Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 22, 2004 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN; LANDS OF KERNS; FILE#225-03-ZP-SD. FROM: Carl Cahill, Planning Director C.r RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Approve the request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan, subject to the attached conditions of approval in Attachment 1 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission approved a Site Development Permit for a new residence (File #106- 00-ZP-SD-GD) for this property on July 12, 2000. A condition of approval requires that the applicant submit a landscape screening and erosion control plan for review by the Planning Commission. CODE REQUIREMENTS The requested Site Development Permit is subject to Planning Commission review and approval pursuant to a condition of approval of the Site Development permit for the new residence. The landscape plan is subject to evaluation by the criteria contained in Article 8 "Landscaping" of the Site Development Code including erosion, noise, visual effects, maintenance, tree preservation, views, size and placement and amount required to adequately screen new construction. The outdoor lighting plan is subject to Article 10 "Outdoor Lighting," Article 10 states that outdoor lights should be the minimum number of fixtures and bulb wattage that will safely illuminate the area. The home also is located on an otherwise undeveloped ridgeline with an open space backdrop. Pursuant to section 10-2.702.b.4., structures may be located on ridgelines only when they can be rendered unobtrusive by the use of natural vegetation and/or added landscaping and other techniques described in the ordinance. DISCUSSION Article 8 of the Site Development Code regarding landscaping attempts to maximize the compatibility of development with the natural environment and ensure that structures,.as viewed from off-site, blend and are unobtrusive, while retaining aesthetic quality. The original application for the new residence met with neighbor concern, in regards to overall visibility of the site from adjacent properties. The Planning Commission approved the new residence in 2000 and indicated to neighboring property owners that the new residence would be adequately screened with landscaping. Lands of Kerns,225-03-ZP-SD Page 2 Landscape Screening Pursuant to Section 10-2.805(a), in evaluating the adequacy of proposed landscaping, the applicant must demonstrate that the shape, outline, color, and form of all structures will be unobtrusive when viewed from any location off-site at the time landscaping has matured. While the code does not require the planting of mature tree specimens, the intent of the code is not to allow the property owner to plant vegetation that, because of its small size or improper location, does not in fact provide landscape screening. The applicant's architect has argued that smaller trees grow faster than larger trees. However, this claim is debatable. Staff contacted a qualified arborist who reported that larger size trees from nurseries can grow faster than smaller size trees and that the key to success is to inspect the root system prior to planting. The growth rate argument is ultimately irrelevant in the sense that a slow growing properly sized tree that provides immediate screening is still the better choice over a puny, albeit fast growing, sapling that takes several years to provide screening benefits. The landscape plan proposes a variety of native plant species and is outstanding in this regard. However, properly located and adequately sized tree specimens along the north and east sides of the home are crucial to an effective screening plan for the new residence. Two nearby residents submitted written comments to the Planning Department objecting to the applicant's proposed landscape screening plan finding that it was inadequate. One neighbor retained the services of a landscape architect in order to develop a alternate landscape-screening plan that would provide more immediate screening on the northeast side of the residence. This Alternate plan was submitted to the Plaiuung Department and the applicant's architect on January 13, 2004 and is included as an attachment. The representatives of the applicant and the neighbor were able to reach partial agreement on the recommended location and number of trees perceived to be necessary for landscape screening. However, the actual size of the trees remains in question. The table below shows standard sizes for Coast Live Oak trees when purchased from nurseries: Catalog Specs. of Coast Live Oak Height Spread (Width) 15 gallon 8' 2' 36" box 12'-13' 5'-6' 48" box 14'-16' T-8' 60" box 16-18' 8'-9' Source: Valley Crest Tree Company Lands of Kerns,225-03-ZP-SD Page 3 The applicant proposes to plant six 36" box size oak trees (Quercus Agrifolia), fifteen 15 gallon shrubs (Myrica Californica) in the agreed upon location. This proposal is a significant improvement from the originally submitted plan in terms of tree location and size. However, the neighbor has demonstrated in the attached exhibit (Attachment 6) that two 48"box standards, three 60" box standard and one 60" box multi-trunk oak trees with fifteen 15-gal. shrubs will provide a reasonable level of screening for the new home at this time without blocking the applicant's views. Trees of this size and species are readily available from local nurseries. The exterior of the residence is colored in clay earth tones that help the residence blend into the surrounding hillside. Normally such structures require less landscape mitigation. However, there appears to be a problem with sunlight glare from the many windows of the new residence that are intended to take advantage of the views. A neighbor submitted the attached photographic evidence of this sunlight glare problem on the north and east sides of the residence. The Planning Commission has required the use of larger size trees in landscape screening plans particularly when neighbor testimony demonstrates the need for such screening trees. The Planning Commission has not approved the use of larger trees when it has been determined that such trees are not commercially available or it has been determined that it is not practical to install such trees due to inaccessible location. Outdoor Lighting The applicant is proposing to install the maximum number of light fixtures allowed by the Town's outdoor lighting policy and the Site Development Code, Article 10 "Outdoor Lighting." At the time of residence approval, the Planning Commission required a condition of approval (#10) with regard to outdoor lighting. The condition states that "...Lighting shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall not be visible fi•oin off the site... " The