HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2Item 3.2
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 2, 2012
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND GRADING POLICY
EXCEPTION FOR A 2,330 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL, POOL
DECKING, TENNIS COURT, AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING
PLAN; LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA LLC; 27270 PALOMINO
PLACE; FILE #148-11-ZP-SD-GD.
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner7,j��
APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the tennis court, and Landscape
Screening Plan subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment #1.
And;
2. Deny the Grading Policy Exception for the swimming pool and associated decking
citing the findings for denial in Attachment #2.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved an application for a new Estate Home and a Grading
Policy Exception for the subject property on August 5, 2010 after continuing the project
from the May 6, 2010 meeting. Landscape Screening plans for all Estate Homes require
review by the Planning Commission. Concerns regarding loss of views, the location of air
conditioning units, the size and bulk of the building, and the location of the tennis court
were expressed by adjacent neighbors at the 2010 hearings. (Meeting minutes —
Attachments 10 & 11)
The applicant was required to. lower roof lines and offered to relocate the air conditioning
units inside the residence with the final approved plan. The current proposal has the A/C
units relocated outside at ground level.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area: 4.902 acres
Net Lot Area: 4.902 acres
Average Slope: 9.5%
Planning Commission
Lands of Homa Natoma LLC
February 2, 2012
Page 2
Area Maximum
Development 73,524
Floor 29,409
Landscape Screening Plan
Proposed Existing Increase Left
44,114 38,313 5,801 29,410
0 25,273 0 4,136
Pursuant to Section 10-2.805(a) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, in evaluating the
adequacy of proposed landscaping, the applicant must demonstrate that the shape,
outline, color, and form of all structures will be unobtrusive when viewed from any
location off-site at the time landscaping has matured.
The proposed landscape plan includes fully developed plans with trees, shrubs, ground
cover, and lawn. The Landscape Architect has provided water use calculations
demonstrating compliance with Ordinance 520 (Water Efficient Landscape). A large
variety of plantings are proposed at the perimeter of the new residence and driveway. The
tennis court is screened with shrubs at the perimeter and three (3), 36" box oak trees.
Other clusters of trees are proposed along the north and east property boundary to provide
screening from downhill properties. See plan sheets L3.0 and L4.0 for full planting and
water use.
Pool, Decking and Spa
The swimming pool and spa are shown adjacent to the west wing of the residence. The
pool and spa cover 2,330 square feet. The pool decking is at the same elevation as the
finished floor of the residence with no steps or ramps. The swimming pool includes a
slide that wraps around a pool bathroom. The slide and bathroom structure is 12'6" tall.
Grading Policy Exception
An area of 2,406 square feet covering the swimming pool, spa, and pool decking exceeds
the Grading Policy maximum permitted fill amount (3'). The contractor has installed
story poles at the coping level and the location is not highly visible from off site. The
pool design incorporates a vanishing edge which allows pool water to spill over into a
trough below. The top of the pool's vanishing edge and adjacent decking is a maximum
of five (5) feet above the existing grade and seven (7) feet above the natural grade
because two (2) feet of fill was approved with the new residence grading plan. The
project Civil Engineer has prepared a diagram and section view of the fill areas on plan
sheet C-2.
Design alternatives exist to lower the pool coping and decking several feet with the
inclusion of steps or ramps incorporated into the design to comply with the Grading
Policy. The proposed design allows the finished floor of the residence and the pool
decking to be on the same level without any stairs or ramps.
Planning Commission
Lands of Homa Natoma LLC
February 2, 2012
Page 3
The Planning Commission has approved one Grading Policy Exception for a swimming
pool and adjacent yard area in the last five years. In that case, additional cut was
requested to lower the visibility of the swimming pool and decking from offsite.
Address
Exception
Amount of Cut/Fill
A proved
26491 Ascension Drive
Yard and Pool
7'6" cut for yard
and 6'6" for pool
10-7-10
Tennis Court
A tennis court was originally proposed at the August 5; 2010 hearing with the new
residence. The applicant withdrew the request for consideration with the Landscape
Screening Plan. The proposed location and cut/fill design has not changed. The court is
6,898 square feet with an adjacent 275 square foot pergola. The screening plan shows
shrubs at the perimeter of the court for screening and wind block, and three (3), 36" box
sized oak trees to break-up views of the court from the adjacent property at 27220
Carrington Circle. Tennis court lighting is specifically prohibited by Ordinance (10-
2.1002).
Outdoor Lighting Plan
The applicant has provided a lighting plan that complies with Town standards, only two
entry lights are proposed in the setback. The driveway lights alternate on each side of the
driveway to avoid a "runway" appearance and are spaced at approximately 20 feet apart.
Recessed down shielded lights are proposed mounted to the retaining wall along the
driveway. Six (6) tree mounted downlights are proposed near the porte cochere and front
entry. (Lighting Policy - Attachment 4)
Heritage Oak Trees
The site contains three (3) heritage oak trees (12" and larger trunk diameter). One multi -
trunk oak tree is in the area of the proposed tennis court. The applicant has provided an
arborist report that describes the tree as vigorous and in very good health. The project
arborist has recommended measures for tree protection and the installation of retaining
walls and the tennis court. (Arborist Report - Attachment 7)
Neighborhood Input
Town staff has met with neighbors from 26861 Altamont Road (Lands of Barkhau),
26801 Altamont Road (Lands of Malek), and 26951 Almaden Court (Lands of Arnold).
The neighbors' concerns included the A/C units being relocated outside, trees that may
grow to block views at maturity, and the quantity of lights. See additional details in the
neighbor letters Attachment 8.
Planning Commission
Lands of Homa Natoma LLC
February 2, 2012
Page 4
View and Sunlight. Protection Ordinance
Town staff informed concerned neighbors of the Town's View and Sunlight Protection
Ordinance. Neighbor's views are protected by the Ordinance but the Ordinance is
"privately enforced" and not facilitated by Town staff or through the Site Development
process. The Ordinance can be summarized as guidelines and procedures for property
owners to resolve disputes associated with preserving views and natural light access as a
result of vegetation growth. (View and Sunlight Protection Ordinance - Attachment 5)
Future views and mature vegetation heights are commonly discussed with Landscape
Screening plans but the View and Sunlight Protection Ordinance is not specifically
applicable to the Site Development process.
Noise Ordinance
Neighbors have expressed concerns regarding the proposed fixed noise sources on the
property. Noise from fixed source installations (A/C units, pool equipment, and
generators) are subject to dBA limits of 50 during the daytime and 40 at nighttime. The
plans show 10 A/C units in two locations, an 18' x 17' pool equipment enclosure, and an
enclosure for a generator. All of these installations comply with setback standards and
will be subject to the Noise Ordinance during operation at any time in the future. To
ensure compliance at installation, recommended condition #7 requires that an acoustical
consultant test all fixed source installations and documentation compliance with Town
standards, prior to final sign off of the new residence. (Noise Ordinance — Attachment 6)
Town Committee's Review
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented that the proposed
swimming pool does not appear to be visible from offsite. (Attachment 9)
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA)
The proposed landscape screening, tennis court, and swimming pool are categorically
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by provision of
Section 15303(e).
Planning Commission
Lands of Homa Natoma LLC
February 2, 2012
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Grading Policy Exception Findings for Denial
3. Los Altos Hills Grading Policy
4. Los Altos Hills Lighting Policy
5. View and Sunlight Protection Ordinance
6. Noise Ordinance
7. Arborist Report prepared by Tree Decisions, July 28, 2010
8. Neighbor letters in order received
9. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, August 11, 2011
10. Planning Commission meeting minutes May 6, 2010
11. Planning Commission meeting minutes August 5, 2010
12. Proposed development plans
Planning Commission
Lands of Homa Natoma LLC
February 2, 2012
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A
SWIMMING POOL, TENNIS COURT, AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN
LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA LLC, 27270 PALOMINO PLACE
File # 148-11-ZP-SD-GD
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. Any further changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required
landscaping shall be first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or
Planning Commission, depending on the scope of changes, prior to planting or
commencement of work.
2. All required plantings and lighting shown on the plans shall be installed prior
to final inspection of the new residence. All exposed slopes must be replanted
for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to
final inspection of the new residence.
3. A landscape maintenance and water use deposit of $10,000.00 shall be posted
prior to final inspection of the new residence. An inspection of the screening
plantings to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two
years after installation. Prior to deposit release, the property owner shall also
furnish to the Town the second year (months 13-24 following receipt of the
Certificate of Completion) of water use and billing data from the subject
property's water purveyor. If the site water usage exceeds the calculated PWB,
the deposit will be held for an additional 1-2 months. At the end of the additional
12 month period, the property owner shall provide the Town with the previous
12 months (months 25-36) of water use and billing data from the subject
property's water purveyor. If the water usage still exceeds the estimated PWB,
the deposit shall be forfeited to the Town, in full. All Town staff time and
materials expended to ensure compliance with this condition will be deducted
from the deposit.
4. Exterior and outdoor lighting locations are approved as shown on the plans.
Please note that any additional lighting shall be first submitted for Planning
Department review and approval prior to installation. Generally, lighting shall
be the minimum needed for safety, shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall
not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, the source of the lighting shall
not be visible from off the site.
5. The property owner shall contact the Building Department and acquire any and
all required building permits prior to commencement of work on landscape or
hardscape.
Planning Commission
Lands of Homa Natoma LLC
February 2, 2012
Page 7
6. No fences, gates, or columns are approved with this permit. The owner may
apply for a separate Fence Permit.
7. The applicant shall test all fixed noise sources installations and provide a letter
from a qualified acoustical consultant documenting that all fixed noise sources
comply with the Town's Noise Ordinance, prior to final inspection of the new
residence. The letter shall note the methods of testing, the results, and any
attenuation measures that were needed to attain compliance.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
8. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed
as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. The
proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Final
drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any
deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to
final inspection. A final letter shall be submitted from the project engineer
stating that the site drainage was constructed in conformance with the approved
plans and recommendations prior to final inspection.
9. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed
shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be
replanted prior to final inspection.
10. Any, and all, changes to the approved Site Development Plan 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.
11. 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.
12. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by
the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning
Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The
grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding
dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Palomino Place and
surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary
facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and parking for construction
Planning Commission
Lands of Homa Natoma LLC
February 2, 2012
Page 8
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.
CONDITION NUMBERS 11 AND 12 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF
BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 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.
Building Permits cannot be accepted until the appeal period has lapsed.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
February 2, 2013). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and
work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and
completed within two years.
Planning Commission
Lands of Homa Natoma LLC
February 2, 2012
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION
LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA LLC, 27270 PALOMINO PLACE
File # 148-11-ZP-SD-GD
1. The proposed Grading Policy Exception facilitates a site amenity and does not
serve to lower the profile or visibility of any structure.
2. Design alternatives exist that would allow the property owner the construct a
swimming pool and decking that would comply with the Grading Policy.
Specifically, lowering the swimming pool coping elevation and pool deck several
feet and installing stairs or ramps to step down with the natural grade would
accommodate a similar sized pool and decking in compliance with the Grading
Policy.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Code Sections:
Attachment 3
LOSALTOS HILLS
CALIFORNIA
Grading Policy
Approved by City Council 07/21/2011
Section 10-2.702 (c) 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 II
foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be
used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen 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,
encouraging terraced retaining walls where possible, 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
Policy:
Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and
contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary
to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step
down" the hill*:
Cut Fill
House 8'** 3'
Accessory Bldg. 8'** 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 four feet six inches (4'6") feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures
step with the slope. Supported decks shall generally not exceed three (3') feet above
adjoining grade except where located within six (6') feet of a building.
3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of ten (10') feet 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. Terracing shall be utilized for cuts exceeding six (6') feet.
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.
5. The Planning Director may approve exceptions for required driveways and Fire Truck
turnarounds where cut does not exceed seven (7') feet and fill does not exceed five (5')
feet at a noticed public hearing.
Attaclinient 4
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222 r r'9
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA
Outdoor Lighting Policy
Approved by City Council - 9/30/97
Code Sections and Design Guidelines:
Article 10-2.10 of the Site Development Ordinance outlines criteria for outdoor lighting. In
particular, Section 10-2.1003 indicates that outdoor lighting should use "the minimum wattage
lights which will safely illuminate the area" and that outdoor light sources "shall be shielded so
as not to be directly visible from off-site." Page 30 of the Design Guidelines suggests that
exterior lights be carefully placed to prevent light from shining onto neighboring houses and that
light sources must not be visible from off-site. The Zoning and Site Development Ordinances
limit lighting within the setbacks to "driveway light fixtures, limited to one fixture on each side
of a driveway, for a maximum of two (2) fixtures per lot," but additional fixtures may be
approved if necessary for safety.
