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Fast Track or at a Site
Development hearing, do I need to attend the meeting?
• Yes-it is very important that you or a representative attend the meeting. The Planning
Commission, Fast 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 neighbors
before filing for site development approval. Very often, a concern of a neighbor can be
resolved in the early stages of design.
How are my 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 c site .
4� mssS
• Is the project obtrusive to neighbors (avoid unreasonable interference with views or privacy).
• Visibility of the site and the need for screening or other mitigation.
• 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 vege� 0n sloped building sites, stepped foundations are encouraged (and may
be required).
• Geotechnical, slope, creeks, swales or other topographic constraints on the site.
• Conformance to Town Zoning and Site Development Ordinances.
How do I know if there is a proposed or existing pathway on my property?
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:
4i
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The email below from Ted Sayre, Cotton and Shires Associates is with regard to the geotechnical
limitations of resiting the building further downhill or additional cutting to lower the structure.
The project geotechnical engineer, Murray Engineers Inc., has recommended a 25 foot lateral
setback from the surface fault trace and a 14 foot vertical setback from the subsurface fault
plane. The fault plane descends from the surface at a relatively shallow 9 degree angle to the
southwest (toward Altamont Road).
The redesigned structure has maintained the recommended vertical and lateral recommended
setbacks although the vertical setback appears to be the limiting factor because of the shallow
descending fault plane.
Please find the attached geologic subsurface section and feel free to contact me if you have any
questions. Thanks.
Brian Froelich, AICP
Associate Planner
Los Altos Hills
650-947-2505
From: Ted Sayre[mailto:tsayreCabcottonshires.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:25 AM
To: 'Brian Froelich'
Subject: 2720 Natoma
Hi Brian -
I understand that there is a desire from neighbors to explore pushing the house
downhill or sinking it down with some additional grading. I understand that the house
design we reviewed back in April utilized the minimal fault setbacks (both laterally from
the fault trace at the ground surface and vertically from the fault plane that descends
beneath the house). Consequently, I don't see that there is room to get much closer to
the fault than depicted in the April 2010 plans—maybe some portions of the structure
could be pushed slightly to become tightly up against the fault setbacks? There may
alternatively be a way to reconfigure the project layout in some other manner to
address visibility concerns as long as those methods do not result in pushing the
structure any closer than the currently recommended Murray fault setbacks. It is not
often that we see consultants recommend such a small vertical setback from the
descending fault plane ---Murray really does not have a way to reduce setbacks beyond
the current recommended minimum distances. If there is a way to modify the design
such that it still observes the Murray recommended fault setback distances (lateral and
vertical) then I would not have grave objections. However, I would be more comfortable
not getting any closer to the fault than the April 2010 design.
Please give me a call to discuss at your convenience, I should be in the office all day.
Thanks, Ted Sayre
(408) 354-5542
690 Parc h° �; r z "wa -e 4w « "0sY 5 3a �p n �� d�rz ;a x30-- - " t .z - EN' � 690
.r' �� "KNI�j , f ob h {.�s�`A;- 1 talcs" Pc�� 3t, a, x4� zs ni ti, '�'r „i �•�•ai_.�'Cw,�TMn�a �y'g,
�V)'pnYe,E��3"��D�On"NOn<�°
��^7����r',�-M.1 {°^§'� y}�E ry �x" }—t..^-,��br. 5,.x�+ a�� E Cf y^t+•,,, K� w.t '�"{�`s a k`. ti
W 660. -660
v
a;
630 1 Franciscan Complex Gieenstone (Kjfg) r 630
600 I , , r 600
Distance in Feet
1 LEGEND
B_1 Approximate Location of Soil Boring by Murray Engineers, Inc., dated January 25, 2010, March 9, 2010, or March 10, 2010
1 Approximate Location of Soil Boring by BAGG Engineers, dated April 14, 2005
BEB-1
-- Approximate Geologic Contact, e) Queried, Where Uncertain
liVery Approximate Location of Fault Plane - Arrow Indicates Direction of Movement
? Base: Topographic Survey by Guiliani & Kull, Inc_, dated March 21, 2008
Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet (horizontal = vertical)
y^
U-
u
� p
A
A
4WS
y
y
U
w
GUJ
V W
a
14
V
o
O
0
o
w Bt
-
a c
"
y
a
�— Proposed N--� °U
y
N
w
House a
v
v d
aIt
Footprint C
a b as
720 b
W
c
a
Existing House 720
.h
^O O
°�
n
r
:�.O1lllVIUm iA� d .cLY?5ik Y#t 4'.
O�
+E ?a'^ :'T. ''f - J•3
M eE
°tet It X
G
W C
(„, M �+�+�. S..`-�S
690 Parc h° �; r z "wa -e 4w « "0sY 5 3a �p n �� d�rz ;a x30-- - " t .z - EN' � 690
.r' �� "KNI�j , f ob h {.�s�`A;- 1 talcs" Pc�� 3t, a, x4� zs ni ti, '�'r „i �•�•ai_.�'Cw,�TMn�a �y'g,
�V)'pnYe,E��3"��D�On"NOn<�°
��^7����r',�-M.1 {°^§'� y}�E ry �x" }—t..^-,��br. 5,.x�+ a�� E Cf y^t+•,,, K� w.t '�"{�`s a k`. ti
W 660. -660
v
a;
630 1 Franciscan Complex Gieenstone (Kjfg) r 630
600 I , , r 600
Distance in Feet
1 LEGEND
B_1 Approximate Location of Soil Boring by Murray Engineers, Inc., dated January 25, 2010, March 9, 2010, or March 10, 2010
1 Approximate Location of Soil Boring by BAGG Engineers, dated April 14, 2005
BEB-1
-- Approximate Geologic Contact, e) Queried, Where Uncertain
liVery Approximate Location of Fault Plane - Arrow Indicates Direction of Movement
? Base: Topographic Survey by Guiliani & Kull, Inc_, dated March 21, 2008
Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 30 feet (horizontal = vertical)