applicant is proposing 40-watt wall mounted lanterns with opaque lenses on the north and east sides of the residence. These exterior light fixtures are low wattage with opaque glass. Properly sized landscaping, as suggested by the neighbor, could help diffuse the light and render the light sources invisible from off site in a few years. However, at this time the lights on the north and east building elevations appear to be visible from offsite. Sometime in the last few months, the applicant installed temporary light fixtures in the locations proposed for the permanent lighting. When the lights were switched on, it became evident that the lights would be visible from off site even with the opaque lenses. The lights have a dramatic effect at night because there are no other homes on this particular hillside and ridge that back up to open space. At least two neighbors have submitted written comments voicing their objections to the proposed lighting and have requested that the proposed lighting sources should not be visible from off site. A condition of approval requires that the exterior lighting on the north and east sides of the home be down shielded lights that are not visible from off site. Lands of Kerns,225-03-ZP-SD Page 4 Conclusion The remaining disagreement between the neighbors and the applicants appears to be over the size e screening trees. In making its decision the Planning Commission should approve the of th g g g pp minimum necessary to render the structure unobtrusive. The new residence does not need to be invisible. However, the landscaping should be sufficient break up the form of the structure and filter out artificial lighting, glare and other visual effects from off the site. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval; 2. July 12, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes; 3. Correspondence from neighbors 4. Letter from Environmental Committee 5. Letter from Fire Department 6. Neighbor's "Landscape Modification Proposal for Additional Screening at the Kerns Residence, 11888 Francemont Drive"by Ron Herman Architects 7. Kerns Landscape Screening Plan cc: Bill and Betty Kerns William Maston Architect 11888 Francemont Drive 384 Castro Street Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Mountain View, CA 94041 Lands of Kerns,225-03-ZP-SD Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN LANDS OF KERNS, 11888 Francemont Drive File#225-03-ZP-SD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan and install two 48" box standards, three 60" box standards and one 60" box multi-trunk oak trees (Quercus Agrifolia) and fifteen 15-gal. shrubs (Myrica Californica). in accordance with the attached exhibit entitled "Landscape Modification Proposal for Additional Screening at the Kerns Residence 11888 Francemont .Drive" in attachment 6. The applicant shall be responsible for installing all plantings required for screening and erosion control not later than March 1,2004. Prior to occupancy and final inspection of the residence, the applicant shall post, with the Town, a Code Compliance deposit in the amount of $25,000.00 dollars. The deposit shall be returned to the applicant at such time as the Planning Director determines that all outdoor lighting fixtures, hardscape improvements, structures and landscape plantings on the property have been installed in accordance with the approved landscape and lighting plans, specifications and conditions of approval. 2. No other modifications or alterations to the approved plans are allowed except: (a) as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or Planning Commission (depending on the scope of the changes) or, (b) the City Engineer may require additional groundcover plantings to mitigate soil disturbance and prevent erosion including areas within pathway easements. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for contacting the Planning Department and arranging a final landscape inspection not later than March 1, 2004. The Planning Director may retain the services of landscape architect, or arborist to determine compliance with the approved landscape plan. The costs of such services shall be borne by the applicant. 4. Prior to occupancy and final inspection of the new residence, the applicant shall post a landscape maintenance deposit of$5,000.00. The applicant shall be responsible for contacting the Planning Department and requesting an inspection of the landscape screening after two (2) years from the date of the staff landscape inspection referenced in condition 43. The Town shall release the deposit to the applicant if the plantings are determined to be in a thriving and healthy condition. 5. All light fixtures on the north and east sides of the residence shall be low wattage, downshielded and not visible from offsite. 1` Lands of Kerns,225-03-ZP-SD Page 6 6. The property owner shall not obstruct remaining pathway easements through the placement of structures, fences, utilities, gates, retaining walls, landscaping and irrigation except that the City Engineer may require ground cover plantings for erosion control purposes. 7. Prior to commencement of work on hardscape or landscape improvements, the applicant shall obtain any required building permits, B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 8. Any changes to the proposed grading shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 9. Prior to occupancy and final inspection of the new residence, any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted. v ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 3 3.2 LANDS OF KERNS, 11890 Francemont Court (106-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and an exception to an existing conservation easement to allow part of the driveway to encroach into the easement. Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Jeff Peterson, City Engineer, discussed the driveway design which is essentially the same as presented a year ago. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Maston, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, project architect, suggested focusing on specific questions after Susan Roberts,project engineer, addresses the driveway design. Susan Roberts, Giuliani & Kull, project engineer, noted that the driveway alignment is basically the same as presented a year ago. They have looked at many alternatives to meet Town code, fire department requirements, and the Town grading policy. The criteria given by the former Planning Director and Jeff Peterson was that the maximum slope would be 15% but a slope up to 18 1/i% would be acceptable. They are presenting a driveway which varies in slope between 16.7% to 18 1/z % for small portions. The proposal is for slopes that meet the criteria with some retaining walls that, in most areas, are within the five foot maximum height range with the exception of the area down at the bottom by first turn. The reason being, given the fire department minimum turning radii, they had to cut into the hillside in that location with retaining walls that vary up to nine feet in height but the nine feet is for a very limited section. Chairman Gottlieb asked if it would help with the slope of the driveway in the nine foot area to have brought the driveway through the lower parcel and up? Ms. Roberts responded no due to a grade that would inhibit access of that slope. Chairman Gottlieb asked if there was any geotechnical work done on the proposed steep driveway? Ms. Roberts responded yes. Their geotechnical engineer has reviewed the plans. They will use peers under the retaining walls particularly in areas of oak trees. Mr. Maston continued by discussing the upper and lower retaining walls and where the old road is located which will be re-vegetated providing more screening than currently exists. He further discussed the re-vegetation as shown on the model. As a condition of approval they will eventually return with a complete re-vegetation plan for approval. The goal is to mitigate and hide the retaining walls. Currently you can not see the road. The area of 18% slope was discussed (first and second turnout). They have a 14 foot road section which is quite wide though it is required and with the turnouts, sections 20 feet wide. They are very comfortable with safety margins for pedestrians, etc. Commissioner Clow was concerned with one 16" oak tree. It appears that what would need to be done is removing the trunk when it arches back over because it would probably get in the way of a fire truck. He felt the main trunk was savable and it would be feasible to have more screening from down below by having the oak tree remain. Ms. Roberts noted that it was their goal to save as many oak trees as possible. This tree in particular is at the limits of the work they will be doing. If, during construction, they can move things a little bit away from the tree, they will. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Maston provided supplemental information in the way of a handout regarding trees as they relate to the driveway. He felt between making moderate adjustments in the field and working with the fire department they will be doing everything they can to save the trees. He further discussed off-site views of the road and screening by planting on both sides of the "S" curve which allows them to block the views of the road due to the serpentine layout which will eventually help them with a landscape plan. They feel comfortable that the future approval process will create mitigation landscape screening. He.further addressed a previous concern regarding the possibility of reducing the square footage of the upper site house to reduce its impact. As a result they have provided an alternate plan which would eliminate 387 square feet from the house as summarized on A-4. He reminded the Commission that there was a petition of 180 supporters previously and an additional 10 letters of endorsement received. They have gone through an exhausted effort to gain the support of neighbors. He further discussed the pathway at the top of the hill. He referred to the plans showing the pathway which would follow the road alignment until it reached the upper portion than drifting out as it has no place to go at the moment and there is a concern by neighbors and the Open Space District the appropriateness of this trail and where it will go. The original intention was for it to go to the Open Space District. Yet no one wants it to as then it becomes an uncontrolled access (and unsupervised) to the open space. They are proposing eliminating the pathway on the upper site, to limit the pathway to where it is currently shown on the previous approval at the bottom of the lower site at Francemont Court. He referred to the letter from the Open Space District, in particular, the inappropriateness of having this house on top of the hill. Eighteen acres of open space have been dedicated and the General Plan approved the upper site as a buildable site with an exception to the conservation easement to allow this to happen. Regarding the conservation easement, they are not proposing to encroach into the conservation easement but to realign it so that there is no net gain. Should they take the approach that this is not a feasible option he can work with Mr. Cahill on language identifying a general location of the pathway by centerline on the map. In this way the centerline of the pathway is established first and the final document for the easement description is filed after the trail is actually built. This allows the surveyors to use the trail for the final layout of the map. This has worked well in Portola Valley and he felt it would work well here. Options are eliminating the pathway or if required, the simplistic way of laying out the pathway in the field. He continued by discussing condition#1. He suggested modifying it to work with staff and the Town Engineer to further investigate alternative ways to address the drainage without taking all the water down to the creek. It is obvious that it has never gone there before and the road alignment has been in place for 40 years. There is a minor concern from their arborist that if they take too much water away from the hillside it could effect the existing native vegetation. Their concern is how they can come up with a drainage plan that evenly disperses the water on the hillside without creating erosion. They would like the opportunity to work with staff if this is a possibility and if not will accept the condition as originally proposed. Regarding condition #3, regarding the grading moratorium, the contractor felt the grading was a 6 to 8 week job. If they can start by September 1St and be completed by November 1St, than this is not an issue. They have a Site Development permit for the lower site and they would like to attach the grading of the upper site with the site permit for the lower site. This would include the retaining walls, the road and erosion control in place; not the final concrete apron because they would want to keep that in gravel through the winter otherwise they would sustain too much damage to the concrete from construction crews. They estimate 8 to 9 weeks for completed roads, retaining walls and building pad. As a part of the conditions, they would be happy to plant the major trees now with the smaller landscaping postponed to a later date. He further 'Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 5 discussed the Santa Barbara style of architecture, the use of earthtone colors and roof to blend with the hill. Tom Fisher, Mid Peninsula Open Space