HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1Item 3.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS . June 7, 2012
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
.SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE, DAYLIGHT BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, NEW
DRIVEWAY ACCESS, THE REMOVAL OF HERITAGE OAK TREES
AND A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION. LANDS OF YIU; 26880
ELENA ROAD; FILE# 5-12-ZP-SD-GD
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner
APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director ._.Q
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the new residence, driveway,
swimming pool, removal of three (3) heritage oak trees and the Grading Policy exception
for the driveway, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment #1
and findings for the Grading Policy Exception in Attachment #2.
BACKGROUND
The existing single story, ranch style residence was constructed in 1953. Vehicular access
to the site is currently from a driveway easement shared with 26875 Elena Road. The
applicant has provided the Town with a real property license -agreement that states the
driveway easement can no longer be used by 26880 Elena Road once the existing house
is demolished. (Attachment #3)
The Planning Commission approved a new residence on the property for a previous
owner (Parikh) at the October 1, 2009 meeting. The previous owner had worked with
neighbors prior to the Planning Commission meeting to address concerns and ultimately
received neighbor support for the project. (October 1, 2009 meeting minutes —
Attachment #15)
CODE REQUIREMENTS
This application is not eligible for the Fast -Track process under section 10-2.1305.1(a)
(3). The proposal includes a Grading Policy Exception for portions of the driveway and
driveway/turnaround.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area: 1.19 acres
Net Lot Area: 1.19 acres
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 2
Average Slope: 22.32%
Lot Unit Factor: 0.879
Floor Area and Development Area (in square feet)
Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Remaining
Development Area 9,320 9,066 4,399 4,667 254
Floor Area 5,000 5,000 2,285 2,715 0
Basement (2,371)
Basement Garage (694)
Site and Architecture
The parcel is located on a moderately steep sloping hillside with an average slope of
22.32%. The existing residence is located on a cut building pad from previous site
grading. The proposed two-story building meets the setback, height, floor area and
development area requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of
the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The vertical structure height is 27' (measured from
the basement ceiling to the top of the roof structure) with a maximum overall height of
35' (measured from the lowest grade elevation along the building line to the highest
appurtenance). The proposed residence is located at 30 feet from the rear property line,
41' feet from the northern (side) property line, 42' feet from the southern (side) property
line and 206' feet from the front property line.
The applicant proposes to construct a 5,000 square foot, two-story residence with 3,367
square feet on the main floor, 1,633 square feet on the second floor, 694 square foot
basement garage and 2,371 square feet in the basement. The proposed residence is
predominately two stories with the north end stepping down to soften the visual effect of
the structure. The basement daylights at the garage and has a daylight wall and entry to
the living area of that level. The daylight basement complies with the Basement
Ordinance.
Proposed exterior materials include a contemporary design with a flat roof, cement
plaster siding, metal railings and horizontal wood siding.
Driveway & Parking
Site access is proposed from Elena Road, directly at the frontage of the property. The
proposed 14' wide driveway has been approved by the Fire Department for a maximum
20% slope over portions of the driveway. A Fire truck turnaround is required. The Fire
Truck turnaround is proposed adjacent to the daylighted basement and will also serve as
the back-up area for the garage.
Four (4) parking spaces will be provided, two (2) within the garage and two (2) in the
front of the residence along the driveway.
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 3
Outdoor Lighting
Lighting on the proposed residence complies with the Town Code requirements, with
light fixtures incorporating frosted glass. Landscape lighting will be reviewed with the
landscape screening application.
Tree Removal
The site maintains seven (7) Heritage Oak trees (Section 12-2.101). Three (3) Heritage
Oaks are proposed to be removed for construction of the residence. An arborist's report
for the project was prepared by Barrie D. Coate, dated November 10, 2011 (Attachment
#4). Tree #1 is a 47" diameter Valley Oak near the front wall of the new residence and is
proposed to be removed. The report notes that the tree is in marginal health with a sparse
canopy and numerous cavities. Tree #2 is a 55" diameter Coast Live Oak with a dense
canopy and relatively good structural integrity and is proposed for removal. These trees
are located in the flattest and most readily buildable area of the site. Trees #1 and #2 were
approved for removal with the new residence approval in 2009.
The applicant also proposes to remove tree #7, which is a multi -stem Coast Live Oak
growth from a stump. The tree is technically a multiple trunk Heritage Oak tree per
Section 10-2.101 but being a stump sprout, is not a prime specimen having the form of a
bush. The Arborist has noted that these types of trees always have poor structure.
Pursuant to Section 12-2.502(c) a 3:1 replacement with 24" box oak trees (Condition #3),
nine (9) replacement trees shall be shown on the required landscape screen plan. To
ensure protection of the remaining oak trees on site, recommended condition of approval
#5 requiring all remaining oaks to be fenced per the Town's tree fencing standards prior
to the start of work.
Additional trees proposed for removal include a 42" pine tree, a palm tree, and a willow
tree all at the northwest comer of the site.
Utilities
A power pole exists in the north western area of the project site. According to PG&E the
pole serves both the 26912 Elena Road and the subject property. PG&E provided the
Town with an easement document that was prepared in 1953 but never recorded.
According to the Engineering Department, PG&E could record the easement at any time.
The applicants are planning to underground their service up to this existing power pole.
Grading Policy Exceptions
The submitted grading plan includes grading quantities including 3,105 cubic yards of cut
and 500 cubic yards of fill, with a net export of 2,605 cubic yards. The applicant is
requesting the following Grading Policy Exceptions:
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 4
1) Fire Truck Turnaroundl Back-up Area - The Grading Policy allows cuts of up to
10' for the construction of a driveway and fire turnaround which is adjacent to a
garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. Terraced retaining
walls are proposed at the south western corner of the driveway/fire-truck turn
around with up to 10'-6" of cut totaling approximately 11 square feet.
2) Driveway — Midway between Elena Road and the proposed residence there is an
area that necessitates fill up to 5' of fill where the maximum allowed is 3'. These
excessive fill areas have a total area of 420 square feet.
The proposed new home sits in the general location of the existing home with an
expanded footprint. The excessive cut proposed for the driveway and turnaround is
required to comply with Fire Department driveway and turnaround standards. The
driveway fill is required in order to meet the maximum driveway grade of 20%. Findings
of approval for the Grading Policy Exception are included in Attachment 2.
Drainage
Existing natural drainage, sheet flows to the east, to a swale adjacent to Elena Road. The
proposed drainage system consists of an onsite retention system for the main house.
Additionally, on-site storm drains direct water to a new riprap outfall structure on site
before flowing into the natural drainage swale along Elena Road. The proposed system
retains storm water and allows for onsite absorption. The volume of the detention basin is
determined by the net increase in two-dimensional impervious surface area. The
coefficient is based on a one hour duration, 10 year storm event. Overflow water releases
to an energy dissipater located within the property's setbacks.
Geotechnical Review
Cotton, Shires, and Associates, the Town's Geotechnical consultants, reviewed the
proposed plans and concluded that the design recommendations for the project identified
in the reports area appropriate for the conditions on site, subject to conditions requiring a
final Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, a Geotechnical Plan Review letter, and a
Geotechnical Field Inspection (Conditions # 15 and 16).
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed and approved the plans with
conditions (Conditions #28-32).
Committee Review
Pathways Committee - The Pathway Committee recommends a pathway in -lieu fee.
(Attachment #5)
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 5
Environmental Design and Protection Committee - The Environmental Design and
Protection Committee has concerns with the pine tree located at the rear of the house and
advises that extreme care should be taken to keep the valley oak (tree #1). and notes that
the roots will be. compromised by the construction of the new home. The applicant is
proposing to remove this tree. (Attachment #6)
Public Comment
The project was originally scheduled for the May 3, 2012 Planning Commission hearing.
The Town had received written correspondence from three neighbors noting that they
were not be able to attend the Planning Commission hearing on May 3 and requested that
the item be rescheduled to June 2012 (Attachment #10). The applicant voluntarily
requested a continuance to the June 7, 2012 hearing.
John O'Connell, 26912 Elena Road (adjacent neighbor to the north) submitted an email
(Attachment #7) which outlines concerns, including discussion of alternative designs,
opposition to Grading Policy Exceptions, and removal of Heritage Oak trees.
In response to questions from neighbors about vehicle noise and the 20% sloped
driveway, the applicant has hired an Acoustical Consultant who prepared a noise study
(Attachment #8). The report states, "The results of this study reveal that standard
personal vehicles utilizing the proposed driveway in normal fashion will not generate
excessive levels of noise or annoying types of noise in the most noise impacted area of
the neighbor's rear yard."
The project Architect has also prepared graphic illustrations showing the driveway and
photos of the project site illustrating views from the interior of the proposed home
(Attachment #9).
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA)
The proposed new residence, basement, swimming pool, and driveway is categorically
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by provision of
Section 15303(a) and (e).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Recommended Findings of Approval for the Grading Policy Exception
3. Real -Property License Agreement for shared driveway
4. Arborist repq t by Barrie D. Coate, dated 11/10/11
5. Pathway Committee Minutes, dated 3/21/12
6. Environmental Design & Protection Committee comments, 1/16/2012
7. Email from neighbor John O'Connell dated 5/3/2012
8. Driveway Noise analysis prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, 4/19/2012
9. Graphic prepared by Swatt Miers Architects, 4/23/2012
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 6
10. Emails from neighbors Larry and Denise Del Carlo, Doris Lam, and Michael and
Suzanne Graves 4/25/12 and 4/26/12
11. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department, 1/13/2012..
12. Geotechnical Review letter from Cotton, Shires, and Associates, 1/17/2012.
13. Los Altos Hills Grading Policy
14. Los Altos Hills Basement Ordinance
1.5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, 10/1/2009
16. Proposed Development Architectural and Civil Engineering plans
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW
RESIDENCE, SWIMMING POOL, DRIVEWAY HERITAGE OAK TREE
REMOVAL AND GRADING EXCEPTION
LANDS OF YIU, 26880 ELENA ROAD
File #5-12-ZP-SD-GD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission
depending on the scope of the changes.
2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River
Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E.
melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property
located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final
inspection. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of
August and the end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected
under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of
Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted
and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree.
3. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a
final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion
control plans for review by the Site Development 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.
Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up
the bulk of the residence and preserving the existing screening. The landscape
plan shall include the replacement of all removed Heritage Oaks on a 3:1 ratio at a
minimum of 24" box size. All landscaping required for screening purposes,
replacement, and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be
installed prior to final inspection. The landscape screening plan shall comply
with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient landscaping) of the Los Altos Hills
Municipal Code.
4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000, shall be posted prior to
final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment
and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will
be released at that time if the plantings remain viable.
5. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all remaining Heritage Oak trees are to
be fenced at the drip line. Chain-link fencing shall clearly delineate the drip line.
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 8
Town staff must inspect the chain-link fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to
commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at
least three days in advance of the inspection. The chain-link fencing must remain
throughout the course - of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or
debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees.
6. All recommendations contained in the Arborist report prepared by Barrie D.
Coate, dated 11/10/11 shall be implemented.
7. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall have frosted glass enclosures or be
shielded light fixtures. Seeded or bent glass is not acceptable. No lighting may
be placed within setbacks except as shown on the approved plan. All lighting
must comply with the Town's Lighting Policy prior to final inspection.
8. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the
new residence and roof eaves are no less than 40' from the front property line and
30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence
shall be similarly certified in 'writing to state that "the elevation of the new
residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development
plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the
Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection.
9. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new
residence complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the
vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement
ceiling if excavated below natural grade, 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 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.
10. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting
may be placed within skylight wells.
11. Air conditioning units shall be located a minimum of 40' from the front property
line and 30' from the side and rear property lines.
12. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction.
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 9
13. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require
review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation.
14. The applicant shall pay any applicable School District (Los Altos or Palo Alto)
fees prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check from Los Altos Hills.
The applicant must take a copy of required fee payment forms that have been
completed by the Town to both the elementary and high school district offices,
pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
15. The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approval all
geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant should
address whether pervious concrete driveway surfacing is geotechnically
acceptable with underlying potentially expansive soil and fill materials.
Supplemental geotechnical design considerations should be recommended as
warranted. The results of the review should be submitted to the Town Engineer
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
16. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction. 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 inspection.
17. Peak discharge at 26880 Elena Road, as a result of Site Development Permit 5-12,
shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the
property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the
predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. Provide the data and peak
discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak
discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff
rate for a 10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans
to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. All
documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies) shall be
submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check. Prior to final inspection, a letter
shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the detention storage
design improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in
accordance with their recommendations.
18. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the
Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading
moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City
Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except
to allow for the construction of the driveway access.
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 10
19. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The
applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to
start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 66=8
months.
20. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
- building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all
appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and
erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked
during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All
areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion
control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
21. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the
property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning
Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The
grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding
dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on ' Elena Road and
surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary
facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for
construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for
collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the
GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with
the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
22. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any
damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways,
and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of
occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing
conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check
23. The property owner shall dedicate additional right of way to create a 30' wide
half -width public right of way to the Town over Elena Road. 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 submittal of plans for building plan check
24. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed prior to final inspection.
25. A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health
Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 20I2
Page 11
26. Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final
inspection.
27. 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.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
28. The 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.
29. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County
Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans
prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire
Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and
approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department,
prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
30. Provide an access driveway and fire department engine driveway turnaround with
a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical
clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet
outside and 23 feet inside, as shown on the engineering plan set dated 4/16/2012.
31. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter
14 and Standard Detail and Specification SI -7.
32. 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.
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.
CONDITION NUMBERS 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 AND 27 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY TOWN STAFF PRIOR TO
ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
June 7, 2013). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7, 2012
Page 12
on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and
completed within two years.
Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that
these Conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the
California Government Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these
Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a
description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further
notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has
begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the
requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such
exactions.
Planning Commission
Lands of Yiu
June 7; 2012
Page 13
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR
GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION.
LANDS OF YIU, 26880 ELENA ROAD
File # 5-12-ZP-SD-GD
1. The proposed grading is consistent with Section 10-2.702(c) of the Los Altos
Hills Municipal Code, the proposed grading will lower the profile of a portion of
the structure and render it less visible from off site.
2. The proposed area of grading will not result in the substantial visual alteration of
the natural terrain. The sloped and hillside portions of the property retain their
form.
3. The proposed grading will not increase the quantity of runoff.
4. The proposed grading employs a cut building pad and significantly lowers the
profile of the residence and reduces overall visible bulk. Cut foundations are
"generally preferred" over fill per the Grading Policy.
Attachment 3
REAL -PROPERTY LICENSE AGREEMENT
This Real -Property License Agreement ("Agreement") is made
by and between STEVEN D. CHANG and HELEN H. CHENG, AS TRUSTEES OF
THE CHANG-CHENG 2009 REVOCABLE TRUST (collectively, "Chang" or
"Buyers") and MIHIR PARIKH and NANCY PARIKH, AS TRUSTEES OF THE
MIHIR AND NANCY PARIKH LIVING TRUST UNDER AGREEMENT DATED
FEBRUARY 10, 1994 (collectively, "Parikh" or "Sellers").
RECITAL OF FACTS
A. Parikh owns the two parcels of real property commonly
'known as 26880 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, being Assessor's Parcel Number 182-
12-012 (the "Retained Property') and 26875 Elena Road, Los Altos
Hills, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being
Assessor's Parcel Number 182-12-027 (the "Sold Property"). Both
the Retained Property and Sold Property contain a single-family
residence.
B. Chang intends to purchase from Parikh and then to own
and occupy the residence on the Sold Property,
C. Sellers intend to sell to third parties or to demolish
the residence on the Retained Property. The Sellers of their
successor -in -interest may thereafter construct a new residence
and driveway on the Retained Property pursuant to a site
development permit presently issued by the Town of Los Altos
Hills.
D. The Sold Property was formerly burdened with a 33 -foot
wide easement for ingress and egress and installation of
utilities for the benefit of the Retained Property under a deed
recorded on July 24, 1953 in Book 2690, at page 224, Official
Records, Santa Clara County, California ("Easement"). The
Easement was extinguished by operation of law when Sellers
acquired title to bath the Sold Property and the Retained
Property. Buyers desire that Sellers execute and acknowledge a
Quitclaim Deed, to be recorded at close of escrow on sale of hte
Sold Property, formally releasing the'Easement.
E. Sellers desire to use an.existing paved, concrete
Page 1 of 8
driveway, approximately 16.to 20 feet in width, located within
the boundaries of the extinguished Easement, for ingress and
egress to the residence existing on the Retained Property (the
"Permitted Use"). The portion of the Sold Property to be so used
excludes any portion.of the driveway above the turn-off to the
residence on the Retained Property; and the portion subject to
the license is the lower portion of the driveway as shown
graphically on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference (the "Licensed Area"). Buyers and Sellers
recognize and agree that the current condition or the lower
portion of the driveway is very poor, containing massive cracking
and a poor foundation, and that neither party assumes any
obligation to improve the existing condition of that portion
during the term of this Agreement.
F. Buyers are willing to grant Sellers a license for the
temporary Permitted Use on the terms and conditions contained in
this Agreement.
Buyers and Seller now agree that the above Recitals of Fact
are true and further agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. Grant of License and Breach. Effective upon Chang's
acquisition of title to the Sold Property, Chang grants Parikh,
including any successor -in -interest, a revocable license to use
the Licensed*Area for the Permitted Use only.
Any other use shall constitute a breach of this Agreement;
and in the event of such breach, Chang shall give Parikh written
notice of default allowing Parikh ten (10) days in which to cure
the stated default. If the breach cannot be cured or if curable
it is not cured within such ten (10) -day period, Chang may revoke
the license effective immediately by further written notice to
Parikh.
If Parikh disputes the revocation, Parikh may demand
mediation of the dispute by written notice to Chang. Within
three (3) days after the delivery of such notice to Chang, both
parties shall engage in mediation of the dispute. The mediator
shall be any then available retired judge at JAMS, San Jose
branch office, selected by the parties from lists of three -(3)
candidates proposed by each side or, if the parties cannot agree
Page 2 of 8
on a selection, by JAMS. The parties shall bear the mediator's
fees in equal. shares.
Should the mediation fail to settle the dispute, thet Parikh
---may—seek—binding - arbitration—pursuant to-the••-fol-lowing-prov3si-on: -••-
BINDING ARBITRATION:
IT IS AGREED THAT ANY CLAIM OR DISPUTE BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS
RELATING IN ANY WAY TO THE LICENSED AREA OR THIS AGREEMENT, SHALL
BE DETERMINED BY SUBMISSION TO NEUTRAL BINDING ARBITRATION -BEFORE
A RETIRED JUDGE OR A LICENSED ATTORNEY HAVING AT LEAST FIVE (5)
YEARS' EXPERIENCE IN RESIDENTIAL REAL-ESTATE DISPUTES.
NOTICE; BY INITIALLING THIS PARAGRAPH IN THE SPACE BELOW
YOU, ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY CLAIM OR DISPUTE BETWEEN .BUYERS AND
SELLERS RELATING IN ANY WAY TO THE LICENSED AREA DR. THIS
AGREEMENT, DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED BY
CALIFORNIA LAW. THIS PARAGRAPH DOE$ NOT APPLY TO ANY RIGHT OF
ACTION YOU MAY HOLD FOR BODILY INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH' Olt ANY
RIGHT OF. ACTION TO WHICH SECTION 337.1 OR SECTION 337.15 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE MAY APPLY. YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS
YOU MIGHT POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR
JURY TRIAL. BY INITIALLING IN THE SPACE BELOW, YOU ARE GIVING
UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND APPEAL, UNLESS THOSE
RIGHTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED ABOVE IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF
DISPUTES' PROVISION AND EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW. IF
YOU REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION AFTER AGREEING TO THIS
PROVISION, YOU MAY BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. YOUR AGREEMENT TO
THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION IS VOLUNTARY.
WE HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND AGREE TO
SUBMIT DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES
PROVISION' TO NEUTRAL ARBITRATION.
INITIALS: 15c,
SELLERS BIIYERS
2. Quitclaim Deed. As a condition precedent to Chang's
grant of this license, Parikh shall execute, acknowledge, and
record a quitclaim deed in favor of Chang, at close of escrow on
sale of the Sold Property, confirming the extinguishment of the
Easement and formally releasing and abandoning the Easement. The
parties shall execute such other documents as may be required by
the escrow agent for the purpose of releasing and abandoning the
Easement.
I
Page 3 of 8
3. Payments by Sellers. As a further condition to the
license, Sellers shall make the following monthly payments to
Buyers while the license remains in effect:
A. During the first two twelve-month periods following the
closing of escrow on Chang's purchase of the Sold Property, the
monthly installment shall be zero.
B. For the next succeeding two twelve-month periods
(beginning with the 25th month after the closing of escrow), the
monthly payment shall be $2,000.
C. For the next succeeding single twelve-month period
(beginning with the 49th month after the closing of escrow), the
monthly payment shall be $3,000.
Each such monthly payment shall become due and payable on
the 15th day of the month. Sellers shall deliver each such
monthly payment to Buyers at the Sold Property. Sellers' failure
to make any such payment when due shall constitute a failure of a
condition to the license and a breach of this Agreement. In the
event of such breach, Chang shall give Parikh written notice of
default allowing Parikh ten (10) days in which to cure the stated
default. If the default is not cured within such ten (10) -day
period, Chang may revoke the license immediately by further
written notice to Parikh. The procedures stated in paragraph 1
above for dispute resolution shall not apply to such breach and
default.
All payments shall cease upon the revocation or earlier
termination of the license. Sellers may terminate the license at
any time by giving Buyers written notice at lease twenty-one (21)
days before the effective date of termination as stated in their
notice.
3. Automatic Termination of License. The license shall
automatically terminate upon the first to occur of:
A. Six (6) months after the date on which demolition of the
existing residence on the Retained Property begins; or
B. Five (5) calendar,+years from the date of closing of
escrow on Buyers' purchase of the Sold Property from Sellers.
Page 4 of 8
4. Restrictions on Permitted Use. Seller shall repair any
damage to the Licensed Area resulting from the Permitted Use or
from any unauthorized use, including from ingress and egress by
Sellers and their contractors, employees, invitees, and guests,
if such damage unreasonably interferes with normal passage by
vehicles over the Licensed Area. Sellers shall keep the Licensed
Area free and clear of debris is at all times.
Sellers shall not allow the Licensed Area to be used by any
vehicle or any construction equipment other than ordinary
passenger sedans and light-duty pickup trucks and, while
demolition occurs on the Retained Property, dump trucks hauling
debris. In no event may any vehicle or construction equipment
having metal treads (as opposed to inflatable rubber tires) use
the Licensed Area; provided that Sellers may use the Licensed
Area for one ingress and one egress only by such construction
equipment in connection with demolition on the Retained Parcel.
Only such permitted vehicles may use the Licensed Area at
any time and then only during the hours between 8 A.M. and 5 P.M.
on weekdays. At no time shall Sellers or their contractors
obstruct Buyers' passage over the Licensed Area. Sellers and
their contractors, employees, invitees, and guests shall park
their vehicles only on the Sellers' Retained Property or the
public street and shall not park their.vehicles on the Licensed
Area.
Any violation of the restrictions contained in this
paragraph will result in a default under this Agreement. The
procedures stated in paragraph 1 above shall govern such default.
5. Indemnity and Release. Parikh releases Chang, and agrees to
hold Chang harmless from and against, any and all liability
arising from Parikh's entry, or the entry of his contractors,
employees, invitees, and guests, upon, and their use of, the
Licensed Area, including without limitation injury to persons or
damage to the driveway or any other property not owned by Parikh.
Parikh shall indemnify Chang from and against any and all such
liability and all attorney's fees and costs incurred in any court
action or arbitration; and this indemnity shall include the
defense of Chang through legal counsel selected by Chang.
Nothing in this paragraph shall relieve Chang from liability
for property damage or for personal injury arising from Chang's
Page 5 of 8
activities on the Licensed Area.
Parikh shall at all times maintain a policy of liability
insurance insuring Parikh's indemnification obligations under
this paragraph and having a policy limit of not less than $3
million. The policy shall name Chang as additional insured. The
policy shall be issued by an insurer admitted in the State of
California and having a minimum rating of A -VII in Best's Guide.
Parikh shall deliver to Chang on the date when this Agreement
takes effect, and annually thereafter so long as the license
remains in effect, a certificate of such insurance.
6. Property Rights and Revocation. The license granted
under this Agreement shall remain revocable at all times subject
to terms and conditions of this Agreement. Parikh disclaims any
interest in the Sold Property, including the Licensed Area,
whether by deed or color of title or by prescription or adverse
possession, now and forever. Following any revocation or
termination of the license, Parikh shall remove, upon Chang s
demand and at Parikh's sole expense, any of Parikh's personal
property located on the Sold Property.
7. Successors. Subject to paragraph 6 preceding, this
Agreement shall bind, and inure to the benefit of, the
successors, heirs and assigns to Chang and Parikh in ownership of
the Sold Property and the Retained Property, respectively. Each
party shall, so long as the license remains in effect and is not
revoked, disclose the existence and terms of this Agreement to
such party's successor -in -interest.
8. No Recordation. Chang and Parikh agree a Memorandum of
this Agreement shall be executed and acknowledged and, at
Parikh's option, be recorded in the Official Records. Prior to
such recordation Parikh shall execute and acknowledge and then
deliver to Chang a Quitclaim Deed releasing the Memorandum and
Parikh's rights under this Agreement. Chang shall not record the
Quitclaim Deed until after revocation or termination of the
license.
