HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1Item 3.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 3, 2012
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 7,337 SQUARE FOOT
TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 3,647 SQUARE FOOT
BASEMENT, ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, FLOOR
AREA AND DEVELOPMENT AREA VARIANCE, AND REMOVAL
OF TWO (2) HERITAGE OAK TREES; LANDS OF YONG; 13456
SOUTH FORK LANE; FILE #249-10-ZP-SD-GD-VAR-IS-MND.
CONTINUED FROM THE MAY 31, 2011 FAST-TRACK
HEARING.
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner
APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Review, make comments, and forward a recommendation that, based on the Initial Study,
the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program in Attachment 3; and
Forward a recommendation that the City Council approve the requested Site
Development Permit and Variance for the project, citing the findings in Attachment 2 and
subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located off of Page Mill Road at the end of South Fork Lane. The
lot has a rectangular shape and no roadway frontage but is accessed though a driveway
easement traversing the lot immediately to the west. The property has a net size of 2.454
acres with an average slope of 29%. The site is currently developed with a primary
residence, two detached buildings, and a swimming pool. The lot was created in 1973 via
a two -lot subdivision. The site contains a 10 foot wide Pathway Easement along the north
and eastern property boundaries. Other site characteristics include: over 50 heritage oak
trees, primarily native vegetation, hillside location, and a secluded building site.
The project was originally heard at the Fast-track hearing on May 31, 2011. At that
hearing, representatives from the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP)
submitted a letter dated May 27, 2011 (Attachment 4) that questioned the project's
eligibility for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA (California Environmental Quality
Act). The site was formerly owned and occupied by Pulitzer Prize winning author,
Wallace Stegner from 1949 to 1993. The NTHP letter requested that the Town, as the
Lead Agency, conduct further environmental review prior to taking action on the project.
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 2
As a result, the hearing was continued to a date uncertain. The Town subsequently
commissioned and oversaw the preparation of two supplemental environmental reports
prepared by historic preservation consultants (Attachments 5 & 6) and prepared an Initial
Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration in response to the concerns raised by NTHP.
The concerns raised by NTHP and resulting Mitigation Measures have prompted a
change to the scope of work for the project. The project applicant is now proposing to
retain the existing detached, writing studio to the location of the existing former
study/guest cottage. A Floor Area and Development Area Variance are requested to allow
for the preservation and relocation of the writing studio.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area: 2.454 acres
Net Lot Area: 2.454 acres
Average Slope: 29%
Lot Unit Factor: 1.455
Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left
Development 11,958* 12,309 10,189 2,120 +351**
Floor 7,348 7,602 2,249 5,353 +254**
*Increased MDA Per Section 10-1.502(b)(6) (Solar Ordinance)
**Variance Request
Site and Architecture
The 2.454 acre site has a 29% slope that ascends from the northwest corner to the
southeast corner. The building site location is a knoll top but the site is not located on a
ridgeline.
The proposed new construction would be in the location of the existing residence and
writing studio of the late Wallace Stegner. Under the proposed Site Development Permit,
the existing single family residence, carport, and a detached former study/guest cottage
would be demolished. The author's writing studio, located adjacent to the north side of
the residence, would be preserved and relocated on the property, at the current site of the
former study/guest cottage a short distance west of the residence (approximately 90 feet
southwest).
The design of the proposed residence utilizes all of the allowable floor area and
development area for the residence, driveway and accessory structures. The proposed site
layout includes the primary building, relocation of the writing studio, new driveway plan,
decking and swimming pool. The exterior building materials include plaster and stone
siding with aluminum canopies, windows and detailing.
i
s Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 3
The residence includes a full basement (3,647 so and swimming pool to the southwest of
the residence. The building floor plan includes a secondary dwelling unit in the basement,
an attached three -car garage and two surface parking spaces are accommodated within
the driveway layout.
The proposed residence complies with setbacks and height standards per Title 10 of the
Municipal Code.
Driveway & Parking
The proposed driveway will utilize the existing access from South Fork Lane. The subject
property has right of access over the adjacent lot to the west. The driveway terminus
incorporates two (2) surface parking spaces and a firetruck turnaround.
The proposal includes an overall reduction of driveway paving. The driveway has a curve
as it turns toward the residence. The proposed design shortens the curve and approaches
the building site from a lower elevation. The design complies with Town and Fire
Department standards.
Outdoor Li hg ting
Outdoor lighting is shown on the elevation plan sheets. Standard lighting is proposed,
with two (2) fixtures per double door exit, one (1) fixture per single door exit, and several
building perimeter fixtures at stairways or at distance from exits. The standard lighting
Condition 7 for outdoor lighting, requires that fixtures be down shielded or have
frosted/etched globes. The applicant is required to submit outdoor landscape lighting
details with the required landscape screening plan.
Grading & Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the project Civil Engineering plans and has
determined that the proposal complies with the Grading Policy and the Town's drainage
standards. Grading quantities include:
• 3,556cubic yards of cut
• 76 cubic yards of fill
• 3,480 cubic yards export
The site grading and cut are primarily for the basement excavation, swimming pool
excavation, and driveway realignment.
The drainage design directs water into catch basins and area drains conveyed into 4"
pipes that connect to two (2) energy dissipaters. The dissipaters are located 60 and 80 feet
from adjacent property lines to allow ground absorption. The project Engineer's drainage
calculations demonstrate that the post development runoff will not exceed the
predevelopment totals.
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 4
Geotechnical Review
The applicant has provided a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Murray Engineers
Inc. The proposed building site is located 25 to 30 feet from the Monta Vista fault.
Therefore, the project Geotechnical Consultant has recommended that the basement have
a reinforced mat slab that a minimum of 10 inches thick.
The Town's Geotechnical consultant has peer reviewed the proposal and recommended
standard conditions that include follow up documentation and inspection by the project
geologist (Conditions 24a & 24b).
Trees & Landscaping
The site is naturally landscaped and contains over 50 heritage oak trees (12" and larger in
truck diameter). The applicant has provided an arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist
Services dated October 12, 2010 (Attachment 7). The report analyzes the health and
condition of 24 oak trees in the closest proximity to the proposed construction project and
staging operations.
The applicant requests removal of two heritage oak trees, 18" and 20" specimens as part
of the project. The project arborist comments that the trees are in poor and fair condition,
respectively. The 18" tree has grown to within three (3) feet of the existing residence and
could become a safety and maintenance concern. The 20" tree is in fair health but is
located immediately next to an existing retaining wall proposed for removal.
Per LAHMC Section 12-2.306, mitigation plantings at a 2:1 ratio with 24" box sized oak
trees are recommended per Condition 21 of this report. Tree protection measures are also
recommended per Condition 23.
Green Building Ordinance
The applicant has submitted a GreenPoint checklist in compliance with the Town's Green
Building Ordinance. The building is designed to achieve 102 points in the GreenPoint
Rated certification program.
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has required that the
building be sprinklered, the driveway accommodate a standard Fire Truck Turnaround,
and provide a public fire hydrant at a location to be determined. (Attachment 16)
Sanitation
The Santa Clara County Health Department has preliminarily approved the residence and
septic system layout.
C Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 5
Public Comments
The Town has received written support of the project from neighbors representing six (6)
different properties. Several of the neighbors have lived in the neighborhood for some
time and where neighbors of the former owner, Wallace Stegner. (Attachment 8)
The Town has received a comment letter regarding the CEQA documents from resident
Lester D. Earnest dated April 13, 2012. JRP Historical Consulting has prepared a
response to the CEQA questions raised in Mr. Earnest's letter. (Attachments 9 & 10)
The Town has also received letters from two San Francisco residents, Joan Reinhardt
Reiss and Susan Alexander. The letters request that the Town consider moving the
writing studio to a site near Town Hall for public access. (Attachment 11)
Town Committee's Review
The Pathways Committee has recommended that the applicant maintain the existing
Pathways on the property. (Attachment 12)
The Open Space Committee has recommended that an Open Space Easement be placed
over the northwestern slope on the property to preserve the steep slopes and oak grove.
The recommended easement area totals approximately 0.58 acres. (Attachment 13)
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented that the MDA and
MFA are at the maximum and that two heritage oak trees are to be removed. (Attachment
14)
Variance
Variances provide relief from development standards where a particular property has a
limitation or deficiency that disallows the property from being developed in a manner
consistent with similarly zoned properties. In order to approve a Variance, the Planning
Commission must find that the site presents inherent difficulties.
In order to accommodate the identified historic resource on the property, the applicant is
requesting a Floor Area Variance to exceed the MFA by 254 square feet and a
Development Area Variance to exceed the MDA by 351 square feet. As designed the
project otherwise meets all of the Town's Development standards. The proposed
overages relate only to the writing studio and associated decks and landings needed
around the structure.
The unusual circumstance of a historic resource on a private property is only applicable
to a small number of properties within the Town. Granting of a Variance would not
constitute a special privilege because so few other properties within the same zoning
district contain historic resources. Further, both Variances are relatively insignificant with
regard to overall site planning and layout, constituting approximately a 3% overage of the
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 6
MDA and MFA. Findings for approval of the Variances are included in Attachment 2 of
the staff report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA)
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study,
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared
for the project. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
published in the Town Crier on April 11, 2012. The notice was also submitted to the
Santa Clara County Clerk's Office for a 20 day public review period which began on
April 10, 2012 through April 30, 2012.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration must be adopted by the City Council before
approving the project. In order to recommend adoption, the Commission must find that
all potentially significant environmental effects are addressed through the proposed
mitigation measures.
As the Lead Agency, the Town of Los Altos Hills commissioned Circa Historic Property
Development to prepare a Base -Line Historic Resources Assessment and JRP Historical
Consulting to prepare a Mitigation Analysis and Identification Report.
Circa analyzed the property for both the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP)
criteria and the California Registry of Historical Resources (CRHR) and concluded that
the writing studio meets the National Register's criteria while the primary residence and
guest cottage are contributing buildings.
The historical resource on the property includes three contributing components: the main
residence, former study/guest cottage, and writing studio. In addition, the rural location
and setting contributes to the significance of the resource. While all of these elements
contribute the significance of the resource, according to the Circa Assessment, only the
writing studio meets the criteria for individual listing in the NRHP and CRHR, as it is
most directly associated with the writing career of Stegner.
The applicant is proposing to preserve the writing studio and relocate it to the site of the
former study/guest cottage west of the main residence on the property. In compliance
with the historical resource provisions of CEQA, preservation of the writing studio is
required to be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
Mitigation Measure
Documentation and recordation of the main residence, former study/guest cottage, and
writing studio shall precede any construction, demolition, or relocation activities. This
mitigation measure must be undertaken by a qualified historian / architectural historian
(under the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards).
a
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 7
Documentation shall follow NPS standards for HABS Historical Report Guidelines, as
such standards will ensure the appropriate level of written and photographic recordation
of the property's significant historic context and character -defining features. The
documentation of the former Stegner property shall approximate HABS Level II
documentation and include: a) select existing drawings that would be photographed; b)
photographs following the NPS photo policy, of exterior and interior views, along with
historic views; and c) written data providing history and description of the property.
Additionally, the photographs, shall include a view that illustrates the view from the
writing studio to help illustrate the setting in which Stegner worked.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. MFA/MDA Variance Findings
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and Mitigation Monitoring
Program, April 11, 2012
4. National Trust for Historic Preservation letter, May 27, 2011
5. Base -Line Historic Resources Assessment, Circa Historic Property Development,
November 28, 2011
6. Historic Resource Mitigation Analysis and Identification Report, JRP Historical
Consulting, March 2012
7. Arborist Report, Kielty Arborist Services, October 12, 2010
8. Neighbor Support Letters - chronological
9. Letter from Lester D. Earnest, April 13, 2012
10. JRP Historical Consulting response to the Letter from Lester D. Earnest, April 26,
2012
11. Letters from Joan Reinhardt Reiss and Susan Alexander, received April 25, 2012
and April 26, 2012
12. Pathways Committee minutes from meeting, November 22, 2010
13. Open Space Committee recommendation email and map, April 21, 2011
14. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, November 18, 2010
15. Cotton and Shires Associates Letter, November 22, 2010
16. Fire Department Comments, November 15, 2010
8 Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND
VARIANCE FOR A NEW RESIDENCE, SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, AND
SWIMMING POOL
LANDS OF YONG, 13456 SOUTH FORK LANE
File # 249-10-ZP-SD-GD-VAR-IS-MND
PLANNING DEPARTMENT - Please work with Brian Froelich, Associate Planner 650-
947-2505 to complete the following conditions:
1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission,
depending on the scope of the changes.
2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River
Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E.
melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property
located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final
inspection. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of
August and the end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected
under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of
Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first
conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree.
3. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a
final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion
control plans for review by the Site Development Committee. The application for
landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable
fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing.
Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view
of the structures from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required
for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City
Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection. The landscape screening
plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient landscaping) of the
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.
4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to
final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment
and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will
be released at that time if the required plantings remain viable.
5. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed --=land- surveyor-shall---certify-in writing--and--state-that-"the4ocation of the-
new
he new residence and swimming pool are no less than 40' from the front property
a
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 9
line and 30' from the sides and rear property lines." The elevation of the new
residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the
new residence matches the elevation and location. shown on the approved Site
Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed
letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation
inspection and prior to final inspection.
- - --6: -Prior--to-requesting-the- final -framing -inspection, -a registered-civil-engineeror -- - - --
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new
residence complies with the structure height shown on the approved plans,
measured as the vertical distance at any point from the building pad, to the
highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The
overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that "all
points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-
five (35 ) foot horizontal band measured from the lowest visible natural or
finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line
and the highest point of the roof structure or appurtenance." The applicant shall
submit the stamped and signed letters) to the Planning Department prior to
requesting a final framing inspection and prior to final inspection.
7. Building mounted shall have frosted glass or be down lights. No lighting may be
placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights.
8. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or
colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
9. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
10. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing, walls or gates shall
require review and approval by the Planning Department, prior to installation.
11. At the time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall
submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the
Town's Green Building Ordinance:
A. A GreenPoint rated checklist with the building permit application to
indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The
checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and
shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction
plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where
feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the
required points.
_
B. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building _permit_ application to
indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points
or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 10
green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the
construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or
individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building
measure to be used to attain the required points.
12. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified professional as for the scoring
system used (GreenPoint Rater or a LEED AP) shall provide documentation to the
-Planning -Department-verifying-that- the--building--was- constructed -in compliance-- - - with GreenPoint Rated or LEED® certification.
13. Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to Monday through
Saturday between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30 pm. and shall not exceed
allowable noise standards set forth in the Municipal Code. No heavy noise
generating equipment is allowed to be used on Saturdays and no construction is
allowed on Sundays or holidays as noted per Chapter 7, Sec.5-7-01 of the Los
Altos Hills Municipal Code.
14. The applicant shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District
or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to
school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School
District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the
receipts.
15. 500 square feet of photovoltaic solar panels shall be installed and grid connected,
prior to final inspection to receive the proposed development area credit.
16. The property owner shall grant an Open Space Easement to the Town to cover all
of the area shown in Exhibit "A No structures are permitted and no grading or
fill shall be permitted. Native vegetation may be planted within the easement but
no irrigation or sprinkler systems are permitted. The property owner shall provide
a legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land surveyor
or registered civil engineer and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The
grant document shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned
to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building permit.
17. For swimming pools, at least one of the following safety features shall be installed
to the satisfaction of the Town Building Official:
A. The pool shall be isolated from access to the residence by an enclosure
(fencing).
B. The pool shall be equipped with an approved safety pool cover.
C. The residence shall be equipped with exit alarms on those doors providing
direct access to the pool.
D. All doors providing direct access from the home to the swimming pool
shall be equipped with a self-closing, self -latching device with a release
mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor.
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page I I
18. Standard swimming pool conditions:
A. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
B. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
C. Pool equipment shall be enclosed for noise mitigation and screening.
D. The pool equipment enclosure shall be screened with landscaping and may
not encroach into any required setbacks.
19. In compliance with the historical resource provisions of CE QA, preservation and
relocation of the writing studio shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic
Buildings. The applicant shall provide documentation to the Town that the
contractor is qualified to undertake the relocation and installation of the writing
studio, prior to beginning disassembly or moving the writing studio.
20. Documentation and recordation of the main residence, former study/guest cottage,
and writing studio shall precede any construction, demolition, or relocation
activities. This mitigation measure must be undertaken by a qualified historian /
architectural historian (under the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards). Documentation shall follow NPS standards for HABS
Historical Report Guidelines, as such standards will ensure the appropriate level
of written and photographic recordation of the property's significant historic
context and character -defining features. The documentation of the former Stegner
property shall approximate HABS Level II documentation and include: a) select
existing drawings that would be photographed; b) photographs following the NPS
photo policy, of exterior and interior views, along with historic views; and c)
written data providing history and description of the property. Additionally, the
photographs shall include a view that illustrates the view from the writing studio
to help illustrate the setting in which Stegner worked.
The Town will retain the documentation for public benefit and copies of the
documentation will be offered to interested parties identified durjng project
approval process, particularly all relevant historical organizations as well as
organizations and collections dedicated to the work of Wallace Stegner. The
Table below includes a list of recipients; however recipients need not be limited
to those listed. In addition, the HABS documentation will serve as a baseline of
information for the preservation of the writing studio, which will be undertaken as
part of the proposed project. The proposed documentation is intended for public
dissemination and not intended to be reviewed by NPS or for transmittal to the
Library of Congress and therefore, will not be a full -definition, HABS dataset.
Table: Proposed List of Interested Parties for Documentation Dissemination
Proposed List of Interested Parties for HABS Dataset Dissemination
California Historical Society
a
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 12
California Pioneers of Santa Clara County
Los Altos -Hills -Historical Society- - - - -
Los Altos History Museum
National Trust for Historic Preservation—Western Office
Santa Clara County Historical & Genealogical Society
Santa Clara County Library—Los Altos
Stanford University—Wallace Stegner Collection
Wallace Stegner Center
Wallace Stegner Environmental Center
Production of this mitigation will serve to document the significant physical
characteristics of the property, which include the main residence, former study/guest
cottage, and writing studio, as well as the generally rural setting and semi -remote
qualities of the property. The documentation will serve to provide an archival record of
these physical characteristics, as well as a record of the property's relationship to the
significant writing career of Wallace Stegner. This condition shall be satisfied prior to
relocation of the writing studio.
21. The heritage oak trees to be removed shall be replaced with two (2), 24" box oak
trees. The location of the replacement trees shall be proposed with the landscape
screening plan. All replacement plantings shall be complete, prior to final
inspection.
22. An ISA Certified Arborist shall certify in writing and state that "all of the
recommendations in the Kielty Arborist Services report dated October 12, 2010
were implemented during the construction process" The applicant shall submit
wet signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final
inspection.
23. Prior to beginning any grading operation, tree fencing for all oak trees 12" in
diameter and greater in the areas of work. The tree protection measures must be
implemented throughout the course of construction. Town staff must inspect the
fencing" ari "the —treess-to - be -fenced prior --to- of -grading:--The
property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the
inspection. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within
the drip lines of these trees.
Tree fencing requirements:
• Fencing shall be located at the drip line of the tree or trees.
• All trees to be preserved shall be protected with chain link fences with a
minimum height of five feet (5') above grade.
• Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts,
driven into the ground to a depth of at least two feet (2') at no more than
10 -foot spacing.
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 13
Fencing shall be rigidly supported and maintained during all construction
periods.
No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the
drip lines of these trees at any time.
No trenching shall occur beneath the drip line of any trees to be saved.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - Please work with John Chau, Assistant Engineer
_..65.0 -94.7_ -25.1 -7_ -complete -the -following -conditions:- ------------- ---------- -------------- -- --- - -
24. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their letter dated
November 22, 2010, the applicant shall comply with the following:
A. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall
review and approve all geologic and geotechnical aspects of the project building
and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements
and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review the proposed energy dissipater
placement in the northeastern portion of the property and recommended any
appropriate revisions from a geotechnical perspective.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant
in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check.
B. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and
excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and
concrete. At the end of project construction, the consultant shall inspect
completed site drainage improvements- to confirm -compliance with -geotechnical -
standards.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be
described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review prior to final inspection.
25. Peak discharge at 13456 South Fork Lane, as a result of Site Development Permit
249-10, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the
property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the
predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. Provide the data and peak
discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak
discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff
rate for a 10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans
A
Ic Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 14
to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. All
documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies) shall be
submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of -the City Engineer prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check.
26. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system,
construction of the energy dissipators, and completion of the grading activities
_and -state -that items have ._been _installed and constructed per the approved -plans. __A
stamped and signed letter shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to
final inspection.
27. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the
Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading
moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City
Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except
to allow for the construction of the driveway access.
28. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The
applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to
start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 66=8
months.
29. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all
appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and
erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked
during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All
areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion
control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
_ _3.0...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 South Fork Lane and
surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary
facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for
construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for
collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the
GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with
the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
31. 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,
a
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 15
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
32. Dust control measures shall be implemented during construction as follows:
- ,king areas as,- ---
e A expose surfaces par
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• During grading operations graded areas shall be watered on a continuous basis.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
33. A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health
Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
34. Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final
inspection.
35. The property owner shall maintain the existing 10 -foot off-road pathway
easement on the east side of the property and no fencing, landscaping, or other
obstructions shall be placed within this easement.
FIRE DEPARTMENT - Please work with the Santa Clara County Fire Department 408-
378-4010 to complete the following conditions:
36. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County
Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans
prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire
Department (14700 Winchester Blvd. Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and
approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department,
prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
37. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway
turnaround with a minim radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside.
38. The applicant shall provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a
minimum unobstructed width of 14', vertical clearance of 13'6", minimum
circulating turning radius of 36' outside and 23' inside, and a maximum slope of
20%.
39. The applicant shall install a public hydrant at a location to be determined by the Fire
Department and Purissima Hills Water Company, prior to final inspection. The
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 16
hydrant shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of
framing or the delivery of bulk combustible materials.
40. This project is located within the designated Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area.
The building construction shall comply with the provisions of the California
Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Vegetation clearance shall be in compliance
with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval.
41. Approved numbers or addresses shallbe placed -on all new and -existing buildings -
in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road
fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
CONDITION NUMBER 20 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ANY TREE REMOVAL, DEMOLITION,
GRADING, OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVTY EXCEPT AS NEEDED TO SATISFY
CONDITIONS 20.
CONDITION NUMBERS 11A, 14, 16, 23, 24A, 25, 29, 30, 31, AND 33 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND/OR
THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF
CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT.
S
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 17
ATTACHMENT 2
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR A FLOOR AREA AND DEVELOPMENT AREA
VARIANCE
LANDS OF YONG, 13456 SOUTH FORK LANE
File # 249-10-ZP-SD-GD-VAR-IS-MND
1. Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the provisions of this Title is found to deprive such property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification;
The subject property is unique and extraordinary because it contains a historic
resource. From an environmental (CEQA) perspective, a historic resource is the
same as other environmentally sensitive features like a creek, fault trace, or a
stand of heritage trees. Variances can be issued to allow reasonable development
of properties with environmental features that are required to be projected. In this
case, the preservation of the historic resource, a building requires a Floor Area
and Development Area Variance to be preserved and not to deprive the property
owner of their development right and potential.
2. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections
of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not
be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners.
The granting of the Variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The
MFA/MDA overage is approximately 3% in each category. This small overage does
not create any difficulties for the project in compliance with other Town
requirements nor does it create a major change to the Town's land use pattern. Many
properties of similar acreage are developed with greater intensity.
The preservation of a relatively small building (260 sf) also makes this case unique.
All projects involving a historic resource will be unique.
3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate
vicinity and within the same zoning district.
The granting of the MFA/MDA Variance will not adversely impact neighboring
properties because the proposed project is otherwise compliant with all Town
standards. Many properties in Town are developed with greater intensity than
proposed with this project.
Lands of Yong
Planning Commission
May 3, 2012
Page 18
4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel of property.
Primary and accessory buildings are permitted uses in the R -A zoning district.
Attachment 3
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT TITLE: New Residence, Basement, Swimming Pool, and Relocation of a Detached
Accessory Building. Lands of Yong, 13456 South Fork Lane
PREPARED BY: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR:
Yew -Nam and Wan -Lei Yong
13456 South Fork Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
LOCATION OF PROJECT: 13456 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Assessor's Parcel Number: 182-10-039
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Site Development Permit for the construction of a 7,337 sq. ft.
new single family residence with an attached secondary dwelling unit, a swimming pool, and
associated site improvements. The application includes the demolition of an existing single story
main residence and former study/guest cottage and the relocation of an existing 260 sq. ft.
writing studio to the location of a former study/guest cottage located approximately 90 feet to the
northwest of the proposed main residence.
FINDING: The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of the
proposed project, and on the basis of the attached Initial Study,
has determined that the project, as mitigated, will reduce impacts
to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT:
MITIGATION MEASURE #1:
Air Quality Measure: Dust control measures shall be implemented during construction as
follows:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• During grading operations graded areas shall be watered on a continuous basis.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
•. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
MITIGATION MEASURE #2:
Oak Tree Replanting: The applicant shall plant two (2), 24 inch box sized oak trees for each
Heritage Oak Tree removed. The location of the replacement plantings shall be determined at the
time of Landscape Screening Plan review.
MITIGATION MEASURE #3:
Oak Tree Protection: Tree protection measures shall be implemented and installed prior to start
of demolition or grading as recommended by Kielty Arborist Services in their report dated
October 12, 2010. An ISA Certified Arborist shall certify, in writing, that the Kielty Arborist
Services measures were implemented and report any updates or changes to the tree protection
plan, prior to final inspection of the new residence.
