Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1Item 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS December 2, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 8,086 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 1,321 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE, AND 1,929 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND DECKING; LANDS OF PEARSON; 26301 SILENT HILLS LANE; FILE #60-10-ZP-SD-GD. CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 PLANNING COMMISISON MEETING. FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner F�F7 APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director <p 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 # 1. BACKGROUND At the September 2, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission continued the project. The applicant was directed to research and disclose ownership of Silent Hills Lane in order to resolve the pathway recommendation. The applicant has since requested that the City Attorney look into the matter. The City Attorney has concluded that the applicant has the right to access Silent Hills Lane. The Attorney also concluded that the three property owners that use Silent Hills Lane have ownership to the centerline of the right-of-way along their respective property frontages. The Attorney's findings are included in a memo (Attachment 3). The Pathway Committee's original recommendation can be implemented without involving third parties. The Committee's recommendation along Silent Hills Lane is for the applicant to dedicate the half width for public use and install a native pathway adjacent to the roadway. Building and wall color and materials were also discussed at the September 2, 2010 meeting. Condition #15 has been added limiting retaining wall and building walls to a reflectivity value of 50 or less and roofing materials to a reflectivity value of 40 or less. The applicant and the property owner 26410 Silent Hills Lane have expressed opposition to granting access to the public or any pathways along Silent Hills Lane. The neighbor's letter of opposition was included in the September 2, 2010 staff report. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 2 Please see the September 2, 2010 staff report for the applicant and neighbor letters along with additional project information and facts (Attachment 6). Town Committee's Review Article 6 of the Site Development Ordinance requires easement dedications, pathway installations, or payment of in -lieu fees in conjunction with New Residence or Major Addition projects. The Pathways Committee heard the item a second time on September 27, 2010 and decided not to change its original recommendation. The subject property has right-of-way frontage on three sides and the Committee's recommendation includes a combination of easements and pathway installations: 1. Dedicate an easement where needed along Altamont Road. 2. Install a Type IIB pathway along Altamont Road. 3. Install a native pathway along Altamont Lane. This may require vegetation clearance and removal. 4. Dedicate an easement to allow public use of Silent Hills Lane over the half -width portions owned by the applicant. 5. Install a native pathway along Silent Hills Lane adjacent to the roadway. The Silent Hills Lane easement and pathway installation is the point of contention for the applicant and neighboring property owner. The Silent Hills Lane portion is recommended in accordance with General Plan Policy 2.41 and completes a connection from Eshner Court through to Altamont Lane via an existing off-road pathway. 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. City Attorney Memo October 18, 2010 4. Pathways Committee minutes from meeting on September 27, 2010 5. Planning Commission meeting minutes September 2, 2010 6. Planning Commission staff report September 2, 2010 7. Proposed development plans (Commission only) I Policy 2.4 Typically, a roadside path shall not be maintained on a cul-de-sac that serves or could serve eight or fewer lots. However, a roadside path along a cul-de-sac may be required by the Planning Commission or Council for topographic or safety reasons, and shall be required where it would connect to an off-road path. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND SWIMMING POOL LANDS OF PEARSON, 26301 SILENT HILLS LANE File # 60-10-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 Site Development Coommittee. 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 public 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 $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the required plantings remain viable. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 4 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 56' from the front property line and 42' from the sides and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the approved Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection and prior to final inspection. 6. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence complies with the structure height shown on the approved plans, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the building pad, 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. 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. Per Section 10-1.504 (a), all portions of the sloping roof structures on the primary residence shall be increased to a 4:12 roof pitch minimum. Please provide three final complete plan sets of architectural plans showing this change, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 5 11. No new fencing, nonretaining walls or gates are approved. Any new fencing, walls or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department, prior to installation. 12. At the time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance: a. A GreenPoint rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. 13. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified professional as for the scoring system used (GreenPoint Rater or a LEED AP) shall provide documentation to the Planning Department verifying that the building was constructed in compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED° certification. 14. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. 15. The Exterior finish colors for the new residence and retaining walls shall be chosen by the applicant and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less, per manufacturer specifications, and be an earth tone color to blend in with the natural surroundings. Roof materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less, per manufacturer specifications. All color and materials samples shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior to final inspection. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 6 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 16. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their letter dated July 27, 2010, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geologic and geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechriical 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. 17. Peak discharge at 26301 Silent Hills Lane, as a result of Site Development Permit 60-10, 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. The final Site Development Plan shall show the locations of proposed type 2B Planning Commission Lands of Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 7 pathway along Altamont Road and native pathway along Altamont Lane and Silent Hills Lane. Prior to final inspection, a letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the site grading and storm drainage improvements were constructed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations. 18. The property owner shall remove the existing chain link fence in the public right-of-way, prior to final inspection. 19. 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. 20. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. 21. 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. 22. 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 Silent Hills Lane, Altamont Lane, and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 8 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer connection permit shall be - required by the Town's Public Works Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 26. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement adjacent to Altamont Road to the Town. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 27. The property owner shall dedicate the Silent Hills Lane right-of-way half width for public pedestrian and equestrian use and install a native pathway in the right-of-way adjacent to the paved roadway. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 28. The property owner shall construct a type 2B pathway along Altamont Road and a native pathway along Altamont Lane and Silent Hills Lane to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department for all work within the public right-of-way, prior to start work. 29. The proposed abandonment of existing storm drain easement, sanitary sewer easement, P.H.W.D.E. and dedication of the new P.H.W.D.E. shall be recorded, prior to acceptance of building permit plan check. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 9 FIRE DEPARTMENT: 30. 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. 31. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minim radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. 32. 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%. 33. 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. 34. 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. CONDITION NUMBERS 10, 12a, 14,15,16a, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 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 December 27, 2010 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 10 NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until December 2, 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 Pearson December 2, 2010 Page 11 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION LANDS OF PEARSON, 26301 SILENT HILLS LANE File # 60-10-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed grading employs a cut building pad and significantly lowers the profile of the residence and reduces overall visible bulk. Cut foundations are "generally preferred" over fill per the Grading Policy. 2. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation that cannot be effectively mitigated. 3. The proposed grading will not increase the quantity of runoff or the alteration of existing drainage patterns. 4. The proposed area of grading is not on a ridgeline and will not result in a substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain. The property's existing contours and basic landform are retained. 5. The proposed grading will not result in the placement of retaining walls that are highly visible from off-site. Attachment 3 575 Market Street, Suite 2600 Brian F. Crossman San Francisco, California 94105 Attorney at Law tel 415.421.3711 bcrossman@meyersnave.com fax 415.421.3767 www.meyersnave.com meyersinave MEMORANDUM Via E-mail ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL DATE: October 18, 2010 TO: Brian Froelich, Associate Planner FROM: Brian F. Crossman RE: Lands of Pearson — Ownership and Pathway Issues Issues (1) Does the applicant for a new two-story residence at 26301 Silent Hills Lane own any portion of the Silent Hills Lane right-of-way? (2) Does the applicant have a right to access the 26301 Silent Hills Lane property from Silent Hills Lane? (3) May the applicant grant a pathway easement within the Silent Hills Lane right-of-way? Brief Answers (1) The applicant's ownership likely extends to the center line of Silent Hills Lane, though it is possible that the deed or other evidence that has not been made available for review could refute this conclusion. (2) Yes. Notwithstanding the ownership issue, the applicant would at the very least have access rights pursuant to a 1996 Road Maintenance and Reciprocal Easement Agreement. (3) Most likely. Provided that the pathway easement would not unreasonably interfere with the right-of-way or other existing easements, the presence of the existing easements would not prohibit the applicant from granting a pathway easement within the right-of-way. CONFIDENTIAL: This material is subject to the attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges. Do not disclose the contents hereof. Do not file with publicly accessible records. A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO To: Brian Froelich From: Brian F. Crossman Re: Lands of Pearson — Ownership and Pathway Issues Date: October 18, 2010 Page: 2 Background The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story residence at 26301 Silent Hills Lane in the Town of Los Altos Hills. The Town's Pathways Committee has recommended a condition of approval that would require dedication of a 10 ft. wide pathway easement and construction of a pathway within the Silent Hills Lane right-of-way. The applicant has asserted that ownership of the Silent Hills Lane right-of-way has reverted to the original subdivider, and that because the applicant's property terminates at the edge of the right-of- way, the applicant cannot dedicate an easement within the right-of-way. Silent Hills Lane was created and offered to the Town as part of the Lands of Eshner Parcel Map, filed for record on April 1, 1991 in Book 625 of Maps, Pages 4 through 6 ("Lands of Eshner Parcel Map"). The City Council, however, rejected the offer of dedication of Silent Hills Lane (City Clerk's Statement, Lands of Eshner Parcel Map). Subsequently, a road maintenance and reciprocal easement agreement was executed and recorded by the property owners in the Eshner subdivision, which granted each owner a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over Silent Hills Lane. It is not clear exactly when the applicant acquired the property, as the applicant has not produced a deed. Discussion Ownersbip of Silent Hills Lane Under California law, there is a rebuttable presumption that when a grantor conveys a lot that he or she created pursuant to a recorded subdivision or parcel map, and that lot is bordered by a street, the boundary line of the property conveyed is the center line of the street, not the side line of the street. (See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code, § 831; Murray v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 248; Faus v. Nelson (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 320; Pinsky v. Sloat (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 579; Anderson P. Citizens' Savings dam' Trust Co. (1921) 185 Cal. 386.) This presumption is generally given substantial weight by the courts, though it can be overcome when the deed conveying the property, or other evidence, clearly demonstrates that the parties had a different intention. (See, e.g., Speer v. Blasker (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 155; City of Redlands v. Nickerson (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 118.) Generally, reference to a recorded map, even if the map appears to show property lines at the edge (rather than centerline of streets) is not sufficient to overcome the presumption. .(See, e.g., Pinsky, supra, 130 Cal.App.2d 579; Allan v. City and County of San Francisco (1936) 7 Cal.2d 642.) Here, based on the information that has been provided for review, including a title report, the Lands of Eshner Parcel Map, and road maintenance agreement, it is not likely that there is sufficient evidence to overcome the general presumption. The applicant has not provided, CONFIDENTIAL: This material is subject to the attorney-client andlor attorney work product privileges. Do not disclose the contents hereof. Do not file with publicly accessible records. A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO To: Brian Froelich From: Brian F. Crossman Re: Lands of Pearson — Ownership and Pathway Issues Date: October 18, 2010 Page: 3 and staff has not seen, any deeds for the subject property that could be helpful to determine whether the parties intended the property line of the subject property to extend to the center line of Silent Hills Lane, or to the edge of the right-of-way. Absent such evidence, the property line presumably extends to the centerline of Silent Hills Lane, and accordingly, the applicant owns fee title to the centerline, subject to the right-of-way and any other easements on the property. Access on Silent Hills Lane Given the conclusion that the applicant's property extends to the centerline of Silent Hills Lane, the applicant has aright of access to and from Silent Hills Lane. This conclusion is further confirmed by the recorded 1996 Road Maintenance and Reciprocal Easement Agreement, which grants the owners of all three parcels in the Lands of Eshner subdivision, a "non-exclusive easement ... for the purposes of ingress and egress for a roadway known as Silent Hills Lane." The Road Maintenance and Reciprocal Easement Agreement expressly applies to the parties' successors and assigns; accordingly, the applicant acquired the property in question subject to the rights and obligations of the agreement. The applicant, therefore, has access rights on Silent Hills Lane. Pathway Easement within the Silent Hills Lane Right -of -Way The fee title owner of property subject to a non-exclusive easement may continue to use the property within the easement in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the non-exclusive easement, including granting an additional easement. (City of Pasadena v. California Michigan Land and Water Co. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 576, 579.) Accordingly, provided that the proposed pathway easement would not unreasonably interfere with existing right-of-way or utility easements in the right-of-way, the applicant would not be prohibited from granting a pathway easement within the right-of-way area. Conclusion Based on the information that has been made available for review, the applicant's property likely extends to the centerline of Silent Hills Lane, though this presumption could be overcome if the deed for the property or other evidence not provided, demonstrates a clear intention to the contrary. Regardless, pursuant to the 1996 Road Maintenance Agreement and Reciprocal Easement Agreement, the applicant does have a right of access on Silent Hills Lane. Assuming the applicant's property extends to the centerline of the right-of-way, the applicant could grant a pathway easement with in the right-of-way, as long as the pathway easement did not unreasonably interfere with existing easements. BFC:bfc 1536139.1 CONFIDENTIAL: This material is subject to the attorney-client andlor attorney work product privileges. Do not disclose the contents hereof. Do not file with publicly accessible records. A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO Attachment 4 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee Minutes of Meeting September 27, 2010 1. ADMINISTRATIVE Eileen Gibbons called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM Members present: Ann Duwe, Courtenay Corrigan, Nick Dunckel, Bob Stutz, Sue Welch, and Denise Williams Members absent: Tim Warner LAH Council Members present: Breene Kerr Members of the public present: Brian Macknick, 27608 Vogue Court John Radford, candidate for LAH City Council Brian Aced, architect/designer for 12875 Lucero Lane Mike Gencarella, owner 12875 Lucero Lane The agenda was approved as published 2. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR O 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Property Reviews. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: 12875 Lucero Lane (Lands of Gencarella) The reason for pathway review is a remodel. The homeowner, Mike Gencarella, and the architect/ designer, Brian Aced, were present. The property is at the corner of Lucero Lane (a private road) and Natoma Road with frontage on both streets. Lucero is a cul-de-sac with five residences and has no roadside pathways. An off-road path exits the end of Lucero, but the property owner there has apparently blocked that pathway with landscaping. A IIB roadside path in good condition runs along Natoma Road on the side opposite this property and continues on adjacent properties. The property slopes up steeply from Natoma and construction of a roadside pathway would likely require low retaining walls. Natoma is not on the list of streets for which roadside paths on both sides are recommended (i.e., it is a "one-sided" street). The consensus was that roadside paths are not required on Natoma or Lucero. However, because Lucero is a private road, the Town should request pedestrian/equestrian access in the road right-of-way if it does not already exist. Nick Dunckel moved that the PWC recommend the Town request a pathway in -lieu fee from the owners of 12875 Lucero Lane unless staff finds there is no pedestrian right- of-way on Lucero to provide access to the existing pathway at the end of Lucero. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. ii. Address adjacent to 23525 Ravensbury Road (Lands of Gardener). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The lot under review, formed by subdivision of 23525 Ravensbury, does not yet have a street number. It is an L-shaped parcel on the southwest side of 23525 Ravensbury and has frontage on both Ravensbury PWC -Min -092710 11/22/10 and Berkshire Drive. The parcel is flat along Ravensbury, but drops off steeply from Berkshire. The entrance to Toyonita Road is directly across the street from the parcel. Toyonita, which provides a pedestrian/ equestrian "shortcut' to another part of Ravensbury, will be added to the Master Path Plan. The PWC discussed at length the pros and cons of establishing roadside pathways on Ravensbury. Although the steep topography precludes roadside paths in many locations, many members thought it was of value to provide paths where possible for safety. Concerns about use of pathways for parking for the nearby Rancho San Antonio Open Space were also discussed. Ann Duwe moved that the Town require a IIB roadside pathway along Ravensbury on this property adjacent to 23525 Ravensbury Road. Nick Dunckel seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. 4. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of 26301 Silent Hills Lane (Lands of Pearson). This property was reviewed by the PWC on April 26, 2010 and the recommendation at that time was for the owners to create 1) an easement and a 2B path in continuation of the 2B path along Altamont Road outside the road right-of-way to Altamont Court separated from the roadside in a manner similar to the existing path; and 2) a native path to serve equestrians in the roadside right- of-ways of Altamont Court and Silent Hills Lane, with the path on Altamont Court to be located between the existing chain link fence and the property boundary. The second of these recommendations was made to assure a connection from Altamont Court to the existing off-road pathway at the end of Silent Hills Lane. The owners have requested that the PWC review their recommendation. The architect, Maurice Camargo was present representing the owners. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and found the ownership of Silent Hills Lane (a private road) needs to be clarified in order for the path to be placed in the road right of way. Mr. Camargo reported that the owners do not want the pathway on their property. After lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of a this specific recommendation, the value of providing a connection to the existing off-road path, the uncertainty about ownership of the road, and the rights and obligations of private road owners regarding public access, it was determined that no further action by the committee was needed. B. Discussions of Pathway Activities with Town Staff. Chair Eileen Gibbons updated the committee on various projects, including: 1. Moody Road Roadside Paths. Discussions are underway between Town staff and the county to determine ownership of various sections of Moody Road. A formal hearing with residents will be scheduled once ownership is determined and the roles of the city and the country are better defined. 2. Robleda from Beatrice to Fremont. Town staff is working with several contractors to try to find a solution for this problem area. C. Non -Slip Driveway Surfaces for Equestrians. Ann Duwe distributed a draft of an item for the Town newsletter encouraging residents to provide a non -slip surface where pathways cross their driveways. The article suggested several methods of roughing up the surface to make it safer for horses and provided cost estimates based on information from several contractors. D. Recruitment of New PWC Members. Chair Eileen Gibbons will ask City Clerk, Karen Jost to post a notice for the openings on the committee. PWC -Min -092710 11/22/10 2 E. Report on VTA Meetings. Mayor Breene Kerr reported an October 11 deadline for submission of proposals for grants from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The goal of the projects is to provide safer routes to schools. The LAH City Council has approved funds for an initial study to support a grant application to construct bike paths along Fremont from Edith Park to Arastradero Road. An outside contractor has been hired and the proposal is scheduled to be ready for the next application deadline. Mayor Kerr also suggested that the PWC consider adding a project in the next fiscal year to improve the pathway/ bike path running up the median strip on El Monte from Foothill College to Summerhill. F. Reports from people who attended other meetings. Chair Eileen Gibbons reported that the City Council has accepted on behalf of the Town Jim Bliss's book, "One Hour Hikes in Los Altos Hills". They asked Town staff and the Town attorney to help determine how the book can be printed and sold. It was suggested that a disclaimer be added similar to the one on the Town Walking Map that is distributed to the public. Chair Eileen Gibbons will create a draft to Staff for review. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the August 23, 2010 meeting were approved as amended. Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM. 5. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS Next pathway walk: Saturday, October 23, 2010 at 8:30 AM at Town Hall Next regular meeting: Monday, October 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall Respectfully submitted, Sue Welch October 10, 2010 Minor corrections from the committee review on Sept 27, 2010 made by Eileen Gibbons PWC -Min -092710 11/22/10 Attachment 5 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 10/7/2010 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, September 2, 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 Abraham and Commissioners: Clow, Collins, and Partridge. Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner; and Victoria Ortland, Planning Secretary. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR - None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioners Clow, Collins, and Partridge had spoken with Nobuko Cleary (Item 3.1). Chairman Abraham had spoken to the Mark Pearson and Gary and Nobuko Cleary (Item 3.1). 3.1. LANDS OF PEARSON, 26301 Silent Hills Lane; File #60-10-ZP-SD-GD; A ON+ request for a Site Development Permit for an 8,086 sq. ft. two-story new residence (maximum height: 31 feet), a 1,321 sq. ft. detached garage, and 1,929 sq. ft. swimming pool. The applicant is requesting a Grading Policy exception for cut of up to 14 feet and fill of up to five (5) feet for the house and yard. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 a & e (staff -Brian Froelich). Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for the proposed new two-story residence, swimming pool, and Grading Policy exception for the 2.14 -acre parcel with a 16.7 percent slope. Two developed properties on Silent Hills Lane share the private right-of-way with the project site. Constraints exist for siting the residence because fault traces run through the property and create human habitation setback requirements. Grading Policy exceptions for up to 14 feet of cut are requested to lower the structure and reduce visible bulk. The Pathways Committee recommendation included installation of a Type IIB pathway along Altamont Road (public) to continue an existing path and installation of a native pathway along Altamont Lane (public) and Silent Hills Lane (private). The applicant's property does not extend to the center of Silent Hills Lane, which presents the question about road ownership and rights of access. Because the applicant does not own a portion of the road, a ten -foot wide pathway easement inside the property, located partially over a sloped area, would be an alternative. The recommended condition of approval number 26 gave the applicant opportunity to prove ownership over Silent Hills Lane or dedicate a pathway easement inside the property line. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/7/2010 September 2, 2010 Page 2 Commissioner Clow asked staff who owned Silent Hills Lane. Staff said it most likely Julie Eshner, the original property owner, as there does not appear to be record of conveyance to another party. Chairman Abraham said that there was an existing pathway in use along the Perrell's property line and Silent Hills Lane was also used as a path. Also, why was a pathway on Silent Hills Lane necessary when there was an existing pathway along Altamont Road? Staff stated that as a private road, Silent Hills Lane does not have a public right of access. Kurt Anderson, architect, explained the scope of the project including the constraints created by the view easement, sewer and water easement, utility easement, pathway easement and the fault lines. The Grading Policy exceptions were requested for placement of the detached garage, dictated by the seismic issues, and to lower the house to reduce the visual mass. Maurice Camargo, architect, said the house will exceed Title 24 standards by 15 percent. Kurt Anderson stated that because of the steep slope in the requested 10 -foot pathway easement, installation of the pathway along Silent Hills Lane would be difficult, costly, and require large retaining walls. The pathway would also affect the applicant's privacy. The adjacent neighbors do not support the recommendation for a pathway on Silent Hills Lane. He requested approval of the application with the deletion of condition of approval number 26 and modification of number 16. 