District, reviewed and summarized the District Manager's letter noting the following concerns: project remains largely unchanged from previous submittal; project being inconsistent with the General Plan; the significant adverse impact on the resource values in the surrounding community; aggressive from an engineering standpoint; visibility of the retaining walls; and conditions 7 & 8 not sufficient to mitigate the visual impact of the project on District's land. They would like the opportunity to meet with Town staff and the applicant to discuss other appropriate locations for a trail. He concluded by requesting the Commission deny this project application. Liz Dana, 25700 Bassett Lane, noted that the project has been turned down three times by the Commission and Council asking what was so different with this submittal. She was concerned with building on ridges. She provided a 1989 San Jose Mercury News editorial regarding Measure B which would keep the ridges clear. She opposed any building on a ridge. David Nieh, 18269 McCoy Avenue, Saratoga, a registered architect and a certified planner, noted that Los Altos Hills has made an effort to maintain the rural atmosphere. He provided a graph of the ridge discussing the upper site at approximately the 800 foot elevation exceeds the development line. He asked that the Commission consider the image of Los Altos Hills. The approval will set a precedence, requesting denial of the project. Peter Nieh, 25765 Bassett Road, felt the property violates the General Plan. There was a petition collected today with 100% of the people not in favor of the project. He asked that the Commission uphold what was intended for the area and deny the request. Michael Marshall, Los Altos, quoted a letter from the applicants which appeared in the local paper in November, 1998, stating facts regarding their on-going project. He noted two points: the purchase of the property was a gamble by the applicants; and do not be pressured to accept this application. He further discussed the geographical special nature of the woodland ridgeline, surrounded by forested and chaparral lands, house would be widely visible from many places, the massive driveway and retaining walls, wildlife habitat, distinctive fingerprint ridge. He further quoted from the General Plan (land use and circulation). He requested denial of the application, leaving the land as beautiful as it is. Louise Goodman, 11989 Rhus Ridge Road, from her home, she cannot see any homes. She felt a house of this size in this location would effect the value of her property. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, was happy that the previous speakers made a point that an approval of the project would set a precedent for the Town. The key issues are still the same. The project has been reviewed for two to three years with a thorough analysis by the Planning Commission and the engineering consultant. The feasibility of the driveway is still a main issue (visibility, grading, retaining walls, scaring the area). The house is 32 feet high from highest to lowest which is not a one story on a ridgeline. The same problems still exist which were denied previously. II Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 6 Jeff Peterson City Engineer, discussed the driveway design noting it has been a longProce ss. The issues have come down to the turning radii and impact on trees and grades versus retaining walls. The project has met engineering requirements but not planning issues. Engineering and planning had both listed their limits. The applicant first tried to meet both requirements with difficulty. So they tried to meet engineering requirements however, the retaining wall heights in some areas were beyond what the planning department would support. Town staff cannot come before the Council in a fractured manner so the previous staff report recommended denial. Now you have a different staff and a different perspective. Looking at the project, the current planning department felt the project, in general, was supportable and could be mitigated by vegetation and landscaping. From an engineering standpoint, the project is approvable. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, indicated that the Committee has opposed the project from the beginning. She discussed the rare plant life which has not been seen before. The issue is not about the applicants but about the Town's children and the future of the Town. This area is a jewel. Scott Vanderlip, Pathways Committee, would like to keep the proposed pathway, working with the Open Space District, for the realignment. Because they had the support from the applicants previously, he was not aware until he read the July 5a' letter that they were requesting the deletion of the pathway request. The Pathway Committee has not had an opportunity to discuss any alternatives to the recommendations. They would be willing to work with the applicants. Sharon Shumate, 25765 Bassett Lane, asked for clarification regarding the pathway location. Bill Maston described the pathway proposal using the model of the site. The original easement was a straight line. The issue was if this was the right alignment. The pathway was always shown sharing the road alignment up the hill. Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, supports the pathway going through the property connecting to the open space. The committee would be happy to work with the applicants regarding placement. As a resident, she would have never seen this property. She was surprised it was a two story on a ridge. She felt the noticing process should be expanded for a project such as this. Bill Maston concluded by stating "let's uphold what was intended." He provided the original Tentative Map which was approved in 1988 and was found to be consistent with the General Plan. It created a exception to a conservation easement to allow building on the top site and limited to a one story structure. If it were not following the General Plan, how was it approved in 1988. This is a unique site, over 22 acres with most of it considered in a conservation easement. By definition, this is a one story house stepping down the hill to conform with the slope. There are other houses in the area higher than this project. Sharon Shumate, 25765 Bassett Lane, noted that she and Peter Nieh took time today to talk to people in the area and put together a letter which will be faxed to the members. They are opposed to the development, quoting Section 10.2-201. She is working on a further petition which will be submitted at a later date. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING -Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Vitu appreciated the concerns expressed but they need to look at the original subdivision and the approved building site and the fact that 18 acres are in a conservation easement. The applicants have done a good job trying to minimize the impact on the site. She felt the house was low profile and they have certainly been through much effort trying to have the driveway meet the engineering criteria and the retaining walls meet the planning department criteria. Regarding the reduction in square footage, her understanding was that the increase was to include the water tank which is considered desirable. Regarding the pathway, she was concerned that there was uncontrolled public access very close to their home and would be sympathetic for a relocation. Regarding grading moratorium and storm drain, she felt the applicants could work with staff. She was not sure about the grading needing to be completed by July 1St but if staff was convinced that it could be accomplished in time, it would be agreeable. Commissioner Cottrell stated that this is an approved lot with two building sites. He believes in preserving ridgelines but landscaping will mitigate the house and driveway. He knows the road is a challenge but they have the fire department's okay. They have heard that the engineering can be solved but with high retaining walls. He could support the project. Commissioner Wong also moved to the town for the rustic atmosphere. Looking at the house, the issue is consistent with the General Plan and objective by treating everyone fairly. When building, you are going to see neighbors. The Town approved this as a building site. He felt this was consistent with the General Plan and meets codes. There is no reason to deny the project. The landscape plan will mitigate the site. He also agreed to realign the pathway. Commissioner Clow agreed with the previous comments. The original approval indicates there was a building site on the upper site. The applicants have done everything they can do to make the project as compatible with the area and surrounding neighbors as possible. The argument regarding grading earlier to get the mitigating vegetation in place during the winter is a good one. He is not in favor of the off road pathway but if they have a pathway he would hope it would be realigned. Chairman Gottlieb noted that they do not allow nine foot retaining walls. Staff mentioned in previous reports that it was the total earth that will be moved and all the retaining walls which were the problem. Also, on a ridgeline, there should be a single story house. This will be extremely visible to surrounding areas. Originally they were to have a house on either the top or lower site. The approved lower site house is not compatible with the upper site (defacto subdivision). The secondary dwelling should be subordinate and compatible with the main residence. The applicants had a choice of either building at the top of the hill or the bottom but not on both. She did not feel this was in keeping with the General Plan or ordinances. If approved she asked that the landscape plan return to the Planning Commission for review and approval. She was in favor of the staff recommendation for grading no later than July 1St and asked staff for an explanation of the request which was answered by Jeff Peterson. He indicated that the recommendation was a practical issue. He reviewed the cut and fill, the retaining walls, and the width of the road indicating it was very optimistic to think they could complete the grading in two months. The basis for the condition was due to the big job and it would be better to have a good long construction season rather than starting at the end of a construction season. Regarding condition#1 (drainage), he has no problem working with the applicants to see if there Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 8 are other options. The paved area on the site will create essentially 100% runoff. As mentioned earlier, there is a fair amount of loose soil on top of the surface that erodes very easily. The entire reason for the recommendation and condition to pipe to the bottom is that it would be extremely difficult to show that the storm drainage could be handled without creating erosion problems. He also referred to the old large landslide on the Adobe Creek subdivision. Again, he would be happy to work with the applicants. Further discussion ensued regarding the location of the conservation easement explained by Susan Roberts. Staff noted that no action regarding the exception to the conservation easement would be taken, only a recommendation to the City Council. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Wong to delete condition#3 wording regarding the July 1St grading date. AYES: Commissioners Vitu, Wong & Clow NOES: Chairman Gottlieb &Commissioner Cottrell MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Clow to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, and recommend approval to the City Council for an exception to an existing conservation easement to allow part of the driveway to encroach into the easement, Lands of Kerns, 11890 Francemont Court, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: condition#1, add that other storm drain systems may be proposed by the applicant subject to review and approval by the City Engineer; delete conditions #3 and addition the standard condition regarding grading and drainage and the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1); condition#4, change to state that the applicant shall work with the Pathway Committee and Mid Peninsula Open Space District to locate an appropriate pathway that routes to the Duvenick Open Space Preserve. Appropriate easement grant documents and exhibits shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and the pathway shall be constructed prior to final inspection.; condition #7, change "Site Development" hearing to "Planning Commission" hearing; condition #8, add that the amount shall be determined by the Planning Commission and may exceed $5,000; and condition #18, adding that the applicant shall take all measures as determined necessary by the City Engineer to mitigate traffic impacts on neighbors. AYES: Commissioners Vitu, Cottrell, Wong & Clow NOES: Chairman Gottlieb This approval will be subject to a 22 day appeal period. The exception to the conservation easement will be scheduled for a City Council agenda. Brief break at 10:00 p.m. 3.3 LANDS OF COTTRELL, 13480 North Fork Lane (325-99-TM- GD-ND); A request for approval of a two lot subdivision of 7.75 acres, and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff had nothing further to add. Commissioner Cottrell stepped down from the hearing. it ATTACHMENT j Carl Cahill From: Roger Spreen [roger@spreen.