MITIGATION MEASURE #4:
Documentation and Recordation: Documentation and recordation of the main residence,
former study/guest cottage, and writing studio shall precede any construction, demolition, or
relocation activities. This mitigation measure must be undertaken by a qualified historian /
architectural historian (under the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification
Standards). Documentation shall follow NPS standards for HABS Historical Report Guidelines,
as such standards will ensure the appropriate level of written and photographic recordation of the
property's significant historic context and character -defining features. The documentation of the
former Stegner property shall approximate HABS Level II documentation and include: a) select
existing drawings that would be photographed; b) photographs following the NPS photo policy,
of exterior and interior views, along with historic views; and c) written data providing history
and description of the property. Additionally, the photographs shall include a view that
illustrates the view from the writing studio to help illustrate the setting in which Stegner worked.
The Town will retain the documentation for public benefit and copies of the documentation will
be offered to interested parties identified during project approval process, particularly all relevant
historical organizations as well as organizations and collections dedicated to the work of Wallace
Stegner. The Table below includes a list of recipients; however recipients need not be limited to
those listed. In addition, the HABS documentation will serve as a baseline of information for the
preservation of the writing studio, which will be undertaken as part of the proposed project. The
proposed documentation is intended for public dissemination and not intended to be reviewed by
NPS or for transmittal to the Library of Congress and therefore, will not be a full -definition,
HABS dataset.
Table: Proposed List of Interested Parties for Documentation Dissemination
Proposed List of Interested Parties for NABS Dataset Dissemination
California Historical Society
California Pioneers of Santa Clara County
Los Altos Hills Historical Society
Los Altos History Museum
National Trust for Historic Preservation—Western Office
Santa Clara County Historical & Genealogical Society
Santa Clara County Library—Los Altos
Stanford University—Wallace Stegner Collection
Wallace Stegner Center
Wallace Stegner Environmental Center
Production of this mitigation will serve to document the significant physical characteristics of the
property, which include the main residence, former study/guest cottage, and writing studio, as
well as the generally rural setting and semi -remote qualities of the property. The documentation
will serve to provide an archival record of these physical characteristics, as well as a record of
the property's relationship to the significant writing career of Wallace Stegner.
Geotechnical Plan Review: The project Geotechnical Consultants shall review and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e. site preparation and grading,
site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure
that their recommendations have been properly incorporated.
• The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review the proposed energy dissipater placement in the
northeastern portion of the property and recommend any appropriate revisions from a geotechnical
perspective.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review shall be summarized by the Geotechnical
Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documents for
building permit plan check.
MITIGATION MEASURE #6:
Geotechnical Construction Inspections: The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as
needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspections shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and
subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations, and retaining walls prior to
placement of steel or concrete. At the end of project construction, the consultant shall inspect the
completed site drainage improvements to confirm compliance with geotechnical standards.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by
the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to
final inspection.
MITIGATION MEASURE #7:
Construction Hours: Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to Monday
through Saturday between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30 pm. and shall not exceed allowable
noise standards set forth in the Municipal Code. No heavy noise generating equipment is allowed
to be used on Saturdays and no construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays as noted per
Chapter 7, Sec.5-7-01 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.
Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director Date
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Circulated on: April 11, 2012
Adopted on:
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study Checklist & References
New Residence, Basement, Swimming Pool, and
Relocation of a Detached Accessory Building
13456 South Fork Lane
Project No. 249-10-ZP-SD-IS-MND-VAR
April 11, 2012
Town of Los Altos Hills -Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
•
In accordance with the policies regarding implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, this document, combined with the attached
supporting data, constitutes the initial study on the subject project. This initial study
provides the basis for the determination of whether the project may have a significant
effect on the environment. If it is determined that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment, an environmental impact report will be prepared which
focuses on the area of concern identified by this initial study. If it is determined that the
project would not have a significant effect on the environment, it is eligible for a
Negative Declaration. If it is determined that the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, however, the significant effects of the project have
been reduced to a less -than -significant level because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to be the project applicant, then the project would be eligible for a
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Environmental Checklist Form
New Residence, Basement, Swimming Pool, and Relocation of a Detached Accessory
Building
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road,
Los Altos Hills, California 94022.
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
(650) 941-7222.
4. Initial Study prepared by: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner
5. Project Location: 13456 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022;
Assessor's Parcel Number: 182-10-039
6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Yew -Nam and Wan -Lei Yong, 13456 South
Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
7. General Plan Designation: R -Residential and (OSCA) Open Space Conservation
Area overlay
8. Zoning: R -A (Residential -Agricultural)
Description of Project: A Site Development Permit for the construction of a 7,337 sq. ft.
new single family residence with an attached secondary dwelling unit, a swimming pool,
and associated site improvements. The application includes the demolition of an existing
._single_story__main _.residence -and -former _study(guest_cottage__and -the -relocation ._of .an.
existing 260 sq. ft. writing studio to the location of a former study/guest cottage located
approximately 90 feet to the northwest of the proposed main residence.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include one and two
story single-family residences with minimum lot size of 1 acre. Matadero Creek is
located approximately 200 yards away from the property boundary.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
ENVIRON EENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑
Hazards &
HazardousMaterials
❑
Hydrology /Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Information and conclusions in the Initial Study are based upon staff research and the Town's General
Plan and Municipal Code.
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ❑
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, Q
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, ❑
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects) on the environment, but at ❑
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there ❑
V,nU NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project.
-� Signature. t • PkV-11 Date: ! Z
Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
ii r)� Sdi i,4 ��v7,�'3�J h; t3� Pyu�i.�k� W1[r7.{��itcD`� �3 YY' �{1'{ � �rfY"f� •FC Ai
,ii7it" Y �mh'X},f"W> {Pe�SF �t'� S(.4
�y.�k5 t �.. iL r�
_. 'h {,fz �f` 4Zy���.:Ll
f��t �➢i 4 q if pr,- fkC� fi.,�g'.-
}.���y''f'`6
Kk i fr i'-
a
ali � " x f �p"'�P,h"trialS,� A%/
;}'
fQ� yE ,F�Ndt TIZ3 J.i' 3 ,Y �� itM £ I`Qzpacta1s
1
�� � �^ v £d t��eS 'iii e5{ N i^' y�i �r �,.,-Sw`����tL`A
$;E'eS'''tf
I -sl&"i't
$��'4>�tf L���e
h3T ��tz,
� ,:
�'�
ihti;, 'r'.`+�'4.�@ay..�£'�
'bw'+.
=9Y x A N , 4 (•v
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light ❑ ❑ ® Q
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
DISCUSSION: The proposed project is not located on a ridgline or highly visible location while the scope
of work is a replacement single-family structure and associated accessory structures. No significant impact
or aesthetic change will result from the project.
Sources:
1,4,5,6
E !i 'iv, "5
E4;`4F
✓ d:*. �
a�\t A `}`t'{ 9u �f�, (
,� r +f�
ti7'.., : S9F t•�
�t�
f X"I �id�}i'
5.;�{Sp1`�y3+{�i fi 4Y ff b...ivy,
rd�
'`�
#' s-.ri1 f ,*,;. o-4 -:. ', a'P >'E•z�L. ,.,._�'
WW 1&� � �?
=•�oten6ai[ h y.
s -
,� ,Yt4� � .:'
F' 2`a1 i,
r ..,,,Fi RR -
z )w +r��
�,
-�n���,i �` v�-�. vsu�h�• e n•'`$'cfi u,'`�'3`3� k� �,
�'' ><� t �� k'� �
�1 'd�IOn ' k I } F,
� r .a_�X"t-. - a <¢a-z�
�'' �"��ZEd'P�:; 4aF } ,t '.��
?tt� .4� �� � � t.,,,�.,,��;+rp'� #� E� .i'v .z �
„�y'�•''`L��'+t�n rosi,?, a aitpd .;
�CD�iOC$i]On{ f *1C .{$j'
S. 4aa x i,.
f r Ci'A a �+�:i 7.=
H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES—
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural
onagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on Agricultural Resources. The site
is not used as agricultural land.
Source:
9
4 �+�&4�t
-pil' k ,Y
71 � # Yt`
ilsl^I '+f -:j
3-
Y"fl F �'".t-y�3 L *z>
�1 `+49`(4"ArK.f,¢•X,Y''�F
f� t� }f
�'
�{ £Yt2jy £Y' Y`'y��E
t -0
dZi��'``sy
Ri
h �2 tv, , Y b rT� i �.�� rwY�y��S �. r -I' y x, y4 -. � �
�s
1�IgQlll�aQt- S �,'#
�N1►ta
F ✓*'
attoQ
1�0i�Q�l l +Tit � ,�
r;
z.NQ �IQ�a�:L J �
r<,
i
,`'
�
M. AIR QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
quality.violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
substantial number of people?
DISCUSSION: According to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA thresholds, a
project that generates more than 54 pounds per day of reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOx), or
fine particulate matter (PM2.5); or 82 pounds per day of course particulate matter (PM10) would be
considered to have a significant impact on regional air quality.
Excavation, Grading, and Hauling equipment will be used to remove 3,480 cubic yards of earth material
from the site. Dust causing activities would be temporary and will occur during grading and initial
construction activities. With mitigation during the grading activities, this project will have a less than
significant impact on regional air quality.
MITIGATION MEASURE #1:
Air Quality Measure: Dust control measures shall be implemented during construction as follows:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• During grading operations graded areas shall be watered on a continuous basis.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
Source:
10
5.2NV, fj v
F}�
iYs 3 K } f6 r .. %
"'.x T YHbYJF 1&
q dF
_ Ia # f i
✓,, k1 tia ro er t� .�'� �L�€�.✓, t. �,�
"�� £ 'S - ] �t ,5��'�{3}�V �f�"�A�. S� ,.i �`
9 otClEtl81�{�Xr �ditl
A. J2 dz J 4� j S.
pzzP��l.�n ssf ::)�?«..,'t� '4
1 _�" �y Ji.
,� Z.'
LeS$�QiF
i �k�x 3 h9S
� '^e SF §yk� ✓Y' P�`
p1t^YiYS F'�1.'zr "'{:.y'>�'.-{ski ,SK' ;. T' t.1 *{s F x r,i n➢9'vAd
�<itiFi:C �z�.4, ��k
A`§f �i°. §`,. _R'Yy-L 3..� sr
f
�`1F11LL at�0�^Ytt�i
rrc.;;-:`J��zftYx{}��. �3�f,�,
E ;.x
T��`
t
�� �7R�.�`
�,r }ix1'�i s � $Y �f w'i; � ��y,€P r$`t, '�
$F.*•CQ�.a'S g3' ! #%a
:{
�R
F";
-, tlII�i'd����v �`�i
,�5� s�p F#stx%''';
the California Department of Fish and Game
'.ys�
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
❑
❑
❑ Q
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
❑
❑
❑ Q
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
❑
❑
❑ Q
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
❑
❑
❑ Q
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
❑
❑
Q ❑
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
DISCUSSION: The project proponent proposes to remove two (2) Heritage Oak Trees to accommodate
the project. Title 12 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code defines a Heritage Oak Tree as follows: 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
The applicant has provided an arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services dated October 12, 2010.
The report analyzes the health and condition of 24 oak trees in the closest proximity to the proposed
construction project and staging operations. Per LAHMC Section 12-2.306, mitigation plantings and tree
protection measures are recommended.
MITIGATION MEASURE #2:
Oak Tree Replanting: The applicant shall plant two (2), 24 inch box sized oak trees for each Heritage
Oak Tree removed. The location of the replacement plantings shall be determined at the time of Landscape
Screening Plan review.
MITIGATION MEASURE #3:
Oak Tree Protection: Tree protection measures shall be implemented and installed prior to start of
demolition or grading as recommended by Kielty Arborist Services in their report dated October 12, 2010.
An ISA Certified Arborist shall certify, in writing, that the Kielty Arborist Services measures were
implemented and report any updates or changes to the tree protection plan, prior to final inspection of the
new residence.
Sources:
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 21, 22
c i..Y � {{§?K't�...'r§:,1r.{. F4DF. �45'yl"'t�'Y ".3 i.::..i +ca..d��.. liii �b.
�ni'X�7+`{�r`iG,�.•iA�}ayt.N1}S yr�Rif :
X P�"d `v fi fyyf'J&X �(.:;3�
IP�.'"i Yd i �t
� _ufi f �l�i i�i.(.�`{41S tj' F`.�
Tix�Ptliyj,'
�,'_\�i', t^' i,S,awr 9E UvVIt'hi$'�
�
ry,,,p� �) r
iFSS ..t is�rF4Y"`=ira,
5Ti §X
R $otennally --&R
k4^XS.,i tya ,.A
y e . <`
Less l a
'-S Fff
d ° ` "
Y i t1• f ?r {�� ��-.Y to
d._t}fir 5 �.v% f'`v fYi: k.Y i F 33. F
Ar
Im
"
��r
yiyS^t'i—�LLYQQ S .1� 3"
•a°
-Cs`Y.L
� N;
tii $ i 1. .
ki
r'
��;
�'
�y
yMi'�3Y:YSD'�P1 �1+LjrJY`e�.iiY;�,r
•'£�:t" "5�-i�,' .k xr'4
it h". �..:'Y.�!4S 3LSY ? 4,�IK
'"V?"Ek aPt �Y
ySM1lx+�x�2 f'vji @}tp.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ Q ❑ ❑
in ' 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource ❑ Q ❑ (3
pursuant to ' 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION: The proposed new construction would replace the residence and writing studio of the late
Wallace Stegner, a Pulitzer Prize winning author who owned and resided on the property from 1949 to the
time of his death in 1993. Under the proposed Site Development Permit, the existing single family
residence and a detached former study/guest cottage would be demolished. The author's writing studio,
located adjacent to the north side of the residence, would be preserved and relocated on the property, at the
current site of the former study/guest cottage a short distance west of the residence.
The Town of Los Altos Hills commissioned two consultants in review of the application. Circa Historic
Property Development prepared a Base -Line Historic Resources Assessment and JRP Historical Consulting
prepared a Mitigation Analysis and Identification Report.
Circa analyzed the property for both the National Registry of Historic Places (NRNP) criteria and the
California Registry of Historical Resources (CRHR) and concluded that the writing studio meets the
National Register's criteria while the primary residence and guest cottage are contributing buildings.
The historical resource on the property includes three contributing components: the main residence, former
study/guest cottage, and writing studio. In addition, the rural location and setting contributes to the
significance of the resource. While all of these elements contribute the significance of the resource,
according to the Circa Assessment, only the writing studio meets the criteria for individual listing in the
NRHP and CRHR, as it is most directly associated with the writing career of Stegner.
The applicant is proposing to preserve the writing studio and relocate it to the site of the former study/guest
cottage west of the main residence on the property. In compliance with the historical resource provisions
of CEQA, preservation of the writing studio will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
MITIGATION MEASURE #4:
Documentation and Recordation: Documentation and recordation of the main residence, former
study/guest cottage, and writing studio shall precede any construction, demolition, or relocation activities.
This mitigation measure must be undertaken by a qualified historian / architectural historian (under the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards). Documentation shall follow NPS
standards for HABS Historical Report Guidelines, as such standards will ensure the appropriate level of
written and photographic recordation of the property's significant historic context and character -defining
features. The documentation of the former Stegner property shall approximate HABS Level II
documentation and include: a) select existing drawings that would be photographed; b) photographs
following the NPS photo policy, of exterior and interior views, along with historic views; and c) written
data providing history and description of the property. Additionally, the photographs shall include a view
that illustrates the view from the writing studio to help illustrate the setting in which Stegner worked.
The Town will retain the documentation for public benefit and copies of the documentation will be offered
to interested parties identified during project approval process, particularly all relevant historical
organizations as well as organizations and collections dedicated to the work of Wallace Stegner. The
Table below includes a list of recipients; however recipients need not be limited to those listed. In addition,
the HABS documentation will serve as a baseline of information for the preservation of the writing studio,
which will be undertaken as part of the proposed project. The proposed documentation is intended for
public dissemination and not intended to be reviewed by NPS or for transmittal to the Library of Congress
and therefore, will not be a full -definition, HABS dataset.
Table: Proposed List of Interested Parties for Documentation Dissemination
Proposed List of Interested Parties for HUBS Dataset Dissemination
California Historical Society
California Pioneers of Santa Clara County
Los Altos Hills Historical Society
Los Altos History Museum
National Trust for Historic Preservation—Western Office
Santa Clara County Historical & Genealogical Society
Santa Clara County Library—Los Altos
Stanford University—Wallace Stegner Collection
Wallace Stegner Center
Wallace Stegner Environmental Center
Production of this mitigation will serve to document the significant physical characteristics of the property,
which include the main residence, former study/guest cottage, and writing studio, as well as the generally
rural setting and semi -remote qualities of the property. The documentation will serve to provide an
archival record of these physical characteristics, as well as a record of the property's relationship to the
significant writing career of Wallace Stegner.
Sources:
5, 17,13, 19
4:<,N .t,'�.Y
Yap t P3. .LFT hF f*
`,Y
'Yt�. �p �,�Z.�1'�
Y U J4 `f1�>�, (F.+.J,".$f�x_.�
o VP%F.. 1'.', T P
'a
..hC,` '��yy� t ':
{ .p ` 40&40 .1:7
-L, 5 4i� "Y
Y p °
yf4)Tfh%3L�A4'�
:'I
:�Y 1,�t";N tkd 't``ih<IT<
M
},'j�,F
324 h FF alt ' xT1n.N p:'ih,r. X t' r §
ia- ,,.
It,r # R
% g +,Fa:
x
S . .,..
F y '" eXfltY
�.�}aQ, y�# 1
4 7 Ys5' PT-ff
t1�'i2 $t 1> ,�Tt3 iXa; ;,
tfICaQt.��*�y'
?'ai.tsys
.o, ,r°.ff�SM1.kNVII
aTmpa
yi
L.t+_J .s: `"�-tZat4f��T1. at r� y
;ltll
T' -i
tf: r1+. " .::h x
„Stanlilf3itt
_ ka'' f F # s�'
M1 f4F.cx;.
'� OIIUI aC� � rT,�r`
wSt
�3.2
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ Q ❑ ❑
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ Q ❑ ❑
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ R1
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result mi ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
propel
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
where sewers are not available for the disposal
of waste water?
DISCUSSION: The applicant has provided a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Murray Engineers
Inc. The Investigation was peer reviewed by the Town of Los Altos Hills' Geotechnical consultant; Cotton,
Shires, and Associates. The proposed building site is located 25 to 30 feet from the Monta Vista fault. The
project Geotechnical Consultant has recommended the basement be founded on a reinforced mat slab that is
a minimum of 10 inches thick Further, the Monta Vista trace is highly sinuous, has a low plane dip angle,
and has an uncertain potential for transmitting possible future primary fault rupture. These factors reduce
the level of geologic concern about the proximity of the identified fault to the proposed project.
MITIGATION MEASURE #5:
Geotechnical Plan Review: The project Geotechnical Consultants shall review and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e. site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
• The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review the proposed energy dissipater placement in the
northeastern portion of the property and recommend any appropriate revisions from a geotechnical
perspective.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review shall be summarized by the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter
and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documents for building permit plan check.
MITIGATION MEASURE #6:
Geotechnical Construction Inspections: The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspections shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements,
and excavations for foundations, and retaining walls prior to placement of steel or concrete. At the end of
project construction, the consultant shall inspect the completed site drainage improvements to confirm
compliance with geotechnical standards.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the
Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection.
Sources:
2,13
}}��*Nfcx 4j +.'�'ZL gg�7'" roX/1i1�` 1 y.II,.: .,.°>k'q,f-'.5 W.ifi
a4''k'�ik S2 K, Y Y3' k3S d-Z
y ..k' Ij..: FR i -f] Y'l
�pf'4C
i
-f'` °` T ,'•}, Yf=
\
�( ? -a
(�
at :5 r
Oteilti3�( x.
"
:# � ;
t,.
'� - -
atIOQ���uaSs��{?
�Lci`f,if of.s.�,' "�
ES^�igIIifI£�II�'i
.2�'}�`l�F
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION: Greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen dioxide) from the
proposed project would include construction emissions such as mobile emissions (e.g., emissions from
combustion of fossil fuels for vehicle trips to and from the site) and emissions from the construction
equipment. This is a short term, temporary increase and would not constitute a significant impact.
Sources:
10,20
;'tt �.c -r.7 { }5�1�} _ .; �#' 'i1.f:`�yq��:t�'$ttp�4,. '1 ✓� 4b �jy v q G ."'' y>Z
y''''r�Td� ; ,�f,.w'��j'�Zr.3 '*K:h'�.
10-
dN.'Ft� "��'ihi,l'ah�"'f�y f F�*
Kr g".�`E 'F
1' S a,3 Uq tts`�T¢b,r y:
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
0s?�11% Xfr5
'�'tr
F
T•,},KI�h
'Ni�
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
Y i"�t��' ti°F7f ��� �'i� f � 'h$;tf 9i K1jS LS' "u�G� ��
+
�pY �i� �y�4�. �:1{:C�+t�T'�` }f f -:�z
L�YYEkCSef%SF�'f
aR
b S��QF1lCaQt ��th "4
•+(W�«"}t°4:}�!.?. '4 kr2 iZ i
F,��{'Y � `,:M} x.� x
_' 3°£c"Sb is
i�'}
}s*'�(Y
❑ ❑
Q
of an existing or proposed school?
ar
��".�'yr»y'
Fmpact,
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
working in the project area?
�
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a ❑
❑ ❑
Q
significant hazard to the public or the
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS vIATERIAL'S—
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑
❑ ❑
Q
involving the release of hazardous materials
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile ❑
❑ ❑
Q
of an existing or proposed school?
Q
in a safety hazard for people residing or
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
working in the project area?
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a ❑
❑ ❑
Q
significant hazard to the public or the
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
❑
❑
❑
Q
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
❑
❑
❑
Q
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
❑
❑
❑
Q
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
❑
❑
❑
Q
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
DISCUSSION: The proposed project does not produce a hazard or hazardous waste and will have no
foreseeable impact related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The site is not located in an identified
location according to CA Government Code 65962.5.
Sources:
14
-N...�f
;T•gg:, �'"*.��, +'�c �s %1 ?x Sr f� ::°(..,'e�}Lt i !,» - L -x x, �}ti�
7 5 i iri'F&, �'(q
;'
�rk e�.„,�+ $ v�` .r.
2".k f {
i xvy'4r 5-t3�-'X �2 5t�,1c�
b % T2 .2�M'' " f+ <:f ""t
i t;frcq (i R d.J
1A re `B3f ���
,r ��t ,.Nfb d' v;
47Yat"d4`- tr"t tv2�k.iti3a ZY
}'..lXr E *Y}#^l "h
> `tsk x,,.
iCS+i.f i+y J..pod
' `
M
,{ „Ukulryfs. �J. J:.X
r . �nt.� "`
teS&T�IaII
�r{
x,`�'< s ��� �EotenttalL
�y� 5> �i kK{«j.-: }'Y,� d, f. t�� �'�` ?t
�'i5:
_g'•Q
,. r . ') .� a�'" F . k
�;;
, y r
,i97 aicaur widiv
d
�,
a
;Less Than
.ki'gu{ll�.��R
Y� {'3
N r ,
hi, -:t ?:'{'� A'ttiY gqrAh2(j ep'{ $}kbY. , .. ?u«i• C , .} , r;.
���:_:: ��y�;,�k..r._ � 4��'.. �� aP5 tµA{£y�"�".. i.§ i,�'��C .N:% ? S ,,�+���"t�' �'...
its '�FS,r� s2;`n5,4�
�
LSylll�a ytei}r �;.. b.4
}{�✓f`fT . n:Jlj�`�». }�. �t'E r�.
to
�'l�
Kr.lwp.:;`ii tJi{$t`c.�dk
r�Tncorpacatro
;
�
t"y}�{�'�ut.,r.
E' d.'
i`j``' i y .St^ •t�
1N��
4 1.�j3 s�. ikU� ( li5 �•, nof
G a�.?�`��i'S�� k3.
?YS'E �'Y '7
2 �� ' A.
,. �rZ.
flooding on- or off-site?
DL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY—
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
❑
❑
❑
Q
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
❑
❑
❑
Q
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
❑
❑
Q
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
❑
❑
❑
Q
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
❑
❑
❑
Q
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
❑
❑
❑
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑
❑
❑
Q
DISCUSSION: The project site is located on a hillside and does not contain a creek, a seasonal overland
flow route, and ground water was not encountered by the project Geologist. The project is designed to meet
the Town of Los Altos Hills' standard for no net increase of off-site drainage. Storm water will be collected
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ ❑
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plan?
Q
Q
Q
DISCUSSION: The proposed single family dwelling and accessory structures comply with Los Altos Hills Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan. The relocation of the Stegner Writing Studio necessitates a Floor Area and
Development Area Variance. The site's unique circumstances warrant consideration of a Variance.
Sources:
3,4,5,6
✓yii"^.�
�''.f§Sib"
a
t,` -4r"'' h%'k :.
r.• 6�x>!,'1 t':F 1�5,}-ptfhrx:t,�+f } 7k. E:„7.: i.a✓sk�3'r
n�����rw �:a��n� sfip� .tr frSr�r � �k't�r�"�i+��;:.�;s
,STa'mi�:.r sw;'�.
�:�,:��9�`e'a',:sr�'i�
.3y,.'`:F..,V'.i"ti3;'Gt.
'��eSST�18IIg�'�x, � sr���
,Ffi7'�}riR "::.�'.v1r
"A.
�`{•�j_a.4.�
�4'k � .fgt� `h 3 §
p ¢¢ �'-�o, � �
`i°'y�Y�,,
p7{� Lr.�•n{�� �t'f� Y� <}.SN,
Eall'�t
Y
�qt� ks, i..t Sri
` � �tS �f+�Z J` :. �
,ysA• r Fa'h °`fitY/x .t t[ ...w, �r?!='}v
\� i nst`Kt M1.. h'A'pi°,��?� Z Jt•i.t n+�S.3"t '�. `iii i..}*"'4
f} t?, N'T eF 1,t➢h Y*ZRt '•._x;�FY� 1°tEi fL
�:rf
.,c �-�
q",Y< n3;i r., �✓ #' 3
$Cit�^y•-f3� Y�1�3 'x
b i 2 '? �e=yr�CQ
C11111.IgLL4l0Q��y; i.zy
ri7:.rn�Vf:.'2'Y�ni eF'+.}yy+"��«1F�ClfY �Y :3�
Q
b"
i.teR+aim, rf
�i:. �Cr �%
P Fr
i 49,Y1'v�ykfi,i�i +`yt-i.(54.
