The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.2Item 3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 3, 2012 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROVAL FOR A NEW 4,981 SQUARE ,FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 2,035 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT AND A 592 SQUARE FOOT SWIMMING POOL; LANDS OF HARRIS AND SHARP; 26958 DEZAHARA WAY; FILE #283-11-ZP-SD-GD. FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner �E� APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director--Pl? RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Uphold the Fast-track approval of the Site Development Permit for the new residence, basement, and swimming pool subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment #1. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Dezahara Way with direct roadway frontage. The lot is the last undeveloped property within the subdivision and has a regular, five -sided shape. The lot was created in 1966 via the Rose Hill Estates Tract. The site contains a semi -circular driveway easement along the west boundary for benefit of adjacent properties. Other site characteristics include: three heritage oak trees, a hillside location, and the property slopes down to a riparian area and Purissima Creek. The project was approved at a Fast-track hearing on March 27, 2012. At that hearing, two neighbors supported the project while eight neighbors voiced concerns about the project design, view loss, the planning process, and raised issue regarding the applicant's responsibility under the Rose Hill Estates Conditions Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's). The Fast-track approval was appealed per Section 10-2.1305.1(b)(13) by Mayor Larsen. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 1.02 acres Net Lot Area: 1.00 acres Average Slope: 21.8% Lot Unit Factor: 0.747 F7 Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 2 Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left Development 7,900 8,379* 0 8,379 0 Floor 5,000 4,981 0 4,981 19 *Solar Bonus Development Area per Section 10-1.502(b)(6) (500sf of solar panels proposed) **Basement exempt from Floor Area 2,035 square feet Site and Architecture The 1.00 acre site has a 21.8% slope that descends evenly from the street level to Purissima Creek. The proposed site layout includes the driveway, primary building, an attached two -car garage, one -car garage attached by a breezeway, rear yard patio, and swimming pool. The proposed driveway takes access from Dezahara Way toward the western property boundary. The proposed building location is 44 feet from the front property line and the first floor elevation is approximately eight feet six inches (8'6") below the street level. The residence includes a partial basement (2,035 sf). The exterior building materials include beige plaster, stone trim, and clay tile roof. (Materials Exhibit — Attachment 10) The proposed residence complies with all setbacks, Floor Area, Development Area, and height standards per Title 10 of the Municipal Code. Drivewav & Parkin The proposed driveway will create a newaccess from Dezahara Way. The driveway incorporates one (1) surface parking space. Three (3) parking spaces are accommodated in garages. A firetruck turnaround was not a requirement of the project. Outdoor Lighting Outdoor lighting is shown on the floor plan sheets. Standard lighting is proposed, with two (2) fixtures at some double door exits and one (1) fixture per single door exit. Several recessed fixture units are shown at the veranda at the rear of the residence. The standard lighting Condition 8 for outdoor lighting, requires that fixtures be down shielded or have frosted/etched globes. All applicants are 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: • 1,335 cubic yards of cut • 250 cubic yards of fill Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 3 • 1,085 cubic yards export The site grading and cut are primarily for the basement excavation, swimming pool excavation, and driveway. The front porch entry of the house is cut four (4) feet, which is the maximum permitted for yard areas per the Grading Policy (Attachment 2). The drainage design directs water into area drains conveyed into 4" pipes that connect to a detention basin consisting of 36" high density polyethylene pipes to be installed below grade. The volume to be stored is based on the amount of rain water from a 10 -year storm event, 1 -hour duration over the proposed two dimensional impervious surfaces. Overflow would meter out to an energy dissipater. Geotechnical Review The applicant has provided a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GeoForensics Inc and a Fault Investigation prepared by Steven F. Connelly, C.E.G. The Investigations were peer reviewed by the Town of Los Altos Hills' Geotechnical consultant; Cotton, Shires, and Associates (Attachment 3). A fault trace crosses the property, however, Cotton, Shires, and Associates has reported that sufficient investigation was completed to support the conclusion that the fault trace is inactive and have recommended standard conditions that include follow up documentation and review of the construction documents by the project geologist (Conditions 19a & 19b). Trees & Landscaping The majority of the site is generally devoid of landscaping but does include three (3) heritage oak trees and a riparian area adjacent to Purissima Creek. No trees are proposed for removal. 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 81 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 equipped with fire sprinklers. The property is also located within the Wildland-Urban Interface Zone. (Attachment 7) r Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 4 Sanitation A Los Altos sewer main line currently traverses the property down slope of the proposed residence. Tie in is proposed. No sewer easement exists on the property; however the property owner has agreed to dedicate a sewer easement with the project (Condition 28). Neighborhood Comments As of the writing of the staff report, the Town has received 16 written comment letters both in . support and in opposition to the project (Attachment 9). Concerns cited by neighbors include: loss of views, structure height, color and materials, drainage, the project's noncompliance with the Rose Hill Estates Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and lack of approval by the Architectural Control Committee. CC&R's are private agreements between the parties to the CC&R's that runs with the land. The enforcement is executed privately by the parties entitled per the contract. The Town has no responsibility or right to enforce CC&R's. The Town attorney has provided a legal opinion on the matter for Planning Commission review (Attachment 8). There was extended discussion of the Fast -Track Guide and the eligibility checklist at the March 27, 2012 hearing. Neighbors expressed concern over the resulting score that allowed the project to be eligible for Fast -Track. Per Section 10-2.1305.1 (b)(2), the Planning Director has the authority to determine the scoring and eligibility of projects. The Fast -Track Guide checklist, or a project's conformance with the Fast -Track Guide checklist, shall not provide the basis for the Site Development Authority's approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of a project. Town Committee's Review The Pathways Committee has recommended that the applicant pay a Pathway in -lieu fee (Condition 29). The Open Space Committee has recommended that an Open Space Easement be placed over riparian area and Purissima Creek on the property. (Open Space Easement Map - Attachment 6) The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented that the new residence will need substantial screening on three sides. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOA) The proposed single family residence and swimming pool are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality. Act by provision of Section 15303(a) & (e). L Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Grading Policy 3. Cotton and Shires Associates Letters, December 20, 2011 4. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, December 19, 2011 5. Pathways Committee minutes from meeting on December 12, 2011 6. Recommended Open Space Easement Map — Exhibit A 7. Fire Department Comments, December 2, 2011 8. Town Attorney Memo regarding CC&R's, April 26, 2012 9. Neighbor Letters — chronological order received 10. Materials Exhibit (Commission in color) Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE, BASEMENT, AND SWIMMING POOL LANDS OF SHARP AND HARRIS, 26958 DEZAHARA WAY File # 283-11-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT - Please work with Brian Froelich, Associate Planner to complete the following conditions, 650-947-2505: 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 of the new residence. 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 Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 7 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 "the location of the building including roof eaves are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the building shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the building matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection and prior to final inspection. 6. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the building complies with the 27' maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space, building pad, or basement ceiling, 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 based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the primary structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection and prior to final inspection. 7. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the approved plans. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or be shielded down lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 9. Skylights, if utilized, shall be .designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 10. Standard swimming pool conditions: a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site. Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 8 b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c. Pool equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides with a roof for noise mitigation and screening. 11. 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. 12. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 13. At time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance: a. A GreenPoint Rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. 14. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building professional shall provide documentation verifying that the building was - constructed in compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED° certification. Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 9 15. The applicant shall provide a sample and manufacturer's specifications for the proposed pervious paving materials, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 16. 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 the 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. 17. The property owner shall grant an Open Space Easement to the Town to cover all of the area below the elevation of the riparian area boundary and with 10' wide openings at the east and west property boundary. 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. 18. 500 square feet of photovoltaic solar panels shall be installed and grid connected, prior to final inspection to receive the proposed development area credit. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - Please work with John Chau, Assistant Engineer to complete the following conditions, 650-947-2510: 19. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated December 9, 2011, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, and driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications, and details accurately reflect their recommendations and have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to acceptance ofplans for buildingplan check. Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 10 b. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection. 20. Peak discharge at 26958 Dezahara Way, as a result of Site Development Permit 283-11, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre - development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a 10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. All drainage installations shall not be located within the Open Space Easement. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. y Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 11 24. 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. 25. 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 Dezahara Way 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. 26. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 27. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed prior to final inspection. 28. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer hookup permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. 29. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $50.00 per linear foot of the average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 12 30. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' wide sanitary sewer easement along the existing sewer line to the Town. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Please work with the Santa Clara County Fire Department to complete the following conditions, 408-378-4010: 31. 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 fmal inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 32. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minim radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. 33. 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%. 34. 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. 35. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background CONDITION NUMBERS 13a, 15,16,17,19a, 20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Planning Commission Lands of Sharp and Harris May 3, 2012 Page 13 Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of this notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed and the applicant has satisfactorily completed all applicable conditions. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until May 3, 2013). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. TOWN OF LOS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov Code Sections: ALTOS HILLS Attachment 2 ws�usnll� a CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council 07/21/2011 Section 10-2.702 (c) of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings." Section 10-2.703 (a) requires: "Type II foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof = shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." Intent• The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It is also intended that the policy provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides, encouraging terraced retaining walls where possible, and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. While balanced cut and fill is desirable to minimize import or export of soil, to or from a site, it is recognized that the Town's policies and the guidelines below may encourage export as cut is generally preferred over fill. These policies are intended to be used by staff in evaluation and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding site development applications, and as guidance for applicants. Individual sites may dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Grading Policy Page 2 Policy: 1. Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step down" the hill*: Cut Fill House 8' * * 3' Accessory Bldg. 8'** 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of four feet six inches (4'6") feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. Supported decks shall generally not exceed three (3') feet above adjoining grade except where located within six (6') feet of a building. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of ten (10') feet for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. Terracing shall be utilized for cuts exceeding six (6') feet. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. 5. The Planning Director may approve exceptions for required driveways and Fire Truck turnarounds where cut does not exceed seven (7') feet and fill does not exceed five (5') feet at a noticed public hearing. Attachment 3 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS December 20, 2011 L5131 TO: Brian Froelich Associate Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Sharp and Harris, New Residence and Swimming Pool 283-11-ZP-SD-GD 26958 Dezahara Way At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the subject application for the proposed new residence and swimming pool using: • Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by GeoForensics, Inc., dated November 11, 2011; • Fault Investigation (report) prepared by Steven F. Connelly, dated November 2,,2011; and • Architectural Plans (11 sheets, 4 -scale) prepared by Metro Design Group, dated November 21, 2011. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files, completed a recent site reconnaissance, and observed site fault exploration trenches. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to construct a two-story residence with basement in the northern portion of the subject property. A swimming pool is proposed immediately south of the residence. Access is to be provided by a new driveway extending from Dezahara Way. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is .generally characterized by gentle to moderately steep (average approximately 17 percent inclination) south -facing hillside topography. An area of lush vegetation and a seep were observed to the south of the proposed residence. Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 www rntFnn ehiroc nnm Southern California Office 550 St. Charles Drive, Suite 108 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933 Brian Froelich December 20, 2011 Page 2 L5131 Natural drainage at the site consists of sheetflow toward the southern portion of the property intercepted by an adjoining drainage swale. The Town Geologic Map indicates that the house site is underlain by Monterey Formation bedrock with the mapped Altamont fault located approximately 250 feet southeast of the house site. The Town Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones Map indicates that the house site is located in zone "D" indicating the potential for ground deformation and/or fault rupture associated with the nearby mapped trace of the Altamont fault. A fault investigation has been completed indicating that an inactive fault trace crosses the subject property in the vicinity of the proposed residence. Sufficient geologic data was collected to support the inactive fault designation and the Project Geologist concludes that this feature does not present a primary ground rupture hazard to the proposed residence. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed development is potentially constrained by anticipated strong to violent seismic ground shaking, potential secondary ground cracking associated with the local Altamont fault, highly expansive soils, and local seepage conditions. Based on our review of the referencedfault investigation, we find that the Project Geologist has investigated site conditions and reached conclusions regarding the lack of primary fault rupture hazards in a manner consistent with prevailing professional practice. In addition, the Project Geotechnical Engineer has presented design criteria in general conformance with prevailing standards of geotechnical practice. We do not have geotechnical objections to the proposed layout of site improvements. Consequently, we recommend geotechnical approval of permits for project construction with the following conditions: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development 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 Geotechnical Plan Review letter should be submitted to the Town for review along with other documents for building permit plan -check. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES. INC. Brian Froelich Page 3 December 20, 2011 L.5131 2. Geotechnical Construction Inspections — The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. LIMITATIONS This geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON. SHIRES ANY) ASSrIr TATFC_ TWr, V) Stnc-v f & Q cA e -42i -e— Environmental Design and Protection Committee Attachment �4cni e-- P cN f . Reviewed by: �- f �� 2.� l t Date Applicant _ Name cv+/ p L—: -'A .3 c' .d Address Site impact/lighting(noise: r SSS u M C �1 S F—M P -A -1 s Q 1--r c, CQ i - Creeks, drainage, easements: Existing Vegetatidn: 1� Significant issues/comments: DEC 1:9 2011 � ,..� lbs AL168 t4i"s Attachment 5 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Meeting of Tuesday, December 12,201i 1. ADMINISTRATIVE Chairman Eileen Gibbons called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM Members present: Courtenay Corrigan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Eileen Gibbons, Breene Kerr, Joseph Kleitman, Bob Stutz, Tim Warner Sue Welch, Denise Williams Members absent: None Members of the public: None The agenda was approved as amended. 2. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None 3. PROPERTY REVIEWS. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: a. 24100 Hillview Road (Lands of Lam). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The homeowner was not present. The property is on the southwest side of Hillview at the corner of Magdalena and Hillview and has frontage on both streets. A roadside path exists along Magdalena on the adjacent lot (11993 Magdalena) and remnant roadside paths exist along Hillview. The PWC discussed the importance of roadside paths in this area. Chairman Gibbons will talk to staff about the Water District structures located in the pathway easement at the corner and also ask staff to convey that the path will need to meander behind the traffic signs at this location. Ann Duwe moved that the Town ask the owners of 24100 Hillview Road to construct IIB roadside paths along both Magdalena and Hillview Roads. Joe IGeitman seconded; the vote was unanimously in favor. b. 26958 Dezahara Way (Lands of Sharp and Harris). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The homeowner was not present. The property is on the south side ,of Dezahara, which is a public road that forms a loop off Taaffe Road. Roadside paths exist on Dezahara around the other side of the loop, but none are present in the area of this parcel. At the site visit, it the.PWC noted that some overgrown landscaping needs to be removed from the roadside path easements on several parcels (27033 and 27071). The side of the street opposite this parcel (i.e., the inside of the loop) is the preferred side for roadside pathways because the roadsides are less steep. Tim Warner moved that the Town ask the owners of 26958 Dezahara Drive to pay a pathway in -lieu fee. Bob Stutz seconded; the vote was unanimously in favor. c. 26493 Weston Drive (Lands of Zeev, Hagit, and Or . The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The homeowner was not present. The property is on the north side of Weston Drive and has frontages on both Weston and Aric Lane. Both Weston and Aric are public cul-de-sacs that serve more than eight residences. An off-road path connecting into Esther Clarke Park exits from the east end of Aric Lane. Weston has no off-road path connections. Although neither side of Aric Lane is ideal for a roadside path because of steep slopes and/or obstructing structures, the side of Aric Lane opposite this parcel is considered the preferred side for roadside pathways. That side is generally flatter and also, there is a retaining wall running along the Aric Lane frontage of this property within a few feet of the paved road. The side of Weston on which this parcel lies is considered the preferred side for a roadside pathway. In October 2011 the PWC recommended that the owners of 26480 Weston (across from this parcel) pay a pathway in -lieu fee because the opposite side has better topography for a path. Courtenay Fina1PWC_Min11-1212 3/21/12 TO RZ. 31'IRE NYOR/.NT_ TO R^NNN (N1 PERM.. iLE /iNhLKw AY INOIGATEe(NJ =ZnTE R ET.WALL-MAX.'