Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5.2
Item 5.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 19, 2012 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, SWIMMING POOL, NEW DRIVEWAY ACCESS, REMOVAL OF THREE HERITAGE OAK TREES AND A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION. LANDS OF YIU; 26880 ELENA ROAD; FILE# 5-12-ZP-SD-GD. ; CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 7, 2012 PLANNING COMNIISISON MEETING FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner Z,F APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director 19 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) On October 1, 2009, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a new 4,970 square foot, two-story residence on the property for a previous owner (Parikh). The project included 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, up to 3.5 feet of fill for the driveway and 'removal of two (2) heritage oak trees. The previous owner did not construct the residence and the site development permit expired on October 1, 2011. (October 1, 2009 meeting minutes — Attachment #16) 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 firetruck turnaround. Planning Commission Lands ofYiu July 19, 2012 Page 2 DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 1.19 acres Net Lot Area: 1.19 acres Average Slope: 22.32% Lot Unit Factor: 0.879 Floor Area and Development Area (in square feet) Maximum Development Area 9,320 Floor Area 5,000 Basement Basement. Garage Site and Architecture Proposed Existing Increase Remaining 9,189 4,399 4,790 131 5,000 2,285 2,715 0 (2,746) (719) The parcel is located on a moderately steep sloping, east facing hillside with an average slope of 22.32%. The existing residence is located on a cut building pad. 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 a basement. The proposed residence is predominately two stories with the north end stepping down. 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 and Planning Commission Lands of Yin July 19, 2012 Page 3 proposed adjacent to the daylighted basement that also serves 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. A third garage parking space is substandard in size. 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 36" 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 corner 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. Planning Commission Lands of Yin July 19, 2012 Page 4 Grading Policy Exceptions The submitted grading plan includes grading quantities including 3,090 cubic yards of cut and 520 cubic yards of fill, with a net export of 2,570 cubic yards. The applicant is requesting the following Grading Policy Exceptions: 1) Driveway/Fire Truck Turnaround Area - The Grading Policy allows cuts of up to 10' for the construction of a driveway which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. Terraced retaining walls are proposed to accommodate the driveway/fire truck turnaround with up to 11' of cut in three areas totaling approximately 610 square feet. 2) Driveway — Midway between Elena Road and the proposed residence there is an area that necessitates fill up to 5' where the maximum allowed is 3'. These excessive fill areas have atotal area of 1,266 square feet. 3) Swimming Pool — An area of six (6) square feet at the south end of the pool deck necessitates fill of 3.5' where 3' is the maximum permitted. The proposed new home is sited 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%. The additional fill for the swimming pool is a minor for a proposed swimming pool that generally complies with the Grading Policy (Attachment 914). 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. Overflow is directed into outfall installations that are over 40 feet from the front property boundary to. allow absorption on site. The volume of the detention basin is determined by the net increase in two-dimensional impervious surface area. The coefficient is based on one (1) hour duration, 10 year storm event. 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). Planning Commission Lands of Yiu July 19, 2012 Page 5 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) 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 and June 7, 2012 Planning Commission hearings. 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, 2012 and requested that the item be rescheduled to June 2012 (Attachment #10). The applicant voluntarily requested a continuance to the June 7, 2012 hearing. Prior to the June 12, 2012 hearing, errors in the grading plan were discovered and the applicant again requested a continuance. Mark and Kay Barchus, 27142 Elena Road submitted a letter opposing removal of heritage oak trees and concern regarding the new driveway access to Elena Road and visibility across from La Barranca Road. (Attachment #11) John O'Connell, 26912 Elena Road (adjacent neighbor to the north) submitted an email which outlines concerns, including discussion of alternative designs, opposition to Grading Policy Exceptions, and removal of Heritage Oak trees. (Attachment #7) 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). Planning Commission Lands of Yiu July 19, 2012 Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CSA) 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 report 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 10. Emails from neighbors Larry and Denise Del Carlo, Doris Lam, and Michael and Suzanne Graves 4/25/12 and 4/26/12 11. Letter from resident Mark and Kay Barchas, 27142 Elena Road 7/5/12 12. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department, 1/13/2012. 13. Geotechnical Review letter from Cotton, Shires, and Associates, 1/17/2012. 14. Los Altos Hills Grading Policy 15. Los Altos Hills Basement Ordinance 16. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, 10/1/2009 17. Proposed Development Architectural and Civil Engineering plans Planning Commission Lands of Yiu July 19, 2012 Page 7 WIVOWITKIIIIIQM RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE, SWIIVIlVIINO 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 36" 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 nlan'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 July 19, 2012 Page 8 Town staff must inspect the chain-link fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The properly 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 nmust 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. 4. 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 July 19, 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. 500.square feet of photovoltaic solar panels shall be installed and grid connected, prior to final inspection to receive the proposed development area credit. 15. 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 16. 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~ 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. Any, and all, changes to. the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading Planning Commission Lands of Yw July l9, 2012 Page 10 moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 20. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 66=8 months. 21. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the. Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 22. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on 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. 23. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the -roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 24. The property owner shall dedicate additional right of way to create a 30' wide half -width public right of way tb 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 25. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed prior to final inspection. Planning Commission Lands of Yiu July 19, 2012 Page 11 26. A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County Health Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 27. Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final inspection. 28. 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 29. 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. 30. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 31. 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. 32. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and Standard Detail and Specification SI -7. 33. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. 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 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 AND 28 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY TOWN STAFF PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Planning Commission Lands of Yin July 19, 2012 Page 12 NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until July 19, 2013). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring. a building permit .shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. 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 July 19, 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 with the proposed residence in primarily the same location as the existing residence. 3. The proposed grading will not increase the quantity of runoff. 4. The proposed grading employs a cut building pad 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 2004 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 Assessox'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, 1,953 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,both 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, then Parikh - ---may--seek-binding - arbitration -pursuant to- the•. tollowing-prevusl-orr:--- - 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) YEARSr EXPERIENCE IN RESIDENTIAL REAL-ESTATE DISPUTES. NOTICE: BY INITIAIUNG 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 OW THIS AGREEMENT, DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW. THIS PARAGRAPH DQE$ NOT APPLY TO ANY RIGHT OE ACTION YOU MAY HOLD FOR BODILY INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH -Ott 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 LAN. 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 I -S 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: 1(J 14C---,_ SELLERS BUYERS 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 sliall execute such other documents as may be required by the escrow agent for the purpose of releasing and abandoning the Easement. 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 effects 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 -VTI 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 ParikW 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 Buyers and Sellers. 9.2 Mercer. All negotiations and agreements previously made by the parties with respect to this Agreement are merged _.__----..—into-this• Agreemeat.,--and– this•Agreement••completely-sets.--forth--a11----•-.. -.- 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 entitled'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 CaAtions. 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 GoyernincLLaw. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of California. SELLERS 44 Mihir Parikh, Trustee N Nancy Pagikh, Trustee Dated: ) /8 , 2010 Dated:- % , 2010 Page 7 of 8 9 i 1 BUYBPIS -Dated:—..- - - ,- 2.010• Steven D. Chang, Tr stee (�f.;G� Dated:%� %1 , 2010 Helen R. Cheng, ruatee Page 8 of 8 i EXHIBIT A i ME* .W—. at`i �'tip sar a 1m�.....v. Nene � '1 � r - aoo7aor,�►., # �� bi+► LLWr+e•a+yj..►•�YgF 4 vvvw =• AkEA COVERW 8Y OJANG-RARJKH.DP4VrWAY U$e Ligtme BARRI E 'D. Cl ATE and ASSOCIATES Hor icutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 $1 4081353-1052 Attachment 4 RECEIVED JAN 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 ssLMI@swattmiers.com Mr. Kapadia nkanadia(&swattmiers.com Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench November 10, 2011 Job #11-11-153 U BARRI E D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horficutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 $1 40813531.052 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 visual 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 l 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 agrifolia) 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 AFN 147-N KJ KJ 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. agrifolia) 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 • 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 W 12. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk 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/li Enclosures: Data Sheet Map Assumptions and Limiting Conditions AN EVALUATION OF EXISTING TREES AT 26880 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, November 10, 2011 5 BARRI E D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horlabral Consultants 23535SummitRoad Las Gatos, CA 95033 408/353-1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. 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. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. 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 appraisees/consultanVs 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. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. 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 Ylu Property 26880 Elena Road Valley ask 40..0OV IOU I1/-# {3 Q.—u. l.b.t. ,_ _ _ Corea=gee oak--�^ :•547 45_ 1-6-0-�1T 2 Qnefau. egrlfolla Valley o.k ti _132.0 145 ;60 2 2 Cada nva oak �151.2� 1 _ Valley ask ''•50.6 75 70 _ 2~12/3 C....Run ask --'26.3~ 35 Ii beat Ilv. ask _-- 3(.6) 120 130 Peary w11law —~ 10!10 ,8(:4) 130 135 '1 13 Sank dlacomr -.A..... Co..ry Island eat. palm 13006" 120 20 it 11 Phoenix aanarlonsls L Monterey pine ^ 18 -- 60 ;30 130 Y_t(2 2 T Plnua ra diose — J_..... Mnt.roy pin. i4Z2 80 45 14 131 Chlnaea plata eh. N 16-7 15 15 1 11 Plats ala ehln.nala Inds. ... _- - - ---- --•-- - — — — -_. DBH = Diameter In Inches. at grape. Holght (54 loaner above also.) Hgh. = Approx. Can., j Ha Ig htlnF.et 1 l Sprd = Approx. Canopy 1 Spread In F... Hl.h = Health Sire - Svuttura CD/1B = Co -d. m In a nt t.ms WIth Imbedded Bark - high risk of Ilm b braekeg.. Tppd -Topped 1 Los Altos Hills, California parse canopy / Numerous cavities Recently Fallen -Ganodorma Imeauon Pre.nous limb failure on E side Stump Sprout Sp a—, 1–m n- 12aa T rpan=In`Beatl Atteak-- M� 12 [roes adjacent to property boundary Baffle D. Coate Prepared by Michael Bench and Associates November 15, 2011 i ), � • • , � t• � �f � � i ! 7 ' � ( � f3�tlEfi61��'tCYB�fi �. I y'. � w K 97 1 t:E.�ltl, r ` )fs. ,,. ..,...q,Ln.�,. .._,_.7 •---' .�.. •, 1 I {�-tel �,� ,•1�% 7 ' •ry ► 1^4 lfA"'; f f' •_� __ ir_`.n.... _`t; -:.,,L`,` ,� ,_.. --------•_.•_,..._ _.. ' L� 'f �'"rr`'* ',1rk 7't• $" � P_ 6_ Lr✓ " .�(� I• •'Y `?��+�.,�'� -M'Ik.'ioiAifI LF.tl'49i1U....._ . :... . _...... _.... /. , :..�Y:.�' J.•'j , � i . wL ` ' ! F "h r , _.,. 1sIKr ,T. S' lr �iMr1 ', .Crp m"1 '. :,9 9.. � ,� �dT' rc.r.v. (j�. ,�'^' •.^��Y+..::�;�.y 1•+� I '. 1sy � P:wr�. �} �• '�7 � �.i • ; �l`•�" � ,• y� .'.cam t . 1 414.—L '• �'., . '+r j � 4 ..._.._., t�.,r 'u "f a a.reuw ",.�, f ».+«10" _ t i 7 "'^'r� r s 1 .''•. i•j ' . _... t M"m �• ` ,', �' ..., _y ( ', • I Y' "S��t I ..•.,- �. it} IxII/IIO C_t �'•+ ' r i! �y i i ''r..I tNi} vlt 1 i s 1 �• f � rr t rr' f: t,+>rn'. ret+lly ffpx-n 7! ry li ,':C.r4 •�yJ 117 D7Ar'7 kG .1.. 'a- 'I 1. A' rlw,,ylli C. f 1, ` dE,AiF� 1 .. �'_'vi..l........_--'�• ' _ +`iF ,' i• � "+Y f �t; ',t �j" 1 ' ' ,) ,' If 9 i 11, r S�K71�:I1.r'{' ' fel f ; ; 7 '` ' ( 1 ( ' • , , S ' /1/ ••�, a •1Cd. x :. f f : ' 1 �' � � J ...--"' + r. ' (5)�r�nrex�lre'e: •c... � r � ' f71t Iffve wne► . � �rti�_ � ». .i-_ s j�' ��•d'� "'`J ..4 �-'I ` ; .{�utiurrtm •`c�as•N<trri/v! A`I 7 :'� 4'`j .M14 ! 1 • ' O)'an t am.r m •1� win M 'TVr, Tom''r!)j - :€P]v¢rMA7w'N. Q�'OI!MMYi'N"Y. N", ilor r.. �'tiy f. •��, ,SLS, \ •.:� .. ,.,*"' ' _. '., to \1 fff ...r....� ' .. ! , ± r • _ fi y"�'�Y •�' r 1 ' 'c{:. •'.i 'F • 1�. , ��,1 '; i - /", � � ., '.! ... � Pv .•r'v' �. 1 FOe%t,. - � ' 1 , .,M, •r 1' .r �`,• �, k �t� � r,, J.. _ ' ..��L y�r� f � �' ,,r -`S P�'rf�Si'v"y, / ' , .1 i' ,,1 ' rf• '. ' r ( +„A ;r las :.ssr 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 in 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-D.uwe 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 anin-lieu fee. Breene Kerr moved that the Town ask the owners of 27665 Via Cerro Gordo to pay a pathway in -lieu feebR 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 comer 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 Kleitman 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 Mini2-0123 3/21/12- 2 Environmental Design and Protection. Committee Naw ?,e-2i Attachment 7 Cynthia Richardson From: Debbie Pedro Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 12:22 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@gmail.com Cc: jima.pc@gmail.com; eclow@hinagroup.com; john.harpootlian@gmaii.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 LAH 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, 35ft 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 tme 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. Respectfiilly yours, John and Anne O'Connell Residents 26912 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022. 4/26/2012 EDWARD L: PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1975 HAMILTON AVENUE. SUITE 26 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 Mr. Simon Yiu 10613 Baxter Avenue Los Altos, CA. 94024 Attachment 8 Acoustical Consultants TEL:408-371-1195 FAX: 408-371-1196 www.paCkassociates. com April 19.2012 Project No. 44-012 Subject: Driveway Noise Analysis, 26880 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills 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 purpose of this study was to determine the levels of noise in the neighbor's rear yard from- standard personal vehicles using 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 dnvewav surface will be acceptable. Pleasenote the following.&finitions: 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 coastlhg 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. Section 1I contains a site. and' project description: Section III 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- 1. 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 S1.4 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. W Los Altos *Hills 'Noise, , Code .Section 5.1.02 Motor Vehicles Day 8,Odb I& Night 72dB' Measured Noise (A,NSI-SI.4) > I Oft measurement distance Vehicle climbing 18% grade = 93dB I -4 - IL 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 h.0.1't, 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 woad "good neighbor" fence that teriaces 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 MR. 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. They elevation of the neighbor's pool deck is 524 ft. The intervening topography between the upper driveway and pool deck Ianges from 530 ft. to 534 ft. These elevations do not include the existing fence. III. Findings and Analysis To determine the levels of noise generated by personal vehicles on a 20% sloped driveway with permeable pavers, a residence at 28160 Story Dill Lane iri Los Altos Hills was located, which has a driveway at 2.0% 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 Larson :Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer. The bacl6g/turtiing 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. ME -7 - Photos of the measurement locations and- the drive at Story Hill Lane are shown below. FIGURE .1 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 1 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 Tabie.l.,. 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 Hien made. Because of the slow speed traveling a 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 isnot 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. o y� m e Sm 5 $ a m m 5Q Oj{1 i P -3 w ^o� qEE Y� em eSo u _ u 15.&N OA. q�A •ii by b. a b . N mN N o" ug.:� t:e �V mN ffi� rY g v V V - - II gOm wi,p BEA eqA 5b e 'a Pi N o m ei. �a Yoe as thPj1. ►go meA'vti "'. _ — _ _ i N .$- Yn '8. m• Ym �� ha �? 8+• �',^„ a m a Dta oS- _ _ &• �_ -= x V � O m _ O q N V O q Y ✓$ b N q a �� m."M u - � u a t9 uN g :4 S a1S �& &�' Ygu -10 - 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 scenario. 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: SIMCN VIL' FILE: 44412 PROJECT: DRIVEWAYNOISE TABLE DATE. 411711012 SOURCE: CAR, SW. TRUCK BARRIER CALCULATIONS CLIENT; SIMON YIU FILE' 41.014 TABLE .1 PROJECT. DRIVEWAY NOISE DATE. 4117/2012 SOURCE' CAR, SUV, TP.UCK' BARRIER CALCULATIONS CLIENT: SINON YIU FILE, 44.012 PROJECT' DRIVEWAY ICDISE DATE, 411712012 SOURCE: CM, 6W, TRUCK' -td Padaat `86indtj. ,TTgw a Soulcw to"'i14Yaetlo. vrcattl He' Ilii ar �t-ul ¢t' li" w �ce1 ic"� Up Soda 524 4 528 526 20 30 50 527 Pod Banter }YtA n cSOurce = $ourco to 6aMa1Kr t±a Ga to [iaciIV& c EYl4iyohF.i'6'nai'aacaRmIYt�tjt.s Backing 526 8 534 528 25 28 53 . 527 owt IS�4k�d"J "; d '13ar�ar�� OW%fi Source :Sa1rce'1a�13imgr:ta �wti�cYto 4 i� r ;£IQu�k h5 F't,3 ie 'kH4r'iorFt- 4T,ri lie 4v r„. Gown 524 4 528 526 20 30 50 527.. �?�P d Bnntur'� TAW,'„ au1c4 a'fdtotatlJ4n1¢rta 130tircIJtD� OaeSVer _E'afri N'nnht" 1 `Eta' HiMh4';6u^�(ieGUuonY$iE�tv4iitek�iltl Up Source 524 4 578 526 20 30 'S0 527 F ad 13a'SGvzTtlWx :sr"SrueGOF Souraeta Bafd101tl 391� 1aT �d+�ftitiC �%-e� afi� w Backing -...Baur 528" 0 534 526 25 28 53 527 524 4'. Sze 5281- "SoUreo 20 30 .60 527;' +81deldid i<a TABLE 4 '^ '-•---- --- - .. .t 4.9 5.1 5.4 87.3 873 .15.5 0.0 d.9 5.3 10 10.2 7.2, 596 50o 51.5 ` n 46.0 81.0 52.3 . .52.5 53,9' '. 49.9 6T, B.B 3' I 'k'^ , 24.$ 8.1 35.9 t0.0 334 12.3 14.9 17] 20.8 13.0 o9.v a4.5 155 S8 5 53 3 int -v 845.7 .38 $ 1745, 33.8 231 .0 33.7 23 0.3 *32.6 18301 24.8 6E{.5 • 1 4 0 �:. 4= - 35,8 J6.8 44.0 43.0 " 49.5 60.0 50.4 45.1 tc�. 3S 4,9 5.1 5.4 0.0 6,9 8.3 10.2 so 53.8 e4.5 15.5 58.0 50 f `� 1459 7 7018 2 80.4 43.6 22719,6 43,1 4"5.7 42.1 16345.1 349 3005.2 77602.0 48.8 ,# `.QN- 11 710 - eJ: Ey illS'R •"83N ee�7.20kiri�7 T ,iY RRz�,a1� i i'i i ; 'ass: R A n ! t ' t 64,3 55.8 82.0 55.1 68.5 50,8 58.5 53.3 Yai" f�uel�.e^�r�1Di t� 64.3 84.5 15.5 r 't -e ... 4.9 50.7 6.1 A8.9 54 49.6 8.0 50.5 6.9 •49.9 8.3 10.2 6.6 66 9 50 r $`i'T t t7 5 7 4 1.8 0 t 0 3 9772 .3 50,2 7052 7 4 43.1 0480 B 87.0 57 7 tb.0' 40.5 45.9 '43.7 48.5 60.6 52.1 46.1 586 64.5 15.5 prlr� all db y�4}s'2%" 33.7 81 37.8 10.0 33,7 12.3 36.3 14.9 17.7 20.6 13.3 58.5 53 �d ti, }t"it 5971.6 35,7 34.4 25.6 .9 2 .3 374 .4 60.6 .762.1 21020.0 43 4 3 • 60.4 . , 37.6 414 ;��.0 ;4B.g 60.4 48.0" ' -. 1 4,8 O�r" J2.B 61 3B.J 5A '39,2 8.0 .51,0 .ti.f) 0.3 10.2 8,9 . 684 84.3 OSS 58.9 50 ���Ir��A 19$1 8 8808 43.8 44.1 421 350 ,�;tQ11��--�� 6 8294 2 74 uo 5 26543 0 18147 2 3788 8 BB722 0 40.5 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 4&0 dBA for the SUV and 41.2 dBA to 50.4 dBA for the truck. To determine .how audible vehicles using the driveway.will be and if any tyke 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 the site. The story pole work hada :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 Lmi„ and Lmwc sound levels are provided herein, however, the L, and L90 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 1 decibel lower than weekday noise levels. Sunday noise levels will typically be 2-3 decibels lower than weekday levels. Exceptions to this are heavy retai Veommercial areas. Interstate 280 is 1,380 ft. (approx. Ya 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 a.m. 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 Lgo to 63.0 dBA LI. The average ambient (Leq) sound levels ranged from 47.4 to 53.1 dBA. We could expect that the average weekend soundlevel in the neighbor's rear yard to typically be 46-50 dBA LeQ. I...._..... . _._._ FIGURE 4 ! Existing Ambient Sound Levels at Property Line /.7.0 70.0 65.0 <Q 60.0 .d H 55.0 m y 50.0 J r 45.0 U) 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 ��.uu i:uu icuu 1:uu 1:uu 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 EXISTING AMBIENT LEQ —*-=EXISTING AMBIENT L1 + EXISTING AMBIENT L90 y -`�F—EXISTING AMBIENT Lmin - A EXISTING AMBIENT Lmax rn -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. .......... Vehicle Sound Leveit FIGURES MSPOrts C.br Up 1 -VtHICLE,SOUND LEVELS 0 Sports* Car Down V IN NEIGHBOR'S -REAR "RD m8pdris: Car 13;Jekln'g.2' 70.0- 0SUVUp1 EISUV Backing 1 MSUV Down 1 65.0 ®SUV Up 2 M SUV Backing 2 ]SUV Down 2 Truck Up I MTruck Flacking I MTrudk Down 1 III L_�_MTWC�UP 2 M 60.0 - 50.0.- o 45.0 rm 40.0 35.0 Vehicle Sound Leveit MSPOrts C.br Up 1 WSpofts Car Backing . 0 Sports* Car Down V E3Sp6ds'Car Up 2 m8pdris: Car 13;Jekln'g.2' El Sporis . Car Down 2 0SUVUp1 EISUV Backing 1 MSUV Down 1 ®SUV Up 2 M SUV Backing 2 ]SUV Down 2 Truck Up I MTruck Flacking I MTrudk Down 1 III L_�_MTWC�UP 2 .:M . Truck Backing ritruck Down 2.. e 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 levcls 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: 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,q). Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI SIA 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 s....: ? no . c` -�. r `. s Y�:b 'i rt �:. �. �a' J T`l�t �>.. r rr� ` y �:, ,�..;, :��, a>, t k. �, -M, r_ tr,... f SE �. t. Sx �� �� f . a " Viz` ,.� _ ik o ,_ tom`: t,�:^i? F�WTT � s�'SITP-RIIPAN�3P, A,WI 7[�tNFIC;HBD�LOQD�BDg0�N9Y�BL�1 s � � $I�LE1h( t `r "����h�.a,�� �_.? �.�1,�'.� � ��,e �� �:., YIU HOUSE - 26880 ELENA ROAD ARCHITECTS MAY 23, 2012 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. Tam'HINT, YlU HOUSE - 26880 ELENA ROAD ARCHITECTS MAY 23, 2012 Views from 26912: Due to stepped design, only the top of the building is visible from adjacent yard. STAIR 26880 ELENA RD. l 26912 ELENA RD. .av'e i. Views from 2688o: \o View of upper level windows is \ f possible but from 180' away. -- ---------------------------------------------------- 10' GRADING SETBACK PROPERTY LINE I/ - Views from 2688o: Fence blocks view from window or adjacent -2, 6n - 16, rear yard for 30 degrees East. ?s^ �4.;.rZR '*,'5 ` �' 'S'` i • � . � 3'N' OR',Y ta. � mgl'i.`•�S°+`.RT"-".,•% L.:b?; fir.. 1 :+z.T k`.� • 1.': ,�'{e-.' •,�.. _asr•a � . aw•;i;9lYv .', ta- t� ° .,<.k�'ix.'.,.,,;# tiNra °�, 3`;s.�}iw '"5A .. ;.1`•"?w .e § i• •y,'3r =^,�`i <•.y.., �- . .y; "' k'., °N �r, 4' 'r ,, y • � 1L�1G SECY IDN Rh YIU HOUSE - 26880 ELENA ROAD ARCHITECTS MAY 23, 2012 VIEWROM BEDROOM WINDOW IN EXISTING HOUSE. E)as-nNG DECK ..1 1,1 11, 1 4k6mN .6. BM 4 U& ; kb'VIEW I. TO NEIGHBORS - 11 III It I I AN[)' P'66( 11 1 101 1 -411I l. VIEW TO THE EAST IS,A LARGE PX:t'l7O'F THE -Sffe'S.,7BE'AUTY 1 EXISTING -HOUSE SIGHT LINES YIU HOUSE - 26880 ELENA ROAD APRIL 23, 2012 VIEW-SJO.NEIGHBQRS REAR YARD AND POOL ARE;NOT VIt[BLE71110M DRIVEWAY.COUFIT PROPOSED NORTH WING BLOCKS DIRECT 109WOF NEIGHBORS YARDAND POOL [jj PROPOSED DESIGN SIGHT LINES 13Y E.Mb.H.Mi UAX I Fitts ARCHITECTS i 19't6" 16 61 �6 i 1 1 I 526'*/_ ZX -Maximum cut is approx. 19'-6' - �� '• -r" a .. -Existing topography shown in red ^ Terracing of front hardscaping designed to step with existing topography t.; 7e5^a.,�..,�•�'.'* _• ., '.+s .}A#�+�}•,`s` r<d+r#� t ti " ;+ „ r.z";r"•,. `i 0s # L%'�`F Fx r; «r,i' ,p' ,94ti i; �' Rtt' `d•"� F ,;; ff Eta -:t -sh #�. s#+hk 7.y=if, . Ia ta. y w¢K .`.sr,+`ry,` ;aY'.}� . ^ may, .•' Y.• `,' S`"' A- Y� e3. ; x ��. y a #}az4• ' t :eta + a�:a d sal �. + +z� Ot" - , „„t,Y•• � '+ * ,. li .'rra e*. A•^s'1.. `?y.,.°"�, fr K ; i gisF ' _ ' 7 t . r3 !r'" . s`� F}'r sAk � rf N �.—„"�.'` .�.',�'�-'Y�i.^ t• ,�� ii��x„� � �' �k k)'a�t�S.{5*'rs�' W`a° vv,, .r t} tC < r F ^4� 3 >,�� ' 'ail... b A'� tirr M1'- 7�y L i"�•* � �- 1.�'z.:�"� S x`y�+'s'�r �' YL��� .:.�. ��~� � x-��''?' :. � ��" . �r �'t �?Q.�rr,,� cam*} �-tiry �t ��H.`• #t . ��r�-F- s ;,!-' j; .,u•Jq,#'E : . �,,,;` a' :.„+.3{y- _t L < . �= _ C°a'rYJ y7VS'- � +ra, ��^�a 1. .�. L,. Jam'. +eF.'L�"�' y��ti.11�E"ir��t�� rt-�. `..ry ��Ztp �+,ti1� �w `,,}+�•�c” t't � �4?� a � ' ^.`- +AO �.T� � � 1 .r ' ^` •r+i -i.. Y �f�+' �` �"-wh �,,,4.,;' .1 � ,�'�9Pa4 �Y1�r�'.• +�„ ''?„�` "' ''�' .t+P�+ - fi [ `£"r tiY� � pry F' .r.{r1-'•Y,i W bs ..t �y+,�;1 ° f,,,r �3 y�rY �.c1j`�C1• 1..9 O! 7 -� � '�✓ J 2 ' ice, lqr' �A� > t •ty� ”' � � i� �.+0'" ♦ .. aF" .. -moi .. .. y+c '- _ � �` �'= i b •-,� �:� � SII t � ,.�7�•-� • � �� ,,� a �_��' c L w_ [ter" -r' -J+�� �3n X �%` i •t _ ,�� �`• .,•r Kz {,f. t ,rC-,q..�r ,.yti�,Y� t „e x T `�. Zig _y New 72" Box . ':� a „:� a - •' . yry Oak by Pool . - f 1. t4 fj-'A . •y�I 1 ,5' 5 k. .. a -S.. ,S}r _..-"•_`�a �i:'�n.• . ,�• `V• t ,,r L '`' pit Existing Oak in Existing Walnut Tree Background New 36" Box Oak South of driveway New 36" Box Oak North of driveway h ;i 1 -1 R WN '.� .•, j•;yw.-cc-j ^kms T ��...���Y�-`Ir... 7 _�. S2'.r _•'�^I I7 Qc-•,.-..7. J♦ix' +tom 7' .�{ R .._ '. Existing Oak in Background pwr � 4W 'IrT •�Z � ' 4 _ - s r` � •J � �: "] 4 Y x, New 36" Box Oak South of driveway i �-z 1 4- h r •; � , New 36" Box Oak North of driveway a - (+'.t�: +�+ ..E'7? .� may:, •.»• sc w71 ,c � .� kk �, �.�,ist�e.� � rc' � �' �.,• c.;k�� + � ;. �6 ��yZ- �,p^ h � • ,I u.. �:i r"j c{-. -w 1�"-i ,M. ,,.,.p Vis• .`�;i ':S .'• vt6 J-� ���'''""'� `r: 'I n Y .� Fr•t�r• � ^ � . � � , C H, � -'� � �' , - - � a'�,s�, 4� t Y$ �.e+ , ��,L � � f-�`y.LM '" , �,T.,; ra,1 !r `* tYt„>{ t � i 1'`•I'� - �.{ � / 2 � �� •a�" ..T � �j� '�8r.4 .tib �s �`. t: �� d {T"S!.'.- +C 1 • � _ -._ ++:. •. �'• ` �' r 1rr�' _, t'a'i � �,� .i �- , to t ;t,y -' , �: �'�. �' ! �+. •"""" i � *^r--•�„n. �*x—b� ��, y,<,�if`�Y�-� Y �:{,f,jL��`+c:. � � -'��; � � i�,,, { ' _42—i ;«, t r, ' x,'il � �. t ley • Tia � ti. ,� �t. , Tom. i S ' "s"!�? It1+G i�� �yy ,,'"d i, r'°' �i ti•( .L tii-yJ ' r. s^�(, �. �� -''s •(�.z-T-C"'�{l w,.. �ly �'..N/ ��� }IJ i s . `4t r;;y 4s '-t • • n `r���_�...i� _ . 4�? rs,u.'x s x-�+' .:sem,.: I. I J -Screening trees and shrubbery obscure view r �' �:`� -� _ "_� .+%•- •'`�'�,; '_... ... to house from neighbor's pool deck (Eye height r '7i w� • � / ; . _ approx. 526') -No eye level windows in direct line of sight on 4^: this elevation other than circulation stair windows. Attachment 10 Debbie Pedro From: Larry Del Carlo [delman2005@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 201212:41 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@sbcglabal.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 w Debbie Pedro From: Michael Graves [megravesca@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 6;30 PM To: Debbie Pedro; raykcoi@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 rocedures: Michael E. Graves Suzanne W. Graves 13119 La Barranca Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 650-947-9379 Attachment 11 TO TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON LANDS OF YIU After coming to the June hearing to find the item was cancelled at the last minute, and being prepared to attend tonight at the scheduled Planning Commission meeting, we learned today that the July meeting has been postponed. Unfortunately, we cannot make the July 19th meeting with the Public Hearing about the Lands of Yiu. However, we would like to make a few brief comments: We are strongly opposed to removing large heritage oak trees. No replacement smaller trees could possibly compensate for the loss of any of the big majestic oaks. We haven't been on the property, but from the street view it looks like some of their oaks have already mysteriously committed suicide, and the big pine on the right side is clearly suffering from lack of proper watering and care. The Agenda item does not specify the number of heritage oak trees to be removed. But obviously there is one huge one that they intend to remove right in the middle of the story poles. What is the point of having a Heritage Tree Ordinance if it is ignored under developer pressure? We also think it is a bad idea to have the driveway angle directly to La Barranca, as it appears to from the layout. And we are very concerned that the driveway will look hideous from the street in its elevated configuration. Wouldn't a lot of these problems be solved by placing the new home lower on the lot in front of the big trees, which would require less extreme treatment for the driveway? This is an extremely visible lot as you come up La Barranca and it should add to the character of the town, not detract from it. Submitted July 5, 2012 Mark and Kay Barchas 27142 Elena Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94023 650-941-1120 barchas@sbcglobal.net C'�1 e FIRE COUPYESY 6 GF3MCE EIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA .CLARA COUNTY 14700 .Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos; CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 - (408) 378-9342 (fax) - www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS Attachment 12 `JAN 13. 2D12 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLAN REVIEW No. 12 0057 BLDG PERMIT No. 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 SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH ® [IN E]❑ OCCUPANCY SFR _ CONST. TYPE V -B ApplicantName - 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 SPRINKLERSREQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 5070 . 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. ci'axA e FIRE COURTESY 8 SERVICE EIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, C&95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408).378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS RECEDE IAN 13 2012 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLAN REVIEWNo. 12 0057 BLDG PERMIT No. Comment #4: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by.fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/ or fire suppression water supply systems or storage .containers that may be. physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final, approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 Comment #5: 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 L.AH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B App1I...INeme 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 ORSYSTEM . Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 2688p Elena Rd Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2000 .REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW © 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doilg 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 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS Attachment 13 January 17, 2012 L5022 TO: Brian Froelich Assistant Planner RECEIVED TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road FEB 17 2012 Los Altos Hills, California 94022 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 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 structuresand 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 eFax (408) 354-1852 1209) 736-4252 9 Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933 www.cQttonshires.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 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 geoteclunical 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 Page 3 January 17, 2012 L5022 The results of the Geotedinical 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. Geotedinical 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 Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 a . . '�l - -7- - -a' --, r . David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachment 14 Grading Policy Approved by City Council 07/21/2011 Code Sections: 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 H foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." Intent: The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It is also intended that the policy provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides, 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 minimise 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. LOSALTOSHILLS TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 a Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council 07/21/2011 Code Sections: 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 H foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." Intent: The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It is also intended that the policy provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides, 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 minimise 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 POE : 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 bill*: Cut Fill House 8'** 3' Accessory Bldg. 8'X* 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of four feet six inches (4'6") feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. Supported decks shall generally not exceed three (3') feet above adjoining grade except where located within six (6') feet of a building. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of ten (10') feet for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. Terracing shall be utilized for cuts exceeding six (6') feet. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. 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 ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov Attachment 15 LOSALTOS HILLS Y 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. Policy: Basement Ordinance Page 2 I @ Standard Basement�. Daylight _. A Natural 11, story Grade Finish Grade Natural ...... Grade ftft id story 3% a. EL 239.52' Basement Floor Floor *k* Base Area IL: Finish SECTION At 75% basement least of Topography line 28' Grade Basement Retaining Wall and Floor Frame Detail perimeter at wholly underground below the FF elevation 55 basement Daylight Basement Structure Height Setback Topography line at 28" below the FF elevation L20', 28" below the I't FF elevation `Basement"'N Floor Area 20' Max4 foot tall ... retaining walls Floor 16 1 EL PLAN Attachment 16 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 11/05/2009 Town of Los Altos Mills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, October 1, 2009, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Clow and Commissioners: Collins, Haipootlian, 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 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. 1*)9MW01aft 1.30 lei 461 A.111,11 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 PIanning 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 Carlin said 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 pole 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 fmdings 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