AE.d�11 T 1 3 } d ,1
its' ry'�",i3� f ['f"
�4 uif4
.3„•^„'+.k- �z��Y'E`rf z� na%��7.., �+� ?^..-s � 1 +:r:; ,� �
cTF Sri,x �, ,J`� t ��r-Y 3HLSi ±�
sit
� t -rt` �NtxrL".x`��i�i" ,�
F 1 $nto-iF •rs L.
iaGlQdi
�Y�r3 �,� �... o� N�a�� r
ifi F� S' µ}�., y'^
zvN&:i
!S"�k��a�s� r �ti," � {
,JT k
,.
'r�;`�Pfs'�.4rir.a�.�"y�`� s �?`f�3
�t2K �P, (+S+.
'F
�ft',.i1
.x
AN/"�.f.,. �?4i'{?'
�Z .'^i.l'+��'t �+ �4 f°s..<Nut„n. <M f.: Y:�� z��3t✓fR.`a.:;� , d try.{Yvli
�.s�.f .��1.-'>.o-S. Y1. F.
4 ,�.i r.Y S,{ii �zweuf �
i. (iTf�iti .. �� ��
�i.s' �.s-i s. :�. S:
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ ❑
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑
conservation plan?
Q
Q
Q
DISCUSSION: The proposed single family dwelling and accessory structures comply with Los Altos Hills Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan. The relocation of the Stegner Writing Studio necessitates a Floor Area and
Development Area Variance. The site's unique circumstances warrant consideration of a Variance.
Sources:
3,4,5,6
_{ �.n c-
:rli �yyk Av �F" �'R,r ,..��• � �.;F3c(t dt �l ti'SFh,{(��w h3'S� �,rF ��
! iS��f�i� Nk ti>Jf �.),:"e ]+25�. � ,^";.fAk4 kye t; Iii. ,ai'. i`z ,My, rt3"Yr'SIJ(..�$jt�
� ��t �.. � �.i'
.�,Y��a b ( 't .k
�b. 9�X ��' .�5i� ,�S Y..� �v�
,y{ FEZ. Y=�../,� � Y3"'
�dJ�t
Al
it S.7+ s.. .,
� y����s � •?`)!; n f C � �
...Tt,+.Sa Yp:.. kt 'OfyMP�,.•
'tar
c., T ,-,� �°
=;� ti j�Ay„�:� S1K�-i"bSiy.��.
yx 1 +3yr, .�..
';"t, `�"'Uf''iz" •.,.�
3�v ` � I ,(y.F�;ic}�Y'�}�"
yfl'alS iN,�eXji. � fik`Jiti{'.4P;:: r-,
k� a%k �%, � J'.; L 1 °`.,✓s£•'��'�!}�%S,i ^moi)'
��'`t �°
R?=�i{t�& X. ����}�`�),.sl}}.�.'i
.x*
�h�`r'n,�
�n�Xi� j�N�����1 fp,
'�"'.�%� Y.L} 7��.fi4�:�
RitE.
tbt':4..'SS�.;j'
}* t .1 � .,�� 5, 'ti t� 5 V'Q d:r?•. '�S /! �t�' Y
� `dot
a7^� �6t..a
SCt"w} -{ �,.
F "'.,,", .p �I � �'
atIOIG :h,`xi# :.a�*,'�
F_ tv.d.�.sa:. ,,s,�74 x�
-
.E`t:;%�.�`,
gllQ 'ac r'
Ate, ��,�
� 3 S
«<.�'.,
�l
k
a
tr, ?,�...�xk rs � .s '� }Fe.,+�Y.k"+'�h�.....P�{'C.,..{,'.�..s i?`,1 .'�,'� -3 �Y e +-0%
�^.R� >..1... .-.t Cl, �_ �.`ei�2+-..r}S
�"� s�sF•4'h' i�.N.4�.iN. Y..s`,%Y`,,..�,
'�.�.iL.rA�S�S.._'�..3
5 � �. '}J4. kA�,s.�.
XL MINERAL RESOURCES —
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally4mportant mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not result in a loss of mineral resources. The project is not
located in an area known for valued minerals.
Sources:
5,6
tfr
fa'^'ig7: .x "4 +7s'e:Yt^x;x
.yF� t� ' pY P F1wi$r4�i�
Ellf S.
r�'�A.+s''�ty�
`%�}f
.j
"Yi { ,f y tib C S �i
{l. Phi F" ,3�3 =
4z ,f✓ F t
3f W.'v n'``%k'4Pw�Pn ZS�.', •t iS✓ i `4"o�ai�'r S�'.41 t{ 1°S
r�zy' 4
ry.ri
},�i ht t
4 '4:Y
{y`s.r::<L4. {'4 .}4 1
ii ;'A '�(j
'
Q
❑
any
n.t 4l�33r'i;r+s�{�`F J cr •.d;F4. , *a sb
'001
S' y:1^SY.Y+'"'..^5 ✓fir tNl. ' z'�L : :e �� �T i of ;�I Pp :j `(�..5
�4 t€ �Zj;{ FPS': i d y 3 'u x`r,fi�Fi✓£ R }%
{ 17
Y4,�.�+�x-'L'TiTldllh'i'G
QtenhaIl.;1,
"ii.K. -y.k� "f� ka�k,
1
�"
s,+a
�h t i.
.,�s-t.
p> s
ti
Nt%s.R" � �7F��*`* 3 iTrS"�tli,��? i �{ t�i' ✓t Yi.G 3tY^t �i$' m ^1cE 2� 7 /��{aY �y
fd
F
� �b" ,, � `?`�
�iguifi�ran�`�vit"r
� 11 p ?s ��
ra"r
#F b.
r
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
�A
'-`�%
Y �k 4St-u'{y�'Z'r�i�.� £ s$�R7.. S� a
ti _i L�2� i �Z�X �7
$� Y1"^'(} 44�f §�'3'l.i"'� P,✓�£f
-i ; 5srv'Nh1�g.}Y �'7 �
❑
�ktT� dZH-.p
���.y'�,�`4,7
-e.,.ti• lka'E �r ��i�`X�4iY,:: �t�Y.Pd3,iYtf�i'.YS.--tLty.S.yrS.DLII",.�f,'K"44k'xt<,:i.ii'F.=3.1'%h'}j,5"Ai
.£'.,:s
-
liiFW4.^ro 5":.i:C_1-�h.
i«T..i, d..�i
Y#. i
XII. NOISE --Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards established
❑
❑
Q
❑
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
❑
❑
Q
❑
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
❑
❑
❑
Q
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project
❑
Q
❑
❑
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
❑
❑
❑
Q
or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
❑
❑
❑
Q
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will have temporary noise generating exposures within the adjacent
neighborhood. Grading and Excavation equipment will be used to perform the grading necessary for the
proposed driveway and basement.
lVITTIGATION MEASURE #7:
Construction Hours: Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Saturday
between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30 pm. and shall not exceed allowable noise standards set forth in the
Municipal Code. No heavy noise generating equipment is allowed to be used on Saturdays and no
construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays as noted per Chapter 7, Sec.5-7-01 of the Los Altos Hills
Municipal Code.
Sources:
5, 6, 8
„Afi
{y
'd��`'
l:
+PotenttaltyS4t
,�
'}_�” k,?,.,,Y!€Y+:'t,;wAtZ
�
lgimpact <,
� x t � tis"=�t � ,� 7+t rtaC '' e�''
K 1 flys +
�g•� � �'� n�{�
.. r.
lt►gatton ' �� r a�-
;Sl9n11KeaRE,
` F v:4� �
c
`r
�
r
v
;✓, � 7 � � }=a.�?�s. .,y�zA �"F,.:.,� t=ss,. +,�� ;,,. f>_q.��Px.
5�,.�t�,:, i �f{`���rVF�,Incorpocahon�t;���
�� z "X .ter
�.
�x
t k+.
�<.✓' J,r?� .-,K �,.
Ft .frr �'aii?v .a.Ps�e
%af bt_, =n 5�..i.6� J,8'�...
L� rt��� r�2u x.,Ly:..
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
housing elsewhere?
DISCUSSION: The proposed infill project will not have a significant impact on population or housing.
Sources:
3,4,5
y�*' .'< vfi�`• b-�iaKh y�,�/_. R� •�•�S" �� ��3 Y��Sti�29,(x �` i��.;i :,S 7 �;
�j
❑
❑
Q
❑
Ny .1'`Y§, - y -L� S .3f' {yip :.:if ICn(�/S Fk:vsY SSS 'At �+'z
"_ itt,x € # {
Ees ThaQ ✓,( '{ r -.lug
5
s'�.+. f�& ,;.�A d lY � [:.ra<)i� f{�{Y, i�:. f�j.Jti1#�"i qbv�1`. Yryf 3 S.a�Y�
„} T43 �S''3"�Y � � � '. , s e, lt,+^ S G ��� 1 d ^; U� 7 •:r}Y
l 1 f� , ! �bb_d5 9•'= % iVAti. i
5``.y+'°`-§.�,. y.Yn�l�i�'iki5uy< v'��.4'.s`}'it;X:�t
)M„�b'� t
^' d
w47� vw��Ql::.iY� � 3
- � �f
rt"'
Si; • Si1�1>�b S;�j'i'�"Y ,�
Qi r�,�!,�i2t
tFtF7�{ICBQw'i
{v
.f.tS% ��t�3.5^4n ��� nYfy
R,'�*. k^KA Ys f�'��,``3 h- �1��, Np Y k � l'�. u il''
kYt�
k i1;'a+" �k1 rC� �e..
Co ', oi{a:[loQ'uy+.
4 -^3' C •' � �.,'t�s� 7�$)i+�
b }1r..:s..
H��i�5 yyS4-:N`3 t
;•.`P'C` ;�3,.L )�}ifi*j.
;�rr`.,ti�"t, F'��Jts�-. �n3t�k'�`"�. S
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES— Would the project:
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have a foreseeable impact on any public service or facility.
Sources:
3,4,5
XV. RECREATION -- Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ [�
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have a foreseeable impact on recreation facilities.
Sources:
5,6
9_ j}�'$1i "''Q
al.4
A{�t„��,sA[�
36 '
$ttM}i
�x* r�'}ir�Th.z,j�`� '�✓!'i !}
��i`
'�(�7,h„
£'"�is:'�)
`'3�,cR'rt'E '-r_$p:i:;",}
Frd�-r
7�'lqB
�s-
�'J'L'.��`!x,YX4
,�'�r}
.fi5 irt�£X� SX
IS.
Qr�7al..
�g'y�s*«,�+F;�
n}�QG
"
CtlTtI
t�,uf•v4s3���44..
(,.,4�ileM,�—r,',,��
iyz2
,y1�
XktzE
?i�'EX �
��1`
� �:
aadriry✓X"
4���`
3,w+t�x �r'r_:t,�;:s4�:.
;
„:4,c&•-ir,3 Tu;�-.
sy
a61
��}C
�}tt t��>
�?���
ta4�{aApx z-!S g, �. `,r-;'":,�•"+ras�ul7'tt k s
N iii: %,".X �dtf_` .l +i5y�5,4}i u(,�+�
,"'''-nR��
.�c` �`r
v�„Zf,�X.Pyltpme�Kn;I"`t�C
;},�.ir
j
Estj4.re�•,y,:}t.�],,vkY^aREt:-'§
nl ItnIgtf..
carporattol4
�C3r.:�.`'i:iit„i
i
�£E �
�,
,
y'�
5y
xio-!5�&,',r�,
xi}.Y{
�r �n`
�
Sai))1h-a
! q�We/F” �`
XV. RECREATION -- Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ [�
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have a foreseeable impact on recreation facilities.
Sources:
5,6
S `S;x,L�y` ��� � 1 � �, - � �# A iz nt+k C�-s'K ? i� G, fz
`Y '7s 4 'h%` '.¢F.?
Fd1;�'§ e➢
"a�.'r�' IXi v $*.h�u4 5 :• ��
/_���, zt tris fi•'f.
� E�g..� �§t, �`"' �. �`{ /`5 6
ii.'fL✓� P£
�
5'Y:) { �jb'
p£3� 7 {}�
�iA
3F k l Er h' 1 F ^< P
,—�Y
+`P�}S-'A - +Y 4
�"%�`t`� ":r'��
nti �.,+i
i��{..y k� i S � s` ?f.✓ x a 5�} ��i�t n :1 ,�°��
?.�aSOlelill4lL
�} '°`
i'ii� ��✓A'��.'.'q�tTN Rs
Y 'i. 3yxs;
2 S. .�j
��, ���
5 E (t..F#e
7,��*7P�(i .� �
l 'aR➢° `-'
d• �.
�L� }. F} +3v
F' _:. '� 4%. E'' dt{
,� A
Slgleliican� ? L
k Eignlfrcant
JM- 99ya�IOi[,�
dI��sa
L�Tampactt�� S
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
k`$ i. moi}
7niIIvO Ora�OI
�
x-lkL4 f%
S .Yds
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
❑
❑
❑
Q
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC —
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
❑
❑
❑
Q
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the
❑
❑
❑
Q
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
❑
❑
❑
Q
a change in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
❑
❑
❑
Q
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
Q
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
Q
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
❑
❑
❑
Q
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
DISCUSSION: There will be temporary increase in
traffic due
to the off -haul of 3,430 cubic yards of earth
material. The project has no significant traffic impacts.
Sources:
1,3,4,5,6
K xG { 1,Y' �{c "Gd i�))4 ;�*�h'S"}{F¢IFtaWi"pf' �n�t''s�3�5 3✓::F 7 k+� f ter �'a
f Via$ '�i.
h F ,'4 [ 4; � : �, "�".iFl
': Pr t C`h'it t^ "'4�dz+��,
Y'i ���rf �'Yz! �r�3�3.g'z :.
3 E #i
?. _ t of #
'dsS=i'f
Gess ThaII a
"ef
ThQ�n'Z
zka�
§ + v
5 4. �7. _ F u .L ��y..: k t
°(` "YN i
L.1J�gQ�IIQU:lU[ LR'd`
E St,'s •, ;
. N.
} f't t?q
fI l.f •<s L� 3 �G�'!a� t i }F �-:`s'�; sc'v{. L L 21� ,fnl �J._s� res
�p 7`' FK "PZ 1v'�`g �
1�lit��dti�Q, SA.. t'k �a f�
tt�y`� `�i3 _Alf
X' °�~7
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
❑
❑ Q ❑
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
❑
❑ ❑ Q
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
❑
❑ ❑ Q
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
❑
❑ Q ❑
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
❑
❑ ❑ Q
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
❑
❑ ❑ Q
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider' s existing
commitments?
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
❑
❑ ❑ Q
project' s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
❑
❑ ❑ Q
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
DISCUSSION: The proposal is a replacementlinfill project. No forseeable impacts will result to Utilities or Service
Systems.
Sources:
1,3,8,12,16
rn'
-r44
'i k 2yx1,
V
t{�yY �"v
s�
6R, K
K t sfyvr
I'otenhaliy }� s
M ✓ w s i A
gn
Si giant
ar „.ii'
LMP"hang5g
..k.x �, }gess
Sigmficanw[�
,Mrt�ganong
rs9: RA%�r
Than a
hr 6
Significaa
k # Q
w>
4 ff
No mpaet k 4
' '� `,fix T' S i:,. .,.4 hz prop-': •fid 2 3 rS_.
s f
&ray a .ai 3 5x
' 3,€,y '�ypy
r ��,���p;`� �;
fco :oraEloE s
Jt tis`:4 '- c' SS,ri.
�Pa
kw` ui'�`3
k.� krr�s� h r �•
t r'� rr 5�k H'
k`8 ::
,i-
dmt�.�J aii;
'3^ti'f'�` -
_' r`�tk [
..i.,'`�
i S:
xs'�'?5
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE — Would the project:
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining ❑ Q ❑ ❑
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project, as mitigated, will not result in a negative impact to the environment, wildlife, plant or
historical resource. The Stegner writing studio will be retained on the property and the entire site and
structures will be documented to HABS level II standards. This report has reviewed all potential impacts and
the new residence project and relocation of the writing studio do not have any foreseeable cumulative or
unmitigated impacts as defined in this Initial Study.
Sources:
1-22
1VHTIGATION NIEASURES-INCLUDED-IN-THE-PROFJE"CT: -
1VHTIGATION MEASURE #1:
Air Quality Measure: Dust control measures shall be implemented during construction as follows:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be.watered two times per day.
During grading operations graded areas shall be watered on a continuous basis.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.
MITIGATION MEASURE #2:
Oak Tree Replanting: The applicant shall plant two (2), 24 inch box sized oak trees for each Heritage
Oak Tree removed. The location of the replacement plantings shall be determined at the time of Landscape
Screening Plan review.
MITIGATION MEASURE #3:
Oak Tree Protection: Tree protection measures shall be implemented and installed prior to start of
demolition or grading as recommended by Kielty Arborist Services in their report dated October 12, 2010.
An ISA Certified Arborist shall certify, in writing, that the Kielty Arborist Services measures were
implemented and report any updates or changes to the tree protection plan, prior to final inspection of the
new residence.
MITIGATION MEASURE #4:
Documentation and Recordation: Documentation and recordation of the main residence, former
study/guest cottage, and writing studio shall precede any construction, demolition, or relocation activities.
This mitigation measure must be undertaken by a qualified historian / architectural historian (under the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards). Documentation shall follow NPS
standards for HABS Historical Report Guidelines, as such standards will ensure the appropriate level of
written and photographic recordation of the property's significant historic context and character -defining
features. The documentation of the former Stegner property shall approximate HABS Level II
documentation and include: a) select existing drawings that would be photographed; b) photographs
following the NPS photo policy, of exterior and interior views, along with historic views; and c) written
data providing history and description of the property. Additionally, the photographs shall include a view
that illustrates the view from the writing studio to help illustrate the setting in which Stegner worked.
The Town will retain the documentation for public benefit and copies of the documentation will be offered
to interested parties identified during project approval process, particularly all relevant historical
organizations as well as organizations and collections dedicated to the work of Wallace Stegner. The
Table below includes a list of recipients; however recipients need not be limited to those listed. In addition,
the HABS documentation will serve as a baseline of information for the preservation of the writing studio,
which will be undertaken as part of the proposed project. The proposed documentation is intended for
public dissemination and not intended to be reviewed by NPS or for transmittal to the Library of Congress
and therefore, will not be a full -definition, HABS dataset.
Table: Proposed List of Interested Parties for Documentation Dissemination
Proposed List of Interested Parties for NABS Dataset Dissemination
California Historical Society
California Pioneers of Santa Clara County
Los Altos Hills Historical Society
Los Altos History Museum
National Trust for Historic Preservation—Western Office
Santa Clara County Historical & Genealogical Society
Santa Clara County Library—Los Altos
Stanford University—Wallace Stegner Collection
Wallace Stegner Center
Wallace Stegner Environmental Center
Production of this mitigation will serve to document the significant physical characteristics of the property,
which include the main residence, former study/guest cottage, and writing studio, as well as the generally
rural setting and semi -remote qualities of the property. The documentation will serve to provide an
archival record of these physical characteristics, as well as a record of the property's relationship to the
significant writing career of Wallace Stegner.
MITIGATION MEASURE #5:
Geotechnical Plan Review: The project Geotechnical Consultants shall review and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e. site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review the proposed energy dissipater placement in the
northeastern portion of the property and recommend any appropriate revisions from a geotechnical
perspective.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review shall be summarized by the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter
and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documents for building permit plan check.
MITIGATION MEASURE #6:
Geotechnical Construction Inspections: The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These inspections shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements,
and excavations for foundations, and retaining walls prior to placement of steel or concrete. At the end of
project construction, the consultant shall inspect the completed site drainage improvements to confirm
compliance with geotechnical standards.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the
Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection.
MITIGATION MEASURE #7:
Construction Hours: Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Saturday
between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30 pm. and shall not exceed allowable noise standards set forth in the
Municipal Code. No heavy noise generating equipment is allowed to be used on Saturdays and no
construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays as noted per Chapter 7, Sec.5-7-01 of the Los Altos Hills
Municipal Code.
Source List:
1. Field Inspection
2. Project Plans
3. Planner's Knowledge of the Area
4. Los Altos Hills Land Use and Zoning Map
5. Los Altos Hills General Plan
6. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
7. Assessor's Maps, Office of County Assessor, Santa Clara County, 2009-2010
8. Project plans prepared by Kimley-Hom Associates dated 1-3-2012and plans prepared by Tomas
Klope Associates dated 12-21-2011
9. State Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
10. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December
1999
11. State Department Fish and Game CNDDB Map
12. Santa Clara Valley Water District Map
13. Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones Map of Los Altos Hills, Cotton Shires and Associates,
December 2005
14. DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List, California Environmental Protection Agency
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Altos Hills, May 18,
2009
16. Sanitary Sewer Map, Town of Los Altos Hills Engineering Department
17. Santa Clara County Municipal Code Chapter H Indian Burial Grounds (Title B Division B-6)
18. Biological Evaluation prepared by Live Oak Associates, dated December 28, 2011.
19. Investigation of Potential Waters of the United States Barron Creek prepared by Live Oak
Associates, dated December 6, 2010
20. CEQA Guidelines, 2011
21. Google Earth
22. Kielty Arborist Services, October 12, 2010
Attachments:
• Baseline Historic Resource Assessment, Circa Historic Property Development — November 28,
2011
• Historical Resource Mitigation Analysis and Identification Report, JRP Historical Consultant —
March 2012
Mitigation Monitoring Program
New Residence, Basement, Swimming Pool, and
Relocation of a Detached Building
(Wallace Stegner Writing Studio)
File # 249-10-ZP-SD-IS-MIND-VAR
Mitigation Measure
Responsible
Must Be
Done
Department
Completed B
l
Air Quality Measure: Dust control
Engineering
On-going and
measures shall be implemented during
Department
throughout
construction as follows:
grading
• All exposed surfaces (e.g.,
parking areas, staging areas, soil
operations
piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered
two times per day.
• During grading operations
graded areas shall be watered on
a continuous basis.
• All haul trucks transporting soil,
sand, or other loose material off-
site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out
onto adjacent public roads shall
be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least
once per day.
2
Oak Tree Replanting: The applicant
planning
Prior to Final
shall plant two (2), 24 inch box sized
Department
Inspection
oak trees for each Heritage Oak Tree
removed. The location of the
replacement plantings shall be
determined at the time of Landscape
Screening Plan review.
3
Oak Tree Protection: Tree protection
planning
Prior to the start
measures shall be implemented and
Department
of grading or
installed prior to start of demolition or
demolition
grading as recommended by Kielty
Arborist Services in their report dated
work and prior
October 12, 2010. An ISA Certified
to Final
Arborist shall certify, in writing, that
Inspection
the Kielty Arborist Services measures
were implemented and report any
updates or changes to the tree
protection plan, prior to final
inspection of the new residence.
4
Documentation and Recordation:
planning
On-going and
Documentation and recordation of the
Department
throughout the
main residence, former study/guest
cottage, and writing studio shall
project
precede any construction, demolition,
or relocation activities. This mitigation
measure must be undertaken by a
qualified historian / architectural
historian (under the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification
Standards). Documentation shall follow
NPS standards for HABS Historical
Report Guidelines, as such standards
will ensure the appropriate level - of
written and photographic recordation of
the property's significant historic
context and character-defining features.
The documentation of the former
Stegner property shall approximate
HABS Level II documentation and
include: a) select existing drawings that
would be photographed; b) photographs
following the NPS photo policy, of
exterior and interior views, along with
historic views; and c) written data
providing history and description of the
property. Additionally, the
photographs shall include a view that
illustrates the view from the writing
studio to help illustrate the setting in
which Stegner worked.
The Town will retain the
documentation for public benefit and
copies of the documentation will be
offered to interested parties identified
during project approval process,
particularly all relevant historical
organizations as well as organizations
and collections dedicated to the work of
Wallace Stegner. The Table on page
11 includes a list of recipients; however
recipients need not be limited to those
listed. In addition, the HABS
documentation will serve as a baseline
of information for the preservation of
the writing studio, which will be
undertaken as part of the proposed
project. The proposed documentation
is intended for public dissemination
and not intended to be reviewed by
NPS or for transmittal to the Library of
Congress and therefore, will not be a
full-definition, HABS dataset.
Production of this mitigation will serve
to document the significant physical
characteristics of the property, which
include the main residence, former
study/guest cottage, and writing studio,
as well as the generally rural setting
and semi-remote qualities of the
nrnnPrty The rincnmentatinn will
serve to provide an archival record of
these physical characteristics, as well as
a record of the property's relationship
to the significant writing career of
Wallace Stegner."
5
Geotechnical Plan Review: The
Engineering
Prior to
project Geotechnical Consultants shall
Department
acceptance of
review and approve all geotechnical
plans for
aspects of the project building and
grading plans (i.e. site preparation and
building plan
grading, site drainage improvements
check
and design parameters for foundations
and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly
incorporated.
• The Project Geotechnical
Consultant shall review the
proposed energy dissipater
placement in the northeastern
portion of the property and
recommend any appropriate
revisions from a geotechnical
perspective.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan
Review shall be summarized by the
Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and
submitted to the Town Engineer along
with other documents for building
permit plan check
6
Geotechnical Construction
Engineering
Prior to Final
Inspections: The Geotechnical
Department
Inspection
Consultant shall inspect, test (as
needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction.
These inspections shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface
and subsurface drainage improvements,
and excavations for foundations, and
retaining walls prior to placement of
steel or concrete. At the end of project
construction, the consultant shall
inspect the completed site drainage
improvements to confirm compliance
with geotechnical standards.
The results of these inspections and the
as -built conditions .of the project shall
be described by the Geotechnical
Consultant in a letter and submitted to
the Town Engineer for review prior to
final inspection.
