HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.4 9. 4-1
TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS July 12, 1995
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE;LANDS OF
HAMM;24292 ELISE COURT.
FROM: Suzanne Davis,Planner St)
APPROVED BY: Curtis S.Williams,Planning Dire
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit as submitted, subject to
the attached conditions of approval.
OR
2. Continue the application,and provide specific direction to the applicants
for redesign of the project.
BACKGROUND
Three membersof the Planning Commission reviewed plans for a new residence
on the subject property at an informal site analysis meeting on May 23, 1995. The
main concerns of the Commissioners were the encroachment of a corner of the
new house into the.side setback,the amount of paving within building setbacks,
the impact of theproposedconstruction on the existing oak trees,the relocation
of the driveway and the location of the required parking (carport). The
applicants modified the access to the carport to reduce the amount of grading
and retaining walls needed for the driveway,and have provided information to
support the relocation of the driveway, and the design of the new residence. Two
independent arborists inspected the oaks in the construction zone,and have
provided recommendations on the trees.
pISCUSSION. . '
The subject property is a flag lot located on the east side of Elise Court,and is the
fourth lot from Magdalena-Avenue. The Town has a 1956 Record of Survey on
file for the property. Although the lot is one acre,the net area is .94 because the
panhandle portion is excluded for purposes of calculating the maximum floor
and development areas. The slope brings the lot unit factor to.85.
Planning Commission
July 12, 19915 ..Lands of Hamm
Page 2 •
,
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: .938 acres
• Average Slope: 14.3%
Lot Unit Factor: .85
Floo1.Area and D:veloP ment Area:
Area Max. Prop. Exist. Incrs: Left
Dev 1. 11,410 10,134 11,476* -1302 +1276
Floo 4,9 1 4,875 4,430* +445 +56
all existing developmen to be demolished
The applicants are reque ting approval of a site development permit for a new
residence. Most of the e sting development including the house,pool, decking
and hardscspe will be re oved. A new residence single-story with a basement
and two-ca carport is proposed to be constructed. The front entry will be
accentuate with an arbo court trellis. The maximum height of the house will be
about 20 feet as measure• from the proposed building pad. Exterior materials
will consist of stucco sid'i g, chimney and column bases,wood trim and
columns,til roofing and copper gutters and downspouts. Two skylights are
planned. The smaller sk light will be shielded by a parapet. The larger skylight
will have a retractable co er in the well so that light,can be shielded at night. The
Environmental Design C•mmittee recommends that the exterior colors be
carefully considered due o the visibility of the house from off-site locations such
as Stonebrot k and Emera d Hill.
Dri - A - .n.. rn.r.
The driveway through th panhandle will.not change. From the end of the
panhandle to the buildin: site,the driveway will be re-routed to the east to make
room for the required ex•ansion field for the septic system. While the applicants
would have preferred to 1-ave the present driveway in place,the east side of the
property has very poor p:rcolation characteristics and the leach field can not be
located ther . The west s'•e of the lot where the present driveway is located is
needed to provide the am•unt of leach field required by County Environmental
Health for a j proval of the septic system. Except for the panhandle portion
which will r main asphal the driveway will be interlocking pavers:
The carport was shown i the site analysis meeting L face the south property
line. Due to the amount f fill and retaining walls proposed,and the backup area
being very tight,the entr was shifted to face the west property line. The
it
Planning Commission
July 12, 1995
Lands of Hamm
Page 3 •
reduction of grading and retaining walls and more functional turnaround were
all positive changes. Staff is concerned however,that a portion of the backup
area is on a 30%slope,and that the removal of oak trees at the downhill edge will
make the two-story elevation more visible to the west. The architect's design
statement explains the considerations that were used to site thehouse and
carport (see Attachment 3). The applicants will plant replacement oaks for any.
trees that are removed as a result of the{project.