-O' N L: 'Er:AYES WS f -I NOROIL EN6CVEERIN6 u I—OI TC6lEI TREE _ TOmC N -TTP. - O/S Easement 0 90-O REAR 6ETBAON L1NE - R` ),4 w �. Y Q ,_�IHCMGhTCS �hSEMENT L LM!-Ylp, �q \ 1-10 PA—" \ L'EPAGE-TTP. �itiDI:ATlE AG , PAD51@pUPMr@rggN L: 'Er:AYES WS f -I NOROIL EN6CVEERIN6 u I—OI TC6lEI TREE _ TOmC N -TTP. - O/S Easement 0 90-O REAR 6ETBAON L1NE - R` ),4 w �. Y FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org PLAN REVIEW Na. BLDG PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT Na. Attachment 7 11 3513 Proposed new 6,827 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 residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. 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. For buildings in excess of 6200 square feet, the (4) four most hydraulically demanding heads in a room or compartment shall be calculated. Fire Department Connection: For buildings in excess of 6200 square feet, a fire department connection (FDC) shall be provided. The FDC shall consist of at least one 2.5" hose connection that is connected to the sprinkler riser with a pipe not less than the diameter of thesprinkler riser. 8313.2 as adopted and amended by LAHTC and SCCFD SD&S SP -6 Clty PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR I CONST. TYPE V -B �Appffcantft a I Metro Design Group DATE 12/02/201 PAGE 1 OF 2 SEC/FLOOR 2 story + AREA see plans LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Construction PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM New Structure NAME OF PROJECT SFR - SHARP -HARRIS LOCATION 26958 Dezahara Wy Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2250 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 1 50L___j Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org REVIEW No. 11 3513 BLDG PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No. Comment #4: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water .purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such _requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not 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: DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS: Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill: 12 feet paved surface Los Altos and Los Altos Hills: 14 feet paved width Saratoga: 14 feet paved width with a two foot unpaved shoulder. VERTICAL CLEARANCE: The vertical clearance shall be in accordance with the Fire Code, 13 feet, 6 inches.GRADE: Maximum grade shall not exceed 157o (6.75 degrees). Exception: Grades up to 207o may be allowed by the Fire Chief provided an approved automatic fire sprinkler system is installed throughout the affected dwelling structure including attached garages. In no case shall the portion of driveway exceeding 157ogradient be longer than 300 feet in length. For loner driveways, there shall be at least 100 feet of -driveway at 15% or less gradient between each 300 -foot section at exceeds 157o. CFC Sec. 503 and SD&S D-1 Comment #6: Timing of Required Roadway Installations: Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of combustible construction. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building, permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads may be approved on a case by case basis. CFC Sec. 501 Comment #7: Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI -7. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be addressed 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 ® ❑ ® ❑ El OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B AppllcantName Metro Design Group DATE 12/02/201 PAGE 2 OF 2 SECIFLOOR 2 story + AREA see plans LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Construction PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM New Structure NAME OF PROJECT SFR - SHARP -HARRIS LOCATION 26958 Dezahara Wy Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2250 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW ® 20 PSI BY Harding, Doug L 50% 11500 Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, r— AG— r,,.. i_..F.... AF-- _ c.......... M..... - Liar __A C.-...--- C Attachment $ meyers I nave 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, California 94607 tel 510.808.2000 fax 510.444.1108 www.meyersnave.com MEMORAIVDUIM Steven Mattas Edward Grutzmacher Attorneys at Law smattas@meyersnave.com egrutzmacher@meyersnave.com DATE: April 26, 2012 TO: Brian Froelich, AICP Associate Planner FROM: Steve Mattas, 'I"own Attorney by Ed Grutzmacher RE: 26958 Dezahara Drive—Zoning Permits, Site Development Permits, and CC & Rs (questions Presented 1. What responsibility, if any, does the Town have .in assuring the CC&R's are considered in approving or denying the application? 2. Is the Town obligated to approve this project so long as it is compliant with Town development standards? Short Answers Question 1: The Town has no responsibility regarding the -CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are a private covenant between the parties to the CC&Rs that runs with the land. The Town is not a party to the CC&Rs and, therefore likely does not even have standing to enforce the CC&Rs. Moreover, nothing in the Town's code would allow the "Town to enforce such private covenants. (Question 2: No, the 'Town is not obligated to approve the project. The Town's Code provides discretion to the Planning Commission to determine whether the project complies with the "purposes" (Le. not just the specific development standards) of the Town Code and to deny the project. A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO To: Brian Froelich From: Steve Mattas by Edward Grutzmacher Re: 26958 Dezahara Drive --Zoning Permits, Site Development Permits, and CC & Rs Date: April 26, 2012 Page: 2 .An Wysis Question 1 The Town has no responsibility regarding the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are a private covenant between the parties to the CC&Rs that runs with the land. The Town is not a party to the CC&Rs and, therefore has no right, nor responsibility, to enforce the CC&Rs. Moreover, nothing in the Town's code would allow the Town to enforce such private covenants. In general, CC&Rs are private covenants that run with the land. (See e.g. B.C.E. Dei) P. Smith (1989) 215 Ca1.App.3d 1142, 1150. The interplay between zoning codes and CC&Rs has been a matter of interest to the courts for. sometime. As described in Longtins's California Land Use, second ed., section 10.54 "A restrictive covenant can be enforced to prevent a use or activity that a zoning ordinance permits. (Marlally v. Ojai Hotel C. (196 8) 266 Cal.App.2d 9; 12.) Conversely, a zoning ordinance can prohibit. that wlv.ch a restrictive covenant permits. (O'Rourke v. "Teeters (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 349.) Thus, as between zoning and restrictive covenants, the more restrictive can be enforced even though the less restrictive may permit it." Here, the Town Code reflects this Iong-standing distinction between private covenants and the zoning code. For example section 10-1.102 states that: "'The provisions of this chapter are not intended to repeal, abrogate, annul, or in any way impair or interfere with existing provisions of other laws, or with private restrictions placed upon property by covenant, deed, or other private agreement, or with restrictive covenants running with the land to which the Town is a part. Where the provisions of this chapter impose a greater restriction upon land, buildings, or structures than are imposed or required by such existing provisions of laws, covenants, contracts, or deeds, the provisions of this chapter shall control." Similarly, section 10-2.103 states that: A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO To: Brian Froelich From: Steve Mattas by Edward Grutzmacher Re: 26958 Dezahara Drive --Zoning Permits, Site Development Permits, and CC & Rs Date: April 26, 2012 Page: 3 "The standards of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to impair or interfere with any private restrictions placed upon property by covenant or deed; provided, however, where the provisions of this chapter impose higher standards or a greater restriction upon the development of land than are imposed or required by such private restrictions, the provisions of this chapter shall control." Read together, these code provisions mean that the Town does not intend to interfere with private covenant,, such as CC&Rs, except to the extent that such CC&Rs would allow for development that does not meet the minimum standards of the Town Code. Moreover, municipalities generally do not have an interest in enforcing these private covenants. In the few published cases in which,a municipality was involved in a lawsuit regarding the interpretation of CC& Rs, these suits came about because the City was a party to the CC&Rs in the first place. (See Kicheson V. Helal (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 268 (CC&Rs could not restrict City's police power to rezone the property); Dieckviger v. RedevelopmentAggencg of Huntington .Beach (2005) 127Cal.App.4th 248 (City enforcement of CC&Rs for affordable housing development); City of Oceanside v. McKenna (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1420 (City enforcement of CC&Rs for City -subsidized condominium project in City's redevelopment area). Likewise, here, the CC & Rs themselves contemplate only private enforcement. Clause XVIII of the CC & Rs states that: "The various restrictive measures and provisions of this Declaration are hereby declared to constitute mutual equitable covenants and servitudes for the protection and benefit of each property owner in said subdivision" and that "it shall be lawful for any person owning any lot, plot, or real property subject hereto to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate" the CC&Rs. Since the Town is not a party to these private covenants, the Town has no right nor responsibility to enforce these private covenants. Thus, here, the applicant's compliance with the Town Code is a matter for the Town to consider, but the A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO To: Brian Froelich From: Steve Mattas by Edward Grutzmacher Re: 26958 Dezahara Drive --Zoning Permits, Site Development Permits, and CC & Rs Date: April 26, 2012 Page: 4 right and responsibility to enforce the CC &Rs lies with the other parties to the CC&Rs, not the Town. uestion 2 The Town is not obligated to approve the project as it is submitted. The Town's Code sets maximum standards but provides the Planning Commission with the discretion to impose more stringent conditions in many areas including maximum development potential, height limitations, etc. The Town's Code provides discretion to the Planning Commission to determine whether the project complies with the "purposes" (i.e. not just the specific development standards) of the Town Code and to condition or potentially deny the project. There are two permits necessary for this project, both of which are provided for under the Town Code. First, is a "Zoning Permit" which is provided for under section 10-1.310 of the Town Code and second is a Site Development Permit under section 10-2.301 of the Town Code. With regards to the Zoning Permit, the Town Code allows the Planning Commission to place greater restrictions on a project than the minimum standards set out in the Code. For example, section 10- 1.502 concerns Development Area restrictions. Section 10-1.502(e) states that "(e) The standards set forth in this section for maximum development area (MDA) are maximum standards. The City Council and Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce development area where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include, but are not limited to, the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development, the potential for erosion, or high site visibility." Similar discretion to apply stricter standards is given in section 10-1.503(e) concerning floor area, section 10-1.5040 concerning height limitations, and section 10-1.505(e) concerning lot line setbacks The Site Development Permit, is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Town Code section 10-2.1305(c) specifically provides that A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO - SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO To: Brian Froelich From: Steve Mattas by Edward Grutzmacher Re: 26958 Dezahara Drive --Zoning Permits, Site Development Permits, and CC & Rs Date: April 26, 2012 Page: 5 "The Commission may issue a permit with such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter or the Planning Commission may disapprove the application for site development." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the Planning Commission has the authority to impose reasonable conditions necessary to achieve the "purposes" of the Town Code or to deny projects that don't meet with these purposes. Each of the development standards in the Town Code is proceeded by a purpose statement For example, the grading requirements are proceeded by the purpose statement: "It is the purpose of this article to minimize erosion, soil compaction, topsoil displacement, siltation of water courses, and other adverse effects of grading, including alteration of the steric qualities of the natural terrain. It is also the purpose of this article to insure that at the completion of the project, the visible alteration of the natural terrain be minimized." Similar purpose statements are included for: drainage and erosion control (10- 2.501); pathway dedication, maintenance, and improvement (10-2.601); building siting, view protection, ridgeline preservation and creek protection (10-2.701); landscaping (10-2.801); outdoor lighting (10-2.1001); driveways (10-2.1101); and road right-of-way dedication (10-2.1201). Thus, it is within the Planning Commission's discretion to find that a project does not comply with one or more of these purposes, even if the project otherwise meets the technical requirements of the Code. If the Planning Commission chooses to find that the project does not comply with the purposes of the Town Code, Staff requests that the Planning Commission articulate the reasons for this finding and direct staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution denying the project. 1827032 1874678.1 A PROFESSIONAL UAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO Untitled ' 02 5:29 AM From: Mary Telfer (telfer.mary@yahoo.com) To: kathy_newton@att.net; Attachment 9 Date: Mon, March 12, 2012 7:15:56 PM Cc: Okt@aolcom; rudLrosenblum@gmarl.com; Lshibuya@attnet; rossing@ccrma.St mfbrd.EDU; hdoscher@gmaicom; skcarse@aolcom; davy@sumzyside.com; marlinmler@gn-acorn; njelEottl4@hotm icon; theromes@worldnetattnet; alomaavery@yahoo.com; wasu&13@gmarlcom; c1=gckim@grm Lcom; terimoehbng@yahoo.com; jaishri@pacbelLnet; gitakasbani@aoLconq kens@cceeb.org; mhoffjr@aoLcom; davebern@stanford.edu; aw011@srmnyside.corn; byandsue22@aolcon; mark scheible@attnet; Hayleydit&r@yahoo.com; gamiebird@earthlink.net; plotkin@cs.stanfordedu; vssullivl3@gmailcom; Jbrnoehling@g=Lcom; tonyhanseder@yahoo.com; subina desai@yahoo.con4 dmilbken@accuray.com; yuRnf ngl@gmailconT, ETome@attnet; allegrapat@aolcom; nary@telfer.com; jobn1amacchia@gmaitcom; rsdimba@pacbelnet; brad@kashanis.com; judyrhofa yahoo.com; andy650@gmailcom; dmf408@yahoo.com; scban99@yahoo.con; jaishriramesh0l@gmaicom; kmichaela. subran@gmai con; Subject: Re: Meeting - Regarding Development on Lot 9 - 26958 Dezahaara Way Hi Neighbors, I am currently out of town until Monday the 19th so cannot make the meeting but wanted you to know my thougbts. I am defmitly against thembuUdbng a two story home. Thankyou, Mary Telfer Sent from my i?hone On Mar 12, 2012, at 7,04 PM, Kathryn Newton <ka _ne��attnet> wrote: Dear Neighbors: Lot #9 - 26958 Dezahara Way - was sold in September 2011. Story poles are now erected reflecting what the owners would like to build on the lot We do have CCRs that dictate what is possible. The Architectural Control Committee and the owner have been in contact with each other. The lot owner is not permitted to build anything more than a single story home without the unanimous, written consent of the ACC. They would like to build a 2 story home. In order to facilitate communication between the owners and the neighbors ... we would like to schedule an informational meeting this coming weekend. Please respond to show an interest in participating AND whether you are available Saturday afternoon or Sunday AM or PM. We will schedule the meeting to acoomodate the primary adjacent homeowners with priority. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission process ... etc is to follow. Page 1of2 Untitled Thanks, Kathy 3/24/12 529 AM Page 2 of 2 (� L/ intided +, 3/20/12 4:18 AM From: John Moebling Obmoehfmg@gmaRcon) To: kathy_newton@attnet; Date: Tue, March 13, 2012 529:01 AM A &qlo b ezE.J�a Wa,1 Cc: Okt@aoLcom; ruth.rosenblum@ginail.com; Lshibuya@attnet; rossmg@ccrma.stanford.edu; hdoscher@gmailcom; skcarse@aolcom; davy@suimyside.com; marlin.miller@gmail.com; mje1iottl4@1iotmrail.com; theromes@worldnetattnet; alomaavery@yahoo.com; wasulfivl3@gmailcom; clnmgckim@gmail.com; terimoebb3g@yahoo.com; jaishri@pacbelLnet; gitaka @aoLcom; kens@cceeb.org; mhofljr@aolcom, davebem@st mford.edu; aw011@sumyside.com; byandsue22@aoLcorn; mark scheible@att.net; Hayleyditzler@yahoo.com; gunniebad@earddink.net; plotkin@cs.stanford.edu; vssuHiv13@gmailcom; tonyhanseder@yahoo.conT, subina desai@yahoo.con; dmMiiken@accuray.com; yulirifangl@gmail.com; lizrome@attnet; ahlegrapat@aolcom; mary@telfer.com; johnlamaccbia@gmailconT, rsdimba@pacbelLnet; brad@kasbanis.com; judyrhofl yaboo.com; andy650@gmailcom; dmA08@yahoo.com; schan99@yahoo.com; jaisbriramesh0I@gmailcom; kmichaela.su han@gmail com; Subject: Re: Meeting - Regarding Development on Lot 9 - 26958 Dezabara Way We also will be out of town for the weekend. We too would be opposed to any house on the lot that exceeds one level Thanks. John Moehling On Monday, March 12, 2012, Kathryn Newton <kathy newton anatt.net> wrote: > Dear Neighbors: > Lot #9 - 26958 Dezahara Way - was sold in September 2011. Story poles are now erected reflecting what the owners would like to build on the lot We do have CCRs that dictate what is possible. The Architectural Control Committee and the owner have been in contact with each other. The lot owner is not permitted to build anything more than a single story home without the unanimous, written consent of the AC C. They would Ike to bind a 2 story home. > In order to facilitate communication between the owners and the neighbors ... we would Ike to schedule an informational meeting this coming weekend. Please respond to show an interest in participating AND whether you are available Saturday afternoon or Sunday AM or PM. We will schedule the meeting to accomodate the primary adjacent homeowners with priority. > It is my understanding that the Planning Commission process ... etc is to follow. > Thanks, > Kathy Page 1 of 2 IntMed 1-0- -� U 3/20/12 4:19,1M From: John LaMacchia. 0olmlamacchia@gmab.com) To: Jbmoehbng@gm icom, Date: Tae, March 13, 2012 1024:51 AM Cc: kathy_newton@attnet; Okt@aolcom; ruthrosenbhun@gmab.com;.Lsh�buya@att.net; rossing@ccrma.stanford.edu; hdoscher@gmail corn; skcarse@aolcom; davy@sunnyside.com; marlimmi ler@gmail.com; mjelliottl4@hotmiLcom; theromes@worldnet.atmnet; alomaavery@yaboo.com; wasullivl3@gmailcom; chungckim@gmail com; terimoehling@yahoo.cour, jaishri@pacbelLnet; gitakashani@aolcon3; kens@cceeb.org mhofljr@aoLcom; davebem@stanford.edu; aw011 @sumyside.com; byandsue22@aoLcom; mark scheible@attnet; Bayleyditder@yahoo.com; gunniebird@earthlink.net; pbtk' a@cs.stanford.edu; vssulfivl3@gmab.com; tonyhanseder@yahoo.com; subina desai@yahoo.com; dndken@accuray.com; yubnfangl@gma>ticom; lizrome@attnet; allegrapat@aolcom; mary@teYer.com; rsdimba@pacbelLnet; brad@kashanis.com; judyrho fa yahoo.conT, andy650@gmaicom; dmf408@yahoo.com; schan99@yahoo.com; jaishriramesh0l@gm icom; kmichaela.sullivan@grmi.corn; Subject: Re: Meeting - Regarding Development on Lot 9 - 26958 Dezahara Way Kathy, Betsy and I wbl me out oftown but are most interested in the meeting. We are opposed to violations of our neighborhood agreements. John Sent from my iPad On Mar 13, 2012, at 829 AM, John Moehl'mg <111moehling@grmilcom> wrote: We also will be out of town for the weekend. We too would be opposed to any house on the lot that exceeds one level Thanks. John Moehl ng On Monday, March 12, 2012, Kathryn Newton <kgft newtonattnet> wrote: > Dear Neighbors: > Lot #9 - 26958 Dezahara Way - was sold in September 2011. Story poles are now erected reflecting what the owners would hike to bufld on the lot. We do have CCRs that dictate what is possible. The Architectural Control Committee and the owner have been in contact with each other. The lot owner is not perinrtted to bwld anything more than a single story home wkbout the unanimous, written consent of the ACC. They would like to build a 2 story home. 0 Page 1 of 2 hrtiUed > In order to facitate comaulication between the owners and the neighbors ... we would like to schedule an informational meeting this coming weekend. Please respond to show an interest in participating AND whether you are available Saturday a$emoon or Sunday AM or PM. We wM schedule the meeting to accomodate the primary adjacent homeowners with priority. > It is my understanding that the Planning Commission process ... etc is to follow. > Thanks, > Kathy 3/20/12 4:19 AM Page 2 of 2 ROSE HILL ESTATES PLOT MAP OFFICE OF COUNTY A88E880p BANTA OLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Bow 182 45 a,. ROAD u AoO a� LAc 07 Ae. �, 1.10 Ac. " Z6 1ZA`.: 21 000 L / 1,46 Ac / ° /BC' _ tri -- 1.OD Ae. /it \`Oa, W. _.._.RQ 2l — 100 Ag. • + 1.00 A1. ► L01 Ac. i' 1.01 AAr. I i¢ tow 9 •, •, vc"PG' • pBZAHARA # aww WAY y .� �� .