Intent:
The purpose of Code and Design Guideline provisions regarding outdoor lighting is to assure that
the open and peaceful character of the Town is maintained, that adequate lighting is provided for
the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, and that lighting does not intrude on the privacy of
neighbors. The intent of this policy is to clarify more specifically the types and numbers of
lighting fixtures that the Town feels are generally consistent with the Code provisions, but to
allow flexibility for additional lighting when it is necessary for safety purposes or where it is not
visible from off the site.
Policy:
1. The number of lights on the exterior of a structure should be limited to providing for one
light per doorway, with the exception of two lights at the main entrance, at double doors
or garage doors, etc., and additional lights only where the Planning Director or Planning
Commission determines they are needed for safety.
2. Pathway and driveway lighting should be restricted to low -height fixtures and should be
spaced the maximum distance apart which will still provide for safe use. In order to
avoid a "runway" appearance, it is recommended that lighting be placed on only one side
of the driveway or walkway, or alternate from one side to the other. Recessed louvered
lights are suggested for walkways and steps.
Outdoor Lighting Policy
Page 2
3. Generally, lighting fixtures should be shielded downlights for which the bulb is not
visible from off site. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage,
etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site.
4. Downlighting from trees is acceptable if provided for safety or for outdoor use areas,
where minimal in number, and where the bulb is not visible from off site.
5. Uplighting of trees is generally not allowed, unless it is clearly demonstrated that the
number of such lights are minimal and the glow of the uplighting would not be visible
from off site.
6. Spotlights should be limited in number, and directed away from clear view of neighbors.
Shielding of spotlights with shrouds or louvers is suggested.
7. High intensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure sodium,
and metal halide lighting, is prohibited.
8. Lighting in setbacks is limited to two driveway light fixtures only, for the purpose of
locating and identifying the site. No lights are allowed in side or rear yard setback areas,
except where determined to be necessary for safety.
9. The Planning Commission and/or staff may allow lighting different than that outlined
above when the proposed outdoor lighting is determined to be necessary to safely
illuminate the area, or where the size of the property and/or extensive screening will
assure that lighting glow and fixtures are not visible from off site.
Outdoor Lighting Policy
Page 3
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
Article 10 — Outdoor Lighting
Sec. 10-2.1001- Purpose
The purposes of this article are: 1) to assure that outdoor lighting, both on the exterior of
structures and along walkways, driveways, and landscape features, maintains the openness and
quiet atmosphere of the Town and minimizes excessive use of energy; 2) to provide lighting for
safety and adequate lighting for the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, such as around patios and
pools; and 3) to prevent lighting which is intrusive and which imposes on the privacy and quiet
enjoyment of neighboring properties.
Sec. 10-2.1002- Recreation courts
No artificial lighting shall be permitted for tennis and other recreation courts.
See. 10-2.1003- Swimming pools and spas
Artificial lighting of swimming pools and spas shall be permitted only under the following
conditions:
a. Lights are placed beneath the surface of the water in the pool or spa to illuminate the
water.
b. Other exterior lights used to illuminate the surrounding area use the minimum number and
wattage of lighting which will safely illuminate the area.
c. No direct light is cast beyond the immediate area of the pool or spa.
See. 10-2.1004- High intensity lighting prohibited
High intensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure sodium, and
metal halide lighting, is prohibited.
See. 10-2.1005- Outdoor lighting --General
Outdoor lighting should use the minimum number and wattage lights which will safely
illuminate the area. Outdoor light sources shall be shielded so as not to be directly visible from
off-site. No more than two (2) lights shall be allowed in setback areas (as defined in Chapter 2
(Zoning) of the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code). Additional lighting may be permitted
where it is determined to be necessary to safely illuminate the area.
Attachment 5
ORDINANCE NO. 427
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
ADDING CHAPTER 9 TO TITLE 5 Or LOS ALTOS HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE REGLZATING VIEW AND SUNLIGHT
OBSTRUCTIONS
Whereas, the purposes of this Chapter are to:
1. Establish the right of persons to preserve views or sunlight, which existed at any time
since they purchased the property or up to 15 years prior to adoption of this ordinance
whichever is less, from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees.
2. Establish a process by which persons may seek restoration of such views or sunlight
when unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees or other vegetation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does ORDAIN as
follows:
I. Chapter 9 is hereby added to Title 5 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Chapter 9: VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES
Section 5-9.01. Purpose and Principles.
The rights and the restorative process are based upon the following general principles:
1. The Town recognizes that residents cherish their outward views from the hills,
and that they also cherish the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings
and yards. The Town recognizes that both outward views and plentiful sunlight
reaching property contribute greatly to the quality of life in Los Altos Hills, and
promote the general welfare of the entire community.
2. The Town also recognizes the desire of many of its residents, property owners,
and institutions for beautiful and plentiful landscaping, including trees. The Town
realizes that this desire may sometimes conflict with the preservation of views and
sunlight, and that disputes relaxed to view or sunlight obstruction are inevitable.
3. Owner and residents should maintain trees on their property in a healthy
condition for both safety reasons and for preservation of sunlight and outward
views. Before planting trees, owners and residents should consider view and
sunlight blockage potential, both currently and at tree maturity. Persons have the
right to seek civil remedies when threatened by dangerous tree growth.
4. The Town shall establish a process by which persons may seek to preserve and
restore views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased the
property or up to 15 years prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever is less,
from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees. The Town shall also
establish a list of factors to be considered in determining appropriate actions to
restore views or sunlight.
5. When a view or sunlight obstruction dispute arises, the parties should act
reasonably to resolve the dispute through friendly communication, thoughtful
negotiation, compromise, and other traditional means, such as discussions with
the appropriate neighborhood or homeowner association. Those disputes which
are not resolved through such means shall follow the procedure established
herein.
6. It is the intent of the Town that the provisions of this Chapter receive
thoughtful and reasonable application. It is not the intent of the Town to
encourage clear -cutting or substantial denuding of any property of its trees by
overzealous application of provisions of this Chapter.
Section 5-9.02. Definitions.
For the purpose of this Chapter, the meaning and construction of words and phrases is as
follows:
Arbitrator: A neutral person who will conduct a process similar to a trial,
and who will hear testimony, consider evidence, and make a binding
decision for the disputing parties.
Binding Arbitration: A legal procedure as set forth in Section 1280 et seq.
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Initiating Party: Any property owner (or legal occupant with written
permission of the property owner) who alleges that trees located on the
property of another person are causing unreasonable obstruction of his or
her pre-existing views or sunlight.
Landscape Screening: A method by which trees and vegetation are planted
in order to separate and partially obstruct the view of adjacent and nearby
structures and properties from one another. Landscape screening shall
generally not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the primary structure.
Mediator: A neutral, objective third person who assists people in finding
mutually satisfactory solutions to their problem.
2
F310225-1 .
Person: Any individual, corporation, partnership, fu -m, or other legal
entity, excluding the Town of Los Altos Hills.
Primary Living Asea: The portion or portions of a residence from which a
view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of
the residence. The determination of primary living area is to be made on a
case-by-case basis.
Protected Tree: Any of the following:
HERITAGE TREE, shall mean any tree that, due to age, size,
location, visibility, historic nature, or other unique attribute, has
been deemed by the Town to be a heritage tree and accordingly
deserves special consideration for preservation and protection.
HERITAGE OAK, shall mean any tree of the genus quercus,
including, but not limited to, Valley Oak (quercus lobata),
California Live Oak (quercus agrifolia), Black Oak (quercus
kelloggii) and Blue Oak (quercus douglasii) that has a trunk or
multiple trunk thirty-six (36) inches in circumference
(approximately twelve (12) inches in diameter) at a point four (4')
feet above the root crown.
Removal: The elimination of any tree from its present location.
Restorative Action: Any specific requirement to resolve a tree, dispute.
Stump Growth: New growth from the remaining portion of the tree trunk,
the main portion of which has been cut off.
Sunlight: The availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary
living area of a residence.
Thinning: The selective removal of entire branches from a tree so as to
improve visibility through the tree and/or improve the tree's structural
condition.
Topping: Elimination of the upper portion of a tree's trunk or main leader.
Tree: Any woody plant with the potential to obstruct views or sunlight,
including but not limited to trees, shrubs, hedges, and bushes. References
to "tree" shall include the plural.
Tree Claim: The written basis for arbitration or court action under the
provisions of this Chapter.
630225-1 3
Tree Owner: Any person owning real property in Los Altos Hills upon
whose land is located a tree or trees alleged by an Initiating Party to cause
an unreasonable obstruction.
Trimming: The selective removal of portions of branches from a tree so as
to modify the tree(s) shape or profile or alter the tree's appearance.
View: A scene from the primary living area of a residence. The term "view"
includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is generally medium or
long range in nature, as opposed to short range.
Views include but are not limited to skylines, bridges, landmarks, distant
cities, distinctive geologic features, hillside terrains, wooded canyons,
ridges, and bodies of water.
Some additional examples are: San Francisco Bay, neighboring Silicon
Valley Communities, Lands of Stanford, .Lands of MidPeninsula Open
Space District, The City's of San Francisco and San Jose, East Bay Hills,
Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge.
Windowing: A form of thinning by which openings or "windows" are
created to restore views and or sunlight.
Section 5-9.03. Rights Established.
Persons shall have the right to preserve views or sunlight, which existed at any
time since they purchased their property or not more than 15 years prior to
adoption of this ordinance whichever option results in less time, when such views
or sunlight are from the primary living area and have subsequently been
unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees.
In order to establish such rights pursuant to this Chapter, the person must follow
the process established in this Chapter. In addition to the above rights, private
parties have the right to seek remedial action for imminent danger caused by trees.
All persons are advised that the alteration, removal, and planting of certain trees
requires a permit under Title 12, Article 3, Sections 12-2.202, 12-2.302, 12-2.403
of the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (Parks and Recreation). The
applicability of Title 12 should be determined prior to any action on trees.
Section 5-9.04. Unreasonable Obstruction Prohibited.
(a) No person shall plant, maintain, or permit to grow any tree which
unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living
area of any other parcel of property within the Town of Los Altos Hills.
4
630225-1
(b) Because the maintenance of views and sunlight benefits the general welfare of
the entire Town, any unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the
primary living area shall also constitute a public nuisance.
Section 5-9.05. Criteria for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction.
The following criteria are to be considered (but are not exclusive) in determining whether
unreasonable obstruction has occurred:
(a) The extent of obstruction of pre-existing views from, or sunlight reaching, the
primary living area of the Initiating Parry, both currently and at tree maturity.
(b) The quality of the pre-existing views being obstructed, including obstruction
of landmarks, vistas, or other unique features.
(c) The extent to which the trees interfere with efficient operation of an Initiating
Part,
`s pre-existing solar energy systems.
(d) The extent to which the Initiating Part/,s view and/or sunlight has been
diminished over time by factors other than tree growth.
Section 5-9.06. Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action.
When it has been determined that unreasonable obstruction has occurred, then the following
unweighted factors shall be considered in determining appropriate restorative action:
(a) The hazard posed by a tree or trees to persons or structures on the property of the
Initiating Parry including, but not limited to, fire danger and the danger of falling limbs or
trees.
(b) The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements.
(c) Aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not limited to species characteristics, size,
growth, form and vigor.
(d) Location with respect to overall appearance, design, or use of the Tree Owner's
property.
(e) Soil stability provided by the tree(s) considering soil structure, degree of slope and
extent of the tree's root system.
(f) Privacy (visual and auditory), wind and landscape screening provided by the tree(s) to the
Tree Owner and to neighbors.
(g) Energy conservation and or climate control provided by the tree(s).
630225-1 5
(h) Wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s).
(i) Whether trees are "Protected Trees", as defined herein.
Section 5-9.07. Types of Restorative Action.
Restorative actions include but are not limited to the following:
-- topping
— removal with replacement plantings
-- removal without replacement plantings
In all cases, the documentable extent of view or sunlight existing at .any time since they
purchased the property or up to 15 years prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever is less, is
the maximum limit of Restorative Action which may be required.