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:36 AM To: ccahill@losaltoshills.ca.gov Subject: neighbor input on Kerns landscape/screening Dear Carl: We are writing as neighbors of the Kerns house project. The Kerns' architect met with us about their proposed landscape/screening plans, and told us we should direct our comments to you. Thus, on his advice, we are sending this to you; we hope it is appropriate and actionable. As a result of that meeting, we have concerns in 3 areas which have not been adequately addressed: lighting, shielding, and color. 1. Lighting. I told the architect that lighting was one of my biggest concerns. I was not shown any plans for the exterior lighting. Several weeks ago, the house was lit up all night with general area lighting, and it was extremely bright and disruptive to the view of the night sky. I can only hope that it was temporary work lighting that was left on accidentally, but it illustrated the large potential problem of lighting up the night sky due to the exposed position of the house. It is our assumption that the Kerns house is subject to the same conditions that our house was, which is that all exterior lights must be downward-directed, shielded, and **NOT VISIBLE FROM OFFSITE**. The Kerns house has the potential to destroy one of our most treasured aspects of living in the Hills, i.e. the unimpeded view of the dark night sky. The Kerns house should be required to take extra precautions due to the fact that it affects the night view for so many houses. 2. Shielding. The plans for shielding the house from offsite views seem insufficient. My recollection may be faulty, but we seem to recall (before the house was built) being told by the owners about much more extensive plans for shielding. As, it is now, only a few oak trees are to be planted. I don't claim to know much about trees, but I would think that oaks won't shield the house for many years. Faster-growing, better-shielding trees or bushes should be required to mask the house from lower viewpoints. 3. Color We were not informed of the intended color of the house, but we were led to believe it will be quite light and therefore visible. It is our hope that the color will be required to be darker and less reflective, to blend in with colors of the surrounding environs. The house's highly exposed position along the ridge top (visible along the entire Moody road corridor, let alone all the Rhus Ridge houses like ours) makes it a particularly jarring distraction to the natural view of the hills. We would be happy to discuss this further if we can be of any assistance. Best regards, 1 > ATt'AGHMENT5 >Dear Carl: >We are writing as neighbors of the Kerns house project. The Kerns' >architect met with us about their proposed landscape/screening plans, and >told us we should direct our comments to you. Thus, on his advice, we are >sending this to you; we hope it is appropriate and actionable. >As a result of that meeting, we have concerns in 3 areas which have not >been >adequately addressed: lighting, shielding, and color. >1. Lighting. >I told the architect that lighting was one of my biggest concerns. I was >not shown any plans for the exterior lighting. Several weeks ago, the >house >was lit up all night with general area lighting, and it was extremely >bright >and disruptive to the view of the night sky. I can only hope that it was >temporary work lighting that was left on accidentally, but it illustrated >the large potential problem of lighting up the night sky due to the exposed >position of the house. >It is our assumption that the Kerns house is subject to the same conditions >that our house was, which is that all exterior lights must be >downward-directed, shielded, and **NOT VISIBLE FROM OFFSITE**. >The Kerns house has the potential to destroy one of our most treasured >aspects of living in the Hills, i.e. the unimpeded view of the dark night >sky. The Kerns house should be required to take extra precautions due to >the fact that it affects the night view for so many houses. >2. Shielding. >The plans for shielding the house from offsite views seem insufficient. My >recollection may be faulty, but we seem to recall (before the house was >built) being told by the owners about much more extensive plans for >shielding. As it is now, only a few oak trees are to be planted. I don't >claim to know much about trees, but I would think that oaks won't shield >the >house for many years. Faster-growing, better-shielding trees or bushes >should be required to mask the house from lower viewpoints. >3. Color >We were not informed of the intended color of the house, but we were led to >believe it will be quite light and therefore visible. It is our hope that >the color will be required to be darker and less reflective, to blend in >with colors of the surrounding environs. >The house's highly exposed position along the ridge top (visible along the >entire Moody road corridor, let alone all the Rhus Ridge houses like ours) >makes it a particularly jarring distraction to the natural view of the >hills. >We would be happy to discuss this further if we can be of any assistance. >Best regards, >Roger & Elizabeth Spreen >11970 Rhus Ridge Road 2 ATTACHMENT Carl Cahill From: Peter Nieh [rhustman@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:22 PM To: ccahill @ losaltoshills.ca.gov Subject: Re: FW: neighbor input on Kerns landscape/screening Thanks, Carl. Yes it appears that our concerns are pretty much the same as Mr. Spreen's. Peter >From: "Carl Cahill" <ccahill@losaltoshills.ca.gov> >To: <rhustman@hotmail.com> >Subject: FW: neighbor input on Kerns landscape/screening >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:54:55 -0700 >Hi Peter- >Your concerns are similar to those of Roger's. Please see response below. >This application will go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. >It would go to the City Council if appealed. >Thank you. >Carl Cahill >-----Original Message----- >From: Carl Cahill [mailto:ccahill@losaltoshills.ca.gov] >Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:43 PM >To: Roger Spreen >Subject: RE: neighbor input on Kerns landscape/screening >Hi Roger- >We have not yet received the Kerns landscape application. Your comments >will be considered in our review of the landscape screening and outdoor >lighting. >The house color is required to be a minimum Reflectivity Value (RFV) of 50. >The ext. stucco color that was approved is an earth tone color called >"pecan" by Stucco Supply of San Jose. The color chip did not have an >assigned RF value. However, we did match it up to another color sample >that >had an assigned RFV of slightly less than 50. >The approved clay tile roof color is also an earth tone called "Chaparral >Blend" by UStile. It appears to have an RFV of 40 or less. >I have the color brochure samples in my office. Let me know if you want to >stop by and look at them. >Carl Cahill >-----Original Message----- >From: Roger Spreen [mailto:roger@spreen.com] >Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:36 AM >To: ccahill@losaltoshills.ca.gov >Subject: neighbor input on Kerns landscape/screening 1 404 y, {. � - ",E •r• dN.