Two arborists inspected the oak trees in the vicinity of the proposed driveway
(see Attachments 3 &4). The 30 inch Blue Oak=betweenthe north property line
and the new driveway is diseased. The'treeis in poor condition and is
recommended for removal. The applicants propose to replace the Blue Oak with
five new Red Oaks if it is removed. A.14-inch oak near the entry to the carport is
proposed to be removed,and replaced with four Red Oaks orotheroaks.: The
changes that were made to the driveway and carport entry to reduce grading and
retaining walls have made the survival of the trees along the northerly property
line more likely. However,it appears that two smaller oak trees at the edge of
the backup area will need to be removed. These trees have not been addressed in
the arborist reports.
Nonconforming Status
Related to the encroachment of the house into the side setback is the issue of the
extent to which a property with existing nonconformities may keep the
nonconforming statusif improvements;are'demolished and reconstructed. The
Code does not specifically prohibit thereconstruction of a nonconforming.
structure with modifications to the building footprint. Section 10-1.401 Of the
Zoning ordinance states that:
"The provisions of this chapter shall not prevent the reconstruction, repairing or
rebuilding of any legal nonconforming structure so long as the reconstruction,
repair or rebuilding does not result in an increase in the nonconformity or change
of use that existed prior to damage or reconstruction."
The applicants propose to have a portion of the carportand a corner of the arbor
encroach into the side setback. 'The existing house-is about 19 feet from the
• property line at the closest point. The carportwould be 23 feet,and the,arbor 22
feet from the same property line at the closest points. An encroachment of floor
area on the north side Of the house will'be eliminated. Past approvals of projects
by theTown-have allowed property.owners to demolish and reconstruct homes
while maintaining nonconforming elements such as encroachment into setbacks.
Staff has researched several previous approvals to show nonconforming
situations which were allowed to continue when a structure was demolished and
rebuilt,or a major addition/remodel was approved (see Attachment 6).
Planning commission .
July 12, 1995
Lands of Hamm
Page 4 ,
Staff offers these points •f information relative to the proposed encroachment:
i • The existing develop ent on the siteexceeds the allowable MDA,but the
• _, proposgd project wi bring the development ailea into conformance by
removing more hard cape than will be replaced.
• The project will be w thin the allowable MFA for the property.
• The proposed encroa ent will not be closer to a property line than the
existing house is, an. there will be less floor area (square footage) in the
setback thanwith the existing house.
• The pool, decking,p.tio:and retaining wall in the setback,and a shed ..
partiallwithin a set•ack will be removed.
• The portion of the dr veway which is presently on the side property line will
be moved 10 feet.aw•y,except for 33 square fe t(presently there is 356 square
feet within ten feet o; the property line).
• Other residents have been allowed to voluntarily demolish and reconstruct
homes and other buii dings while maintaining oor area and other
improvements wit • setbacks (Attachment 6).
• Other r sidents have been allowed toremove all development area on a site
and to eplace it in a •ifferent manner while maintaining excess development
area far beyondthe al owable MDA and/or MFA: -
• The property is an u usual shape, and building setbacks,slope and the
required septic leach field limit where development can be placed.
Other Issues
The Engineering Depart ent has reviewedthe plans and has recommended
conditions of approval a. specified in Attachment n. Grading includes 2,088
cubic yards of cut and 3 3 cubic yards of fill. The dirt from the excavation.will be
removed f�om'the site: e Environmental_ .Design Committee expressed concern
about the' nergy dissip•ter proposed at the northvlrest corner of the property.
The Town Geologist rec•mmended that the dissipater be relocated due to the
steepness of the slope: a applicants have agreed to relocate and/or change the
design of tie dissipater'i response to these concerns. The Engineering...
Department will review •nd approve the final drainage plan,prior toacceptance
of plans for building pla check.
The Town Geologist has conducted a review of.the;plans and geotechnical..,
reports and has visited t e site. The recommendation for approval of the project
I '
Planning Commission
July 12, 1995
Lands of Hamm
Page 5 •
is subject to conditions (see Attachment 2). The Fire Department has no
recommended conditions.