In cases where trimming, windowing, or other Restorative Action may affect the health of a tree
that is to be preserved, such actions should be carried out in accordance with standards
established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the State of California.
Section 5-9.08. Town Guidelines Concerning Restorative Action.
The Town of Los Altos Hills provides the following general guidelines concerning restorative
actions:
Undesirable Trees. By reason of their tall height at maturity, rapid growth,
dense foliage, shallow root structure, flammability, breakability, or
invasiveness, certain types of trees have been deemed "undesirable" by the
Town, including Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, Monterey Cypress
trees,
When considering restorative action for "undesirable" trees, aggressive
action is preferred.
Redwood Trees. Redwood trees are desirable for their scenic qualities and
fire resistance. However, Redwood trees must be sited with care in order
to avoid potential view obstructions.
Protected Trees. The Town of Los Altos Hills has designated certain trees
to be "protected trees", defined in Section 10-2.8.1.02. Any alteration or
630225-1 6
removal of protected trees shall require a permit from the Town pursuant
to the Town Municipal Code.
Stump Growth. Stump growth generally results in the hazard of weak
limbs, and its protection is not desirable. When considering restorative
action for stump growth, aggressive action is preferred. Restorative action
which will result in future stump growth should be avoided.
Trimming. Trimming is the most minor form of physical restorative
action. This option is recommended when minor unreasonable obstruction
has occurred, provided that ongoing maintenance is guaranteed.
Thinning or Windowing: When simple trimming will not resolve the
unreasonable obstruction, thinning or windowing may be necessary. These
should be supervised by a certified arborist.
Topping. Topping as a restorative action should be used with caution.
Topping can have deleterious effects bn a tree's health, appearance, and
cost of maintenance. Topping frequently results in stump growth. Tree
removal, with replacement plantings, may be a preferable alternative.
Removal. Tree removal may be required where such removal is essential
to preserve pre-existing views or sunlight. While normally considered a
drastic measure, tree removal can be the preferred solution in many
circumstances.
Disturbance to Nesting Birds Topping and Tree removal should take place
between the end of August and the beginning 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.
Maintenance. Ongoing tree maintenance requirements are strongly
recommended as part of Restorative Action in order to achieve lasting
preservation of pre-existing views or sunlight.
Section 5-9.09. Process for Resolution of Obstruction Disputes.
The following process shall be used in the resolution of view and sunlight obstruction disputes
between parties:
1. Initial Reconciliation: An Initiating Party who believes that tree growth on the property
of another has caused unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary
living area shall notify the Tree Owner in writing of such concerns.
630225-1 7
The notification should, if possible, be accompanied by personal discussions to enable
the Initiating Parry and Tree Owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. If
personal discussions fail, neighborhood associations may be willing to assist with the
resolution of the obstruction dispute. For trees located on Town -owned property, see
Section 10-2.8.1.16.
2. Mediation: If the initial reconciliation attempt fails, the Initiating Party shall propose
mediation as a timely means to settle the obstruction dispute.
Acceptance of mediation by the Tree Owner shall be voluntary, but the Tree Owner shall
have no more than 30 days from service of notice to either accept or reject the offer of
mediation. If mediation is accepted, the parties shall mutually agree upon a Mediator
within 10 days.
It is recommended that the services of a professionally trained mediator be employed.
The Los Altos Mediation Program (L.A.M.P) is an example of such a service.
The mediation meeting may be informal. The mediation process may include the
hearing of viewpoints of lay or expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the
properties of the Initiating Party and the Tree Owner. Parties are encouraged to
contact immediate neighbors and solicit input.
The Mediator shall consider the purposes and policies set forth in this Chapter in
attempting to help resolve the dispute. The Mediator shall not have the power to issue
binding orders for Restorative Action, but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve their
dispute by written agreement in order to eliminate the need for binding arbitration or
litigation.
Section 5-9.10. Tree Claim Preparation.
In the event that the Initial Reconciliation process fails, and mediation either is declined by the
Tree Owner or fails, the Initiating Parry must prepare a Tree Claim, and provide a copy to the
Tree Owner, in order to pursue either binding arbitration or litigation under the authority
established by this Chapter.
A Tree Claim shall consist of all of the following:
(a) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including pertinent
and corroborating physical evidence. Evidence may include, but is not limited to
photographic prints, negatives or slides. Such evidence must show absence of the
obstruction at any time since they purchased their property or not more than 15 years
prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever option results in less time.
(b) The location of all trees alleged to cause the obstruction, the address of the property
upon which the tree(s) are located, and the present tree owner's name and address.
630225-1 8
(c) Evidence of the failure of initial reconciliation, as described in Section 10-2.8.1.09, to
resolve the dispute. The Initiating Party must provide physical evidence that written
attempts at reconciliation have been made and have failed. Evidence may include, but is
not limited to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered mail correspondence.
(d) Evidence that mediation, as described in Section 10-2.8.1.09, has been attempted and
has failed, or has been declined by the Tree Owner.
(e) Specific restorative actions proposed by the Initiating Party- to resolve the
unreasonable obstruction.
Section 5-9.11. Banding Arbitration.
In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails and where mediation is declined by
the Tree Owner or has failed, the Initiating Party must offer in writing to submit the dispute to
binding arbitration, and the Tree Owner may elect binding arbitration.
The Tree Owner shall have 30 days from service of notice to accept or reject binding arbitration.
If accepted, the parties shall agree on a specific Arbitrator within 21 days, and shall indicate such
agreement in writing.
The Arbitrator shall use the provisions of this Chapter to reach a fair resolution of the Tree Claim
and shall submit a complete written report to the Initiating Party and the Tree Owner. This report
shall include the Arbitrator's findings with respect to Sections 5-9.05 and Section 5-9.06 of this
Chapter, a pertinent list of all mandated Restorative Actions with any appropriate conditions
concerning such actions, and a schedule by which the mandates must be completed. A copy of
the Arbitrator's report shall be filed with the Town Attorney upon completion. Any decision of
the Arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section
1280 et seq.
Section 5-9.12. Litigation.
In those cases where binding arbitration is declined by the Tree Owner, then civil action may be
pursued by the Initiating Party for resolution of the view or sunlight obstruction dispute under
the rights and provisions of this Chapter.
The litigant must state in the lawsuit that arbitration was offered and not accepted, and that a
copy of the lawsuit was filed with the Town Attorney. A copy of any order or settlement in the
lawsuit shall also be filed with the Town Attorney.
Section 5-9.13. Apportionment of Costs.
Cost of Mediation and Arbitration: The Initiating Party and Tree Owner shall each pay 50% of
Mediation or Arbitration fees, unless they agree otherwise or allow the Mediator or Arbitrator
discretion for allocating costs.
630225-1 9
Cost of Litigation: To be determined by the Court or through a settlement.
Cost of Restorative Action: To be determined by mutual agreement, or through mediation,
arbitration, courtjudgment, or settlement.
Section 5-9.14. Liabilides.
The issuance of mediation findings, an arbitration report or a_court decision shall not create any
liability of the Town with regard to the Restorative Actions to be performed.
Failure of the Town to enforce provisions of this Chapter shall not give rise to any civil or
criminal liabilities on the part of the Town.
Section 5-9.15. Limitations.
It is not the intent of the Town in adopting this Chapter to affect obliID
gations imposed by an
existing easement or a valid pre-existing covenant or agreement.
Section 5-9.16. Trees on Town -owned Property or within Conservation Easements.
Trees located on Town -owned property or naturally occurring native species within conservation
easements are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Requests or complaints regarding
trees located on Town -owned property should be made in writing to the Superintendent of Public
Works for consideration in accordance with policies adopted by the Town.
11. Severability. If any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid or inapplicable to any
situation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or the applicability of this ordinance to other situations.
1U. Effective Date. Publication. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) after adoption.
Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance
or a summary thereof to be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting
for or against it in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required
by law.
630225-1 10
INTRODUCED: May 15, 2003
PASSED: June 5, 2003
AYES: Mayor Fenwick, Mayor Pro Tem Cheng, Councilmember O,Malle
Councilmember Kerr and Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: None
BY:
Mayor
A T:
City Clerk
City Admey
630225-1 11
Attachment 6
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE V OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD
TO NOISE STANDARDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills ("Town") wishes to amend
the Municipal Code with regard to noise measurement from the "C" scale to the "A" scale,
definitions of "daytime" and "nighttime", standards for fixed noise sources, and minor text
amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does ORDAIN
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENTS
The following sections of Title V, Chapter 2 ("Noise") of the Los Altos Hills Municipal
Code shall be amended as indicated:
Chapter 2 NOISE
5-2.01 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain
words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows:
Animal means any mammal, bird, reptile, fish or any other creature or any live
vertebrae creature other than a human being.
A -weighted sound level or sound level means the sound pressure level in decibels as
measured on a sound level meter using the A -weighted network. The A -weighting
filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound
in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and gives a good correlation
with subjective reactions to noise.
Decibel (dB) means the unit of measurement for sound pressure level
dBA means the A -weighted unit of sound pressure level.
Emergency means any occurrence or set of circumstances involving actual or
imminent physical trauma or property damage which demands immediate actions.
Farm tractor means a tractor which may be used on a highway to draw a farm trailer
carrying product or carrying other implements of husbandry between farms or to a
processing or handling point and returning with or without the trailer, but which
otherwise is itself an implement of husbandry.
1 of 5
Farm Equipment means a device which is used exclusively in the conduct of
agricultural operations, including devices such as power saws, lawn mowers, pump
motors, air compressors, or similar power -driven devices used in connection with
agricultural operations, but not including vehicles which are designed primarily for
the transportation of persons or property on a highway.
Fixed noise source means a stationary device which creates sound while fixed or
motionless, including, but not limited to pumps, fans, compressors, air -conditioners,
pool equipment, generators, and refrigeration equipment.
Machine, tool, or appliance means every machine, motor, device, or equipment,
powered or unpowered, including, without limitation, such normally employed to
fabricate, clean, or modify other items, and including any device (other than farm
equipment and on permitted construction sites), such as power saws, routers, drills,
hoists, mixers, sanders, cleaners, grinders, jacks, pumps, generators, and the like.
Motor vehicle means a vehicle which is self-propelled (including motorcycles,
motor -assisted bicycles, motor -driven cycles, and powered motor vehicles) as defined
in the California Vehicle Code, including all on -highway type motor vehicles subject
to registration under said Code and all off-highway type motor vehicle subject to
identification under said Code.
Person means and includes every human being, whether adult, minor, or infant.
When a group of persons acts in unison to create noise, each individual shall be
deemed as responsible as though solely the principal producing the resultant noise.
Powered model vehicle means any self-propelled, airborne, waterborne, or land
borne plane, vessel, or vehicle which is not designed to carry persons, including but
not limited to any model airplane, boat, car or rocket.
Sound -producing or amplifying device means any device for the creation or
amplification of the human voice, music, or any other sound. Examples include,
without limitation, public address systems, music amplifiers, horns, sirens, whistles,
bells, and drums.
5-2.02 Standards.
The following standards are established to be applicable to the classifications
indicated when measured as follows:
(a) Use a standard noise level meter as prescribed by ANSI -S 1.4. All
measurements will be taken with the meter switched to the weighting network labeled
"A" and "Slow" time averaging.
(b) When the source is on private property, measurements shall be made at any
location on or beyond the property boundary.
2of5
(c) When the source is on public property, measurements shall be made fifty
(50) feet from the source or at the private property line, whichever is closer.
(d) Vehicles on public streets and highways within the Town shall conform to
the noise emission standards prescribed for them by the Vehicle Code of the State.
(e) Fixed noise source installations shall conform to applicable setback
standards. Additional noise attenuation such as: enclosure, baffling, or housing may
be required for roof mounted installations to meet the standards in subsection (g)
below.
(f) Equipment defined in Title 5, Section 6 is not regulated by this Chapter.
(g) Noise sources shall be regulated by the following table:
Noise Sources
Exterior Noise Level Standard
(dBA
Daytime
Nighttime
Animals
50
40
Farm tractor
82
40
Farm Equipment
65
40
Fixed Noise Source
50
40
Machines, tools or appliances
50
40
Motor vehicle -repairing, rebuilding,
modernizing and testing.