�71 ['F f,.'• t ,_.. .ITW Iii lk qcA � r q,�\,'a/.(p •„Y ..� Y' .! a�� 1.� . ��.i i �lth��f• ....�i f� . r D I _ • � , � r � 111'' . ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEEAITACHMENri -,OEC - LANDSCAPE/11ARDSCAPE EVALUATION Applicant's Name: Address: 6 e7,q121ce7)J64TI- L,)Z Reviewed by: eaxlob Date: �� �/ Mitigation needed: Visibility from off site: from distance (directions), from nearby neighbors (directions) (include eed for screening for privacy). Noise: from pump/pool air conditioner sport court Lights: from fixtures automobile headlights Fence materials: color _, open/solid Erosion control Other: Planting Plan Evaluation: (Circle required trees and shrubs on plan) Are species appropriate: Deciduous? Future height (view, solar, drive/path blockage) Fire hazard Hardiness/frost Drought tolerance Meet mitigation needs U Li Creeks and drainage: Is there a conservation easement? Are there sufficient protections in place? Will fences impact wildlife migration? Invasive species should not be planted nn;terWay. Other: Are there obstructions to pathways, including future growth of plants? Are all noise mitigations in place? No construction in road right-of-way. LABAcao� FIR.IE DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENTS SANTA CLARA C01JNTY 14700'h-inchesW-, Elva- Lo:Gal- CA 95032-1818 y+,�t a,�, (�48)3;'8-401G n 24081 57$-9312(fao;l��;rW:v.9c�fd.org . September 10,2003 Mrs.Betty Kerns 11890 Frarcemoat Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 940,212 Re:Defensible Space for newt stivcture Dear bL s.Kens, As you are aware,your property is located wish n the Hlezardous Fire Ana of the Los Altos County Fire.Protection Dkmict.One of the most effective measures proven.o increase the su:vi-viability of a stracture from a 1t111sidc fire is ttte creation of defeasible space.This creation of a-;�fensible spa._entails reinovi.ng the native brush,native vegetation, and dry grass:a distance of at least 30 feet away from yQtu`home,which helps to eliminate the `ft:se"from the r3tutal thagt.to the house. Howe\-er., after meeting,with you, at the site,and revitwing the south side of the p:opert;addidona>rneasul.es nVYd tc be incorporated into the;onservation area and the basic Californ.ta rare Cade mandates. tuthermore,the Califo-i a Fire Code-nandates that any home in the..Hzz rdous Fuz Azea maintain a defensible space around is pe meter. The additional measures that need to be creates?are: 1. A twenty foot(20')wide fire.brear;placed approximately fifty fy0)to sixty (60)feet south and down hill from the new horn. (s-ee attached map).ni.e firebreak should bemaintained,;ich light fu.? it,this area.Grasses no larger then 114 diameter and uo taller ther six,inches(G")above me ground. 2. Additional fuel modifications from the new home to the firel,reak need to lie created(see G;hashed mq), Orassm no largcr then 1/4 diameter and no taller them six inch�.n(6")above the ground.Ti inning and s�paratlon of native plantings.Along with the mmoval of any dead vegetation In this area.To achieve a mix between light ane moderate fuel in this area. These addtiional measures inCogiorated into the=quimd measures(See belity)should produce a defensil:le space which.should afinhyLize.disturbance in the conservation area - and provide protection to the new haur- Crganiacd a�i the Santa, Cl%, a Cost:,y Central Ftre Protection Distiict _ Seronq Santa Clain COunty Ord }e conrunft?p Of Cem�bet;.Cune�:fno,I-^s +tc+•. Los Altaa Hits.Las Gctcx N'ontr.Semne,Akno an Hilt.and&nraro o RE-011R�'D:(A- A. All flammable vegetation rawt be cleated a Knirnum of 30 feet around structures. Ornamental shrubb.ry and trees cleared of dead leaves and branches, B. Roofs,eaves,and rain gutter must be cleared of pine needles,leaves,or other dead or dying wood. C. Address shall be clearly visible for easy identification in an emergency. D. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 feet of chimneys and/or stovepipes. Dead limbs hanging over the house or garage must be tr7immed. E. Chimney outlets ar flues shall be cov=j, with a spark arresting 1/2"mesb screan. If I can be of anymore assistance in this matter,please don't hesitate to contact me. Vett'tr tuly yours, Mar N vornik Dep ire Marshal t I MI CALMFINIA PME CODE ___. _ APPt°tVi7iX u-a Section 15 exist to comet such oortdit.oas.if tho awaer fails to moat tnerm,P stay be suspended and reasonable alternative mer, can=such conditions,the lagiflativa body of the jyrJadienon is aures shad be pmvided. autbori�Ad m cause the saute to be done:and make the empt,ree of such cation a lien on tate property whem such condition exists. SECTION 16--DUMPINQ 81;CT10PJ 1 E3--CLEARANCE OF IBItilEtsk OR Garbar,cm,brnttea,papers, ashes,refuse, hush,rubbish or SECTION 6 GROWTH FROM 87IBAU titOR combustible waste maternal shall Dat be placed, deposited or d[[[uped in or upon haztudous fine[[test(sr in,upon or along[tails 16,1 GeneraL herons tutvrnng,latah W,ccmttvlliag, opcmtina roadway a or highways in han;rdow fire areas. f; ar maintaining buildings or strumutae I:i,upon or adjolaitg haz- R pTInN;Appteved Ptbflc rid pelvarm 1ee auras. eatlois fits ares,and persoa6 owning,;,au tag or t:atrxoiliug 104 adtaceat w such buildings or stractuaik shalt at all Cintas: SECTION 20—VISPOIAL OF ASHES 1. Unintain An oigtaxlVC firebreak 1,•y rernoving and dloa^ing Ashes and coals shall not be p1ae9d,deposited or dumped In or away flammable vegetation and enmb astiMe growth f roan areas upon hattatdous to ayes. within 30 fear(914•mm)of such buB.Ings or structures; EXC6MONS; 1.In tbs 1ssttR of an erdabtishad Zm pit,conp BX10EIMO , Slagle spetamena ni tures.omamcnW OiubbM or stove vc fuopLcc oftnllar plum used as ground eovera,piwidet tba,.hay do nut form a 2. In c noacomUstift"miter with a titlaliid 9 114,whim U mom of rtpidlp Imsmiulas the bm tba native g arith tis artiy stuc. kart or r..ainlehtsd la s safb lauat m not iasa[tum 10 feet(JM nm) Vale• ftom an bustible rrtatiou or arc moves. 2. Maintain additional fire piutectlw or fin break by removing 3. More such ufrA rn tr als sra boded sad covered whb i ibm bnah, flamtaable vegetation and cco:sbustttible growth located (101.9 mml of etktentl earth notice rises 25 fix t(?