The Pathways Committee visited the site and recommends that a pathway
easement be obtained over Elise Court. As Elise Court is a private road,the
easement would only apply to the applicants' one-sixth interest. Staff has
suggested a condition requesting that the applicant agree to an irrevocable offer
to grant a pathway easement in this location,so that it may be accepted in the
future if the remaining five property owners' grant an easement over their
interest in the road.
The proposed project will leave 1,276 square feet of development area for future
improvements, and is below the allowable MFA. The applicants and their.
architect have met with staff on a number of occasions, and have developed a
house which they feel fits the site and surroundings and is not obtrusive to
neighbors. In addition,the proposed project will reduce the amount of
development within setbacks. Staff is available to answer any questions that the
Commission or the public may have.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Letter from William Cotton&Associates dated June 28, 1995 (three pages)
3. Stephen Arnn's Design Statement(four pages)
4. Report from Certified Arborist Herb Fong (three pages)
5. Report from Certified Arborist Leon Dolezal (three pages)
6. Staff review of projects approved with nonconforming status
7. Worksheet#2
8: Development plans: perspective,site&engineering plans,cross sections,
floor plans,roof plan and elevations (13 sheets)
cc: John&Greta Hamm
24292 Elise Court
Los Altos Hills,CA 94022 i
Stephen Arnn
Stephen Arnn Design`
329 Hill Street
San Francisco,CA 94114
Mark Helton
Giuliani &Kull
20431 Stevens Creek Boulevard,Suite 230
Cupertino,CA 95014
Planning Commission
July 12, 1995 ' ;
Lands of Hamm
Page 6 '
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED C•NDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR NEW RESIDENCE
LAN'S OF HAMM. 24292 ELI E COURT
A. PLANNING DEP• TMENT:
1. Any Chang s or modifications to t e approved plans shall be
approved b, the Planning Director r the Planning Commission,
depending pon.the scope of the chan es.
2. Subsequent o framing,a landscape plnting plan shall be reviewed
by the Site ID evelopment Committee. Particular attention shall be
given to play tings which will beadequate to break upthe view of
the new re•idence from surrounding.properties. The landscape
plan shall 'nclude a minimum of six 24-inch box Oak trees to
replace the o Oaks to be removed. All landscapingrequired for
screening p poses or for erosion control must be installed prior to
final inspec km. Outdoor lighting shall be reviewed and approved
with the lane scape plan.
3. A landscap: maintenance deposit,egi.al to the cost of materials and
installation or all landscaping required for screening_purposes or
for erosion control, shall,be posted prior to final inspection. An
inspection .f the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and
maintenanc• shall be made one year after the installation. Fifty
percent (50'o) of the bond shall be returned following the date of
the inspecti,rn n, if maintenance is adequate. The remainder will be
released tw I years after installation if the plantings remain viable.
4. Two Blue 0:ks are shown to be removed. If any other tree six
inches in di.meter or larger is remove to accommodate
constructio or if a tree is damaged or destroyed during
constructio ,it will be required to be replaced. The replacement
tree(s) shall De equal in size to the removed ordamaged tree(s),as
determined e y the Planning Director. Removal of any additional
oaks requir=s prior approval by the Town,and three,to five .
replacemen, trees will be required,depending on the size and
condition of the removed tree.
• Planning Commission
July 12, 1995
Lands of Hamm
Page 7
5. Prior to beginning any grading operation or construction,the
significant trees in the areaof construction shall be fenced at the
dripline. The fencing shall be of a material and structure to clearly
- delineate the dripline. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the
trees to be fenced prior to issuance of any building permits. The fence
must remain throughoutthe course of construction. No storage of
equipment,vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the driplines
of these tree -
6. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light.
No lighting may be placed within the skylight wells.
7. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff
in conformance with the Town's .adopted color board, and shall
exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall have a
light reflectivity value of.40 or less. :White trim area shall be
minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, columns,
railings and trellises. A color sample..shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for;approval.prior to painting the exterior of
the residence. All structures shall be painted in conformance with
the approved color(s)prior to final inspection.