82
40
Persons
50
40
Powered model vehicle
60
40
Sound -producing or amplifying device
50
40
For the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this chapter, "daytime" shall be the
period from 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. on weekends and Town Holidays
to 7:00 p.m. and "nighttime" shall be the period from 7:00 p.m. to the beginning of
"daytime", Pacific Standard Time or Daylight Saving Time. "Nighttime" shall begin
at 10:00 p.m. for Persons and Sound -producing or amplifying devices.
5-2.43 Conflicts with other laws.
The provisions of this chapter shall not be deemed to supersede or repeal other
existing laws which are designed to control public nuisances or disturbances, such as
noise.
3 of 5
5-2.04 Public nuisances.
Each violation of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and
shall be subject to abatement as such.
5-2.05 Emergency exemption.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
(a) The emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of
an emergency; or
(b) The emission of sound in the performance of emergency work.
(c) Noise from equipment used during emergencies.
Section 2. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of the
Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council hereby declares that it
would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause phrase of
the Ordinance irrespective of the fact that one or more of them would be declared
unconstitutional or invalid. To this end, the provisions of the Ordinance are declared to be
severable.
Section 3.. POSTING
Within 15 days after its passage, this ordinance shall be published once, with the names
of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the Los Altos Town Crier, a newspaper
of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption, or on
May 17, 2011 whichever date is later.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
4of5
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
5 of 5
I�
Mayor
Dennis Yniguez
Registered Consulting Arborist
Dennis@TreeDecisions.com
TREE DECISIONS
Attachment 7
1428 Spruce Street
Berkeley, CA 94709
510-649-9291 Tel
510-649-9292 Fax
TREE REMOVAL AND TREE PRESERVATION
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT AT
27270 NATOMA ROAD IN LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA
RE
PLANNING APPLICATION
IN LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA
FOR
DAVID DAPONTE, ARCHITECT
HKS HILL GLAZIER STUDIO
925 ALMA STREET
PALO ALTO, CA 94301
BY
DENNIS YNIGUEZ, CONSULTING ARBORIST
TREE DECISIONS, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
treedec@aol.com
JULY 28, 2010
Tree Health & Risk Assessment ♦ Forensic Examination & Case Analysis ♦ Appraisal of Tree Value
Insurance Claim Evaluation ♦ Land Development Consultation ♦ Resolution of Tree -Related Disputes
Contents
Executive Summary
Background and Assignment
Observations and Discussion
Recommendations
Conclusion
Photographs
1
1
1
3
4
5
Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions 14
Appendices:
A. Excerpt from the Grading Exception Plan
B. Planting Mitigation Requirements of the Los Altos
Hills Municipal Code
C. Special Considerations for Native Oaks
D. Leach Field Proximity to Coast Live Oak
TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Development of a tennis court at 27270 Natoma Road in Los Altos Hills would
necessitate the removal of three trees, and preservation of a healthy, attractive, and well-
established coast live oak. The applicant proposes to replace trees in accordance with the
planting mitigation guidelines of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and the Los
Altos Hills Municipal Code. If the tree preservation measures set forth in this report are
followed, the coast live oak can be expected to thrive in excellent health.
BACKGROUND AND ASSIGNMENT
On July 19, 2010, I was retained by Mr. David Daponte of HKS Hill Glazier Studio to
evaluate the potential effect of tennis court construction within the dripline of an
established coast live oak at 27270 Natoma Road in Los Altos Hills, and to recommend
measures to preserve the stability and health of the tree.
The applicant will replace trees as required by the mitigation guidelines of the Los Altos
Hills Planning Department and Municipal Code (Chapter, 12-2.502 Removal of trees
during the development process; see Appendix Q. Tree species and locations will be set
forth in detailed landscaping plans elsewhere in the development process.
OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION
I visited the site with an associate on July 20, 2010, and met with Mr. Daponte. We
reviewed the site plan that is included in relevant part within this report as Appendix A.
The applicant proposes to construct a tennis court near the northwest comer of Parcel
One, adjacent to the 30 -foot setback line that parallels the western border of the parcel.
To build the tennis court at the proposed location, three non-native trees would be
removed: two European olives (Olea europaea) and a grafted English walnut (juglans
regia). A well-established and vigorous coast live oak (quercus agrifolia) is growing
adjacent to an aging wooden structure that has apparently been used as a storage shed or
workshop for decades. The four trees are described in Table I and shown in captioned
photographs included herein.
The coast live oak appears to be in excellent health, as indicated by the lushness and
density of foliage. The tree has three main trunks and attractive branch architecture
originating from each trunk. It shows evidence of at least two earlier pruning episodes,
and cuts appear to be sealing over well.
DENNIS YNIGUEZ
TREE DECISIONS
JULY 23, 2010
TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD
The three trunks are growing adjacent to an aged shed, with a shallow concrete
foundation pour at the perimeter of the structure. Over the decades, the radially
expanding trunks have caused considerable displacement of the concrete. Fortunately for
the tree, the superficial concrete sill was no match for the trunks' slow accumulation of
hardwood. The buttress of each trunk has retained its flare, and large roots extend well
beneath the shed. The tree appears to be well anchored in each direction. Radiating
lateral roots have apparently not been significantly impaired by the trunks' proximity to
the shed.
A strong buttress flare bodes well for the tree's continued stability. The tree's root
structure can be ascertained with greater precision as the shed is carefully removed.
TREE INVENTORY (SPECIES, SIZE, CONDITION) .
DIAMETER
TREE
4'
CONDITION
aboveground
(1-10, POOR TO
REMOVAL
TREE
NAME
(INCHES)
EXCELLENT)
COMMENTS
(X)
Black walnut rootstock
English
and lower trunk
walnut
cylinder can be end -
1
(Juglans
20
7
sealed with paraffin,
x
regia)
set aside, and used in
several years for
quality woodturning
European
Not a good candidate
olive
for transplanting:
2
(01ea
11.5; 8.5
6
central decay columns
x
europaea)
in two main upright
stems
Not a good candidate
for transplanting: too
European
asymmetric and
3
olive
6.5; 7.5; 6.0
7
rootball is out of
X
(Olea
proportion to single
europaea)
upright trunk that
would remain if a side
stem is removed.
Coast live
Will survive and thrive
oak
with use of appropriate
4
(Quercus
18; 18;19
8
tree preservation
agrifolia)
measures set forth in
this report
Table l
DENNIS YNIGUEZ
TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010
TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 3
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OAK PRESERVATION
Removal of the Shed
I strongly recommend that a Consulting Arborist, familiar with the vulnerabilities of
native oaks, should be on site before and during the time when the shed is carefully
dismantled adjacent to the tree. This will. prevent inadvertent damage to the trunks and
an opportunity to discern the structure of significant radiating roots. Protective fencing
can be installed immediately thereafter across the space previously occupied by the shed,
in the location indicated in Appendix A.
Protective Tree Fencing
A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) would be delineated by a temporary fence consisting of
5 -foot metal stakes and 4 -foot high sturdy orange poly plastic mesh fencing. Most of the
fence would be installed in a semicircular "open -C" pattern before the shed adjacent to
the oak is dismantled (see Appendix A). The north -south linear section of the
protective fence would be installed immediately after the shed is removed.
No parking or storing of vehicles, construction trailers, equipment, machinery, or
construction materials would be permitted, nor would dumping of oils or chemicals be
allowed within areas delineated by the protective fences.
Construction of Retaining Wall and Composition of Fill
After the shed adjacent to the oak is removed, soil would be hand -excavated at the
retaining wall location to determine the exact location of any major surface roots. The
arborist would work in consultation with the engineer and architect to construct a
retaining wall that does not wound or sever major lateral roots. The design would
incorporate short-stem, pier and grade beam, or void forms as necessary to protect any
significant lateral roots.
Fill soil. (averaging 18 inches in depth) and tennis court construction over this limited
rooting area, as a percentage of the tree's total root area, would have no significant effect
on tree health or stability.
Special Considerations for Native Oaks
Two of the greatest threats to well-established native oaks are heavily compacted soils
and chronically saturated soils. It is imperative to prevent these conditions before,
during, and after development of the site. Additional descriptions of soil pathogens and
oak disease syndromes are found in Appendix C.
DENNIS YNIGUEZ
TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010
TREE REIMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATONIA ROAD
Bracing and Cabling of Trunks
4
After the shed is removed, the location of main lateral roots is determined, and the free-
standing structure of the tree is more closely evaluated, the arborist may recommend
moderate crown pruning as well as bracing and cabling of the three .trunks. Bracing
would be accomplished by application of one or more galvanized threaded metal rods
through two trunks, and aerial cabling of the three trunks would prevent trunk
separation as the tree continues to grow in weight and stature.
Appropriate Understory Landscaping
To avoid the above-mentioned damage and destruction of native oaks that can be
caused by overwatering, the tree owner is advised to plant only drought -tolerant plant
species within ten feet of the subject trees, and to minimally water plants as necessary to
maintain their health. Appropriate understory plantings should only be lightly irrigated
with drip irrigation until the drought, tolerant (xeric) plants are established. No
plantings or drip emitters should be placed within 3 feet of the trunks.
An excellent booklet entitled Compatible Plants Under and Around Oaks is available
without charge by download from the California Oak Foundation website
(http://www, califomiaoaks. ori/ExtAssets/CompatiblePlantsUnder&AroundOaks.pdfl.
CONCLUSION
Development of a tennis court as proposed at 27270 Natoma Road in Los Altos Hills
would necessitate the removal of three non-native trees.
The Applicant proposes to replace more trees than are required by the planting
mitigation guidelines of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and the Los Altos
Hills Municipal Code, using species selected from a city -approved list of native
California trees.
A well-established triple -trunked coast live oak would be retained. A healthy native oak
in this location would continue to provide a wonderful shady retreat adjacent to the
tennis court. The applicant has every incentive to maintain strict tree protective
measures before, during, and after construction.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Yniguez
Registered Consulting Arborist
DENNIS YNIGUEZ
TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010
!' fi FYv yA v f rl Sai*
�`\t O i
a a
41
N,,\ti{V' J�yt�`h4ryFni�o�L'7
*at.'L`.� 1 yew h;��5p'tl�3 :1.' �•�+ �d�� ((,y' �� � �},j�.r - v ( y�' "�. ,t.,. �-t��''' _s � •*l�r.�t"
�� t• -y Y d to iy ht�! t""'. 7 � � "1 +:- �, � r �, s 4 y � � ; `
C
�� `%t �1�. 4ait3F y`ti ,F'��1 ;• � w -a a� ��r, �^"g'�+�aa"�. =c�e,�{. ;�)�'�^ -iE� ��!�;: .. ,y �., � �" V^2
_
v �r 7 �,,,� r"r` :,�` '� .�•� aay , �� =Tr•� �-�,.>�„�.�,� x�`,�x �
os is ns i� - �-r. �wxI.Am
• .� �r"`�_ey�.,�`-fir �a.
,;.F .a.,. ,...,�` :.�._ _,...,��i..._".� _�*''L.�«7.�"`-..+r - .... ��:�. __ __•-.ta. ,wc_ w �- _ .. ._Y"���. .. _.. - __..f,, c . ,. _..: _"'�_'� _"�;rot:"�_-_'—�-__.�'` fes. ��'=
�% ,w T
u.
r ' a
Rra �z"� yR i a� J•
�nTY� ��% Fad xs
;tfr tS 'r' r- rtz' x(jy.Jg..ir��;,St
} tr a1 t j ., •t r Y..' ,1 t o i I f n a i
.�hrl
�.� IFk'+'{µ ss eY! �T � 'tt �� i " ,Ac �t t.�!`iv{9 � 41��y>t •k,+.t...� ` 1t�'
✓HOW 14
-
yF '4'+'
RIP"
F {-i' s },"1`,'
Sai he
• r4h� r b ay 'i 4 r4r v a, 4 t`>�t: i � l b'3N
� t ffI�tc ht a > a
rf
• { o I A� i t {'A� c r4 r N f"�2 r r+ } �� tt�� yt�y�'`g�� I,
> rl r 4, h � r3 yr S t'•Y, J I/ �0. a � ar s
t r'Al
3}xi{{ ti t a{t Ur1 i'ta '!a !ti sl�s ( iiJ { �b �.rb �•)��+' y
/ sem-, .v�� slfG liy1't<a 7 aui'6th✓-Jt fls/(.Sy�'It
r i la 1 1 r a c.V a, t'3�r I
"`er��-,.y s rt a t 19'Yx �Sr i 'j�•^14 �•t �'t �J �,4 �:5 � e }. s '�i �� ' >� i t r
• r_i. P `t+YS _`i. 1^+�r'L"h'S, 4 {(y`rl �. _)� ri Til+t �h+h {x k .,�.c i s 'h4.
o v�-Y I` rF i -Ij� •ttd J I J.txu I}
-51—
:, s.. ' a a I � •�: ✓f �,V.Sn �r�lit �%6 4t'. � �i Y !�`-'i
IL
Al
P
7-%
'M1
4 0
�. �r ��� :r:A��� �/.jp, �: �,h':i.�.+ z�-Y. ' t t ta��;�9; ,`�1�3�,s��� c �� � �w�, ..T
A.