'The applicant was not in support of the pathways easements for Silent Hills Lane or Altamont Lane. Maurice Camargo questioned how the Town would perform maintenance on a pathway along Silent Hills Lane if the road was privately held. Commissioner Clow asked the applicant if he knew who owned Silent Hills Lane. Mark Pearson, applicant, said he did not know who held ownership of the road. Nobuko Cleary, Silent Hills Lane, strongly opposed the recommended pathway along Silent Hills Lane, because it is a private road. The pathway would destroy the view from the front of her property and entrance from Silent Hills Lane. There is an existing pathway along Altamont Road at the back of her property and a pathway along the side property line shared with the Perrells. She requested no changes to the existing conservation easement. Commissioner Clow asked if Nobuko Cleary knew who owned Silent Hills Lane. Nobuko Cleary believed that Silent Hills Lane belonged to the three property owners on the road. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/7/2010 September 2, 2010 Page 3 Gary Cleary, Silent Hills Lane, thought that the three property owners on the road (Cleary, Perrell, and Pearson) held ownership of Silent Hills Lane. He felt that Silent Hills Lane was already a good path to use and could see no reason to install a new pathway. Eileen Gibbons, Pathways Committee Chairman, emphasized that the Pathways Committee did not want to build the pathway on the steep area of Pearson's property but preferred the flat area beside the roadway. But because Silent Hills Lane is a private road, there is no way to create an easement to walk across without trespassing. The Committee thought the applicant's property line went to the center of Silent Hills Lane, so the pathway could be installed on the roadside. Although in use currently, the private road could, in the future, be restricted from public access. Chairman Abraham did not feel that the pathway along Silent Hills Lane was needed because of the existing pathway along Altamont Road. Nick Dunckel, Pathways Committee, said that Silent Hills Lane is a cul-de-sac that will service three driveways when the Pearson's driveway is completed. A roadside pathway is required on cul-de-sac when connecting to an off-road pathway. As a private road, Silent Hills Lane has no guarantee for future public use. Kurt Anderson again requested that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project with deletion of condition of approval number 26 and modification of condition of approval 16. Commissioner Partridge asked if the lower roof pitch of the proposed residence meet Town requirements. Staff explained that due to the increased height of the structure (31') a 4:12 roof pitch was required. Chairman Abraham had concerns about the reflectivity of the roofing material and requested restriction of the reflectivity value of the completed roof to no more than 40. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow supported the project, Grading Policy exception, and pathways easement. Safety issues warrant. the need for pathways along both public and private roads. The location for the proposed pathway, as described in condition of approval number 26, is undesirable. Determining ownership of Silent Hills Lane would facilitate granting of an easement for placement of the public pathway along the roadside to allow people to legally walk on the path that connects to Eshner Court. Commissioner Partridge supported the project and felt there was value in connecting the existing off-road path leading from Eshner Court to the proposed path on Silent Hills Lane. He could support a five-foot wide pathway easement on the Pearson's property, although locating a ten - foot wide pathway easement in the road right of way should be encouraged. If the Town would take ownership of Silent Hills Lane, the roads' legal status and issue of trespassing would be resolved. Confirmation of the legal owners of Silent Hills Lane should be included as part of the Site Development Permit. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/7/2010 September 2, 2010 Page 4 Commissioner Collins supported the project and Grading Policy exception. The Grading Policy exception allowed the profile of the house to be lowered into the hill. She did not support the request for a pathways easement. She believed the pathways system was an asset to Los Altos Hills; however, there seemed no reason to require an easement along Silent Hills Lane. Her lack of support for the easement was fostered by the Pearson's property boundary not extending to the center of the road, the question of road ownership, the number of existing pathways affecting the parcel, and neighborhood opposition to the pathway. Chairman Abraham supported the project and Grading Policy exception. The existing pathway on Altamont Road was adequate and people already used Silent Hills Lane for passage; therefore, no pathway easement was needed on Silent Hills Lane. He said the official Pathways Map from 2005 shows no markings for pathways on Silent Hills Lane. Staff clarified that in 2005 the City Council had approved the off-road Pathways Map that did not include any on -road pathways. That map documented the removal of the easement from the Perrell property as well as maintaining the connection from Eshner Court to Silent Hills Lane. General Plan Policy 2.4 addresses roadside paths on cul-de-sacs and according to the Municipal Code's definition, Silent Hills Lane is considered a cul-de-sac. General Plan Policy 2.4 requires a roadside path where it would connect to an off-road path. REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING Kurt Anderson proposed installation of the pathways along Altamont Road and Altamont Lane but not on Silent Hills Lane. The three homeowners on Silent Hills Lane would continue to allow people to walk on the road. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Partridge suggested continuing the project until the next Planning Commission meeting and the question of the road ownership resolved. Kurt Anderson stated again that the applicant does not want a pathway easement on their property along Silent Hills Lane. Staff said that the applicant could be directed to attempt clarification of ownership of Silent Hills Lane since there was an established maintenance agreement. Commissioner Partridge said that the statement confirming the applicant's opposition to a pathway easement on Silent Hills Lane contradicts the offer to allow people to walk on the road. Chairman Abraham felt that the applicant alone could not grant the easement until ownership of the road was known. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/7/2010 September 2, 2010 Page 5 Mark Helton, Civil Engineer, explained the division of the original owner's (Julie Eshner) property into the three Silent Hills Lane parcels. At the time Los Altos Hills rejected Silent Hills Lane, the title went back to the original owner. The Town could accept the road and abandon it to the three current property owners on Silent Hills Lane and the pathways easement could be dedicated to the Town. Mark Pearson, applicant, did not understand why a pathways easement would be required on his property when people already use Silent Hills Lane. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Partridge to continue the Site Development Permit application to a future Planning Commission meeting with direction to the applicant to research the ownership of Silent Hills Lane and develop a proposal that would allow the project to be approved as a whole. AYES: Commissioners: Clow, Collins, Partridge, and Chairman Abraham NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Harpootlian This item will be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. 3.2 Amendments to the Zoning and Site Development Codes to include the Fast Track Guide and checklist as part of the Fast Track Process (Section 10-2.1305.1) and remove the term "Design Guidelines" in Sections 10-1.502, 10-1.503, 10- 1.504, 10-1.505, and 10-2.1305. Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report explaining that on July 15, 2010, the City Council voted to adopt the Fast Track Guide for New Residences. Several of the existing Municipal Code Sections must be amended to include the Fast Track Guide and checklist into the Municipal Code. The term, Design Guidelines, must be removed from the Municipal Code because it is no longer applicable. Commissioner Partridge confirmed addition of the word "or" to Code Section 10-2.1305.1. Commissioner Clow felt that the definition of the checklist point system should be included earlier in the table and the 15 to 21 point option to redesign should be explained more clearly on the table. Staff explained that these minor items could be accommodated administratively because the context of the document remained unchanged. Commissioner Clow said that there was a change in the process, with the checklist point system, for neighbor opposition and the opportunity for a project to be heard before the Planning Commission. Attachment 6 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 2, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 8,086 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 1,321 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE, AND 1,929 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL AND DECKING; LANDS OF PEARSON; 26301 SILENT HILLS LANE; FILE #60-10-ZP-SD-GD. FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate PlanneL� APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director W 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 # 1. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the east side of Silent Hills Lane. The peninsula type lot has frontage on three roadways, Silent Hills Lane, Altamont Lane, and, -.Altamont Road. The property has a net size of 2.14 acres and an average slope of 16.7%. The site is undeveloped and was previously used as a walnut orchard. The subject lot was created in 1991 with the Eshner Subdivision and was later increased in size with a Lot line Adjustment in 1999. The adjacent roadways are public roads except for Silent Hills Lane, which is a private road. The applicant requests a Grading Policy exception for additional cut for the primary dwelling, detached garage, and portions of the yard and driveway area adjacent to the structures. The site is constrained by two Berrocal Fault traces that were discovered by the project geotechnical consultant, Steven F. Connelly. Both fault traces traverse the site through the primary building areas (inside setbacks) and limit the building siting options. CODE REQUIREMENTS This application is not eligible for the Fast -Track process per section 10-2.1305.1(a) (3), because the applicant requests a Grading Policy Exception. The Planning Commission has authority to allow Grading Policy Exceptions on individual projects. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 2 DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 2.14 acres Net Lot Area: 2.14 acres Average Slope: 16.7% Lot Unit Factor: 1.833 Area Maximum Proposed Existing Development 22,890 21,158 0 Floor 10,384 10,129 0 Site and Architecture Increase Left 21,158 1,732 10,129 255 The 2.14 acre site has a 16.7% slope that descends from the northwest corner to the southeast corner. The design of the proposed residence utilizes most of the allowable floor area and development area. The proposed site layout includes the primary building, detached garage, driveway plan, decking and swimming pool. The exterior building materials include stained cedar shingle siding with a metal roof. The main entrance to the residence will be on the second level, which is at similar elevation to the detached garage. The building design utilizes the increased setback and height provisions of Section 10-1.504 (a). The maximum proposed structure height is 31 feet. The two-story facades are visible primarily from the north and east sides (from downhill) and the structure shows a one story fagade when viewed from uphill. The proposed residence complies with floor area, development area, setbacks, and height standards per Title 10 of the Municipal Code. Driveway & Parking The proposed driveway will enter from Silent Hills Lane. The subject property shares the right of access with two other lots that use the private roadway. The driveway incorporates one (1) surface parking space and a firetruck turnaround. The detached garage includes three (3) covered parking spaces. Outdoor Limiting 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 stairways or 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 is required to submit outdoor landscape lighting details with the required landscape screening plan. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 3 Grading The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has determined that the proposal does not comply with the Grading Policy but has forwarded conditions of approval if the Planning Commission approves the project. Grading quantities include: 4,427 cubic yards of cut 157 cubic yards of fill 4,270 cubic yards export The proposed Grading Policy Exception includes the following three areas: 14 feet cut for the dwelling and 10 feet cut for rear yard -The cut depth accommodates the lower level of the primary residence. Initially the project was designed to incorporate a daylighted basement into the design that would have allowed this excavation depth. The basement design did not meet all requirements of the Basement Ordinance Section 10-1.208 thus the primary dwelling cut limitation is eight (8) feet. All portions of the lower floor are included in the Floor Area total. The resulting cut for the lower level of the residence necessitates a transitional cut for the rear yard of up to 10 feet in order to exit the building at grade. • 9 feet cut for the detached garage -The recommended fault setbacks limit the options for habitable building siting on the subject property. The applicant chose to propose a detached garage in order to physically separate the habitable structures and nonhabitable structures allowing more flexibility with building siting. The garage is proposed at a distance of nine (9) feet from the primary residence. If the garage were attached to the residence, it would be allowed eight (8) feet of cut. Accessory buildings are allowed four (4) feet of cut. • 5 feet fill for corner of room and walkway -The lower level of the primary dwelling has a triangular area of approximately 150 square feet where the finished floor elevation will exceed three (3) feet above the existing grade. The lower floor will be a slab on grade and the area would result in up to five (5) feet of fill where three (3) feet is the maximum allowed. The additional cut allows the building pad to be lowered, which is "generally preferred" per the Grading Policy. The design significantly reduces the visible bulk of the building when viewed from uphill. The additional cut proposed for the residence directly results in less of the building being visible from the nearest neighboring properties. The additional garage cut allows the garage, driveway, and residence to be set at a similar, lowered elevation. Also, the- applicant prefers a detached garage because of the site's geotechnical limitations. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 4 Drainage The drainage design directs water into catch basins and area drains conveyed into 6" pipes that connect to an underground drainage basin. If the basin fills to maximum capacity, overflow water is conveyed to an energy dissipater. The drainage calculations demonstrate that the post development runoff will not exceed the predevelopment totals. Geotechnical Review The applicant's geotechnical consultants, Steven F. Connelly and Milstone Geotechnical have submitted fault investigation and geotechnical investigation reports. The reports were peer reviewed by the Town's geotechnical consultant, Cotton and Shires Associates (Attachment #4). The fault investigation identifies multiple surficial Berrocal fault traces through the site. The consultant recommends a 40 foot habitable setback from the active fault traces on the east side of the proposed residence and a 20 foot habitable setback from the fault trace on the west side of the proposed residence. The geotechnical investigation includes recommendations for foundations, retaining walls, site drainage, and grading. Cotton and Shires Associates notes that the applicant should consider relocation of the swimming pool and decking but otherwise concurs with the recommendations and findings in both reports and have issued standard conditions of approval (Conditions #14 a & b). Trees & Landscaping The site was formerly an orchard and contains approximately 50 walnut, pepper, and other fruit trees. There are no heritage oak trees on the site. The grading plan proposes removal of 21 of the trees to accommodate the project. Green Building Ordinance The applicant has submitted a GreenPoint checklist in compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance. The building is designed to achieve 73 points in the GreenPoint Rated certification program. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has required that the building be sprinklered and that the driveway accommodate a standard. Fire Truck Turnaround. The site plan shows the location of a conforming Fire Truck Turnaround. Sanitation The site will be connected to the Los Altos basin sewer. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 5 Town Committee's Review The Pathways Committee has recommended (3-2 vote) that a native roadside path to be installed within the right-of-way along Altamont Lane and Silent Hills Lane. Also, the recommendation includes an easement dedication and continuation of a type IIB pathway along Altamont Road. Silent Hills Lane is a private road and the subject property's legal description does not include any portion of Silent Hills Lane. Ownership of the Silent Hills Lane right-of-way is not immediately clear. In order to make the Committee's recommendation feasible, condition #26 allows the owner the option to dedicate an easement on the private property side of the property line or to prove ownership of the Silent Hills Lane right-of-way and dedicate that area for public pedestrian and equestrian use. The neighbor at 26410 Silent Hills Lane has written a letter in opposition to the recommended pathway on Silent Hills Lane. The letter notes that Silent Hills Lane is a private road and that a pathway was not intended to be there. (Attachment #9) The applicant has also written a letter to in opposition of the Silent Hills Lane pathway. (Attachment #8) The Environmental Design and Protection Committee was supportive of the project. 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 Letters, April 30, 2010 and July 27, 2010 5. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, May 4, 2010 6. Pathways Committee minutes from meeting on April 26, 2010 7. Fire Department Comments, April 21, 2010 8. Letter from Applicant, received August 26, 2010 9. Letter from Neighbor, received August 23, 2010 10. Proposed development plans (Commission only) Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 6 0-NAt91 IITIVem RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND SWIMMING POOL LANDS OF PEARSON, 26301 SILENT HILLS LANE File # 60-10-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 Site Development Authority. 