8. Fire retardant roofing is required for the residence.
•
9. A deed restriction shall be recorded stating that the floor area
established by theapproval of these permits is the maximum
allowable level of development currently allowed by the Town,and
that any further expansion requires Planning Commission
approval. The recorded restriction will be prepared by the
Planning Department and shall be signed and notarized by the
property owners prior to acceptance ofplans for building plan check.
10. At the time of foundation inspection for.a building and prior to
final inspection for grading and hardscape improvements,the
location,and elevation of the new residence,hardscape and
driveway 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 approvedsite development plan. At the
time of framing;the height of the building or other structures shall
be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved
site development plan.
Planning ommission
July 12, 1995
Lands of Hamm
Page 8 "
11. Any outd• •r-lighting requires approval by the Planning
Departme t prior to installation. Lighting specifications shall be
submitted or Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of
plans for bu lding plan check,if such plans will indicate electrical
installatio to support new.lighting. Lighting shall be down
shielded,l.w.wattage,shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent
properties,and the source of the lighting shall not be visible from
off the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for
two drive ay or entry lights.
B. ENGINEERING D EPARTMENT:
12. As recom ended by William Cotton &.Associates in their report
dated June 8, 1995,the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. , The project geotechnical consultant shall evaluate the
pro•osed_design,and place.n ent of the energy dissipater
sho n to be installed in the northwest corner of the lot and
shal provide a lettersummarizing the results for approval
by e Engineering Department,prior to acceptance of plans for
buil,ing plan check.
b. ' The project structural engineer shall verify in writing that
the project geotechnical consulltant's acceleration information
hasbeen considered in the structural design, prior to
accstance of plans for building plan check.
c. '- The project geotechnical consultant shall summarize the
resu is of their plan review in.a letterand submit it to the
Tow Engineer for.approval, prior to acceptance of plans for
buil'ling plan check.
d. . The •roject geotechnical consultant shall describe the results
of i .pections and as-built.conditions of the project in a letter
to b: submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior
to f al inspection.• '
- For further details on the above requirements, please reference the
letter from. illiam Cotton&Associates dated.June 28, 1995.
13. The applic.nt shall make an irrevocable offer to grant a pathway
easement o er the property's undivided one-sixth interest in Elise
Court. A •lat and legal description prepared by a registered civil
engineer • licensed land surveyor shall be submitted to the
Engineerin: Department for preparation of the grant document,
. Planning Commission
July 12, 1995
Lands of Hamm
Page 9 •
and the signed notarized document shall be returned to the Town,
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
14. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be
submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the
City Engineer. and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The grading/construction operation plan shall
address truck traffic issues regarding dust,noise, and vehicular and
pedestrian traffic safety on Elise Court, Magdalena Avenue and
surrounding roadways;, storage 'of construction materials;
placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles;
and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash
dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction
debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage
Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the
Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
15. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must
be designed as surface, flow wherever possible to avoid
concentration of runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed
to maintain the existing flow patterns. The grading and drainage
plan shall be stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer and
shall be approved by the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the
Engineering Departmentand any deficiencies corrected to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final
inspection.
16. Any, and all, changes to the existing grading and drainage plan
shall first be approved by,the Town Engineering Department. No
grading shall take place during the'grading moratorium between
November 1 and April 1 except with prior approval from the City
Engineer. No grading shall take place.within ten feet of any
property except to remove existing development.
17. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner
shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's
NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control.
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.
Planning Commission
July 12, 19915
Lands of Hamm
Page 10 •
18. The prope,ty owner shall inform the Town of any damage and
shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to
pathways, ;'rivate driveways,public and private roadways prior to
final inspec ion and release of occupancy permits and shall provide
the Town ith photographs of the existing conditions of the
roadways .nd pathways prior to acceptance,,of plans for building plan
check.
19. All publi utility services serving this. property shall be
undergrou ded.
20. , Upon corn letion ofthe construction, a final inspection shall be
required to •e set with the Planning and Engineering Departments
two weeks rior to final building inspection approval.
CONDITION NUMBE1 S 9, 11, 12, 13, 14,, 15, 17 AND D 18 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SII NED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND
THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION
PLANS.FOR PLAN CH:CK BY THE BUILDING 7EPARTMENT.