This photo shows the asymmetry of an olive trunk as it emerges from the r,
'rown. It is better to replace this tree (Tree No. 3) than attempt to transplant suc'j
arge rootball with a telativelv sw�all dipmerer ri-w;ivi-aa t--ff nal-
W- .;
ll�?W.
14
- An
4f
Teitj
j
A
.es,,
���s?aU Jr �' ��'� ' � rte- `'°•"h.`�, ,_
'35
W
e
oq -1
"Zz
TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD
8. This is the aged shed as viewed from the west. A yellow arrow indicates the broad
crown of the triple -trunked coast live oak (Tree No. 4) that is to be preserved.
9. Photo indicates the triple -trunked coast live oak that is to be preserved, as viewed
from east of the shed.
DENNIS YNIGUEZ
TREE DECISIONS n II Y 73 7010
° G r � �� �+'it ,• x E .sem e F ,a,
t� ,i�� ). :) j •F4��.1J 1'i��F`�^T it 'SFT. �� `i`�
1�{
���}���1'�W�YiE r°•rry>r �,rtrt r •r
f%r ,,pp�a77�(S'f yam• Oft Lf}.
tkt?'t�lriNL+F.�7`. ��5+��rrtay�etsYi� ..
{ � err) 3' S t t r a . a •;! � 'y � �' ! � + r`G �'CtFr e .'
`` t.• V1 'raY.J iG4'L" �, . F P ' � , G. )/} f �'�", � ti ,7'� '-. �-.,jEr - . .
.-
���M. ��� \i r �. i��rr. � f�. >,< G � � l..Y'l )r ., •x 5:�.t.{� �� itbst. z!1 �.,:�s•.�
c
��� t11vtt�� * J �Sl i�4 L T l �� 4t(' G-il "'t !> k t if � 4' � .s,•t � t7 '� r ti4 Iy'�,t 3 y ..,
y » �.1 � •i. :T J j� S k' y � �fi2 \� y - l 7 � ` '4,{ - � r 1 1 ,1r � } S .k ! F �'
r �. 1.� y.F "* - {`� s-�..� y .E 5: .ct 'ry 'Il�r � S C ' a `i. •�'� � 1 +�•...
'� } r G � jr s �'+ 2 �: fy��� }.fi' �' J \ J� ,J �•` 5 - I r 1".�
F�:� 7K�}.s�,r '! �}.r 1•d+�...„,.,� ��s� al.•�t �<r�� ��t� ^7 t% A �s R w ; �1 •.� y} �%rta
�•�d tf7�\.� 3 .. L°• }i hl t
..?#�-''i�itw` 1'd f tF '�,„��.�i.6• "`7'a `' v.c1Ci s .. `2i Gya f r"o r . a� { r t
.Mi^m'•�`r� r r Sl.
i "-,"`�,,�r� •t '' �---.<v_.-- i�•..�yi � ��''� � t' 4 '-tS ' n Nx ti �= � �- "� 4
�" � , 4'ai � t �� � �t�.�`��?+ '�5... -Y- f$�r�,P"' �� ,�•,"%azZ��'v ""'. ��•..�� .-y G t •e y Y f � ..
Ca���'S� ?F�tt.- s`:. __ r _ .� r-: _ a �; { ..,> .�`4�i�`'a',R!' +. "�.rr..:f�'•S•�Lkrn �`�`'L�i�:a�� �_ -
f ?:. �`r `"'!`%stc'atti%aT''""`•^�f..r-'•-� sh 'vK� k • ,� �'at�: '�*,.t...-'
* �� y NS aic...s-a �svro
r ,/yl ? 7 L4is
—FOR ; .oy r. �� `i-�- �....•� 'a���`�•� A-yy`�.S'�� y. -r _ .ate -
r �
* �5x
�•_� �T+Gr> fie"" 5� S - �11gK -`
0100
lull" lit a
-w=4
V" , N4
lip,
Git. jZ1
Ott
flow- WAS a
-W
Lftl
MORM M
m
TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 13
16. Dashed blue lines and orange cones indicate the location of a retaining wall that
would not be closer than nine feet from the oak. The retaining wall would vary in
height from grade to three feet, with an average soil fill depth of eighteen inches.
DENNIS YNIGUEZ
TREE DECISIONS TT 17 v 11 1-1
TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD 14
QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or
ownership of properties are assumed to be valid and marketable. All property is appraised
or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent
management.
All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances,
statutes, or other regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the
consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend meetings, hearings,
conferences, mediations, arbitrations, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent
contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such
services.
This report represents the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is not
contingent upon making any particular recommendation.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural
reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or
other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and
ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents
does not constitute a representation by Dennis Yniguez or Tree Decisions as to the
sufficiency or accuracy of said information.
Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only the examined items and their
condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual
examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring.
There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or
deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future.
DENNIS YNIGUEZ
TREE DECISIONS JULY 23, 2010
ENERGY DISSIPATER
INV..
V,
K
Co
Lg\,!
6"
1=1-" OAK
OLIV
v I
K1,
'I FR\ U 11 T
11L.17
Y,
+ W
9"OU"I
L'+ E
Ox
ON"
A
"M k.
C,
.too,
Appendix A
(J)
Green wavy line indicates the approximate dripline of the triple -trunked coast live oak.
+
Blue line indicates the location of a low retaining wall from 0 to3 feet in height; average soil depth = 18 inches.
+ + +
+
Orange line indicates protective fencing: installation to be completed immediately after the shed is dismantled.
+
DENmis Ymauu TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD
A
TREE DECISIONS JULY 23,2010
+ +
6"WALI
C,
.too,
Appendix A
Green wavy line indicates the approximate dripline of the triple -trunked coast live oak.
+
Blue line indicates the location of a low retaining wall from 0 to3 feet in height; average soil depth = 18 inches.
+ + +
+
Orange line indicates protective fencing: installation to be completed immediately after the shed is dismantled.
+
DENmis Ymauu TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD
A
TREE DECISIONS JULY 23,2010
+ +
WDOL SHED-��
": 0
_zoo -12
F FS=6 'A
rn
- - - - - -
Appendix A
Green wavy line indicates the approximate dripline of the triple -trunked coast live oak.
Blue line indicates the location of a low retaining wall from 0 to3 feet in height; average soil depth = 18 inches.
Orange line indicates protective fencing: installation to be completed immediately after the shed is dismantled.
DENmis Ymauu TREE REMOVAL AND PRESERVATION AT 27270 NATOMA ROAD
A
TREE DECISIONS JULY 23,2010
Appendix B
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
Title 12 PARKS AND RECREATION
Chapter 2 TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS
Article 5. Protection of Trees in Anticipation of and During the Development Process
12-2.502 Removal of trees during the development process.
(a) The Zoning Administrator, the Site Development Committee, the Subdivision
Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. in reviewing development
proposals or subdivisions, shall seek to preserve and protect existing trees, especially Heritage
Oaks and heritage trees, from unnecessary removal or damage by placing conditions on
development approvals. Subdivision lot design and development plans shall accommodate
existing trees whenever possible. The reviewing authority may require the developer to provide
recommendations by an arborist as to the steps that should be taken to protect and preserve
existing trees.
(b) If the City Council finds, after a noticed public hearing, that the conditions of
development approval regarding removal or damage of trees has been violated, it may direct a
stop work order to be issued. A stop work order may halt processing of an application as well as
any on-site work. The stop work order may remain in effect: (1) a plan of restitution has been
approved by the City Council; and (2) the plan has been implemented or a bond has been posted
to ensure compliance with the requirements of the plan of restitution.
(c) The plan of restitution may include, but not be limited to, the replacement of each tree
damaged or removed by up to five (5) trees of reasonable size and the payment of a multi-year
bond to ensure the trees are maintained and cared for. (§ 5 (part), Ord. 332, eff. June 1, 1990)
Appendix C
Special Considerations for Native Oaks
Two of the greatest threats to well-established native oaks are heavily compacted soils and
chronically saturated soils. It is imperative to prevent these conditions before, during, and after
development of the site.
Compacted soil
Soil compaction is the reduction of the space between soil particles. It usually occurs when
heavy construction equipment is driven repeatedly over soil. Compaction can restrict oxygen
diffusion through soil, reducing the ability of roots to absorb sufficient water to keep a tree in
vigorous health.
Restoring adequate space between soil particles by remedial soil treatment can be difficult. The
best way to eliminate soil compaction adjacent to these oaks is to prevent it by keeping
protective fencing in place before and during construction.
Saturated soil
Native'oaks have adapted to climatic fluctuations in water availability. In this area of Northern
California, oaks often survive entire summers with little or no rainfall. However, homeowners
often don't realize this and over -irrigate within the driplines of native oaks to the detriment of
the trees.
When soil becomes chronically saturated, oxygen no longer diffuses efficiently through the soil
and root functioning is impaired. The spaces between soil particles fill with water, beneficial soil
microorganisms die, and anaerobic bacteria proliferate. Roots are then forced to shift from
aerobic to anaerobic respiration, producing toxic chemical compounds that destroy fine roots.
If a native oak has become stressed from sustained drought, a moderate amount of water can
help it to retain a leafy crown and to resist biotic and abiotic environmental pressures. However,
irrigation must be minimal to moderate, soil must not remain saturated, and sprinklers must not
be directed against the trunk.
Crown Rot (Phytophthora dnnamoml)
One byproduct of chronically saturated soil is a dramatic increase in the population of
Aytophthora cinnamomi, a prevalent soil fungus that is found in minute concentrations under
normal soil -moisture conditions. Chronically saturated soil encourages a massive, rapid, and
sustained increase in the soil population of this fungus. Disease often infects the root crown
(the interface of stem and roots) as well as delicate roots throughout the area of soil saturation.
Fine roots and root hairs are essential for the efficient uptake of water. The destruction of fine
roots causes a paradoxically stressful condition: despite an overabundance of water, the tree
cannot obtain enough moisture! The leafy crown continues to lose water through transpiration,
but the lost water cannot be replaced through root absorption. The leaves increase their
production of waxy cuticle (surface cells) to decrease transpiration, and also curl to avoid the
drying effects of sunlight. The tree drops leaves prematurely, and newer leaves are smaller and
less plentiful.
Fortunately, this condition can often be reversed. When the soil returns to a non -saturated
condition, the population of pathogenic Phytophthora fungi "crashes" and newly formed
absorption roots can survive. The tree can again sustain a lush crown of leaves by constantly
replenishing the moisture that is lost through leaf transpiration.
Oak Root Fungus (Armillarra mellea)
Oaks that have been weakened by excess summer irrigation are also often most susceptible to
oak root fungus, a soil microorganism that is found in low concentrations in normal soils.
Sprinklers should not spray directly against the trunk of an oak, because saturated soil is an ideal
environment for the proliferation of this fungus, especially during summer months. The fungus
will grow into living tissues until significant amounts of wood are weakened and destroyed. The
vascular system of the tree is increasingly disrupted, making it ever more difficult for the tree to
continue functioning as a homeostatic system. Once the tree begins to exhibit symptoms of
advanced infection, such as massive leaf loss throughout the crown, it may well be too late to
save the tree.
Appendix D
Leach Field Proximity to the Coast Live Oak
On July 28, 2010, 1 was asked to review site plans for creation of a leach field at 27270
Natoma Road in Los Altos Hills and to evaluate whether installation of the leach field
would significantly affect the health or stability of the triple -trunked coast live oak that is
to be retained on site adjacent to a proposed tennis court.
During a previous site inspection on July 20, 2010, 1 measured the maximum crown
spread of the oak in four cardinal directions. Based on these measurements, I
recommend that four primary leach field trenches west of the entrance driveway be
shortened as illustrated on the diagram included with this Appendix D.