&mtan])4ernocm- fkom 10 foot to 100 feet(9144 trot[to 30 480=)ftm such build- bumble vegama cn araTacttttet. iz+gs m satin",when requited by thc.chef booause of cxtmhar zardous corx1ficT s causing afarebmak.rf only 30''az[(9144 tum) SECTION 21 —USE OF RRE ROADS AND to be ittsuMcieat to provide razwonabk:Btasafay; FIREBREAKS BXC EMON: Citta+and other vutaatfon loaaw mom titan 3o Motorcycles,motor swot=and motet vc Mels s she'd net be ddv- frae(9114 dual from bulldtttgs or it*u canes sad 10.9 than 10 inches (457 twit in har&above the Mad f.Md not be&Ww d whew neo- to or panted upon,and tnspasdag i1 prohibited upon,fits roans or OOZY a stabllitte rho OR and Prevan erosion• Mcbrnaks beymd the point where travel is rttatrttud by a sable, 3. Rm+ove ptntions of ones wltloh e.ctetrd within 10 feet(5048 Soto or riga,without the pmcaisslou of the property owners,ve- mtn)of the outlet of a cVwney' hicles ehan trot be pmW in a roast which 0gtucc6 the entrance to a fire road of fimbroak. 4, Meitttaia trees adjacent to or ove(tiviSing a building f=of @diC PT1111Yt Puh)ie efiiia:s reties altlt(n their teape of drrX dcadao0d'and Radio tmd television aerials,guy wires therms,and otitis ob- S. Maintain the snotof a intucram fium of leaves,needles or otb- etruc d=&hall rte:be Installed or maintained oda ft reads or fJrn- ur dead vegmtivc Rrok tb. bsvaka unless located 16 fcct(4877 win)or mote above arch fir. 162 Corrective Action+. The oxoevilva body is autho wd to road arftrebieak. instruct the chief m give notice to tho trwvr of the ptvpeay upon winch D�mdlttons regulated by Swam 1 16.1 exist to ctrrrect such SECTION 22---USE OF MOTORCVCLO,MOTOR coaftoos.If the owner falls to corract such eoaditiow,tete execu- EICOOTE RS AND MOTOR VIgH10S tfve body is sautlmliacd to cense tho&ant to be dame and make theaxpMotereyelaa,motor acootars and stator vtshiclea shall not 6a op�- conditio of such corrcctitat a lien upeit the property whsrn seat! aced within Fire areas,without ct, da chief,att- condiflottexists. Psi Y ceps upon cientiy ostabliehed public of Vivate roads.Pet tatlAsiccr from ft rasp[sty owner shall ba prosenw when rec(ttastirtg a par. SECTION 17—CLEARANCE OP'BRUSH OR snit YE:QETATM GROWTH FROM POADWAYS. - 8I9CTION 23—TAMPIMINQ WITH FIRE= The chief is aattitnimd to cause areas lidv t 10[sect whit mm)an DEPARTMINT LOCKS,BARRICADI S AND SIGNS each side ofpottdobeofhightvtya and I+uvate sttaoes whish arc ftn- ptaved. dedgm d of t-tlirwily used-for vehicular trafl`.c to be Locks,barricades,emis,cables,signs and markm ittstoled whh. cloned of flamrwhla vegetation and.attar ombustible growth. in hus.aedous fire areas,by or under the eontmi of the chief,shall The ohdof is wrtliorized to enter apon•inhge property to do so, not be tamptuad thea,=dlamd,destroyed or removcxi. `-- EXCEPTION1 S IWo spealm om of encs,anttmoatw shrubbery (sates,ducts,batrians and hake installed by or under the c ontw', a oultivaosd pawed nom Mh tis prem paws,Ivy,auccWonts or aimf. of the chiaf tall not be unlocloed, In oft Bay e np tits ap=d amuetj�Parvidnd[bat they do n n forst a mieSEOTION 24--1JA 21UTY FOR DAMAGE SECTION 18•--UM MAL CIRCUMSTANCES The mtpeaeea of fighting fires which resultfita►a violittiots of App. If t7hc cblef determines that diJ2lMt k xtain,danger of or ion or pendia Ix 1 Mshall bRd thct tagafrt&t rite pentad whoa:violation a' 1►pptmd'nc 1)aarages sensed by tV,r:.b.£Jura ahaII onto; t:muatral cit+c=nRum crake etch compllaomr-with[ %r- conetisttte it debt of such ptirotm and a*oollewable by the obluf is clearance of vcttctattan pttrvisitme of Soedtons NO TAG,10 TAG rite mama ral"=8&In the cane of an Obligation uadrat a contract, at WO TAG of AppmxUx U-A undetdrable or ftttpractios f,cnf=,), axpreast d or implied. f-�05 i i ,h.. "��• +"q 2iM a-MfI'.fq �Wt��t'� ...y.,ry!.._.._ e. !d•2 t � : i ATTACHMENT (p LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING AT THE KERNS RESIDENCE, 118811 FRANCEMONT DRIVE PREPARED FOR PETER NIEH 25765 BASSETT LANE LOS ALTOS HILLS BY RON HERMAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, INC. PRIMARY SCREENING ZONE TO NIEH RESIDENCE - r WC - -- - rm'ee.�.uow,���or+a.��..a,•� - --_ .o.__. __. I�_.y„.. '\`lam�, -�•�<�«1..-I�I.i.._ �.-�- e-- ___--C�r%NY�a�\�^�Or�!`2`�E_•'j1�'��'�J����'�.d.�.'ryUI��-�pduy�ice.�._._d—�_l—_ iI����-����� ��-I��ll_tY. �I�I�aIIaPa P��1IV9II E'!EBI G 47I11 45 1 B9@ilipt ��py��°,�E,�6�IpIYFE4S_Foi�r CB�t i•RI§5I,I y y IT§�•'y�G`II'II I'-I'���IIIi��°IIIIxIS h5��k�c��Il`1qp•.�a a�oI�"�. � e�v3iexwm tAPPROXIMATE EFFECr SCREEN HEIGHT � r— ti�•= I 1AA A11,m,.I�.m�,,m� _. IIIIIIIIII.i �� - e E` . � IIII II '�IL -- - .. � � ��F •'i�§w r{ r",+ � r r ..... 1 ------_—----------- --— —— a, I 6rAuorJ� ;qer aaX, em u� +K ' rf� e > -I } r max � ! _..- --- _..:. � �SAyVIEW rpom ygt •pleJ ,TKKRGI;K,•19{!- MTr�L (' .O�K OA^I / �orpe+A, I �I.LII� rte•,.'+' `•r �RNCS K . cw swve -........... a �G (rd EOX fir GoX n t �.>• .� _Ie.�Y 7<F5�--' --- —.—.--- -----...-- ----- .. : ..... .... ... . OAK .__...__ _...MUppA�NK Yr,°��•� +i ����, � —,�1 }4— NORTHEAST & NORTH ELEVATION V Ily REFERENCE PLAN ALTERNATE NO ar.ATR SCREEN PLANTING AT PLANTING TIME: RC!" JAN 14 L,'s':; a I. CANOPY SIZE AT PLANTING TIME (TYPICAL) CANOPY SIZE AFTER 5 YEARS OF GROWTH (TYP.) /---DRY STACKED STONE RETAINING WALL FOR ROOTBALL ON SLOPE, (TYP. OF 4) (2) 48" BOX OAKS, STANDARD FORM M01" nL WALL (1) 60" BOX OA MULTI-TRUNK ROOF r)r:c.<2 I &QQE PECK ...........*.*.* (3) 60" BOX OAK TION--- ------- STANDARD FOR Z- (15) 15-GAL, MYRICA CALIFORNICA OM44ME14TAL PLANTINGS ... ....... 24'STUCW nTAINIWI GS TOE WALL 4 RMPRA14 0 fr f. lr . .............. ... ................. ............. ...... "1 0,11 Emll ORWIeRAL PLANTINGS ISO 24'5W=RETAIRM WALL 4 WMD"L RECE-WED NOV f 3 2003 'fOilill Ofi LOS N,103Illus ALTERNATE RECOMMENDED PLAN SCALE I" = 20"- 0'; PLANTING LIST AT MATURITY GROWTH REFERENCE BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE RATE # NAME NAME CONTAINER HEIGHT, WIDTH, (IN./YR.) 0,644 FT. FT. BACCHARIS w" 1 PILULARIS.V. COYOTE 2°/1 GAL 8 8 24-36 X99`" CONSANGUINEA BUSH � 2 HETEROMELES 1 GAL/5 �J; 2 TOYON 15 10 24 � �• ARBUTIFOLIA , GAL. 3 UMBELLULARIA CA BAY 5 GAL 50 30 12 -CALIFORNICA LAUREL CEANOTHUS BLUE BAND*/1 4 4 THYRSIFLORUS BLOSSOM GAL 20 10 24 RHAMNUS COFFEE- 5 CALIFORNICA BERRY 1 GAL 12 8 12 i BACCHAR cPROSTRATE 6 "PA EON PIT." COYOTE 1 GAL 2 8 24 v6 BUSH °U ARTEMISIA CA 7 2" 4 4 24-36 7 CALIFORNICA SAGEBRUSH 8 MIMULUS STICKY MONKEY 2" 4 4 24-36 AURANTIACUS FLOWER SALVIA 9 9 NIELLIFERA- PROSTRATE 2" 2 6 36-72 PROSTRATE BLACK SAGE FORM 10 QUERCUS COAST LIVE 15 GAL/B+B* 30 30 12-24 AGRIFOLIA OAK HOLODISCUS CREAM BUSH 2"/1 GAL 8 8 12-36 DISCOLOR 402 12 BERBERIS OREGON 1 GAL 6 3 12 AQUIFOLIUM GRAPE ,o MYRICA PACIFIC WAX . . 13 CALIFORNICA MYRTLE 8-30 a BAND*=2x2x6"DEEP POT B+B*=BALL+BURLAP REPLANT WITH NATIVE GRASS/FLOWER MIX Ell ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . UPSIZE 6 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA: (3) 60" BOX STANDARD (2) 48" BOX STANDARD (1) 60" BOX MULTI-TRUNK 2. PLANT 15 MYRICA CALIFORNICA AT 15-GALLON SIZE.