9: Miscellaneous.
9.1 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by a
writing signed by both Buyers and Sellers.
Page 6 of 8
writing.signed by both Buyert.and Sellers.
9.2 Mercier. All negotiations and agreements previously
made by the parties with respect to this Agreement are merged
--- ----
--mento -this- Agreement, --and- thks--Agreement.-completely -sets--forth--all---- -....-
the understandings and the rights and obligations as between
Buyers and Sellers regarding the license and the Licensed Area.
9.3 Attorneys' Fees. If either party brings an action at -
law or in equity to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the
.prevailing party shall be entitied'to its litigation expenses and
reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in addition to all other
relief allowed by law.
9.4 . Counterparts. This Agreement may be. executed in
counterparts.each of which shall be an original, but all of which
shall constitute one (1) instrument.
9.5 Successors. All terms and provisions of this Agreement
shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be
enforceable by, the respective assigns and successors of Sellers
and Buyers.
9.6 Captions. The captions and headings in this Agreement
are for reference and convenience only and shall not limit or
expend the meaning of the provisions of this Agreement.
9.7 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the
law of the State of California.
SELLERS
Mihir Parikh, Trustee
12'CULWA;j gZA
Nancy P 3 h, Trustee
Dated: 1 18 , 2010
Dated; ?-- % f� , 2010
Page 7 of 8
BUYERS
Steven D'. Chang, Tr stee
14 Lt&j 7"tr"-
Helen H. Cheng, Txustee
-Dated:—..- - - - ,- 2010. -
Dated: ? %ff%Ili , 2010
Page 8 of 8
E
9 � MIM."SIr =1 X-C
",&ad Moved
TIT A
ems 2
a 4
mo
NtL ms
vvv v AIIEA COVERED BY CHANG-RA-HIkHMNWAY 14SC UqtN$e
-vvvvv
gk'LA�
BARRIE D. CLATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
$1 408x353-1052
Attachment 4
RECEIVED
JAS( 0 6 2012
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING TREES
AT 26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared at the Request of:
Simon Yiu
10613 Baxter Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94024
simonyiu200l @yahoo.com
Copies to:
Steve Stept
sstept(@swattmiers. com
Mr. Kapadia
nkaoadia0swattmiers.com
Site Visit by:
Michael L. Bench
November 10, 2011
Job #11-11-153
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horbcutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408x353-1..bU
AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING TREES
AT 26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Assignment
I have been asked by Mr. Simon Yiu to evaluate the existing trees located at 26880 Elena Road, Los
Altos Hills, California, and to prepare a Tree Protection Plan based on the construction plan for a new
residence.
The plan provided for this evaluation is the Site Plan prepared by Swatt and Miers Architects,
Emeryville, California, Sheet DR 2, dated 10-17-2011.
Summary
A total of 23 trees are included in this inventory. Among these 23 trees, 11 are located on this property,
and 12 are located adjacent to the driveway on the neighboring property.
All of the 23 trees are identified by species, briefly described (trunk diameter, height, spread, health,
structural integrity). The health and structural integrity of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5: (1)
Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, or (5) Extremely Poor.
Several trees are described in greater detail to include disease, structural defects, or site conditions,
which may affect their potential for survival.
A Tree Protection Plan is provided in order to direct preservation of the trees in their present condition.
Methods
The trunks of the 23 trees are measured using a standard measuring tape at 4-%2 feet above soil grade
(referred to as DBH or Diameter at Breast Height), except those specimens whose form does not allow
for a representative measurement at this height. When possible, the trunk measurement is taken below
the lowest fork on the trunk of a multi -stem specimen. The canopy height and spread are estimated using
Ivisual references only. The estimated shape of the canopy relative to the other nearby trees has been
added to the attached map.
AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING TREES
AT 26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, November 10, 2011
Observations
There are 23 trees included in this tree survey. Trees #1-11 are located on this property. Twelve trees
represented by Tree #12 are located on neighboring property along the driveway leading.to this site..
The attached map shows the locations of all trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Metallic
labels have been affixed to the trees located on this property for field reference.
The trees are classified as follows:
Trees #1, 3, 5 — Valley oak (Quercus lobata)
Trees #2, 4, 6, 7 — Coast live oak (Quercus agri, folia)
Tree #8 — Pussy willow (Salix discolor)
Tree #9 — Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis)
Trees #10, 11— Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)
Trees #12 — Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis) representing 12 Trees which are near identical in size
and condition.
These trees are listed by number on the Field Data Sheet, which follows this text. This Data Sheet
provides the basic data about each tree, including trunk diameter, height, spread, health, structural
integrity. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5: (1) Excellent, (2) Good,
(3) Fair, (4) Poor, or (5) Extremely Poor. Brief comments or notes, which help describe their condition
are also included.
Comments about Specific Trees
The canopy of Tree #1 is relatively sparse, an indication that this tree is struggling. There are numerous
cavities on the primary structural limbs, which make the structural integrity of each of these limbs
questionable.
Tree #2 has a dense canopy. The structural integrity is relatively good. There is a cable in the canopy
installed several years ago, but I consider the value of this cable to be marginally useful.
The root collar of Trees #3 and 5 are covered by fill soil. This condition exposes these trees to the risk of
a serious infection, for example oak root fungus (Armellaria mellea). Should either or both of these trees
be attacked by this root collar disease, they could be expected to decline in a few years, possibly
becoming unstable. Root collar excavation is the preferred preventative treatment. I recommend that the
root collars of these trees be carefully excavated to expose a few inches of the .tops of the buttress roots.
It may be necessary to install cobble stones on the up slope side to prevent further soil intrusion over the
root collars.
Tree #4, a coast live oak recently fell toward the west. Upon inspection, I observed that this tree had
suffered a co -dominant leader failure several years ago, creating a very large vertical wound on the east
side of the trunk. At the base of this wound, I found the fruiting body of the fungal disease Artist's conk
(Ganoderma applanatum). This disease has been active on this tree for many years. It gains entrance by
AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING TREES
AT 26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, November 10, 2011 2
A9 N
a wound in the bark. It then decays the tree from the inside toward the outside. Eventually the tree fails
for lack of interior structural wood. There was no indication that this disease exists currently on any of
the other oak trees. I recommend removal of Tree #4. The chips could be used as mulch.
Tree #5, a mature valley oak (Q. lobata), has long extended limbs toward the east and the south. I
recommend that these trees be pruned lightly to reduce the end -weights of these limbs (not by interior
thinning). This tree may decline sharply if the pruning were to be severe. I suggest light pruning every
year until the limbs have been adequately reduced'to prevent a major broken limb. Irrigation every 6
weeks in the dry months would help the tree recover. A drying period (about 6 weeks) between
irrigations would be critical to prevent the onset of Oak root fungus.
Tree #7, a coast live oak (Q. agHfolia) is a stump sprout specimen. As such,. its structure will always be
poor.
Tree #11, a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), has a sparse canopy. It is also under attack by Red
Turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens). This tree is declining rapidly. There are several potential
targets should this tree become weak enough to fall. The targets are the house on this property, the house
on the neighboring property toward the north, and power lines, which pass through its canopy. I
recommend that this tree be removed regardless of construction.
Risks to Trees By Proposed Construction
Tree #1 and Tree #2 would be removed by construction should the plan be approved.
Tree #7 would suffer such severe root damage that it could not be expected to survive.
A retaining wall is proposed within the drip line of Trees #8, 9, and 10. Construction of the wall should
not cause Trees #8 and 9 significant damage. However, the face of the soil cut for this retaining wall
must be a minimum of 15 -feet from the trunk of Tree #10 to expect that it would survive.
Concerning Tree #3, it would be essential the excavated soil not be allowed to move down slope to
cover the root zone of this specimen. As such, it will be essential to assure that no soil would be allowed
to move into the area of 20 -feet (radius) from the trunk. For the same reason, no soil may be deposited
or spread within 35 -feet of Tree #5.
Tree Protection Plan
1. I recommend that protective fencing be provided during the construction period to protect those
trees that are planned to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the root
zone to be effective I recommend protective fencing to be installed at the drip lines of Trees # 3,
5, and 6. The protective fencing must:
• Consist of chain link fencing and having a minimum height of 6 feet.
AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING TREES
AT 26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, November 10, 2011 3 '
• Be. mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 -feet into the soil.
• Fencing posts must be located a maximum of 10 -feet on center.
• Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or equipment.
• Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all
construction is completed, unless approved be a certified arborist.
2. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees,
unless specifically approved by a certified arborist.
3. If any underground utilities are to be installed, it will be essential that trenches be dug only
outside the driplines of the existing trees.
4. The trenches for a septic system must be dug only outside the driplines of the existing trees.
5. I recommend that Trees #3 and #5 must be irrigated throughout the entire construction period
during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 -inch of rainfall). Irrigate a minimum of
10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. A soaker hose or a drip line is
preferred for this purpose, but the soaker hose(s) must be located near the dripline (not near the
trunk) to be effective.
6. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of protected
trees.
7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected
trees.
8. Loose soil must not be allowed to slide down slope to cover the root zones or the root collars of
protected trees.
9. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of
Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998.
10. Any pathways or other hardscape inside the driplines of protected trees must be constructed
completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. Fill soil may be added to the
edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 -feet from the edges to
integrate the new hardscape to the natural grade.
11. The sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the trunks of trees.
AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING TREES
AT 26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, November 10, 2011
4
I 2. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the think diameter from
the trunks of protected trees.
13. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing,. etc.) must not be installed
directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection.
14. The plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of species that are compatible
with the environmental and cultural requirements of oaks trees. A publication about plants
compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation,
1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612.
If any of the above procedures cannot be achieved, I recommend that a certified arborist be consulted to
recommend possible alternative solutions, if any.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist
Barrie D. Coate
MLB/h
Enclosures: Data Sheet
Map
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING TREES
AT 26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared by: Michael L. Bendy November 10, 2011
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES .
Hortabral Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408x353-1052
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for
matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title.
The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others.
The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless
subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than
the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the
appraiser's/consultanfs fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be
reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and
should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and
procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.
When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects
which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil
around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We
cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection.
CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend
measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to
accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms
that fail in ways we do no fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot
guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial
treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to
eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
r
Ylu Property
26880 Elena Road
Valley Oak
=46.5
50
60
3/4
13
Quercus lobate
;54.7
�?45
—I60 '1 +2
Cba,=Ilea bak
Quercus agrlrelia
t
'
�f
Valt.y
;32.0
----Imo.'--i•,..,Y.
!45
60
-
;2
_,.-•-.
?2
..k
Cba,= Ilve aak
51.2
------bak -----:50.6 `—
Valle
X75
t70 —12 w12/3
�
Y—
i
yy
Cba,.11 a bak
:26.3
�35
130
1
3
Crest Ilve call
?3(k6)
t20
X30
�1
4
P�„y wulbw
-10/10 18(k4)
i30
j35
'1
3
SAll a dl,color
I
1
Canary Island date palm
%30@6”
20
.20
it
l
Phoonik canartan,l,
�._,_....�.!
_._._...........,.._........ ......._._.._
Mbntar.y pine
Pinus radlata
18
;60
�80
30
... __....
i2
._.
�2
..--......------------- ..._
Monterey pin.
............._...----._....._.�.....__,.._._.._...__.
;42.2
145t
4
i3
_.__-._—._—e—____._._.!.�...._._!..
Chlnese.pls=ech
6-7
'15
15
it
;1
Pl,tecle chlnen,is
f
i.
DBH = Do motor In
Inches at Breast Height
(54 Inchesebov. grata)
t
Hght = App r
pr Canopy
Height In
H
»1
I
'Sprd = Appro•. Canopy
Spread In Fee.
I
j
Hit. = Hoal.h
Strc = Structure
!�
CD/IB=Cb-dbminant
I
,=am, with Imbedded
'
I
;Bark - high risk or gm b
t
I
4
I
;breakage
j
Tppd = Topped
j
Los Altos Hills, California
Sparse canopy / Numerous cavitles
fl.o.nny Fallon - Ganeea ma Inracv n �.
P—o s limb failure an E algia �+
_.._--_...-_—"-.-...
Stu..m._.-p SproulittSpeelm an
iced Turp.ncine Be arta Attack
1Zcrae, eaJaeencso property boundary
Baffle D. Coate
Prepared by Michael Bench and Associates November 15, 2011
vK P11 P
P
C"
Y4
Wry Pt" LCKMINU
KrY NOTES
N'-
5
+i)kM'U WAM •Xf,
vK P11 P
P
C"
Y4
Wry Pt" LCKMINU
KrY NOTES
5
+i)kM'U WAM •Xf,
kmft' ft" 1w
t I
PJA-w
Prepared for:
and ASSOCIATES Simon YiU
Tree Evaluation
2l5355imm1R0od
Losems.09M 26880 Elena Rd
4W,,5&1052 I
Los Altos, CA
i This logo is attached to a plan done by another professional. The
% presence of this logo Is not for the purpose of claiming credit for
the plan but merely to add horticultural or arborlmMral
Information to a plan prepared by others.