The alteration would require that four trenches .are shortened as follows:
One trench would be shortened by 6 feet on the westernmost end,
Two trenches would be shortened by 7 feet on the westernmost end, and
One trench would be shortened by 10 feet on the westernmost end.
With this reconfiguration, the total length of the primary leach field trenches west of the
entrance driveway would remain at 403 feet. The westernmost end of the trenches
would be at or slightly within the outermost reaches of the dripline of the retained oak.
As long as the trenches are excavated from an easterly direction, there is no danger of
soil compaction within the tree's dripline by heavy equipment used to perform the
excavation. Protective fencing must be installed two feet within the dripline adjacent to
the trenches before excavation equipment approaches the tree. No construction
materials or soil may be deposited, even temporarily, within the dripline. If any roots one
inch or greater in diameter are encountered, they would be cleanly and properly cut by
the arborist to encourage maximum compartmentalization and decay prevention.
The subject oak has never had. artificial irrigation and has had to develop roots deep
enough to consistently obtain adequate water from the water table. The tree's lush
crown is' a reflection of successful root development. The leach field is not expected to
significantly alter the oak's ability to obtain water from the water table.
If four leach field trenches are shortened in accordance with these recommendations,
the leach field would have no significant negative effect on the health or stability of the
retained oak. The oak may well benefit from a continuous new source of moisture and
nutrients as fine roots develop outside the dripline.
I recommend that a qualified consulting arborist remain on site during trenching
operations at the westernmost end of the primary leach field west of the entrance
driveway to ensure that tree protective measures are implemented.
If four proposed primary leach field trenches west of the entrance driveway are shortened by a total of 30 feet, the total
length of these trenches would be 403 feet. The westernmost end of the trenches would terminate at or just slightly within
the outermost reach of the triple -trunked oak's dripline. Trenches would be excavated from an easterly direction to
prevent soil compaction beneath the oak's dripline. The arborist should be on the site to install protective fencing prior to
excavation and to ensure that the westernmost excavation of the leach field will have no significant affect on the tree's
health or stability.
8 wouipt,11V
January 26, 2012
Brian,
There was a meeting at my mother's home this morning. The purpose of the meeting was to
discuss neighbor concerns related to the landscaping plan for Lands of Homa Natoma (the Ellis
property).
Jenna Ellis was accompanied by Tim Kelly and Paula Erickson. Neighbors included Beverly
Barkhau, Sandy Katz, Alice Arnold, Shohreh Malek, and myself.
I believe that the direct input from this group of neighbors made it clear that the desire is to
have nothing planted that will — either now, or in the future — obstruct any off site view that
still remains as of this date (January 26, 2012).
The input was noted and questions were asked on both sides. A decision was made to meet
again prior to the February 2 Planning Commission meeting. The idea is that Jenna Ellis will
have a chance to discuss options with Suzman & Cole Design Associates and come back
(possibly with Todd Cole) to get further input from the neighbors in order to make changes to
the current plan. Hopefully, the result will be something that fully addresses the neighbor
requests.
Thank you again for sending me the ordinance that I had requested (No. 427)
I have had time to read it closely.
In order to record my thoughts as they relate to this ordinance and our observations and
requests, I have summarized them here for the use of the Planning Department as well as the
Planning Commission.
As you know, the Town of LAH Ordinance No. 427 was adopted in June 2003 and added
Chapter 9, to Title 5 of the town's Municipal Code. It defines the regulation of VIEW and
sunlight obstruction from trees, and further defines trees as "any woodyplant with the
potential to obstruct views or sunlight, including but not limited to trees, shrubs, hedges, and
bushes "
Section 5-9.01 lays out the Purpose and Principles of the ordinance. Among other things, it
states that
"BEFORE planting trees, owners and residents SHOULD CONSIDER VIEW and sunlight
BLOCKAGE POTENTIAL, BOTH CURRENTLYAND AT TREE MATURITY."
This is common sense. In a case where there is a 'clean canvas' (at least as far as
landscaping) the issue is not in restoring a view to a certain space in time .... but in fully
protecting the existing view. Anything that extends, or will extend, in to the view of another
property should NOT be allowable.
In the case of Lands of Homa Natoma (Ellis) proposed landscape design, there are
some critical definitions to consider from Section 5-9.02.
*** Landscape Screening definition includes "Landscape screening shall generally not exceed
the height of the ridgeline of the primary structure.
*** The term View is important and it has already been established in the Planning
Commission meetings addressing the structures on the building site (27270 Natoma) , that the
primary living areas at Beverly Bar khau's residence (26861 Altamont Road) are the kitchen,
living room and deck adjacent to the Ellis/Barkhau property line.
Section 5-9.04 is titled Unreasonable Obstruction Prohibited.
In this section, paragraph (a) states that.. "No person shall plant, maintain, or permit to grow
any tree which unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunfight reaching, the primary living
area of any other parcel within the Town of Los Altos Hills "
Section 5-9.05 is titled Criteria for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction. I (we) believe that
criteria (a), (b) and (d) of this Section (see below) carry more than enough explanation as to
why certain parts of the applicant's currently proposed landscaping plan should be eliminated.
Specifically, any `trees' that extend above the ridgeline that they are in closest proximity to.
Also any foliage that obstructs an off site view that has not already been obstructed by any
portion of the residential structure now under construction.
(a) The extent of obstruction of pre-existing views from, or sunlight reaching, the primary
living area of the initiating party, both currently and at tree maturity.
(b) The quality of the pre-existing views being obstructed, including obstruction of
landmarks, vistas, or other unique features.
(d) The extent to which the initiating party's view and/or sunlight has been diminished over
time by factors other than tree growth. (§ 1, Ord. 427, eff. July 5, 2005)
Criteria (d) is key in that the building mass and height of the structure under construction has
already diminished a great deal of neighboring views.
Affected neighbors do not want to be put in a situation where restoration' of views needs to
be addressed. We are asking that landscaping is done responsibly from the onset. To us, that
means following this ordinance and making planting choices, now, that create no potential of
obstructing what is left of neighboring views. This seems like a reasonable request and it
follows the town ordinance that is in place.
ALSO NOTE:
Items of mention that have either not been addressed, or may become a problem:
Lighting
• Height limit to 'down lights' in trees, and other landscaping. There is no defined limit
and that is of concern.
• Quantity of lighting 'fixtures' and frequency and duration of their use.
Water conservation. While according to the town, the plans are defined as `efficient'; there is
a sensitivity to this concept
Grounds/landscaping maintenance — frequency, duration, noise, parking.
Noise from immediate and future mechanical units.
Use of driveway spaces and their extensions as frequent parking areas. The location of such
areas may be problematic from off site.
Attachment 9
Environmental Design and protection Committee
Reviewed by: 1 �CLpp
Date -r. l L• t l
Applicant
Name 4n'LLz K
Address
Site impact/lighting/noise:
iz;-
Creeks, drainage, easements:
Existing Vegetation:
Attachment 10
Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 06/03/2010
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, May 6, 2010, 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Chairman Clow and Commissioners: Collins, Harpootlian, Abraham, and
Partridge.
Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; and Victoria
Ortland, Planning Secretary.
2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR — None
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Regarding Item 3.1, Commissioner
Collins had spoken with the applicant and three neighbors; Commissioner Harpootlian had
spoken with the applicant, architect, and three neighbors; Commissioner Abraham had spoken
with the applicant, and architect; Commissioner Partridge had spoken with the applicant,
architect, and four neighbors; and Chairman Clow had spoken with the applicant, architect,
builder, and five neighbors.
..� 3.1 LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA, LLC, 27270 Natoma Road; File #25-10-ZP-SD-
GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 27,254 square foot
residence with.a partial two story element (maximum height 29'). The applicant is
also requesting a grading policy exception for cuts of up to eight (8) feet to
accommodate a lowered driveway, fire truck turnaround, and front entry. CEQA
Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) & (e) (Staff -Brian
Froelich).
Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for the proposed 27,254 square_ foot
estate home and Grading Policy exception on the 4.92 acre parcel. A previously submitted
application for a five -lot subdivision had been replaced with the approved two -lot subdivision
plan after the applicant's purchase of the property. Newly created Palomino Place, required by
the subdivision improvement plan, will serve as entrance to the lot. The request for the Grading
Policy exception would allow vehicular traffic to access a lowered finished floor level of the
structure. Los Altos Hills' geotechnical consultant had recommended a 25 foot setback from the
Altamont fault trace that crosses the property. Neighbor and resident input both in support and
opposition of the project had been received by staff. Concerns included views, landscape
screening, and close proximity to the property line. Estate home requirements require a public
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010
May 6, 2010
Page 2
hearing for the residence and landscape screening, and increased setbacks (60 feet for the front
and 45 feet for the sides and rear).
Commissioner Abraham asked about the distance of the proposed structure from the setbacks,
and the height of the new home compared to the current house.
Staff explained about 50 percent of the new building is at the setback. The existing house was
two stories at 28 feet in height. The proposed house is primarily single story when viewed from
the uphill side and would be six to eight feet lower.
Commissioner Collins asked about the timeline of the project and neighbor notification.
Staff replied that initial meetings. regarding the project were held in November, plans were
submitted in February, and the neighbors contacted staff in March.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Jenna and Jim Ellis, applicants, stated they had resided in Los Altos Hills for seven years and
wanted to build their dream house on the Natoma Road site. The size, location, neighborhood,
proximity to Westwind Barn, open space, and the views had contributed to selection of the
property for their new home. The house had been designed to accommodate their family,
including the children, parents, and future grandchildren. Effort was made to comply with Town
ordinances and the Grading Policy exception requested only to lower the house for access. The
Ellis' want to be part of the neighborhood and had tried to find compromises to neighbor's
concerns to allow everyone to enjoy the view. They had met with neighbors in April after Town
staff s plan review. As a result of neighbor input, significant changes to the plan had been made.
One adjoining neighbor could not be contacted, despite repeated attempts.
Bob Glazier, architect, said that a survey was conducted of the finished floor elevations for the
surrounding homes to help preserve views that may be affected by the new residence. The new
house was designed to be lower than the existing house to keep it below the finished floor of
most of the homes on the uphill side. The roof layout is broken up by flat areas and cedar
shingles are planned to soften the look. After meeting with the neighbors, concerns about views
were addressed with revision to the plans. The roof slope was lowered and plate heights were
dropped for a reduction in height of the house. Two chimneys were completely removed. The
two car garage was moved into a bunker, the 16 foot high roof was moved back 62 feet, the
game room and showroom garage was moved back 12 feet. The driveway would be moved and a
portion dropped down to meet the floor of the bunker garage. The story poles were readjusted to
reflect the revision to the plans.
Commissioner Collins asked if any of the remaining house design changed with the rotation of
the game room/showcase garage.
Bob Glazier replied that there was no change in the rest of the house.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010
May 6, 2010
Page 3
Commissioner Partridge requested clarification on which set of plans the Planning Commission
was being asked to consider; the plans submitted with the application or the modified plans
presented by Bob Glazier.
Bob Glazier said the revised plans presented at the Planning Commission meeting were
requested for consideration.
Debbie Pedro said staff would like to have the opportunity to complete a thorough plan review
and check for required additional grading.
Commissioner Harpootlian asked if moving the house about 40 feet toward the center of the lot
would create less of an impact to the view from Beverly Barkhau's property.
Bob Glazier said that improvement had been made to the amount of view affected from Beverly
Barkhau's house with the plan changes that moved the large roof completely out of view. He
wanted other options examined before considering moving the house -down slope.
Jim Ellis felt that moving the house 40 feet would severely compromise their views from the new
house. The conservation easement would become the primary view, a partial mountain view
would be retained, but no bay view would remain.
Commissioner Collins appreciated the effort made to design the new house so the top of the roof
would be at or -below the--finished-floor of -the neighboring -homes: This would- be the perfect
solution if the view was straight across the bay to the mountains, but from the neighboring
properties, the view to the bay is downward. She was not convinced that the roof to finished
floor relationship was as effective in this case. Every room in the proposed house appears to have
a view of the water in the bay.
Bob Glazier stated that determining the finished floor of the surrounding homes was a starting
point in developing a strategy to maintain the neighbor's view and create a view for the
applicants. The view from the master bedroom area would be more of trees than the bay, as the
house bends at that section.
