Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.3TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS November 6, 2008 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL; LANDS OF ASKARINAM; 27198 ELENA ROAD; #203-08-ZP-SD-GD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner jl9O APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director T>P RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the new residence and swinuning pool subject to the recommended conditions in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Elena Road across from Adonna Court. Surrounding uses include a mix one and two story of single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the north, south, and west. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single story residence and swimming pool on the property and construct a new two-story residence and a swimming pool. This application was originally scheduled for a Fast Track hearing on October 28, 2008. Projects which qualify for Fast Track must meet the following requirements: • The project conforms to the Town's General Plan, Zoning and Site Development Codes and Town policies adopted by the Council; and • The project would not require approval of a variance or a conditional development permit; and • There is no substantive neighborhood opposition to the project•, and • The applicant agrees in writing to accept all of the proposed conditions of approval. Since a number of neighbors have expressed concerns with the proposal over views and privacy impacts, the application was forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-1.1103 of the Zoning Ordinance, this application for a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The Zoning and Site Development sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate new residences including building siting, floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height, setbacks, visibility, and parking requirements. Item 3.3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Ask 27198 Elcna Road November 6, 2008 Page 2 of 12 DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 1.12 acres Net Lot Area: 1.004 acres Average Slope: 9.9% Lot Unit Factor: 1.004 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sq. ft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 15,060 11,272 13,233 1,961 1,827 Floor 6,024 3,750 6,003 2,253 21 Site and Architecture The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a 6,003 square foot two story residence with a 756 square foot swimming pool. The parcel slopes up from Elena Road and levels off at the existing building site and continues to slope gently towards the rear of the property with an average slope of 9.9%. The existing residence is located primarily on a flat building pad. The proposed residence is sited on the widest portion of the lot in the same vicinity of the current residence. The proposed two-story building meets the setback, height, floor area and development area requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The new residence is located a minimum of 82' from the north (front) property line, 31' from the east (side) and 38' west (side) property lines, and 164' from the south (rest) property line. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 26' and the maximum height of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) from the lowest point to the highest point is 31'. Proposed exterior materials include a cement plaster exterior, concrete tile roof and metal clad wood windows. The ground floor of the new residence has 3,477 square feet of living area which includes an entry hall, living room, office dining room, family room, kitchen, wine cellar, billiard room, and a guest room. The second floor has 1,883 square feet of living space with three bedrooms each with their own bathroom and the master bedroom with a master bath. Driveway & Parkine The existing nonconforming driveway will be removed and replaced with a new driveway which will be located a minimum of 10' from the property line to comply with code requirements. The new driveway is 14 feet in width for its entire length. A garage will provide three (3) covered parking spaces with standard dimensions of 10' x 20'. One Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Askariaaru 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 3 of 12 (1) additional outdoor parking space is located at the front of the new residence outside of the required setbacks. Outdoor Liehtine The applicant is proposing the minimum number of lights fixtures need, one per door and two for double doors. Staff has included condition #11 for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be down shielded, frosted glass, low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted lighting specifications indicating that all proposed fixtures will be down shielded or have frosted glass covers to mitigate visibility. Trees & Landscanin¢ Existing vegetation on the property includes two (2) heritage oaks, of 39" and 42" diameter along the front (north) property line. The rest of the property is planted with several fruit trees, two (2) large cedar trees, a maple tree, and some ornamental plantings around the house. Four (4) apricot trees are proposed to be removed as part of the site development application. To ensure that all significant trees will be protected throughout the construction period, staff has included condition of approval #5 requiring that the trees within the vicinity of the construction be fenced for protection. There are a number of trees along the east property line which provide significant screening for the neighbor at 27142 Elena Road. There is currently a fence along this property line which is located approximately one foot to two feet into the subject property. The applicant requests a fence to be built on the shared property line. The trees that are located on or very close to the property line may need to be removed or substantially trimmed to accommodate the proposed fence. A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after final framing of the new residence. Due to the neighbors concerns about privacy, staff recommends that the landscape screening application come back to the Commission for review. 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 (condition #3). Dramaee Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected in 6" PVC pipe and carried to a detention box then slowly dispersed though a 3" pipe to a dissipation trench located at the front of the property. 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Askarinam 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 4 of 12 complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Deparhnent 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 Total grading quantities include 535 cubic yards of cut for the driveway, house and pool and 535 cubic yards of fill for the front and rear yard. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed grading and concluded that it is in conformance with the Town's grading policy. Neighbor Concerns Since the project was noticed for Fast Track review on October 17, 2008, four neighbors have submitted letters voicing their concerns regarding the project based on the location, size and height of the proposed residence. Below is a summery of the neighbors concerns: 12101 Dawn Lane (Lands of Belani) — Loss of privacy from the second story bedrooms and balcony and noise from the pool equipment and air conditioner (Attachment 2). 12159 Dawn Lane (Lands of Jawadl) - The proposed residence is incompatible with the neighborhood. Concerns about the visibility, property value, size of the house and pool and the construction noise and traffic (Attachment 3). 27142 Elena Road (Lands of Barchas) — The property is on a hilltop and the proposed residence is too large for the site and should be a single story design. Concerns about protecting the existing trees along the shared property line and the noise from the pool equipment and air conditioner (Attachment 4). 12100 Dawn Lane (Lands of Perga) — believes the height of the proposed residence is excessive, the proposed house does not fit in with the neighborhood (Attachment 5). Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring the installation of fire sprinklers throughout the building. Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends a pathway in -lieu fee which is included as condition #27. The Environmental Design Committee noted that the proposed driveway is under the canopy of two (2) heritage oak trees. The applicant has provided an arborist report for Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands ofAskatinarn 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 5 of 12 affect of the construction on these oak trees which indicates that with the recommended mitigation the trees will survive the proposed construction. Staff has included condition of approval # 6 CEOASTATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a) & (e). ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Letter and emails from Vinita Belani dated October 21 -October 28, 2008 3. Letter from Zaydoon Jawadi dated October 28, 2008 4. Letter from Mark & Kay Barchas dated October 28, 2008 5. Letter from Cathie Perga dated October 26, 2008 6. Recommendations from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated September 8, 2008 7. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates dated October 30, 2008 8. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated August 13, 2008 9. Recommendations from the Pathway Committee dated August 25, 2008 10. Worksheet #2 11. Development plans: site, topographic, grading & drainage, floor, elevations, section and roof • • ' Staff Report in the Planning Commission Lands of Askm am 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERWI FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH SWIMMING POOL LANDS OF ASKARINAM 27198 ELENA ROAD File # 203-08-ZP-SD PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise fast reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final inspection of the new residence. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Planning Commission. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding propenes 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 4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Asksrinam 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 7 of 12 5. 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. 6. A letter from an arborist shall be submitted to the Town evaluating the health of the 39" the 42" heritage oak located along the front of the property prior to final inspection. 7. 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 and cabana matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shalt submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection. 8. 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 17'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35 ) foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection. 9. Standard swimming pool conditions: a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site. It. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Staff Report to the Planning Comnvssion Lands of Askarinatn 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 8 of 12 c. Pool equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides with a roof for noise mitigation and screening. 10. 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. 11. Fences 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. 12. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the plans. There shall be one light per door or two for double doors. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or be down lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 13. 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. 14. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 15. 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: 16. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated October 30, 2008, the applicant shall comply with the following: 1. Geotechnical Clarification — Given that the site is located within Geotechnical Hazard Zone D (all ground within 660 feet of a designated Type B fault), the Project Geotechnical Consultant Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Askarinam 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 9 of 12 should verify that the mapped bedrock formation (Franciscan Complex) has been confirmed by subsurface exploration at the site. The extent of existing site fill materials to be removed and recompacted should be discussed. Proposed site drainage improvements should be evaluated from a geotechnical perspective to verify that drainage dissipation structures are not located such that they are likely to result in adverse impacts to fill prisms, native slopes or hardscape surfaces. Any appropriate drainage design modifications should be recommended. Consideration should be given to increasing geotechnical design pressures for the pool shell given the moderate to highly expansive site soil conditions. Estimated building settlements should be discussed associated with presented foundation design alternatives. Appropriate documentation to address the above should be submitted to the Town for approval by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check 2. Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documentation prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 3. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Askminam 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 10 of 12 For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., dated October 30, 2008. 17. Peak discharge at 27174 Elena Road, as a result of Site Development Permit 203-08, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre - development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a 10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. All documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Prior to final inspection, a letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the detention storage design improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations. 18. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October IS to April IS) 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. 19. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months." 20. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and prior to final inspection, the location and elevation of the new residence shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development plan. At the time of framing inspection for the new residence, the height of each building shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan. 21. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Askannam 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 11 of 12 shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 22. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The grading/constraction operation plan shall address track traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Elena Road and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 23. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check 24. The property owner shall dedicate a 30' wide half -width public right of way to the Town over Elena Road. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to submittal 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. A sewer plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check An as -built mylar shall be required to be submitted to the Town prior to final project approval. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Askarinam 27198 Elena Road November 6, 2008 Page 12 of 12 27. 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. 28. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $50.00 per linear foot of the average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 29. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. - 30. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background CONDITION NUMBERS 15, 16,(1 & 2), 17, 21, 22, 23, 26, and 28 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 November 28, 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 November 6, 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. Attachment 2 Nicole Horvitz From: Ynita Belani [ Sent Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:47 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Debbie Pedro Subject: Objection to plans of Askarinam for proposed new house at 27198/27174 Elena Road Dear Nicole. Thank you sharing the proposed building plans for new house to be built by Behzad and Louise A `karinam at 27198/27174 Elena Road. Thank you also for giving me a flyer about the notice of fast track public hearing which I have to date not received either from my neighbor or by mail. Please consider this email a formal objection lodged against the proposed plan for the new house on the following grounds - We live at Los Alto Hills, CA 894022 Our property shares a long common boundary with the above mentioned Askarinam property. We object to the proposed plan for a new house on the grounds that having a second floor reaching the height of 27 feet and a balcony/patio on that second floor will completely destroy our privacy. The proposed house will sit directly uphill of our house and the windows and the balcony of the second story will look directly into our property. Anyone in the second floor of that house will have complete visual access to our property, We will have no privacy in our back yard and pool area Anyone will be able to see into our master bedroom and bathroom, not to mention our living room and kitchen and downstairs master bath. Currently, the existing single story house would also encroach on our property's privacy if it were not for high foliage along the fence. This high foliage which we were obliged to plant in our lot, is already so high that it blocks most of our sunlight and view. We have issues with permanent damp areas resulting in moss and mould in our back yard as a result of the existing foliage. It would require a very significant increase in height in terms of foliage to provide privacy if the proposed plan were to be implemented since the lot is on the same slope but higher up to ours. That would mean very little to no sunlight in our backyard and a complete obliteration of the view and the sky from all of our back facing windows. You can well understand that this proposed house would seriously impact the quality of our lives in comparision to today and would result also in a significant drop in market value of our home. We purchased this property because we were drawn to the fact that it was quiet and private without being walled in, fenced in, or otherwise constrained. We really enjoy sharing open boundaries with our neighbors. We have a teenage daughter and two teenage sons who need their privacy. 10/28/2008 Page 2 of 2 The proposed house would force us to surround our house with very high dense foliage, we would lose sunlight and the wide view we currently have and it would lose its current curb appeal in the market i strongly urge you to reconsider the height of the proposed house and the addition of a second story in light of the negative impact this would have on us. Please acknowledge this objection as having being noted, and please advise me at your earliest if any further action is necessary to formally lodge this objection. Vinita and Ashok Belani. 10/28/2008 From: Vinita Belani [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:41 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Debbie Pedro subject: Re: objection to plans of Askadnam for proposed new Muse at 27198/27174 Elena Road Nicole, Further to my objections for the proposed plan to construct on 27 1 9 8/27 1 74 Elena Road, please also note the following - 1.The mail has arrived today and I still have no notification from the Town of os Altos Hills for the Notice of Public Hearing which is being held on Tuesday 28th Oct.. I therefore move that the meeting be postponed, on the grounds that none of the neighbors are aware of said meeting, and have no time to evaluate if they have any objections to these proposed plans. 2. I have not at ay time been contacted by any person related to this project about the proposed construction. Neither the owner nor the architect has checked anything with me or even suggested that a new house is about to be built. 3. The proposed house looms over our property. No amount of pictures can explain the degree of invasiveness this house will produce on our life, I am therefore formally requesting that you make a site visit and see the proposed structure form my lot, inside and outside to be fully cognisant of the negative impact of this property on my privacy and obstruction of my view. 4. The proposed property poses an earthquake risk to us. If the property is damaged in any way, the fall out will be slide onto my house and lot since I am downhill from them. 5. I move that if the proposed plans for the house are to be approved they should be built after sinking the foundation so that the house is only as high as the current house. 6. I request you to explain to me why the address of this lot has been changed from 27174 Elena Road to 27198 Elena Road. Thank you, sincerely, Vinita Belani From: Unita Belani [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:21 AM To: Nicole Horvitz; Debbie Pedro Cc: Cathie Perga; zaineb; barchas@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: Objection to plans of Askarinam for proposed new house at 27198/27174 Elena Road Nicole, Since the time I met you I have spoken to all the neighbors surrounding us and I have discovered that all of them got the notice about the town hall fast track meeting except the five families that are directly impacted by this construction. This is too much of a co -incidence and cannot be written off as a postal error. I intend to look further into this matter. The Jawadi family (cc'ed here) whose house also abuts the property in question say that their mail box has been tampered with several times in the past week. I am cc'ing some of the neighbors who are impacted by this construction and who want to be a part of a concerted neighborhood objection to the plans as they currently stand. More neighbors are objecting and will be writing to you directly. Thank you Vinita and Ashok Belani. Page 1 of 1 Nicole Horvitz From: vnita Belani [ Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:46 AM To: Debbie Pedro; Nicole Horvitz Cc: zaineb Subject: one more request Debbie, Nicole, Thank you very much for coming out to my property yesterday to evaluate in person the effect.the new construction on 27174/27198 Elena Road would have on my property. Thank you also for the heads up that the Planning Commission may meet on 6th November to discuss this. I understand formal notification will be mailed to all of us once the date is decided.. I would like to make a formal request at this point that this meeting be postponed until early December. Clearly this construction will totally destroy my family's privacy and will significantly lower the property value of my house. Landscape mitigation will be a big compromise. Before we go down that road I need to reassure myself that I have no other options. Given these circumstances I need to get legal advice on what my options are and I need to consult with a building expert to understand the plans better. I cannot do this between now and November 6th. sincerely, Vinita and Ashok Belani 10/28/2008 I: a Debbie Pedro AICP OCT y 9 2008 Planning Director. Los Altos Hills CA TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Oct 286'2008 Re: demolition of existing house and proposed construction of new house on the property previously addressed as 27174 Elena Road and currently addressed as 27198 Elena Road. As owners of the neighboring property, we would like to state the following: 1. That we have seen the proposed plans at the Planning office for the said property 2. That we put forth the following objections to the proposed plans 3. That we propose some solutions to our objections Objections I. The proposed plan eliminates to a very substantial degree the privacy that we currently enjoy with the existing house in place. The proposed two-storey house has its second story bedroom windows and the side balcony overlooking directly into our backyard, our swimming pool area, our kitchen and most importantly, the master suite and bath. It also blocks sunlight into our property by virtue of its increased height and orientation. H. The proposed house does not conform to Los Altos Hills Site Development Ordinance Section 10-2.701 and Section 10-2.702. The property is a hilltop, highly visible lot and the proposed structure is highly obtrusive. There are no other visible properties in our neighborhood on or off of Elena Road that look as large or opulent as this property so the property needs to be set back, lowered, and rendered unobtrusive in order to preserve the natural and current skyline. We see that the proposed house conforms to basic building guidelines, however it sits on a long narrow lot and it is stretched to the limit of each allowance, rendering it obtrusive. The proposed house is totally out of character with the houses currently visible on our streets and off of Elena road in this neighborhood. Certainly, this proposed structure, because of its lot configuration and elevation, is in contradiction to the truly attractive proposition of life in Los Altos Hills, where Zoning and Siting is so proudly enforced to provide the residents with a private and peaceful life in close proximity with the urban life in the Bay Area. Proposed changes We propose that the 5 clauses in Section 10-2.702 be clearly followed by the proposed structure. For this particular category of lot, these well specified guidelines must apply. The most civic solution would be to consider a single storey structure as called for in clause (1) and as currently exists on the property. The foundation of the house could also be dropped to a degree (at least six feet) so as to mitigate the obtrusiveness of the house, removing it from the line of the sight of neighboring properties, most especially our own. We contend that it would still retain its views of the Bay towards the North and North-East. At the very least, we would like to have eliminated from the plans - Lthe side balcony, which provides a voyeuristic view of our property including our front and back yard and house and especially the master suite, and hence is totally unacceptable to us; and 2. the windows in bedroom four, which allow the same negative effect. These windows can face the back of the house and still provide sunlight and better views - of their pool and landscape — rather than views of our bedrooms and back yard. Under all circumstances, we need natural landscaping to screen the view of our backyard and house. Such trees would need to be planted in a NE/SW direction and would cast an