7
Construction Hours: Noise generating
Building
On-going
construction activities shall be limited
Department
during all
fn Mnnriav dirnna}i Cafiirriatr 1 atp
-the hours of-8.00 am and5:30-pm and
-
emolition, and
shall not exceed allowable noise
construction
standards set forth in the Municipal
activities
Code. No heavy noise generating
equipment is allowed to be used on
Saturdays and no construction is
allowed on Sundays or holidays as
noted per Chapter 7, Sec.5-7-01 of the
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.
27, 2011
Planning Director Debbie Pedro, AICP
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Chair James Abraham
Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
jima.pc@gmail.com
Attachment 4
NATIONAL
TRUST
FOR
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION"'
Western
OFFICE
Re: Opposition to Demolition of Wallace Stegner Home and Study
Dear Director Pedro and Chair Abraham:
We write regarding the proposed demolition of the historic Wallace Stegner home and study at
13456 South Fork Lane to construct in its place a new residence and swimming pool. Since the project
seeks discretionary approval of a site development permit as well as zoning, grading, and building
permits, protections of the California Environmental Quality Act apply. (Los Altos Hills Code of
Ordinances, tit. 10, ch. 2.1303; 2.702(b); 2.402; 2.703(b), 2.1302). Demolitions of the home and study
are part of the "whole of the action" being considered for approval, and must be studied along with the
other project permits. Since there is ample evidence that this unique site is eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, we respectfully urge the Town to conduct environmental
review that analyzes alternatives to demolition before considering project approval.
No CEQA Exemption Applies to the Demolition of the Stegner Property
We were alarmed to recently learn that the Town is treating this project as categorically exempt from
CEQA under Guideline section 15303. The Town has ample evidence that the Stegner home and study
qualify as historic resources under CEQA and are not exempt. Categorical exemptions are rebuttable
and "shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource" — or that may have any other potentially significant impact due to its
particular circumstances. (CEQA Guideline § 15300.2 (c), (f); Pub. Resources Code § 21084 (e).)
Western office
5 Third Street, Suite 707
San Francisco, CA 94103
P 415.947.0692
F 415.947.0699
E -o@nthp.org
kMw AK AZ CA, nl, M. Nv. OR WA &. Puific
tdmd lmimria
National Office
1785 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
P 202.588.6000
F 202.588.6038
E info@nthp.org
W'tv\4. i�reSCtv:111O11�aI1�1n.UiE
Director Debbie Pedro & Chair James Abraham
May 27, 2011
Page 2 of 3
It is important to note that a resource need not be listed on a register to be treated as historic for
purposes of CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084. 1.) The "fair argument" standard
should apply to the question of whether a resource may be eligible for listing in the California
Register. (Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4`h 1095.)
The standard is met by a fact -based opinion of an historian or an advisory commission that a property
qualifies as historic. The fair argument standard triggers an EIR if any substantial evidence in the
record — that is, facts or reasonable assumptions/expert opinions based on facts — supports a fair
argument that significant impacts may occur, even if a different conclusion may also be well -
supported. (Friends of `B"Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1000-1003.)
Importantly, if there is a dispute among experts, the Town must defer to the evidence in favor of
environmental review. (CEQA Guideline § 15064 (f).)
The Historic Significance of the Stegner Home and Study
There is significant evidence that the Stegner home and study are historic resources subject to CEQA.
Wallace Stegner's importance as a novelist and environmentalist are legendary. We are submitting
biographical information about his life and accomplishments.
We are informed that last week, on May 15, 2011, the Town's History Committee adopted a resolution
recommending that the Stegners' property be added to the Town's Inventory of Historic Sites and
Structures. The resolution states in part that designation would recognize "Stegner's substantial work
on the committee that initiated the founding of the Town and his contributions as an internationally
acclaimed author." There is a very strong case that the Stegner site meets requirements for listing in
the Inventory because of its "identification with a person, or persons, who significantly contributed to
the culture, history, or development of the Town." (Code of Ordinances, tit. 11, ch. 1.05(b).)
From our own research, we know that Wallace and Mary Stegner built their house in the early 1950s.
The South Fork Lane property was the only house Stegner ever owned. In a May 2011 article in the
San Francisco Chronicle, author Sam Whiting affirmed that " Ulust about every major book that he
wrote was written in that study." (Whiting, "Wallace Stegner's Studio Destined for Demolition.") The
Stegners collaborated with an architect in the residence design and constructed the landscaping and
terrace themselves. Stegner had been one of the first to settle in the Los Altos Hills area, ten years
before it became a town: "He bought the property after he was hired as a full professor of English at
Stanford in 1945. There was an oak forest and nothing else — no electricity, no road and no water.
Stegner did much of the carpentry work himself."
The house and study figure in several of Wallace Stegner's books, including All the Little Live Things;
A Field Guide to the Western Birds, A Shooting Star, and Spectator Bird. The character Joe Allston, a
retired literary agent and protagonist in several of these books, works daily in a study modeled after
Stegner's, and both the fictional Joe and the real Wallace looked out at the same Blue Oak and tended
to the property as careful stewards of home, hearth, and land.
Director Debbie Pedro & Chair James Abraham
May 27, 2011
Page 3 of 3
The Stegner home and study amply meet the Town's own criteria for designating local landmarks, as
well as the objective criteria for listing in the California Register and the National Register of Historic
Places. CEQA requires that the Town fairly evaluate this special environmental setting as a basis for
determining the required level of environmental review. It clearly has not yet done so, and its approval
of demolition on such an inadequate record would be a disservice to the cultural heritage of the Town
and to the State of California, and inconsistent with the mandates of state law.
Conclusion
Wallace Stegner contributed immensely to the history of the Town of Los Altos Hills. His legacy as an
internationally -revered novelist and environmentalist, including as the Pulitzer Prize-winning author
of Angle of Repose and the recipient of the National Book Award for The Spectator Bird, is further
enhanced by his long and fruitful association with literary education at Stanford. The unique location
and setting of the Stegner residence and study provided him with serene tranquility and a place of
inspiration. Accordingly, we ask that the Planning Commission decline to consider the demolition of
the home and study of this remarkable man pending completion of a full CEQA review to consider
feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to demolition.
Thank you for your consideration. We would be most willing to meet with you to discuss this matter
further and to assist in any way we can. Please do not hesitate to contact us at 415-947-0692.
Sincerely,
Anthea M. Hartig, Ph.D
Regional Director
Brian Turner
Regional Attorney
cc: Lynn Stegner
M. Wayne Donaldson, FAIR, California State Historic Preservation Officer
Mayor Ginger Summit
Members of the Planning Commission
City Manager Carl Cahill
City Clerk Karen Jost
Jennifer Gates, California Preservation Foundation
Susan Brandt -Hawley, Brandt -Hawley Law Group
Attachment 5
IRCAHhro,ic Property De-iop—mr
Brian Froelich, AICP
Associate Planner
Town of Los Altos Hills
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
November 28, 2011
Re: 13456 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA
INTRODUCTION
Circa: Historic Property Development (Circa) was contracted by the Town of Los Altos Hills, CA to
prepare a Base -Line Historic Resources Assessment (Assessment) regarding the property located at
13456 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA. The property is the former property of noted writer Wallace
Stegner, and his wife Mary Stuart Page Stegner. Construction of the residence was completed in 1949
making it 62 years old.
Per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a property over fifty years of age that is proposed
to be altered in any way (including demolition or relocation) it will require a Base -Line Historic
Resources Assessment report to evaluate the subject property for historic significance. Development of
the historical evaluation (which includes assessment of integrity as defined by the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation) and a limited historic context statement is consistent with the requirements of
CEQA.
The Assessment report provides the minimum required to determine what buildings, structures and
objects contribute to the historic significance of the. property only. As a result of a review of the Findings
of the Assessment it may be determined that mitigation measures are needed in order to lessen the impact
of the proposed project.
DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties recognizes that every
building has "... its own identity and its own distinctive character. Character refers to all those visual
aspects and physical features that comprise the appearance of every historic building. Character -defining
elements include the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior
spaces and features, as well as the various aspects of its site and environment. "'- The retention of these
characteristics directly affects the property's ability to communicate its historic significance. The
characteristics of 13456 South Fork Lane are identified below and are discussed in the Evaluation Section
under Integrity.
Main Residence (1949):
The single -story residence is generally a L -plan with an attached carport and a continuous flat roof plain
with deep, closed eaves. The central flat roof area (over the interior living room space) is "popped -up"
I U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation.
2 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
with narrow operable, clerestory windows on all sides. A squat brick chimney punctures this central form
adding to the low, tiered silhouette, reminiscent of the Eichler -style of residential architectural style. The
residence is sided in vertical wood boards and sits on a concrete foundation. Windows are a combination
of metal frame single pane standard -size picture windows, individual sliders and floor -to -ceiling windows
with operable clerestory windows, and sliding glass doors creating a transparent, indoor/outdoor
environment. The dining room was slightly enlarged (4'x12') in 1968. The recessed entry is located at the
northeast elevation. A deep, wood and paved brick deck is cantilevered off the west elevation is visually
connected to the residence by a "window -wall" and double glass doors. A covered breezeway connects
the residence to the carport. A concrete "Gunnite" and rile pool (1979) is located off the eastern most
elevation of the residence. Solar panels and heating system were also installed in 1979.
Former Study/Guest Cottage (c. 1949):
The single -story former study/guest cottage is a L -plan with board -and -batten wood siding and flat roof,
over -sized wood frame windows on the south elevation and full-length wood frame windows on the north
elevation. There is a grade level entry porch with wood post. The cottage (or cabin as it is sometimes
referred to) is located down-slope (west) and described as a "...short distance below the main
residence...that Wally had originally built [emphasis added] as his study.
Studio (post 1952 -pre -1968):
The single -story studio is similar to the residence in wall material and flat roof design. It has metal frame
clearstory windows on three elevations with glass sliding doors on the west elevation, connecting to the
wooden deck area. Planter boxes divide the space between the two deck areas. No plans were uncovered
for the studio building itself, however, the studio is shown on plans of 1968.
Location and Setting:
The residential cluster (residence, studio and guest house) of 13456 South Fork Lane is sited on just under
2.5 acres of wooded land in the town of Los Altos Hills (the Town). The lot was originally 5 acres and
was divided about 1974. The Town is located approximately thirty-five miles south of San Francisco, five
miles south of Stanford University and seventeen miles north of downtown San Jose. The community has
maintained a decidedly rural environment that continues and preserves the historic landscape of the
foothills.
The over characteristic of the subject property at 13456 South Fork Lane is rural in nature, with a gently
undulating terrain enhanced with mature trees and low plantings. Rustic pathways lead to terraces that
surround the residence and studio buildings. Expansive views of the surrounding foothills are seen from
the buildings, terraces, walkways and decks. A winding road leads to the private drive atop the foothill.
Neighboring residences are generally hidden from view due to the surrounding private, heavily wooded
acreage.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND/CONTEXT
Los Altos Hills
The following brief historical overview is quoted from the City of Los Altos Hills' website, on the page
titled "Town History."
Ohlone Indians were the first known residents of Los Altos Hills. They were part of a group of
Native Americans who once inhabited small villages throughout the Santa Clara Valley. Both Los
3 Phillip L. Fradkin, Wallace Stegner and the American West, (New York Alfred A. Knoff, 2008),119.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
CIRCAHisroric Property Development
Altos and Los Altos Hills have been substantiated as sites of early Ohlone villages. In 1955,
Indian remains and artifacts such as mortars and pestles were found on the Peck property east of
Moody Road. In 1964, developers on O'Keefe Lane unearthed more human remains and artifacts.
Still later, in 1970, an Ohlone village and burial ground of major significance came to light on the
Costello property on O'Keefe Lane, prompting archaeological study by Foothill College and
others. Additional mounds and village sites have since been excavated along Permanente and
Matadero Creeks.
Following roughly the path of today's Fremont Road, Juan Bautista De Anza passed through what
was to become Los Altos Hills while making his journey from Monterey to San Francisco in 1776
to establish the Presidio. A year later, the Santa Clara Mission was founded.
Two large Spanish -Mexican land grants comprise Los Altos Hills: Rancho La Purissima
Concepcion, 4,436 acres granted to Native Americans Jose Gorgonio and his son Jose Ramon in
1840 and sold to Juana Briones de Miranda in 1844 for the sum of $300; and Rancho San
Antonio, 4,438 acres granted to Juan Prado Mesa. Adobe Creek was the boundary line of the two
ranchos. The Briones and Mesa families were friendly and became related when two of the Mesa
men married two of the Briones women.
In 1855 Juana Briones sold 3,000 acres to Martin Murphy, founder of the City of Sunnyvale, who
had previously leased her land for cattle grazing. Murphy gave 2,800 acres to his daughter,
Elizabeth Yuba, when she married William Taaffe, a prosperous San Francisco merchant. They
built a home on what is now the Foothill Community College campus and had four children:
William, Martin, and twin daughters Mary and Mathilda. Some of the Taaffe descendants still
reside in Los Altos Hills. The two large ranchos were eventually parceled and sold as smaller
ranches for cattle grazing and vineyards, mostly of Zinfandel grapes. Many Italian and French
vintners lived on Purssima Road until a blight destroyed the vineyards near the turn of the
century. Soon after, orchards of apricots, plums and prunes flourished.
With its millions of fruit trees producing a beautiful, aromatic sea of blossoms, Santa Clara
Valley became the "Valley of Heart's Delight" and so it remained well into the 1960s. Trains and
tour buses brought countless travelers from near and far to glimpse this unique panorama.
Wealthy San Franciscans attracted to the area during this period built summer estates in Los Altos
Hills. Among the many still standing are: The Shumate House on Viscaino, the Lohman and
Griffin Houses on the Foothill College campus, the Morgan Manor (which for many years was
operated as Ford Country Day School) on Stonebrook, and the Finn Mansion on Prospect. Both
Morgan Manor and Griffin House are official Town Historical Landmarks.
The Town of Los Altos Hills was incorporated on January 27, 1956. Before then, residential
development was constrained by numerous factors, including lack of a dependable water supply.
Water from wells and creek beds was safe, but not always adequate. Headwaters for Hale, Adobe,
Barron, Matadero, Purissima, and Deer Creeks are generated in local foothills characterized by
heavily wooded banks and often -impenetrable areas of poison oak and chaparral. Homes and
farms were usually on large acreage. The overall personality of the region was distinctly rural. In
1956, the many advocates for incorporating the City, to be known as "The Town of Los Altos
Hills", were singularly dedicated to "preservation of the rural atmosphere of the foothills."
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
i
CIRCAHisroric Property Deveiopmenr
While many changes have taken place in the intervening years, most of the pleasant country
aspects of the Town remain as new housing is constructed to accommodate the needs and
lifestyles of today's residents.
Wallace Stegner
Born on February 18, 1909 in Lake Mills, Iowa, Wallace Earle Stegner was the second of two sons born
to George and Hilda Paulson Stegner. Following the restless patriarch, the family moved frequently
during Wallace's youth, settling finally in Salt Lake City where he attended East High School. Shortly
thereafter, Wallace completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Utah and went on to earn his
master's degree (1932) and a Ph. D. in American Literature (1935) from the University of Iowa.' Wallace
married Mary Stuart Page in 1934. He published his first novel, Remembering Laughter, in 1937, and
with it won the Little, Brown -Publishing Company prize and $2,500. With this success he was able to
gain a teaching position at Harvard where he taught from 1939 to 1945.5
Stegner produced several novels over the next few years including On a Darkling Plain (1940), Fire and
Ice (1941), and Mormon Country (1942), but none were as successful as his first novel until the
publication of The Big Rock Candy Mountain in 1943. Largely autobiographical, this book documents the
family's travels throughout the American and Canadian West and the character Bo is based on Stegner's
own father.b
Following World War 11, Stegner accepted a position at Stanford University in the creative writing
department. He would be in charge of the program and was told that the university wanted to expand the
program and raise its stature, a task he was especially qualified for after his experiences at Iowa and
Harvard.' Wallace and Mary arrived in June 1945 and began looking for property on which to build what
would turn out to be their fust and last year-round home.' They eventually settled on a hilltop "with a
magnificent view of the peninsula foothills between Stanford and the ocean in what later became Los
Altos Hills."'
The Stanford Creative Writing Program, founded by Stegner in 1946, became one of the most highly
ranked writing programs in the county. As his son Page Stegner states in his introduction to Wallace
Stegner's West, "As much as anything it is that writing program that identifies him with the state [of
California] and its contribution to literary culture.i10 Under the 25 years of his leadership the program
became "a virtual Who's Who of contemporary American writers," boasting such writers as Eugene
Burdick, Tillie Olsen, Max Apple, Larry McMurtry, Robert Stone, Ken Kesey, Ed McClanahan, Nancy
Packer, Ernest Gaines, Robert Haas, Wendell Berry, Edward Abbey and N. Scott Momaday." Peter
Collier of Audubon magazine considered Stegner to be "the leading teacher of writing in his
generation." 12
4 Wallace Stegner's West/ Edited with an Introduction by Page Stegner. (Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara University; Berkeley:
Heyday Books, 2008),2-
5
008),2.5 Ibid, and "Wallace Stegner." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Vol. 19. Detroit: Gale,1999.
6 "Wallace Stegner." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Vol. 19. Detroit: Gale,1999.
7 Jackson J. Benson, Wallace Stegner: His Life and Work, (New York Penguin Books, 1996),152.
s Phillip L. Fradkin, Wallace Stegner and the American West,119.117.
9 Jackson J. Benson, Wallace Stegner: His Life and Work, 153.
10 Wallace Stegner's West, Introduction by Page Stegner, 5.
11 Ibid.
u "Wallace Stegner." Encyclopedia of World Biography.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
Historic Properry Development
Stegner continued to write during his time at Stanford, publishing Second Growth (1947), The Preacher
and the Slave (1950), A Shooting Star (1961), and All the Little Live Things (1967). Wallace and Mary
had always been socially and politically active, and advocated for a number of interests dedicated to
environmental causes. In 1945 he published the nonfiction work entitled "One Nation," which spoke to
the corrosive effects of racial prejudice in the United States. This work was a co -winner of the Anisfeld-
Wolfe Award for the best book of the year on race relations." In 1955 he published This Is Dinosaur,
which helped in the campaign to save the Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado and Utah from
flooding behind proposed dams on the nearby Green River. Perhaps his most well-known environmental
contribution was his famous Wilderness Letter, delivered to Davis Pesonen of the University of
California's Wildlands Research Center, which argued for the preservation of wilderness as a spiritual
resource for the American people. The sentiments expressed in this letter "became a mission statement
harked by conservationists around the world, despite its distinctly American references .,,14 The letter was
also used to introduce the bill that established the National Wilderness Preservation System in 1964.1-,
Stegner retired from Stanford in 1971 to devote more time to writing. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 1972
for Angle of Repose, which is widely considered to be his masterpiece work. In addition to his
achievements at Stanford and in the environmental world, Stegner was named a Guggenheim Fellow
twice (1949 and 1959); received a Rockefeller fellowship to teach in the Far East in 1950-1951; was
awarded a fellowship from the Center for Advanced studies in the Behavioral Sciences in 1956; received
honorary doctorates from the University of Montana and Middlebury College, and the first Robert Kirsh
Award for Life Achievement from the Los Angeles Times. 16 He received the John Muir award from the
Sierra Club for his contributions to conservation, the Governor's Award for the Arts from the California
Arts Council, and the Cyril Magnin Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Arts.
13456 South Fork Lane
When the Stegners purchased the Los Altos Hills property in the late 1940s the area was still largely
undeveloped. There was no nearby electricity, no road or water, and no sewer connection available.
Though his position at Stanford allowed him to work half-time for a full-time salary, Stegner had to
complete much of the finishing work and all of the landscaping work himself in order to afford the
house. 17 The Stegners also received help from students who built the bookcases and gave them to the
family as a gift. Construction was completed in 1949.
Once completed, the house was featured in the August 1952 issue of House and Garden, which describes
the house as having been built "for a writer, his musical wife, and their 15 -year-old son.s1.. The article
describes the house:
The living area is actually one big room, resourcefully divided by low partitions and skillfully -
placed furniture into separate centers for dining, music, study, [and] conversation. The dividers
keep the open feeling while they screen off each area. The son's bedroom and bath are arranged
like a separate apartment with its own private entry.
13 William H. Honan, "Wallace Stegner is Dead at 84, Pulitzer Prize -Winning Author," The New York Times (New
York), 15 April 1993.
14 "Wallace Stegner." Encyclopedia of World Biography.
1s Ibid. Also see the "Wilderness Letter" page on the The Wilderness Society website at
http://wildemess.org/content/wilderness-letter (accessed 9.30.2011).
16 Ibid, 6; also, "Wallace Stegner." Encyclopedia of World Biography.
17 Ibid.
is "An Open Plan, Skillfully Handled, Gives Privacy to Every Member of the Family," House and Garden, (New York:
Conde Nast Publications, Inc.), August 1952.
582 lancet Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
CIRCA-Hisrorfe Pmperq Development
Terraces run the entire length of the house, adding outdoor extensions to the living and dining
rooms, study, and master bedroom...The dining patio ... is just outside the glass walled dining
room, a few steps from the kitchen... Plantings are used at the window wall to help bring an out-
of-doors spirit into [the] house all year long.19
In Wallace Stegner and the American West, the author writes that the house was "best described as Bay
Area modern in the style of a Joseph Eichler or as a William W. Wurster -type home set in splendid
isolation rather than among the many Palo Alto look-alikes on the flats below Los Altos Hills."20 Another
description states that the house "blended quietly into its surroundings with a low -slung, Frank Lloyd
Wright sensibility."21 Its broad exterior deck overlooked the undeveloped hills beyond and provided a
spectacular setting for the many dinner parties and other events hosted at the house.
Though Stegner took much of the physical labor upon himself, the house itself was designed by architects
Bolton White and Jack Hermann; the landscape was designed by Eckbo, Royston & Williams.22 Jack
Hermann studies architecture at the University of California, Berkeley, and established a partnership with
architect Bolton White in 1948. Together they designed hospitals, clinics, churches, offices, housing,
stores and recreation centers. Charles White was a designer in the architecture office of Gardner Dailey
from 1936-1942, an influence that clearly shows in the property's modem design.
Adjacent to the main house was Stegner's writing studio. Books lined the walls and "the manual
typewriter was placed so that Wally wasn't districted by the view."" The studio is set next to a rare blue
oak tree that Stegner is said to have treasured.'-' A short distance from the residence and writing studio
was a small board -and -batten cottage that Stegner originally used as his study. Later, Stegner's son Page
and his wife and baby occupied the cabin while Page was in graduate school at Stanford. Other residents
followed including other family members, students, instructors, and the young couple fictionalized in
Stegner's All the Little Live Things.
Mary and Wallace established their estate on the hill ten years before Los Altos Hills became a town and
battled against the development that would come to surround them in the last half of the 20'b century. This
house was their only full-time residence and the couple resided here for over fifty years. Stegner last saw
the house in March 1993 when he went to Santa Fe to deliver a lecture. While there he was involved in a
severe car accident and sustained fatal injuries. Wallace Stegner died from injury -related complications
on April 13, 1993. He was 84 years old
EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK
The National Register Criteria for Evaluation
The National Register is the nation's master inventory of known historic resources. It is administered by
the National Park Service (NPS) in conjunction with SHPO. The National Register includes listings of
buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering,
19 [bid.
zo Phillip L. Fradkin, Wallace Stegner and the American West, 118.
u Wallace Stegner: His Life and Work„ 197
22 House and Garden, August 1952. Note: original drawings and photographs of the residence are held in the Jack
Hermann Collection at the Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley.
23 Phillip L. Fradkin, Wallace Stegner and the American West, 119.
24 Sam Whiting, "Closing Chapter for Pulitzer Winner's Studio," San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco), 14 May 2011.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
7
CIRCHisronr Pr"per[v Deveiopmanr
archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. The National Register criteria
and associated definitions are outlined in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following is a summary of Bulletin 15:
Criteria
Generally, resources (structures, sites, buildings, districts and objects) over 50 years of age can be listed
in the National Register provided that they meet the evaluative criteria described below. Resources can be
listed individually in the National Register or as contributors26 to an historic district. The National
Register criteria are as follows:
A. Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of history;
B. Resources that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
D. Resources that have yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or
history.
Historic Districts: According to National Register Bulletin 15, a historic district "possesses a significant
concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or
aesthetically by plan or physical development s26 Examples of districts include:
• business districts
• canal systems
• college campuses
• agricultural properties with large acreage/numerous properties
• industrial complexes
• residential area
• transportation networks
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of
architectural, historical, archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state
and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and
affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act n
u A "contributor" is a building, site, structure, or object that adds to the historic associations or historic architectural
qualities for which a property is significant. The contributor was present during the period of significance, relates to
the documented significance of the property, and possesses historic integrity or provides important information
about a period; or the contributor independently meets National Register criteria. A "non -contributor" does not add
to the historic associations or historic architectural qualities as it was not present during the period of significance; it
has experienced alterations, disturbances, additions, or other changes; or it does not independently meet the National
Register criteria.
VCA Office of Historic Preservation website: http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=21238.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
CIRCAHbitaric Pre+perry Development
Criteria
To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the CRHR, a structure must usually be more than 50
years. old, must have historical significance, and must retain its physical integrity. In terms of historic
significance, the California Register of Historical Resources evaluates a resource based on the following
four criteria:
• Criterion 1 (Event): Resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United
States.
• Criterion 2 (Person): Resources associated with the lives of persons important to local, California
or national history.
• Criterion 3 (Desi--n/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master or possess high
artistic values.
• Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources that have yielded or have the potential to yield
information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
Integrity
Integrity is the measure by which properties are evaluated. To retain integrity a property must have most
of the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The seven
aspects of integrity are quoted as follows:
• Location - Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where
the historic event occurred.
• Desien - Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and
style of a property.
• Setting - Setting is the physical environment of the historic property.
• Materials - Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration form a historic property.