Commissioner Partridge asked if an alternative plan for the roof wells containing the air
conditioners was a possibility. Relocating the AC equipment would allow the height of the roof
to be lowered and reduce obstruction of the neighbor's view.
Bob Glazier said that the proposed roof design, to accommodate the air conditioning units, was
lower than a roof line that would rise to a peak. The house had been designed with as much flat
roof area as possible.
Alice Arnold, Almaden Court, said that the existing house is about one fifth, one sixth, or one
seventh the size of the proposed house. The comparison was not fair between the existing house,
which is not destroying anyone's view, and the proposed house which will be destroying many
people's view.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010
May 6, 2010
Page 4
Paul Staschower, Almaden Court, said that the new residence would effectively create a 24 to 29
foot high solid wall across the entire back width of his lot. No view space allowance would exist
along the side of his house that currently has a view. From the pool deck of his home, the
proposed house at the minimum setback would block not only the view but also air flow. A
simple solution for compromise would be to move the house down the hill and preserve the
openness of Los Altos Hills that he desired and has enjoyed for years.
Shohreh Malek, Altamont Road, stated that she would be adversely affected by the project as
would all the surrounding neighbors. She was concerned that the close proximity and site
orientation of the long, large house would block the view from the five neighbors. Greatly
increased setbacks must be required because of the bulk and enormity of the structure. The
highest part of the house, at 29 feet, is directly in the narrow view corridor and blocks the view.
The views affected in her home would be from the bedroom, living room, family room, kitchen,
breakfast nook, and outdoor sitting area. The unprecedented size of the house will affect the rural
character and openness of the neighborhood. She suggested increasing the setback, moving the
house down the slope another 30 feet, lowering the profile of the structure 15 feet with grading
and excavation, and lowering the ceiling height (especially at the tallest section on the east side).
Yigal Brandman, Natoma Road, spoke in support of the project and thought the house would be
a good addition to the neighborhood. He hoped the Planning Commission would approve the
plan.
Courtenay Corrigan, Fremont Pines Lane, supported the application and said that Jim and Jenna
Ellis had searched a long time for the ideal property for their new home. The proposed project
had been designed to meet the Town's guidelines and the applicants have been willing to make
many compromises for the neighbors.
Randall Kruep, Sunrise Farm Road, enjoyed the view of the spectacular property and gave his
support of the project.
Bill Shreve, Almaden Court,. supported the project and appreciated the reduction in the final
number of lots for the subdivision from five to two. He felt the impact on the view and
neighborhood would have been worse with five houses. He hoped the Planning Commission
would approve the application.
Lisa Warren, Cupertino, daughter of Beverly Barkhau, Altamont Road, said she appreciated the
recent efforts made to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. She felt the application was "one of a
kind" and the size and amenities of the project classified it as more than an estate home. She
commented on the process for project submittal, review, and approval quoting the wording from
the Town's Site Development Review Process handouts. She noted that special consideration
must be given during the development process to keep protection of views and scenic corridors a
priority. Conducting neighborhood outreach before filing the site development approval is
recommended. Considering the handout suggestions and reference to the General Plan, she
requested that the Planning Commission require stricter standards for height, setbacks, site
location, and size of the project. Increasing the setbacks would lessen the obtrusiveness of the
structure and create a buffer for noise and privacy as the setback minimums for estate homes
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010
May 6, 2010
Page 5
would not mitigate the project. Because the house is situated backward on the site, it would be
appropriate to designate the front of the lot as the south and west borders.
Commissioner Harpootlian asked Ms. Warren where she had obtained her information.
Lisa Warren replied that the General Plan and Municipal Code of Los Altos Hills had provided
the information.
Sandy Katz, daughter of Beverly Barkhau, Altamont Road, urged the Planning Commission to
closely examine the location of the garage and the height of the recreation room roof. Their view
would be taken away by these elements because they are directly in the line of sight. The garage
and recreation room could be relocated further down toward the center of the property to
alleviate the problem. Although commendable, the plan changes to rotate the garage do not
remedy the loss of view from the kitchen, the majority of the deck, and elsewhere. The rotated
garage will be longer across the view, and as the view is down and not straight across, the bay
view and city lights will be lost.
Chairman Clow said that his understanding of the photographs, given to the Planning
Commission, represented the views from the individual neighbor's homes.
Sandy Katz replied that the photographs representing the view from Beverly Barkhau's house
were taken only from the deck. Beverly spends most of their time inside the house so the view
from inside the house (kitchen, living room, etc.) was very important. The new house will
significantly compromise the current view from her home.
Mitra Malek, Altamont Road, said that the majority of the photographs of her home were taken
from the back yard and do not depict actual views from the living areas. When looking out from
the inside of her house, much more of the view will be obstructed than the photos show. The
story poles do not give a true depiction of the extent of the view blockage caused by the new
house. She suggested moving the house down slope on the property. A possible compromise
could be to reduce the number of rooms in the proposed house that have prime views, to help
preserve the views from the existing homes in the neighborhood.
Tracy Liu, 26751 Almaden Court, thought the new residence would increase home values in the
neighborhood. She requested an increased setback because the proposed residence was located
too close to her property line. She also had privacy concerns over the height of the new house
and asked for installation of 15 foot tall screening trees.
Mina Malek, Altamont Road, felt the new development would devaluate all the properties up
slope of the site. The existing house may be taller than the proposed building; but it is so much
smaller that it blocks only a sliver of the view, compared to the amount that will be obscured by
the new residence. The proposed structure will completely block the view over the entire
expanse over their property line. The entire beautiful view of the city lights from her bedroom
window will be gone. She asked the Planning Commission to consider her cherished view when
making their decision.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010
May 6, 2010
Page 6
Jim Ellis said the comparison with the existing house was used only as a reference point and not
meant to misrepresent the scope of the project. In the presentation, they had tried to use
photographs provided by neighbors to document the views that the neighbors had considered
important.
Bob Glazier explained that the plans for the project had been shared with the neighbors after he
was confident that they were in compliance with Town ordinances. He said he had convinced the
Ellis' that it would make a good argument for approval if the new house was kept below the
finished floor of the homes behind. Even though a two-story house have been a possibility and
would improve their views, they felt it was more neighborly to build a one story structure.
Beverly Barkhau's view issue is difficult to address because her house is at nearly the same
elevation and was non -conforming by its proximity to the property line. He felt that the changes
in the revised plan, with the 16 foot high roof moved 62 feet and the entire structure moved 12
feet, was a major response to some of their concerns about compromised views.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Abraham supported the project with the proposed revisions. The project complied
with Town ordinances and the applicants had worked hard to accommodate the views of the
neighbors while preserving some of their own views. The Grading Policy exception was justified
and allowed for a lower garage.
Commissioner Partridge felt that it would be very hard to make a decision on the revised plans
without a review by staff. Increased setbacks would be helpful so the facade would not appear as
much like a solid wall. The driveway was too close to the neighboring properties and an increase
in setback for both the house and driveway would be desirable.
Commissioner Collins said the applicants had been considerate of the neighbors and made a
remarkable effort to design the house within the ordinances. However, because of the impact on
the neighborhood from the size of the house, more consideration must be given before a decision
on the project. The proposed revisions to the submitted plans need to be thoroughly reviewed by
staff. Los Altos Hill's Site Development Ordinance required structures to be unobtrusive when
viewed from offsite, scenic views should be retained, and buildings are not to dominate the
natural landscape. She suggested that to retain the views, the entire structure or portions of it,
should be moved down slope.
Commissioner Harpootlian asked staff if the height of any portion of the new house was higher
than a single story.
Brian Froelich replied that some of the floor area in the center part of the house had been counted
twice (as floor area) because of the height.
Commissioner Harpootlian said that portions of the house were counted as two stories. He felt a
significant improvement toward preserving the neighbors' views could be made by moving the
house down slope.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 06/03/2010
May 6, 2010
Page 7
Chairman Clow said that a challenge for the house, even with the 45 foot setback, was its
perception of massiveness. He felt the applicants had acted with integrity regarding the neighbors
and the use of the photographs. He emphasized the importance of the neighbors sharing
photographs with the applicants that documented the most important views from their properties.
Thoughtfully placed landscape screening would help break up the fagade of the new house. He
thought continuing the project to a future Planning Commission meeting was an option.
Commissioner Harpootlian agreed that the project should be continued with the specific
suggestion to move the house at least 20 feet down slope, and maybe with a goal of 30 to 40 feet.
Chairman Clow pointed out that just moving the house would significantly impact the Barkhau's
view and end up with a worse situation.
Commissioner Abraham agreed that simply moving the house downhill would negatively affect
the Barkhau's property.
Commissioner Collins stated that an increase in cut for the Grading Policy exception may be
needed with the relocation of the house.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by
Commissioner Harpootlian and seconded by Commissioner Collins to continue the application to
a future Planning Commission meeting and for the applicant to consider the following
suggestions: move the house or part of the house down slope at least 20 to 30 feet, lower the
house elevation with more excavation, relocate the air conditioning units so the roof profile can
be lowered, and work closely with the neighbors to address their concerns.
AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Clow
NOES: None
Jim and Jenna Ellis accepted the continuance of the project to a future Planning Commission
meeting. Jenna wanted to know at what point before the meeting they should present the plans to
the neighbors and when the story poles should be changed.
Debbie Pedro, Planning Director said that staff would meet with the applicants after the public
hearing. The story poles need to be changed to reflect the new plans. The applicant should share
the redesigned plans with the neighbors and incorporate their suggestions if possible.
Chairman Clow asked for a way to facilitate communication between the applicants and the
neighbors.
Debbie Pedro replied that a neighborhood meeting could be held at Town Hall.
Commissioner Collins explained to the neighbors that the rooftop of the new residence cannot be
completely screened.
This item will be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting.
Attachment 11
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 09/02/2010
August 5, 2010
Page 2
of Item 4.2; Commissioner Clow had met with the applicants and the neighbors of Item 4.1; and
Chairman Abraham had spoken with the applicant of Item 4.1 and the applicant of Item 4.2.
4.1 LANDS OF HOMA NATOMA, LLC, 27270 Natoma Road; File #25-10-ZP-SD-
GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 25,273 square foot new
residence (maximum height 27') with a 2,940 square foot basement, and a 7,200
square foot tennis court. The applicant is requesting a grading policy exception
for up to eleven (11) feet of cut for the driveway, fire truck turnaround, and front
entry and up to eight (8) feet of fill for the house and yard. (CONTINUED FROM
THE MAY 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) CEQA Review:
Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) & (e) (staff -Brian Froelich).
Brian Froelich, presented the staff report for the proposed estate home and Grading Policy
exception continued by the Planning Commission from the May 6, 2010 meeting. A tennis court
application had been added to the previous submittal. At the May meeting, the Planning
Commission had given four directives to the applicants: relocate the home farther down the
slope, lower the house elevation by excavation, relocate the roof air conditioning units and
remove the roof parapets, and continue to work with the neighbors for view and visible bulk
issues. In response, the floor area had been reduced by just under 2,000 square feet; the setbacks,
except on the east side, have been increased; the building profile had generally been lowered
three to six feet; roof pitch reduced; plate height lowered by two feet; the air conditioning units
had been relocated underground; the roof parapets had been removed. A fault trace crosses the
property; Murray Engineers recommended a 25 -foot horizontal and a 14 -foot vertical setback
relative to the descent of the fault plane. Two neighborhood outreach meetings were held after
the May Planning Commission meeting to address concerns raised about the project. Letters
from neighbors, Barkhau and Malek, had been received prior to tonight's meeting stating that the
design had been improved but not to the degree expected. A letter delivered at tonight's meeting
raised questions regarding the location of the tennis court and mitigation for vehicle headlights
on the driveway.
Commissioner Collins confirmed with staff that the information regarding the fault trace had
been included in the previous staff report and had been reflected in the original design.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Jenna Ellis, applicant, explained that input provided by the neighbors at the neighborhood
outreach meeting, held after the May meeting, was used as the basis for developing the design
changes. Many hours of effort from various professionals had been required to gather the needed
information in order to present workable, revised plans. A second neighborhood meeting was
held later to discuss the plan changes prior to submittal to the Town and placement of the story
poles.