PROTECTIVE TREE F ONCING SHALL BE INSFECTED AND APPROVED
BY THE PIJANNING D; PARTMENT.PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING
PERMITS.
Properties residing with n the Los Altos School District boundaries must pay
School Disirict fees be yore receiving their.buil ling permit from Los Altos
Hills. The applicant mu t take a copy of Worksheet#2 to both the elementary
and high school district iffices,pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town
with a.copy of their recei•ts. .
NOTE: The Site Develo•ment permit is valid for one year from the approval
date (until Jµly 12, 1996). All required building permits must be obtained within
that year and work on ite s not requiring a building permit shall be commenced
within one Year and corn•leted within two years.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
William Cotton 330 Village Lane RECEIVED
.67-- '
Los Gatos, California 95030
and Associates (408) 354-5542 JUN 2 9 1995
T6WN 0�COSALTOS HI1LS
June 28, 1995
L3075
TO: Suzanne Davis
Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road •
• Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Review
RE: Ham, New Residence, #71-95-ZP-SD-GD
24292 Elise Court
At your request, we have completed a geotechnical review of the proposed site
development plan using:
• Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation (letter) prepared by Jo
Crosby and associates, dated June 12, 1995;
• Proposed Site and Leachfield Plan (1 sheet, 16-scale) prepared by
Stephen Arnn Design, datedApril 27, 1995 and received June 12,
1995;.
• Site Design Plans, Floor Plan, Elevations, Grading and Drainage
• Plan (12 sheets, various scales) prepared by Stephen Arnn Design
and Giuliani & Kull, dated April 27, 1995; and
• Geological and Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Jo
Crosby and Associates, dated July 12, 1994.
In addition,we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files
and completed a recent site inspection.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to remove the existing residence, driveway and pool,
and construct a new residence, driveway and septic leachfield system. The proposed
• new house site is located in the northern portion of the lot and extends well beyond the
footprint of the.existing residence. Proposed site grading includes approximately 2,680
cubic yards of cut and 530 cubic yards of fill.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed house site is generally located on relatively level ground near the
crest of a ridge.. However, the northwest portion of the house extends over adjacent
moderately steep (25 percent inclination) flanking hillslopes. The proposed leachfield
site in the southern portion of the property is generally located on gentle (13 percent
inclination) slopes. Site drainage is characterized by sheet flow to the northwest and
south.
ENGINFaDINIn r=cnl v r-NIVID(1AIWACAIT" . n 11TL-1 C(\! .•••ntT,i •.ini�l���ll�lr`
d4 Suzanne Davis June 28, 1995
Page 2 L3075 •
The project geotechni al consultant has concluded that the entire lot is underlain
at shallow depth by bedroc materials of the Franciscan Complex. Surficial materials
' consist of existing shallow fi 1 and colluvial materials (silty clay with abundant angular
rock clasts). The mapped trace of the potentially active Berrocal fault is located
approximately 200 feet northeast of the proposed house site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Proposed site construction is apparently constrained by areas of relatively poor
septic leachfield percolation. characteristics and the site's seismic setting. We
understand that the proposed leachfield system has been approved by the County
Environmental Health Depa tment. The project geotechnical consultant has concluded
that the Berrocal fault does ot cross through the lot, biut that strong seismic loading
should be anticipated. Bas d on our review of the referenced report, it appears the
project geotechnical consul ant has recommended appropriate geotechnical design
criteria for the proposed co struction. However, the consultant should: 1) provide
additional technical recommndations for proposed placement of engineered fill at the
site, 2) .evaluate whether it i advisable to discharge surface drainage on steep slopes in
the northwestern corner of t property, and 3) review all geotechnical design aspects of
final construction plans prior to issuance of building or grading permits. Consequently,
we recommend geotechnica approval of the proposed development plan with the
following conditions:
1. Su . .lement.1 Geotechnical Evaluations - The project
geotechnical consultant should prepare supplemental
recommendations for fill placement on the property and evaluate
the proposed .esign and placement of an energy dissipater in the
'northwest corner of the lot (i.e., with respect to potential adverse
impacts on slo e stability).