` 127Aa. / # 1 � 2a�al�. •� 191�fe 174Ae. 623Ae 111 am go so uxaarce e, sroe¢ — AS9E�i0R CoaaUd ero la awlnrrl qas� anCx �MIe11M Rd YDiorAlxOfp.Iq lee. 317. Neighbors: Approve 1 story only David and Anne Bernstein 26996 Dezahara Way Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, USA Telephone: 1-650-948-1479 Email: 2runab(a,Qmail.com March 21, 2012 RECEIVED MAR 21 2012 Debbie Pedro Brian Froehlich TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS LAH Planners Re: Fast Track hearing for 26958 Dezahara Way Dear Ms. Pedro and Mr. Froehlich: I wish to voice great concern about the appropriateness of having the Planning Commission (PC) meeting on a fast track and propose a more thoughtful pace. Mr. Pfefferbaum has urged me to make this request but is unable to be here because of a family medical appointment. Our homes are probably two of the most strongly impacted by the proposed construction. The main reason for this request is our inability to arrange a serious discussion with Mr. Sharp prior to the PC meeting. To date we have not had a single meeting with him. We understand that Mr. Sharp told you that he had met with the subdivision's Architectural Control Committee (ACC) and that they approved the project. It is our understanding that he only spoke with one member of the ACC, the other members were not consulted, he did not have construction plans (only a sketch), we have seen no written approval although we have requested it, the "meeting" with the ACC was several months ago (possibly August), but we were not informed before or after. I know that no member of the ACC entered my house at any time (before last Saturday) to view the sight from here. Mr. Sharp has spoken to me by phone a few times over the months to assure me that he wanted to be as cooperative as possible, but he never mentioned his meeting with the one member of the ACC. After receiving the Fast Track notice and seeing the story poles, several of the neighbors scheduled a meeting (March 17) to meet with Mr. Sharp. The time of the meeting was set to fit his schedule. Members of six families were at the meeting. On March 16 Mr. Sharp cancelled his attendance (travel reasons) and sent his contractor, Mr. Shokralla. He showed us the house plans, but his only response to substantive questions was that he couldn't speak for Sharp. Mr. Sharp is still out of town, and in spite of Shokralla's report to him, has made no effort to contact any of us to my knowledge. It is virtually impossible for us to have our first substantive meeting with him before the PC meeting scheduled for March 27. I don't believe that it would be productive, let alone fair, to have the first substantive meeting with Mr. Sharp at the PC meeting. I wish to strongly suggest that the Fast Track decision be withdrawn so that the other residents have a chance to discuss our concerns with him. Mr. Shokralla treated our concerns as worthy of discussion, but as I said, could not speak for Mr. Sharp. Sincerely, David Bernstein (26996 Dezahara) Cc: Dolf Pfefferbaum Other residents David and Anne Bernstein 26996 Dezahara Way Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, USA Telephone: 1-650-948-1479 Email: grunabt),gmail.com March 24, 2012 Brian Froelich Debbie Padro Planning Department Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Avenue Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Dear Mr. Froelich and Ms. Padro: RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2012 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS This letter (and attached material) relate to the planning meeting scheduled for March 27 about the proposed construction at 26958 Dezahara Way. The story poles went up around March 7±. We took this as the start of a process for residents to view the outline of the house and communicate with each other, the owners, the Architectural Control Committee (ACC, the control committee set up by the Rosehill subdivision CC&R), and the Town of LAH's planning staff. There are two major, and related, issues of concern to us: (1) The request of the owners to build a two-story house. (2) The substantial blockage of our view. These are both issues that the ACC should review. Based on the LAH criteria, the obstruction of the view is also an issue for the Town. We believe that you have been provided photographs taken from our house and deck. As of today the members of the ACC have not all looked at our view. Nor has the ACC sent us any notification or minutes (which residents have requested) relating to the 2 -story issue. We therefore consider the issuance of any permit to be premature. We will be out of the country from April 23 through May 11. We would appreciate timely notice of any relevant meetings so that we can prepare written input and/or have someone represent us. S incer ly, David Bernstein Anne Bernstein CC: Dolf Pfefferbaum 'Brian Froelich From: Okt@aol.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 5:51 PM To: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich Cc: kathy_newton@att.net; mark _scheible@att.net; dolf@synapse.sri.com; ruth.rosenblum@gmail.com; grunab@gmail.com; gunniebird@earthlink.net; byandsue22 @aol.com; Byron.Miller@xenoport.com; I.shibuya@att.net; hayleyditzler@yahoo.com; bserventi@gmail.com; schan99@yahoo.com; dpfefferbaum@gmail.com; pdserventi@gmail.com; lisa.serventi@gmail.com Subject: FastTrack Public Hearing on March 27 for 26958 Dezahara Way To: Debbie Pedro, Town Planning Director Brian Froelich, Town Associate Planner ddpedro a( -losaltoshills.ca.gov bfroelich(d-)losaltoshills. ca. gov Re: Proposed home on Lot 9 - 26958 Dezahara Way, Rose Hill Estates, Los Altos Hills Owners Edward Sharp and Odette Hams Bob and I are neighbors and are not able to attend the FastTrack Public Hearing on March 27. We would like to add input to the proposed home at 26958 Dezahara Way. The CC&Rs for Rose Hill Estates limit a home on this property to 1 story. Unanimous Architectural Control Committee (ACC) approval is required to allow building a 2 story home on this site - this approval has not been received. We support a 1 story home (specifically, 1 story at the front of the lot), with placement of the home to take into consideration neighbor's privacy and views. Per Los Altos Hills Town Zoning Ordinances and the General Plan: Goal IV: Design for Your Needs, the Needs of the Town and Those of Your Neighbors Philosophy C. Design to be neighbor friendly 1. Respect your neighbor's privacy and views. Avoid locating your house too close to your neighbors or their private outdoor or indoor living areas. Landscape in such a way to minimize obstructing off site views. Based on the placement of the house on the lot, lack of neighbor view considerations, and lack of ACC approval - the proposed house does not meet Fast Track criteria. We hope our new neighbors will take these factors into consideration and submit a revised plan to the town for review. Sincerely, Katy and Bob Serventi 26884 Dezahara Way Adolf Pfefferbaum and Ruth Rosenblum 26911 Dezahara Way Los Altos Hi I Is, CA 94022 March 25, 2012 Brian Froelich and Debbie Padro Planning Department Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Avenue Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: 26958 Dezahara Way Dear Mr. Froelich and Ms. Padro, We write to strongly object to Fast Track approval of the proposed construction of a multi -story home at 26958 Dezahara Way (the "Parcel"). We have only recently been made aware of this construction, when the story poles were erected two weeks ago, and we have now learned that the owner and builder are seeking Fast Track approval for this construction. Because the proposed home does not comply with the Fast Track Guide or the Rose Hill Estates Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&R" ), and because any statements to the Planning Department by the owner that there has been approval is a misrepresentation by the Parcel owner, we request that you deny the Fast Track application. Contrary to the Fast Track approval guide, that urges communication and cooperation between the proposed builder and neighbors, we have not been provided with copies of the plans — despite the fact that our home is the most significantly and negatively impacted by the proposed development. Indeed, we scheduled and attended a meeting of neighbors (which was timed to accommodate the owner of the Parcel) yet the owner failed to attend. The contractor who appeared in his place stated that he would email the plans to us but has never done so. Nonetheless, the story poles clearly demonstrate that the house to be built will have a profoundly detrimental effect on the view from our home (see attached photographs) and I informed the contractor representing the owner of my objection to the plans. Violations of the Fast Track Guide The plans appear to violate several requirements of the Fast Track Guide for New Residents for the following scoring elements: "A.3 On a sloping site, the structure should be stepped down the hill utilizing one story building elements. " 1"` 1 Minimize obstruction of on and off site views by considerate placement of structures." 1✓? The appearance of a stacked three story facade should be avoided. When building on a sloped lot, stepping with the hillside is strongly encouraged." "C.1 Respect your neighbor's privacy and views." Page 18 of the Guide is more explicit: "Goal R: Design Your Home to Fit the Site and to be Unobtrusive in the Neighborhood Philosophy B. Carefully site the house on the lot. 1. Minimize obstruction of on and off site views by the considerate placement of structures. Site structures to minimize adverse visual impacts when viewed from off the site. Prevent the obstruction of views of adjacent property owners by structures. Consider the future height of trees and shrubs, so that you and your neighbor's views on and off site will not become obstructed." The proposed construction clearly is the "Less Desirable" of the two plans on page 18. Dewable t L69S D@dranrL1- f' i VIEW -;fes :} + In the absence of formal plans, we are not in position to evaluate other matters of compliance. However, it is our understanding the Planning Department will ensure compliance with the height restrictions and slope density requirements that the story poles suggest are being violated. See p. 5-6. Violations of the CC&Rs While we recognize that the Planning Department is not the relevant enforcement body for the CC&Rs, we believe that failure of the proposed construction to comply with the applicable CC&Rs or to take into account the obstruction of views by neighbors is indicative of the owner's lack of good faith and should be taken into consideration when denying Fast Track application. The CC&Rs unequivocally state that a home in excess of one story may not be constructed without "the unanimous approval of the Architectural Control Committee (ACC)." The ACC has not granted this approval. Any representation by the Parcel owner to the contrary may be an innocent misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation to the Planning Department. In either case, it is not accurate. In addition to the multi -story restrictions, the CC&Rs strongly protect existing views: "no ... obstruction of any kind shall be ... erected, or maintained on any lot in such a manner as to unreasonably obstruct or interfere with the view obtained from the ... principal residence of any other lot ..." It is our position that the proposed home "unreasonably obstructs [and] interfere[s]" with the views from our home — a position which the attached photos clearly support. In summary, we request that the planning support the view mandates of the Rose Hill Estates CC&Rs, uphold the content and spirit of the Town's guidelines, and reject the Fast Track application for the plans depicted by the story poles. Sincerely, k6q�� Adolf Pfefferbaum Ruth Rosenblum a t ' � wr 1 .: � ?� ,.,+.c x.+•+.t�r,. r� � �[Cs'"y R � �',dB,.twyl�,3 argwawr�+ �.. .c,.�.ye.._w...'.ras,,:sw 5A g �•�. fir" 'a•�. ^e�^� � �i"•5.,..:� t' ..+; w .4 r �".h-; y,'� '- �- 'i• fi �• I is WITA 1 to �' ^... Ky , . IrxtiA� k r N t't' VV l'x3' jt�]icy` 47 'ff qty iiiiyl y k j 1 t ,4:Z Y��- a 9�,e >♦'1 •.�L1 �5�i,y` .. attyyy]y., °, �4't4;. h r , ''j A,�,t 7��et� a x[r £ ,' ? w , i att ;{•' mat ` t. - �, 'ld � ' k a.F'< 4a. x[y.%O. 4r � "�' �'. �S,n fr�.`N$i5.�t`, t�7^�7•„r'lT, � S.t 4 tl� ,a L`S I f `': �+ rt t'{- it :• u � �. ..} P '� ;�+^i aB�t4'ytk�+.��' i�`. t Tr 'Lk �'`.'/4 �If � -,t7�` 3 •,L' �f+,,� ;S�t��.t+�t�t.. 'r}��a��`,�,�4t • '� �i^,, ��jl '�;''�' � } ��! 'is-� v � �},j ,�!��` '44wI' S F a A 1^7 } •�?"a+Kt� �'r"�'�'! hay 4 �"1 !� °a, y,�rar ` t „a; .,�r 1 a j •'00- . Px �•� p ) tcR. ,t 3 -� �k ,{ �.. '_, �� ♦w%, 'y `` i Fs '�y(,FS�, !'x4 p'{y 4i(� r.7i•r 1, F { aq, \ ` tt•,�`, Q j..^�•+�• ~e 1 -}R {R' 3 = '`h R jl�y�v¢x r {:s4s.� Wi ;fit 5 �f { aysr(( J6e' J `t ... - .,� �-.°tit �� Fl C+_ �� i� i�j}a,` "'• {j�.: r? i _ R ` �r, A.' �."� F: M<3.: •+,r• 3 � t�t� �i, gyp. t,� ,^fi �� { � �S 1 efi¢P' � � .? - �Y "'iiia ` �a �t �, .. t - , � '`•*�� '�3t�� ,�. L # +� tom* + ";a•+t'� k tr?''.'s �yi t•`"j""}°y, -iy�y xet�_•� ;I �}t tr4 �y 4 °@$ -ti�x� t�,Ft � � +��y �e.'q.p? .j`1 \' � ' � 4)3. � "'^.��K'N 'hi•t ' F / kti,M 'f` F' `rte itr rlh c, ``� NY. l 4$ tq iv �� ,w, t J � Ir r i t • n�F x"_, UlmUlm�1�, ' W i� ` z5twh} , k �v a 9Y } '�+' �'+ �'.