• Workmanship - Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or
people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling - Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period
of time.
• Association — Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property.
According to the Office of Historic Preservation's Technical Assistance Series Bulletin #6:
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
CIRCAHIsroric Properry Development
Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival
of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources
eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance
described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as
historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that historical
resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National
Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.'
EVALUATION
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
Criterion A (Associative Value - Event):
To be considered for listing under Criterion A, a property must be associated with one or more events
important within a defined historic context. Criterion A recognizes properties associated with single
events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated activities or historic trends,
such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and commerce. The event or trends, however,
must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or
development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city. Moreover, the property must have an
important association with the event or historic trends, and it must retain historic integrity.'
Historical research did not reveal that the property at 13456 South Fork Lane is notably associated with
an important event or pattern of events related to national state or local history. The former Stegner
property was developed in the late 1940s (before the incorporation of the Town) however, no
documentation revealed that it was directly associated to the early development and/or planning of the
Town of Los Altos Hills. Though the property was the site of the writings of Wallace Stegner the
significance of those events are more closely related to the property's association with Stegner himself.
As such, the property at 13456 South Fork Lane does not appear to be potentially eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion A.
Criterion B (Associative Value - Person):
Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past. According to National Register Bulletin 15, persons "significant in our past" refers
to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic
context. Properties eligible under this criterion are usually those associated with a person's productive life,
reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance. The best representatives usually are
properties associated with the person's adult or productive life.30
The property at 13456 South Fork Lane is significant for it's association with Wallace Stegner, whose
significance as an American writer has influenced an international breadth of writers and
environmentalists during the middle part of the 20`h century. Mr. Stegner was a notable power for his time
and won many awards including the following:
All in all Stegner won multiple, renowned awards and grants, including:
• 1937 Little Brown Prize = Remembering Laughter
' Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation. California Register and National Register: A Comparison.
Technical Assistance Series No. 6.
29 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How To Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, Rebecca H.
Shrimpton, ed., 2002.
30 Ibid.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
CIRCAHLrwi, Prvper[y D—iop—t
• 1945 Houghton -Mifflin Life -in -America Award and the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award = One
Nation
• 1950-1951 Rockefeller fellowship to teach writers in the Far East
• 1953 Wenner-Gren Foundation grant
• 1956 Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences fellowship
• 1967 Commonwealth Club Gold Medal = All the Little Live Things
• 1972 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction = Angle of Repose
• 1976 Commonwealth Club Gold Medal = The Spectator Bird
• 1977 National Book Award = The Spectator Bird
• 1980 Los Angeles Times Kirsch award for lifetime achievement
• 1990 P.E.N. Center USA West award for his body of work
• 1991 California Arts Council award for his body of work
• 1992 National Endowment for the Arts (Stegner refused)
In addition Stegner won three O. Henry Awards (for magazine stories), was twice a Guggenheim Fellow
(1949 and 1959), Senior Fellow of the National Institute of Humanities, and was a member of the
National Institute and American Academy of Arts and Letters, member National Academy of Arts and
Sciences. As an environmentalist he was special assistant to former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall
(during the Kennedy Administration). He also served on and then chaired the Advisory Board for
National Parks, Historical Sites, Buildings, and Monuments.
According to National Register Bulletin 15, "Each property associated with an important individual
should be compared to other associated properties to identify those that best represent the person's historic
contributions." This house was their "...first and last..."" full-time residence and the couple resided here
for over fifty years. Wallace Stegner occupied the subject property from 1949 - 1994 and the Stegner
family remained on the property until its recent sale to the Yong family. The property appears to be
potentially eligible for the National Register under Criterion B for its long-term association with Wallace
Stegner.
Criterion C (Desi--n/Construction):
This criterion applies to properties significant for their physical design or construction, including such
elements as architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and artwork. To be eligible under Criterion
C, a property must meet at least one of the following requirements:
• Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.
• Represent the work of a master.
® Possess high artistic value.
• Represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction.
The first requirement, that properties "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction," refers to the way in which a property was conceived, designed, or fabricated by a people
or culture in past periods of history. "The work of a master" refers to the technical or aesthetic
" Phillip L. Fradkin, Wallace Stegner and the American West, 117.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
CIRCAHisrodir Property Deye(op"tenr
achievements of an architect or craftsman. "High artistic values" concerns the expression of aesthetic
ideals or preferences and applies to aesthetic achievement."
The residence at 13456 South Fork Lane was designed by architects Bolton White and Jack Hermann and
the landscape was designed by Eckbo, Royston & Williams. As noted in the property history description
above the style of the house appears to have been inspired by the styles of Eichler or Wurster, and nestled
into the natural landscape. This design was important enough to secure a place in the iconic arbiter of
taste: House and Garden magazine. However, the house design itself cannot be attributed to being a
significant influence of architecture in the region or elsewhere. It is unknown who designed the writing
studio but was not included in the White and Hermann design.
Under this criterion, the subject property does not appear potentially eligible for the National Register
under Criterion C.
Criterion D (Information Value):
Criterion D most commonly applies to properties that contain or are likely to contain information bearing
on an important archeological research question. The research conducted for this review provided no
indication that the property at 13456 South Fork Lane may provide important archaeological information.
Therefore, the property does not appear to be potentially eligible as an individual resource under Criterion
D.
District discussion
The National Park Service defines a historic district as "a geographically definable area... possessing a
significant concentration... [of] buildings, structures, or objects united by past events or aesthetically by
plan or physical development." Research indicates that the remaining swimming pool (1979) and
gardening shed were not part of the original design plans for the property. As such, they are not united
aesthetically by plan or physical development and cannot be considered contributors to a historic district.
While they are components of the larger estate and do not detract from the integrity or significance of the
residence, studio and guesthouse, these elements are not directly associated to the designed features for
which the property is significant. Therefore, only the residence, studio and guesthouse are considered
contributing historic resources within the existing setting; no larger historic district is present.
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
Criterion 1 (Events)
For the reasons stated above under Criterion A of the National Register, the property at 13456 South Fork
Lane does not appear to be potentially eligible for the California Register as an individual resource under
Criterion 1.
Criterion 2 (People)
For the reasons stated above under Criterion B of the National Register, the property at 13456 South Fork
Lane appears to be potentially eligible for the California Register as an individual resource under
Criterion 2.
Criterion 3 (Desi--n/Construction)
32 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How To Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, Rebecca H.
Shrimpton, ed., 2002.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
CIRCAHisroric Propercv Deveiopmenr
For the reasons stated above under Criterion C of the National Register, the property at 13456 South Fork
Lane does not appear to be potentially eligible for the California Register as an individual resource under
Criterion 3.
Criterion 4 (Information Potential)
For the reasons stated above under Criterion D of the National Register, the property at 13456 South Fork
Lane does not appear to be potentially eligible for the California Register as an individual resource under
Criterion 4.
Integrity
To retain integrity a property must have most of the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the National
Register. The property retains a high degree of integrity as discussed below.
Location
The property remains in the original location where it was constructed and therefore retains integrity of
location.
Design — Although the important interior character defining features of the studio (wood paneling and
shelves) have been removed and walled in sheet rock the subject property (residence, studio and guest
house) retains its original form, plan, spatial organization, structure, and style. Therefore the property
retains integrity of design.
Setting
With exception of the construction of Interstate 280 in 1955, the immediate physical setting of the
property remains much the same as it was when originally developed33. As such, the property retains
integrity of setting.
Materials
Few exterior alterations appear to have been made to the property since originally constructed. It is
assumed that minor repairs/adjustments and on-going maintenance were executed over the years. Permits
were issued for the dining room addition (1968), pool and solar panels/heating (1979) and re -roofing
(1999). Exterior materials do not appear to have been significantly altered and all appear to be in excellent
condition. Some deterioration or change may have taken place in the landscape plantings over time but
the hardscape elements (walkways) are still apparent. The property retains a high degree of material
integrity.
Workmanship
Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the
aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national
applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles.
Feeling
The presence of physical features (house, landscape, topography, circulation patterns and materials),
when taken together, convey the property's historic character and thus the property demonstrates integrity
of feeling.
33 Period photograph from 1949. Phillip L. Fradkin, Wallace Stegner and the American West, no page number.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
CIRCAHistoric Praper�p Deveiopment
Association
The property at 13456 South Fork Lane is significant for its considerable and direct association with
Wallace Stegner, whose prominence as an American writer has influenced an international breadth of
writers and environmentalists during the 45 years that he lived, worked and wrote there. His novels and
short stories are beloved by generations. Over the course of his publishing career (about 53 years) Stegner
published thirteen novels, three short -story collections, and sixteen nonfiction pieces, edited eighteen
works, and received multiple awards and honors. In addition, Mr. Stegner was a prominent figure at
Stanford University.
Overall, the property appears to be in good condition and retains a high degree of historic integrity in all
of its significant components.
Local Register (Town of Los Altos Hills)
The Town of Los Altos Hills has not officially reviewed or adopted the property at 13456 South Fork
Lane as a historic resource34
SUN IARY
Circa: Historic Property Development finds that the property at 13456 South Fork Lane meets the
National Register criteria for a historic district comprised solely of the cluster of buildings - residence,
studio and guesthouse - as contributing buildings to a district. Individually the only building that meets
the NR criteria would be Stegner's writing studio. Therefore eligibility for the National Register makes
the property automatically eligible for the California Register35.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila McElroy
Principal
Circa: Historic Property Development
34 Some members of the Town of Los Altos Hills History Committee did meet in May 2011 to discuss the possibility of adding
the Stegner property to the Town's Inventory of Historic Sites, however, no official action was taken at that time.
35 Per the Public Resources Code Section 5020.1q and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b)(1) and (2) all National
Register -listed or eligible resources qualify for listing in the California Register.
582 Madket Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
CIRCAHistoric Property Dereiapmenr
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Wallace Stegner's West/ Edited with an Introduction by Page Stegner. Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara
University; Berkeley: Heyday Books, 2008.
Benson, Jackson J. Wallace Stegner: His Life and Work. New York: Penguin Books, 1996.
Fradkin, Phillip L. Wallace Stegner and the American West. New York: Alfred A. Knoff, 2008.
Articles
"An Open Plan, Skillfully Handled, Gives Privacy to Every Member of the Family," House and Garden,
New York: Conde Nast Publications, Inc., August 1952.
Ashworth, Sarah. "Remembering Wallace Stegner's Summers in Vermont." Vermont Public Radio News
at http://www.vpr.net/news_detaiY81956/ (accessed 9.30.2011).
Fields, Kenneth. "Proud Flesh: A Recollection of Wallace Stegner." Humanities, July/August 2009,
Volume 30, Number 4.
Honan, William H. "Wallace Stegner is Dead at 84, Pulitzer Prize -Winning Author," The New York
Times, 15 April 1993.
"Wallace Stegner." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Vol. 19. Detroit: Gale, 1999.
Whiting, Sam. "Closing Chapter for Pulitzer Winner's Studio," San Francisco Chronicle, 14 May 2011.
Websites
The Wilderness Society
http://wildemess.org/content/wildemess-letter (accessed 9.30.2011).
Other
Jack Hermann Collection at the Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley.
582 Market Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104, p. 415.362.7711
Attachment 6
Historical Resource Mitigation Analysis and Identification Report
for
Yong Property, former Wallace Stegner House
13456 South Fork Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Prepared for:
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Prepared by:
JRP Historical Consulting, LLC
2850 Spafford Street
Davis, CA 95618
March 2012
TABLE. OF CONTENTS
V
1. Executive Summary ................................................................
2. Analysis of Previous Documentation ............................................
3. Identification of Appropriate Mitigation Measures .......................
3.1. Discussion of Impacts............................................................
3.2. Mitigation Measure: Documentation .....................................
3.3. Other Mitigation Considered, but Not Recommended...........
4. Conclusion.....................................................................................
5. Preparers' Qualifications...............................................................
6. Bibliography..................................................................................
..................................... 1
..................................... 3
..................................... 6
..................................... 6
..................................... 9
................................... 12
................................... 13
................................... 15
................................... 16
All photographs by JRP Historical Consulting, LLC, June 2011, except as noted.
Cover Photograph: 13456 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, camera facing east
8
- - -- _-.. __ IVE SUIVIM[ARY
The Town of Los Altos Hills (Town) is reviewing an application for a Site Development Permit
for the property at 13456 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California. The
proposed project includes construction of a 7,337 square foot new residence with a 3,647 square
foot basement and attached secondary dwelling unit, as well as a re -graded driveway and new
240 square foot swimming pool. The proposed new construction would replace the residence
and writing studio of the late Wallace Stegner, an esteemed American author who owned and
resided in the property from 1949 to the time of his death in 1993. Under the proposed Site
Development Permit, the former Stegner residence and an associated former study/guest cottage
would be demolished. The author's writing studio, located adjacent to the north side of the
residence, would be preserved and relocated on the property, at the current site of the former
study/guest cottage a short distance west of the residence.
The issuance of the Site Development Permit for the project qualifies as a discretionary action by
the Town and thus provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) apply,
specifically CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5 and
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1. As per CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(a), the Town has determined that the property is an historical resource for the purposes
of CEQA because of its important and direct association with the productive life of the
acclaimed American author Wallace Stegner. This determination is supported by a Base Line
Historic Resources Assessment (Assessment) undertaken by CIRCA Historic Property
Development (CIRCA) on behalf of the Town in November 2011. The CIRCA report concluded
that the subject property is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR) and National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) under Criterion 2 and Criterion B for
its association with Wallace Stegner.I
Following this determination, the Town hired JRP Historical Consulting, LLC (JRP) to prepare
this Historical Resources Mitigation Analysis and Identification Report to provide analysis, and
identify feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the historical resource,
pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. JRP concludes that under CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(b) the issuance of the Site Development Permit may cause a substantial adverse change
to the subject historical resource because the proposed project would materially impair
contributing elements of the resource through demolition. As per PRC Section 21084.1, a
project that may cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource is a project that may
have a significant effect on the environment. As such, this report identifies feasible measures to
mitigate the significant adverse changes associated with the project.2 The report includes an
1 CIRCA Historic Property Development, Base -Line Historic Resources Assessment. 13456 South Fork Lane, Los
Altos Hills, CA, November 2011.
'- CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)(4).
1
- analysis- -of -previous--documentation, -identification of-'appropriate-iiiitigatiori measures and
conclusions regarding the project's impacts to the historical resource under the provisions of
CEQA. JRP's professional qualifications are also provided herein.3
3 JRP Partner / Architectural Historian Christopher McMorris conducted a site visit of this property with Brian
Froelich, Town of Los Altos Hills Associate Planner, in June 2011.
ON
2. ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION
In November 2011, the Town commissioned CIRCA to prepare an Assessment of the historical
status of the property at 13456 South Fork Lane. This Assessment was undertaken in
compliance with CEQA, which requires that a lead agency determine whether a resource may be
a historical resource. Although the property was not — and is not — listed in the CRHR, Los Altos
Hills Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, or NRHP, under CEQA this does not preclude a
lead agency from determining whether the resource qualifies as a historical resource.4 The
property is illustrated in the cover photograph and the photograph below.
l:ormer Wallace Stegner, Residence, camera facing west. Posts and orange
netting indicate the general size and form of the proposed replacement residence.
The Assessment included a description of the property, historical background/context, evaluative
framework, CRHR/NRHP evaluation of the property, and identification of the property's
character -defining features. CIRCA concluded that the former Stegner property constitutes a
historic district, significant under CRHR Criterion 2 and NRNP Criterion B for its association
with Wallace Stegner. The main residence, writing studio, and former study/guest cottage are
considered contributors to the district. Furthermore, the evaluation concluded that only the
writing studio, illustrated below, is significant as an individually eligible property because, of the
buildings on the property, it is most associated with the significant writing career of Stegner.5
4 CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a) and PRC 21084.1.
5 While the CIRCA Assessment concluded that the property appeared eligible for listing in the CRHR /NRNP as a
historic district, it is possible that the property could also be considered an individual historical resource that
includes three contributing elements: the Stegner residence, former study/guest cottage, and writing studio.
Evaluating the property as an individual resource with multiple components would not alter the conclusions of the
Assessment, which concluded that the property is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Also, CIRCA did
Writing Studio of the late Wallace Stegner, camera facing southeast.
(Photo courtesy of Town of Los Altos Hills.)
Writing Studio of the late Wallace Stegner, camera facing north.
not produce a DPR 523 form for the property. While use of DPR 523 forms for recordation of historic resources is
standard practice, it is not a regulatory requirement under CEQA and is not specifically necessary in order to
establish the historic status of a property.
0
3
•
The findings of the Assessment support the Town's determination that the property qualifies as a
historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The Assessment included discussion of the
property's historic context and character -defining features, and included an adequate evaluation
under appropriate CRHR and NRNP criteria. The report did not provide analysis under CEQA
Guidelines 15064.5(b) regarding the project's potential to cause a substantial adverse change to
the historical resource, however. This analysis, along with the identification of feasible and
appropriate mitigation measures under CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)(4) is provided herein.
3. IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
As discussed in Section 2, the Stegner House historical resource includes three contributing
components: the main residence, former study/guest cottage, and writing studio. In addition, the
rural location and setting contributes to the significance of the resource. While all of these
elements contribute the significance of the resource, according to the Assessment, only the
writing studio appears to meet the criteria for individual listing in the NRHP and CRHR, as it is
most directly associated with the writing career of Stegner.
Under the proposed Site Development Permit, both the main residence and former study/guest
cottage would be demolished. As such, the action would constitute a substantial adverse change
to the historical resource as a whole because these elements of the historical resource would be
materially impaired as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)-(2), such that they
would be unable to convey significance under the CRHR.
While the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change to the main residence and
former study/guest cottage, this analysis concludes that it would not cause a substantial adverse
change to the writing studio. Under the proposed project, the Stegner writing studio would be
preserved and relocated to the current location of the former study/guest cottage, which is
located a short distance west of (and at a lower elevation to) the main residence. It may be
infeasible, however, to move the writing studio's bathroom and storage extension, which was
added to the building, because — according to the project proponent — the extension may not have
sufficient structural soundness to be successfully moved and there may be inadequate capacity in
the property's septic system to allow for the additional bathroom at the new location.
Preservation of the building is intended be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Under CEQA,
such treatment is generally considered to mitigate a project's impacts below a level that is
considered significant.6 If undertaken through fully enforceable permit conditions, the proposed
action, in conjunction with the documentation mitigation measure, discussed below, could help
the project be mitigated to a level that is less than significant under CEQA.
While relocating a historical resource is generally discouraged under the CRHR, the regulations
recognize that if a building is moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if the
new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource, that the
resource will still convey significance under the CRHR. Under this CRHR Special
6 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(1)-(2)
C-1
e
Consideration, a historical resource must retain its historic features and compatibility in
orientation, setting, and general environment. Under the proposed project, these Special
Considerations are met, as the project will preserve the character -defining features of the
building and the general rural residential location and setting that is associated with Wallace
Stegner's use of the building.7 The writing studio will be moved onto the concrete slab
foundation of the former study/guest cottage, shown below, preserving the building's orientation
to the adjacent landscape and providing the historical resource a nearly identical setting and
general environment as it currently has. Although the writing studio's new location will not have
the physical relationship with the original house, this aspect of its setting is of less importance to
the building's significance as it relates to Stegner's writing career. The building's hillside, rural,
and remote orientation and setting with views of the adjacent landscape will be preserved.
Former study/guest cottage, camera facing west.
Writing studio will be moved to this location under proposed project.
In order to comply with the historical resource provisions of CEQA, however, preservation of the
building would need to be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Preservation is the most
appropriate treatment, and is detailed below:
Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to
sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work,
including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally
focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and
7 California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 4852; CIRCA Historic Property Development, Base -Line Historic
Resources Assessment: 13456 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA, November 2011.
7
features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior
additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and
sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other
code -required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a
preservation project.$
Preservation would retain character -defining features from the period of Stegner's writing studio
use and allow this portion of property to continue to convey significance through integrity of its
physical features.9 The Assessment did not provide details regarding the writing studio's
specific character -defining features, including the origins of the building's extension at the
southeast corner. This extension is not shown on the building's original plans, and it is unclear
whether it dates to the building's period of significance. The Town does not have any permit
records for the bathroom and storage extension. Stegner may have used this portion of the
building during his writing career, but it seems unlikely to have the same level of importance as
the main writing studio. Furthermore, there is no indication that any of Stegner's original
furniture or belonging that were in the writing studio are extant at the property and the
Assessment states that interior wood paneling and shelves have been removed. Remaining
interior finishes and features from the historical resource's period of significance should be
retained and moved with the building. 10
Moving, and any interim storage, of the writing studio would need to follow appropriate
guidance in order to best protect all the building's structural systems and design features. All
work should be undertaken by a qualified structural mover with extensive experience in the
relocation of historic buildings. The relocation should follow applicable National Park Service
(NPS) guidance for historic structures, including Moving Historic Buildings, which details
appropriate relocation practices. While this report does not undertake a full feasibility study of
relocation, as a modestly -sized wood frame building of relatively modern construction, it appears
that the writing studio could be moved to the new onsite location without causing damage to or
destruction of the building.l i
e Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidance for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
(Washington, D.C.: National -Parks Service, Heritage Preservation Services, 1995), 61.
9 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4.
10 CIRCA Historic Property Development Base -Line Historic Resources Assessment: 13456 South Fork Lane, Los
Altos Hills, CA, November 2011; Dan Dana's 1962 plans for the writing studio available at the Town of Los Altos
Hills Planning Department.
11 See builder Dan Dana's 1962 plans for the writing studio available at the Town of Los Altos Hills Planning
Department.; John Obed Curtis, Moving Historic Buildings (US Department of the Interior and International
Association of Structural Movers, 1975, reprinted 1991). If it is necessary to store the building for a.period, JRP
recommends that appropriate procedures for mothballing historic buildings be followed, such as Sharon C. Park,
"Mothballing Historic Buildings," Preservation Brief No. 31 (Washington DC: National Park Service, 1993).
8
As discussed above, the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change to two
contributing elements of the historical resource: the main residence and former study/guest
cottage. The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the writing
studio, however, as it will be preserved such that it will still be able to convey significance under
the CRHR. As discussed in Section 2, the writing studio was identified in the Assessment as the
only individually eligible component of the property, as it is most directly associated with the
writing career of Stegner. As such, while the demolition of the main residence and former
study/guest cottage does constitute a substantial adverse change to the resource as a whole, as an
individual resource the writing studio will still be able to convey its significant associations with
Wallace Stegner.
3.2. MITIGATION MEASURE: DOCUMENTATION
As part of compliance under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(4), the Town is required to
identify feasible measures to mitigate the substantial adverse changes associated with the project,
specifically the demolition of the main residence and former study/guest cottage. The following
section identifies a feasible mitigation measure that could lessen the project's impacts to the
historical resource. This proposed mitigation measure is intended to complement the preservation
of the writing studio, which is already proposed by the project. If undertaken through fully
enforceable permit conditions, the proposed mitigation measure, in conjunction with the
project's preservation of the writing studio, could mitigate the proposed project to a level that is
less than significant under CEQA.
Documentation and recordation of the main residence, former study/guest cottage, and writing
studio must precede any construction, demolition, or relocation activities. This mitigation
measure must be undertaken by a qualified historian / architectural historian (under the Secretary
of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards). 12 This report recommends that the
documentation follow NPS standards for HABS Historical Report Guidelines, as such standards
will ensure the appropriate level of written and photographic recordation of the property's
significant historic context and character -defining features. Use of HABS documentation
guidelines is a standard method for preparing photographic and historic narrative documentation
of historical resources for the purposes of project mitigation. The documentation of the former
Stegner property should approximate HABS Level II documentation and include: a) select
existing drawings, if available, that would be photographed; b) photographs following the NPS
photo policy, of exterior and interior views, along with historic views, if available; and c) written
data providing history and description of the property. Additionally, it is recommended that the
12 Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards are defined in 36 CFR Part 61, available online at:
b=://www.ni2s.!--ov/histom/local-law/arch stnds 9 htm.
photographs include a view that illustrates the view from the writing studio to help illustrate the
setting in which Stegner worked. 13
The Town would retain the documentation for public benefit and copies of the documentation
would be offered to interested parties identified during project approval process, particularly all
relevant historical organizations as well as organizations and collections dedicated to the work of
Wallace Stegner. Table 1 includes a list of proposed recipients; however recipients need not be
limited to those listed. There is no requirement that recipients must accept the documentation.
The HABS documentation also could be made available via the Town's website. In addition, the
HABS documentation would serve as a baseline of information for the preservation of the
writing studio, which will be undertaken as part of the proposed project. The proposed
documentation is intended for public dissemination and not intended to be reviewed by NPS or
for transmittal to the Library of Congress and therefore, will not be a full -definition, HABS
dataset.
Table 1: Proposed List of Interested Parties for Documentation Dissemination
Proposed List of Interested Parties for NABS Dataset Dissemination
Los Altos Hills Historical Society
Wallace Stegner Center
Los Altos History Museum
Wallace Stegner Environmental Center
Santa Clara County Historical &
Genealogical Society
Stanford University—Wallace Stegner
Collection
California Pioneers of Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County Library—Los Altos
California Historical Society
National Trust for Historic Preservation—
Western Office
Production of this mitigation would serve to document the significant physical characteristics of
the property, which include the main residence, former study/guest cottage, and writing studio,
as well as the generally rural setting and semi -remote qualities of the property. The
documentation would serve to provide an archival record of these physical characteristics, as
well as a record of the property's relationship to the significant writing career of Wallace
Stegner.
Documentation of the property would provide a valuable addition to available archival material
relating to the life and career of Wallace Stegner. As a prolific scholar and author with a career
" NPS Heritage Documentation Programs website has the most recent editions of the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. See:
bitp://www.nps.eov/histonLtdp/standards/index.htm. Also, Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Architectural and Engineering Documentation: HABS/HAER Standards, originally published in the Federal
Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, (Thursday, September 29, 1983), 44730-44734; and Historic American Buildings
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record Cultural Resources Program National Park Service U.S. Department
of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 1990.