The results of hese evaluations should be submitted to the Town
or review by he Town Engineer prior to issuance of permits for
rite building or grading.
2. Structural Desi In -The project geotechnical investigation (report)
includes infor ation on anticipated site seismic accelerations that
exceed stand.rd UBC design criteria. The project structural
engineer shou d submit a letter to the Town to verify that this
acceleration ii formation has been considered (as deemed
appropriate) i the project structural design prior to issuance of
building permi s.
3. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant sha 1 review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the developm:nt plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations,
retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that his recommendations
have been pro•erly incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
William Cotton and Associates
Suzanne Davis June 28, 1995
' Page 3 L3075
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building or
grading permits.
4. -Geotechnical Field Inspection -The geotechnical consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of
• the project construction. The inspections should include, but not
necessarily be limited -to: site preparation and grading, site
surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations
for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel
and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the
project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter
sand submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as-
built) project approval.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Senior ngineering Geologist -
f
illiam R. Cotton
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 882
WRC:TS:rb
William Cotton and Associates
•
ytit ••sr
l�lp�y/ _ r.
Design
Design Concept
JOHN . nd GRETA HAMM RESIDENCE
24292 lise Court* Los Altos Hills, California
In an attempt to help the commission understand the reasoning behind this house,the genesis
of its shape and styling, it seem-d appropriate to outline some of the parameters used in designing
this particular i
home. I'll make e ery attempt not to be long-Winded here, but please forgive me if
I'm not totally successful.
This magnificent piece •f land on Elise Court has quite a few things in its favor,... its height
on the hill in conitparison to theand around it,the subsequent views in essentially two opposite
directions,the relative "hidden" nature of the property's location(from nearly every vantage point),
and its serenity,.. quiet and cal ing. With the three small children the Hamms have, and the frenetic
pace of John Hamm's career wi a Silicon Valley corporation, this serenity is essential. The
Hamms wanted not only a peac:ful environment in which to raise and watch over the kids, but one
• in which they could entertain in imate gatherings of friends over a barbeque'd meal. Their directive
was to avoid a pretentious or"i o pressive".home by keeping the profile low,the pitch of the roof
shallow, and the entry approach embracing in lieu of imposing. They wanted easily accessible
outdoor space in which to entert in their family and friends, and a secure space for the three children
to play while being visible. In a dition,through the corporation's concerns and John's executive
position,the security of his fami y plays an important role in the positioning and shaping of this
home. The existing Eichler-desi ed home is in bad condition, and does not take advantage of any
of the positive elements of the p operty. An expensive attempt was made by the Hamms to add on to
the existing house, but it proved o be an unresolvable scheme to all persons involved.
My design concept was t divide the house up into smaller"pods" which are to be connected
by a glass gallery,thereby keeping g the overall massing of the house from feeling large....attempting
• to abide by the H�lamm's desire folr an unimposing home, and my interpretation of the Los Altos Hills
Design Guidelines. These three cods,
- 1. Great Room/D mng,Entry, and Kitchen
• T 2. Children's Be oom Wing
3.Master Suite etreat)
:will will be spaced around a courtyar which will serve as the focal point for the family's play and
entertaining,with a barbecue gri 1 and outdoor fireplace. This courtyard sits in approximately the
`x:11 Street • San Frar^iecn • California 94114 - R24-9375 Fax (415) 824-on 1 c
x v�lF i w Y ji r + .. t
Page.Two..