Jim Ellis, applicant, said that a great amount of time, energy, emotion, and financial resources
had been put into the plan revisions. He and Jenna had tried to understand the concerns of each
neighbor affected by the construction of the new residence. The direction of the Planning
Commission was carefully considered during the plan revision process. A balance was sought to
prevent impacting one neighbor while addressing resolution of concerns for another. Substantial
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 09/02/2010
August 5, 2010
Page 3
changes had been made to the plans to share the views with the neighbors. Their objective was to
try to be good neighbors and members of the community.
Bob Glazier, summarized the design changes made to the plans, after the May 6, 2010 Planning
Commission meeting, that addressed the neighbor's concerns. The location of the house as
shown on the revised plans was moved as much as 34 feet along the eastern property line; the
MFA had been reduced by 2,000 square feet; portions of the roof were lowered by up to six feet;
all roof wells removed; all roof mounted HVAC units removed; two chimneys removed; portions
of the driveway had been relocated and lowered up to three feet; temporary landscape screening
would be put in place; and removal and trimming of trees could be done to improve views from
the Barkhau property. He also offered an additional one foot reduction, beyond the presented
plans, in the roof height above the family room/game room due to recent discussions with the
project's structural engineer. The oak tree previously planned for removal will be preserved.
Added to the revised plan was a tennis court proposed for the lower part of the site.
Andy Murray, Geotechnical Consultant, said Murray Engineers had performed a geotechnical
and geologic evaluation for the property. The geotechnical perspective was conducted to provide
foundation recommendations and the geologic assessment was conducted for evaluation of the
Altamont fault trace. Drilled piers were recommended for the main residence while the basement
would be on bedrock. The fault trace setbacks were determined to be 25 feet for the horizontal
setback and 14 feet for the vertical setback.
Commissioner Clow asked the dimensions of the existing shed to be removed in the location of
the tennis Court.
David DaPonte, architect, estimated that the size of the shed as 12 feet in height and 20 feet by
35 feet. He did not think that the tennis court fence would affect any views.
Commissioner Partridge asked if the tennis court fence would affect the neighbor's view and if
the change in the slope of the roof had actually decreased the roof height.
Bob Glazier said the change in the slope of the roof actually reduced the roof ridges and
increased the flat area of the roof.
Commissioner Collins asked why there was no change in the kitchen or garage roof height and
the interior peak height of the kitchen/family room.
Bob Glazier felt that because the roof ridge had been made smaller by changing the slope and by
also making the actual roof smaller, the height was less long than the previous plan. A portion of
the roof is at the same height; but the length of the ridge and overall roof mass has been reduced.
The peak of the kitchen/family room is 16 feet and goes down to nine feet at the corner walls.
Commissioner Harpootlian said that up to two feet could be taken off the roofline by flattening it
in the center.
Bob Glazier said that a flat roof on top of a sloping roof does not look "quite right" and was
reminiscent of a McDonald's restaurant.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 09/02/2010
August 5, 2010
Page 4
Jenna Ellis explained that the driveway had been moved toward the middle of the lot and
lowered in response to Mr. Chang's concern over headlights shining onto his property from
vehicles utilizing the driveway. The tennis court fit in the area between the driveway and Mr.
Chang's property. Standard sport fencing would be used to surround the tennis court.
Gary Chang, Carrington Circle, said the applicant had not contacted him. He felt the tennis court
was too close to his property line. It would block his views to the bay; create noise problems, and
the airborne tennis balls could potentially break the windows in his house. He wanted the tennis
court relocated to the northeast corner of the property.
Lisa Warren, Cupertino, commented that if the new structure were made smaller, the fault issue
would be avoidable. She said the original roof design had been in a McDonald's restaurant style.
It must be considered that the story poles provide only an outline of the structure and do not
represent the mass of the building. A great portion of the view that her mother has treasured for
over 40 years will be blocked and the true view will be gone forever. While the applicant has
made changes in response to direction from the May meeting -some things remain unaddressed.
The finished floor elevation has not been reduced from 705 feet; this fact combined with the
building design as it relates to the ceiling and roof height resulted in an average reduction in roof
elevation of approximately two feet. The total elevation is actually higher in at least one area.
That is particularly important to note in the expansive spaces at the west end and center of the
project. The solution would be to create a lower building elevation by reducing ceiling and/or
roof height in these areas.
William Shreve, Almaden Court, spoke in favor of the project and felt the Ellis' had
communicated very well with him regarding the plans and the design changes. He strongly
supported construction of one house on the site instead of subdividing the lot further and
building additional homes. Moving the house any farther would negatively affect the applicant's
view; all the neighbors, including the Ellis', should share the view.
Shohreh Malek, Altamont Road, said that the changes in the plan revision had made some areas
better, some worse, and some areas had no change. Two areas were particularly important to the
view from her house. The revision had shifted the living room and entry area eastward and more
into her view corridor. The height of the top portion of the roof ridge in the living area is still the
same as before. She wanted the highest portion of the ridge lowered by three feet by changing
the pitch of the roof. In the family room/kitchen area, the highest triangular portion point of the
roof ridge needs to go down or be clipped three feet. Lowering the highest roof ridgeline of the
living room and family room/kitchen area will greatly improve her view and balance the
movement of all the rooflines from her angle and make them less imposing.
Israel Liv, Natoma Road, said he was the neighbor who would be most significantly affected by
the building process because the construction traffic would utilize the driveway he shares with
the Ellis'. Given the Ellis' prior concern and accommodation for his family to reach their home
in bad weather while the driveway construction was underway, he believed they would be
supportive to all the neighbors. He said that he has had ongoing good communication with them
since they purchased the property. He felt that one home on the site would be better than multiple
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 09/02/2010
August 5, 2010
Page 5
houses if the lot were subdivided. The new residence would improve the neighborhood and
increase property values. He supported the proposed project and the tennis court.
Alice Arnold, Almaden Court, asked if the Planning Commission's decision would include both
the structure and the tennis court. She felt that since the tennis court was an addition to the
project as presented in May, there had not been time for discussion on the tennis court and its
location.
Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, stated that the second notice for the project had included both
the proposed new residence and the tennis court for consideration at tonight's meeting.
Mark Harrison, Page Mill Road, said that he believed that homeowners in Los Altos Hills should
develop their property to their liking, as long it does not adversely affect their neighbors or the
neighborhood. He wanted the Planning Commission to consider the feelings of all persons
affected by the project.
Mina Malek, Altamont Road, supported her mother's, Shohreh Malek, views. She felt that their
suggestions for the changes would not be a big of a sacrifice for the Ellis', but would completely
affect her family's view. The small reduction in the ceiling height would make a huge impact for
the view from her property and she hoped the request would be accommodated.
Ken Arnold, Almaden Court, felt that just because the applicants were building did not give them
the right to block the existing views of five families. The people in favor of the project did not
have views that would be blocked. He believed the Town had guidelines that were being passed
over.
David DaPonte explained that the proposed location for the tennis court is a fairly level area and
was made available with the move of the driveway. The cut for the tennis court would be six feet
on the southern edge and the fill would be three feet on the northern edge. The northeast corner
of the property, where Mr. Chang had suggested locating the tennis court, is steep in areas and
has a natural swale running across it. The location of the leach field restricts placement in the
central portion of the lot. Two large heritage oak trees prevent moving the tennis court eastward
toward the driveway.
Discussion ensued regarding the cut, fill, and fence height for the tennis court.
Commissioner Clow asked Bob Glazier if the Malek's request to lower the roof ridge was
possible.
Bob Glazier felt that, considering the size of the interior space in the family room/kitchen, a 16 -
foot ceiling was needed. He felt the revised design was the best possible solution. He sincerely
believed that he had taken everyone's concerns into account for the plan.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Partridge said that Town ordinances allow a house of estate size. He commended
the Ellis' on the modifications made to the house. He was still concerned about the impact to the
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 09/02/2010
August 5, 2010
Page 6
Malek's view and could fully support the project if the roofline was lowered a one or two feet.
The resulting view obstruction was not out of line for the impact of any house build on the site.
He had no particular objections to the tennis court or the proposed location, but because of the
size and scale of the new residence, he thought the tennis court should be heard at a later date.
Commissioner Clow was impressed with the time and number of changes the applicants made to
the design to accommodate the specific concerns of the neighbors. He was also impressed with
the effort put forth by the neighbors to make their most important concerns understood by the
Ellis'. He felt the Barkhau's would actually have more of a view after the tree removal and
trimming. Relocating the air conditioning units and roof wells improved the roof down view
looking for the higher properties. The walls of the house have been staggered to break up the
solid wall appearance and the structure moved back from the property line. He felt that
subdividing the properly into more lots to allow more houses would disrupt the neighbor's view
more than the single large house. He felt he could go either way with the request by the Malek's
for the additional lowering of the roof line. He felt that the tennis court could be approved with
the residence.
Commissioner Harpootlian thanked the applicant for the sincere effort to make plan changes for
the neighbors. He explained that the Planning Commission makes attempts to mitigate the impact
of a project with specific direction from the Town ordinances; not restrict the ability for a home
to be built. He suggested lowering the roof line over the game room and family room; he did not
recommend lowering the roof over the living room area. He was not comfortable making a
decision on the tennis court without visiting the Chang property and thought that portion of the
application should be heard at the time of landscape screening.
Commissioner Collins had wanted the house moved down slope and cut more into the landscape
but not out and north. She wanted to see a significant difference for the neighbors uphill and in
the sight line and the view of the entire house for the neighbors downhill. The geotechnical
report showed that the structure could not be moved more down slope, so it was moved out, in
order to move it as far as possible from the neighbors uphill. She felt that the Town ordinances
suggest that views should be protected. The members of the Planning Commission are to do their
best to prevent complete obstruction of views, but not to make sure that 100 percent of the views
are retained. The view from the Staschower property has been improved by moving the proposed
residence to the north and the view impact for the Barkhau property has also been improved. The
Malek's view would be improved by the changes they suggested for the roofline. She supported
lowering the roofline over the family room/kitchen by three feet. The application for tennis court
should be brought to the Planning Commission at a future time.
Chairman Abraham was impressed by the Ellis' and their architects' efforts to improve the
situation for the neighbors. He felt the original submittal had been well within ordinance
requirements. Recent buyers of property in Los Altos Hills should enjoy the same rights and
protection as other residents. He did not think the impact on the views would be better for the
neighbors if several homes were built instead of the proposed house. The decision on the tennis
court should be made with the new residence. He supported the project as submitted.
Commissioner Clow suggested lowering the roof line two feet and delaying decision on the
tennis court.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 09/02/2010
August 5, 2010
Page 7
Commissioner Harpootlian suggested lowering the roof line section above the family room/game
room by one foot.
Commissioner Collins asked if lowering the roof line over the family room/kitchen three feet,
lowering the roof line over the living room three feet, and lowering the roof line over the family
room/game room by one foot was an option the Commission could consider.
MOTION MADE, AMENDED, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion
made by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Collins to approve the requested
Site Development Permit, for the new residence only, with the following changes: the roof
section above the family room/kitchen shall be lowered by three feet, the roof section above the
living room shall be lowered three feet, and the roof section above the family room/game room
shall lowered by one foot.
Planning Director Pedro clarified that the one foot reduction over the family room/game room
was to be in addition to the one foot the architect had already offered, for a total of a two foot
reduction from the presented plans.
AYES: Commissioners: Clow, Collins, Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Abraham
NOES: None
The new residence portion of this item will be forwarded to the City Council.
MOTION MADE AND FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND: Motion made by
Commissioner Clow to approve the requested Site Development Permit for the tennis court.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by
Commissioner Clow, and seconded by Commissioner Collins to, with the applicant's consent,
continue the tennis court portion of the Site Development Permit application to the next Planning
Commission meeting.
AYES: Commissioners: Clow, Collins, Harpootlian, Partridge, and Chairman Abraham
NOES: None
The tennis court portion of this item will be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting
4.2 LANDS OF NICHOLSON, End of Eastbrook Avenue, (APN 336-42-021); File
#96 -04 -08 -TM -IS -ND -GD; A request for a three lot subdivision of an existing
12.56 acre parcel. The property is zoned R -A (Residential -Agricultural). CEQA
Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration (staff -Cynthia Richardson).
Cynthia Richardson, Consultant Planner, presented the staff report for the three -lot subdivision
of the 12.56 acre parcel. All resulting parcels met the requirements of the municipal code and
subdivision ordinance. An Initial Study had been prepared and included mitigation measures for
biologic considerations, noise reduction measures, and handling of archeological remains. Two
specific studies were performed for the Initial Study including a traffic noise assessment and a