Job: 11-11-153
Prepared by: Barrie D. Conte & Associates
KrY NOTES
5
+i)kM'U WAM •Xf,
t I
k A
BARRIE D COATE
Prepared for:
and ASSOCIATES Simon YiU
Tree Evaluation
2l5355imm1R0od
Losems.09M 26880 Elena Rd
4W,,5&1052 I
Los Altos, CA
i This logo is attached to a plan done by another professional. The
% presence of this logo Is not for the purpose of claiming credit for
the plan but merely to add horticultural or arborlmMral
Information to a plan prepared by others.
Job: 11-11-153
Prepared by: Barrie D. Conte & Associates
I�thw CLQ Attachment 5
In 2010 the PWC asked the Town engineer to examine the terrain on the south side of
Arastradero in this area (including this parcel) for construction of a pathway from La Cresta to
Deer Creek. This study, which included a survey, should provide guidance for the Town and the
owners in planning the pathway.on this property. Nick Dunckel moved that. 1) the Town ask
the owners of 13482 La Cresta to dedicate a pathway easement on the Arastradero Road side of,
the property i.n a location to be determined after consultation with the Town engineer; 2) the.
Town review the requirements that trigger a pathway review; 3) the owners construct a IIB
pathway on the Arastradero side of the property after consultation with the Town engineer.
Ann Duwe seconded. The vote was 9 in favor; one opposed.
c. 27665 Via Cerro Gordo (Lands of Ramakrishan, Vara and Dinesh). The reason for pathway
review is construction of.a new residence. The homeowners were not present. The property is on
the north side of Via Cerro Gordo, a public cul-de-sac off Briones Way that serves seven
residences. No off-road pathway exits from the cul-de-sac. On many properties the landscaping is
placed close to the pavement and .there are no roadside paths. An off-road pathway exists on the
adjacent property to the north -(28615 Matadero Creek Court) and an off-road connection through
to Via Cerro Gordo would be a benefit to the Town pathway system. This off-road path is not on
the current Master Path Plan, but the owner may prefer to offer this easement as an alternative to
an in -lieu fee. Breen Kerr moved that the Town ask the owners of 27665 Via Cerro Gordo to
pay a pathway in -lieu fee OR to grant a 10 -foot pathway easement along the west side of the
property to connect from the existing off-road path to Via Cerro Gordo. If they offer the
easement, the Town will build a native path on this easement. Nick Dunckel seconded. The
vote was unanimously in favor.
d. 13000 Middle Fork Lane (Lands of Talil and Rehan). The reason for pathway review is
construction of a new residence. The homeowners were not present. The property is on the south .
side of Middle Fork Lane at the corner of Middle Fork and South Fork Lanes. A pathway
easement exists on the narrow south side of the property, which should be retained. Roadside IIB
pathways exist along Middle Fork on the adjacent properties to the east and connect to. an off-
road path off the end of the street No pathways exist along South Fork Lane, but pedestrians can
use the road here. Eileen Gibbons moved that the Town ask the owners of 13000 Middle Fork
Lane to construct a IIB roadside path along Middle Fork Lane. Ann Duwe seconded. The vote
was unanimously in favor.
e. 26880 Elena (Lands of Yiu, Tok Tong). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new
residence. The homeowner was not present The property is on the west -side of Elena across from
La Barranca Road. A IIB roadside path exists on the opposite side of Elena. Although Elena is
heavily traveled, it not officially designated by the Town as a "two-sided road" (i.e., as 'a road
requiring roadside paths on both sides). The steep terrain makes it difficult. to construct paths on
both sides at all locations.. Courtenay Corrigan moved the Town ask the owners of 26889 Elena
Road to pay a pathway in -lieu fee. Joe IGeitman seconded. The vote was unanimously in
favor.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Budgeting and CIP Projects. Chairman Gibbons distributed a status report for CIP projects for
review. The last review was in 2010. Council has asked the PWC to plan the CIP strategy based
on a five-year scope instead of a one-year scope. Chairman Gibbons reviewed the status of
current projects:
1. Stanford Path-Arastradero Road Corridor. New traffic surveys have been done and a revised
plan that includes a lower retaining wall (i.e., only four feet high instead of 10 feet). The road
Fina1PWC_Minl2-0123 8/21/12 2
Environmental Designa Ind Protection Committee
Nov i e, c—e .
Reviewed by: f' .c1tfi
Applicant
-Name y I U jD�c
Address
Site impact/lighting/noise:
t e. -NR ?-,,(
Yllu _T�M 0. .
Attachment 6
Date—V t I l612oi 2.
Al
2012
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
'reeks, ramage, easements:
Existing. Vegetation:
Significant issues/comments:
C6� -
Attachment 7
Cynthia Richardson
From: Debbie Pedro
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 201212:22 PM
To: Cynthia Richardson
Subject: FW: Public Hearing May 3rd 2012
From: John O'Connell [mailto:joc94022@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:12 PM
To: Debbie Pedro; raykcol@yahoo.com; richard.partridge@gmaii.com
Cc: jima.pc@gmail.com; eclow@hinagroup.com; john.harpootlian@gmail.com
Subject: Public Hearing May 3rd 2012
We are the northerly adjacent neighbors (at 26912) to the development project on the Lands of Yiu at
26880 Elena Rd. On April 24, we received a Notice of Public Hearing (dated 4/20 but 3 days lost in the
mail) for the above mentioned application. Due to business commitments in China, we are unable to
attend the public hearing on May 3rd. We have checked with several other concerned neighbors who
also have conflicts with being able to attend given the late notice for the May 3 hearing.
A similar project on the Lands of Parikh was approved by the commission in 2010. The Parikh's worked
with us, and other neighbors to resolve issues, and we gave a supporting presentation to the commission
back in 2010. I believe this was a good example of neighbors working together in a constructive
manner. Despite being aware of our objections, the Yiu project has continued to pursue a single minded
goal to construct the largest possible property, as high as possible on the site, with no compromise to the
effect on the neighbors.
Several alternative designs that do not require waivers, meet most of the goals of the applicants, and
have less impact on us, and other neighbors are possible. Fully aware that we are out of town during
the week, Mr. Yiu and his architects have refused to provide copies of the plans for our detailed review,
and for us to be able to make constructive suggestions. They are fully aware that we cannot access the
plans at the LAH offices since we are not able to be there during the hours the office is open. Given this
uncooperative and obstructive approach, it is not even possible for us to prepare a submission to be
included in the staff briefing pack you will receive on 4/27.
We believe our support for the Parikh project demonstrates we are prepared to be constructive and
supportive of the development of the Lands of Yiu. However, we will oppose to the maximum extent
possible under LAH process and any legal process, the development as proposed. The LAE codes are in
place to ensure that development retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site, to the
greatest extent feasible. Excavating a 25ft cliff along most of the upper hillside, excavating more than
3,155 cubic yards of earth, exposing the underground water contained in the hillside structure, exporting
more than 2,700 cu yds of soil and building a 20% gradient driveway elevated over 5ft above the natural
terrain is clearly more than a "waiver" to such codes. The proposed project blatantly ignores them, but
uses clever architects to use retaining walls to mask the drastic changes and the "play" with definitions
of the rules. We strongly oppose granting of the waivers to LAH grading policy and wish to make
informed representations on the alternative options that could comply with LAH codes. We also oppose
the request to remove at least two mature Heritage Oaks to make way for the new property. A property
4/26/2012
Page 2 of 2
can be built that respects and acknowledges that these trees are of immense value to LAH, and do not
need to be destroyed. One, possibly two Heritage Oaks have already been lost on this property since the
planning process was started by the prior property owners.
I believe that as residents of LAH, you would also strongly object if your neighbor was proposing to
build a 3 storey, 3 5f high structure with large open glass areas, overlooking the rear of your property,
pool and private areas, and to remove all the trees that currently shield the properties.
Given that challenges to the action of the Site Development Committee, Planning Commission, or City
Council are limited to the issues raised at the May 3rd Public Hearing, that we have been denied
reasonable access to the plans to prepare our specific challenges to the project, and given insufficient
tine to re -arrange our schedule to be able to attend the May 3rd Public Hearing, we are requesting this
project be scheduled for the June Public Hearing. We also understand several other concerned, and
immediately effected neighbors cannot attend the May 3rd meeting.
Respectfully yours, John and Anne O'Connell
Residents 26912 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022.
�� EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIA.41TES, INC.
1975 HAMILTON AVENUE
SUITE 26
SAN JOSE, CA 95125
Mr. Simon Yiu
14613 Baxter Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94024
Attachment 8
Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-371-i 195
FAX: 408-371-1196
www.packassociates.com
April 19, 2012
Proiect No. 44-012
Subject: Driveway Noise Analysis, 26880 Elena load, Los Altos !-tills
Dear Mr. Yiu:
This report presents the results of a noise analysis of driveway activity at the proposed
residence at 26880 .Elena Road in Los Altos :Hills. The la-arpose of this study was to
determine the levels of noise in the neighbor's rear yard from standard personal vehicles
us.trig the driveway at the
:Proposed residence.. Included in this report are our comments
on the assessment of vehicle noise made by the neighbor.
permeable pavers for the driveway surface will be acceptable.
Please note the following definitions:
The term acceleration used in this report refers to the operation/powering of the vehicle
through the depression of :the accelerator and not the scientific definition of the rate of
change of speed or velocity with respect to time, :aka; "speeding up".
The term coasting used in this report refers to the downhill progress of a vehicle with no
depression of the accelerator whether or not the vehicle is in gear and whether or not the
brake pedal is depressed. It does not refer to the standard definition of coasting whereby
the vehicle is taken out of gear during its progress.
tttiHT111t1tA Imfflffffl1� �`'"�1
�K�� � �^ u_; Section 11
contains a site and project description. Section Ill contains our findings, the analytical
results and methodologies. Appendix A, attached, contains descriptions of the acoustical
instrumentation used in this study.
MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA - NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS
-2-
I. Comments on the Neighbor's Assessment
The neighbor to the north of the project site has submitted a graphic including
reference to the Los Altos Hills "Noise Code", vehicle sound levels and measurement
standards. A copy of this graphic is included herein on the following page for reference.
The City of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 5.1.02 is the definitions
section of the "Litter" chapter. The correct reference is Chapter -5.2, which deals with
noise (Noise Ordinance).
The Noise Ordinance does not provide sound data and no where does the Noise
Ordinance contain the values of 80 dB and 72 dB.
The Noise Ordinance does not regulate the use of vehicles on the driveway of a
residence. For vehicles, the Nose Ordinance regulates only the "repairing, rebuilding,
modernizing and testing' of vehicles. See Section 5.2.02(g) of the Municipal Code.
The reference to ANSI SIA is meaningless as this ANSI standard pertains to the
specifications for sound level meters. It does not specify measurement distance nor sound
data from any particular source. Mathematical models and sound level calculation
methodologies are not provided in the ANSI standard.
The assessment indicates the use of dB rather than dBA. All environmental noise
shall be in terms of "A -weighted" decibels. Flat or linear decibels is a misuse of the
descriptor for this project. Even with flat decibels, the values shown are too high. The
vehicle shown in the graphic would likely generate a "flat" sound pressure level of 79 dB
at 10 ft. traveling up a 20% slope.
The distance of 10 ft. is misleading as the distance from the travel path in the
driveway to the nearest and most impacted point in the neighbor's rear yard (flat area
where one could sit by the pool) is 50 ft. For a moving vehicle, there is a 10 decibel
difference between 10 ft. and 50 ft. (half as loud).
The scientific phenomenon that describes the adhesion of rolling tires on a surface
and the noise generated therein is "rolling resistance", not friction.
I_os Altos Hills Noise Code
Section 5.1.02
MotorVehiclesD . 0d
Night •
f L
Measured Noise (ANSI -SIA) -"qqqq
> 1Oft measurement distance
Vehicle climbing 18% grade = 93dB
-4-
11. Site and Proiect Description
The planned project site is located at 28660 Elena Road in Los Altos Hills. The
driveway under study has not yet been built. The plans indicate that the driveway will
have a sloped grade of approximately 20% and surfaced with permeable paver blocks.
The driveway will be cut into the existing slope near the top leaving a "wall" between the
driveway and the property line. The driveway will be located from 20 ft. from the
property line to 40 ft. from the property line. It will begin to flatten as it reaches the top
of the slope where the driveway court will be and where it is closest to the neighbor's rear
yard. A 6 ft. high wood "good neighbor" fence that terraces with the slope is situated on
the property line.
The neighbor's yard has a landscaped sloped area from the property line to the
pool deck that is approximately 20 ft. wide. Thus, the nearest useable part of the rear
yard is 20 ft. from the property line.
The elevation of the top of the driveway and court are at 526 ft. The elevation of
the neighbor's pool deck is 524 ft. The intervening topography between the upper
driveway and pool deck ranges from 530 ft. to 534 ft. These elevations do not include the
existing fence.
III. Findinp-s and Analvsis
To determine the levels of noise generated by personal vehicles on a 20% sloped
driveway with permeable pavers, a residence at 28160 Story Hill Lane in Los Altos Hills
was located, which has a driveway at 20% slope and the same pavers as those planned for
this project. Use of the driveway for noise testing vehicles was granted by the property
owner.
-5 -
Three different types of vehicles; a sports car, a mid-sized SUV and a full-size
pick-up truck were brought to the Story Hill Lane site on April 16, 2012. The
measurement methodology included driving each vehicle up the driveway, stopping at the
top near the garage, performing a backing out and turning around operation, then driving
down the driveway. Noise and frequency measurements were performed of the up and
down operations along the side of the driveway, similar to the planned site conditions, at
a distance of 15-1/2 ft. from the center of the drive path. The measurements were made
with a Larsen Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer. The lacking/turning maneuver was
measured at the top of the slope at the driveway court, similar to the conditions at the
planned site.
Photos of the three vehicles used for the testing are shown below.
�.e.___ _ .. _
`�.':'
$T{ � ; �
i' � 1M1.yw�'. �.
:!r __.Y.
.:•s-..
�..
-7 -
Photos of the measurement locations and the driveway at Story Hill Lane are
shown below.
FIGURE
FIGURE 2
-8 -
Each operation of each vehicle was performed and measured twice. The results of
the measurements at Story Hill Lane are shown in Table I on page 9. The table provides
the type of vehicle, the operations, the duration of the operation, the A -weighted total
sound level, and the 1/3 -octave and full (1/1) octave frequency noise levels (dBA).
As shown in Table 1, the noise levels for the sports car ranged from 57.3 to 64.4
dBA. The noise levels for the SUV ranged from 51.7 to 59.8 dBA. The noise levels for
the truck ranged from 54.9 to 67.3 dBA. The highest noise levels occurred during
traveling up the driveway, while the second highest noise levels occurred during the
backing maneuver. The least noisy operation was traveling down the driveway.
Each vehicle accelerated up the driveway starting at the bottom and stopping near
at garage. The backing maneuver was then performed. Thirdly, the downward
measurement was then made. Because of the slow speed traveling up and down the
driveway, the primary sources of noise generated by the vehicles were the engine and
exhaust. Only during coasting down the driveway was tire -to -surface contact noise
audible. And, because of the slow speeds, the tire -to -surface contact noise is relatively
low. In general, tire -to -surface contact noise is not noticeable until speeds reach at least
15 mph and the vehicle is on a flat surface.
When vehicles travel uphill, tire -to -surface contact noise becomes less prevalent
as engine and exhaust noise increase from the acceleration necessary to get up the hill and
the tire -to -surface contact noise is masked. This assertion is valid for passenger vehicle
speeds up to approximately 3 5 mph.
y
y
C <
It
NY
« �s
�e
b:
�g �.�
o� - -- kX -
SE go
Y+ &•
i
.
•fS �Y�
uM
aV
vm 'Y 91
Ek it
0
0
• -
V y
e «
N«
�
"g, Ee
,Y V y� �Y a- �=
tta _ �•
- �Qo
..
ze.,
a e•
I-
r:x
o•
is
rt
Y: e.
e`
X+
Px !:
Ye
To
••
_-
- Y a- �w
�e
�: �S
Te ZE
V
3k Y�
XY
So
�S �k
�k 8u v� ka f. gg
Lv k" •,.,
C
_
_
�S
4
«
MOR
To determine the levels of vehicular noise in the neighbor's rear yard, the acquired
vehicle noise data were applied to the planned project site conditions. For uphill and
downhill travel. the vehicles were situated just below the driveway court elevation where
the vehicles would still be accelerating but would be closest to the most impacted rear
yard receptor location and the intervening topography is also lowest, resulting in a worst-
case scenano.
The vehicles for the backing maneuver were placed on the driveway court just
before the driveway begins to slope down where it is closest to the rear yard receptor
location and the intervening topography begins to slope down, although slightly. Note
that the receptor locations in the neighbor's rear yard most impacted by driving up/down
and by backing maneuvers are slightly different. There is a separation of 20 ft. between
these two locations.
Note that the backing maneuver includes moving forward and beginning to drive
down the driveway until such a point that the driveway slopes and coasting begins.
The analysis for the receptor locations include a person seated between the end of
the pool and the landscaped slope approximately at the setback distance of the maple tree
from the property line.
Noise barrier calculations were performed for each vehicle and each vehicle
operation, using standard Fresnel diffraction equations for determining noise control
barrier insertion loss. The intervening topography elevations were derived from grading
information shown on the plans. The existing fence is not air -tight, but the fence boards
are relatively tight. Typically, a good neighbor fence is relatively good conditions will
reduce standard vehicle noise by 2 decibels.
The noise barrier calculation tables are provided in Table 2, 3 and 4 on pages 11,
12 and 13. The tables provide the vehicle type, the operation, the noise source, barrier
and receptor elevations, the "raw" source noise levels (measured at Story Hill Lane), the
noise levels extrapolated to the neighbor's rear yard, the noise reductions provided by the
barrier effect (over octave bands), the total insertion loss of the barrier and the shielded
noise levels in the rear yard which include the -2 dB fence noise reduction.
BARRIER CALCULATIONS
CLIENT. SIMON YIL
PILE 44 012
PROJECT DRIVEWAY NOISE
DATE. 4117/2012
SOURCE. CAR, SW, TRUCK
TABLE 2
` Ped
I Elev.
Barrier
row
Source Smuee to Ormert0 Sarce to Receive! tae
Is Car up
Ifs pM
Eley
__ liel�hl I7amar Rece'var ReuNer H%t d -
63 H t 5 Nt
R T
ImuYOn AewBaM
Noip
524
4
528
-Oe-
Bourse Laver 04 4
STB TO 30 50 527
_--.�--.�
bS 0
S5 8
48!1
800
58.0
69.7
I
$7 4
1
522
lot E■wtwe
LtvN
Dial
_
U. t Otl
SIYogdold Levels -45.3
501
50.8
44,0
0
64.4
8 8
644
56.8
15.5
50
--' � 2 d0 fOR (E► fence
101214
9 11()V75 2
25200 3
490
52 8
491
a2
Ped
Ornbr
TOW
trealce S , to BerAer fo Source to Retelver
8023 4
182001 5
B I O86 3
1 �1 10
811738.4 7.9
It Car Backu+e
Elev. -
Helohl
E1
Uwe
lelAht Oamer R q d Ea
!eLlnr Recelver He' hl
63 H 11fit100
NOISE
RE
MteNon Retu8/M
f4olse
528
0
534
528 y5 Source Lever 63.3
Z6 53 527 1562
68.0
Sb3
8L9
111
54.1
kFlt
55,3
2
53.2
40.3poll
Wifelike Levels • 44.0
0.8
51.8
B 1
47.2
10.0
41.0553
42.042
12.3
14.8
17 7
20.6
93 633
633
18.5
53
InC •2 b IEI fence
15295
4 52382.3
157634
1
103328
9.5
11105.0
35 5
2tl, 7
Ped
Orrtier
TOW
Source Source to Border to Source to Reviver
3689 1
748.7
282385 7
-'
s Car Down
Elev. tleigtt
Elev.
INI_yht Bemer Recelver "Nor Helphl d Eaooed „
12
ISE REQ{JCTIQ
kuer9ai ReelAlenl
Wyse
521
4
528
Sown Lrvlda SB 7
526 20 30 50 527 0.108
43.6
t
a8.6
001
ST.7
54.0
50.7
41.1
D'e+
1
r
OhkWed L"s • 426
4.9
366
5.1
40.5
54
44.7
0.0
6.9
8.3
10.2
58 7
6.5
58 7
51 0
15 5
50
-•
IM. - d � E N
(_j_!+4e
71750
112205
29475_3_
'18.7
472205
4%1
514017
121
33.Y
r
Pad
Kerrier
TOW
$parte Sarco to Arrrurb Sauce to Receiver
173454
21371
+682784 522
i Car Up
Nv.
��
E1jv
Nolte
HeiOM Dam_er Receiver Recover H� hly 1 � E.coe4ue
¢3 H7
126 Ht
I
Nt
RE T
600 Nt
hsarWrl�esullrr4
Nyle
524
/
528
Source La pee
826 20 30 S0 527 0.108
481
851
S1 0
SS 2
1 kFlz
59.3
2kFlt
57.2
Ik/l_
53.8
loan EeOOYrr
level
DIN _
Sfdetled levels • 17 8
48
44.2
9.1
50.0
5.1
45.6
60
8.9
d.3
10.2
63 8
6.B
636
56_3
155
50
-----.r lam. -2 0@. jpr jgl ferwe
26312 3
own l 5
38153.3
18.2
83441 8
52 4
s
46.8
43 5
Pro
Ekv._-H�lpht
Brmer
TOW
$aorta Sauce to Bsnwr to Sova to Rece�vsr Noiu
17'+N+s
772581
226090
518E5��_.�571
Tor -Booking
EMv
Hel0h1 Drmer Renewer Receiver Hel9h1 d EKQp+ld11
63 Ht
125 +
I
R I
klwr9al ReW41au
Noise
528
8
Sia
8041100 Level= tlLB
520 25 28 53 527
860
519
250 Ht
12
500 Nt
543
11 kNa
51.9
2 kNr
53.1
kl t
47.9
o. E a wwe
level
Ihu
1.562
131YMde0 Levels • 41.0
88
18.3
8.1
438
10.0
11.2
120
11.9
17 7
20.3
618
10.0
6361 8
63 0
155
3
53
�C UB for (El_M!pe
04258 0
23820 8
42.1
1.3211 9 11054 5
10.0
10102 0.
35.4
3415.2
27.3
5430
Pad
Baniar
TOW
Source Source W Benner to Souris to Recetvar
__._
15148. 518
Car Down
Elw.
- -bv---
NW►e
Nelghl_Ramer geceNer Racafyer O hl -_A Notts x6
03 Ht
260H� E
w F1t
kleertbrt RuullaM
Nave
524
4
528
Source Level• 57.3
526 20 30 50
48.0
__1�511t
45A
50 1
49 9
1 kHt
52 4
Z N■
406
4 M
L
�o L k 9osw*
18.01
[>yl
527 U. 106
Shlolded Levels • 41.3
49
401
0 1
5.1
40 5
54
60
Be
83
43.2
10.2
57 3
61
57.3
48.8
15 5
50
Inc .7 dB for ferry.
r •
..- .
44 7
..___. -
43.9
45.5
40 2
32 9
i
BARRIER CALCULATIONS
CLIENT SIMON VIU
FILE' 44012 TABLE
PROJECT DRNEwAY NOISE
DATE. 4117/2012
SOURCE CAR. SUV. TRUCK
IJ
BARRIER CALCULATIONS
CLIENT SIMCN VIU
FILE 44.012
PROJECT oRWEwAr NOISE TABLE 4
DATE 417/2012
SOURCE CAR, &W, TRUCK
W
14 -
The results of the calculations indicate that the noise levels in the most impacted
,area of the neighbor's rear yard will range from 41.3 dBA to 48.3 dBA for the sports car,
40.7 dBA to 48..0 d13A for the SITV and 41.2 dBA to 50.4 dBA for the truck.
To determine how audible vehicles using the driveway will be and if any type of
annoyance may occur, ambient sound level measurements near the property line of the
site at the existing wire fence adjacent to the pool area. The ambient noise measurement
location is shown in Figure 3, below.
FIGURE 3
The ambient noise measurements were made on April 17-18, 2012 using a Larson
Davis 812 Precision Integrating Sound Levels meter. The measurements were made
during a weekday and during a period when story poles were being erected on the site.
The story pole work had a minor influence on average noise levels during the hours in
which they were working (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) However, the minimum and maximum
noise levels were produced by natural existing sources in the area.
-15 -
Note that maximum and minimum sound levels are 1 second occurrences that do
not describe the noise environment as people normally perceived it. The Lorin and Lmax
sound levels are provided herein, however, the L, and 140 noise levels better represent
what people perceive as being the highest and lowest noise levels, respectively.
Also note that noise levels over the weekend period are typically slightly lower
than the corresponding weekday hours, with the exception of the "middle of night"
periods. Typically, background traffic noise levels on Saturdays will be about I decibel
lower than weekday noise levels. Sunday noise levels will typically be 2-3 decibels lower
than weekday levels. Exceptions to this are heavy retail/commercial areas.
Interstate 280 is 1,380 ft. (approx. '/, mi.)from the ambient measurement location
and it produces the noticeable background noise environment. The site is approximately
155 ft. above the freeway grade and there is no intervening topography with which to
provide acoustical shielding.
The results of the ambient noise measurements are provided in Figure 4, on the
following page.
During the hours of 8:00 am. to 10:00 P.M. (the expected primary hours of rear
yard use at the neighbor's home), the ambient sound levels ranged from 42.1 dBA L90 to
63.0 dBA L1. The average ambient (Leq) sound levels ranged from 47.4 to 53.1 dBA. We
could expect that the average weekend sound level in the neighbor's rear yard to typically
be 46-50 dBA Lzq.
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
FIGURE 4
Existing Ambient Sound Levels at Property Line
i:uu o:uu a:u0 10:0011:0012:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4.00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:0011:0012:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00
AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM
Time
' ,-EXISTING AMBIENT LEQ --4*--EXISTING AMBIENT L1 —dr -EXISTING AMBIENT L90
I " f EXISTING AMBIENT I -min --W-EXISTING AMBIENT Lmax
v,
-17 -
To compare the vehicle sound levels to the existing sound levels, the graph
presented in Figure 5 on page 18 provides the noise levels from each vehicle type under
each operational scenario in the rear yard of the neighbor. The Y-axis on the graph
represents the range of existing noise levels encountered at the property boundary.
As shown, the vehicle passby noise levels will be consistent with the average
noise levels in the area and will be well below short-term instantaneous noise source
levels. Although the vehicles may, at times, be audible, they would not be considered
noisy (well above the ambient) and would not be out of character for the vicinity. Many
homes in Los Altos Hills have sloped driveways with permeable pavers and are near a
neighbor's home.
The vehicles at the project residence are expected to be standard passenger
vehicles and the truck that was used in the study. The truck would likely be the worst-
case vehicle, as represented by the testing. The highest noise level from the truck would
be up to 50 dBA in the neighbor's rear yard with a duration of less than 10 seconds. This
noise level in an outdoor environment and for a short period of time would be considered
to have no noise impact.
In addition, passenger vehicles do not generate noise that would usually be
considered annoying, such as a hum, beating, whine, throbbing, contains music or speech,
or generates singular frequency or very narrow band noise (alarm or siren), or impulse
noise with a rapid onset and rapid decay (slam, bang, hammer). Therefore, vehicles
utilizing the project driveway will not be considered a source of noise annoyance.
70.0
65.0
b 60.0
i 55.0
W
J 50.0
V
C
i O 45.0
I �
40.0
35.0
FIGURE 5
VEHICLE SOUND LEVELS
IN NEIGHBOR'S REAR YARD
Vehicle Sound Levels
Sports Car Up 1
■Sports Car Backing 1
OSports Car Down 1
❑Sports Car Up 2
■Sports Car Backing 2
MSports Car Down 2
MSUV Up 1
OSUV Backing 1
®SUV Down 1
■SUV Up 2
❑SUV Backing 2
13 SUV Down 2
■ Truck Up 1
■ Truck Backing 1
M Truck Down 1
■Truck Up 2
MTruck Backing 2
13 Truck Down 2 i
L2U,
In conclusion, the vehicles using the project driveway will generate noise levels
typical of a vehicle traveling up and down a driveway, similar to many other driveways in
Los Altos Hills. The type of driveway surface does not affect the noise levels
significantly due to the slow speeds of the vehicles and the engine/exhaust noise
generated during vehicle movement (except coasting). During coasting down the
driveway, tire noise is the primary noise source, but remains low due to the low speeds.
This report presents the results of a noise analysis of the planned driveway at
26880 Elena Road in Los Altos Hills. The study- findings are based on field
measurements and are correct to the best of our knowledge. However, significant
changes in the vehicle types using driveway, site conditions, slopes, noise regulations, or
other future changes beyond our control may produce long-range noise results different
from our estimates.
If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please call me.
Report Prepared By:
�f
effrey K. Pack
President
APPENDIX A
Description of the Acoustical Instrumentation
The on-site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the
precision acoustical instruments shown below. The acoustical instrumentation provides a
direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent -energy level
(L,,). Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft.
above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI S 1.4 for Type 1 instruments. The "A"
weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance
with the applicable ISO and IEC standards. All instrumentation was acoustically
calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy.
Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter
Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter
Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer
Attachment 9
RECEIVE®
MAY 2 3 Z012
TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS
'SITEPLAN.SHOWING..'NEIGHBORHOOD..ROADWAYS:AND DRIVEWAYS _ ._ :;..:.. ':.8,WATT
YIU HOUSE - 26880 ELENA ROAD ARCHITECTS
MAY 23. 2012
z Hydro Flo Technology Pavers -r
t a
b 6_.
e
Driveway Paving
Grading at new driveway is gently sloped
and feathered at edges and blends into the
natural landscape.
Our design specifies permeable pavers
for the length of the driveway (note: the
city only requires 100 ft, from the garage,
yet the design extends permeable pavers
260 ft. beyond the city requirement). This
will address the drainage issue of the
neighbors to the South by slowing the flow
of rainwater going directly into the storm
drains.
r SITEPLAN._WITH PROP..OSED..NEW. TREES_AND DRIVEWAY. MATERIAL _ . _ :_ _ _ S
WATT
YIU HOUSE - 26880 ELENA ROAD
MAY 23, 2012
ARCHITECTS
Views from 26912:
Due to stepped design, only the top of the
building is visible from adjacent yard.
STAIR
26880 ELENA RD. 1 26912 ELENA RD.
tS
Views from 2688o:
View of upper level windows is
possible but from 180' away.
----------------------------------------------------
10, GRADING I views from 2688o:
SETBACK PROPERTY LINE Fence blocks view from window or adjacent Z 4' W 16,
rear yard for 30 degrees East.
THROUGH. FIRETRUC K. URNAR ''
'BUILOIN&SECTION T OUND'" ....... "'SWATT
YIU HOUSE - 26880 ELENA ROAD ARCHITECTS
MAY 23, 2012
I
\`Illlrrllllll I I I
`���\�\I►IIIIiIlI1
II�I.
\ II111 I I I I ICII III I I
••�� � \I I I I I I 111 I I 1 II 1 1 1 1 � I
Ijk I I I I j I I I j i B EXISTING DECK PROVIDES
I l l 111' I I I I I j I I I I NEIGHBORSTO UNOBSTRUCTED
EAR YARD
11 l l l l l II I I I I I I AND POOL
//Ij l I I \I I
\\ (rel I\1\1111 I I
er'� 1111111 111�11j1 I I I
1A VIEW FROM BEDROOM
WINDOW IN EXISTING HOUSE.
1 C VIEW TO THE EAST IS A LARGE
PART OF THE SITE'S BEAUTY
EXISTING HOUSE SIGHT LINES
u
' .._..-.EXISTING. VERSUS.FROPOSED..VIEW.S.-...:.r... •. , ..,, .: ,:.._ .... ,:. �,..� _> .. •.,..T..
YIU HOUSE - 26880 ELENA ROAD
APRIL 23, 2012
® VIEWS TO NEIGHBOR'S REAR
YARD AND POOL ARE NOT
VISIBLE FROM DRIVEWAY COURT
r
2B LIMITED VIEW FROM LOWER
LEVEL STAIR LANDING
llv1'(r A.
11111111111111 I 1
I 41''
2C PROPOSED NORTH WING
BLOCKS DIRECT VIEW OF
NEIGHBOR'S YARD AND POOL
IF
•
EMEMMIERS _
ARCHITECTS
x 'r
-Maximum cut is approx. 19'-6"
-Existing topography shown in red
-Terracing of front hardscaping designed
to step with existing topography
19' 6" 16. 6'
�J�� �+../�`.��,r���• �-�.. i 'max ~� � '_.
� � Q
• Yc �LMtT ..w. �y -�.
A"'JL�1 .1��
- r � S+ � 7 Lls e. �.� c o ^v s• � :�'Y * ,�.t !�i f'�w9'�na
iL \ Yr � y �4 ����•v
.r a!�rJ
ti.L_. ..L�ti'' tt+ b� "+++7s t �';..f�,��" s �% •��-+VMµi,.'•+r���*t .�.y-.1'�f"r
IN�FQ .i •,,+. �,�J�\�''�� 1 �.l q t. ;"r �l�� Y' � � y.,' .i.�l -_ .a�� 3 _ _;'.f_
tiiy� ` <1s�`''J.( �`-+` R � S•�ff r�. n. _ 3. r ,Y� '',t_�^''
ym
rL•f. .
Existing Oak in
Background
New 36" Box Oak
South of driveway
r r
� L�� ti K.F.S. •✓K �
q
Val
N.{ + INC h
t.}L r■ �� .� ' �� Lim-�"
;,ate}'A��'�.lAl ,� �:: t ,w � �.,• � —
New 72" Box f.y
Oak by Pool
`1. Existing Walnut Tree
New 36" Box Oak
North of driveway
I. 77�_,
_eVI
��-ewi V` �r°i ��y.,s .q'}r •. rhe-`jy,t• :J L 'b�7! do �.3q... r(i•.�#• ..�
.'fy t , L. ;,l� *i
,� � rr��
' "t• `,w�`p'� `�'?" a � ,S' �^�t..
•...i -�' `moi '.. '`�-,�'/+.�a�~ �,,',rp — wait^j`"r fYr ob.Y'�Y,�aLv-'�'
1 • d � J � �'4 L. 1_ .'�'� ct4,l. �.i f�1(y''f 7' , L � ' � l�
'` _ c - �. � _ -1_» ..+, �;; `• er,,'}°i :max - (''�� �.1 '�� �,���+�,'�.
Y7•� tP � 1� .
of
Existing Oak in
Background
New 36" Box Oak
South of driveway
x
�f'N
i��'; il�~•msµ
'x
New 36" Box Oak
North of driveway
l4T .jy
r ter... �„ _• i _. r `t
I c .�... ,`'T,�; a 1. i�l �:....�,� /• "f' ��.9nw' .`:." �����'J'
-Screening trees and shrubbery obscure view
to house from neighbor's pool deck (Eye height
approx. 526')
-No eye level windows in direct line of sight on
this elevation other than circulation stair windows.
Attachment 10
Debbie Pedro
From: Larry. Del Carlo [del m an2005@hotmaii.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 12:41 PM
To: Debbie Pedro; raykcol@yahoo.com; richard.partridge@gmail.com
Subject: 26880 Elana Road, Los Altos Hills
Dear Ms. Pedro
On April 23, we received a Notice of Public Hearing for the lands of Yiu at 26880 Elana Road. This application
requires waivers to LAH grading policy which is intended to assure that construction retains the existing contours
and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. The above application exceeds these codes and
requires excavations of more than 3,155 cubic yds of the hillside, of which more than 2,720 will have to be
exported from the site. This driveway significantly exceeding LAH codes and Santa Clara Fire Dept codes is
proposed to be constructed on an elevated platform above the natural contours of the hillside.
The applicants also requested to remove least two Heritage Oaks to make way for the new property. The
applicants should be requested to consider alternative designs that preserve these trees. One, possibly two
Heritage Oaks have already been lost on this property, since the planning process was started by the prior
property owners.
Unfortunately we are not able to attend on May 3rd, and we understand this is similar for other concerned
neighbors. We request that this project be scheduled for the June Planning Commission meeting to allow a full
Public hearing to take place.
Larry & Denise Del Carlo
13117 La Barranca Road
Los Altos Hills, Ca 94022
Debbie Pedro
From: Frank Cahill [frankc.pnl@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:55 PM ,
To: Debbie Pedro; raykcol@yahoo.com; richard.partridge@gmail.com
Subject: Public Hearing May 3, 2012
I am one of the neighbors at 13151 Cumbra Vista Ct., adjacent to the development
project of Simon Yiu at 26880 Elena Rd. I did not receive the Notice of Public Hearing
on the Yiu application until it was too late to rearrange my schedule. I cannot attend
the meeting and would like the opportunity discuss this before the Board approves the
application.
I'd appreciate it if the meeting could be postponed until next month and I will be sure
to attend.
Thank you for your consideration,
Doris Lam
1
Debbie Pedro
From: Michael Graves [megravesca@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:30 PM
To: Debbie Pedro; raykcol@yahoo.com; richard.partridge@gmail.com
Cc: jima.pc@gmaii.com; eclow@hinagroup.com; john.harpootlian@gmail.com; Sue
Subject: Property. of Yiu Proposed Development/26880 Elena Road
We are neighbors to the proposed development project at 26880 Elena Road and received, on April 24,
2012, a Notice of Public hearing, dated April 20, that is to be held May 3, 2012. Because of the late
notice, we have conflicts and are unable to attend the May hearing. We respectfully request that the
meeting be deferred until June in order for us to attend. We also understand there are other neighbors
who received the notice and who, like us, are unable to attend. We have not had an opportunity to
review the plans for this proposed development and are concerned that we have a reasonable
opportunity to review and understand the scope and impact of the proposal, as well as the variances
being requested, the impact on protected oaks, etc. It is our understanding that issues not raised at the
initial public hearing cannot be raised at later hearings. Accordingly, we request the hearing delay to
enable us -to respond, in a timely manner, in accordance with the LAH's procedures.