almost permanent shadow on our back yard. This does not eliminate the property holder's responsibility for landscaping for privacy — that is still necessary and should be made part of the plan going forward. Other Issues Noise from the open placement of the pool equipment and the air conditioning compressors has not been addressed We are extremely concerned by the proximity and hence the disturbance we will experience during the phase of construction. We are downhill and downwind from the property in question and will experience dirt and noise pollution We hope the construction will strictly follow the city rules to minimize hindrances to a normal, peaceful life. Vinita and Ashok Belani On behalf of Belani Trust Los Altos Hills CA 94022 Attachment 3 Nicole Horvitz Town of Los Altus Hills Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 October 28, 2008 Dear Ms. Horvitz, My family and I live on adjacently behind the proposed construction of a new house at 27198 Elena Road. We have been living here for fifteen years. We find the planned new house objectionable for multiple reasons. First, it is overly obtrusive to all neighbors. It is invasive, violating the privacy of all surrounding neighbors, and disregarding basic courtesy. Second, it is incompatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. It is ostentatiously massive. It is obvious that every aspect has been literally stretched to the limit, without any consideration, except for profit maximization. Third, it is already at the top of a hill. The new enormous construction will make it very visible, standing out like an eyesore. Fourth, the plans are overly ambitious and finalized without any consultation with the neighbors. Fifth, extensive use of balconies intrudes on the neighbors. Sixth, the sheer size of the construction is unacceptable for the area. It is massive. Seventh, the construction does not respect existing trees and vegetation. Eighth, it will severely and negatively impact the value of the neighboring properties. Ninth, it will set a precedence for such out -of -character design. There are other towns, such as Atherton, which are more suitable for this style. Tenth, considering the high hill on which the property is situated, it is entirely unacceptable to build a two story house with such height. Eleventh, the swimming pool is too large. In case of a quake, it will flood and cause serious damage to the neighbors. Twelfth, we are also very concerned about the noise, dirt, delays, and hazards caused by such huge undertaking. We understand the desire to rebuild, but cannot accept all these serious issues and the total disregard for the neighbors and the neighborhood. Thank you. Sincerely, ,yam/ Zaydoon Jawadi Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Tel: Attachment 4 kill] 40 LUUQ Comments By Mark and Kay Barchas Re: 27198 Ele% F LOS WDS HILLS As the neighbors at immediately south of and sharing a common side boundary of about 350 feet with the subject property, we have some real concerns about what is being proposed. The subject site has the prominent spot on a knoll where the building pad is highly elevated, i.e. 25 feet, above the street below. So the house starts where a typical two story in Los Altos Hills would end. This height would be accentuated by the direct view of the building site for a considerable distance when driving south on Elena Road. By any reasonable interpretation, the property would seem to qualify as a "hilltop, ridgeline, or highly visible lot" as described on the top of page 14 of the Los Altos Hills Site Development Ordinance, as it lies very prominently and visually above the street and to its neighbors to the north. Under this Section 10-2.702(b) (1) "Single story buildings and height restrictions may be required". Section (4) continues with "Structures may be located on ridgelines or hilltops only when they can be rendered unobtrusive by one (1) or more of the following techniques. (i) The use of natural vegetation and/or landscaping. (ii) The use of a low -profile house, with a sloping roofline and foundation, that follows the natural contours of the site. (iii) The use of exterior roofing and siding materials and colors that blend with the natural landscape." Instead of conforming to these measures, the applicant has chosen to propose a house that looms over the neighborhood, like the "king of the mountain." Note all of the houses on the block are low impact one story ranch including the existing house on the site, except one, which is at the low end of the terrain, and even with its two floors, is only slightly higher than the applicant's proposed ground floor level. Since the applicant is not proposing a one story house as would seem to be indicated in the guidelines, the next best choice would be to build the lowest impact two story possible. Instead he has applied to build the latest in -style house -- French -- to the limits of height allowed in the town, the limits of square footage allowed for the lot, and with the minimum side setbacks allowed in the town. This is especially inappropriate for this particular site because, while the site is slightly over an acre in size, its depth is about 2.5 times as great as its average width. And since the house is sited on its narrow width parallel to Elena Road, it is very close to both side neighbors, at some points being the minimum 30 feet. Asa result there must be special attention given to adequately screening the house with vegetation along both sides. A house like what is being proposed is OK for an area where the lots are reasonably square and flat and the houses can be widely separated and adequately landscaped for privacy. It seems inappropriate with irregular narrow but deep lots on highly upsloping terrain. Again, if a reasonable interpretation of the Building Code would say that a house on this site should not be two stories, then if two stories are to be allowed, the house should be as low and unobtrusive as possible and not at the maximum height allowed by the Code; and the setbacks should be as much as possible, and not to the minimum allowed by the Code. The house might prove to be more desirable and marketable if it better suited the lot, with the side benefit of making the neighbors much happier. On a more personal note, affecting our property only: 1. Our two houses were built at the same time in 1955 by the same builder before the modern city codes. Both of our houses are only 20 feet from their side property lines, and our driveway runs through our 20 foot strip to the garage in the rear. While we are fortunate to have some major trees on our side of the existing fence, the house as proposed would still loom above other unscreened sections of our long driveway and be visible from our bedrooms and