• A .._.ay'r-fi •,r�a.t %' i, t .X'°�4 — -t, };.,+� {4p � � .!z<,t i ,;rr+ 7 +��,, 1 a ., rdw t r t ). "r 1 •+ ^"' q ,K a W ��'IJ ri kY t ! � �''" '. r x a ;• 4 rF Y�t�:�# tir I ,! � �•' �.t.. � + t �RYt+ y vaw� a' r 1 it { y iJ t¢J , n t .,v { +S s! trr• �., �` r uy, a, M t. '\.., ,� t-^ 3 . ll �' ••; l alt * e F tY ,: i Y 1{r +n w.,•r t ` '4 `�°, 1 % t }tF '8t : . i , � _d � •a•`'!��\ 4 �1`i,r .Y in{� f it L4^ t TL ),*E. pyb. F }} ^ T' li' r "AIM )a FIA/ � tt t a # •F tY.y �yf a I i. a � !' �`Wpe'�q�+ * � r'6iht i A d Jt ' eii i6*75W}�/+' t t S.Y e 5 d i t ,Y r z,w yriAd'F tf§+° 4M Y••iyS?e 1'{.1 #(R x \ y �4 '. y k t� h S,sF..,, �'. II�' +I { 54 MA • t�'ta� � '��t� I��l,ji•�,iAtt� �j ��, � t."�,i�� Rig r, 1t�. �r€�`' t d •� t +Zw� � J° M a "• f � n } '!n} Rti 3 i n- T�aykRrf�.,�d 4 } '3 3�f,� d`2 a'k r f '.in i, iey - S �1t,�i .rte+.•.^ is{ :: ( , W. h tir'a F ' ix 5• ; f �, ' 3x f; ' 314 4 )° �, !a t} , FF 8tS y }�� r��tl i�Y�.f 1 -,�}� iid q! t^' iy � 1 `g'ty �,��' ',�`"`k �; �'�`' � 4' �r +�t•_ 1 n� ! �- ,rrt t " tRu+ IAK•,+/)f J 1J,.,y x t e)P„f. h 8�.srT� �' r7a•Z h '�2` .' {' 114 1 ¢¢ t jh) r atm r �� t ! { a{ }• _� t r t ri' ' 1 tR 1�k# Gai •, '-�t�.�`�n �1 �'v} '(i"eS•h�iiy��('"t)ft `� `� ?�} rix i ,� �� 1{ ,� rt• i. tit it f •, � � �' 4%v } t '!i � � �r ,t{+.a.�1� � � •'+4 �� +.�> t� �� Idn 9'p{ ,v � a,i ftp �, ' y •� t. � r �ti y5(.!' c 1,trt�,. t'.. 9+-i+ .y r e k•.�.� � y i,{ � ;.t,� �' � X ,j : .2 �. *1 � � 'a `111m, �{ ,\b�n 1.Yya}�7L�.xtNyte�rh' Atia(N i{i c? 1• g t� t^k +f, } `, -�.-,So �-da,!�t �"'', fi} t n$•+r r ``" v . t !;.. ,: 4e' �s6Sn#�rl�;Y,'r '. t t �� 3 .�1,• � `' , 4f id had`r' j {P3S fi tr f�dO i j'`3s t a 4 c T.- �, )yt .e y ,. �E iw ..•• ,� "a. s x7't+� i j .(qe. i. t 4 sf t7�y'r i""a Ya pHr E � q� Utk .2. yxx^- -»•:F ) "4 ' i xr2{Ety>r�VH�s4rll b pg AI�law • •.;u?f <t''.H11 1.ir'�i �t''dl�•Y'tz�iCfW f3��' ;s .r��',.y t xm ry. -.', E- r+'�`r;t �. x�-,. :ra-• !: i''' �� . ii t ^N•,?+.I 2 r' xa ,:tri �� i e � !J � � � r � �1, t j . , 3. , •4"`it�52' qk ' ">t`�k'�''�'. tyA'�jA ��)7 i�a�J�fjS iy n yn�� f •�,rF P^^Yhtt �_. }.?Fi� �A}aM1`��'k�` �3� 'n r�','-. '�� 4z _�d�. �d+/'Yyi ��.: I t1 i?- y�' � ,r•{i " i�`Vii: ��y�+ �ia1•� io��,tas�ti4±�f,ji t .dr.21'� h... °•� �, -r:l , � 1 ._ rt, ,%- 37! �� l� ��• �1� ' � �i ;.s +�. March 26, 2012 Brian Froelich Associate Planner Los Altos Hills Planning Department 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: 26958 Dezahara Way; File #283-11-ZP-SD-GD Dear Brian; I write concerning the proposed development of the parcel at 26958 Dezahara Way, Los Altos Hills, California (the "Parcel"). I live immediately adjacent to the Parcel. A silhouette (i.e., story poles) of the proposed new home was erected on or about March 8, 2012 providing the first opportunity to assess the visual impact of the proposed new home and its effect on the views from my home and surrounding homes. In addition, a meeting of the adjacent neighbors and the Parcel owner's contractor, Shad Shokralla, was held on March 17, 2012. At that meeting, Mr. Shokralla showed written plans (the "Plans") and architectural drawings (the "Drawings") of the proposed home to the neighbors. The proposed home lies in the westerly view from my residence and has a substantial effect on that view. In addition, the proposed home lies in the southerly view from Ruth and Adolph Pfefferbaum's residence, which is situated Across the street from the Parcel, and the proposed home has a substantial effect on the Pfefferbaum's views. Further, the proposed home lies in the easterly view from Anne and David Bernstein's residence, which is situated adjacent to the Parcel, and the proposed home has a substantial effect on the Bernstein's views. I believe the proposed new home is (i) in direct violation of certain provisions of the Los Altos Hills, California Municipal Code (the "Code"), and (ii) in direct conflict with the spirit and intent of other Code provisions. Siting and Construction Code Violations first draw your attention to Title 10, Chapter 2, Article 7 of the Code, and in particular those sections dealing with the siting and. construction of houses on ridgelines and hilltops. The top portions of the .Parcel are in fact a shoulder of a hillside. This shoulder commands impressive southerly views to the valley below. The Parcel should be treated as a ridgeline or hilltop since it shares many features in common with hilltops and ridgelines, including views from the property -1- and views to/of the property from the surrounding lands, and not just from.the immediately adjacent lots. Section 10-2.701 of the Code states that, "The purposes of this article are to insure that the site, location and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from off-site; that scenic views are -retained; that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape; that ridgelines and hilltops are preserved..." Section 10-2.702 further provides that, "Single story buildings... may be required on hilltops and ridgelines" and that, -"Structures may be located on ridgelines or hilltops only when they can be rendered unobtrusive [through techniques such as] the use of a low -profile house [and] the use of exterior roofing materials and colors that blend with the natural landscape." The Plans and Drawings show that the proposed house is three levels high, with each level providing between 8' and 12' of interior ceiling height, with the top two levels having the highest ceiling height being completely above grade. The proposed house includes a theater, a pool and a structure adjacent to the pool. The proposed house has more than 5000 If of interior living space and has solar panels covering substantial portions of the roof.. All of the above -listed features appear to be in direct conflict with the letter, intent and spirit of the Code. The Code provides that structures may be located on ridgelines and hilltops only when they can be rendered unobtrusive. A 3 -level, 5000+ ftz house with higher than standard ceiling heights is not "unobtrusive" as is, required by the Code. Neither is it "low profile" as required by the Code. The solar panels covering the roof will, I presume, be colored black. Black roof panels, and the "science experiment" appearance that solar panels provide, is not in keeping with- "the use of exterior roofing materials and colors that blend with the natural landscape", as required by the Code. Purissima Creek Waterway Code Violations The southern boundary of the Parcel runs along the uppermost portions of the west fork of Purisima Creek. Purisima Creek's source is at the top of the west fork, located between Dezahara Way and Altamont Road. The local realtors map' shows the source of the west fork at 27022 Dezahara Way, just a few steps west of the Parcel. I have lived next-door to the Parcel since early 1998, so I have seen the property over.the changing seasons of 15 years. With this background in mind, the Parcel has several springs which create significant surface water runoff in at least the -wetter of our rainy seasons. This winter, at least in relationship to the previous 14 years, has been a very dry one. To date, we have had only a fraction of our "normal" annual rainfall. - However, in wetter years, there is significant surface water runoff from these springs, down the slope of the central portion of the Parcel and into the west fork of Purisima Creek. The largest of these springs is located approximately in the middle of the Parcel. The outline of this spring could be easily seen, at least over this past weekend, by the 1 Barclay's Northwest Santa Clara County Realtor's Area Map -2- region of taller grasses currently growing where the spring waters surface. The uphill edge of the spring appears to be about 20 to 25 ft from the downhill side of the proposed house. From the blue tape outline showing the location of the. proposed home's swimming pool, and from looking at the Plans and Drawings last weekend, it appears that the Plans call for a structure of some kind immediately on.top of this large spring. Section 10-2.702(e) of the Code, entitled "Creek Protection", provides that, "Structures shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the top of the'bank of all creeks... Creeks and banks shall be protected so as to remain in their natural state as much as possible. They should not be disturbed by the . building or grading process. No grading shall be allowed in creeks or within the required setbacks from top of bank." While it is likely the Los Altos Hills Town Planning Commission (the "Commission") has considered the location and setbacks from the main channel of the west fork of Purisima Creek, it is also likely they have not had a chance to view the water runoff during a relatively wet rainy season from the large spring in the center of the Parcel, down the slope and into the creek. This seasonal surface water runoff phenomenon should itself be considered a "waterway". for planning, siting and building purposes, and therefore subject to its own setback requirements. Accordingly, at least portions of the proposed construction, and perhaps even the main house, do not comply with the minimum 25 foot waterways setback requirement. Because the entire Parcel provides a substantial contribution to the source waters of Purisima Creek, the Commission will need to carefully analyze and consider the potential effects of building on the Parcel and the diversion of water out of the Creek's watershed and into the municipal storm drain systems, before granting permission to build. If it is determined that a major diminution of creek water flow will result from the- proposed construction, then the Commission will also need to consider the potential impact on wildlife before granting permission to build. If the Commission is unable to accurately estimate the volume of surface water runoff in a very wet rainy season, the Commission may have to postpone making a decision until we are next in an EI Nino type rainy season. Inconsistencies with the Spirit and .Intent of View Preservation Code Provisions Title 5, chapter 8 of the Code contains provisions relating to the obstruction of views and sunlight from landscaping, e.g., trees. Section 5-8.03 and 8.04 of the Code provide that, "Persons shall have the right to preserve views or sunlight... when such views or sunlight are from the primary living area and have 2 My recollection of the Plans and Drawings is not exact. I do recall that the plans call for at least a structure encompassing a covered patio with a barbeque kitchen, but it could have also been showing a pool house. -3- subsequently been unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees... No person shall plant, maintain, or permit to grow any tree which unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area of any other parcel of property within the Town of Los Altos Hills." At the outset, I would emphasize that the provisions of Title 5, chapter 8 relate to landscaping and not to buildings. However, given that the Parcel owners will want to plant trees that provide shade, privacy and beauty to the Parcel, -and that such trees will likely grow to a height at least as tall as the proposed house, if only to provide privacy from adjacent neighbors, it is logical to think about such future landscaping and whether or not it would be permissible under Title 5, chapter 8, and if not, then to consider why a building that presents a similar view obstruction should logically be considered any differently from the hypothetical landscaping. My house has a single west facing window'composed of clear glass. That window provides the only sunset views from our home. The story poles. are now in a slightly -south -of -due -west direction from that window. So for much of the Fall, Winter and Spring months, the proposed home directly blocks my only views of the setting sun. The fact that the proposed house would sit at a location substantially uphill from my house only magnifies the effects of an already very tall, 3 -level proposed. structure. If the Parcel owners were to plant a line of trees