10
M
i
that s armed 60 Y ears and included N works of both fiction and non-fiction,
p Stegner left a rich
archival record that has been well studied and curated by scholars across the country.
Furthermore, a number of organizations continue to study and promote the Stegner's writings
and scholarship, including the Wallace Stegner Center in Salt Lake City, and Wallace Stegner
Environmental Center in San Francisco. Both organizations utilize the broad contexts and
analysis of Stegner's work to continue developing research and scholarship pertaining to the
American West and various environmental, social, and cultural themes. The Wallace Stegner
Center develops research and degree programs through the University of Utah, public lectures,
awards and fellowships, and publications, all of which are grounded in Stegner's research and
scholarship. The Wallace Stegner Environmental Center in the San Francisco Public Library
houses research material related to San Francisco Bay Area environmental concerns, offers
public environmental programs, and holds a permanent collection of Stegner's personal copies of
his books. Through their ongoing interpretation of Stegner's work, both programs serve to
maintain and develop his legacy as a preeminent author and scholar.
Additionally, Stanford University in Palo Alto, where Stegner was a professor, houses an
extensive Stegner collection of papers, manuscripts, correspondence, and research notes in a
comprehensively-curated 26.75 linear -foot collection. Notable materials include:
• Correspondence, research materials, and typescripts relating to published works including
Women on the Wall (1950), Sabrina (1962), Beyond the Hundredth Meridian (1954), A
Shooting Star (1961), The Gathering of Zion (1964), Angle of Repose (1971).
• Miscellaneous professional and personal correspondence, 1949-1992
• Wallace Stegner Interviews and Letters, including those with John Milton and Ansel
Adams
HABS documentation would serve as a beneficial accompaniment to this wide breadth of
material and scholarship, as it would present a focused portrayal of the space in which Stegner
produced much of his work. This focused effort would not be duplicative of existing Stegner
archival resources, as no such documentation has been previously undertaken.
Research for the HABS report could be partially based on the Assessment undertaken by the
Town, however additional research and context development would likely be necessary to
provide an adequate historical narrative. The research program should include material from the
collections and repositories discussed above, which would provide the necessary contextual
breadth and background relating to Stegner's life and work while residing at the subject property.
11
}
3.3. OTHER MITIGATION CONSIDERED, BUT NOT RECOMMENDED
Other mitigation measures are employed in projects that impact historical resources, but are not
recommended in response to this project. Mitigation measures used in other projects affecting
historical resources include collection of oral histories, commemorative celebrations,
development of archival collections, and creation of traveling exhibits, interpretive brochures,
videos, websites, displays, and public art. The preceding examples of mitigation are not
recommended because such measures would be largely duplicative of existing materials and
activities regarding Stegner and his scholarly and literary legacy. Because Stegner's life and
work is already catalogued in both his own literary works and several important collections, such
compensatory, mitigation would fail to present new and beneficial information that is not already
in existence. The mitigation measures proposed in preceding sections would serve this important
purpose as they would address facets of Stegner's personal and professional surroundings that
have not been well studied or curated to this point.
12
4. CONCLUSION
The Town is reviewing an application for a Site Development Permit at 13456 South Fork Lane,
Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California. The proposed project includes a new residence,
secondary dwelling, and swimming pool and would require demolition of the main residence and
former study/ guest cottage of the late Wallace Stegner, an esteemed American author who
owned and resided in the property from 1949 to the time of his death in 1993.
In compliance with CEQA, the Town has determined that the property at 13456 South Fork Lane
is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, as it is important for its association with the
Stegner's productive life. This determination is supported by an Assessment undertaken by
CIRCA on behalf of the Town in November 2011, which concludes that the subject property is
eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 2 for its association with Wallace Stegner. 14 In this
current report, JRP" concludes the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change to
the historical resource, as it would materially impair the main residence and former study/guest
cottage. This report concludes that the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse
change to the writing studio, however, as it will be relocated to a compatible site on the property
and preserved such that it will continue to convey its significant associations with Wallace
Stegner.
Pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, this Mitigation Analysis and
Identification Report analyzes and identifies feasible measures to mitigate or avoid substantial
adverse change to the former Stegner property historical resource. The report concludes that in
conjunction with the preservation of the writing studio, HABS documentation of the property's
contributing elements would serve as appropriate mitigation measure that would mitigate the
proposed project's impacts to a level that was less than significant. While CEQA guidelines
Section 15126.4(b)(2) states that documentation of a historical resource by way of historic
narrative, photographs, or architectural drawings, as mitigation for the effects of demolition,
generally will not mitigate impacts to a point where no significant effect on the environment
would occur, this analysis finds that such documentation done in conjunction with the
preservation of the property's most significant element—the writing studio— could mitigate the
proposed project to a level that is less than significant under CEQA.
The November 2011 Assessment of the subject property concluded that of the contributing
elements of the historical resource, the writing studio was most significant because it was most
directly associated with Stegner's writing career. This intimate association with the author's
productive life surpasses the associations found in other areas of the property, as Stegner's
significance lies in his development as one of the West's most prolific, heralded, and influential
authors. Because of this embodied significance, the analysis provided herein concludes that the
14 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)(B)
13
A
onsite relocation and preservation of the writing studio, in addition to the NABS documentation
proposed as a mitigation measure, would be sufficient to mitigate the project's impacts to a level
that is less than significant as the proposed project would allow for preservation and of the
property's most significant component and archival recordation of all of its contributing
elements.
14
5. PREPARERS' QUALIFICATIONS
JRP Partner Christopher McMorris (M.S., Historic Preservation, Columbia University) oversaw -
and
and contributed to this Mitigation Analysis and Identification Report. Mr. McMorris has 13
years of experience and specializes in conducting historic resource studies for compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as well as other historic preservation projects. He has served as a lead historian, -
principal investigator, and project manager on projects for federal, state, and local government as
well as for engineering/environmental consulting firms. Many of these projects have involved
inventory and evaluation of historic resources under the criteria for the National Register of
Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources, along with analysis of effects
projects may have on historic properties and measures to mitigate those effects. Mr. McMorris'
experience also includes documentation of historic properties under the Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER) program and buildings under the Historic American Building
Survey (NABS) program. Based on his level of education and experience, Mr. McMorris
qualifies as a historian/architectural historian under the United States Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualification Standards (as defined in 36 CFR Part 61).
JRP Architectural Historian Polly Allen (M.S., Historic Preservation, Columbia University)
contributed to this Mitigation Analysis and Identification Report. Ms. Allen has eight years of -
experience in public history and historic preservation, conducting a wide variety of historical
research, field work, and cultural resource management projects for compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Her experience includes inventory and evaluation, effects and impacts analysis, conditions
assessments and analysis, as well as intensive site documentation and recordation efforts. Ms.
Allen qualifies as an architectural historian under the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards (as defined in 36 CFR Part 61).
15
A
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
CIRCA Historic Property Development. Base -line Historic Resources Assessment: 13456 South
Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA. Produced for the Town of Los Altos Hills, November
2011.
California Resources Agency. California Environmental Quality Act. Reprinted by Association
of Environmental Professionals, Palm Desert, California 2012.
Curtis, John Obed. Moving Historic Buildings. US Department of the Interior and International
Association of Structural Movers, 1975 (reprinted 1991).
Thompson, Ron and Marilyn Harper. Telling the Stories: Planning Effective Interpretive
Programs for Properties Listed in the National Register. National Park Service, National
Register History and Education, 2000.
Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services, 1995.
Internet Sources
National Park Service. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering
Documentation. b=://www.Ms.gov/histoI3L/hdt)/standards/index.htm. Accessed January 2012.
IV
__ __ - -. _ Kielty -Arborist Ser -vices- -- - -
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-525-1464
October 12, 2010
Mr. Yew Nam Yong
13456 South Fork Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Site: 13456 South Fork Lane, Los Altos hills
Dear Mr. Yong,
Attachment 7
RSC
FEB ®1..2011
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
As requested on Wednesday, Sept 15th, 2010, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on
the trees. A new home is planned for this lot and your concern as to the future health and safety
of the trees has prompted this visit. As required by the City of Los Altos hills, a survey of the
significant trees and a tree protection plan will be included.
Method:
The significant trees on this site were located on a not to scale map provided by you. Each tree
was given an identification number. This number was inscribed onto a metal foil tag and nailed
to the trees at eye level. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground
level (DBH or diameter at breast height). A condition rating of 1-100 was assigned to each tree
representing form and vitality using the following scale:
1 -
29
Very Poor
30 -
49
Poor
50
- 69
Fair
70
- 89
Good
90
- 100
Excellent
The height of each tree was estimated and the spread was paced off. In this report you will find a
comment for each tree followed by a summary of my findings and a recommended Tree
Protection Plan that should be in place for construction.
1
13456 S. Fork/10/12/10
Survey:
Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SP Comments
1 Coast Live Oak 68.4@1" 60
(Quercus agrifolia)
2
Coast Live Oak
22.3" 65
(Quercus agrifolia)
3
Blue Oak
33.4" 70
(Quercus agrifolia)
4
Blue Oak
20.5" 50
(Quercus douglasii)
5
Coast Live Oak
13.5" 60
(Quercus agrifolia)
6
Coast Live Oak 30est @ base 60
(Quercus agrifolia)
7
Coast Live Oak 11.8,8.1" 45
(Quercus agrifolia)
8
Valley Oak
23.2" 70
(Quercus lobata)
9
Coast Live Oak
31.2" 75
(Quercus agrifolia)
10*
Blue Oak
17.9" 60
(Quercus douglash)
l l *
Coast Live Oak
19.5" 45
(Quercus agrifolia)
12
Coast Live Oak 27.1@1' 65
(Quercus agrifolia)
13
Valley Oak
31.1" 45
(Quercus lobata)
40/60 Good vigor, heavy lateral codominant @ 3'
cable install to help support crotch. Beehive
in cut limb cavity.
35/30 Good vigor, Multi @ 5' abundance of inner
deadwood.
40/65 Vigor fair. Multi @ 5', lower deadwood.
40/25 Decay on trunk on multi locations. Foliage
thin, leans over, auxiliary structure.
35/25 Suppressed by larger oak, leans to west.
35/70 Multi @ base good vigor, heavy lateral
limbs.
35/35 Codominant @ base with central leader
broken out.
45/50 Good vigor, heavy lateral limbs.
45/40 Good vigor and form. Heavy lateral limbs.
Tree growing thru deck.
40/25 Vigor fair, some lower deadwood. Root
crown slightly buried.
50/45 Leans heavily to the east .Vigor fair. 3'
from existing house.
45/40 Codominant @ 4'. Good vigor. Root crown
buried.
40/35 Good vigor, large filled cavity w/concrete.
2
4
13456 S. Fork/10/12/10
Tree# -Species- - - --.. .. -_ -- DBH_ -CON -HT/SP Comments - - - - - - -
14 Coast Live Oak 22.8" 60 40/30 Codominant @ 4' poor crotch for, good
(Quercus agrifolia) vigor.
15 Coast Live Oak 27.8" 65 50/50 Good vigor codominant @ 10'. Good crotch
(Quercus agrifolia) formation, heavy lateral limbs.
16 Coast Live Oak 18.8,18.1" 55
(Quercus agrifolia)
17 Coast Live Oak 30.2" 60
(Quercus agrifolia)
18 Coast Live Oak 24.4, 18.0 60
(Quercus agrifolia) 20.2"
19 Coast Live Oak 12.8, 10.4, 50
(Quercus agrifolia)8.5, 10.3
20 Coast Live Oak 16.5" 45
(Quercus agrifolia)
21 Coast Live Oak 23.4" 65
(Quercus agrifolia)
22 Coast Live Oak 23.3" 55
(Quercus agrifolia)
23 Coast Live Oak 36.2" 60
(Quercus agrifolia)
24 Coast Live Oak 17.5,20.1, 55
(Quercus agrifolia) 19.9"
25* Chinese Pistache 12.0" 60
(Pistacia chinensis)
45/50 Codominant @ base with poor crotch
for, heavy lateral limb. History of limb
breakage.
55/40 Good vigor, trunk leans southeast. Heavy
lateral limbs. Lower deadwood.
50/40 Multi @ base, vigor good. Heavy lateral
limbs.
30/30 Suppressed by larger oaks. Trunks bend to
the south. Vigor good.
40/40 Trunk leans heavily south parallel to
ground. Suppressed, good vigor.
35/30 Good vigor, codominant @ 3'. Heavy
lateral limbs.
30/40 Trunk leans, southwest parallel to the
ground, limbs on the ground. Supporting
tree good vigor.
40/40 Heavy to southwest, good vigor. Limbs on
the ground help support tree.
40/40 Multi @ base. Leans to the west over
existing driveway. Good vigor.
20/30 Good vigor, leans slightly East. Dense
canopy.
Summary®
The trees on site are for the most part native oaks consisting of blue, valley and coast live oaks.
The oaks on this site are in poor to good condition. The new proposed plan for the house and
septic system has been located where impacts to the. trees will be reduced. Tree #11 a coast live
oak with a diameter of 19.5 inches and a blue oak tree #10 will be removed to facilitate the
planned home. Oak #11 is in poor condition with a distinctive lean over the existing home. The
blue oak #10 is in fair condition but will not survive the planned construction. The root crown of
3
13456 S. Fork/10/12/10
oak #11 has been buried for some time most likely contributing to its poor condition. Two other
oaks are in poor condition but due to their location the trees can be retained. The corner of the
garage will encroach on the root zone of oak #2 rot loss is expected to be minor to moderate.
Oak tree #9, #17 and #18 will be impacted by retaining walls. A 10 foot long and 20 inch deep
exploratory trench was dug at the location of a planned wall at its closest point to tree #8. The
roots located in the trench are as follows:
• One 2 inch diameter root
• One 1.5 inch diameter root
• Several small roots less than .5 inches
Root loss from the excavation for the wall will be minor to moderate and well within acceptable
limits. Root loss to tree #9 and #17 should be less.
The grade will be raised in the area near the northern comer of the proposed house. Retaining
walls will be required near the oaks near this comer. It is critical that the excess soil not be piled
on the root crown of these trees. Buried root crowns often are the cause of crown rot which leads
to decline in oaks.
A septic system will be required in the area below the existing driveway. The trenching for the
leech lines will be hand dug when near protected trees. The depth of the trenching will help to
distribute the excess liquid below the root zone of the water sensitive oaks. With proper tree
protection impacts to the oaks will be well within acceptable limits.
Tree Protection Plan:
Tree Protection Zones
Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of the
project. Fencing for tree protection zones should be 6' tall, metal chain link material supported
by metal 2" diameter poles, pounded into the ground to a depth of no less than 2'. The location
for the protective fencing should be as close to the dripline of desired trees as possible, still
allowing room for construction to safely continue. No equipment or materials shall be stored or
cleaned inside the protection zones. Areas outside protection zones, but still beneath the tree's
driplines, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4-6" of chipper
chips and covered with 3/4 inch plywood. The spreading of chips will help to reduce compaction
and improve soil structure. The tree protection zones for the neighbor's trees must be maintained
throughout the entire project.
Demolition and site access
All tree protection must be in place prior to the start of the demolition process. Demolition
equipment should access the property from existing driveways if at all possible. The existing
driveway and garage slab shall remain until all construction is completed. If equipment is to stray
off of existing driveways 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips should be spread under driplines of
existing trees. This type of landscape buffer will help to reduce compaction of root zones. Truck
loading should be carried out on the existing driveway.
2
13456 S. Fork/10/12/10
Root Cutting and Grading
Any roots to be cut shall be monitored and documented. Large roots (over 2" diameter) or large
masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist, at this time,
may recommend irrigation or fertilization of the root zone. All roots needing to be cut should be
cut clean with a saw or lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered
with layers of burlap and kept moist. The over dig for the foundation should be reduced as much
as possible when roots are encountered.
Trenching and Excavation
Trenching for irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand when
inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of pipes below or
besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to the tree. All
trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted to near its original level, as
soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of time, will require the covering of all
exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with
plywood to help protect the exposed roots. The installing of the septic system will require a
great deal of trenching. The site arborist .shall inspect any trenches within the driplines of
protected trees.
Irrigation
Normal irrigation shall be maintained on this site at all times. The oaks under normal conditions
should not require irrigation during the summer months unless their root zones are traumatized.
For traumatized oaks on a construction site, I recommend irrigation during winter months, 1 time
per month. Seasonal rainfall may reduce the need for additional irrigation. During the warm
season, April - November, my recommendation is to use heavy irrigation, 2 times per month.
This type of irrigation should be started prior to any excavation. The imported trees will require
normal irrigation. The irrigation will improve the vigor and water content of the trees. The on-
site arborist may make adjustments to the irrigation recommendations as needed. The foliage of
the trees may need cleaning if dust levels are extreme. Removing dust from the foliage will help
to reduce mite and insect infestation.
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural
principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
Lg-ZW.,-Gluuanl & 11
MENNEN"" I
4M Sl -c. Cmd ffit 9,ft 2DS So-
The Planning Commission
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills
CA 94022
Honorable Commissioners,
Attachment 8
Oct. 31, 2olo
On Oct. 30, 2010-, our neighbors,th -e Yong family of 1345.E
South Fork Lane Los- Altos Hills theirrevie%ed
construction plans us. They shOwtd.-'us the detail- plans
and a.graphic model of the double.story house with basement
and light wells outside the basement they intend to build
on their land.
We were very impressed with the architecture and modern
look of the, exterior.
our prope'rty address is 134.08 Middle Fork Lane (APN 1*82'-10-
052.)s but we have 4 common property line on, our south side.
After revering the elevation drawings, the
model and the
proposed building location, we concluded that we have no
issues with their design, appearance and construction.
We -wholeheartedly support their new house design and urge
you to apxprove the'plalis and construction.. Please 'feel free
to contact us if you ha -76 any questions.'
Thank you -
sincerely,
C .
Qu, ue Chu
40-8-890-8971
CM
4
The Planning Commission
The Town of Los Altos Hills
26379Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills
CA 94022
3rii Nov. 2014
Honorable Commissioners,
We are the owners of the property at 13416 Middle Fork Ln; Los Altos Hills, sharing
the property line with the Yong proper tI.
The Yong family at 13456 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, reviewed the plans,
elevations and model of the two story house with basement and associated.light
wells they intend to build on their property with us recently.
We like:and appreciate:the contemporary architectural design and have no
objecdons whatsoever lvith the construction of the-liouse per the pian as submitted.
Please let us know if there is anything else we can do to support the approval of this
project.
Thank you ver•, much.
Sincerely,
Alex Shubat
Cell: 510-676-7353
Email: ashubat@sbcglobal.net
The Planning Commission 41h Nov. 2010
The Town of Altos Hills
268-79 Fremont Road.
Los Altos Hills
CA 940.2-2
DearC,6mmlssioners,
We -- the"up are_ the legWowners acid residents -6f-13900�South -V k1antiL,
Los Altos
Hills , 0`94022.
We 4a known -Ye,,j,v-Dani -Yong ,4-;i4 his family since4hey moved into X3"96. South
Fork Lane over fiveyearsago. We understand from them -that th6y intend to
demofish• the63cisting house and build a doubfL-story house, including afull
-
basement: They showed- us the plans and a com generated`3D model of the
puter generate
proposed house, which has light wells from tivei basement, to be situated in about
the-8ame location as the existing Ouse.
W6 Like the modern designand do not haveany issues with the design and its
proposed location:
Aftetlooldlig,overtlte:plansihd--model,wew-rite*Lhis'leitter,in.Mi.supportbf-its
approvalMMISSIOILby:thePhmnInkCo
Thank you.
You S.
eiiiz.l<urthmayr
Email: V
Tel- 656441-6921 W
The Planning Commission
The Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Mills
CA 94022
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
No►j 5, 2010
The Yong fam ly who reside in 13456 South Fork Lane, informed us that they
have finalized ;heir new house design and will be su#nrraOng there for Planning
approval next week. Ift havem seen the house plans and exterior elevations. We
also understand that it will be built on the same location as the exisfrng house.
The new doable stony house, with its basement, light wells and retaining wails
should not be too visible from our house even though we are right beside their
proPerty-
Easedon the ffnat architectural acrd grading plans they reviewed with us and are
submitting, we do not see anyyJssues at all and are -in full support of its approval.
Let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael and Sharen Schcendorf v
13145 Byrd Larne
Los Altos gills
CA 94022-3299
Tel: 650-948-5424
Email: mike@ideatravel. corn
November 5, 2010
Planning Commission, Town: of. Los Altos Hills
263.79 Fremont Road
Los .Altos :Hills, CA-, 04022,
Honorable Commissioners,
I reside at 13440 South Fork, Lane and have done so for the past 37 years. I
purch...sed my. *Pr,R.
P e-tiy '.from V"k'/a-la.,cie-
Stegner W,heh
.he
,fs.b
diivided �h
i's o
ri
ii
ial lo
t
into- 3' parcels in.1972. My propertyis immediatelyaoiaC6nt- tosfegnees:mer
property at 1-86:$outh-F&k L�nei�iproperly that the Yong fdhily'pufqhased.
in 10.05 andjsdur66nTJYproposing oredi6lop Becaus&Ihave aIchg-ttahoihg
attac this 16nd:and grea resoedfbrStegn6?slegacy, 1 have been
concerned. ncdrried. since the land was- sold as to howl the new owner Would treat the
property -
I have.. reviewed. the plans for the house Yew Nam Yong: is pr6pq,
sing to build: The
le'of:the house and its Placement on-. , �Na� lot.
contemporary sty. are lm&6ssive and
in .-thi-- c'aradt6r of-St6gner's original residence: keeping with h i ncb, w/ concerns of'the
pasfive years wereunfounded. lhave.ho . ;obie.ctibris to. -the
plans as currently
proposed-.
Sincerely,
MichaelKuranoff
13440 South Fork Lane
Los Altos- Hills, CA 94 022
The Planning Commission
The Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills
CA,. 94022
November 8, 2010
Honorable Commissioners,
We are the owners of the property at 13460 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills. We are just down the
street from the Yong family's property.
We have recently reviewed the plans,. elevations, and model of the new home and associated wells
proposed by the -Yong -family, to be built at 13456 South Fork Lane,Los Altos Hills.
Based on: our review;:we see no issues with the plans the Yong family plan to submit. We fully support
the approval of this project. Please let us know if we: can be of further assistance.
Thank you for your tune;.
�x
Chris ��hdlCrd�AG�r
13460 South Fork lane
Los Altos Hills
CA, 94022
Tel: 650-941-7636
13440 South Fork Lane
Los Altos Hills CA 94022
June 1, 2011
Planning Director Debbie Pedro, AICP
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Chair James Abraham
Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
jima.pc@gmail.com
Dear Director Pedro and Chairman Abraham;
I am writing regarding the site development permit for Lands of Yong at 13456
South Fork Lane. I have reviewed Mr. Yong's plans for redevelopment of his
property and am pleased that his proposed residence recalls the style of the
original Stegner home. I have also followed the ample recent press coverage of
his project and have thoroughly reviewed the May 27 National Trust Letter
opposing the demolition of the original Stegner residence and study, citing that
CEQA Guidelines require a full environmental review due to the historic nature
of the property.
My understanding is that Mr Yong did extensive due diligence when purchasing
the property and was assured by the Stegners that no historic designation
existed for any structure or portion of the property. Therefore I am quite
surprised by the National Trust's letter, delivered three days before his permit
hearing, in the midst of a holiday weekend. Surely any concerns about
preserving historic aspects of the property should have been discovered and
addressed earlier in the planning process.
Let us assume for a moment that an environmental review will be required and
performed, and that it will be concluded that portions of the building(s) must be
preserved. For what purpose? The property is accessible only by a long
private road traversing four adjacent properties, and then by a long steep
narrow driveway suitable for cautious one-way traffic. The buildings are
invisible from off site and can only be viewed by determined trespassers. Who
would benefit from the preservation of these unlisted structures? Wallace
Stegner's legacy is amply preserved in his writing, the various University
Centers dedicated to his teachings, the permanent History Room bearing his
name at the San Francisco Public Library and by countless other programs
related to his work.
The Town's History Committee has proposed a possible mitigation by relocating
the Study to a publicly accessible site and is currently investigating where that
site might be. I understand that Mr. Yong agrees to cooperate in the relocation
effort.
I respectfully urge the town to diligently pursue the `Study Relocation' option as
sufficient mitigation to satisfy the CEQA requirement and permit Mr. Yong to
obtain his `fast track' permits without additional delay. I worry that by delaying
the start of construction until another building season is lost, Mr. Yong's
development expenses will increase significantly and the quality of the project
could suffer.
Because I am the adjacent neighbor and because we share a common
driveway, I would be most immediately affected by changes to the project. But
the town would suffer as well by compromising the quality of the finished job.
Mr. Yong has worked hard to meet all planning and town committee
requirements. In addition, he has requested no variances and has worked
successfully with his architect to fit the new building to the site with minimal
disruption of the existing terrain. Please help him to see the project to fruition as
expediently as possible.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
CONTACT Con -4020A5771 \c \s \I Michael Kuranoff
cc: Mayor Ginger Summit HYPERLINK
"mailto:gsummit@earthlink.net"gsummit@earthlink.net
Members of the Planning Commission
History Committee Chair Nobuko Saito nobuko.saito@gmail.com
City Manager Carl Cahill HYPERLINK -
"mailto:ccahill@losaltoshills. ca.gov"ccahill losaltoshills. ca.gov
City Clerk Karen Jost HYPERLINK
"mailto:kjost@losaltoshills.ca.gov"kjost(&Iosaltoshills.ca.gov
Uta Francke
13000 South Fork Lane
Los Altos Hills CA 94022
June 1, 2011
TO Planning Director Debbie Pedro, AICP
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov
and
Chair James Abraham
Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
jima.pc@gmail.com
Dear Director Pedro and Chairman Abraham,
I just returned form travel abroad today and was alerted to the
urgent issues regarding the site development permit for Lands of
Yong at 13456 South Fork Lane. I support the views and arguments put
forward in the letter by Michael Kuranoff. Relocation of the study
is an excellent compromise, even though I think Wally Stegner, with
whom we were good friends for the last few years of his life, would
shake his head about such an effort; he would want to be remembered
by his writings, and his students and his student's students for his
teaching and his wisdom.