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 public 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 $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the required plantings remain viable. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 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 56' from the front property line and 42' from the sides and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the approved Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection and prior to final inspection. 6. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence complies with the structure height shown on the approved plans, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the building pad, 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. 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. Per Section 10-1.504 (a), all portions of the sloping roof structures on the primary residence shall be increased to a 4:12 roof pitch minimum. Please provide three final complete plan sets of architectural plans showing this change, prior to acceptance- of plans for building plan check. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 8 11. No new fencing, nonretaining walls or gates are approved. Any new fencing, walls or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department, prior to installation. 12. At the time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance: a. A GreenPoint rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. 13. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified professional as for the scoring system used (GreenPoint Rater or a LEED AP) shall provide documentation to the Planning Department verifying that the building was constructed in compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED® certification. 14. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. 15. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their letter dated July 27, 2010, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geologic and geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 9 preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection. 16. Peak discharge at 26301 Silent Hills Lane, as a result of Site Development Permit 60-10, 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. The final Site Development Plan shall show the locations of proposed type 2B pathway along Altamont Road and native pathway along Altamont Lane and Silent Hills Lane. Prior to final inspection, a letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the site grading and storm drainage improvements were constructed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations. 17. The property owner shall remove the existing chain link fence in the public right-of-way, prior to final inspection. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 10 18. 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. 19. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. 20. 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. 21. 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 Silent Hills Lane, Altamont Lane, and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 22. 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. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 11 23. 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. 24. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer connection permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 25. The property. owner shall dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement adjacent to Altamont Road to the Town. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that' are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication. document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 26. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement adjacent to Silent Hills Lane The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town. Alternatively, if the property owner can demonstrate ownership to the centerline of the Silent Hills Lane right-of-way, the owner may dedicate the right-of-way half width for public pedestrian and equestrian use and install the native pathway in the right-of-way. In either case this condition shall be satisfied, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 27. The property owner shall construct a type 2B pathway along Altamont Road and a native pathway along Altamont Lane and Silent Hills Lane to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department for all work within the public right-of-way, prior to start work. 28. The proposed abandonment of existing storm drain easement, sanitary sewer easement, P.H.W.D.E. and dedication of the new P.H.W.D.E. shall be recorded, prior to acceptance of building permit plan check. 29. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 12 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. 30. The applicant shall provide. an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minim radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. 31. 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%. 32. 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. 33. 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. CONDITION NUMBERS 10, 12,14,15a, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 AND 28 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 September 27, 2010 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until September 2, 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 Pearson September 2, 2010 Page 13 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION LANDS OF PEARSON, 26301 SILENT HILLS LANE File # 60-10-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed grading employs a cut building pad and significantly lowers the profile of the residence and reduces overall visible bulk. Cut foundations are "generally preferred" over fill per the Grading Policy. 2. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation that cannot be effectively mitigated. 3. The proposed grading will not increase the quantity of runoff or the alteration of existing drainage patterns. 4. The proposed area of grading is not on a ridgeline and will not result in a substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain. The property's existing contours and basic landform are retained. 5. The proposed grading will not result in the placement of retaining walls that are highly visible from off-site. TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov Code Sections: Planning Commission Lands of Pearson Attachment 3 September 2, 2010 LOSAMS HILLS !- ft4�r CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council — 4/2/97 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. Grading Policy Page 2 Polis : 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, Le., "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 (T) 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. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIA'T'ES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS Planning Commission Lands of Pearson Attachment 4 September 2, 2010 July 27, 2010 L0129A TO: Brian Froelich Associate Planner i5lMvE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road 'JUL 2 8 2010 Los Altos Hills, California.94022 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review TIOVINF PO; AIL 0 ,1SH _q RE: Pearson, New Residence, Pool, and Detached Garage 26301 Silent Hills Lane At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of permit applications for project construction using: • Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Milstone Geotechnical, dated June 21, 2010; • Fault Investigation (report) prepared by Steven F. Connelly, CEG, dated October '6, 2009; • Site Development, Erosion Control, Drainage Plans; and Details (5 sheets, 20 -scale) prepared by Giuliani &,,Kull, Inc., latest date of July 12, 2010; and 4W • Architectural Plans (9 sheets, various scales) prepared by Camargo & Associates, dated January 20, 2009. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to construct a new residence with day -lighting basement, detached garage, and swimming pool. Access to the proposed development is to be provided by a driveway extending from Silent Hills Lane. Project earthwork quantities include 4,427 cubic yards of cut and 157 cubic yards of fill placement. In our previous project geologic and geotechnical peer review (letter dated April 30, 2010), we evaluated the referenced fault investigation. The Project Geologist had identified multiple fault traces at the property and the westernmost fault trace was found to extend through the proposed detached garage. We indicated that the applicant must be willing to accept the potential for damages to the garage that may result from potential movement on the Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 www.cottonshires.com Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 Brian Froelich July 27, 2010 Page 2 L0129A underlying fault trace or this detached structure be relocated. We recommended that floor plans for the garage should clearly illustrate that this building is not suitable for human occupancy. We also recommended that a project geotechnical engineering investigation be completed prior to geotechnical approval of the proposed development layout. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Proposed site construction appears to be primarily constrained by anticipated strong seismic ground shaking, potentially expansive soils, and the close proximity of identified fault traces. Fault traces identified at the property and associated habitable building setback zones are clearly depicted on Figure 2 (1 inch = 40 feet) of the referenced geotechnical investigation. Based on our review of the referenced plans, it appears that the footprint of the residence respects fault setbacks recommended by the Project Geologist. We have concluded that fault locations and habitable building setback lines are eluier not clearly labeled or ziCcilTatciy and completely depicted on referenced architectural and civil project plans. As indicated in our previous project peer review, the proposed detached garage extends over an identified fault trace. No part of this garage structure should be utilized as living space, and the applicant must be willing to accept the risk of future damage to the garage associated with potential movement of the fault trace. Alternatively, other project layouts could be considered to avoid construction over an identified fault trace. Given acceptance of the above by the applicant, we do not have geotechnical objections to the layout or geotechnical design parameters prepared for the proposed project. We recommend that the followings conditions be attached to project geotechnical approval: 1. Geologic and Geotechnical Plan Review - The Project Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer should review and approve all geologic and 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 reviews should be summarized by the Project Geolob;.st and Geotecluica rng:--neer and submitted to the Town Engineer for review along with other documents for building permit plan -check. 2. Geologic and 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. Major project excavations should also be inspected by the Project Engineering Geologist to confirm anticipated geologic conditions. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian Froelich July 27, 2010 Page 3 L0129A 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 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 accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. COTTON, BRIDES AND ASSOCIA'T'ES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS April 30, 2010 L0129 TO: Brian Froelich Associate Planner MAY 4 3 201-5 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road TOWN of Los ALTOS HILLS Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Pearson, New Residence, Pool, and Detached Garage 26301 Silent Hills Lane At your request, we have completed a preliminary geologic and geotechnical peer review of permit applications for project construction using: • Fault Investigation (report) prepared by Steven F. Connelly, CEG, dated October 6,'2609; • Architectural Plans (9 sheets, various scales) prepared by Camargo & Associates, dated January 20, 2009; and • Site Development and Drainage Plans (3 sheets, 20 -scale) prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc., latest date of April 5, 2010. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files and completed a site inspection during the advancement of fault exploration trenches. DISCUSSION We understand that the applicant is proposing construction of a new residence with day -lighting basement, detached garage, and swimming pool. Access to the proposed development is to be provided by a driveway extending southwest- from Silent Hills Lane. Project earthwork quantities were not provided on the referenced plans but we understand that the project will require significant excavation and probably net export of earth materials. Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 www.cottonshires.com Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 Brian Froelich Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS April 30, 2010 L0129 The subject property is characterized by gently inclined to moderately steep (17 percent inclinations), east -facing hillside topography. A relatively shallow landslide was identified in the general vicinity of the proposed swimming pool during site subsurface exploration. The submitted report indicates that subdued local slope forms suggest the potential presence of a large Old Landslide not depicted on the Town Geology Map. If present, the Project Geologist concludes that this landslide is unlikely to impact the proposed house site. Drainage is characterized by partially controlled sheet flow to the east. I western portion of the property is underlain, at depth, by greenstone bedrock (altered volcanic rock) of the Franciscan Complex. The bedrock is overlain by silty to sandy clay (colluvium). The potentially active Berrocal fault has been mapped crossing the northeastern portion of the property. The main trace of the Berrocal fault (located along the contact between Franciscan and Monterey Formation bedrock) has been identified during fault investigation at the property. In addition, two other fault traces (interpreted as active based on observed subsurface exploration relationships) are located to the northeast and southwest of the proposed house footprint. The locations of these fault traces, and fault setback zones recommended by the Project Geologist, are illustrated on Figure 8 of the referenced report. We understand that a 40 -foot vertical setback has also been recommended for any basement or foundation elements associated with proposed living structures. This vertical setback is intended to address the subsurface fault plane that descends at depth to the southwest. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Proposed site construction appears to be primarily constrained by anticipated strong seismic ground shaking, potentially expansive soils, and the close proximity of identified fault traces. Based on our review of the referenced plans, it appears that the footprint of the •4•_ e a.. �`.-i., F I.� setbacks �•e �._ 1 ll ^ (� �1 Ji., 1- T.� �fi v' project res1AA%u..c� 1 �.r L L3 eau— etback COT unsnded by the . rojecl og c r er r , c geotechnical investigation has not been submitted with boring data. This- information is needed to confirm basement feasibility and provide general geotechnical design parameters for the project. We recommend that this investigation be completed by the designated Project Geotechnical Engineer (Milstone Geotechnical) and submitted to the Town prior to recommending geotechnical approval of the proposed development layout. We note that the westernmost identified fault trace extends beneath the proposed, detached garage. Floor plans for this structure should clearly illustrate that this detached building is not suitable for human occupancy to the satisfaction of the Town Planner. In addition, the applicant must be willing to accept potential for damages to the garage (and its contents) that may result from the underlying fault trace. Alternatively, other project layouts could be considered that avoid placement of any significant structures over fault trace alignments. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian Froelich Page 3 April 30, 2010 L0129 We recommend that the followings Items 1 and 2 be satisfactorily addressed prior to project geotechnical approval: 1. Geotehncial Engineering Invest action - A project Geotechnical Engineering Investigation should be completed including appropriate subsurface investigation that verifies a satisfactory vertical setback from the fault plane that descends (possibly inclined) at depth beneath the proposed residence. Full project geotechnical design parameters should be prepared. Appropriate documentation, to address the above should be submitted to the Town for review by the Town Engineer and eTo nrn Geotechnical Cons, ltant prior to project gnic eotechal design approval. 2. Engineering Geology Design Review - Proposed development plans, and subsurface data gained from the above noted geotechnical investigation, should be reviewed by the Project Engineering Geologist to verify that recommended fault setbacks have been observed and to confirm the geologic feasibility of the proposed project. A letter summarizing the results of the above evaluation should be submitted to the Town for review for the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to project geotecluucal approval.. 3. 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 consultant ;n a Etter and sub mt ed to the Town lcl; bir er for revielv,. anc approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. 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. Major project excavations should also be inspected by the Project Engineering Geologist to confirm anticipated geologic conditions. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian Froelich April 30, 2010 Page 4 L0129 submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval LIMITATIONS This preliminary peer geologic and geotechnical 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 accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warrant,, is ir). lieu of all other warranties, eitner expressed or implied. 'rS: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. riannmg uuuuu15J1uu R E UE Lands of Pearson Attachment 5 Design and Protection C� tnjittee September 2, 2010 ---- APR 0 3 t W New Residenee/Ptemn- del Ry -A tion . OF LOS ALMS HILLS Reviewed hy: P€fir Applicant D AddressV Site imgact/sighting/noise: IS M T�1r,�- A Creeks, drainage, easements: Existing Vegetati®n: Signifgeant issues/eornments: I JI i r 1 SS %V -P S u hon'i G Date f� riannmg k-ommission Lands of Pearson Attachment 6 September 2, 2010 for roadside paths in this area for public safety reasons. A IIB roadside path exists on the adjacent property; a neighbor reported walking there until this Spring, when the area became obstructed with vegetation. PWC member Brunzell, who lives nearby, communicated by email that she travels this route often and that she often sees people walking there even though it is risky. Eileen Gibbons moved that the Town request from the owners of 27361 Moody Road a pathway easement along Moody Road and. that the owners construct a IIB path here away from the road. The vote was four in favor, none against, one abstention. viii.26062 Todd Lane (Lands of Step hanL The reason for pathway review is a major addition. The property is on the south side of Todd Lane. The homeowner was not present. Todd Lane is a cul-de-sac off La Paloma that serves nine residences. An off-road.path connecting to the nearby Bullis Gardiner School comes off the end of Todd. Although the school district (LASD) does not permit access to the pathway through the schoolyard during school hours, children can use it to travel to school and residents can use it to connect to Fremont at other times. (Councilmember Summit will resume discussions with LASD again about access issues.) Pathway maps show that the side of Todd on which this property sits is the preferred side for a roadside path. The Town Pathway Element recommends that roadside pathways be placed on cul-de-sacs that connect to off-road paths. In addition, a roadside pathway would provide an additional margin of safety for children walking to school. Sue Welch moved that the Town request that the owners of 26062 Todd Lane construct a IIB pathway along the Todd Lane roadside. The vote was three in favor, two opposed. ix. 26301 Silent Hills Lane (Lands of Pearson). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The property is on the north side of Silent Hills Lane (a private road), and also has frontage on Altamont Road and Altamont Court (both public roads). The homeowner was not present. An off-road path connecting to Eshner Court comes off the end of Silent Hills Lane. A roadside path well separated from the roadside (on a bank above the road) exists along Altamont, but ends before it meets Altamont Court. Altamont is a busy, winding road and has poor visibility in this area (just above the "S -curves" at the Seton property). The general consensus was that it is a high priority to make the paths here as safe as possible. The best locations for a crosswalk on Altamont and methods to improve crosswalk safety were discussed. This property is close to the West Wind Barn and paths accessible to equestrians are desirable in the area. Because the slope and the smooth surface of Altamont Court and Silent Hills are difficult for horses, a native roadside path would be desirable. The Town Pathway Element recommends that roadside pathways be placed on cul-de-sacs that connect to off-road paths. Councilmember and former PWC Chair, Ginger Summit said that Eshner Court, the cul-de-sac at the other end of the off-road path from Silent Hills Lane, has roadside paths on both sides. Courtenay Corrigan moved that Town request that the owner of 26301 Silent Hills Lane create an easement and a IIB path in continuation of the IIB path along Altamont Road outside the road right-of-way to Altamont Court and separated from the roadside in a manner similar to the existing path. Sue Welch amended the motion to also request a native path to serve equestrians in the roadside right-of-ways of Altamont Court and Silent Hills Lane, with the path on Altamont Court to be located between the existing chain link fence and the property boundary. Nick Dunckel seconded. The vote was three in favor, two opposed. B. Public Hearing on Addition of Toyonita to Master Path Plan (MPP). This PWC has proposed that Toyonita Road (a private road) be added to the MPP. Toyonita is a private road Draft3PWC Min 042610 4/30/10 FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 1 1wUl"Xr, 1iV1111111JJ1V11 Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 1 1 t : ci ' ' Attaclunent 7 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 a (408) 378-9342 (fax) e www.sccfd.org TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS'nternationiccredited Agency PUN REVIEW 10 0922 No. PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No.. Proposed 9,096 square foot two-story single-family residence with basement anda 1,321 square foot detached garage. Comment #1: 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. Comment #2: 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. Comment #3: Fire Sprinklers Required: 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 500 square feet or less. NOTE: 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. CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC Comment #4: 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 City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY R-3, U CONST. TYPE V -B ApplicantName Camargo & Associates Archiects DATE 4/21/2010 PAGE 1 OF 2 SEC/FLOOR 2 story + AREA see plans LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 26301 Silent Hills Ln, Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2500 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSIBY 1500 Harding, Doug 50% 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 �Ap1 � cob FIRE COURTESY 8 SERVICE FIRE DEPARTMENT qECEIVED �,mm;s..;u-o, L-k: SANTA CLARA COUNTY APR 2 8 2010 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) o www.sccfd.orgOF LOS ALTOS HInternationally Accredited Agency PLAN REVIEW No. PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BLDG PERMIT No. 10 0922 .e granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are locumented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and iealth and Safety Code 13114.7 -omment #5: Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway with . paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 riches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum lope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications heet D-1. CFC Sec. 503 See Page C-1.0 Iomment #5: Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new ind existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road ronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.CFC Sec. 505 Co prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review -onditions shall be restated as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any ,eferenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS ,AH N ❑ N ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY R-3, U CONST. TYPE V -B ApplicantName Camargo & Associates Archiects DATE 4/21/2010 PAGE 2 OF 2 EC/FLOOR story + I AREA see plans LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Design Review' AME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 26301 Silent Hills Ln, Los Altos Hills ABULAR FIRE FLOW 2500 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS I REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 1 1 50% = Drganized 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 Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills Attn: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, Ca 94022 Dear Planning Commission Members: Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 RECEN D AUG 2 6 2010 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Attachment 8 I am writing to you regarding my property located at 26301 Silent Hills Lane, Los Altos Hills, California and the condition for approval which requires me to provide for proposed equestrian/running/walking paths along three sides of my property. First of all, I am very much in support of the pathways in the Town of Los Altos Hills and look forward to using them in my runs and walks when my home is completed. My concern is regarding the suggested 10' easement for a pathway on my property along Silent Hills Lane, a private road.. My neighbors have constructed a pathway to connect Eshner Court with Silent Hills Lane; however, there are currently no existing pathways -on Silent Hills Lane, as the roadway's right of way area has served as the pathway for the past 10+ years. An easement on my property would only. further restrict my landscape area lessening the value of the property, especially when combined with the current easements and restrictions already in place, including the new proposed 10' easement the Pathway committee is requesting all along Altamont Road on my property. The Silent Hills Lane suggested 10' easement also contains a long area with 2 to 1 slope that would require a large rgtaining. wall right in front of my property. I would like to request that you do not condition my property with an easement along Silent Hills Lane and find a way to eventually establish the pathway on the existing right of way on the private road which is currently being used. I am in favor of granting a 10' Easement and installing a Type IIB Pathway (per the city engineer) along Altamont Road and a Native Pathway along Altamont Lane, as I see they will be very beneficial and a positive contribution to the Town of Los Altos Hills. Furthermore, I really appreciate all that the Town of Los Altos Hills and the Pathway Committee does in order to beautify the Town and make it a safer place to exercise and get around on our roads. appreciate your consideration of my above request and am looking forward to having Los Altos Hills as my future home. Best Regards, Mark Pearson ViER point Dr. Gary W. Cleary 26410 Silent Hills Larne Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Tel: 650-949-2075 Fax: August 22, 2010 Dear Pathway committee I learned yesterday that there is a proposal to have a new pathway in E Hills Lane. E 654 Planning Commission Lands of Pearson September 2, 2010 CINED Attachment 9 AUG 2 3 2010 TOWN Of LOS ALTOS HIU S of our house on Silent We strongly oppose this idea since Silent Hills Lane is a private road ja d it will distract the view of my house since the path will be positioned in front of my stone gatell and when you drive up Silent Hills Lane. There is already path way on the Altamont Road which is surrounds o r back yard and we have another pathway on my side yard (used to be the. front gate). I also w uld like to have more privacy for my front road and do not wish to create more traffic. The path way between the Perrel Property and our house was suppos d to connect to the old path way to the Juliette Lane, but now Perrel's house is built on that s e, Since it was removed I don't think it is necessary to put a new one in front of our house. We strongly oppose the idea to put a new path way.on Silent Hills Thar you very much for your understanding. . Gary W. Cleary and Nobuko Saita Cleary