Michael E. Graves
Suzanne W. Graves
13119 La Barranca Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
650-947-9379
GLIA C
FIRE
COURTESY 8 SERVICE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org
Attachment 11
'JAN 13
202
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS WPLL
PLAN 12 Dos%
REVIEW No.
BLDG
DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No.
Proposed new 5,832 square -foot two-story single-family residence with basement and attached
garage.
Comment #L Review of this Developmental proposal is limited tQ 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: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and
attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. 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. 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. Section R313.2 as adopted and amended
by LAHTC
City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑
OCCUPANCY
SFR
CONST. TYPE
V -B
AppllcantName
Lea & Braze Engineering Inc
DATE
01/12/201
PAGE
_1 OF 2
SEC/FLOOR
see plans
AREA
see plans
LOAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR
LOCATION
26880 Elena Rd Los Altos Hills
TABULAR FIRE FLOW
2000
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
1500
B Y
Harding, Doug
50%,
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central.Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
GLIA C
FIDE
-rais>
COURTESY & SERVICE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org
RECEIVED
_
iJAN 13 2012
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLAN
REVIEW No.
BLDG
DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No.
12 0057
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: 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.
Comment #6: Premises Identification: 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. CFC Sec. 505
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 N ❑ N ❑ ❑
OCCUPANCY
SFR
CONST. TYPE
V -B
ApplicantName
Lea & Braze Engineering Inc
DATE
01/12/201
PAGE
2 OF 2
SEC/FLOOR
see plans
AREA
see plans
LOAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR
LOCATION
26880 Elena Rd Los Altos Hills
TABULAR FIRE FLOW
2000
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
BY
Harding, Doug
1 5070 11500
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Salving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
WIN COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TO: Brian Froelich
Assistant Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Attachment 12
January 17, 2012
L5022
RECEIVE
FEB 17 2012
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
RE: Yiu, New Residence
5-12-ZP-SD-GD
26880 Elena. Road
At your request, we have completed a geotechnical review of the permit
application for proposed site improvements using:
• Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Romig Engineers,
Inc., dated December 6,2011;
• Hydrology Study (report) prepared by Lea & Braze Engineering,
Inc., dated December 20, 2011;
• Septic System Plan (1 sheet) prepared by S.R. Hartsell, dated
December 15, 2011;
• Grading, Drainage, and Site Plan with details (11 sheets) prepared
by Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc., dated December 27, 2011
• Topographic Plan (1 sheet) prepared by Gregory F. Braze, dated
June 26,2007; and
• Architectural Plans (10 sheets) prepared by Swatt I Miers
Architects, dated October 10, 2011.
In addition, we completed a recent site inspection and reviewed pertinent
technical documents from our office files.
DISCUSSION
The applicant, proposes to demolish existing site residential structures and
construct a new residence, pool, driveway and an extension of the septic leachfield
system The proposed residence consists of a two-story structure with a full basement.
Various retaining walls are shown on the proposed development plans. According to
the referenced Grading and Drainage Plan, estimated earthwork quantities include
Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office
330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St Charles Drive, Suite 108
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995
(408) 354-5542 • Pax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Pax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933
www.cottonshires.com
Brian Froelich January 17, 2012
Page 2 1,5092
3,155 cubic yards of cut and 435 cubic yards of fill Fill quantities apparently include
depicted fill placement beneath the proposed new driveway alignment.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is generally characterized by gentle to steep (approximately
5 to 60 percent inclinations) east -facing hillside topography. A steep fill slope
(approximately 60 percent inclination) is located along the outboard edge of the existing
driveway and building pad. The upslope portion of the existing building pad is a gentle
to steep (approximately 5 to 60 percent inclination) cat slope. Indications of expansive
colluvium/fill were noted. Drainage is characterized by sheetflow to the east and is
partially intercepted by channelized flow along the southern property margin.
- The Town Geologic Map indicates that the property is underlain, at depth, by
greenstone and sandstone bedrock materials of the Franciscan Complex. The bedrock is
overlain by silty to gravelly clay with a moderate to high expansion potential. The
nearest traces of the potentially active Monta Vista and Altamont faults are mapped
approximately 530 feet northeast and 2,100 feet southwest and of the subject property,
respectively. Additionally, the active San Andreas Fault is located approximately 71/2
miles southwest of the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Proposed site development appears to be primarily constrained by expansive
surficial soils, existing artificial fill, and anticipated strong to violent seismic shaking.
We concur with the project geotechnical consultant that the proposed site development
plan is geotechnically feasible, provided appropriate design criteria are incorporated
into the final construction plans. Recommended geotechnical design criteria presented
to date appear to be in general conformance with prevailing standards of geotechnical
practice.
We recommend that the following conditions be attached to geotechnical
approval of applications for site improvements:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and
grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been
properly incorporated. The consultant should address whether
pervious concrete driveway surfacing is geotechnically acceptable
with underlying potentially expansive soil and fill materials.
Supplemental geotechnical design considerations should be
recommended as warranted.
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, . INC.
Brian Froelich January 17, 2012
Page 3 L5022
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be summarized
by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and subnutted to the Town
Engineer along with other documents for building permit plan -
check.
2. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical
consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geoteclulical 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 (both residence and ' swimming
pool), and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and
concrete. Pier drilling should be observed to verify adequate
foundation embedment into supporting materials.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the
project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a
letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final
(as -built) project approval.
LIMITATIONS
This geoteclnucal peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to
assist the Town with 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.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SUMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL. CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Code Sections:
Attachment 13
WSr1LT08 HUS
CALIPORNIA
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 11
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 greatestextent 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
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.
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.
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 14
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
LOSAMS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
'
Phone: (650) 941-7222
~
CALIFORNIA
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Basement Ordinance
Effective Date: 11/20/2011
Sec. 10-1.202 Basement
"Basement" shall mean a floor level, or portions thereof, which has:
(1) all portions directly below a building; and
(2) the finished floor elevation of the building level above shall not be greater than twenty-
eight (28") inches above the adjoining natural or finished grade, whichever is lower; and
(3) have at least 75% of its perimeter length wholly underground; and
Daylighted basements shall comply with all height and setback requirements of this ordinance.
Basements including cellars and bunkers, which are not located within the footprint of the
building above, may be permitted by theTlanning Commission when it finds that such structures
do not encroach in setbacks; are a minimum of 18 inches below natural grade, are wholly
underground except for required exiting, lighting and ventilation and are counted as development
area except when placed under a surface already counted as development area. Bunker area that
exceeds 1,500 square feet shall be counted as Floor Area.
Daylight Basement Structure Height Setback: Daylight Basement Structure Height Setback:
For basement floor levels, any floor area portion and the first 20 feet of a daylighted basement
shall be limited in structure height per Section 10-1.504;
(See Example 94)
Note: Daylighted basements shall comply with the Town's grading policy. The Grading Policy is
used by staff in evaluating 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.
Attachment 10
Debbie Pedro
From: Larry Del Carlo [delman2005@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 12:41 PM
To: Debbie Pedro; raykcol@yahoo.com; richard.partridge@gmail.com
Subject: 26880 Elana Road, Los Altos Hills
Dear Ms. Pedro
On April 23, we received a Notice of Public Hearing for the lands of Yiu at 26880 Elana Road. This application
requires waivers to LAH grading policy which is intended to assure that construction retains the existing contours
and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. The above application exceeds these codes and
requires excavations of more than 3,155 cubic yds of the hillside, of which more than 2,720 will have to be .
exported from the site. This driveway significantly exceeding LAH codes and Santa Clara Fire Dept codes is
proposed to be constructed on an elevated platform above the natural contours of the hillside.
The applicants also requested to remove least two Heritage Oaks to make way for the new property. The
applicants should be requested to consider alternative designs that preserve these trees. One, possibly two
Heritage Oaks have already been lost on this property, since the planning process was started by the prior
property owners.
Unfortunately we are not able to attend on May 3rd, and we understand this is similar for other concerned
neighbors. We request that this project be scheduled for the June Planning Commission meeting to allow a full
Public hearing to take place.
Larry 8& Denise Del Carlo -
13117 La Barranca Road
Los Altos Hills, Ca 94022
Debbie Pedro
From: Frank Cahill [frankc.pnl@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:55 PM
To: Debbie Pedro; raykcol@yahoo.com; richard.partridge@gmail.com
Subject: Public Hearing May 3, 2012
I am one of the neighbors at 13151 Cumbra Vista Ct., adjacent to the development
project of Simon Yiu at 26880 Elena Rd. I did not receive the Notice of Public Hearing
on the Yiu application until it was too late to rearrange my schedule. I cannot attend
the meeting and would like the opportunity discuss this before the Board approves the
application.
I'd appreciate it if the meeting could be postponed until next month and I will be sure
to attend.
Thank you for your consideration,
Doris Lam
1
Debbie Pedro
From: Michael Graves [megravesca@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6:30 PM
To: Debbie Pedro; raykcol@yahoo.CDM; richard.partridge@gmail. corn
Cc: jima.pc@gmail.com; eclow@hinagroup.com; john.harpootlian@gmail.com; Sue
Subject: Property of Yiu Proposed Development/26880 Elena Road
We are neighbors to the proposed development project at 26880 Elena Road and received, on April 24,
2012, a Notice of Public hearing, dated April 20, that is to be held May 3, 2012. Because of the late
notice, we have conflicts and are unable to attend the May hearing. We respectfully request that the
meeting be deferred until June in order for us to attend. We also understand there are other neighbors
who received the notice and who, like us, are unable to attend. We have not had an opportunity to
review the plans for this proposed development and are concerned that we have a reasonable
opportunity to review and understand the scope and impact of the proposal, as well as the variances
being requested, the impact on protected oaks, etc. It is our understanding that issues not raised at the
initial public hearing cannot be raised at later hearings. Accordingly, we request the hearing delay to
enable us to respond, in a timely manner, in accordance with the LAH's procedures.
Michael E. Graves
Suzanne W. Graves
13119 La Barranca Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
650-947-9379
GLARA c°G
FIDE
COURTESY 8 SERVICE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 - (408) 378-9342 (fax) - www.sccfd.org
0
1 Attachment 11
'JAN 13 2012
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
12 0057
Proposed new 5,832 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: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and
attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. 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. 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. Section R313.2 as adopted and amended
by LAHTC
City PLANS
LAH ®
PLAN
OCCUPANCY
SFR
REVIEW No.
AppllcantName
Lea & Braze Engineering Inc
BLDG
DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
PERMIT No.
12 0057
Proposed new 5,832 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: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and
attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. 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. 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. Section R313.2 as adopted and amended
by LAHTC
City PLANS
LAH ®
SPECS NEW RMDL AS
❑ ® ❑ ❑
OCCUPANCY
SFR
CONST. TYPE
V -B
AppllcantName
Lea & Braze Engineering Inc
DATE
01/12/201
I PAGE
—1 OF 2
SEC/FLOOR
see plans
AREA
see plans
LOAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR
LOCATION
26880 Elena Rd Los Altos Hills
TABULAR FIRE FLOW
2000
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
1500
BY
Harding, Doug
_ 50%
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
LA -RA CO
�$ FIRES
COURTESY 6 SERVICE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org
RECEIVED
JAN 13 2012
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLAN
REVIEW No.
BLDG
DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No.
12 0057
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: 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.
Comment #6: Premises Identification: 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. CFC Sec. 505
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 ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑
OCCUPANCY
SFR
CONST. TYPE Tppilcantlslame
V -B
Lea & Braze Engineering Inc
DATE
01/12/201
PAGE
2 OF 2
SECIFLOOR
see plans
AREA
see plans
LOAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR
LOCATION
26880 Elena Rd Los Altos Hills
TABULAR FIRE FLOW
2000
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW Q 20 PSI
1500
BY
Harding, Doug
50%
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
Ee
COTTON, SHIRES AND AssOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TO: Brian Froelich
Assistant Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Attachment 12
January 17, 2012
L5022
RECEIVE
FEB 17 Z01Z
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
RE: Yiu, New Residence
5-12-ZP-SD-GD
26880 Elena Road
At your request, we have completed a geotechnical review of the permit
application for proposed site improvements using:
• Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Romig Engineers,
Inc., dated December 6, 2011;
• Hydrology Study (report) prepared by Lea '& Braze Engineering,
Inc., dated December 20, 2011;
• Septic System Plan (1 sheet) prepared by S.R. Hartsell, dated
December 15, 2011;
• Grading, Drainage, and Site Plan with details (11 sheets) prepared
by Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc., dated December 27, 2011
• Topographic Plan (1 sheet) prepared by Gregory F. Braze, dated
June 26, 2007; and
• Architectural Plans (10 sheets) prepared by Swatt I Miers
Architects, dated October 10, 2011.