Therefore, I urge the town to approve the development permit in its
current form.
Sincerely,
Uta Francke M.D.
Professor, Genetics and Pediatrics
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford CA 94305-5120
Office: CCSR 3225
ufrancke@stanford.edu
ph 650 725-8089
fax 650 725-8112
Strong support and agreement for the proposed redevalopment project of Mr. Yong - Yahoo! Mail 6/3/115:08 PM
A00a.T& MA!L
Classic
Strong support and agreement for the proposed redevalopment project of Mr. Yong
Friday, June 3, 2011 9:23 PM
o ivy; "Julia Chu" <jchu9898@hotmail.com>
T .; dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov, jima.pc@gmail.com
r:,-, - ccahill@losaltoshills.ca.gov, raykcol@yahoo.com, eclow@hinagroup.com,
john.harpootlian@gmail.com, richard.partridge@comcast.net, gsummit@earthlink.net,
findrichlarsen@gmaii.com, jeanmordo@gmaii.com, jradford20ll@yahoo.com,
gcwaideck@gmail.com, nobuko.saito@gmail.com
1 File (60KB)
Yong—Letter
Planning Director Debbie Pedro, AICP
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Chair James Abraham
Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Dear Director Pedro and Chairman Abraham,
We are the backyard neighbors of the Yong family. sharing a common property line with the
private driveway of the Yong property. We were copied on the letter sent by Mr.
Kuranoff(attached) and are fully aware of all details related to the Yong project. We have
already written a letter voicing very strong support of the redevelopment plan.
However, given the recent potential issue raised, we want to reiterate our strongest support and
agreement for the proposed redevelopment. We totally agree with all the points raised by Mr.
Kuranoff. We urge the planning dept. and the town representatives to approve the project
without further delay.
Thank you.
Julia (Quyue) Chu
13408 Middle Fork Lane
http://us.mcll03.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sM!d=6&filterBy=...& jsrand=6774766&acrumb=RDxpaPGJAZg&pView=1&view=print&enc=auto Page 1 of 2
Strong support and agreement for the proposed redevalopment project of Mr. Yong - Yahoo! Mail
Los Altos Hills
6/3/115:08 PM
http://us.mc1103.maii.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sM!d=6&FiilterBy= ... &jsrand=6774766&acrumb=RDxpaPGJAZg&pView=1&view=print&enc=auto Page 2 of 2
13440 South f=ork Ln - Yahoo! Mail
d .- .r
� MAIL
Classic
13440 South Fords Ln
"Alex Shubat" <alexshubat@gmail.com>
dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov, jima.pc@gmail.com
gsummit@earthlink.net, nobuko.saito@gmail.com, ccahill@losaltoshills.ca.gov,
kjost@losaltoshills.ca.gov, kuranoff@gmaii.com, ynyong@ymail.com
Dear Los Altos Hills Planning Team,
6/3/116:01 PM
Friday, June 3, 2011 2:50 AM
I had a pleasure of meeting many of you at the special hearing for the Yong property development. I already
expressed. my thoughts at the meeting and I am in full support of this development. I personally do not believe that
this property is a historic treasure. I am very frustrated to hear that such allegations came to light after the Stegner
family sold this property and collected a few million dollars with NO regard to preservation and now have new
found feelings for he property. The Yongs have done due diligence before exerting much personal effort and
financial resources to get to this point and now cannot be held hostage by conservationists.
I fully support and agree with Mr. Kuranoff s position.
Best regards,
Alex Shubat
13416 Middle Fork Ln
13440 South Fork Lane
Los Altos Hills CA 94022
June 1, 2011
Planning Director Debbie Pedro, AICP
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
daedroO.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Chair James Abraham
Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
iima.pcO-amaii.com
Dear Director Pedro and Chairman Abraham;
http://us.mcl103.mai!.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=6&fid=Shuba...& Jsrand=520381&acrumb=U69neCg531e&pView=1&view=print&enc=auto Page 1 of 3
13440 South Fork Ln - Yahoo! Mail
6/3/116:01 PM
I am writing regarding the site development permit for Lands of Yong at 13456 South Fork
Lane. I have reviewed Mr. Yong's plans for redevelopment of his property and am pleased that
his proposed residence recalls the style of the original Stegner home. I have also followed the
ample recent press coverage of his project and have thoroughly reviewed the May 27 National
Trust Letter opposing the demolition of the original Stegner residence and study, citing that
CEQA Guidelines require a full environmental review due to the historic nature of the property.
My understanding is that Mr Yong did extensive due diligence when purchasing the property
and was assured by the Stegners that no historic designation existed for any structure or
portion of the property. Therefore I am quite surprised by the National Trust's letter, delivered
three days before his permit hearing, in the midst of.a holiday weekend. - Surely any concerns
about preserving historic aspects of the property should have been discovered and addressed
earlier in the planning process.
Let us assume for a moment that an environmental review will be required and performed, and
that it will be concluded that portions of the building(s) must be preserved. For what purpose?
The property is accessible only by a long private road traversing four adjacent properties, and
then by a long steep narrow driveway suitable for cautious one-way traffic. The buildings are
invisible from off site and can only be viewed by determined trespassers. Who would benefit
from the preservation of these unlisted structures? Wallace Stegner's legacy is amply
preserved in his writing, the various University Centers dedicated to his teachings, the
permanent History Room bearing his name at the San Francisco Public Library and by
countless other programs related to his work.
The Town's History Committee has proposed a possible mitigation by relocating the Study to a
publicly accessible site and is currently investigating where that site might be. I understand that
Mr. Yong agrees to cooperate in the relocation effort.
I respectfully urge the town to diligently pursue the `Study Relocation' option as sufficient
mitigation to satisfy the CEQA requirement and permit Mr. Yong to obtain his `fast track'
permits without additional delay. I worry that by delaying the start of construction until another
building season is lost, Mr. Yong's development expenses will increase significantly and the
quality of the project could suffer.
Because I am the adjacent neighbor and because we share a common driveway, I would be
most immediately affected by changes to the project. But the town would suffer as well by
compromising the quality of the finished job. Mr. Yong has worked hard to meet all planning
and town committee requirements. In addition, he has requested no variances and has worked
successfully with his architect to fit the new building to the site with minimal disruption of the
existing. terrain. Please help him to see the project to fruition as expediently as possible.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Kuranoff
http://us.mcll03.maii.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=6&fid=Shuba... &jsrand=520381&acrumb=U69neCg531e&pView=1&view=print&enc=auto Page 2 of 3
13440 South Fork Ln - Yahoo! Mail
j M
cc: Mayor Ginger Summit gsummitO-)earthlink.net
Members of the Planning Commission
History Committee Chair Nobuko Saito nobuko.saito(@gmail.com
City Manager Carl Cahill ccahill(@Iosaltoshills.ca.gov
City Clerk Karen Jost kjostlEDlosaltoshills.ca.gov
6/3/11 6:OfPM
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=6&fid=Shuba...& jsrand=520381&acrumb=U69neCg531e&pView=1&view=print&enc=auto Page 3 of 3
Lands of Yong 13456 S Fork Lane - Yahoo! Mai!
MAIL
Classic
Lands of Yong 13456 S Fork Lane
ow,4s "Cordell Green" <green@kestrel.edu>
dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov, jima.pc@gmail.com
1 File (4Kt3)
Kuranoff Let
13460 South Fork Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
June 2, 2011
Dear Director Pedro and Chairman Abraham,
6/3/11 10:01 PM
Friday, June 3, 2011 2:51 AM
This letter is in regard to the site development of the Lands of Yong at 13456 South Fork Lane.
I am a neighbor of the Yong's at 13460 South Fork Lane. I have also reviewed Mr Yong's plans
for his redevelopment of his residence. I am in agreement with Michael Kuranoffs letter of
support for the Yong's plan.
A copy of Michael Kuranoffs letter is attached.
Sincerely
Cordell Green
http://us.mc1103.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=10&fid=Neig... jsrand=1502943&acrumb=RDxpaPG)AZg&pView=1&view=print&enc=auto Page 1 of 1
Print
http://us.mgl.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?-rand=5titbi8hmaO9s
Print - Close Window
Subject:Fw: Yew Nam Yong's property
From: Y.N. Yong (ynyong(@ymail.com)
To: ynwlyong@yahoo.com;
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 201120:20:00
Wan -Lei,
fyi.
On Mon, 6/13/11, Sharen Ferency <sharen1019@yahoo.conv wrote:
From: Sharen Ferency <sharen1019@yahoo.conv
Subject: Fw: Yew Nam Yong's property
To: "ynyong@ymail.com" <ynyong@ymail.com>
Date: Monday, June 13, 2011, 3:37 AM
Yew Nam,
Sending you a copy of my letter to town council and the Town Crier.
Sharen Schoendorf
— Forwarded Message —
From: Sharen Ferency <sharen1019@yahoo.com>
To: "gsummit@earthlink.net" <gsummit@earthlink.net>
Cc: "findrichlarsen@gmail.com" <finddchlarsen@gmail.com>; "jeanmordo@gmail.com"
<jeanmordo@gmail.com>; "jradford2011@yahoo.com" <jradford2011@yahoo.com>;
"gcwaldeck@gmail.com" <gcwaldeck@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 20117:44 PM
Subject: Fw: Yew Nam Yong's property
— Forwarded Message —
From: Sharen Ferency <sharen1019@yahoo.com>
To: "info@Iatc.com" <info@latc.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 20117:12 PM
Subject: Fw: Yew Nam Yong's property
— Forwarded Message —
From: Sharen Ferency <sharenl019@yahoo.com>
To: "sharen1019@yahoo.com" <sharen1019@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 20115:39 PM
Subject: Yew Nam
1 of 2 6/15/11 10:32 PM
Print http://us.m-l.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=5titbi8hmaO9s
Property Rights vs. Unknown Regulation
I appreciate the historical significance of Wallace Stegner's former home and writing studio.
However, if the Yongs were not informed of the historical background of this property when
it was sold to them by his daughter, they should be allowed to go forward with their
development.
The latest article in the Town Crier by Elliott Burr citing Brian Turner, atty. for the National
Trust for Historic Preservation got my attention. He was quoted as saying "Although the
homeowners purchased the house on the open market, anyone in California should buy a
property knowing 'full well there are regulations in the state for the protection of historical
resources'." WHATM You mean every perspective home buyer has to research to find out if
there is a "possible historic significance"? If this isn't a case of property rights vs. unknown
regulation I don't know what is.
A solution would be to move it to another location in large sections to reassemble it
elsewhere—in a timely manner. The Yongs should be compensated for any losses therein.
Perhaps Brian Turner can convince the National Trust for Historic Preservation to fund this
project.
Sharen Schoendorf
2 of 2 6/15/11 10:32 PM
Brian Froelich
Subject: FW: Stegner study
-----Original Message -----
From: Heinz Furthmayr Finailto:hfurtastanford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 11:08 AM
To: To; Gary Waldeck; John Radford; Jean Mordo; Ginger Summit
Subject: Stegner study
As one of the neighbors I have been following the fate of the Stegner Property before and after
its sale. Living in our house on South Fork Lane for over 20 years, we considered ourselves
fairly close friends of Mary and Wally and spent time together in each of our houses on
numerous occasions, as well as visited Town Hall together during various meetings on behalf of
issues concerning our neighborhood. I believe that I 'know' at least of some of Wally's feelings
and opinions.
Thus, I have been following an initiative of a small group of 'activists' in our town for some time
with amazement, namely to 'rescue' and to 'immortalize' Wally Stegner's study before its
demolition. There are various issues that I feel would be in need to be addressed, and I have
abstained from responding until now. However, there is one that I would like to formulate with
this message: Wally, and for that matter Mary, would never have approved of lending his name
to a trail along Matadero Creek, nor would he have approved of turning his study into a
memorial. Thus, I consider this effort as totally misguided. It would be far more in Wally's spirit
to consider alternative means of keeping his ideas and memories alive. One example of this
already exists in the form of the Wallace Stegner Environmental Center in San Francisco.
Therefore, I strongly feel that our town should not support the effort to save a building and to
place it on the Town Hall Property or any other public land. As private citizens, this group can
obviously pursue this and has pursued it in peculiar ways. It has not considered, however, to
remove it ASAP at their cost, as to protect the current owner, and to also identify and provide
private lands for placement of this not so attractive building. In our neighborhood, I am not alone
with this view and I will quote one of them in answer to the latest e-mail that also has been
communicated to you:
"...... Doesn't this mean that the History committee has "recommended" that the town put the
study on town land but says nothing of the town's accepting the recommendation. Or, what
monies would be spent to renovate and run it. It would be a lovely come back if all the
immediate neighbors would protest the move on the grounds that the town has no right to accept
the financial obligation of running the thing. I would also object to the tree trimming and gate
moving needed to get it down private driveways, andout onto public roads. Who is to assume
responsibility for driveway damage, is Les?"
Best regards, Heinz Furthmayr
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
As much as Wallace Stegner's work was loved by many it seems that this request to
save his studio should have been made years ago by Stanford since they knew the
property would have to be redeveloped considering its condition when it was acquired 4
years ago. If Stanford thought nothing about its historic preservation why would anyone
else instigate this delay? There are artifacts and perhaps burial grounds of previous
settlers scattered through the hills and if this project is delayed who will be next on
specious claims of historic importance. Those who attempt to impose restrictive
property rights not included in our Town building codes should be forced to shoulder the
full cost of any delay. The sun has set on Wallace's legacy and a mere studio is not
fitting as a reminder of his important contributions. Wallace's presence was the
inspiration for the many students that visited him and not the studio. I am sure Stanford
would want to propose the best solution that does not unfairly cost Yew -Nam anything.
Wallace's work better embodies his spirit and thoughts and the studio is only one place
he enjoyed working. If anyone wants the studio they should move it immediately at their
own expense. My suggestion is to video not only the studio but also the surroundings
that so inspired Wallace to create his vast collection of works and have them available
at Stanford or perhaps Town Hall. Stanford turned the property down as they would
have preferred the money the property would have fetched. Has anyone given any
thought if this property is given historic landmark status? Who will bear the expense of
maintaining the place and greeting everyone who wants to visit? The studio is far
removed from any road so preserving a structure for no one to see seems pointless.
In the last four years has anyone visited this property to be inspired by Wallace's work?
Los Altos Hills has many residences that were owned by historic figures from Silicon
Valley and although their estates are many years from the wrecking ball, if this passes
who is next on the do not rebuild list. What seems fair is for those that want to preserve
a relic of the past is to justly compensate Yew -Nam for his loss in not being able to build
either now or at all. It should not be Yew -Nam and his family. With all of the restrictions
on his project there is no other place to build. I trust the town will give speedy
consideration to moving his project along as there seems to be no legal reason not to. I
am Yew-Nam's next door neighbor.
Sincerely,
Michael Schoendorf
Attachment 9
Debbie Pedro
From:
Les Earnest [les@cs.stanford.edu]
Sent:
Saturday, April 14, 2012 2:00 AM
To:
Brian Froelich
Cc:
Debbie Pedro; Carl Cahill; LarsenForCouncil; Deborah Padovan; Nobuko Saito
Cleary; Mary Ann Malcolm; Nancy Couperus; Barbara Packard; Sheila McElroy
Subject:
Stegner's Study: the 4th quarter began on Friday the 13th
A formal review of the historical importance of the former property of author Wallace
Stegner that has just been released concludes that his former study should be preserved
because of its historical significance. However it then proposes to "preserve" it by dropping
it in a black hole and claims that conforms with state regulations covering historical
preservation. In my view that is an invalid conclusion, as discussed at
www.stanford.edu/ Ieamest/stegner/ce uc� a.htm.
-Les Earnest
Review of a CQUA review of Stenger's Study
Lester D. Earnest
12769 Dianne Drive; Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Email Les@cs.stanford.edu Phone 650-941-3984
April 13, 2012
Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Page 1 of 5
Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the property at 13456 South Fork Lane
A formal review of the historical importance of the former property of author Wallace Stegner that has
just been released F11 concludes that his former study should be preserved because of its historical
significance. However it then proposes to "preserve" it by dropping it in a black hole and claims that
conforms with state regulations covering such preservation. In my view that is an invalid conclusion, as
discussed below.
The cited document contains some historical and other errors but happily recognizes the historical
significance of Stegner's Study and advocates preserving it. However it proposes that both the house and
the dilapidated old cottage be demolished and that the Study be moved to the inaccessible location of the
cottage, which is on a steep slope in the dark part of the forest, a rather different environment from its
current location on a sunny hilltop. The owner apparently wants to continue using it as a cottage, which
is the way it has been used in recent years.
That certainly does not look to me like an attempt at preservation and seems to go against some of the
historical preservation regulations that the report claims to uphold. I have been attempting to reach the
owner to discuss alternatives such as our proposal to move the study to another site where it would be
turned into a Stegner museum, which the owner agreed to earlier. However I have been unable to reach
him so far.
The accompanying Notice of Intent IQ says that comments on this proposal must be submitted to the
Town by April 30 at 5:00pm in the manner described there. Public hearings on this matter are scheduled
before the Planning Commission on May 3 at 7:00pm and before the Council on June 21 at 7:00pm. I
suggest that interested people mark those dates and times on your calendar.
Errors and inconsistencies
There is an odd inconsistency in terminology used in the CEQA review j11. As we learned from
members of the Stegner family long ago, Wallace Stegner called the place where he did his writing a
"study." The report uses that term for the first place he used --actually they call it "study/guest cottage,"
given that it was later expanded into living quarters. However they call his newer study a "writing
studio" for no apparent reason. The notes below will use the terms "cottage" and "study," in order to be
consistent with Stegner's terminology. The remarks below are keyed to the page and paragraph numbers
of j1l.
P. 10.9 "The applicant is proposing to preserve the writing studio and relocate it to the site of the
former study/guest cottage west of the main residence on the property."
The site of the cottage is downhill from the residence. That is a dark place on a steep slope in the middle
of a dense forest with very limited sight lines and is a radically different place from where the study is
L.tfiv.•//csnxnx� etanfnrri arin/,,,laarnr et/etarrnar/ramia litm 11/1)S/17A11)
Review of a CQUA review of Stenger's Study
Page 2 of 5
currently located --a sunny spot at the top of a hill overlooking an oak forest --and is relatively
inaccessible. However that arguably wouldn't matter much because it would not be open to the public.
In order to move the study into the forest location it likely would have to be dismantled and
reconstructed on the new site. Alternatively it might be possible to cut some of the overhanging tree
limbs and lift the building intact using a high performance helicopter and drop it into the proposed site.
In either case it likely would be necessary to abandon the existing bathroom at one end, so in order to
use it as a cottage the owners would likely want to build a new bathroom on the new site. All of this
would cost the owners much more than our offer to move the study away at no cost to them to become a
museum but that would mean that if they want a separate cottage they would have to build one.
p. 26.4 "This report has reviewed all potential impacts and the new residence project and the
relocation of the writing studio do not have any foreseeable or unmitigated impacts as defined in
this initial study."
I believe that moving the study to a dark place on a steep slope in the middle of the forest with no view
actually would have a very foreseeable impact. That arguably would be not much different from
demolishing it.
p. 35.6 "Ohlone Indians were the first known residents of Los Altos Hills."
That statement, which is taken from the "Town History" web page, is incorrect in that they were the last
native group here before the European invasion, not the first. The Town History web page is evidently
based on Florence Fava's fake history [3], which is full of errors. I've been trying to get it fixed since
2008 and will keep trying.
The ancestors of the Ohlone probably arrived here around 8,000 years ago, when there was no San
Francisco Bay because of lower sea levels coming out of the last Ice Age. However, the earliest people
arrived here at least 16,000 years ago and probably much earlier. Unfortunately they all died in an
environmental disaster about 12,900 years ago that, likely was caused by a comet or meteor impact on
the North American ice sheet in the vicinity of the Great Lakes. It killed all plant life in North America
for a time with the result that large land animals all starved to death, including mammoths, giant bison,
giant tree sloths, camels, several kinds of horses and many others. As a further result, the human hunters
also starved to death as did other predators such as the large saber tooth cats that lived here. This region
was eventually repopulated with both humans and smaller animals coming from Asia and Central
America.
p. 36.2 "Following roughly the path of today's Fremont Road, Juan Bautista De Anza passed
through what was to become Los Altos Hills while making his journey from Monterey to San
Francisco in 1776 to establish the Presidio."
This is another false claim from the Town History web page that was fabricated by Florence Fava, the
former Town Historian, in order to justify participating in the U.S. Bicentennial Celebrations of 1976. It
was used at the time as a basis for getting the Town to put up two stone monuments on Fremont Road
with bronze plaques making the same erroneous claim. There was also a fake reenactment of this non-
event using costumed horsemen. In 2010 I convinced the Town History Committee and the Council that
the fake monuments should be removed j41 and, with support from the National Park Service, that
happened a short time later.
p. 36.6 "Both Morgan Manor and Griffin House are official Town Historical Landmarks."
L++«. //.....,.., ,.+..« «,] ,.,7../ 1,.,.—«,...+/..+,.,.«,...L--- ..,. L+_ a 1^1 /^n n
Review of a CQUA review of Stenger's Study
Page 3 of 5
That is incorrect. Title 11 of the Municipal Code f51 specifies procedures for designating historical
landmarks, but despite elaborate preservation goals stated in the Conservation section of the Town's
General Plan L61, those procedures have been consistently ignored, with the result thatno such
landmarks have been designated. There is an Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures M in
Appendix 4a to the General Plan that is substantially incomplete but it has no administrative function, so
as pointed out in the "Wild Goose Chase" section of my earlier report fes, it should be removed from the
General Plan.
p. 42.3 "The former Stegner property was developed in the late 1940s (before the incorporation of
the Town) however, no documentation revealed that it was directly associated to the early
planning and/or development of the Town of Los Altos Hills."
This overlooks the fact that Stegner was'a principal instigator of the controversial incorporation of the
Town of Los Altos Hills and set many of its anti -development goals enunciated in the primary document
used to sell the proposed incorporation, namely the "Green Sheets" F91. Wallace Stegner as a listed
participant in that project and anyone familiar with his writings can see that the key arguments were
written by him.
p. 46.3 "The Town of Los Altos Hills has not officially reviewed or adopted the property at 13456
South Fork Lane as a historic resource."
As noted above for p. 36.3, the Town has not adopted any property as a historic resource. However on
May 17, 2011, which was before the Town's History Committee had figured out that the List of Historic
Sites and Structures in the General Plan actually has no function, they voted unanimously to place both
the Stegner residence and the one that formerly belonged to Hewlett-Packard founders and
philanthropists David and Lucile Packard on that list. As usual, the Town Council ignored those
recommendations without explanation.
Note that Footnote 34 claims that "Some member of the Los Altos Hills History Committee did meet
in May 2011 to discuss the possibility of adding the Stegner property to the Town's Inventory of
Historic Sites, however no official action was taken at that time." That is a blatant lie inasmuch as
the resolution cited just above was adopted unanimously by the History Committee and was reported in
the official minutes of their May 17, 2011 meeting. I would be interested to know who provided this
misinformation to the author, Sheila McElroy.
p. 46.4 "Individually, the only structure that meets the NR [National Register] criteria would be
Stegner's writing studio [i.e. his study]."
Happily this means that, despite a bit of confusion about the history, the right conclusion has been
reached about the historical significance of the study.
p. 55.5 "Under this CRHR [California Register of Historical Resources] Special Consideration a
historical resource must retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting and
general environment. Under the proposed project, these Special Conditions are met, as the project
will preserve the character -defining features of the building and the general rural residential
location and setting that is associated with Wallace Stegner's use of the building."
That argument looks bogus to me. How does dropping the study into the middle of a dark forest
"preserve the character -defining features of the building"?
p. 57.2 "Furthermore, there is no indication that any of Stegner's original belonging [sic] that
http://www.stanford.edu/—leamest/stegner/cequa.htm 4/25/2012
V
Review of a CQUA review of Stenger's Study
Page 4 of 5
were in the writing studio are extant at the property and the Assessment states that interior wood
paneling and shelves have been removed."
There would not be much point in placing Stegner's furnishings in that building if it is being converted into a
cottage, where the primary furnishings would be beds and dressers. However if we are able to preserve it as a
study it will be our plan to restore its interior as much as possible. In response to an earlier inquiry from me, Lynn
Stegner (Wallace's daughter-in-law) wrote:
"yes, we did preserve the artifacts, typewriters, desk, books (of course) shelves, etc. Some are at the
University of Utah, but the desk is in Santa Fe and the rest Page and I have."
With the Stegners' cooperation we would hope to get some of those furnishings for the museum and to match the
rest as closely as possible.
p. 57.3 "it appears that the writing studio could be moved to the new onsite location without
causing damage to or destruction of the building."
Note that this doesn't say how the move might be done. Moving a building into the middle of a forest
without damaging it and without cutting down a lot of trees is a nontrivial task.
p. 58.1 "The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the writing studio,
however, as it will be preserved such that it will still be able to convey significance under CRHR."
But how does converting the study into another cottage convey this significance? If it is supposed to
serve some other function in its new location, what is it?
Conclusions
In summary, the report f 11 appears to be a bogus attempt to circumvent existing regulations on historical
preservation. If you have the time, I invite you to look it over and identify additional holes in their logic,
document them according to 21 and, if possible, show up at the public hearings specified in 21 and at
the beginning of this note.
References
[1] Town of Los Altos Hills, Planning Department, "Initial Study Checklist & References; New
Residence, Basement, Swimming Pool, and Relocation of a Detached Accessory Building; 13456 South
Fork Lane," April 11, 2012. See www.stanford.edu/—learnest/stegner/study.1204.pdf.
[2] Town of Los Altos Hills, Planning Department, "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration," April 10, 2012. See www.stanford.edu/—Ieamest/stegner/intent.pdf.