in the same location as the story poles, which. trees grew to the exact height of the story poles, then those trees would be a violation of section 5-8.04 of the Code since the trees would completely block my only view of the western sunset viewable from the primary living area of my residence. So if the Parcel owners wouldn't be permitted to grow view -blocking trees the size of the story poles, then they shouldn't be allowed to build a proposed house that. has the same view -blocking effect. Fast -Track Review Process I understand from the notice dated March 16, 2012 from the Los Altos -Hills Planning Director, the Commission's review of the Parcel is on a "fast-track" basis. Title 10, chapter 2, article 13 of the Code describes the conditions which must be met for the Commission to conduct a "fast-track" review of a site development plan. Section 10-2.1305.1 of the Code states that, 'The Planning Director may fast-track any site development application for a project specified for... review... subject to the Planning Director's determination that: (1) The project conforms to the Town's... Site Development Codes ... and subdivision conditions..." As described earlier herein, the plans for the proposed home do not conform to the town's site development codes, and for this reason alone, cannot be subject -4- W to fast-track review. In addition, because the proposed house has more than a single story, certain conditions, covenants and restrictions (the "CC&Rs") that run with the Parcel apply. Clause I of the CC&Rs states, "No buildings other than one, one story detached, single-family private residence... shall be erected or maintained on any lot or plot in this subdivision...A residence of more than one. story may be allowed on Lots 1 to 13, inclusive 3 ... only upon the unanimous approval of the Architectural Control Committee." I have spoken to two of the three Architectural Control Committee (the "ACC") members within the last ten days and each told me that they had not yet given their approval of the proposed Plans to the.owners of the Parcel. Thus to the best of my knowledge and belief, the owners do not yet have approval from the ACC to build a home having more than a single story. Until the owners have received unanimous approval from the ACC, the proposed home does not conform to "subdivision conditions", and therefore is not entitled to fast-track review. Summary The propose home is in clear violation of at least several of the Code provisions relating to siting and building. The proposed home is also in clear violation of Code provisions protecting waterways. from development activities. The proposed home appears to be in conflict with the spirit and intent of Code provisions protecting neighboring views. In addition, the proposed home does not qualify for fast-track review. Accordingly, the proposed Plans and Drawing should be rejected as being non -conforming and in clear violation of the Code. Addendum The houses in the Dezahara Way neighborhood are unusual compared to many houses today in Los Altos Hills. The Rose Hill Estates subdivision was established in the late 1960s and many of the current residents are either the original home owners, and/or have lived there.from the early to mid-1970s. Although a little bit of a generalization, our neighborhood is a modest enclave in an increasingly affluent and ostentatious community. My own home, which is typical in size for the neighborhood, has -less than one-half the square footage of the proposed home. All of the existing homes are single story, except for those built on more steeply sloped lots, which houses have a single story on the uphill side and 1 % to 2 stories on the downhill side. None of the- houses have three levels and most have only one. The proposed house has seriously upset certain neighbors, particularly as it affects their views and the potential reduction in the value of their homes. The primary issues are the size and height of the proposed home and the number of stories. 3 The Parcel is lot #9 in the Rose Hill Estates subdivision. -5- I have read Edward Sharp's letter to the Commission dated October 18, 2011. In that letter Mr. Sharp states, We submitted our initial plans to the three members of the [architectural control] committee in August [2011], and followed up with a phone call to each of them. The feedback has been positive..." At the neighborhood meeting with Mr. Shokralla on March 17, at least one of the committee members told me that they had never seen any plans of the proposed house until that day. The Commission should not presume that the committee has given its unanimous approval to Mr. Sharp for the proposed house design, as is required by the Rose Hill Estates CC&Rs that run with the Parcel. Sincerely, D. Byro iller 26922 Dezahara Way Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 cc: Bernsteins Pfefferbaums -6- Letter Sent: Certified Return Receipt March 27, 2012 Mr. Ed Sharp and Ms. Odette Harris 12012 Adobe Creek Lodge Road Los Altos Hills, 94022-4340 Ms. Debbie Pedro Planning Director, AICP -Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022-2624 NAR 2 8 2012 TOWN OFLOS gTOSHI LtS Subject: Rose Hill Estates —Architectural Control Committee Minutes —March 24, 2012 Please find enclosed the minutes of the Architectural Control Committee [ACC] for the meeting held on Saturday— March 24, 2012. They are being sent to you as action was taken regarding the project located at Rose Hill Estates - Lot 9 — 26958 Dezahara Way, Los Altos Hills, California. Thank you. Architectural Control Committee Members Cc: Brian Froelich — Associate Planner—Town of Los Altos Hills Dave and Ann Berstein Steve Chan Hayley Ditzler Byron and Susan Miller John and Terry Moehling Dolf and Ruth Pfefferbaum Rose Hill Estates - Architectural Control Committee Meeting MINUTES — March 24 2012 A meeting of the Architectural Control Committee [ACC] was convened on Saturday — March 24, 2012 at 3:20 PM at the home of Mare Shibuya - 26982 Dezahara Way, Los Altos Hills, CA. Present at the meeting were Committee Members — Mare Shibuya and Kathy Newton Scheible. Also present was Greg Hyver— proposed replacement for Hayley Ditzler. Actions taken at the meeting: 1. Acceptance of the resignation of Member Hayley Ditzler due to the significant illness of her husband. Action: Approved — Scheible and Shibuya. 2. Selection of Replacement Member to fill the vacancy of Hayley Ditzler. Greg Hyver long-time resident of Rose Hill Estates was proposed to backfill the vacancy. Greg was proposed by Mare Shibuya and interviewed by Kathy Newton Scheible on Wednesday - March 21, 2012. Action: Approved — Scheible and Shibuya. 3. Status — Sharp/Harris Proiect — 26958 Dezahara Way — Lot 9 Observations/In puts: a. Architectural renderings were provided by the owners to the ACC Members in August 2011. b. Since that time no additional information has been received. C. CCRs - Clause I -Limits to 1 story - house on the lot unless unanimous, written approval of the ACC Members is obtained. Then a residence of more than 1 story is permissible. d. CCRs - Clause XIV — Requires building plans and specifications be submitted to the ACC in order for the ACC to conduct its due diligence on any proposed construction and consider all factors — including but not limited to view preservation in the neighborhood. Thereafter a determination is rendered — and the project is approved or disapproved. e. Story poles were erected on the property on or about March 8/9 — 2012. The neighborhood became aware of what was being proposed. f. Since the story poles were erected — communication from the neighbors has been received including 2 complaints alleging view obstruction, opposition to more than a single story, and opposition to anything that does not follow our CCRs that bind all neighbors contractually. g. A public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday — March 27, 2012 with Planning Director Debbie Pedro. This would permit the Sharp/Harris project to proceed on the Town's Fast Track process. h. The ACC wishes to convey its position on the project in order to express itself as an element of the public hearing process and communicate with the neighbors of Rose Hill Estates. At the same time — acknowledges Sharp/Harris have not complied with the requirements of the CCRs. Therefore there is no formal determination possible. 1 4. ACTION: Sharp/Harris Project — 25958 Dezahara Way Lot 9 a. UNANIMOUS DISAPPROVAL - Hyver, Scheible, Shibuya. The home as presently designed and placed on the lot is disapproved for the above stated points. b. The ACC continues to be open to considering development plans for the site: • that comply with the CCRs ; • that reflect the design values outlined in the Fast Track process as desirable [pages 17-23]; • that incorporate existing neighbor view and privacy considerations into the design outcome; and • that complement the character of the existing neighborhood - single story at street level with the second story built into the downhill slope. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 PM. Respectfully Submitted: Mare Shibuya — Chair 0• Greg Hyver - Member C�1;44 .1 Kathy Newton Scheible - Member 7 Brian Froelich From: David Bernstein [grunab@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:16 PM To: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich Cc: dolf@synapse.sri.com; byron.miller@xenoport.com Subject: fast track decision Dear Ms. Pedro and Mr. Froelich: We still believe that the decision to approve Fast Track for the Sharp/Harris plans not only violates the Town's Code (as pointed out by Dan Pfefferbaum and Byron Miller), but it defies logic. When there are so many neighbors who are adversely affected, the ACC is unanimously against the current 2- storey design, and the October letter of Mr. Sharp to the Town is based neither on the required written approval or the opinions of the ACC/neighbors, the checklist of points does not reflect the actual situation and appears to have been made in a vacuum. It seems that the meeting had no effect on the decision, and that the check list was the only input considered. Since the checklist was made prior to hearing the voices of the neighbors, it is clearly based on very incomplete data. We fail to understand why you even bothered to have the meeting. We urge you to reconsider this decision based on all of the facts that have been brought to your attention. Sincerely, Anne and David Bernstein 1 ` Brian Froelich From: Brian Froelich Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:14 PM To: 'Dan Pfefferbaum'; Debbie Pedro Cc: bserventi@gmail.com; kathy_newton@att.net; mark scheible@att.net; ruth.rosenblum@gmail.com; grunab@gmail.com; dolf@synapse.sri.com; gunniebird@earthlink.net; byandsue22@aol.com; Byron.Miller@xenoport.com; I.shibuya@att.net; hayleyditzier@yahoo.com; schan99@yahoo.com; gahyver@gmail.com; okt@aol.com Subject: RE: Lot 9 - 26958 Dezahara Way, Rose Hill Estates, Los Altos Hills Hello Mr. Pfefferbaum, Thank you for the email and the opportunity to clarify. Subdivision conditions and CC&R's (Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions) are different documents. In the Subdivision Ordinance Title 9, "conditions" and "conditions of approval" are terms used consistently for the requirements and/or necessary actions mandated with the approval of Subdivisions and the installation of the Subdivision's improvements. The word "conditions" in Section 10-2.1305.1(a) (1) is referring to Subdivision conditions of approval rather than CC&R's. Conditions of Subdivision approval are approved and required by the City Council pursuant to Title 9, following review at a noticed public hearing. The Rose Hills Estates and other CC&R's are initiated by private parties without any Town approval, input, or public review. As stated at yesterday's hearing, the Town is not a party to private covenants and has no interest or standing to enforce private covenants. Thank you - Brian Please see the following LAHMC Sections for context of Subdivision conditions: 9-1.308 9-1.515 9-1.519 9-1.1207 http://mmw.losaltoshills.ca.gov/city-government/municipal-code/code Brian Froelich, AICP Associate Planner Los Altos Hills 650-947-2505 From: Dan Pfefferbaum fmailto:dpfefferbaum(a)gmail.