In addition, we completed a recent site inspection and reviewed pertinent
technical documents from our office files.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to demolish existing site residential structures and
construct a new residence, pool, driveway and an extension of the septic leachfield
system The proposed residence consists of a two-story structure with a full basement.
Various retaining walls are shown on the proposed development plans. According to
the referenced Grading and Drainage Plan, estimated earthwork quantities include
Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office
330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St Charles Drive, Suite 108
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995
(408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933
www.cottonshires.com
Brian Froelich January 17, 2012
Page 2 L5022
3,155 cubic yards of cut and 435 cubic yards of fill. Fill quantities apparently include
depicted fill placement beneath the proposed new driveway alignment
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is generally characterized by gentle to steep (approximately
5 to 60 percent inclinations) east -facing hillside topography. A steep fill slope
(approximately 60 percent inclination) is located along the outboard edge of the existing
driveway and building pad. The' upslope portion of the existing building pad is a gentle
to steep (approximately 5 to 60 percent inclination) cut slope. Indications of expansive
colluvium/fill were noted. Drainage is characterized by sheetflow to the east and is
partially intercepted by channelized flow along the southern property margin.
The Town Geologic Map indicates that the property is underlain, at depth, by
greenstone and sandstone bedrock materials of the Franciscan Complex. The bedrock is
overlain by silty to gravelly clay with a moderate to high expansion potential. The
nearest traces of the potentially active Monta Vista and Altamont faults are mapped
approximately 530 feet northeast and 2,100 feet southwest and of the subject property,
respectively. Additionally, the active San Andreas Fault is located approximately 71/2
miles southwest of the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Proposed site development appears to be primarily constrained by expansive
surficial soils, existing artificial fill, and anticipated strong to violent seismic shaking.
We concur with the project geotechnical consultant that the proposed site development
plan is geotech ically feasible, provided appropriate design criteria are incorporated
into the final construction plans. Recommended geotechnical design criteria presented
to date appear to be in general conformance with prevailing standards of geotechnical
practice.
We recommend that the following conditions be attached to geotechnical
approval of applications for site improvements:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and
grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations) toensure that their recommendations have been
properly incorporated. The consultant should address whether
pervious concrete driveway surfacing is geotechnically acceptable
with underlying potentially expansive soil and fill materials.
Supplemental geotechnical design considerations should be
recommended as warranted.
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
i
i
Brian Froelich January 17, 2012
Page 3 L5022
The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be summarized
by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer along with other documents for building permit plan-
check.
lancheck.
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 (both residence and swimming
pool), and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and
concrete. Pier drilling should be observed to verify adequate
foundation embedment into supporting materials.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the
project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a
letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final
(as -built) project approval.
LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to
assist the Town with 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.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
� �: - 0, 1 W�M
Ted Sayre
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN OF LOS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Code Sections:
ALTOS HILLS
Attachment 13
LOSALTOSIIILLS
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
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 87** 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.
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.
TOWN OF LOS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
I_TWrOM. "U 1M
Attachment 14
LOSALTOS HILLS
CALIFORNIA
Basement Ordinance
Effective Date: 11/20/2011
Sec. 10-1.202 Basement
"Basement" shall mean a floor level, or portions thereof, which has:
(1) all portions directly below a building; and
(2) the finished floor elevation of the building level above shall not be greater than twenty-
eight (28") inches above the adjoining natural or finished grade, whichever is lower; and
(3) have at least 75% of its perimeter length wholly underground; and
Daylighted basements shall comply with all height and setback requirements of this ordinance.
___Basements including cellars and bunkers, which are not located within the footprint of the
building above, may be permitted by the Planning Commission when it finds that such structures
do not encroach in setbacks, are a minimum of 18 inches below natural grade, are wholly
underground except for required exiting, lighting and ventilation and are counted as development
area except when placed under a surface already counted as development area. Bunker area that
exceeds 1,500 square feet shall be counted as Floor Area.
Daylight Basement Structure Height Setback: Daylight Basement Structure Height Setback:
For basement floor levels, any floor area portion and the first 20 feet of a daylighted basement
shall be limited in structure height per Section 10-1.504.
(See Example #4)
Note: Daylighted basements shall comply with the Town's grading policy. The Grading Policy is
used by staff in evaluating 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.
a
Policy: Basement Ordinance
Page 2
U Stz
Natural
Grade
4==,
0 Basement Retaining Wall and
Floor Frame Detail
�we
basement
O Daylight
Natural
Grade
ill Story
EL 239.52'
,h 4
leFloor
i , Basements jArea
�
Finish
SECTION Grade
At least 75% of
basement perimeter Topography line at 28"
wholly underground below the FF elevation
) Daylight Basement Structure Height Setback
Topography line at 28"
below the FF elevation
120, 28" below the I"
d ^;
- !�` Basement r�
Floor;
Area
'20
Max 4 foot tall
retaining
walls
Floor
EL
PLAN
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
Town of Los Altos Hills
JPLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, October 1, 2009, 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Attaclu-nent 15
Approved 11/05/2009
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Chairman Clow and Commissioners: Collins, Harpootlian, and Abraham
Absent: Commissioner Partridge
Staff- Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner; and
Victoria Ortland, Planning Secretary
2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR - none
- - " 3. _ - -PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure:
Chairman Clow had spoken to Mr. and Mrs. Parikh (Item 3. 1, Lands of Parikh).
3.1 LANDS OF PARIKH, 26880 Elena Road; File #181-08-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site
Development Permit for a 4,970 square foot new residence (maximum height: 27 feet).
The applicant is requesting a grading policy exception for up to 13 feet of cut for the
driveway and rear yard area, up to 5 feet of cut for the garage, up to 6 feet of fill for the
front yard area, and up to 3.5 feet of fill for the driveway. CEQA Review: Categorical
Exemption per Section 15303(a) (Staff -Cynthia Richardson).
Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner, presented the staff report for the proposed new
residence and Grading Policy exceptions for the steeply sloped site. The existing private
ingress/egress driveway easement would be abandoned and replaced with a new driveway with
access off Elena Road. Two heritage oak trees were planned for removal to accommodate the
new driveway and fire truck turn -around. The applicants worked extensively with neighbors to
develop the submitted plan. Grading Policy exceptions were requested for fill to create yard
areas, and cut for the driveway and fire truck turn -around.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Mihir Parikh, applicant, explained that the submitted design for the project took significant effort
considering the constraints of the lot, which included septic leach field requirements, drainage,.
and driveway slope. Meetings had been held to hear neighbor's comments; their concerns had
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/05/2009
October 1, 2009
Page 2
been successfully addressed through compromise and redesign of the plans. Drainage issues had
been examined; the location of the driveway and the septic fields had been rearranged to the
satisfaction of the neighbors, staff, and the fire department. Of the heritage oak trees to be
removed: tree number 1 is a safety hazard, and the preservation of tree number 2 in its present
location would prevent any practical design for the property. Approval of the plan by the
Planning Commission was respectfully requested.
Commissioner Collins asked if oak tree number 2 was in the path of the required paving for the
fire truck turn -around.
Pete Carlino, civil engineer, said an earlier design showed the driveway and fire truck turn
around located on the northern side of the property. After meeting with and gathering input from
neighbors, staff, and the fire department, concerns raised by that location had been adequately
resolved with redesign of the plans. The number 2 oak tree must be removed. The existing
driveway is noncompliant and does not have a fire truck turn -around.
Commissioner Harpootlian asked about storm water run-off and drainage from the property.
Pete Carlino explained that the project's drainage design was based on the Town's requirement
for capture and release of no more water than currently leaves the site. The retention system was
sized for the maximum development area of the property (more than the proposed MDA).
Chairman Clow asked for clarification on the need for replacing the existing driveway.
Pete Carlino stated that 20 percent is the maximum slope for a driveway in Santa Clara County.
The existing driveway's 22 percent slope and inadequate turning radius for a fire truck at the
property line would make it necessary to rebuild the entire driveway. Construction of a fire truck
turn -around would be required on the site as well. With the amount of grading needed to meet all
specifications, the oak trees would still be at risk.
Chairman Clow had concerns over the height of the retaining wall along the driveway in front of
the residence and suggested terracing the walls.
Pete Carlinsaid he could work with staff on a layout for the driveway retaining walls.
Commissioner Collins asked (in regard to comments made by Barrie Coate in the 2008 arborist's
report) if the drip lines of the trees had been measured again and changes made to reflect their
actual size. The arborist's report states that construction of the leach field must be kept outside of
the tree's drip lines.
Peter Carlino said that Barrie Coate would be involved with any grading done around the trees
on site.
Mike Scott, Black Mountain Road, asked how a building's height was determined. He inquired
where the utility line for the new development would be located and if he would have rights of
access to it. The existing power pole serves the Parikh and O'Connell residences, but is not in a
utility right of way nor claimed by PG&E. He stated that the drainage issues on the Parikh
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/05/2009
October 1, 2009
Page 3
property were complicated because water from his property drains onto the applicant's lot in
addition to the underground water that flows down through the property.
John O'Connell, Elena Road, said he had many discussions with the applicants regarding his
objections to the project. He felt Mr: Parikh had done everything possible to address and resolve
any concerns of his and the other neighbors. The new plans alleviated many of the drainage
issues and the potential for excessive vehicular noise from the driveway. He felt that considering
the fire department's requirements for the driveway and turn -around, there was no possible
placement of the driveway that would save the oak tree. He was in support of the project as
proposed. He explained that power to his property comes from a pole that is not recognized by
PG&E. The lines to his home are undergrounded from that pole.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Abraham supported the project and felt the applicant had worked diligently to
solve neighbor concerns.
Commissioner Harpootlian supported the project but was concerned about the utility right of way
and wanted to ensure that neighboring properties would have the opportunity to connect in the
future. He wanted a utility right of way to be granted on the north side of the property to allow
for eventual connection by the neighbors. He felt the applicants had cooperated well with the
neighbors.
Commissioner Collins supported the project and understood the reason why oak tree number 2
would need to be removed.
Chairman Clow thought the utility lines connecting to the pple were secondary lines and felt that
an easement could be granted privately.
Staff said the neighbors could work out a solution together with the Town helping to facilitate
the discussion with PG&E.
Commissioner Harpootlian felt that if the utility pole was not a public pole, the new residence
should not be undergrounded to it, but rather to a public pole on Elena Road. If an easement were
granted, it would be possible to make the utility pole public.
Chairman Clow supported the project but wanted the high section of the retaining wall along the
driveway to be terraced. He regretted the loss of the heritage oak tree, but felt that there were no
other designs for the driveway that would preserve the tree.
MOTION MADE, AMENDED, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE:
Motion made by Commissioner Harpootlian and seconded by Commissioner Abraham to
approve the requested Site Development Permit for a new residence and Grading Policy
exception for a driveway and yard area, Lands of Parikh, 26880 Elena Road, subject to the
recommended conditions of approval and the findings for the Grading Policy exceptions; with an
additional requirement for any portion of the retaining wall along the driveway exceeding 4 feet
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/05/2009
October 1, 2009
Page 4
in height must be terraced, and the utility pole utilized must be a valid PG&E pole (to be
confirmed by staff).
AYES: Commissioners Abraham, Collins, Harpootlian, and Chairman Clow
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Partridge
This item is subject to a 22 day appeal period and will be forwarded to a future meeting of the
City Council.
3.2 LANDS OF PURISSIMA HILLS WATER DISTRICT (APPLICANT: VERIZON
WIRELESS), 12863 La Cresta Drive; File #120 -09 -CUP; A request for a Conditional
Use Permit renewal and modification to add two additional panel .antennas to the existing
pipe mount at the same height as the existing antennas. CEQA Review: Categorical
Exemption per Section 15301 (Staff -Cynthia Richardson).
Commissioner Harpootlian recused himself for this item.
Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner, presented the staff report for the Conditional Use
Permit renewal and modification. Two antennas were proposed to be added and no change to the
existing ground equipment.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Crystal Wood, representative for the applicant, explained that there should be no change in the
public's view of the site. The new antennas would increase the bandwidth for Verizon's
operation in Los Altos Hills and result in better customer service.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND PASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion made by
Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Abraham to forward a recommendation
to City Council to approve the requested modification and renewal of the Conditional Use
Permit, Lands of Purissima Hills Water District (Applicant Verizon Wireless), 12863 La Cresta
Drive.
Commissioners Collins, Abraham and Chairman Clow supported the project.
AYES: Commissioners Collins, Abraham, and Chairman Clow
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Harpootlian
ABSENT: Commissioner Partridge
This item will be forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council.
4. OLD BUSINESS - none