backyard. A major effort by the applicant to screen with large mature trees will be necessary in the open sections along our driveway. Because our driveway runs through the 20 foot corridor, we are limited in space to plant more mature trees on our side. 2. Part of the fence along our shared property line, which was sited and built long ago by the former owner of the subject property, is between 12-24 inches into the subject property. We are concerned that when the new fence provided for in the plan is built the new owner will try to realign it along the true boundary as shown in their plan. This will not be possible because several of the mature trees planted 60 years ago are now right up against the fence where it currently stands. These trees enhance both our properties and provide some of the necessary screening between us. We discussed our concerns about protecting these trees with the Applicant and his architect on October 27. They assured us that the trees would be protected either by the new redwood fence going around the trees or by substituting a hedge type partition instead of the redwood fence. However, our trees are not shown on their plan as their trees are, and we are concerned that their roots could even be damaged during grading and construction if our perimeter heritage trees are not specifically covered by the plan and permit and protected. The large trees within two feet of the existing fence are: Two redwoods approximately 2 feet in diameter each A palm approximately 3 feet in diameter Two deodara cedars approximately 2 feet in diameter each One deodara cedar approximately 3 feet in diameter One cherry and one avocado each approximately i foot in diameter There are over twice as many big trees at a slightly greater distance from the existing fence, whose roots also need protection during grading and construction. 3. The applicant's plan shows his new redwood side fence ending at the motorcourt, leaving an approximately 20 foot gap in the fence to where it would connect to our fence closer to the street in the front. He is relying on our redwood trees as a screen, but we are concerned there will be gaps exposing his garages, and we want to reserve the right to require him to extend his fence up to ours, while protecting the boundary trees. 4. It appears that one air conditioning condenser and the pool equipment are located outside opposite the bedroom wing of our house. We don't have air conditioning ourselves because we find the compressor noise so disruptive to sleep. The applicant said that there was no town requirement to enclose either of these pieces of equipment. But LAH standard swimming pool conditions clearly state: "Pool equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides with a roof for noise mitigation and screening." We would request that this provision be enforced and that the air conditioning, which is subject to its own noise standards from the town, be placed in this some enclosure. 5. We have a large telescope and often do astronomy in our back yard. Hopefully there is a way to make sure that there are no night lights directed upward in such a way as to impact our back yard by adding to the total ambient light. It would also help to use amber lights connected to movement sensors rather than timers. This sort of lighting, required in San Jose, is generally believed to be preferable. 6. We hope that no construction activity of any kind will be allowed outside of the hours of 8-5 M -F and that loud radios or other unnecessary noise be restricted. i yr • � .byc r = e f� ` • If ;;�: 7M, 1 i ,dy, ti' M �Yyy'If=Ar. arm I o. // _ /, Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission (For the November 6, 2008 Hearing) October 26, 2008 Dear Ms. Pedro, Attachment 5 RECEIVED OCT 28 2000 TOWH OF i ALTOS HILLS I just received the notice of a hearing on the property "Lands of Episcopal Layman's Group" on Duval Way. I do not live near this. I believe you wanted to send me a notice of the property on Elena Road which recently changed numbers. The story poles are up. It is two houses away from me and I have not received any notice on this. I am not sure exactly what the number of the house is now but it is next door to the Barchas and Belani families (one lot south of Dawn Lane). The plan of this home in my neighborhood prompts my letter to you. When viewed from the street, I find the height of the story poles excessive. Most important, the proximity to the Belani home would have this proposed edifice looming above it. The Belanis would lose both sunlight and privacy. My hope is that the planning commission will give a long look at the plans. As it is a "spec" home that is clearly out of "synch" with the neighborhood in its style and impact, I would think it could be re -thought and brought into balance and harmony with the homes close to it. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, . /�/< Cathie Perga H's K H -F- 1 N t1ij . Environmental Design and Protection Committee �Ef:t:NED New Residence/Remodel Evaluation SEP 0 it t006 Attachment 6 SEI' 19 2008 Reviewed b ( MN OF LO ALTOS HILLS y:� S 1 �� 70M OF LOS ALMS HIftte q /f LQ Applicant Name_-N�,w� 2-111b Site Creeks, drainage, easements: Significant issues/comments: Attachment 7 COTTON, SmES & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINESPc AND GEOLOGISTS Ortuber3o,2008 ID298 T6 Nicole Horvitz Assistant Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hulls, California 94= SUBJECT: Geotechnical -Peer Review RE: Askarinem, New Residence and Swimming Pool 0203-OS-ZP-SD 27174 Elena Road At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of application for the proposed project using: Geotechnical Report prepared by Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc., dated August 11, 2008; • Architectural Plans and Details (8 sheets, various scales) prepared by Renaissance Design, dated September 16,2008; • Site Plan (1 sheet, 20 -scale) prepared by MacLeod Engineering, dated August 4,2008; and • Topographic Survey and Construction Details (2 sheets, 20 -scale) prepared by MacLeod Engineering, dated June 12, 2008. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files (including previous site geotechnical reports from 1992 and 2001) and have completed a recent site inspection. DISCUSSION We understand that the applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence and pool located in the middle portion of the property, and construct a new two-story residence with an attached garage and swimming pool. According to the refereced plans, it appears that the proposed building envelope is to be located in the vicinity of the existing residence. Anticipated earthwork quantities have been estimated to be 535 cubic yards of cut and fill, Sigma Prime has evaluated on-site earth materials and recommended that they not be used for engineered fill. Narrow [alir•mi• Odin C:entr417111.S vin 330 VILPe IRM 64mDogio.sn Randd Ws Gams, CA OM -7218 SanAndm� ���� (4D8) 3545542 • Fu 1108)354-]a52 C203)]i842n - Pu C+aP) Tib -r212 proal: b9b'8b5�NaO1VhIFH.NT www-cottonshixes.com e+o•a alrosuhaesRsnN4Mms Nicole Horvitz Page 2 October 30, 2008 1,0 298 The site is generally characterized by a natural and graded ridge seat topography with gentle to moderate slopes extending downhill to the northeast and northwest Natural slopes have a moderately steep gradient of approximately 20 to 25 Percent. The existing residence is located primarily on an apparent pad cut into the central portion of the property. Minor amounts of existing fill appear to be located along the front and east sides of the residence. During our site inspection, we noted several areas of hardscape distress near the easiem side of the residence and entryway, as well as on the downhill side of the pool deck We also noted extensive cracking of the driveway that may be caused by creeping and settling of the underlying fill materials. A depression was also observed at the northwest comer of the existing house. Natural drainage at the site is characterized by sheetfiow to the northeast at the front of the residence and to the northwest at the rear of the residence. The Town Geologic Map indicates that the site is underlain, at depth, by sandstone bedrock of the Franciscan Complex (consolidated, torr W dark gray, massive to thickly bedded, Bre- to medium -grained, fractured sandstone). Based on two site exploratory borings completed in July 2008, the Project Geotechnical Consultant has determined that the site is underlain by gravelly clay to clayey gravel with some interbedded coarse sand lenses, extending to a depth of 12 feet No bedrock exposures were observed during our site visit. The subject property is located approximately 420 feet to the southwest of the mapped Monts Vista fault Proposed construction is located within an "D" zone an the Town's Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Map. Previous fault hazard investigations on nearby properties (in duding Gigli Court) have confirmed the position of the MOnta Vista fault strongly suggesting that this fault trace does not cross the subject property. The site is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the San Andreas fault CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMM ED ACTTOw Proposed project construction is constrained by expansive soil conditions, relatively minor areas Of existing fill materiels and anticipated strong to violent seismic ground shaking. Based on our review of the referenced geotechnical report, it appears that the Project Geotechnical Consultant has adequately characterized site geotedmical conditions and generally recommended satisfactory design parameters to address identified constraints, The consultant has concluded that the potential for fault rupture to occur at the site is low. We do not have geotechnical objections to the general proposed layout of site improvements. Prior to acceptance of docurnents for building permit plan -check, we recommend that the Project Geotechnical Consultant address the following Items 1 and 2. These items relate to darifimdw of specific geotechnical evaluations and design COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz Page 3 October 30, 2008 L0298 parameters, as well as formal evaluation of plans for conformance with geotechnical design recommendations. I. _ ch Kcal CI df; Nan — Given that the site is located within Geotechnical Hazard Zone D (all ground within 660 feet of a designated Type B fault), the Project Geotechnical Consultant should verify that the mapped bedrock formation (Praruascan Complex) has been confirmed by subsurface exploration at the site. The extent of existing site fill materials to be removed and recompacted should be discussed. Proposed site drainage improvements should be evaluated from a geotechnical pempectme to verify that drainage dissipation structures; are not located such that they are likely to result in adverse impacts to fill prisms, native slopes or hardscape surfaces. Any appropriate drainage design modifications should be recommended. Consideration should be given to increasing geotechnical design pressures for the pool shell given the moderate to highly expansive site soil conditions. Estimated building settlements should be discussed associated with presented foundation design alternatives. Appropriate documentation to address the above should be submitted to the Town for approval by the Town Geotecimical Consultant prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check. 2. Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documentation for building permit plan- heck. 3. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should mchude, but not necessarily be linited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz Page 4 a,tr October 30, 2008 L0298 excavations for foundations and retairring walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) Project approval. This geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been lindted to review of the documents previouslyidentified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. 1'$:DTSIRvLkd COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECTMICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Selmer Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1. * FIRE DEPARTMENT AUG 15 2888 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gates, CA 95032-14WH OF LOS ALTOS HILLS (408) 378-4010 • (408) 3789342 (fax) • vnwy.scdd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS Attachment 8 N,erreti�etl As— PANREVMWNNMBER 08 2323 BLDG PERW NUMBER F"NuMem 203-OS-ZP-SD CODE/SEC, METI 140.1 REOWREMENr Proposed 6,003 square foot two-story single family residence with attached garage. c Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. CFC sec. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,500 gpm at 20 psi residual 508.3, per pressure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire Appendix s hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. This project is located within the designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements. CFC Sec. Approved automatic sprinklers are required in all new and existing modified 903.2, as buildings when gross floor area exceeds 3,600 square feet or that are 3 or adopted and more stories in height. Exception:One-time additions to existing buildings amended made after 01/01/2008 that do not exceed 500 gross square feet. An by LAHMC automatic sprinkler shall be provided in all new structures located in the CYy RAN9 SPECS NEW RMDL i OCCINA Com". TYPE ipplluMNM,rF "TE PAGE ❑ R-3, U WEI RENAISSANCE DESIGN 8/13/2008 ? OF 2 LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ BECJFLOOR MFA LOAD DEBCRIPTpN � 2 story 6003 at Residential Development Harding, Doug MYME OF PROJECT LOCAIpN SFR - ASKARINAM 4 Elena Rd WON Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clam County and the cammunitlesof Campbell, Cupay. Los Albs, Los Altos Hlle, Los Gabs, Moae Sereno, organ HH, and Saratoga �A FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 3784010 P (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS ■ OO C. I SHEET 1 110.1 REQUIREMENT 01E I•wm PLWI BEVEW NUMBER BB 2323 BLDG PEBMR NUMBER nLENUMBEB 203.OB-ZP-SD ated Wildland-Urban Interface area. A State of California licensed Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed application and appropriate fees to this department for review and al prior to beginning their work. rises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their around. prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted relopmental Review Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all (ding and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be roduced onto the future plan submittal. AH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1 R-3, U wry 16003 at SFR-ASKARINAM v -B I RENAISSANCE DESIGN Residential Development Elena Rd Organized as the Santa Clara Comty Central Fire Protection District Se ng Santa Clam County and the communities %Camyh....y-ntiell, na, las Altos, los Aha Hills, Lo, Gator, Monte Sereo, norgan HIII, and Samtaga 8/13/20081 2 Harding, Doug " Attachment 9 ix. 13000 La Cresta (lands of Parikh) This south side of this property borders La Cresta and the north side borders Anacapa. The PWC viewed the lot from both roads. On Anacapa, a pathway exists along the opposite side and thus one is not needed on this property. A pathway exists on this property along La Cresta, but is partly obstructed by a mailbox and shrubbery. Courtenay Corrigan moved that the owners of 13300 La Cresta clear the shrubbery and move the mailbox from the path along La Cresta and restore this path to IIB standards. Nancy Ginzton seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. x. 27174 Elena Road (Lands of Askarinam) This property is on the west side of Elena across from the intersection with Adonna Court The lot has a steep bank adjacent to Elena. A well-maintained pathway exists along the opposite side of Elena. Bob Stutz moved that the town collect a pathway in -lieu fee from the owners of 27174 Elena Road. Chris Vargas seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor. xi. 27575 Purissima Road (Lands of Houston/Hensley) The reason for pathway review is a three -lot subdivision This property is on the east side of Purissima between Elena and Viscaino Roads. Access will be from Elena via a bridge across Deer Creek. A pathway already exists on this property along Elena. Courtenay Corrigan moved that the owners of 27575 Purissima Road restore the existing path along Purissima to IIB standards. Bill Silver seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. 3. OLD BUSINESS A. On iiJnu Uta Fumch Koad (Lands of Burger) This property was reviewed by the FWC on February 25, 2008 and again on Much 22, 2008. The Burgers were present at the February meeting. The unanimous PWC recommendation at that time was to maintain the existing equestrian easements along two sides of the property as pathway easements. At that time, the PWC understood that this recently annexed part of Town had not been reviewed for the 2005 Master Path Plan (MPF) and Town staff had indicated that the equestrian easements in the Foothill Ranch subdivision could be dedicated to the Town as pathway easements as the properties came up for development In its review, the Planning Commission argued that the Town could not require easements for an off-road pathway on this property because these easements are not included on the 2005 MPP. At the request of the Planning Director, a Special Meeting of the PWC was held on August 39, 2008 to review the PWC recommendation. At that meeting Debbie Pedro, LAH Planning Director presented materials showing that the "Equestrian Rights of Way" in the Foothill Ranch subdivision are private easements intended for use by people living in the subdivision. These easements have not been formally dedicated to the Town. The property owners, John and Catherme Burger, and a neighbor, Dave Namyst (Putter way) expressed the desire to keep these easements private. None of the easements in this area except the one along the P.U.E. are shown on the MPP approved by Council in 2005. The PWC re -visited the area on Saturday, August 23. At tonighfs meeting, the PWC discussed the pros and cons of revising the original recommendation in light of the additional information It was generally agreed that this area of Town has few pathways and that it would be desirable to provide paths off Ravensbury, which is a busy, narrow road. The easements in Foothill Ranch subdivision, including those on 11580 Old Ranch Road, could provide a connection to a nearby existing pathway along a utility easement and allow pedestrians and equestrians to avoid Ravensbury. Alternate routes involving on -road pathways along the wide streets in the area (e.g., Old Ranch Road 0raftP C_Min_082508 10/15/08 Ri Attachment 10 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AUS - 5 20BO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (65MMIOV WS ALTOS HILLS WORKSHEET #2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME ST£JE}! A5KARl PROPERTYADDRESS 19198 ELENA AOAD Los ALTOS HILCA CALCULATED BY MARK 00051 M OISS49CE M14LSp DATE 8-5•og J. UEVELVYMEf41 AREA Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) (Additions/Deletions) A. House and Garage (from Part 3. A) 3,452 * 2,551.11 61003,11 B. Decking 0 0 0 C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 100' along centerline) 4301 —1,611 3.090, D. Patios and Walkways 312, +1,41$,3 1.190.3 E. Tennis Court 0 0 O F. Pool and Decking 2397 -919.1 1,417.9 G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) 2-98 - 295 0 H. Any other coverage COJEHEO Fe?rlie 112. t760,to7 612.67 TOTALS 11,272 { -1,961.98 v 13,233.9$ Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) 2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS 3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement d. Garage B. Accessory Buildings a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement TOTALS 12,312- Existing 2,392Existing Proposed (Addi6o,WDeletions) +I,F14.3K 13,506.34 Total 3,001 + 476.91 ?3,471 9 o + 11863,64 1,883.64 _ 0 0 O 451 + NO.% 641.56 1% 0 O 3,160 Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) -2.9 S 0 0 0 0-6,003 0 +2,253.11 6,003.11 6,024 s4Fr.. TOWN USE ONLY I CHECKED BY I DATE