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:36 AM To: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich, Cc: bserventi(ak4mail.corn kathy newtonCabatt.net; mark scheible(a att.net; ruth.rosenblumC&grnail.com; grunab@gmail.com; dolf@synapse.sri.com; gunniebircl(learthlink.net: byandsue22C&aol.com; Byron.Miller(abxenoport.com; I.shibuya@att.net; hayleyditzlerCa)yahoo.com; schan990)ahoo.com; dr)fefferbaum('Oamail.com; gah)vergmail.com; oktCabaol.com Subject: Lot 9 - 26958 Dezahara Way, Rose Hill Estates, Los Altos Hills To: Debbie Pedro, Town Planning Director Brian Froelich, Town Associate Planner dpedro ,losaltoshills.ca.gov bfroelichnlosaltoshills.ca.gov Dear Ms. Pedro and Mr. Froelich: I write to clarify a matter that was not fully addressed during yesterday's meeting of the Fast Track Planning commission regarding the interplay between the Fast Track approval process and the CC&Rs. I understand that you have now received the unanimous rejection of the proposed plans by the Architectural Control Committee via email. This makes the proposed construction ineligible for Fast Track approval and yesterday's outcome in violation of the town's municipal code. The Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, at Section 10-2.1305.1 entitled "Fast-track process" states, at subpart (1), that to be subject to Fast Track approval, the "The project conforms to the Town's 0 Codes, Town policies 0 and subdivision conditions, where applicable." It is my understanding that "subdivision conditions" refers to the Rose Hill Estates CC&Rs; thus this home does not satisfy subpart (1). It appeared from the proceedings that you operated under the belief that subpart (3) - addressing the Fast Track Guide's point system - was controlling. However, subpart (3) has two requirements: scoring fewer than 14 points on the Town's Fast Track Guide and compliance with subpart (a). It states: "[N]ew residences that score fourteen (14) or fewer points on the Town's Fast Track Guide for New Residences 0 checklist and meet the other requirements of subsection (a) of this section, shall be eligible for the fast track process, regardless of neighborhood opposition;" Thus, a proposed home that does not "meet the other requirements of subsection (a)" - which includes compliance with the "subdivision conditions" - cannot be eligible for Fast Track approval. This requirement is not waived by scoring less than 14 points; it is a dual requirement. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that 1) the proposed home does not have ACC approval, 2) it does not satisfy the applicable CC&Rs and 3) a home which does not satisfy the CC&Rs cannot be subject to Fast Track approval regardless of its checklist score. Perhaps, when viewed under the appropriate statutory construction, we can avoid the costs of an unnecessary appeal. I look forward to your response. Dan Pfefferbaum 26911 Dezahara Way dpfefferbaum@grnail.com David and Anne Bernstein 26996 Dezahara Way Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, USA Telephone: 1-650-948-1479 Email: grunab(aDgmail.com April 15, 2012 Mr. John Harpootlian Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: Proposed construction at 26958 Dezahara Way Dear John: RECEIVED APR 17 2012 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS We will be out of the country from April 23 through May 11 and will not be able to attend the Planning Commission (PC) meeting on May 3. We would therefore wish to submit our opinions in writing ahead of the meeting. You had said that you and other members of the PC would probably make a site visit after you have been given the complete files by the staff. While we will be away, we would encourage you to concentrate on the view from the Pfefferbaum residence directly across the street from 26958 as well as ours. Our brother in law, Sam Kintzer, has a key to our house. If you call him at 948-5521, he can let you in to see the view from our breakfast room, dining room, and deck. We have given Dolf Pfefferbaum a letter (attached) saying that during our absence he may accept on our behalf a revised construction plan that he is willing to accept himself. While we think that the 2 -story view directly in front of us is unreasonable, the obstruction is not as bad as that of the Pfefferbaum's. We reference letters of March 25 from Adolf Pfefferbaum and Ruth Rosenblum to Brian Froelich, and letter of March 26 from Byron Miller to Brian Froelich. We do not believe that the points pertaining to the LAH Code were taken into account when the staff completed the Fast Track Checklist. In particular we refer to A.3 relating to step down construction on a sloping site; B.1. Minimization of view obstruction; E.3. Stepping with the hillside; and C.1. Respect of neighbors privacy and views. When you make your site visit, we would encourage you to proceed in the following way to fully appreciate the effect of the proposed plan on the houses nearby, and the Code's reference to conforming to "subdivision conditions." Come up Taffee and turn into lower Dezahara. Note the one story, or stepped plans of the houses on both sides of the street. As you come over the top of the hill notice the same type of construction on both sides and compare this with the story -pole outline of the proposed house directly in front of you at the top of the slope. (Note that some of the orange plastic at the highest levels has been removed by the wind.) Make the right turn with the street and notice the return to one story and/or step down construction of the next few houses on both sides. After that return to the Pfefferbaum house and note the extent of view obstruction resulting from the wide two story facade of the proposed house. We believe that your visit will make it obvious that the proposed plan flies in the face of conforming to "subdivision conditions." Since the Town, understandably, does not get engaged in enforcement of the CC&Rs of subdivisions, in the context of the Code, subdivision should mean the group of residents affected by a proposed construction whether the boundaries are those of a formal/legal subdivision or something which defines the neighborhood affected. Sincerely, Anne Bernstein David Bernstein Cc: Dolf Pfefferbaum and Ruth Rosenblum Byron and Sue Miller Bob and Katy Serventi Mark and Kathy Scheible RECEND APR1',9 2012 April 18, 2012 Debbie Pedro, Planning Director TOWN 9 jos Agos Hius Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Dear Ms. Pedro: We are writing this letter regarding the proposed house to be built at 26958 Dezahara Way (Lot #9) and its view obstruction issue. It does not affect the view from our house. We believe that the owners of the lot should be able to build their house as long as they follow the city ordinance and the new home preserves reasonable views for the neighbors. Sincerely, Chanag /ho' g 26934 Dezahara Way (Lot #12) Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Cc: Edward Sharp/Oddette Harris Brian Froelich Subject: FW: LANDS OF SHARP AND HARRIS, 26958 DeZahara Way, Los Altos Hills From: John Scott [mailto.iohn.b.scott61att.net1 Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 10:22 AM To: Debbie Pedro Subject: LANDS OF SHARP AND HARRIS, 26958 DeZahara Way, Los Altos Hills Dear Ms. Pedro: Apparently someone has objected to this proposed house at 26958 DeZahara Way, Los Altos Hills. However, an examination of the plans and site seem to indicate this proposed residence is highly desirable, suitable to the site, designed to enhance our neighborhood, and worthy of approval. Sincerely, John Scott 26385 Altamont Road Los Altos Hills Mare and Lily Shibuya 26898 Dezahara Way Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 April 21, 2012 Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills Town Hall Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Dear Commission: WEKD APR 2 6 2012 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS We are hoping that the house plans of Edward Sharp and Odette Harris (S/H) withstand the appeal at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting of May P and the proceedings continue on to a building permit. If you have doubts or mixed feelings about the plans, we hope the facts and opinions expressed here will help you make a good determination. Our lot is not adjacent to the S/H lot but a mere 145 feet from it. We have seen the complete plans and the home, ,being built on a very difficult lot, is truly beautiful. This house will be a great addition to the subdivision, the community, and the town of Los Altos Hills. We are anxiously awaiting having Odette and Ed as neighbors. We have been residents of our present home since 1968 (forty-four years) and I (Mare) have served on the subdivision's Architectural Control Committee (ACC) for a lesser period, but we have never experienced the kind of protest and rejection the S/Hs are receiving from some of the neighbors. It has been truly ugly and we are embarrassed and ashamed to have neighbors like these. Most homes in this subdivision go up with little notice or fan -fair. We should know because we were first to build out of a twenty-six lot subdivision. So why are these plans being appealed? Shortly after a "For Sale" sign went up on .Lot 9 (S/H were not yet involved) a meeting of close neighbors was called on Sunday, March 6, 2011. A scheme to buy the lot failed for lack of funds. One party didn't want to put up with two years of dust and noise. Finally, a plan to have the lot surveyed to show the lot was undersize and thus unbuildable was decided on. The survey later proved the lot to be buildable. What I gathered from this meeting and what later happened was that four out of five of the adjacent neighbors to Lot 9 did not want to see any structure on the lot but wanted to keep it the open space it had been for the past forty-five years. The neighbors that are filing this appeal are holding S/H to the letter of the law with respect to this subdivision's CC&Rs. We did not seek or receive plan approval from the ACC prior to building our home in 1967. 1 am the present keeper of the ACC records, and although the records don't go back to the beginning of the development, I found only two of the twenty-six lots where the owners had sought prior ACC house plan approval, (the S/Hs-Lot 9 and the Gafners-Lot 26). Nowhere did I find a record of the owners of lot 1 through 13 and 24 asking for and receiving written unanimous approval from the ACC to build a home of more than one story. Lots 14 through 26 excluding 24 are restricted to one story, no exceptions, but there are six houses in this group that are two storied. The CC&Rs require that all home owners planning home remodeling or other modifications to their lot (i.e. fencing) obtain prior ACC plan approval. As long as I have been an ACC member, NO ONE has sought or obtained such approval. The CC&Rs are basically ignored for approval of building plans. Because the CC&Rs can only be enforced via litigation, I feel that the Town's rules and regulations protect us all well enough. Yours truly, Mare Shibuya Lily M. Shibuya 0 SHARP - HARRIS RESIDENCE 26958 DEZAHARA WAY LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94022 FINISH BUILDING MATERIALS: ❑l ROOFING: TERRA COTTA CLAY TILE - MIXED COLOR ❑3 EXTERIOR WALL FINISH: LIMESTONE PLASTER W/SMOOTH HARD TROWELED FINISH - BEIGE COLOR FS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS & DOORS: Attachment 10 [2 GUTTERS & CORBELS: METAL- COPPER COLOR WOOD: DARK STAIN ® ARCHITECTURAL TRIM: CAST STONE - BEIGE COLOR © GARAGE DOOR: METAL- DARK BRONZE COLOR WOOD: DARK STAIN ❑7 DRIVEWAY PAVERS: GRASSCRETE ® PATIO PAVERS : CONCRETE PAVERS