[3] Florence Fava, Los Altos Hills, the colorful story, Gilbert Richards Publications, Woodside, CA,
1976.
[4] Les Earnest, "Recommend removal of erroneous historical monuments," Memo to Los Altos Hills
Council, May 10, 2010. See www.stanford.edu/—leamest/lah/monuments.pdf.
[5] Town of Los Altos Hills, Municipal Code. See http://gcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/.
[6] "General Plan -- Conservation," Town of Los Altos Hills, See
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/docs/browse/cat view/61-general-plan
httnJ/www_stanford_edu/-1earnest/stegner/cernis_htm d/l)51I (111)
Review of a CQUA review of Stenger's Study
Page 5 of 5
[7] "Inventory of Historical Sites and Structures," Town of Los Altos Hills, See Appendix 4a at
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/docs/browse/cat view/61-general-plan.
[8] Les Earnest, "Myths about Wallace Stegner's Study," report to Los Altos Hills History Committee,
February 2012. See litt-p://www.stanford.edii/—Ieai-nest/steszneiLQyths.-odf
[9] Wallace Stegner, et al, "Green Sheets", a proposal to incorporate a "Foothill
Community" that became Los Altos Hills, 1956. See
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/documents/departments/planning/lah green sheetspdf.
V
Attachment 10
JRP Historical Consulting Response to comments provided to Town of Los Altos Hills by
Lester D. Earnest on April 13, 2012
Initial Study Checklist & References
New Residence, Basement, Swimming Pool, and Relocation of a Detached Accessory Building
13456 South Fork Lane
Project No. 249-10-ZP-SD-IS-MND-V AR
Initial Study released April 11, 2012
p. 10.9 "The applicant is proposing to preserve the writing studio and relocate it to the site of the former
study/guest cottage west of the main residence on the property."
The site of the cottage is downhill from the residence. That is a dark place on a steep slope in the middle of a dense forest
with very limited sight lines and is a radically different place from where the study is currently located --a sunny spot at the
top of a hill overlooking an oak forest --and is relatively inaccessible. However that arguably wouldn't matter much
because it would not be open to the public.
In order to move the study into the forest location it likely would have to be dismantled and reconstructed on the new site.
Alternatively it might be possible to cut some of the overhanging tree limbs and lift the building intact using a high
performance helicopter and drop it into the proposed site. In either case it likely would be necessary to abandon the
existing bathroom at one end, so in order to use it as a cottage the owners would likely want to build a new bathroom on
the new site. All of this would cost the owners much more than our offer to move the study away at no cost to them to
become a museum but that would mean that if they want a separate cottage they would have to build one.
Partial response suggested by JRP Historical Consulting, LLC
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 4852(d)(1) recognizes that if a historical resource
(i.e. building or structure that is listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or CRHR) is moved to prevent its demolition at its former location and if its new location is
compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource, the resource will remain
eligible for listing in the CRHR. Under this CRHR Special Consideration, a historical resource must retain
its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting, and general environment, recognizing that
with adequate planning and protections a moved historical resource can retain sufficient integrity to
convey its historic significance. Therefore, following the standards set forth in the CRHR, the act of
moving a historical resource can be concluded as not causing a substantial adverse change under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(b).
The CRHR Special Consideration for moved buildings will be met by this project, as it will preserve the
character -defining features of the writing studio and its rural residential location and setting that is
associated with Wallace Stegner's use of the building. Moving the writing studio (also referred to as
Stegner's study) to the concrete slab foundation of the former study/guest cottage will preserve the
building's physical orientation and proximity to the adjacent landscape and provide the historical
resource a sufficiently similar setting and general environment to what it currently has. The trees
around the former study / guest cottage and the writing studio are mature and are likely larger than
1
they were when Stegner occupied the property. The writing studio's new location is at a modestly lower
elevation, which will somewhat change views from the building, but this site preserves important
aspects of the building's hillside, rural, and remote orientation and setting, and it will continue to
provide some views of the adjacent landscape.
Furthermore, CEQA does not have requirements that historical resources moved to prevent demolition
must be publically accessible, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3)-(4) do not prescribe specific
methods by which a historical resource may be moved, and under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4
(a)(1) the cost of moving a historical resource is not a specific consideration relative to a project's
compliance under CEQA. Rather, CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(b)(3)-(4) specify that projects impacting
historical resources should be conducted in a manner that meets the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and that identified mitigation measures need to be
feasible. The project is intended to be conducted following the Secretary of Interior's Standards using
the Preservation Treatment. Furthermore, the project will follow applicable National Park Service
guidance for moving historic buildings. As a modestly -sized wood frame building of relatively modern
construction, it appears likely that it will be feasible to move the building. This may require some
disassembly of the building, as identified by the project engineer and a qualified building mover. The
project will likely not move the building's bathroom and does not intend to construct a new bathroom
after the building is moved.
p. 55.5 "Under this CRHR [California Register of Historical Resources] Special Consideration a historical resource
must retain its historic features and compatibility in orientation, setting and general environment. Under the
proposed project, these Special Conditions are met, as the project will preserve the character -defining features of
the building and the general rural residential location and setting that is associated with Wallace Stegner's use of
the building."
That argument looks bogus to me. How does dropping the study into the middle of a dark forest "preserve the character -
defining features of the building"?
Partial response suggested by JRP Historical Consulting, LLC
CEQA standards for a moved historical resources new site require compatibility in orientation, setting,
and general environment. As noted in response to comment "p10.9," the writing studio's new location
is at a modestly lower elevation, which will somewhat change views from the building, but this site
preserves important aspects of the building's hillside, rural, and remote orientation, setting, and general
environment. The writing studio's new site will also continue to provide some views of the adjacent
landscape.
2
p. 57.3 "it appears that the writing studio could be moved to the new onsite location without causing damage to or
destruction of the building."
Note that this doesn't say how the move might be done. Moving a building into the middle of a forest without damaging it
and without cutting down a lot of trees is a nontrivial task.
Partial response suggested byJRP Historical Consulting, LLC
The method for moving the writing studio has not been addressed in detail. Based on initial
assessments of the building it appears that moving it is feasible. As noted in response to comment
"p10.9," CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3)-(4) do not prescribe specific methods by which a
historical resource may be moved, but does require that mitigation measures be feasible. The CEQA
Guidelines specify that projects should be conducted in a manner that meets the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, and the project intends to follow the
Secretary of Interior's Standards using the Preservation Treatment. Furthermore, the project will follow
applicable National Park Service guidance for moving historic buildings. As a modestly -sized wood frame
building of relatively modern construction, it appears likely that it will be feasible to move the building.
This may require some disassembly of the building, as identified by the project engineer and a qualified
building mover.
p. 58.1 "The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the writing studio, however, as it
will be preserved such that it will still be able to convey significance under CRHR."
But how does converting the study into another cottage convey this significance? If it is supposed to serve some other
function in its new location, what is it?
Partial response suggested byJRP Historical Consulting, LLC
The Town has concluded that the former Stegner writing studio is a historical resource for the purposes
of CEQA, i.e. that the building is eligible for listing in the CRHR. This is based on the evaluation
conducted by CIRCA in November 2011, which concluded that the writing studio retained sufficient
historic integrity to convey its significance. At the time of the evaluation, the writing studio was not
being used as a study or a use similar to Stegner's. Its current use as a cottage or storage was
considered to be sufficient compatible such that the building retained physical characteristics such that
one could comprehend the writing studio's importance for its association with Stegner. The use of the
writing studio following mitigation will continue to be similar to the use it had when the building was
evaluated for its historic significance. This project does not change the use of the historical resource in a
manner that diminishes its integrity.
3
Attachment 11
Joan Reinhardt Reiss, Ns - - — --
773 Duncan Street — San Francisco, CA 94131
415 647-2687 — h einhardtreiss@tmaiCcom — jrreisswriter.com
To: Los Altos Hills Town Council acliry D
Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
c/o: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner APR 2 5 2012
bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov
TON OF iosAUos HUs
Fr: Joan Reinhardt Reiss, M.S. OqOVZR
Regional Director, The Wilderness Society (1990-93)
Re: Wallace Stegner Writing Studio now at 13456 South Fork Lane
During my tenure as Wilderness Society (TWS) Director, Wallace Stegner served
on the Governing Council. Having read most of his published works, I was so honored
to make his acquaintance. His numerous awards included both a Pulitzer Prize and two
National Book Awards. In 1964, he founded the Creative Writing Program at Stanford,
and influenced a generation of writers including LarryMcMurty, Raymond Carver, and
Scott Turow to name a few.
Environmental activism was always part of his soul. In 1990, TWS was
monitoring the Park Service Plan for Yosemite. Wallace Stegner came to the hearing
and provided eloquent and moving testimony.
Now is the time to honor Wallace Stegner and his enormous contributions to
literature and environmental activism by placing his writing studio in an easily accessible
public location adjacent to the Los Altos Hills Town Hall. As you probably know, this
recommendation originated from a unanimous vote by the Los Alto Hills History
Committee in March 2012.
What a shock to read the April 2012 site development permit learn that the
writing studio will be moved but remain on the private property of the new owners at the
the South Fork Lane site. This is a clear denial of public access to an important literary
memorial.
Request to the Planning Commission and Town Council
Follow the unanimous recommendation of your History Committee, vote to move
the Wallace Stegner Writing Studio/Study to a site near Town Hall for easy public
access.
Susan Alexander
319 Hill Street RECEIVED
San Francisco, CA 94114
415-641-0393 — salexandersf@gmail.com APR 2 6 2012
TOWN OF O ALTOS HIUS
To: Los Altos Hills Town Council
Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
C/O: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner, bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov
Fr: Susan Alexander
Re: Wallace Stegner Writing Studio now at 13456 South Fork Lane
Wallace Stegner was and remains a national treasure.
Now is the time to honor Wallace Stegner and his enormous contributions to literature
and environmental activism by placing his writing studio in an easily accessible public
location adjacent to the Los Altos Hills Town Hall. This recommendation originated from
a unanimous vote by the Los Alto Hills History Committee in March 2012.
What a shock to learn the April 2012 site development permit would allow the writing
studio to be moved but remain on the private property of the new owners at the South
Fork Lane site. This is a clear denial of public access to an important literary memorial.
Request to the Planning Commission and Town Council
Follow the unanimous recommendation of your History Committee, vote to move the
Wallace Stegner Writing Studio/Study to a site near Town Hall for easy public access.
r-)
PATHWAY COMMITTEE NIINUTES 2004 -2011
Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL;
Minutes of Meeting November 22, 2010
1. ADMINISTRATIVE
Eileen Gibbons called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM
Members present: Ann Duwe, Courtenay Corrigan, Nick Dunckel, Bob Stutz, Sue
Welch, and Denise Williams
Members absent: Tim Warner
LAH Council Members present: Ginger Summit
Members of the public present: Dan Rasmussen, 27589 Samuel Way
Thomas Rasmussen, 27589 Samuel Way
Robert Rasmussen, 27589 Samuel Way
Gerry Parco, representing 27641 Purissima Road
Pam Allison, representing 27641 Purissima Road
Bob Lehto, representing 27641 Purissima Road
Heinz Furthmeyer,13500 South Fork Lane
Wan -Lei Yong, 13456 South Fork Lane
Quyue Qulia) Chu, 13408 South Fork Lane
Tsungwei Chin, 25354 La Rena Lane
The agenda was approved as published.
2. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
None
3. NEW BUSINESS
A. Property Reviews. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations:
13456 South Fork Lane (Lands of Yew -Nam and Wan Lei) The reason for pathway review is
construction of a new residence. The homeowner, Wan -Lei Yong, was present. The property
is the east end of South Fork Lane, a cul-de-sac that is private adjacent to this property.
Information from the Town indicates that the part of South Fork between here and Middle
Fork Lane is a public road, although a South Fork resident says this part is also private road.
The Town holds an over -the -road easement on part of South Fork but this route was removed
from the Master Path Plan in 2005. The Town holds a 10 -foot off-road pathway easement
along the full length of the east side of 13456 South Fork The off-road Master Path Plan
approved by the City Council in 2005 shows this path, which will connect to off-road paths
(also approved on the Master Path Plan) through the Sterling property (28030 Natoma) to be
established when that property is subdivided. The easement also connects to an existing off-
road pathway that runs from the end of South Fork Lane to Middle Fork Lane and to Byrd
Lane. These off-road paths form part of the connections between Natoma Road, Page Mill
Road, and the Wallace Stegner scenic pathway.
Ms Wan Lei expressed concerns about any path using South Fork Lane because it is steep
and narrow. She also noted that walkers sometimes get lost in the area and wander up
their driveway looking for the path It was suggested that the Town or the owners
improve the pathway signage to avoid this. PWC discussed the value of this connection
to the Sterling property. Courtenay Corrigan moved that the Town ask the owners of
Pathway Committee Minutes 2004 - 2011e.doc Compiled 3/11/2012 Page 297
Attachment 12
0
PATHWAY COIV lv=E MINUTES 2004 -2011
13456 South Fork lane to maintain the existing 10400t off-road pathway easement on
the east side of the property and that the Town not allow any fencing, landscaping, or
other obstructions to be placed within this easement. The vote was unanimously in
favor.
2. 25354 La Rena Lane (lands of Chin). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new
residence. The homeowner, Tsungwei Chir, was present. The property is on the north side of
La Rena, a public cul-de-sac that serves more than eight residences. A IIB path in good
condition exists on La Rena on the side opposite this property and continues along La Rena
on that side in both directions. La Rena is not on the official list of streets designated to have
pathways on both sides. Sue Welch moved that the town collect a pathway in lieu fee from
the owner of 25354 La Rena Lane. The vote was unanimously in favor.
3. 27641 Purissima Road (review of bridge requirements in Morrison subdivision). This 12 -
acre property was reviewed by the PWC in Feb 2006 at the time of subdivision and again in
Feb 2007 after a change in the subdivision layout and an increase in the number of lots to six.
The PWC considers the connection from Purissma Road to La Cresta Drive important and the
off-road Master Path Plan approved by the City Council in 2005 shows an arrow through this
subdivision, indicating an off-road pathway connection The recommendation at that time
was to request an easement in the road on the new cul-de-sac that is being built part way
through the subdivision From the end of the cul-de-sac, the path will follow a driveway, then
a 10 -foot wide off-road pathway easement across to the eastern edge of the property to
eventually connect to La Cresta. In addition, a north -south easement connecting to the
existing easement on the NE border of 12489 Canario Way was required.
The developers are now requesting a change in the route of the path because the concrete
bridge carrying the new road over Deer Creek apparently is not wide enough for a
separate pathway. A PowerPoint presentation and handouts describing the proposed
new route were shown. The proposed new route would meander through the
conservation easement on the west side of Deer Creek, cross the creek on an existing
smaller bridge that is on the neighboring property (27589 Samuel Way, lands of
Rasmussen), and then meander back to the road. The pathway easement from Purissima
Road directly to this small bridge has been removed from the MPP. The Rasmussen
were present and expressed their concerns about loss of privacy because the small bridge
is very close to their home and visible from points on their property.
The committee and others present discussed the route option at length. The consensus of
the PWC was that the proposed new route would be very intrusive to the Rasmussen
property and as currently shown would run too close to the top -of -bank on the east side
of the creek Apparently three other small bridges cross Deer Creek further north on the
subdivision property that might be used. It was also recommended that the Town
consider allowing pedestrian to walk in the right-of-way of the road bridge. Use of the
existing road bridge is consistent with pathway rules for cul-de-sacs serving eight or
fewer lots, where pathways are not required to be separate from the roadway. The
consensus of the PWC is that the road bridge is neither too narrow nor too steep for
pedestrians
Nick Dunckel moved that the Pathway Committee finds that use of the existing
pedestrian bridge on the Rasmussen property (27589 Samuel Way) for the pathway is
far too intrusive to the Rasmussen property and that the developers of 27641 Purissima
Road provides some other route across the creek for the pathway. The subdivision
developers have 12 acres to provide an appropriate route across the creek It was also
recommended that the Town review use of the existing road bridge and consider
Pathway Committee Minutes 2004 - 2011e.doc Compiled 3/11/2012 Page 298
i'
Attachment 13
Brian Froelich -------_--------_._.,
From:
Roger Spreen [roger@krillion.com]
Sent:
Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:46 AM
To:
Brian Froelich
Cc:
Debbie Pedro
Subject:
OSC Meeting recommendation on 13456 S. Fork Lane
Brian
The Open Space Committee met this morning. I introduced the Yong project, and in.response, the committee voted 6-0
for the recommendation below, with 2 abstentions: Sharon Shoendorf because she's a direct neighbor of the property,
and me, since I was introducing & explaining the property, and wanted to remove myself from influencing any
committee action.
Let me point out that Council Member Mordo was in attendance, and one of our committee members, Sue Welch, was
also quite familiar with the property and the project because she also sits on the Pathway Committee. Thus, I feel there
was objective, independent analysis & thought about this project..
4/21/2011 Open Space Committee meeting
Recommendation with regards to the proposed project at 13456 S. Fork Lane:
The OSC does not find any specific conditions on this property that warrant allowing exceptions to the.Town's standard
policies on open space easements.
For this reason, the OSC does not support allowing lights, gates or other accoutrements in the open space easement on
this parcel.
Furthermore, the OSC supports adhering to the complete 30% sloped area to define the open space easement
boundaries, as is standard practice. The OSC also recommends including a 10 -foot connecting corridor to the adjacent
property (lands of Stirling) in the "less than 30% slope" area to assure future connectivity.
A vote was taken. The Chair, Roger Spreen, abstained, as did the owner of a neighboring property, Sharon Schoendorf.
Votes in favor of the recommendation: George Clifford, Nancy Couperus, Alice Sakamoto, lean Struthers, Wendie Ward,
Sue Welch.
One member absent: Karen Lemes.
Environmental Design and Protection Committee�
�.
RECEIVED Attachment 14
N Reside ce/Remodel Evaluation - - - --
. Nov 19 2010
Reviewed by:--R
A , i �I N OF LOS ALTOS HPLC
ppltcant
Name
Address_
Site impact/lighting/noise:
Creeks, drainage, easements:
Existing Vegetatidn:
Significant issues/comments:
c�t.e.a LQ.1.2.N 1: n n,
Attachment 15
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
November 22, 2010
L5220
TO: Brian Froelich
Planning Department
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review
RE: Yong, New Residence
#249-10-ZP-SD-GD
13456 South Fork Lane
At your request, we have completed a geologic and geotechnical peer review of
the .permit application using: .
• - Engineering. . Geologic, .and ..Geotechnical..,: Investigation- (report)-_-.-..
:prepared by. Murray Engineers, Inc.; dated --September 30,.2010;
• Architectural Plans (11 sheets), prepared by Raymond L Neal,
dated November 9, 2010;
Topographic, Grading and Erosion Plans (5 sheets), prepared by
Giuliani and Kull, Inc., dated November 5,2010; and
Septic System Plans (2 sheets), prepared by S.R. Hartshell, dated
October 11, 2010.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent maps from our office files and
completed a recent site inspection.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced documents indicates that the applicant proposes to
construct a new..1w.o-story. - residence.. with- a..fultbasement,. swimming pool, and
associated improvements close tathe location:of:.the.existing•residence. We' understand
that the swimming pool is not part of the current permit and detailed design criteria for
the pool are not included in the referenced report. Access to the property will be via a
Northern California Office Central California Office
330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640
(408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212
www.cottonshires.com
r
Brian Froelich November 22, 2010
Page 2 L5220
new driveway extending from South Fork Lane. Our packet of project plans did not
include expected cut and fill volumes, but we anticipate a significant excavation for the
proposed basement. The proposed residence is located immediately south of the Monta
Vista fault as depicted on the Town Geologic Map.
SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is generally characterized by gentle to very steep (approximately
5 to 70 percent inclination) north to northwest facing slopes. Previous grading on the
site has resulted in an existing cut and fill pad beneath the existing house. The
southwest portion of the building pad is a moderately steep (approximately 25 percent
inclination) fill slope. Other gentle to moderately steep ( approximately 5 to 25 percent
inclination) fill prisms were noted on the outboard edge of the existing driveway,
landscaping areas and trails surrounding the northern portion of the existing residence.
In addition, previous grading for the existing guest house has resulted in a cut and fill
pad. Natural drainage at the site is characterized by sheetflow to the northwest and
north. Signs of expansive soil were noted along slopes adjacent to the residence.
Cracked asphalt, tilting retaining walls and uneven walkways were noted at the
property.
The Town Geologic Map indicates that the site is underlain, at depth, by bedrock
of the Santa Clara Formation (semi -consolidated to consolidated, comprised of yellow-
brown to red -brown conglomerate interbedded with poorly sorted sandstone, siltstone
and claystone), and greenstone, limestone and sandstone bedrock materials of
Franciscan Complex. The existing residence is located immediately south of the mapped
Monta Vista fault, and 2.76 miles northeast of the San Andreas fault. Based on the
findings of the referenced report by Murray Engineers, the proposed residence is
located from 25 to 30 feet south of the identified Monta Vista fault. The fault plane has
been depicted as descending beneath the proposed basement floor at depths on the
order of 20 to 40 feet.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed residential development is constrained by expansive surficial soil
material, potential creep and settlement of existing site fill materials, the close proximity
of the Monta Vista fault, and anticipated strong to violent seismic ground shaking. The
Project Geotechnical consultant has investigated the property in a manner consistent
with prevailing geologic and geotechnical standards and has concluded that the site is
suitable for proposed improvements. To mitigate the potential for ground deformations
or secondary ground cracking associated with the nearby fault, the Geotechnical
Consultant has recommended that the basement be founded on a reinforced mat slab
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
r
Brian Froelich
Page 3
November 22, 2010
L5220
that is to be a minimum of 10 inches in thickness. We note that the local trace of the
Monta Vista fault is highly sinuous, has a low fault plane dip angle, and has an
uncertain potential for transmitting possible future primary fault rupture
displacements. These factors reduce the level of geologic concern about the proximity of
the identified fault to the proposed project.
We do not have geotechnical objections to the layout of proposed site
improvements or the presented project geotechnical design criteria. We recommend
that the following conditions be attached to geotechnical approval of the subject
application:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and
grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
• The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review
the proposedenergy dissipater placement in the
northeastern portion of the property and
recommend any appropriate revisions from a
geotechnical perspective.
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be
summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and
submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documents for
building permit plan -check.
2. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical
consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project construction. These
inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site
preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and excavations for foundations, and retaining
walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. At the end of
projection construction, the consultant should inspect completed
site drainage improvements to confirm compliance with
geotechnical standards.
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
a
Brian Froelich November 22, 2010
Page 4 L5220
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the
project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a
letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to
final (as -built) project approval.
LIMITATIONS
This geologic and geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide
technical advice to assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services
have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review
of the property. ;Our opinions and conclusions are fade in .accordance with-geker-ally
accepted.'principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in
lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
TS:DTS:JN:kd
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
W
V-���E DEPARTMENT V-0 c RECEIVED
o�
,� SANTA CLARA COUNTY
FIRE _ NOV 16 2010
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
COUHM SY6SERVICE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.oMWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLAN
REVIEW
No.
BLDG
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No.
Attachment 16
`��nnario�'
IntemationaRy Accredited
Agency
10 2868
Proposed new 11,021 square -foot two-story single-family residence with basement and attached
garage.
Comment #1: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and
water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a
substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to
performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building
Department all applicable construction permits.
Comment #2: Wildland-Urban Interface: This project is located within the designated Wildland
-Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California
Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC
Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related
landscape plan requirements.
Comment #3: Fire sprinklers Required: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in all new
structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. Exception: Any non -habitable
structures accessory to single family residences that have a gross floor area of.500 square feet or less.
NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A
State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a
completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior
to beginning their work. CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC Noted on Page A-1.00
and A-0.01 of the plans
Comment #4: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire
protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and
subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with
the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any
water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage
containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing
contamination of the potable
City PLANS SPECS NEW RMOL AS
LAH N ❑ N ❑ ❑
OCCUPANCY
R-3, U-1
CONST. TYPE
V -B
ApplicentNarne
Raymond Neal Architect
DATE
11/15/201
PAGE
1 OF 2
SEC/FLOOR
2 story +
AREA
11021 sf
LOAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Site Plan
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR - YONG
LOCATION
13456 South Fork Ln Los Altos Hills
TABULAR FIRE FLOW
2750
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERSREQUIRED
FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
1500
BY
Harding, Doug
5070
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
��►° ' oo�� FIRE DEPARTMENT
RECEIVED _
FIRE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY =`
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 NOV 16 2010
COUKESV 6 SSMCE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org Intemationally Accredited
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Agency
PLAN
REVIEW 10 2868
No.
BLDG
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No.
water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not
be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are
documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and
Health and Safety Code 13114.7
Comment #5: Public Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be
determined jointly by the Fire Department and the Purissima Water Company. Maximum hydrant
spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 1,500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. If area
fire hydrants exist, reflect their location on the civil drawings included with the building permit
submittal. Required fees to be paid ASAP to prevent engineering delays. CFC Sec. 508.3, per
Appendix B and C
Comment #6: Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: Gate installations shall conform with
Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any
portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall
be fire department approved prior to installation. Gates across the emergency access roadways shall
be equipped with an approved access devices. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved
Knox key switch shall be installed; if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox padlock
shall be installed. Gates providing access from a road to a driveway or other roadway shall be at
least 30 feet from the road being exited. CFC Sec. 503.6 and 506
Comment #7: Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall beplaced on all new
and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road
fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505
To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review
Conditions shall be restated as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any
referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal.
City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑
OCCUPANCY
R-3, U-1
CONST. TYPE
V -B
ApplicantName
Raymond Neal Architect
DATE
11/15/201
PAGE
2 OF 2
SEC/FLOOR
2 story +
AREA
11021 sf
LOAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Site Plan
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR - YONG
LOCATION
13456 South Fork Ln Los Altos Hills
TABULAR FIRE FLOW
2750
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
1500
BY
Harding, Doug
1 50%
as the Santa Clara Countv Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga