HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.13.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 5, 2008
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A
BASEMENT, ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, CABANA,
SWIMMING POOL AND SPA. (CONTINUED FROM MAY 1, 2008)
FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner (0
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Duectox A
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary
dwelling unit, pool, spa, and cabana and the Grading Policy exception for the
driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage, subject to the
recommended conditions in Attachment 1 and Findings of Approval in Attachment 2;
AND
2. Deny the request for a Grading Policy exception for the rear yard, pool, spa, and
access ramp to the secondary dwelling unit and direct the applicant to submit a
revised grading plan that complies with the Town's grading policy.
BACKGROUND
This project was continued from the May 1, 2008 Planning Commission meeting to allow
the applicant additional time to resolve issues brought forward by an adjacent neighbor
and to re -notice the project to include the request for a grading policy exception.
The subject property is located on the west side of Ascension Drive. The surrounding
uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the west, north, and, south, and a
vacant property across Ascension Drive to the east. The applicant proposes to demolish
an existing single story residence and construct a new single story residence with
basement, attached secondary dwelling unit, swimming pool, spa, and cabana
CODE REOUIREMENTS
As required by Section 10-2.301 (c) of the Municipal Code. This application for a new
residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The Zoning and
Site Development sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate proposed projects
including floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height, setbacks,
visibility, and parking requirements.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 2 of 18
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area:
1.07 acres
Net Lot Area:
1.07 acres
Average Slope:
12.24%
Lot Unit Factor:
1.025
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area (sq.ft) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining
Development 14,514 6,976 13,880 6,904 634
Floor 6,035 2,899 6,034 3,135 1
(Basement 5,785)
Site and Architecture
The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a 6,034
square foot single story residence with a 5,785 square foot basement (which includes a
660 square foot basement garage and a 989 square foot attached secondary dwelling unit),
a 631 square foot swimming pool and spa, and a 1,137 square foot cabana.
The existing residence is located primarily on a filled building pad, adjacent to a cut slope
from previous site grading. There is a moderately sloping hillside at the rear of the lot.
The average slope of the property is 12.24%. The proposed new residence is sited on a
flat portion of the lot east of the existing house. The new residence 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 new residence is located a
minimum of 60' from the south (front) property line, 30' from the north property line, 33'
from the south (side) property line, and 117' from the west (rear) property line. The
maximum building height on a vertical plane is 24'6" and the maximum overall height of
the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) from the lowest point to the highest
point is 34'10". Proposed exterior materials consist of cement plaster exterior with
cultured stone veneer, mission tile root and balconies with wrought iron railings.
The basement level of the new residence has 5,785 sq. ft. of area which includes a theater,
fitness center, game room, game parlor, wine tasting room, entertainment lounge,
secondary dwelling unit, storage room, mechanical room, and a three (3) car garage. The
basement is wholly underground and exempt from floor area calculations pursuant to
Section 10-1.208 of the Municipal Code.
Staff Report to the Planning Cownission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 3 of 18
The main level has 5,533 sq. ft. of living space with a grand foyer, living room, dining
room, kitchen, great room, galleria, library, guest suite, master suite, two bedrooms with
bathrooms, laundry room, and a two (2) car garage. A 357 sq. ft. enlarged basement
lightwell is located on the west side of the residence and serves the dual function of an
egress as well as a sunken patio for the basement.
Driveway & Parking
The existing driveway will be removed and replaced with two new driveways which will
run along the side property lines connected by a circular portion along the front of the
residence. The two (2) driveways along the side property lines will be 12' wide and the
new circular portion will be 14' wide to comply with Fire Department requirements.
Pursuant to Section 10-1.601 of the Municipal Code, a total of five (5) parking spaces are
required because the proposed residence includes an attached secondary dwelling unit.
Two separate garages are proposed, one of which is a three (3) car garage located in the
basement and the other is a two (2) car garage at grade level. The driveway at the
northeast comer of the property will access the three (3) car basement garage. The
driveway at the southwest comer of the property will access the two (2) car garage on the
main floor of the house.
Outdoor Liehtine
The applicant is proposing fifteen shielded lights located on the exterior of the main
residence at the doorway, four (4) light fixtures along two of the front windows, and two
(2) on the cabana. (Lighting plan sheets El and AS). Staff has included condition #14 for
outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be down shielded or frosted glass, low wattage,
and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the four (4) light fixtures
along the windows are not approved. The applicant has submitted lighting specifications
indicating that all proposed fixtures will be shielded, downlights, or have frosted glass.
Trees & Landscaoine
According to the tree removal plan, a total of thirty-seven (37) trees are proposed to be
removed in order to construct the new residence, pool, and cabana. Trees to be removed
include eight (8) eucalyptus trees along the north and south property lines which currently
provide screening for the abutting neighbors at 26475 Ascension Drive (Lands of Dubey)
and 26555 Ascension Drive (Lands of Zunino). The location and list of the trees to be
removed are detailed on the tree removal plan (Sheet SUl) and the arborist report dated
May 10, 2008. (Attachment 15) To ensure that all remaining significant trees will be
protected throughout the construction period, staff has included condition of approval #8
requiring that the trees within the vicinity of the construction be fenced for protection.
Staff Report to the Planning Comaission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
]we 5, 2008
Page 4 of 18
A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after framing of the new
residence (Condition of approval #5). Furthermore, any landscaping required for
screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection, and a
maintenance deposit to ensure viability of plantings will be collected prior to final
inspection.
Although not required at this time, the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape
screening plan for the Commission to review. (Attachment 15)
Oak Tree Removal
Two neighbors have reported that heritage oak trees were removed prior to the submittal
of the application for planning review without a permit by the Town. Pursuant to Section
12-2.302 of the Municipal Code, a permit is required for the removal of a heritage oak
tree. The applicants have confirmed that two (2) heritage oaks, approximately 18" in
diameter were removed without benefit of Town approval.
Per Section 12-2.501 of the LAHMC, penalties for violating the above section "...may
include, but not be limited to, replacement of each tree removed or damaged by five (5)
forty-eight (48') inch box trees at locations approved by the Town and payment of a
multi-year bond to ensure these trees are maintained and cared for. "
Staff recommends replacement of the two (2) heritage oak trees with ten (10) 48" box
oaks and an increase of the landscape maintenance deposit to $10,000 (Conditions of
approval #6 & 7).
The applicant has consulted with the neighbors regarding their preference of replacement
trees and proposes the following instead: five (5) 20'H x 20'W olive trees which are
equivalent to 84" box, two (2) 24" box oaks and two (2) 36" box coast live oaks. The
proposed replacement trees are shown on the preliminary landscape screening plan.
(Attachment 15)
5 Olive 20'H x 20' W = 84"Box
2 Coast Live Oak 36" Box
2 Coast Live Oak 24'Box
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 5 of 18
Drainage
Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected and carried to an
onsite storm water detention system located at the south east comer of the property. The
water is then carried into the storm drain which runs along the south property line.
Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the
Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design
complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Department will review and approve
the final drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as -
built" grading and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department, and any
deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection.
Grading Policy Exception
Total grading quantities for this project include 8,369 cubic yards of cut for the basement,
front yard, rear yard, driveways, backup area, swimming pool, spa, and cabana. The
Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed grading plan and concluded that it is
not in conformance with the Town's grading policy.
1. Driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage
The applicant is proposing up to 10'6" of cut along the north property line to
accommodate the driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage.
The original plans submitted by the applicant on November 30, 2007 showed a driveway
and backup area that complied with the 8' cut for the basement garage. In February 2008,
it was brought to staffs attention that the topographic survey prepared by Steven Arnold
Civil Engineering, Inc. dated November 27, 2007 may have been flawed. Engineering
staff investigated and confirmed that the survey in fact contained errors and portions of
the proposed basement would not meet the requirements of the basement ordinance.
On April 14, 2008, the applicant submitted a new topographic survey prepared by Lea &
Braze Engineering, Inc which corrected the errors. Based on the revised topographic
survey, the applicant had to lower the house an additional 6" and move it back 5' in order
to comply with the basement ordinance. However, as a result of this change, the
driveway cut necessary to access the basement garage now exceeds the 8' maximum
allowed per the Grading Policy.
Per the Towns Grading Policy, 'Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of
eight feet (89 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. " Additionally, requirements
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 6 of 18
for building siting are addressed in Section 10-2.702.c of the Los Altos Hills Municipal
Code:
"The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as
possible to the natural landscape. The amount of grading, excavation, or
fell shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures,
unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings. Additional
grading may be allowed for the purpose of lowering the profile of the
building provided that at the completion of the project the visual
alteration of the natural terrain is minimized The removal of vegetation
and alteration of drainage patterns shall be the minimum necessary to
accommodate the proposed structure. "
The Grading Policy is 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.
If the proposed grading were to occur on a hillside or ridgeline property, the excavation
for the driveway and basement garage would result in massive retaining walls that are
highly visible and substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain in violation of Section
10-2.702.c of the Site Development Code. However, in this case, the affected area is
relatively flat and the proposed grading will help lower the profile of the new home.
Portions of the retaining walls will be below natural grade and will not be highly visible
from surrounding properties. In addition, the retaining walls facing the Ascension Drive
right of way will be terraced (4' max height) with planting areas in between to minimize
the visual impact to surrounding neighbors.
If the Commission decides to approve the Grading Policy Exception for the driveway and
backup area adjacent to the basement garage, Findings of Approval in Attachment 2
should be cited.
2. Pool, spa, rear yard, and access ramp to secondary dwelling unit
Per the Town's Grading Policy, the maximum allowable cut for decks, yards, and other
areas is 4'. The applicant is requesting up to 7' of cut in the rear yard over an area of
approximately 11,600 square feet to create a flat pad for the pool, spa, and outdoor living
space. In addition, up to 16'6" of cut along the north property line is requested to
accommodate an access ramp to the secondary dwelling unit in the basement.
The purpose of the Town's grading policy is to assure that construction retains the
existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. In
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 7 of 18
reviewing the proposal, staff does not recommend approval of the excessive grading for
the following reasons:
1) Compliance to the grading policy would not prevent the property owner from
constructing a compliant swimming pool or establishing useable outdoor living space.
The swimming pool can be relocated and/or redesigned and the flat lawn area can be
reduced to minimize the amount of proposed cut or designed to step up from the
sunken patio. Terracing is a common technique used by property owners to create
outdoor living space that confomvs to the Grading Policy.
2) In reviewing similar proposals, staff has consistently directed applicants to redesign
their projects to adhere to the Town's grading limits. This property is not unique in
that many other sites in the Town are similarly constrained similar terrain, access, and
existing vegetation.
3) The applicant is proposing up to 16'6" cut for an access ramp that leads to the
secondary dwelling unit in the basement. According to the applicant, the ramp will
provide ADA access to the second unit. Although there are no ADA requirements on
maximum slopes for ramps constructed for single family residential projects, the
maximum slope for applicable buildings and facilities is 5%. The slope of the
proposed ramp is 9%. Since there is no requirement for exterior access to the second
unit and the ramp does not appear to comply with ADA guidelines, staff recommends
elimination of the access ramp by moving the retaining wall to the eastern edge of the
garage and reducing the required cut to 10'6".
16'6" cut with access ramp
The Planning Commission has generally approved exceptions to the grading policy for
necessary improvements such as driveways or main residences. The Planning Commission
has determined that the installation of amenities such as pools, decks, and lawns should
16'6" cut 6r
��romD
t.
1`
s .
16'6" cut with access ramp
The Planning Commission has generally approved exceptions to the grading policy for
necessary improvements such as driveways or main residences. The Planning Commission
has determined that the installation of amenities such as pools, decks, and lawns should
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 8 of 18
generally conform to the limitations of the Town Grading Policy and the existing hillside
terrain. However, the Planning Commission has the discretion to approve grading levels
beyond standard requirements when the individual site dictates the need to deviate from
the criteria.
If the Commission decides to approve the project as proposed, staff should be directed to
prepare findings for approval of the Grading Policy Exception.
Neighbor Concerns
Throughout the plan review process the applicants have contacted the neighbors in an
attempt to resolve issues raised by Ashfaq & Ruma Munshi at 26450 Ascension Drive
and Vince Zunino at 26555 Ascension Drive. (Attachment 3)
On February 24, 2008, Mr. & Mrs. Munshi submitted a letter to the Town detailing their
concerns regarding the project (Attachment 4):
o The removal of heritage oak trees prior to submittal of the application for Town
review without first obtaining a permit
The applicants have confirmed the removal of two (2) heritage oak trees and staff
recommends their replacement per condition of approval #6.
o Because the street is narrow, parking along Ascension Drive will create safety
issues. The Munshi's did not wish to have construction parking along the street
or in front of their properties.
The applicants have submitted a construction operation plan which shows that all
construction parking will be located on the site, for the Commission to review
(Sheet C-6)
On April 24 and May 28, 2008, Mr. Zunino submitted letters to the Town detailing his
concerns regarding the project (Attachment 5):
o Sunlight encroachment -the proposed driveway along the north side property line
will not allow for screening trees to be located closer to the house, the trees will
need to be located closer to the north property line which will interfere with the
sun light into his pumpkin patch.
The applicants have submitted a preliminary screening plan as well as a section
view of the landscaping along the north property line for this area which shows
the maximum height of 15' screening trees which would be placed so as not affect
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 9 of 18
the sun light into the pumpkin patch but still provide screening of the new
residence (Attachment 15)
o Excessive grading cuts and large retaining walls which significantly exceed the
requirements of the grading policy.
The grading issues are discussed above in the staff report.
o Improper removal of heritage oak trees.
The applicants have confirmed the removal of two (2) heritage oak trees and staff
recommends their replacement at a 5 to 1 ratio, per condition of approval #3.
As of this date, the Town has received two letters supporting the project from the
neighbors at 26475 Ascension Drive (PK Dubey) and 26520 Anacapa Drive (Chyi-Fa
Lin) (Attachments 6 and 7).
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring a 14'
wide driveway and a sprinkler system throughout all portions of the new residence.
(Attachment 8)
Geotechnical Review
The Town's geotechnical consultant Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc has reviewed the
soil and foundation report prepared by American Soil Testing, Inc dated October 31, 2007
and recommends approval of the permit based on the conditions 18 a & b. (Attachment 9)
Committee Review
The Pathways Committee recommends a pathway in -lieu fee (condition #27).
The Environmental Design Committee noted that the removal of existing eucalyptus and
redwood trees will require landscape mitigation around the perimeter of the property.
(Attachment 11) Recommended condition of approval #5 requires a landscape screening
and erosion control plan to be submitted after final framing of the new residence to
address view impacts to surrounding neighbors.
CEOA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a) & (e)
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 10 of 18
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Findings of approval
3. Email correspondence between applicant and neighbors from Feb 2, 2008 -May 12,
2008
4. Letter from Ashfaq & Rmma Munsln dated February 24, 2008
5. Letters from Vince Zunino dated April 24 and May 28, 2008
6. Letter from Chyi-Fa Lin dated May 25, 2008
7. Letter from PK Dubey dated April 25, 2008
8. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated March 18, 2008
9. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates dated January 11, 2005
10. Recommendations from the Pathways Committee
11. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated January 21,
2008
12. Grading Policy
13. Basement Ordinance
14. Worksheet #2
15. Development plans: site, topographic, grading & drainage, floor, elevation, section,
roof, lighting plans, tree removal plan, arborist report, construction operation plan,
green point rating checklist, and preliminary landscape plan
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 11 of 18
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT
POOL, SPA, AND CABANA
LANDS OF ASCENSION DEVELOPMENT LLC, 26491 ASCENSION DRIVE
File # 252-07-ZP-SD-GD
A. 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. viminahs) eucalyptus trees on the
property located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be
removed prior to food inspection of the new residence. Removal of
eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the
end of January to avoid disturbance. of nesting birds protected under the
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (NOTA) and California Department of
Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is fast
conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the
tree.
The areas of grading for the proposed side and rear yards which
exceed 4' of cut are not approved. The applicant shall redesign the
areas to conform to the Town's grading policy.
4. The access ramp for the secondary dwelling unit shall be removed and
the retaining wall along the north property line for the ramp and
backup area shall be relocated (as redlined on the plans) to reduce the
amount of cut for this area from 1616" to 10'61'.
5. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to
scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape
screening and erosion control plans for review by the Site Development
Committee. The application for landscape screening and erosion control
shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be
reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings
Staff Report m the Pluming Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 12 of 18
which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from
surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required for screening
purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer)
must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. Particular
attention shall be given to the north and south perimeters where the
eucalyptuses are to be removed. Screening trees along the north
property line, along the driveway shall not exceed 15' in height.
6. The applicant shall replace the two (2) heritage oak trees removed without
prior Town approval with ten (10) 48" box oaks prior to final inspection.
7. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $10,000 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.
8. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly
the heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be
of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line.
Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to
commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said
inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The 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. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained
throughout the entire construction period.
9. 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.
10. 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
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 13 of 18
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.
11. Standard swimming pool conditions:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Pool equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides with a roof for noise
mitigation and screening.
12. For swimming pools, at least one of the following safety features shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Town Building Official:
a. The pool shall be isolated from access to the residence by an enclosure
(fencing).
b. The pool shall be equipped with an approved safety pool cover.
c. The residence shall be equipped with exit alarms on those doors
providing direct access to the pool.
d. All doors providing direct access from the home to the swimming pool
shall be equipped with a self-closing, self -latching device with a
release mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor.
13. Fences and gates are approved as shown on the site plan. Any new
fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning
Department prior to installation. The fence along the front property line
shall not encroach or obstruct any easements.
14. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on sheet El. There shall be one
light per door or two for double doors. The four (4) lights along the front
windows are not approved as redlined on sheet El and A4. No lighting
may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any
additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department
prior to installation.
Staff Report to the Planning Co®ission
Lands of Ascension Developmeot LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 14 of 18
15. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted
light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed
within skylight wells.
16. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
17. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School
District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check The applicant must take a
copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high
school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and
provide the Town with a copy of the receipts.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: -
18. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated
December 12, 2007, the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and
grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been
properly incorporated. The consultant should also provide
appropriate UBC seismic desiga parameters which reflect the site
location within 2 km of a type B fault. Furthermore, the consultant
should clarify the recommended basement slab and underlying
crushed rock thickness
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check
b. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project construction. The inspections should include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface
and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for
foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and
concrete. The consultant should verify that the suitable bearing
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 15 of 18
materials are encountered in the vicinity of the garage; existing fill
materials appear to be located at the garage site.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the
project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter
and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final
inspection.
For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to
the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., dated December 12,
2007.
19. Peak discharge at 26491 Ascension Drive, as a result of Site Development
Permit 252-07, 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 peals discharge hydrologic
model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value
prior and post development. Determine the design peals 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.
20. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be
approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take
place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with
prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within
ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the
driveway access.
21. 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 under
grounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months."
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 16 of 18
22. 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.
23. 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 gradinglconstruction operation plan shall address truck
traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic
safety on Ascension Drive 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
Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a
franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town
limits.
24. 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 ofplans for building plan check
25. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened
where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior
to final inspection.
26. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary
sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer hook up permit shall be required
by the Town's Public Works Department prior to submittal of plans for
building plan check An encroachment permit shall be required for all
work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work
Staff Report to the Planning Cmmnission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 17 of 18
27. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $50.00 per linear foot of the
average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT:
28. 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 Clam 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.
29. The applicant shall provide an access driveway with a paved all weather
surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14', vertical clearance of 13'6",
minimum circulating turning radius of 36' outside and 23' inside, and a
maximum slope of 15%.
30. Gate installations shall conform to Fire Department standard details and
when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for
emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire
department approved prior to installation
CONDITION NUMBERS 17,18 a, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 SHALL BE COMPLETED
AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION
PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of this
notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The
applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after June 27, 2008
provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with
the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection
approval.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
June 5, 2009). 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 year.
Staff Report to the Planning Conmiission
Lands of Ascension Development LLC
26491 Ascension Drive
June 5, 2008
Page 18 of 18
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR DRIVEWAY AND BACKUP AREA
ADJACENT TO BASEMENT GARAGE
LANDS OF ASCENSION DEVELOPMENT LLC, 26491 ASCENSION DRIVE
FILE # 252-07-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 help lower the profile of a portion of
the structure and render it less visible from off-site.
2. The proposed area of grading is not on a hillside and will not result in the
substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain. The property's existing
contours and basic landform are retained.
3. The proposed grading will not result in the placement of retaining walls that are
highly visible from off-site.
4. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation
or alteration of existing drainage patterns.
5. The Grading Policy emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or
foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. The proposed
underground garage requires no fill.
P.
Attachment 3
Nicole Horvitz
From: Mark Blackman
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 4:01 PM
To: Nicole Horvitz; Debbie Pedro
Subject: 26491 Ascension Neighbor Letter
Attachments: 26491 Ascension—Intro Letter to Neighbors_2.1.08.pdf
Nicole and Debbie,
Attached is a letter that we delivered on Friday to the most proximate neighbors to us on Ascension. I have
already met with several neighbors and expect to meet with the balance over the next week and weekend. We
are holding a plan review meeting at the site on Saturday, February 9a'.
We have received strong support from the owner of the three properties across the street (Ashfaq Munshi), and
from Prabhat and Anita Dubey. I have also spoken with Vince Zunino. He was supportive and indicated that his
only concern is drainage, which has been very adequately addressed. I am meeting personally with him on
Monday.
Let me know if anything comes up on your end that we can manage directly with the neighbors.
Mark
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
5/27/2008
IN 0.f AL ESTATE
RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Plan Review Meeting Saturday, February 96 — LOAM to 11AM
Friday, February 1, 2008
Dear Neighbor,
We would like to take this opportunity to introduce ourselves m you as the new owners of 26491 Ascension Drive
and to, share with you a summary our plans for the new residence. We acquired this property in September of last
year and have since spent our time understanding the neighborhood and the property, while at the same time
considering the potential sensitivities to our neighbors. Working with our designer Scott Stotler and the Town of Los
Altos Hills, we have completed our proposed plans and would like to share them with you. Our overall design goal is
to develop a home that is well-suited for the property, highly compatible with the neighborhood, and takes full
consideration of neighbor views and privacy.
As Los Altos Hills and Los Altos residents for over 30 years and having built over 30 bones in the same area, we ace
intimately familiar with the Town ordioances, neighbor relations, and privacy concerns. Indeed, just a few months
ago we completed our current residence on Barton Court in Los Altos Hills. This home is located on a significantly
more challenging lot with several reasonable neighbor privacy concerns. Throughout the project we worked closely
with the neighbors, Town, and Planning Commissioners to address everyone's concerns.
Regarding our proposed plans for the new residence, below we have summarized and highlighted the most important
design elements:
• We have spent numerous hunts walking the site and existing home with our designer to fully understand the
development potential of the lot, and to ensure that maximum attention has been given to each neighbors'
privacy and view maintenance Picrates have been taken from every location, including photos from the
.existing residence roof top on all sides of the property to help our home designer and landscape architect
create a home that blends in with its natural surroundings and is minimally viewable to its neighbors;
• We have designed the new home as a single story residence and positioned it closer to the front of the
property to substantially lower its elevation. We chose to design a single story home to minimize the visibility
to neighbors and ensure neighbor privacy;
• We have design the main house so that its "U-sbape" will minimize the home's backyard noise and visibility
for all dee surrounding neighbors. In no location do we have direct views turn any of the neighbors' homes
or yards. Further, we have lowered the building pad to minimize the profile of the house;
• We are aware of neighborhood concerns related to drainage and have takes substantial steps to mitigate any
future dramage problems. Out civil engineer has worked closely with the Town's engineer to ensure that
storm runoff generated from the new development will be collected and conveyed by a comprehensive smrm
drainage system The entire storm drainage system has been designed with the bordering neighbors in mind
to minimize any runoff onto the adjacent properties. Our civil engineer has a strong tack record designing
drainage systems on varying lot types in Los Alms Hills and has established a close relationship with the
Town's engineer. They have worked closely mgether on this project to develop a drainage infrastructure that
adequately address" site drainage;
• We have chosen to develop this home with a strong "green" building initiative This project will integrate
time -provers and cutting-edge systems that promote healthier indoor and outdoor environments, ensure
CUSTOM DREAMS IN REAL ESTATE
IN REAL ESTATE
greater energy and resource efficiency, and reduce maintenance and operating costs. We are happy to share
more information about this if you are interested in learning more about the design and construction
practices that we plan m implement on this project;
• We have provided for a tumaround at the entry to the site for safety and for fire truck utilization. Further,
we have added additional puking underground in order to minimize cars parked on the driveway and also
minimize noise and headlights in the surrounding area;
• Complete landscape screening and new permanent fencing surrounding the perimeter of the property will be
installed during construction Per the Town's ordinance regarding landscape screening, we will work
pmactively with the neighbors once the house framing is completed to install additional trees or other
screening if any additional privacy is needed
We hope that this summary provides you with an understanding of our design intent and the attention we have paid
to the potential concems of the most proximate neighbors. Additionally, we would like to invite you to attend a plan
review meeting at the site. The purpose of the meeting is to share our plans and provide an opportunity for you to
voice any potential concerns or questions you may bavc We would like to hold the meeting on Saturday, February
9's from 10AM to 11AM. We welcome and encourage you to attend this meeting.
Additionally, in light of designing a home that meets all of the Town's ordinances, creating a low -profile, single story
home, and minimi�m any potential neighbor view or privacy concerns, we intend to pursue the Town's fast-track
approval prows. We would greatly appreciate your support for this new residence and welcome you to share with us
any concerns you feel we may have missed.
please give us a can at ( if you would like m schedule an alterative time to meet to review the plans and
discuss any of your comms. In the meantime, you may visit our website at and review the
enclosed materials to learn more about us. Our office is located in downtown
We
dWe look forward m meeting with you on February "and working together throughout this project
Kind Regards,
Mark Blackman
Brad Blackman
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
CC: Town of Los Altos Hills, Planning Department
Scott Stotler, Stotler Design Group
CUSTOM DREAMS IN REAL ESTATE
Page I of 2
Nicole Horvitz
From: Mark Blackman [
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:11 PM
To: Debbie Pedro; Nicole Horvitz
Cc: 'Brad Blackman'
Subject: FW: Follow up meeting
Debbie and Nicole,
Below is the latest communication with Vince Zunino. Scott Stotler, Tom Klope, and I met with Vince last Friday
(218) to further discuss his concerns. Tom is putting together a study and exhibit to address Vince's concern
about screening, especially along the underground garage. We have a follow up meeting with Vince this
Thursday. Hopefully at that point we'll get a good read on the direction that we'll take this project. I will keep you
updated.
Mark
From: Mark Blackman [mailto:
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 1:25 PM
To: '
Subject: RE: Follow up meeting
Vince,
I have re -scheduled the meeting with Scott and Tom for 10AM this Thursday (2/14). Does that work for you?
Also, this morning I dropped off the revised civil plans for your review. We can answer any further
questionsrconoems at our meeting.
Finally, I have asked Dave Jackson (our general contractor) and our framer to put up the story poles based on the
existing plan for the comer that you are concerned about (the underground garage). They should be at the site
this week installing the poles. We can take a look at the poles during our meeting and review B with Tom Klope.
Mark
From: Vince Zunino [mailto:
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 9:24 PM
To: Mark Blackman
Subject: Re: FW: Follow up meeting
Hi Mark,
2pm Friday doesn't work. Mornings are generally more doable. The following Mon and Tues I'm
booked but Wed 2/20 in the morning is open.
Meanwhile, I would like to see the updated version of your plans.
Thanks,
vince
5/27/2008
Page 2 of 2
Mark Blackman < > wrote:
Rather than gam, can we make it 2pm next Friday (2/15)?
From: Mark Blackman [mailto:
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:09 AM
To: '
Subject: Follow up meeting
Vince,
Thank you for meeting with Smolt, Tom, and me this morning. The three of us would like to schedule a
follow up meeting with you for next Friday (2115) at gam to review Tom's plan.
please confirm whether you are available to meet at this time.
Regards,
Mark
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
5/27/2008
Page 1 of 1
Nicole Horvitz
From:
Mark Blackman [
Sent:
Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:17 PM
To:
Debbie Pedro; Nicole Horvitz
Subject:
FW: Agreement
Attachments:
Zunino CDRE Agreement_2.21.08.doc
Debbie and Nicole,
Here's the latest.
See below and attached.
We have spent time
with several other neighbors, and they are all highly supportive of the project
Mark
From: Mark Blackman [mallto:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:02 PM
To: '
Subject: Agreement
Vince,
I have revised and attached the proposed solutions that we have been working on together in a letter agreement
format, of which I will also provide the Town a copy. In light of this agreement, we hope that we can gain your
support of this project and we look forward to working with you in good faith going forward. We would
appreciate it if you would review and get back to us promptly in order to keep our project moving ahead.
Also, as I mentioned in our meetings, we would welcome the opportunity to tour you through our showcase home
on Barton Court. Walking through this home will give you a better sense of our intentions on Ascension. Also, I
am happy to take you by our project on Fremont Road where we are just starting the framing stage. This will help
demonstrate how we maintain ourjob sites throughout construction.
I look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Regards,
Mark
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
5/27/2008
IN R RL EST ATL
RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Vince,
Scott and I appreciate you meeting with us several times over the last couple of weeks to discuss and address your
concerns related to our new residence. We have taken note of all the items that you have brought to our attention
and are interested in working amicably with you throughout the project to address these and any future issues.
Based on our meetings, below I have summarized the items that we have discussed and have developed a letter
agreement in order to formally reach mutually agreeable solutions to keep our project moving forward:
1) Private Pathway: You noted that you are concerned with maintaining the condition of the private
pathway on your property that runs along our shared property line. We understand this concern and will
take the necessary steps to prevent disturbance to this pathway by maintaining as much of the existing
foliage as possible along can shared property lino during the initial phases of construction. Additionally,
we will line the bottom of the existing foliage with straw waddles for water and erosion control. Prior to
commencing the project, we will take pictures of the entire private pathway for future reference so that
the pathway may be restored to its current condition should any damage occur despite these preventative
measures.
2) Future Screening: We share your concern with regard to screening along our shared property line and
throughout the entire property. We recognize that it is in both of can best interests to maximize privacy
and the look of the natural surroundings. Based on our meetings with you, several other neighbors, the
Town, and landscape architect Tom Klope we are confident that we will develop a comprehensive and
adequate screening plan for the new residence.
As it relates specifically to screening along our shared property line, the Town has agreed to allow the
planting of large trees and shrubs inside the current easement. This provides us with a significantly
greater opportunity to screen the new residence. To demonstrate our screening concept for this area, Tom
Klope has provided all of us with a study and preliminary planting plan that adequately addresses
screening along the lOR setback that runs the length of the underground garage back out. As the plan
shows, one of the additional benefits of the new single story home is that we are to replace the existing
tall trees with smaller trees, while still providing adequate screening. This will allow for greater sunlight
on your property, which will in tum improve conditions for your pumpkin patch or a future solar panel
array.
As far as timing of installation, we intend to plant screen trees and other landscape planting as soon as
appropriate given the progress of the project Prior to finalization of the landscape screening plan, which
will take place after the home has been framed, we will work actively with you and the other neighbors to
mitigate any future concems. At that time, we will make sure that we reasonably address any negative
views experienced around your pool and yard.
3) Construction screening: You have indicated concern related to screening during the construction phase.
We are sensitive to this concern and agree to maintain as much of the existing trees and foliage around the
property as is feasible with our plans during the initial construction phases. As noted above and on our
plans, we intend to replace the majority of the existing plant material with screen trees and other
landscape planting as soon as appropriate given the progress of the project.
iV REAL FST 17E
4) Temporary & Permanent Fencing: The Town has agreed to allow the installation of a 6ft tall
permanent fence around the entire perimeter of the property. We intend to purse installing a fence of this
type at the appropriate time in the construction process. In the meantime, we will install a 6ft tall
temporary screen fence around the entire property with privacy material to minimize views and to control
dust. Along our shared property line and specifically along the outside retaining wall for the underground
garage, we will attempt to install the temporary fencing in such way to maximize retention of the existing
foliage during the initial construction phases. The actual location of the temporary fence will be
determined in the field in order to preserve as much existing foliage as possible while still allowing for
full course of concoction.
5) Construction Parking: Parking during the construction process will be challenging on Ascension given
that there is no shoulder on either side of the street. We are in active discussions with Ashfaq Munshi to
develop an agreement to utilize a portion of his currently vacant lot for temporary construction parking.
While the agreement has not yet been finalized, we are reasonably confident that we will come to
agreeable terms. Establishing a temporary parking arrangement will significantly alleviate the anticipated
Puking issue during construction.
However, inevitably there will be someone that parks where they should not. In these instances we ask
that you contact our office or call me on my cell phone to notify me. We will make sure that the car or
cars are moved in a reasonable amount of time.
6) Pr Permit Site Activity: We will continue to minimize activity at the site until we are issued a
demolition permit However, we currently are storing re-claimed lumber and other materials for ajob site
that is on Fremont Road. We don't anticipate significant traffic until we are ready to remove
approximately 50% of the lumber that is currently stored at the site. This will likely take place over the
next couple of months.
'n Oaks Tree: We acknowledge the unfortunate situation of dealing with a heritage oak tree that was taken
down without a permit We assume full responsibility for this action. The Town bas recommended a 3:1
replacement ratio with 36" box trees. We will work with our landscape architect to select and locate the
appropriate replacement trees during the landscape planning process. We apologize for the inconvenience
of this situation and appreciate you working with us towards a positive resolution.
8) Drainage: After your review of the drainage plan, you indicated your concern with the drainage bubbler
that was located near your property and that the related piping was located in the loft setback. We have
moved the bubbler from that location and tied it into the rest of the drainage system. Additionally, the
pipes have been re-routed outside the 10ft setback in order to maintain the existing vegetation as long as
possible for construction screening purposes.
9) Clarify retaining wall elevations: You requested that we clarify the elevations of the retaining wall
along the underground garage. We have provided a revised civil engineering plan that includes additional
elevations to demonstrate our intention of having the retaining wall follow the grade. We have also
provided a preliminary 3D rendering to further clarify the plans and the intended end result.
10) Topography: You pointed out concern as it relates to the finish floor elevation of the house and the
existing natural grade. To help clarify, we installed story polls at the comer of the home nearest your
property. While the planned building location is different than what was anticipated by your estimate,
there was still a minor discrepancy in the topographic map. We are in the process of revising the
topography map accordingly. In light of the facts that the home is back farther than the town minimum
C.=M Deemns In Rra1 Esme
IN RFAL 15TA7F
requirement, that it is low -profile and single story, and that we have developed an adequate screening
plan, we strongly believe that we have developed a responsible and neighborhood compatible design.
11) Conditions of Approval: Provided that you are agreeable to these proposed solutions, in addition to this
document, we propose to include the appropriate solutions contained herein as Conditions of Approval for
the building permit I will convey our solutions to the Town Planner and have the appropriate conditions
incorporated into the final Conditions of Approval, of which you will receive a copy.
We appreciate your support of the new residence and request your endorsement of the administrative fast-track
approval process. I believe that we have fully outlined and addressed all the concerns that we have discussed to
date. If you are in agreement, we would appreciate your signing below so that we can move forward most
efficiently with the Town on this project.
We hereby agree to the terms of this letter agreement:
CUSTOM DREAMS IN REAL ESTATE
By:
Mark Blackman Date
Principal
VINCENT ZUNINO
By
Vince Zunino Date
Owner
CC: Stotler Design Group
Town of Los Altos Hills
Custom Dreams Iu Reel Enure
Page 1 of 2
Nicole Horvitz
From: Mark Blackman [
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 11:06 AM
To: Nicole Horvitz
Subject: Ascension
Nicole,
A few things:
1) See letter from Vince below. We should have him fully supportive of the project (in writing) this week.
2) 1 received your response letter regarding the outstanding items on the plans and we are working on
providing an updated plan set with detailed response.
3) Given that we will have support from all the neighbors and have agreed to a 3:1 replacement ratio for the
oak tree that was improperly removed, are we able to keep this project on fast track?
Let me know,
Mark
From: Vince Zunino [mailto:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 10:90 AM
To: Mark Blackman
Subject: Re: Agreement
Hi Mark,
Thanks for getting back so promptly. I've read through your letter and I can go along with most the
items in it. There are a few issues that I need better clarification on, however. The most important is the
issue of screening. Your landscape guy didn't make our last meeting and I would like to understand how
you intend to screen your building from my lot particularly where the structure overlooks my pool and
backyard -
I'm willing to meet you at your office to go over my questions on your letter if you like.
Thanks,
vine
Mark Blackman wrote:
Vince,
I have revised and attached the proposed solutions that we have been working on together in a letter
agreement forma; of which I will also provide the Town a copy. In light of this agreement, we hope that
we can gain your support of this project and we look forward to working with you in good faith going
forward. We would appreciate it if you would review and get back to us promptly in order to keep our
project moving ahead.
527/2008
Also, as I mentioned in our meetings, we would welcome the opportunity to tour you through our
sbowcase home on Barton Court. Walking Brough this home will give you a better sense of our
intentions on Ascension. Also, I am happy to take you by our project on Fremont Road where we are just
starting the framing stage. This will help demonstrate how we maintain our job sites throughout
construction.
I look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Regards,
Mark
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
5/27/2008
Page 1 of 2
Nicole Horvitz
From:
Debbie Pedro
Sent:
Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:21 AM
To:
Nicole Horvitz
Subject: FW: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
From: Vince Zunino [mailto:
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:57 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Mark Blackman
Subject: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Debbie,
I wanted to thank you for all the time you spent withme on Friday going over the proposed development
next door. I know I rambled a bit and I don't fully understand the application of some of our ordinances
so I wanted to send this note. to briefly clarify my chief concerns regarding this development as currently
proposed.
Sunlight Encroachment. The proposed second driveway which runs inside the side setback near
my property line requires that any necessary screening shrubbery or trees be placed close to the
fence line along the length of the proposed driveway. This along with the solid fence proposed
for the property line will significantly increase the area of persistent shadow that my property will
experience from fall through early spring. As we discussed, the drawing produced by the
applicant does not fully depict the extent of this problem.
There are two remedies which would help mitigate this. One would be to move the driveway out
of the setback. This would allow the screening trees to be placed nearer the structure which
would substantially reduce the winter shadow effect The other would be to lower the home so
that shorter screening is required. We also discussed a possible remedy of moving the house
back further from the street so that the basement does not extend so high above the existing
grade, but in retrospect this will not really help as it would also extend the problem stretch of
driveway that is in the setback.
2. Deep Cuts and Retaining Walls used to Blue Sky the Basement — The extent that large
retaining walls are being used to provide vehicle access, large sunken patio's and access to the
proposed basement does not seem to me to be fully consistent with the intent of the basement
ordinance or the grading ordinance. The retaining walls that are proposed to allow vehicle access
to the basement garage will result in 8' to 10' cuts clearly visible from the street and expose much
of the basement on my side of the property. In addition, the front comer of the proposed basement
on my side protrudes above the existing grade by four to five feet Most of basement along the
rear of the property has been fully exposed by deep cuts and large retaining walls. To me this
appears to be a large non -conforming two story home that has been partially buried below grade
so that the first story can be called a "basement" and does not meet the intent of the basement
ordinance.
I believe that the original intent of the basement ordinance was to provide more floor space for
new homes with little or no visual or other negative impact for surrounding properties. The
extent this proposed basement has been hogged out with large retaining walls and blue -skied
5/27/2008
along much of the rear and my side of the property seems excessive to me.
3. Privacy Concerns — The pool cabana proposed for the rear of the property will sit above and look
down on my pool area and back yard. Why this open aired structure which has the same negative
visual and privacy impacts on the neighbors as an enclosed structure doesn't count as MFA is
totally lost on me. To me there should be reasonable controls to limit the size, height and
construction of a structure such as this if it is not included in the MFA.
In any event, this structure will have a negative effect on the privacy of my pool area and
backyard. The rear of the proposed home will also overlook my pool area and backyard. At this
point in my discussions with the applicant, it is not clear to me how these will be screened. I am
willing to work together with him to ensure this screening is adequate to maintain my privacy
and mitigate the visual impact of these structures.
4. Improper Removal of Oak Trees — We discussed the covert removal of a number of oak trees
from the property by the applicant that occurred last September or early October of last year. This
included at least four larger oaks and a number of smaller ones. The removal of these trees
opened up sight lines from my property to the Dubey property which is now visible from the rear
of my property. I have proposed and reached preliminary agreement from the applicant to replace
the four larger Oaks that were removed with trees of a similar size to be used as part of his
landscape plan.
4. Non -Conforming Sign — This one I forgot to mention at our meeting. The applicant has placed a
large nonconforming sign advertising his development business in the right of way in front of the
property. I do not believe this sign conforms with the sign ordinance and in my last discussion
with Mark Blackman, I asked him to remove it.
On a number of other issues regarding this development I have worked with Mark Blackman and his
team and I believe that they have addressed them responsively and proactively. The only other of my
concerns that appears up to be up in the air at the moment is the issue of adequate construction parking.
I remain willing to continue working with the applicant toword a mutual agreement on the above issues
and hope that we can resolve them in good faith.
Sincerely,
Vince Zunino
5/27/2008
Page 1 of 2
Nicole Horvitz
From: Mark Blackman [
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:33 AM
To: Nicole Horvitz
Subject: FW: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
See below:
From: Vince Zunino [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:04 AM
To: Mark Blackman
Cc: Debbie Pedro
Subject: RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Marls,
I want to thank you for removing your non -conforming advertising sign from our street and accept your
apology. I believe the sign ordinance has been enforced reasonably effectively by the town over the
years given the very limited staff and resources they have. The town's staffjobs would be made a lot
easier if the construction and real estate trades complied with this ordinance voluntarily. Perhaps stiffer
penalties for repeat offenders would aid compliance.
As my last note indicated, I'm still willing to support your project if the negative impacts to my property
are reasonably addressed and all the town ordinances are complied with. At this point, I have
demonstrated to either to you or Debbie that your proposed structure does not meet the basement
ordinance in that a portion of the side of the basement facing the street is significantly above the natural
grade. I also believe the proposed driveway on my side of the property requires large deep cuts that do
not meet the intent of the grading policy and I've shown how the home and the screening along the
property line results in a significant winter shadow on my lot that will only increase as the screening
matures. I've also made two reasonable proposals that would help mitigate these concerns both of
which have been rejected.
I actually like the basic design of your home and I believe your proposal can be brought into
conformance with our ordinances and the negative impacts to my property fairly addressed if a few
reasonable adjustments to the design are made. I remain willing to discuss this further and would be
happy to meet with you and your team and go over your landscaping proposal.
I can make myself available Friday morning at nine in the morning or later at your office. Please let me
know what time works best for you
vince
Mark Blackman < wrote:
Vince,
Thank you for your note. Scott and I met with Debbie a little over a week ago and she presented your proposed
revision to the driveway closest to your property. After that meeting, our team met to thoroughly consider your
request and analyzed several different options. However, while the revision appears to be minor, it unfortunately
5/27/2008
Page 2 of 2
would have extensively impacted the floor plan layout functionality, as well as traffic flow throughout the house.
One of our other thoughts was to go two-story with the home; however, neighborhood privacy became an issue
and it would have also had a greater impact on your view and shade concems.
In the meantime, we have also had a couple of follow-up meetings with Tom Klope. With Tom we have been
working on developing a comprehensive landscape screening plan that we believe will adequately address your
screening and shade concerns, especially along the driveway and the pool cabana. We have also modified the
driveway retaining wall so that it is stepped up with 2 -four foot walls, rather than an 8ft wall facing the street. We
will be able to do some nice planting in there and It will break up the view from the street
I had hoped to share the landscape screening plan with you last week, however, Tom Klope was in Mexico
building homes for charity. He is back this week and we plan on finalizing our proposed screening plan. I would
like to schedule a time with you, Tom, and Scott to review our latest plans and discuss your feedback. Are you
available this Thursday or Friday to get together? Let me know some times that work for you. We can meet at
the site, your home, or our office.
Another helpful tool in assessing the proposed residence will be the installation of the story poles. Our engineer
will start setting the points early this week and the poles will start going up next week. The poles will be
completed on or before April 17tr. Scott Tom, and I are happy to review them with you after they are up.
Regarding our sign on Ascension, I apologize for the delay in taking it down. To be candid, I wanted to clearly
understand the ordinance to confine whether ft was in fact nonconforming. It appears that construction
companies have been engaging in this practice in Los Altos Hills for some time and we were just acting
consistently. As it turns out you are right, and signs of this nature are not permitted. I strongly believe that the
Town has a larger enforcement issue that needs to be addressed and hope that we are not placed on an unfair
playing field since there are probably well over 50 job signs throughout the hills. Regardless, I respect your desire
to have us comply with this ordinance. I will have the sign taken down by the end of the day today. The sign on
Fremont Road was removed last week.
We would like to continue working together to resolve any open issues and would appreciate your support for our
project. As we continue to refine our plans, we truly feel that this home will be a very compatible with the
neighborhood given its low profile, traditional architecture, and natural landscaping.
Thanks and I look forward to meeting with you
Kind Regards,
Mark
5/27/2008
Page I of 1
Nicole Horvitz
From: Debbie Pedro
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Nicole Horvitz
Subject: FW: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
From: Vince Zunino [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2006 1:43 PM
To: Mark Blackman
Cc: 'Scott Stotler; Debbie Pedro
Subject: RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Mark,
I want to thank you for the call this morning regarding your efforts to make some accommodation in
your plans for the concerns I have regarding the fall and winter shadow your proposed screening will
have on my back lot I wanted to assure you that the shadows cast by the existing trees have been a
"growing" problem for me over the last few years and I see your proposal as making the current easily
correctable situation into a permanent impediment for my planned uses of my property. Again, I feel
moving the driveway on my side of the property out of the set back is the most reasonable and
effective solution and would make your proposal something I could support.
We talked during the call about the possibility of flipping the house and bring the driveway for the
current fust floor garage to the front of the home. I believe this is a reasonable approach, but as I said I
still believe that a better solution would be to simply convert your basement garage into a fast story
garage and bring the driveway to it straight up from the street.
I believe that this approach has more advantages to your project as I explained and if this garage was
made into a smaller two car garage the impact to your MFA could be held to 300 or 400 square feet. In
addition you would gain a large chunk of MDA currently tied up in the turn around which you could use
elsewhere.
I would be happy to sit down with you and Scott and go over these proposed solutions again in greater
detail if you would like. I am available later on this afternoon after about 4 or Friday morning after 9
am.
If we could hammer something reasonable out now on this issue, I think it could possibly save both of
us alot of wasted time and expense.
Thank you for your consideration,
vine zunino
5/27/2008
Page 1 of 2
Nicole Horvitz
From: Debbie Pedro
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 8:45 AM
To: Nicole Horvitz
Subject: FW: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
From: Vince Zunino [mailto:
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 8:35 AM
To: Mark Blackman
Cc: Scott Stotler; Debbie Pedro
Subject: RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the time you and Scott spent with me last night going over ideas to correct the significant
issue I have with the late season shadow your proposed driveway and tumaround will impose on my
back lot. I was hoping that my responsive input and help in correcting the major errors in your proposal
in a timely way and my flexibility at looking at alternatives would result in you making some reasonable
adjustments in your plans. However, it is now obvious that we are at an impasse as you have rejected
every alternative that I can come up with.
I'm sorry that we could not come to a mutually agreeable plan that I could support. I now have
no choice to take my issues with your project and your methods directly to the town staff, the Planning
Commission and City Council if necessary and hope that they will resolve it in a equitable fashion.
I was truly hoping this could be avoided as I consider this alternative a waste of time and money for me,
you and lot of other people
sincerely,
vince zunino
Mark Blackman < wrote:
We can meet at 4:30 today. Let me know.
From: Vince Zunlno [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:43 PM
To: Mark Blackman
Cc: 'Scott Stotler'; Debbie Pedro
Subject: RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Mark,
I want to thank you for the call this morning regarding your efforts to make some
5/27/2008
Page 2 of 2
accommodation in your plans for the concerns I have regarding the fall and winter shadow your
proposed screening will have on my back lot I wanted to assure you that the shadows cast by
the existing trees have been a "growing" problem for me over the last few years and I see your
proposal as making the current easily correctable situation into a permanent impediment for my
planned uses of my property. Again, I feel moving the driveway on my side of the property
out of the set back is the most reasonable and effective solution and would make your proposal
something I could support
We talked during the call about the possibility of flipping the house and bring the driveway for
the current first floor garage to the front of the home. I believe this is a reasonable approach, but
as I said I still believe that a better solution would be to simply convert your basement garage
into a first story garage and bring the driveway to it straight up from the street.
I believe that this approach has more advantages to your project as I explained and if this garage
was made into a smaller two car garage the impact to your MFA could be held to 300 or 400
square feet In addition you would gain a large chunk of MDA currently tied up in the tum
around which you could use elsewhere.
I would be happy to sit down with you and Scott and go over these proposed solutions again in
greater detail if you would like. I am available later on this afternoon after about 4 or Friday
morning after 9 am.
If we could hammer something reasonable out now on this issue, I think it could possibly save
both of us a lot of wasted time and expense.
Thank you for your consideration,
vince zunino
5/27/2008
Page 1 of 3
Nicole Horvitz
From:
Vince Zunino [
Sent:
Sunday, April 13, 2008 2:32 PM
To:
Debbie Pedro
Cc:
Nicole Horvitz; John Chau
Subject: RE: April 12, Meeting on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Iii Debbie,
Thanks for meeting with me on short notice Friday and including John and Nicole to go over what I
believe are significant and material errors or misrepresentations on the submitted topo and elevations
included with this development plan. I've briefly summarized the issues we discussed below:
1. Material Errors on Submitted Topo: I showed how the elevations and contours on the submitted
topo appeared to have been doctored to make the front of the proposed basement appear to be close to
the existing grade. With an overlay of the contours made from a corrected topo, I showed that the entire
front of the basement on the submitted plan is actually 4 to 7 feet above natural grade. Please recall that
I pointed out these obvious elevation errors to you when we walked the site with Nicole over a month
and a half ago and also discussed them at length with the applicant. The applicant subsequently had
these elevations field checked by their surveyor and submitted a new plan which again misrepresented
these elevations.
I am in -process of submitting a formal complaint on the faulty topo to the California State Licensing
Board against the civil engineer in question. I can not file a similar complaint against the applicant
or his designer as they are both unlicensed practitioners. I also asked you if there are some appropriate
sanctions which the Town can take against the applicant for what I regard as unethical tactics. I would
appreciate it if you would check this out for me.
2. Material Errors on Front and Side Elevations: I showed the error in the front elevation which does
not show the correct cross-section of the proposed lower driveway. The elevation gives the impression
that the driveway is completely below grade when in fact it is not which allows a full view from the
street of the day -lighted "basement" garage and large retaining walls of the tum around behind the
driveway.
On the right side elevation which faces my property, I showed how the drawing misrepresents the
elevation of the driveway retaining wall and shows the "basement" garage completely hidden from
view. In actuality this retaining wall must follow the natural grade at the edge of the grading setback
and is as much as 7 or 8 feet lower, clearly exposing much of the "basement" garage to full view from
my property and the street. As a result, the proposed structure appears to be a large non -conforming two
story home from my property which technically it is. The submitted drawing completely misrepresents
the actual side view of the proposed home. You may recall I previously pointed out these drawing errors
to you and I also pointed them out to the applicant on several occasions prior to these plans being
submitted. These errors need to be corrected in the submitted plans.
3. Driveway Alternative - I also discussed with you and your team how I have been working
proactively with the applicant in an attempt to find a mutually agreeable solution to the sunlight
impairment issue their proposal inflicts on my back lot. I presented to you briefly what I believe
is one reasonable alternative that would mitigate the sunlight issue, is consistent with all our
5/27/2008
Page 2 of 3
ordinances and only requires relatively minor changes in the proposed design. In a nutshell, if
the portion of the home around the basement garage was designed as two story. That would
allow for a conforming fust story garage on the lower level. Our ordinances allow garages on the fust
story of a home to face the street. The drive way could then be moved out of the set back. The
eliminates the need for the huge cut required for the tum around, simplifies access to the garage, frees up
MDA, provides plenty of area for screening, would allow some of the existing trees to be retained and
keeps much of the basement on my side of the home underground (where basements belong!)
I would appreciate it if you would let me know if there are any planning or ordinance issues this
proposed solution would have.
I know how tight time is for you and your staff so I appreciate greatly your help and assistance with
these issues.
Thanks and warm regards,
vince zunino
Debbie Pedro <dpedro@[osaltoshiRs.cagov> wrote:
Hi Vince,
How about Ilam today? I will try to get our engineer to join us at the meeting to review the grading
issues.
Debbie
From: Vince Zunino [mailto:
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2006 9:18 AM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Dr. Bart Carey; John Harpootlian
Subject: Meeting Requested on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Debbie,
I have been meeting with the applicants, Mark and Scott repeatedly in an attempt to resolve the
sunlight impairment issue their proposal inflicts on my back lot. It appears now that we can not
find a mutually agreeable middle ground. During my review of their latest proposal submitted
to the Town, I found several significant and material errors or misrepresentations in the
elevations and topo's which I have pointed out to them. (see attached meeting summary)
The most serious of these errors is the misrepresentation of the elevation of the entire front of
the proposed residence. As you may recall, I pointed this out to you during our first meeting on
this proposal. We walked the project and I showed you how the proposed finished floor
appeared to be much higher than represented in the plans. The applicant subsequently had the
front of the proposed basement garage re -verified by their surveyor and submitted plans
with only a minor adjustment to the elevations.
When I double checked these elevations, I found the entire front of proposed basement facing
the street is 4 to 7 feet above natural grade! This fact has now been confirmed by a licensed
527/2008
Page 3 of 3
surveyor. Some of the contours shown on their original submission are off by twenty feet or
more. I believe that these errors are deliberate and calculated misrepresentations by the
applicant intended to end -run our ordinances.
If you have some time available, I would like to review these issues with you today if possible. I
am available all morning up to about 1pm or alternatively around 3 pm.
Thanks,
vince zunino
527/2008
Page 1 of 3
Nicole Horvitz
From:
Debbie Pedro
Sent:
Friday, April 11, 2008 10:02 AM
To:
Nicole Horvitz
Subject: FW: Meeting Requested on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Please ask John or Richard to be at the llam meeting.
From: Debbie Pedro
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 9:21 AM
To: '
Subject: RE: Meeting Requested on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Vince,
How about Ilam today? I will try to get our engineer to join us at the meeting to review the grading issues.
Debbie
From: Vince Zun!no [mai!to:
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 9:18 AM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Dr. Bart Carey, John Harpootlian
Subject: Meeting Requested on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
11i Debbie,
I have been meeting with the applicants, Mark and Scott repeatedly in an attempt to resolve the sunlight
impairment issue their proposal inflicts on my back lot It appears now that we can not find a mutually
agreeable middle ground. During my review of thew latest proposal submitted to the Town, I found
several significant and material errors or misrepresentations in the elevations and topo's which I have
pointed out to them. (see attached meeting summary)
The most serious of these errors is the misrepresentation of the elevation of the entire front of the
proposed residence. As you may recall, I pointed this out to you during our fust meeting on this
proposal. We walked the project and I showed you how the proposed finished floor appeared to be
much higher than represented in the plans. The applicant subsequently had the front of the proposed
basement garage re -verified by their surveyor and submitted plans with only a minor adjustment to the
elevations.
When I double checked these elevations, I found the entire front of proposed basement facing the
street is 4 to 7 feet above natural grade! This fact has now been confirmed by a licensed surveyor. Some
of the contours shown on their original submission are off by twenty feet or more. I believe that
these errors are deliberate and calculated misrepresentations by the applicant intended to end -inn our
ordinances.
If you have some time available, I would like to review these issues with you today if possible. I am
available all morning up to about 1pm or alternatively around 3 pm.
5/27/2008
Page 2 of 3
Thanks,
vince zunino
Vince Zunino < wrote:
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vince Zunino <
Subject: RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
To: Mark Blackman <
CC: Scott Stotler <
Iii Mark,
Thanks for meeting with me today with your team, Scott and Tom to discuss the proposed
landscaping and other issues regarding your proposed development I certainly like some of
Tom's landscaping ideas but as I showed your team during the meeting pushing the screening
for your home so close to the lot line will result in deep shadow lines across the rear of my
property. By the end of growing season on around October 22, my pumpkin patch will largely
be in total shade. It also means that the entire back of my property will be in deep shadow by
the time of the winter solstice in late December. This will negatively impar my future planned
use of my back lot for solar power generation. I showed how eliminating the driveway up the
setback would mitigate this problem significantly by moving the shadow line off my property by
about 10 feet.
In addition, I pointed out that I felt that the huge cut required for the driveway and tumaround
running up the side setback did not meet the intent of the grading policy which seeks to retain
the natural topography as much as practical and requires that any visible alteration of the natural
terrain be minimized. I also believe that this driveway which daylights most of the side of the
proposed structure bordering my property as well as the additional cuts which daylights most of
the back of the structure clearly does not met the intent of the basement ordinance which
effectively limits the amount that a basement can be daylighted and still be called a "basement".
For the three reasons stated above I feel that it is reasonable to request that the driveway running
up the setback be removed from your plans. I feel I can successfully defend my position on this
either with the Planning Commission, or if necessary, the City Council.
At the meeting, I also made you and Scott aware of what I believe are significant and material
errors in the elevations and contours on your topo. These errors are most readily apparent in the
area around the proposed basement garage but may extend along the entire front of the proposed
residence and elsewhere on the lot If these errors are confirmed by a licensed surveyor, it
means that the garage as well as much of the front of the proposed residence are up to six to
seven feet above grade and do not meet the basement ordinance requirement that the front of a
basement facing the street be wholly underground. This problem of course needs to be
corrected before your plans can go forward.
I offered to have my surveyor verify your topo on my nickel but you and Scott agreed to have
your lot resurveyed by a new surveyor to verify the elevations and contours. I am willing to
agree to this approach if you allow me to examine your new topo as soon as it is available.
Please let me know when it is available as I may still want to elect to run my own survey.
5/27/2008
Page 3 of 3
At the end of the meeting I outlined to you and Scott how your plans could be reasonably
modified in a way that I would support and which would also fully conform to the intent of our
grading and basement policy. The changes I recommended would move the home back about
10` to where the front of the basement is underground per the revised topo and make the home
two story in the area of the basement so the driveway could access it from the front. This would
allow the driveway to be moved out of the setback increasing the amount of late year sun hitting
my property and eliminating the need for the large cut for the turnaround area. This plan would
free up a considerable amount of MDA and also allow you to retain 95% of your original design.
I don't believe this approach would require that the finish floor be lowered significantly from the
current elevation of 226' which would minimize your redesign effort. At any rate, please
consider this alternative as you look for ways to bring your proposal into conformance with town
ordinances.
Please keep me appraised of your plans so that I can respond in a timely manner and minimize
any impact to your schedule. Also, please feel free to contact me at any time if you have further
questions.
Sincerely,
vince zunino
5/27/2008
Page I of 2
Nicole Horvitz
From: Mark Blackman [
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 11:39 AM
To:
Cc: Debbie Pedro; Nicole Horvitz;'Scott Stotler
Subject: RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Vince,
We appreciate your time and responsiveness during our plan review. The discrepancy on the lopo that you
pointed out was helpful in allowing us to correct our plans and make sure that we propose the low profile, single
story home that we envisioned from the beginning. Fortunately it was addressed at an early enough stage before
processing any plans.
We believe that we have been pro -active and accommodating on a number of concerns that you have expressed,
including helping substantially improve your current shade problem on the back of your property with our currently
proposed design and screening plan. Along the way, we thought that we had proposed compelling alternatives
that would have resolved your concems with the driveway and turnaround along our shared property line. While
these alternatives would have been very costly and taken more time to construct, we proposed them in good faith
to specifically address your concem. We too are disappointed that we could not come to agreeable terms on the
issue of the driveway and turnaround.
We would have liked to have gained your support for this project; however, we understand that sometimes
neighbors cannot agree on certain items. It is in these situations that the Town's Planning Commission and City
Council become instrumental in helping resolve the difference of opinion.
Again, we appreciate your time and consideration to date and look forward to resolution on this issue.
Regards,
Mark Blackman
From: Vince Zunino [mallto:
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 8:35 AM
To: Mark Blackman
Cc: Scott Stotler; Debbie Pedro
Subject: RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the time you and Scott spent with me last night going over ideas to correct the significant
issue I have with the late season shadow your proposed driveway and turnaround will impose on my
back lot. I was hoping that my responsive input and help in correcting the major errors in your proposal
in a timely way and my flexibility at looking at alternatives would result in you making some reasonable
adjustments in your plans. However, it is now obvious that we are at an impasse as you have rejected
every alternative that I can come up with.
I'm sorry that we could not come to a mutually agreeable plan that I could support. I now have
no choice to take my issues with your project and your methods directly to the town staff, the Planning
Commission and City Council if necessary and hope that they will resolve it in a equitable fashion.
I was truly hoping this could be avoided as I consider this alternative a waste of time and money for me,
5/27/2008
Page 2 of 2
you and lot of other people
sincerely,
vine zunino
Mark Blackman wrote:
can meet at 4:30 today. Let me know.
From: Vince Zunino [mailto:
sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:43 PM
To: Mark Blackman
Cc: 'Scott Stotler'; Debbie Pedro
Subject: RE: Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Mark,
I want to thank you for the call this morning regarding your efforts to make some
accommodation in your plans for the concerns I have regarding the fall and winter shadow your
proposed screening will have on my back lot. I wanted to assure you that the shadows cast by
the existing trees have been a "growing" problem for me over the last few years and I see your
proposal as making the current easily correctable situation into a permanent impediment for my
planned uses of my property. Again, I feel moving the driveway on my side of the property
out of the set back is the most reasonable and effective solution and would make your proposal
something I could support.
We talked during the call about the possibility of flipping the house and bring the driveway for
the current fust floor garage to the front of the home. I believe this is a reasonable approach, but
as I said I still believe that a better solution would be to simply convert your basement garage
into a first story garage and bring the driveway to it straight up from the street.
I believe that this approach has more advantages to your project as I explained and if this garage
was made into a smaller two car garage the impact to your MFA could be held to 300 or 400
square feet. In addition you would gain a large chunk of MDA currently tied up in the tum
around which you could use elsewhere.
I would be happy to sit down with you and Scott and go over these proposed solutions again in
greater detail if you would like. I am available later on this aftemoon after about 4 or Friday
morning after 9 am.
could hammer something reasonable out now on this issue, I think it could possibly save
of us a lot of wasted time and expense.
you for your consideration,
Mr
5/27/2008
Page 1 of 1
Nicole Horvitz
From: Mark Blackman [
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:36 AM
To: Nicole Horvitz; Debbie Pedro
Cc: 'Brad Blackman': 'Scott Stotler
Subject: RE: Staff Report
Great, thanks
On another note, I received a call from Vince Zunino yesterday indicating that he had another idea that he wanted to
share with us. Scott and I met with him last evening and he presented the idea of us project managing the
undergrounding of all the electrical lines for the immediately surrounding neighbors (Zunino, Munshi, Dubey). It's no
small undertaking and there are plenty of details to workout (cost sharing, timeframe, easements, etc).
However, last night Vince said that he would be supportive of our project as it currently is submitted should we
agree to do this. He was happy to pay his retable fee and I would need to start working with the other neighbors to
obtain similar agreements. As I may have mentioned to you in the past, we were planning on undergrounding the
power lines in front of our home, so this would just be an extension which would significan0y improve the look and
feel of the neighborhood.
I will be writing a letter of intent to Vince today indicting our desire to pursue this option.
Mark
From: Nicole Horvitz(mailto:nhorvitz@losaltoshills.ca.gov)
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2006 9:03 AM
To: Mark Blackman
Subject: RE: Staff Report
The staff report will be done by next Friday.
From: Mark Blackman [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:57 AM
To: Nicole Horvitz
Subject: Staff Report
Nicole,
Would you kindly send me a copy of your staff report when it is complete? We would like to review it when it is
ready.
When do you think you'll have it wrapped up?
Mark
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
5/27/2008
Page 1 of 1
Nicole Horvitz
From: Mark Blackman Imark@custom-dreams.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:02 PM
To: Nicole Horvitz
Subject: FW: Utility Proposal
Attachments: Ascension Utility Proposal-4.24.08.pdf
FYI — see below and attached.
From: Mark Blackman
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:23 PM
To: '
Subject: Utility Proposal
Vince,
As discussed, I have attached a letter of intent outlining the general terms of the utility undergrounding that we
have been discussing. Our team agrees that this proposed project would offer a great improvement to the
neighborhood and we are all supportive of quarterbacking this for the participating neighbors.
As soon as we obtain some reliable cost estimates, we will start working with you and the other neighbors to
determine how best to move forward. In the meantime, we would appreciate your support for our project.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Kind Regards,
Mark
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
5/27/2008
IN PIAI ISTAI(
RE: Letter of Intent Regarding Undergrounding of the Electrical Utilities on a section of
Ascension Drive
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Vince,
The purpose of this letter is to address the proposed undergrounding of the electrical lines and poles at
our property located at 26491 Ascension Drive, as well as those located on the immediately surrounding
neighboring properties of the Zunino's, Munshi% and Dubey's. As we have communicated to you in
the past, we are currently investigating the cost of undergrounding the power lines in front of our
residence.
In our last meeting you proposed that Custom Dreams consider facilitating and managing the
undergrounding of additional power lines on behalf of the neighbors. We agree that this project would
significantly beautify the neighborhood and add substantial value to all of our properties. We are fiilly
interested in investigating the feasibility of this project fiuther. Given the scale of the proposed project,
it will undoubtedly require more research and neighbor dialogue, and this will take time.
In an effort to move this proposal forward, we propose the following general terms related to the project:
1) It is contemplated that the electrical poles and related electrical lines running from the Munshi's
residence at would be installed
underground. The project would require the removal of approximately 4 poles and approximately
800 lineal feet of trenching for the new underground lines.
2) Custom Dreams will develop an estimated project budget in a reasonable time period and work
with the Zunino's, Munsld's, and Dubey's in good faith to determine an appropriate and
reasonable cost-sharing program and payment terms for the project
3) Custom Dreams will work with PG&E and/or a qualified electrical engineering firm to develop
the plans and specifications for the project.
- 4) Custom Dreams will submit all plans, specifications, and applications to the Town in order to
obtain the appropriate permits and easements for the project
5) Custom Dreams will bid out the project to qualified contractors to achieve the most cost-
effective price with the appropriate quality level of work. Custom Dreams will provide a
complete budget for the participating neighbors to review and agree to. Project costa will include
labor, materials, permits, fees, PG&E fees, bonding, and any other related project costs.
6) Custom Dreams will manage and supervise the entire project at no cost to the participating
neighbors.
CUSTOM DREAMS IN REAL ESTATE
�wrJlu�„w
iu •ie� rsrer�
'n Custom Dreams will provide the participating neighbors with a reasonable project schedule and
provide appropriate notification to the neighbors during construction.
8) Given the proposed location of the underground utilities, underground utility easements will
need to be granted on the participating neighbors' properties. Custom Dreams will work with the
participating neighbors to facilitate the documenting, granting, and recording of the required
easements.
9) There may be other terms and conditions not included at this time as we conduct further due
diligence on the project. Any additional tens and conditions would be covered in a final project
agreement amongst the participating neighbors.
We believe that this proposed project will have a significant positive impact in beautifying the
neighborhood on Ascension Drive. Again, given the magnitude of the proposed project it will take more
time to fully analyze; however, at this point we fully intend to pursue the project to the next level to
determine feasibility.
Kind Regards,
Mark slaclmran
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
CUSTOM DREAMS IN REAL ESTATE
Page 1 of I
Nicole Horvitz
From: Vince Zunino [
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2006 8:43 AM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Nicole Horvitz; John Chau;
Subject: Re: April 24 Meeting Follow up Concerning the 26491 Ascension Drive Development
Application
Attachments: 2871246390- mments264910scension.pdf
Hi Debbie,
Thanks for meeting with me yesterday to go over my issues regarding this proposed development.
Many of these issues I've brought to the applicant's several occasions previously and they still have not
been fully corrected.
In our meeting I showed how the proposal clearly does not meet the requirements of the basement
ordinance in several respects. First, the front of the basement facing the road is not wholly underground
as required by the ordinance. Second the basement ordinance requires daylighted basements to conform
to the grading ordinance, which it does not. The retaining wall around the garage tum around
substantially exceeds the grading policy.
I also showed that errors in the topo still exist in the area of the proposed basement garage and pointed
these obvious discrepancies out to the city engineer and John Chau at the site. These errors are material
in that the MFA claimed for the garage is substantially understated and the amount the front of the
basement is above grade is also misrepresented in the plans.
In addition, I showed how the submitted right side elevations misrepresents the actual view of the home
as the retaining wall and existing grades are not correctly depicted.
I would also like to point out that the public hearing notice sent to me and my neighbors did not
accurately portray the extent that this proposed development does not meet our basement ordinance and
grading policy.
I believe that the public hearing on this application should be continued until all the errors on the
drawings are fully understood and corrected and the neighboring properties are noticed with a corrected
hearing notice and have the opportunity to see the corrected plans.
I provided Nicole seven copies of a summary of my comments for the Planning Commission this
morning. A pdf version of my comments is attached for reference.
Thanks for your help on this,
vine zumno
5/27/2008
Vincent Zunino
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
April 24, 2008
To: The Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Re: Comments Regarding the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Summary: I have worked extensively with the applicant in an effort to resolve a number of
concerns I have with this proposed development. Unfortunately, there are several significant
issues I raised that have yet to be adequately addressed. My most significant concern is the
huge cut proposed for the side setback along my property line for car access to the basement
garage. This large cut which is highly visible from the mad and daylights most one side of the
basement does not meet the requirements of the basement ordinance or the grading policy. In
addition, the extent of the cut results in a significant negative impact to the current and intended
uses of my property bordering this development. My specific concerns are listed below:
1. Sunliaht Encroachment by Reauired Screening
My property lies to the north and downgrade from the proposed development. In my
experience, it is subject to deep shadows in the fall and winter months due to the seasonal
declination of the sun. The extent of the cut required for the turnaround means that all required
screening must be pushed to within 10' of the property line. I currently use this area of my
property for developing new genetic varieties of giant pumpkins. The proposed screening and
solid fence will put my patch in total shade by the end of growing season. This also means that
the entire back of my property will be in deep shadow by the time of the winter solstice in late
December. This will negatively impair my future planned use of my back lot for solar power
generation. Eliminating the deep cut for the driveway up the setback would mitigate this
problem significantly by allowing the screening to be brought closer to the home. This would
move the shadow line off my property by about 10 feet.
X21
ro or .sed
2j4 SGKa"la/to t/22
Ss.s>< li/ti N
ENWTIx4 Ghee
{--�f-- 2f
This diagram shows the highest point of the sun at noon during the fall and winter months.
Cross section shown is near the front of the proposed basement garage.
L
F`
WLW
i rroMs6D
ME
�o
2M
This diagram shows the highest point of the sun at noon during the fall and winter months.
Cross section shown is near the front of the proposed basement garage.
I worked extensively with the applicant to attempt to resolve this issue. I made several
proposals which would mitigate this problem but was unable to reach a suitable resolution with
the applicant.
The proposed cut for the driveway and turnaround also lies well outside of the requirements of
the basement ordinance and grading policy as noted in the following two issues.
2. The Proposed Structure Does Not Conform to the Basement Ordinance
The latest topographic map used by the applicant does not reflect the actual natural grade in the
area of the proposed basement garage. A significant portion of the front of the basement as
proposed is above grade by 3 to 4 feet. This does not meet the basement ordinance
requirement that the "side of a basement facing a street be wholly underground".
2.r
Approximately 30 feet of the front of the proposed basement is 3' to 4' above natural grade
In addition, the amount of floor area indicated on the plans in the area of basement garage
understates the actual by a material amount because of this discrepancy on the topo.
Approximately half of the proposed basement garage is above natural grade and should be
counted as floor area. I have pointed this elevation discrepancy out to both the applicant and
the planning department.
Recommendation: The elevation discrepancies on the latest version of the topo are matedal
and significant in the area of the proposed basement garage. The actual elevations around this
comer of the proposed home should be field checked by a licensed surveyor. The proposed
basement garage should be brought into conformance with the basement ordinance.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 04/24/08 Page 2 of 6
3. The Proposed North Driveway Requires Excessive Grading Cuts and Large Retaining
Walls Which Significantly Exceed the Requirements of the Gradina Policy
The basement ordinance requires that: "Daylighted basements shall comply with the Town's
grading policy". The large cut and retaining walls proposed for the turnaround to the basement
garage exceed 12 feet and will be clearly visible from the road and my property.
The large cut proposed for the north driveway and turnaround
will exceed 12 feet in this gently sloping area adjoining my property.
In addition, the side of the proposed basement garage daylighted by this cut will be visibly
above natural grade. The proposed structure will have the appearance of a very large non-
conforming two-story home that has been partially burled below grade.
Diagram of the proposed cut near the west end of the basement garage shows the scale of the
retaining walls. The large cut significantly exceeds the grading policy maximum limit of 8 feet.
CommeMs on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 04/24/06 Page 3 of 6
This front view shows the back and sides of the proposed driveway retaining wall in grey. The
side and back of this huge retaining structure will be clearly visible from many angles from the
road. Some of the angles of view from the road are illustrated here with red arrows.
s .
wwno,p wa
an
,
I•
I�
,
The fight side elevation shown on the submitted plan misrepresentshome from my pmperty. The retaining wall shown here fol .«m
the view of the proposed
lows the nature) grade at the edge of
the no grading limit as required. A significant portion of the garage and basement will be clearly
visible from my property and from various angles from the road.
Recommendation: The large retaining walls required for the driveway to the basement garage
are visible from the road, don't meet the requirements of the basement ordinance and are well
in excess of the limits set by the grading policy. The proposed development should be modified
in a way that meets our ordinances and conforms more closely to the actual contours of the site.
Commnts on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 04/24/08 Page 4 of 6
4. Improper Removal of Heritage Oaks
Last September four large Oaks and approximately half a dozen smaller Oaks were cut from the
property with out the benefit of permits. After removal of the larger Oaks, the stumps were
ground up and branches cut from neighboring pines and juniper bushes were used to cover the
area around the stumps. A deep layer of decaying oak leaves can still be found where these
Oak trees were removed.
Four large Oaks were removed from the lot without permits last September as indicated by the
red circles above. The stumps were then ground up and the area around the two largest trees
covered with pine and juniperbranches.
The submitted plan also requests the removal of most of the remaining trees and shrubs on the
lot. There are several trees that should be saved. A large Monterey Pine and a large Acacia
tree near the front of the lot help screen a telephone pole and the wires which cross the front of
the lot. The large pine also provides screening of the large house on the neighboring property
from the road.
Recommendatlon: I have proposed and reached preliminary agreement from the applicant to
replace the four larger Oaks that were removed with drought tolerant trees of a similar size to be
used as part of his landscape plan. Other measures adequate to discourage tactics of this sort
should be applied as appropriate. In addition, the large Monterey Pine and Acacia tree near the
front of the lot should be protected and saved because of the valuable screening they provide.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 04/24/08 Page 5 of 6
5. Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Plan Exist
There are reasonable alternatives for the applicant to make the proposed home fully compliant
to the basement ordinance and the grading policy. A rough sketch of a conforming plan that I
proposed to the applicant is shown below. The comer of the home with the basement garage
is made two story. The driveway can then be brought to the front of the structure. The huge cut
required for the north driveway and turnaround is eliminated. Most of the proposed home's
original design can be retained with this approach.
This rough sketch shows a proposed driveway alternative that is fully compliant with the
basement ordinance and our grading policy. It would also mitigate the late fall and winter
shading of my property by allowing screening to be planted nearer the proposed home.
Conclusion: There are significant problems with this application in that it clearly does not meet
the requirements of several of our ordinances. The large proposed cuts and retaining walls
needed for the driveway and turnaround for the basement garage will visibly mar the natural
topography of this gently sloping she and are well in excess of the limits set by our grading
policy. Alternative designs are possible which are fully compliant with our ordinances. The
applicant should be required to design a home that more comfortably fits the contours of the site
and complies fully with all town ordinances.
Sincerely,
Vincent Zunino
Copy: Nicole Horvitz, Debbie Pedro
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 04124108 Page 6 of 6
Page 1 of 1
l:=;G7:t
From: Vince Zunino[
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 3:01 PM
To: Mark Blackman; 'Scott Stotler
Cc: Nicole Horvitz; John Chau; Debbie Pedro; Richard Chiu
Subject: Plan Elevation Discrepancies on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Hi Mark,
Yesterday I spoke with Richard Chiu and John Chau regarding the elevation discrepancies that are still
apparent in your plans for your proposed new residence. As I've discussed with you and Scott several
times before, the area of proposed basement garage and the front of the proposed home north of the
driveway sits in an obvious natural depression which is not correctly depicted in the latest version of the
topo. These errors are material in that the MFA claimed for the basement garage is substantially
understated and the amount the front of the basement is above grade is also not correctly shown in your
plans.
I believe that it is in your best interest to fully define and correct these errors in your application prior to
the Planning Commission hearing. I also would like the extent of these errors fully defined as it
potentially affects the impact of your development on my property.
The existing topo by Lea and Braze has only a single field check point in the location of the proposed
garage which was taken at a localized high spot. As a consequence, the contours shown on the topo are
significantly off in this area. To correct these discrepancies, I am proposing that the elevations of this
comer of the proposed basement be field checked by your surveyor to precisely define the existing
natural grade in this area. I will pick up all charges for this field check if no material errors are found
and I am allowed to observe the process used. If this field check results in material changes to the topo,
I would expect any costs to be resolved between you and your surveyor.
I am open to other methods of verifying these elevations that would definitively resolve this
issue. I would also be happy to meet with you and Scott and the appropriate town staff to discuss
and agree on a mutually acceptable way of resolving this if you wish.
Please let me know as soon as practical how you would like to proceed
Sincerely,
Vince Zunino
5/27/2008
Page 1 of 1
Nicole Horvitz
From: Mark Blackman [
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2006 12:53 PM
To: Nicole Horvitz; John Chau; Debbie Pedro; Richard Chiu
Cc: 'Brad Blackman'
Subject: FW: Plan Elevation Discrepancies on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
All,
Lea & Braze was out this morning to re -survey the area of concem expressed by Vince Zunino. John Chau was
present for the survey. As you will see in his email below, Greg Braze has reviewed the data and determined that
the existing topo on record is accurate. There are no changes to what was previously submitted.
I have asked Greg to provide a letter indicating the results. I will provide the letter to the Town as soon as I
receive it.
Hopefully this issue is behind us now. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Mark Blackman
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
From: Greg Braze [mailto:
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 11:32 AM
To: Mark Blackman
Subject: RE: Plan Elevation Discrepancies on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
I have examined all the data we collected this morning and the contours as shown on the plan are correct and are
not effected. Please let me know what you need for the next step.
Gregory F. graze P.L.S. 7623
Principal
Lea & Braze Engineering Inc.
5/27/2008
ALEA A BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC.
AsaMssal"CIVIL ENGINEERS I L4N0 St1RVEYORS
May 12, 2008
Mark Blackman
Custom Dreams in Real Estate
Subject: Contour Verification on
26491 Ascension Drive— Los Altos Hills
Job No. 20801 l8
Dear Mr. Mark Blackman
Please consider this letter my certification that we have field verified the contours
in question located at the Nnrtheaar (front) of the existing house and found them to
completely agree with the Topographic Survey completed by Lee and Braze Engineering
dared April 10, 2008 within 0.10'.
Please note that our certification included running a grid of approximately l0' and
comparing the elevations to our existing survey,
Please contact me with any questions.
(My email address (
�corury r. wale
Land Surveyor
2495 Industn'al Parkway West a Hayward, CA 94545-5037 s (510) 987-4086 a FAX (510) 997-3019
too/L00la 8NI833NI0N3 32Y888V31 6108L88 %V3 ss:Zt soovzl/So
Mr. and Mrs. Ashfaq and Rums Munshi
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
February 24, 2008
Planning Commision
Town of Los Altos Hills
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
To Whom It May Concem
Attachment 4
This letter is with regard to the proposed residence on 26491 Ascension Drive, Los Altos
Hills, CA 94022 to be built by Custom Dreams in Real Estate.
The proposed residence is a beautifully designed residence that will no doubt improve the
character and feel of Ascension Drive. However, there are several things that cause deep
concern These are detailed below.
It appears that several heritage oak trees have been removed from the property without
permission from the Town. One such tree would have required the home to be moved
approximately 10 feet further towards the back of the property. Conveniently its removal
now allows the new home to be set fiuther towards the front. We feel that the newly
designed building should be moved back to where it would have been had the tree not
been removed We feel this is only fair as this was precisely what was required of us
when we had gone through the planning process. Failure to hold Custom Dreams
accountable would be discriminatory.
Construction parking is another major concern that is shared by all the neighbors on the
street Since the new home is set much further towards the front than the existing home,
it will be necessary to utilize the street for parking. We have three properties that are
impacted by this result. Since one of our properties is a rental it will adversely affect our
ability to rent the property at market rates and hence result in meaningful, measurable
economic damage to us — no one wants to rent a home, particularly with children, when
construction workers will be parking in front of it 6 days a week Additionally, parking
on the street will force my children to walk in the street when my dogs are being walked.
As Mr. Blackman of Custom Dreams has noted to me, Ascension drive has cars driving
quite fast as they come down from the hill. Therefore, the fact that my children have to
utilize the street without benefit of the walking paths necessarily means increased mortal
danger to them. This is something that we should not have to tolerate under any
circumstance.
To be fair, we have explored using of one of our properties for parking with Mr. Mark
Blackman. His proposal contemplated using our property for all parking for a monthly
fee of $200.00 per month. This, as you would agree, is hardly a fair market rate. We
have therefore rejected his offer. Consequently, Mr. Blackman has indicated that he will
pursue alternatives to address parking. We would like to make clear that we cannot agree
to the accelerated approval of the proposed new residence without having this issue
properly resolved. It is worthy of note that if the new home were to be set back an
additional 10 feet, Custom Dreams could provide on site parking and a good portion of
the parking issues would be resolved. (There would still be the issue of NOT parking on
our properties).
Finally, we wish to inform the Town that parking adjacent to our properties would agitate
our dogs resulting in increased barking. Additionally, our experience has been that
workers often tease the dogs causing us much grief and resulting in complaints from the
neighbors to the Town leading to letters from the Town to us. This would not be
acceptable to us.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to address our issues to the Town. We would
like to remind the Town that we have three properties that are impacted as they sit
directly in front of the proposed construction site. As such, the Town should view our
issues as those of three distinct neighbors.
We look forward to a satisfactory resolution of these matters to accommodate the
aggressive schedule that Custom Dreams has contemplated.. Failing that, however, we
would demand that the project be required to go through the normal plan approval
process providing us the ability to personally address these issues before the planning
commission.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Ruma an8 Ashfaq Mtmshi
Attachment 5
Vincent Zunino
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
May 28, 2008
To: The Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Re: Updated Comments Regarding the Proposed New Residence at 264g1Ascension Drive
Summary: I have worked extensively with the applicant in an effort to resolve a num bar of
concerns I have with this proposed development. Unfortunately, there are several significant
issues I raised that have yet to be adequately addressed. My most significant concern is the
huge nonconforming cut proposed for the side setback along my property line for car access to
the basement garage. This large cut which is highly visible from the road and daylights most
one side of the basement does not meet the requirements of the basement ordinance or the
grading policy. In addition, the extent of the cut results in a significant negative im pad to the
current and intended uses of my property bordering this development. My specific concerns are
listed below:
1. The Proposed Gradin Cuts are Excessive
The application requests exceptions to the grading policy for large extensive cuts to lower the
backyard and accommodate most of the rear of the main structure. The cuts required average
about 7.5 feet over a substantial area which is currently mostly flat. There is nothing particularly
challenging about the topography of this she that would justify these large cuts.
The proposed structure was never designed to fit on the contours of this gently sloping parcel.
Instead the applicants have submitted a series of applications which grossly and materially
misrepresented the existing natural grades on the site to make it appear that this proposal
conforms to our ordinances. Now that the applicants have been compelled to correct the
elevation discrepancies on the original application documents, the applicants are requesting
that their non -conforming plan be approved without any effort to design a conforming structure.
The first version of these plans subm itted was represented to me by the applicant and the
Planning Department as being fully compliant with all town ordinances and was being 'Fast -
Tracked" through the planning process. H owever, upon reviewing the elevations shown on the
plans, it was immediately apparent that the entire f ront of the basement facing the road was 4 to
7 feet above the existing grade and clearly did not meet the requirements of the basement
ordinance or the grading policy. It was also obvious on inspection that the topo map contained
a number of gross elevation and contour errors. I brought these errors to the attention of the
Planning Department.
The next version of the development application submitted by the applicant was again based on
the same obviously altered and misleading topographic map. When I again made an issue of
these misrepresented elevations, the applicant submitted a third application based on a new
survey. This survey was fairly accurate, but in the third development application, the applicant
tampered with the survey results to again misrepresent the existing elevations around the front
of the basement. This was the application that was originally scheduled for Planning
Commission hearing on May 1. These elevation "errors" were exposed prior to the meeting and
the application was continued to the June 5 Planning Commission meeting.
The current application is the fourth application submitted and the first to accurately portray the
existing grades on the site. It is clear now that this proposal is largely non -conforming to our
comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 0528,08 Page 1 of 6
grading policy. No attempt yet has been made by the applicant to design a fully conforming
structure for this site.
Recommendation: This developer should be required to subm it an accurate, fully -conforming
development proposal that has been specifically designed to fit the contours of this site.
Appropriate remedies should also be considered to discourage the use of the deceptive tactics
outlined above being used to subvert the fair application of our ordinances in our Fast -Track
and Planning Process.
2. Sunlight Encroachment by Required Screening
My property lies to the north and downgrade from the proposed development. In my
experience, it is subject to deep shadows in the fall and winter months due to the seasonal
declination of the sun. The extent of the cut required for the turnaround means that all required
screening must be pushed to within 10' of the property line. I currently use this area of my
property for developing new genetic varieties of giant pumpkins. The proposed screening and
solid fence will put my patch in total shade by the end of growing season. This also means that
the entire back of my property will be in deep shadow by the time of the winter solstice in late
December. This will negatively impair my planned future planned use of my back lot for solar
power generation. Eliminating the deep cut for the driveway up the setback would mitigate this
problem significantly by allowing the screening to be brought closer to the home. This would
move the shadow line off my property by about 10 feet.
This diagram shows the highest point of the sun at noon during the fall and winter months.
Cross section shown is near the front of the proposed basement garage.
I worked extensively with the applicant to attempt to resolve this issue. I also made several
reasonable proposals which would mitigate this problem but was unable to reach a suitable
resolution with the applicant.
The proposed cut for the driveway and turnaround also lies well outside of the requirements of
the basement ordinance and grading policy as noted below.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 0528818 Page 2 of 6
��� iu
eenw ie/z<— 7/zz
_
rx�rnrw iMDE
�1�oO
This diagram shows the highest point of the sun at noon during the fall and winter months.
Cross section shown is near the front of the proposed basement garage.
I worked extensively with the applicant to attempt to resolve this issue. I also made several
reasonable proposals which would mitigate this problem but was unable to reach a suitable
resolution with the applicant.
The proposed cut for the driveway and turnaround also lies well outside of the requirements of
the basement ordinance and grading policy as noted below.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 0528818 Page 2 of 6
3. The Proposed North Driveway Requires Excessive Grading Cuts and Lame Retaining
Walls Which Siamficantly Exceed the Requirements of the Grading Policy
The basement ordinance requires that: "Daylighted basements shall comply with the Town's
grading policy". The large cut and retaining walls proposed for the turnaround to the basem ant
garage exceed 13 feet and will be clearly visible from the road and my property.
I ne large cut proposed for the north driveway and turnaround
will exceed 13 feet in this gently sloping area adjoining my property.
In addition, the side of the proposed basement garage day lighted by this cut will be visibly
above natural grade. The proposed structure will have the appearance of a very large non-
conforming two-story home that has been partially buried below grade which it is.
94
r��mreO
PwrGe4D
Diagram of the proposed cut near the w est end of the basement garage show s the scale of the
retaining walls. The large cut significantly exceeds the grading policy maximum limit of 8 feet.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 0528878 Page 3 of 6
This front view shows the back and sides of the proposed driveway retaining wall in grey. The
side and back of this huge retaining structure will be clearly visible from many angles fmm the
road. Some of the angles of view from the mad are illustrated here with red arrows.
The right side elevation shown on the submitted plan misrepresents the view of the proposed
home fmm my property. The retaining wall shown here follows the natural grade at the edge of
the no grading limit as required. A significant portion of the garage and basement w ill be clearly
visible from my property and fmm various angles from the mad.
Recommendation, The large retaining walls required for the driveway to the basement garage
are visible from the road, don't meet the requirements of the basement ordinance and are well
in excess of the limits set by the grading policy. The proposed development should be modified
in away that meets our ordinances and conforms more closely to the actual contours of the site.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 062WB Page 4 of 6
4. Improper Removal of Heritage Oak
Last September four large Oaks and approximately half a dozen smaller Oaks were cut from the
property with out the benefit of permits. After removal of the larger Oaks, the stumps were
ground up and branches cut from neighboring pines and juniper bushes were used to cover the
area around the stumps. A deep layer of decaying oak leaves can still be found where these
Oak trees were removed.
Four large Oaks were removed fmm the lot without permits last September as indicated by the
red circles above. The stumps were then ground upend the area around the two largest trees
covered with pine end juniper branches.
The submitted plan also requests the rem oval of most of the remaining trees and shrubs on the
lot. There are several trees that should be saved. A large Monterey Pine and a large Acacia
tree near the front of the lot help screen a telephone pole and the w ires which cross the front of
the lot. The large pine also provides screening of the large house on the neighboring property
from the road.
Recommendation: I have proposed and reached preliminary agreement from the applicant to
replace the four larger Oaks that were removed with drought tolerant trees of a similar size to be
used as part of his landscape plan. Other measures adequate to discourage tactics of this sort
should be applied as appropriate. In addition, the large Monterey Pine and Acacia tree near the
front of the lot should be protected and saved bec ause of the valuable screening they provide.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 052&D6 Page 501`6
5. Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Plan Exist
There are reasonable alternatives for the applicant to make the proposed home fully compliant
to the basement ordinance and the grading policy . A rough sketch of a conforming plan that I
proposed to the applicant is shown below. The front and comer of the home with the basement
garage is made two story. The driveway can then be brought to the front of the structure and the
level of the finished floor can be raised. The huge cut required for the north driveway and the
excessive cuts required in the rear of the property can be eliminated. Most of the proposed
home's original design can be retained w ith this approach.
This rough sketch shows a proposed driveway alternative that is fully compliant with the
basement ordinance and our grading policy. It would also mitigate the late fall and winter
shading of my property by allowing screening to be planted nearer the proposed home.
Conclusion: There are significant problems with this application in that it clearly does not meet
the requirements of several of our ordinances. The large proposed cuts and retaining w ails
needed for the driveway and turnaround for the basement garage will visibly mar the natural
topography of this gently sloping site and are well in excess of the limits set by our grading
policy. Alternative designs are possible which are fully compliant with our ordinances. The
applicant should be required to design a home that more comfortably fits the contours of the site
and complies fully with all town ordinances.
Sincerely,
Vincent Zunino
Copy: Nicole Horvitz, Debbie Pedro
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - OWW8 Page 6 of 6
From: Vince Zunino [mailto:
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 8:43 AM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Nicole Horvitz; John Chau;
Subject: Re: April 24 Meeting Follow up Concerning the 26491 Ascension Drive Development Application
Hi Debbie,
Thanks for meeting with me yesterday to go over my issues regarding this proposed development. Many of
these issues I've brought to the applicant's several occasions previously and they still have not been fully
corrected.
In our meeting I showed how the proposal clearly does not meet the requirements of the basement ordinance in
several respects. First, the front of the basement facing the road is not wholly underground as required by the
ordinance. Second the basement ordinance requires daylighted basements to conform to the grading ordinance,
which it does not. The retaining wall around the garage Nm around substantially exceeds the grading policy.
I also showed that errors in the topo still exist in the area of the proposed basement garage and pointed these
obvious discrepancies out to the city engineer and John Chau at the site. These errors are material in that the
MFA claimed for the garage is substantially understated and the amount the front of the basement is above
grade is also misrepresented in the plans.
In addition, I showed how the submitted right side elevations misrepresents the actual view of the home as the
retaining wall and existing grades we not correctly depicted.
I would also like to point out that the public hearing notice sent to me and my neighbors did not accurately
portray the extent that this proposed development does not meet our basement ordinance and grading policy.
I believe that the public hearing on this application should be continued until all the errors on the drawings are
fully understood and corrected and the neighboring properties are noticed with a corrected hearing notice and
have the opportunity to we the corrected plans.
I provided Nicole seven copies of a summary of my comments for the Planning Commission this morning. A
pdf version of my comments is attached for reference.
Thanks for your help on this,
vine zunino
4/25/2008
Vincent Zunino
26555 Ascension Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
April 24, 2008
To: The Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Re: Comments Regarding the Proposed New Residence at 26491Ascension Drive
Summary: I have worked extensively with the applicant in an effort to resolve a number of
concems I have with this proposed development. Unfortunately, there are several significant
issues I raised that have yet to be adequately addressed. My most significant concern is the
huge cut proposed for the side setback along my property line for car access to the basement
garage. This large cul which is highly visible from the road and daylights most one side of the
basement does not meet the requirements of the basement ordinance or the grading policy. In
addition, the extent of the cut results in a significant negative impact to the current and intended
uses of my property bordering this development. My specific concerns are listed below:
1. Sunliaht Encroachment by Required Screening
My property lies to the north and downgrade from the proposed development. In my
experience, it is subject to deep shadows in the fall and winter months due to the seasons I
declination of the sun. The extent of the cut required for the turnaround means that all required
screening must be pushed to within 10' of the property line. I currently use this area of my
property for developing new genetic varieties of giant pumpkins. The proposed screening and
solid fence will put my patch in total shade by the end of growing season. This also means that
the entire back of my property will be in deep shadow by the time of the winter solstice in late
December. This will negatively impair my future planned use of my back lot for solar power
generation. Eliminating the deep cut for the driveway up the setback would mitigate this
problem significantly by allowing the screening to be brought closer to the home. This would
move the shadow line off my property by about 10 feet.
This diagram shows the highest point of the sun at noon during the fall and w inter months.
Cross section shown is near the front of the proposed basement gars ge.
134
sero'io/u� \ \
h
i�o
o-knMr, csroe
". °rsMcfi'�
22,
if - -- .._--_il
FVPweRrr U
z.t
This diagram shows the highest point of the sun at noon during the fall and w inter months.
Cross section shown is near the front of the proposed basement gars ge.
I worked extensively with the applicant to attempt to resolve this issue. I made several
proposals which would mitigate this problem but was unable to reach a suitable resolution with
the applicant.
The proposed cut for the driveway and turnaround also lies well outside of the requirements of
the basement ordinance and grading policy as noted in the following two issues.
2. The Proposed Structure Does Not Conform to the Basement Ordinance
The latest topographic map used by the applicant does not ref lect the actual natural grade in the
area of the proposed basement garage. A significant portion of the front of the basement as
proposed is above grade by 3 to 4 feet. This does not meet the basement ordinance
requirement that the "side of a basement facing a street be wholly underground".
Approximately 30 feet of the front of the proposed basement is 3' to 4' above natural grade
In addition, the amount of floor area indicated on the plans in the ar as of basement garage
understates the actual by a material amount because of this discrepancy on the topo.
Approximately half of the proposed basement garage is above natural grade and should be
counted as floor area. I have pointed this elevation discrepancy out to both the applicant and
the planning department.
Recommendation: The elevation discrepancies on the latest version of the topo are material
and significant in the area of the proposed basement garage. The actual elevations around this
comer of the proposed home should be field checked by a licensed surveyor. The proposed
basement garage should be brou ght into conformance with the basement ordinance.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 0424178 Page 2 of 6
3. The Proposed North Driveway Requires Excessive Grading Cuts and Large Retaining,
Walls Which Sianifcantly Exceed the Requirements of the Grading Policy
The basement ordinance requires that: "Daylighted basements shall comply with the Town's
grading policy". The large cut and retaining w ails proposed for the turnaround to the basement
garage exceed 12 feet and will be clearly visible from the road and my property.
The large cut proposed for the north driveway and turnaround
will exceed 12 feet in this gently sloping area adjoining my property.
In addition, the side of the proposed basement garage daylighted by this cut will be visibly
above natural grade. The proposed structure will have the appearance of a very large non-
conforming two-story home that has been partially buried below grade.
error p
Diagram of the proposed cut near the west end of the basement gars ge shows the scale of the
retaining walls. The large cut significantly exceeds the grading policy max imum limit of 8 feet.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 0424/08 Page 3 of 6
This front view shows the back and sides of the proposed driveway retaining wall in grey. The
side and back of this huge retaining structure w ill be clearly visible from many angles from the
road. Some of the angles of view fmm the mad are illustrated here with red arrows.
The right side elevation shown on the submitted plan misrepresents the view of the proposed
home from my property. The retaining wall shown here follows the natural grade at the edge of
the no grading limit as required. A significant portion of the garage and basement will be clearly
visible from my property and from various angles from th a road.
Recommendation: The large retaining walls required for the driveway to the basement garage
are visible from the road, don't meet the requirements of the basement ordinance and are well
in excess of the limits set by the grading policy. The proposed development should be modified
in a way that meets our ordinances and conforms more closely to the actual contours of the site.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 0424/08 Page 4 of 6
4. Improper Removal of Heritage Oaks
Last September four large Oaks and approximately half a dozen smaller Oaks were cut from the
property with out the benefit of permits. After removal of the larger Oaks, the stumps were
ground up and branches out from neighboring pines and j uniper bushes were used to cover the
area around the stumps. A deep layer of decaying oak leaves can still be found where these
Oak trees were removed.
Four large Oaks were removed from the lot without permits last September as indicated by the
red circles above. The stumps were then ground up and the area around the two largest trees
covered with pine and juniper branches.
The submitted plan also requests the removal of most of the remaining trees and shrubs on the
lot. There are several trees that should be saved. A large Monterey Pine and a large Acacia
tree near the front of the lot help screen a telephone p ole and the wires which cross the front of
the lot. The large pine also provides screening of the large house on the neighboring property
from the road.
Recommendation: I have proposed and reached preliminary agreement from the applicant to
replace the four larger Oaks that were removed with drought tolerant trees of a similar size to be
used as part of his landscape plan. Other measures adequate to discourage tactics of this sort
should be applied as approp riate. In addition, the large M onterey Pine and Acacia tree near the
front of the lot should be protected and saved because of the valuable screening they provide.
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 0424/08 Page 5 of 6
5. Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Plan Exist
There are reasonable alternatives for the applicant to make the proposed home fully compliant
to the basement ordinance and the grading policy. A rough sketch of a conforming plan that I
proposed to the applicant is shown below. The corner of the home with the basement garage
is made two story. The driveway can then be brought to the front of the structure. The huge cut
required for the north driveway and turnaround is eliminated. Most of the proposed home's
original design can be retained w dh this approach.
This rough sketch shows a proposed driveway alternative that is fully compliant with the
basement ordinance and our grading policy. It would also mitigate the late fall and winter
shading of my property by allowing screening to be planted nearer the proposed home.
Conclusion: There are significant problems with this application in that it clearly does not meet
the requirements of several of our ordinances. The large proposed cuts and retaining walls
needed for the driveway and turnaround for the basement garage will visibly mar the natural
topography of this gently sloping site and are well in excess of the limits set by our grading
policy. Alternative designs are possible which are fully compliant with our ordinances. The
applicant should be required to design a home that more comfortably rds the contours of the site
and complies fully with all town ordinances.
Sincerely,
Vincent Zunino
Copy: Nicole Horvitz, Debbie Pedro
Comments on the Proposed New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive - 0424/08 Page 6 of 6
Attachment 6
RECEIVED
MAY 25 2009
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
r}i!�!:MKs BZzebbr'e Pa� , AZC�
z69! Lna�s�v 17�i�e,, File -
Ho # aSZ-oJ-P-SD-Cr(�
ca/N, J�
C-HY(_F,4 L. _<v)
-
Mr. and Mrs. Prabhat and Anita Dubey RECEIVED
26475 Ascension Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
MAY 2 E 1008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Attn: Debbie Pedro
Planting Department
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: New Residence at 26491 Ascension Drive
Dear Debbie,
TOWN OF' -'S ALTOS HILLS
Attachment 7
This letter is regarding the planned new residence at the above address, which is located next door to our
home. As one of the most proximate neighbors to this property, we would like to express our strong
support for the project
We have met with the owner and development team, including Mark Blackman and Scott Stotler, to
review the plans for the home and the site. We are very pleased with the building structure, the
amhiteclure, and the site design. In reviewing the rendering, we feel that the home and landscape design
will be highly compatible with the neighborhood.
We understand that Custom Dreams is proposing to lower the home two additional feet and the backyard
up to three additional feet. This additional lowering of the residence significantly improves our privacy
and reduces the visibility of the home and backyard from our property. We are highly supportive of the
additional cut required to achieve this goal.
Additionally, in speaking with the owner, it was brought to our attention that oak trees were removed
several months ago from the site. Custom Dreams has indicated that they are working with the Town to
satisfactorily replace these trees. We are supportive of these trees being replaced with alternative mature
trees that are complementary to the architecture of the home. We have also been informed that a
complete landscape screening plan will be made available for review in the future and we look forward to
reviewing that plan when the time is right.
In summary, we are delighted about the new home to be built and believe that the residence will be a
great asset to our neighborhood.
Best Regards,
PK Dubey
• cLA%+c RECEIVED Attachments
�► co FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
COUNTY tAAR 24 2888
chester Bbd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • yrvw.sccfd.or H of LOS ALTOS III LLS,W�,,,,,a,,,, ,,,
Ngercy
PUN RE NUMBER 08 0703
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS Bap PE NUT FUENUMBER
ELLE xnwER
CDDESEC.
UPCUP
Iff-'
A
UFC
1003.1.2 as
Amended by
IAHMC
8-8.0.1
UFC
902.2.4.1
SHEET
site plan for a proposed 11,844 square foot single family residence with
it attached garage and a 1,622 detached secondary unit.
iew of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access
water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be
Anted as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with
pled model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make
lication to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
struction permits.
wired Fire Flow, The fire flow for this project is 3000 gpm at 20 psi residual
;sure. As an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow has
1 reduced by 50%D establishing a required ag�usted fire flow of 1500 gpm at 20
.esidual pressure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and
hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing.
e Fire Sprinkler System: Note on sheet Tl indicate both buildings will be
throughout by an automatic fire sprinkler system, hydraulically
per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D.
oaratus (En*ne)Access Driveway Required, Provide an access driveway
,awed all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet,
clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet
and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall
t to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. ' A
drawing and note has been received by this office on 03/21/08, and this
Cry PUNS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
OCCUP N
CONST. TYPE
APPIN9,aN—
MTE
PAGE
LAH N C)N E] ❑
STOTLER DESIGN GROUP
3/18/2008
I 1 2
of
SELhLOpR
gRFA
LOAN
pESCRIPIpN
SY
Residential Development
Harding, Doug
NAMEOFPRVJ
LOCR7
VILLA DE ASCENSION
26491 Ascension Dr
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clma County and the L ununft D//Campbell, Cuperfiro, Los Alba,
Los Altos Idllis, las Gator, Monte Sereno, Fkrgan FAIT, and Somtoga
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 3784010 • (408) 378-9342 ifara • w .sccfd.org
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CGBF/6FG. I MHEEr I NG.I RBGUEIEMENT
FC
)2.2.4.1
:AH
AC
ene�.n>.M nurmMa
ASR+v
PIAN REviEw NUMBER 0a 0703
BLDG PEBMn NUMBER
M{E NUMBER
complies with our requirements for emergency access.
gy Gate/Access Gate Requirements: Gate installations shall conform with
n-tment Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not
any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or
is. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to
across the emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved
devices. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key
t shall be installed, if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox
ck shall be installed.
ant plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental
Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan
als and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan
® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ I 1 I STOTLER DESIGN GROUP 13/18/2008 I --L oR 2
Residential Development I Harding, Doug
VILLA DE ASCENSION 126491 Ascension Dr
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
SenAnq Santa Clam County and the mmmunlaa of Campbell, Cupertirro, lns Alto,
L. Altos Hnl, L. Cato, Monte Sereno, MoVan HU, and Saratoga
Attachment 9
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
December 12, 2007
L0347
RECEIVED
DEC 14 2007
TO: Nicole Horvitz TOWN Of LOS ALTOS HILLS
Assistant Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 -
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review
RE: Ascension Development, New Residence
252-07-ZP-SD-GD
26491 Ascension Drive
At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the subject
permit application for the proposed new residence, using:
• Soil and Foundation Investigation (report), prepared by American
Soil Testing, Inc., dated October 31, 2007;
• Architectural Plans (14 sheets, various scales), prepared by Stotler
Design Group, dated October 30, 2007; and
• Civil Plans (5 sheets, various scales), prepared by NNR
Engineering, dated November 23, 2007.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office
files and completed a recent site inspection
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to construct a new one-story residence with a daylighting
full basement, retaining walls, swimming pool, cabana with basement, and associated
improvements. We were provided with estimated earthwork quantities of
approximately 6,430 cubic yards of cut, all of which will be exported off-site. Access to
Northam Califo Offs.
www.cottonshires.com
c.f Ca if.m Ofan
Nicole Horvitz December 12, 2007
Page 2 L0347
the property is via a private driveway off of Ascension Drive on the eastern edge of the
site.
The subject property is located on the southeast -facing flank of an approximately
east -trending spur ridge. Natural slopes on the site are gentle to moderately steep, with
a maximum inclination of approximately 25 percent. The existing residence is situated
on a nearly level cut/fill pad in the central portion of the site. There is a steep (30 to 50
percent inclinations) unsupported cut slope on the uphill side of the residence up to 14
feet in height. A minor amount of fill (approximately 1 to 2 feet thick) underlies the
eastern downhill portion of the existing residence with gently inclined fill slopes that
blend in with the natural topography. Natural drainage at the site is characterized by
infiltration and sheet flow toward the east
According to the Town geologic map, the subject property is underlain, at depth,
by sedimentary bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation. Both of the exploratory borings
performed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant encountered materials consistent with
weathered Santa Clara Formation bedrock at depths of approximately 7 feet This
material is overlain by colluvium, organic -rich topsoil, and a minor amount of artificial
fill which was not delineated on the submitted boring logs. The site is located
approximately 3,500 feet northeast, IA miles north, and 1.6 miles northeast of the
potentially active Monts Vista, Altamont, and Berrocal faults, respectively.
Additionally, the site is located approximately 3.9 miles northeast of the active San
Andreas fault
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Proposed site development is constrained by anticipated strong seismic ground
shaking and potentially expansive surficial materials. The Project Geotechnical
Consultant has conducted a recent site investigation and provided geotechnical
recommendations that generally appear satisfactory for identified site constraints.
However, there a few items of concern that the consultant should address. It appears
that the consultant has provided recommendations for both a 6 -inch thick basement slab
underlain by 6" of crushed rock and a 12 -inch thick slab underlain by IT' of crushed
rock. The consultant should clarify which design recommendation is intended to be
utilized for the proposed construction. Also, according to the Town Geologic Map, a
type B fault is located approximately 3500 feet southwest of the site. For the UBC
seismic design parameters presented in the referenced report, the consultant uses a
distance of 3.2 km to calculate the near -source factors. The consultant should provide
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Nicole Horvitz
Page 3
December 12, 2007
L0347
appropriate seismic design parameters which reflect the actual distance to the nearest
trace of the fault. Otherwise, we do not have geotechnical objections to the layout and
design of the proposed development. Consequently, we recommend geotechnical
approval of permit applications for proposed site development with the following
conditions:
Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and
grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been
properly incorporated. The consultant should also provide
appropriate UBC seismic design parameters which reflect the site
location within 2 km of a type B fault. Furthermore, the
consultant should clarify the recommended basement slab and
underlying crushed rock thickness.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project construction. The inspections should include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface
and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for
foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel
and concrete. The consultant should verify that suitable bearing
materials are encountered in the vicinity of the garage; existing fill
materials appear to be located at the garage site.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the
project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a
letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to
final (granting of occupancy) project approval.
LIMITATIONS
This 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
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Nicole Horvitz
Page 4
December 12, 2007
L0347
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.
DTS:TS:JS
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre 0
Associate Engineering Geologist
Cj/E�G1 �1795 %
David T. Schrier
Associate Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Attachment 10
_ construction has finished. The motion was seconded by Courtenay Corrigan The
vote was unanimously in favor.
91': scension Di: lands of Ascension Dev. LLQ The reason for pathway review
is a proposed new residence. The PWC agreed that the logical side for a pathway is
on the opposite side of the street. Courtenay Corrigan moved that the PWC
recommend that the Town collect a pathway in -lieu fee from the owners of 25893
Fremont Road.. The motion was seconded by Anna Brunzell. The vote was
unanimously in favor.
V. 12610 La Cresta Dr lands of Marple e R tygF. The reason for pathway review is a
proposed new residence. Since an easement along the La Cresta side of this property
already exists, the issue was whether or not to put a path alongside this property.
The PWC deliberated which side of the street was optimum for a path, and decided
that in the interests of privacy for the owners and convenience for pathways users
the but solution was to have the path change sides. Chris Vargas moved that based
on the Aug 16 2006 map, for a person walking Southeast on La Crests, the path
must be on the right side at 12695 La Cresta and most switch to the left side
between properties at 12680 and 12690 La Cresta. Jim Bliss seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
The PWC also decided that even though there is a limited number of houses to the
Southeast of this property that will be served by a pathway, there is a significant
benefit to having a pathway along La Cresta. Jim Bliss moved that the PWC
recommend a pathway along 12610 La Cresta Dr. The motion was seconded by
Anna Brunzell. The motion passed with 7 in favor and 2 opposed.
vi. 13300 East Sunset, lands of Cedar. The reason for pathway review is a proposed new
residence to replace an existing older residence. The FWC has looked at this area two
times recently: in June 2006 they recommended that a pathway be built on East
Sunset beside 13241 East Sunset, and on 27 November 2007 they recommended a
pathway be built along East Sunset on the property under discussion at 13330 East
Sunset There are many walkers on this road, probably because East Sunset and West
Sunset make an attractive walling loop. The narrow road and sharp curves create
dangerous conditions for walkers in the road. The PWC decided to uphold their
previous recommendation of 27 November 2006 to require that on the property at
13300 E. Sunset a IIB path along E. Sunset be required.
Page 2
Environmental Design and Protection Committee Attachment 11
New Residence/Remodel Evaluation
Reviewed by: �S_'r'14 Date R,
Applicant
Name 8(19 tcl x n
Addresses 6.W _lJ-'
Creeks, drainage, easements:
M
'e
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
W ww.lDsaltoshills.ca.gov
Code Sections:
Attachment 12
LOSAL1l aw
rA�i'r,
CALIROBNIA
Grading Policy
Approved by City Council — 4/7/97
Section 10-2.7020 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 If
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%)."
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,
and emphasizes out 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 minimiz- 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.
Policy. Grading
Page 2
Poli
1. Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and
contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary
to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step
down' the bill*:
cut Fill
House
8'**
3'
Accessory Bldg.
4'
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 three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the
slope.
3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8) 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.
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.
Attachment 13
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 1OSAMM
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222 r
w Josaltoshilis.ca.gov CALIFORNIA
Basement Ordinance
Effective Date: 9/1/06
Sec. 10-1.208 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 3 sides, or at least 75% of its perimeter length wholly underground.
That side of the basement not wholly underground shall not be located on any side of a lot
abutting one side of a road. 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.
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.
Floor Area Definition
"Floor area" shall mean the gross horizontal area of the several floors of all buildings, including
garage space and carport space, measured to the outside of exterior walls. Floor area is counted
twice when the vertical distance between the upper surface of the floor, and the upper surface of
the floor or the underside of the roof directly above it, is greater than seventeen (17� feet. That
portion of an attic is considered floor area when the distance between the upper surface of the
attic floor and the underside of the roof above it is seven (7) feet in height. For the purposes of
this definition, all attic spaces are considered to have floor surfaces. Area meeting the definition
of a basement is exempted from floor area.
(Effective date: March 7, 2002)
Policy: Basement Ordinance
Page 2
G
O
I:
�i •�I
NaWfal
Grade
NaWrat
1e Story
1"Story
G2de
EL 239.57
Finish
Grade
\ \
[Fl-
Area
Finish
SECTION Grade
3 sides, or at least
; I'g
75% of perimeter
length wholly
4th side w 25% of
N& 2tRg r,l R , : 1
perimeter length
,;t�.
Natural
1" Story
Backfill
Grade
Floor
Area
I Floor Area
I Not Basement
\
239.52'
IEL
Finish
PLAN
Grade
—
I
BASEMENT RETAINING WALL
I
i
r•weo Boon
AND FLOOR FRAME DETAIL
1
1
I
u ew rn+ y
I
Finished floor elevation of the
building level above shall not be
'•
7rw�
greater than twenty-eight (28•)
a
/
L
inches above the adjoining
/
•
natural or Finished grade,
�/i,
,,e„"`e,"Oi
whomever Is lower.
buement
' OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Attachment 14
LANNING DEPARTMENT
lls, Califomia 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (65O
9
EVIOPYROP051! �E����WORKSHEET #2D DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA..
• TURN IN WrrB YOUR APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Ascension Development, LLC TOWN OF LOS ALT i.L.
PROPERTY ADDRESS 26491 Ascension Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA
CALCULATED BY SCOTTSTOTLER DATE &"8 6-Z1 /O y,
1.
DEVELOPMENT AREA
Existing (to be
Proposed
Total
5785/0
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
removed)
(Addition&Ueletions)
73/0
A
House and Garage (from Pan 3. A)
2899
6034/2899
6034
B.
Porch (Non -WA)
524
214/524
214
C.
Driveway and Parking
(Measured 100' along centerline)
3553
4071/3553
4071
D.
Patios/Walkways/egress/fightweNs
0
1612/0
- - 1612
E.
Cabana
0
1137/0
1137
F.
Pool and Decking
0
631/0
631
G.
Accessory Buildings (from Part B)
0
0/0
0
H.
Any other coverage (Terraces)
0
181/0
181
TOTALS
6976
13,880/6976
13,S80
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1)
1 514
2.
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
Existing
Proposed
Total
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
TOTALS 6976
3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing
A. House and Garage
a. 1 st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement (Non -MFA)
d. Garage
e. Porch (Iv1E'A)
B. Accessory Buildings
13,880
Proposed
(Addilions/Ddetiws)
2459
5533/2459
0
0/0
0
5785/0
440
428/440
73/0
a. 1 st Floor 0
b. 2nd Floor 0
c. Attic and Basement 0
TOTALS 2899
Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1)
13,880
Total
5533
0
5785 )
428
73
0/0
0
0/0
0
0/0
0
6034/2899
6034
6035
TOWN USE ONLY I CHECKED BY DATE