same location as the current structure. Thus arranged,'Greta can, ( from the kitchen, master
bedroom, or the great room.)watch the kids at splay,or be aware of an approaching guest. Among
other concerns which this design has attempted to resolve:
1. The Hamms do not want the parking/housing of their cars to be such that an approaching
person could ascertainwhether..someone is home-or not. It is important,though, to keep
the housing of those cars close to the;"family entrance",the,kitchen(for obvious reasons),
and children's playroom and bedroom wing. Since square footage limits (MFA) precluded
a garage, a carport was designed to nestle underneath the Great Room. Unfortunately,the
most dynamic view is at the opposite end of the property from the flag entry. Therefore,
the Great Room pod needed to be near that view position. Trying to keep the carport as
"invisible" as possible; it's entry is placed toward the downhill face, away from any
neighbors, and hidden by the existing trees and terrain. There is need, however, for guest
turn-around space nearer the front entry. As the Hamms want-the visitor to feel
comfortable, the Arbor Court was created to provide an inviting point of arrival and
convenient turn-around. This trellised structure has planting beds at its base for seasonal
color, as well as for vines to wrap up the columns and through the trellis structure above.
2. John is able to conduct his business at home from time to time, and thus a study
has been placed in the basement area of the Master Suite wing. Nearby is a home theatre.
providing a space for family time together. As the familygrows,this function may change.
3. Greta wanted a place forthe kids to play indoors which Could change as they grew.
Because of their'current young ages, it was important that this be near the Kitchen end of
the house. It has been located in the basement, again,because of MFA constraints.
The architectural cohesion of this pod arrangement is the difficult centerlining of most of the
curved shapes and the arbor court/entry's position. Without that structuring,the design begins to fall
intoits distinct and separate elements. Because of it,the arriving guest is able to see through the
-courtyard and the very house itself, and out to the valley beyond, keeping the impact of the structure
to a minimum:
•,Thereare some significant constraints imposed by.a quite a fewforces making any design for
: .this new home a challenge. The principle constraints imposed by the property itself are:
.,1. Shape and Setbacks.
The'dog-leg" configuration islong in the direction of the leg's lengths, and
narrow at any point of the leg's cross-section. When the 30 foot setback is imposed as
it is on all sides of the property,the remaining buildable space is unusually narrow.
;With the views being'out and away from each end of the dog-leg,the
{ , positioning of the principal rooms,(Great Room,Dining/Kitchen, and Master Suite)
becomes a further challenge. This current design allows the public rooms to have a
directed view toward the quarry;area, and its open space. By turning the Great Room
f,fr `5:� k��arM1M" ttN s �, y Y f 4 i
z'kfj,`1 •moi F'. k ykt - t
t,n y' y - —
• r
{
Page.Three
pod slightly in ei -r direction from its current position, much of the view would be
impeded. The Mas er Suite wing fits within the setback widths of the property, and
the view has been aken advantage of here; however, it was a challenge because of
the ipositioning of he leach field in front of thi� area. The buildable width, again,
creamed a great res'stance to a simple leach field design and.the subsequent driveway
positioning (a ch. ge in the driveway's location that we did not want to make,but
had to due to com.ined issues pointed out below. )
2. Slope.
As this is the top o the hill,there are significant slopes at each end of the dog-leg
configuration. Tho gh they add a great deal tothe character of the property,these
slopes not only aff.cted the MDA figures adversely, but they prevented the use of
many areas. The s bstantial slope at the Great Room pod's end of the property
precluded using an, land downslope from the ci rrent design. At the other end of the
property, the septi• system/teach field's design Has greatly complicated by the slope
as it became neces,ary to spread the lines out,thereby taking considerably more
space, crowding o t the possibility of leaving the drive in its existing location. In
addition, near the treat Room pod,the design of the driveway, its shape, location,
and access to the c..rport was complicated by the slope. In an effort not to harm the
existing oaks, the Li ade needed to be maintained as much as possible. My first effort
at this failed,but a er meeting with the Town, end a few commissioners in an
informal meeting, e drive and carport was re-configured to have as little impact as I
believe is possible.
3. Septic System.
The County of San a Clara's Department of Environmental Health required a
relatively large lea(h field layout that, by their iwn admission,they didn't think we
would be able to a•hieve, given the constraintsof the property's width-and slope.
(They were truly s .rised when it was accomplished,tho'not on the first try. )
After a preliminary design was submitted to them and approved in concept, they
discovered a shale ormation occurring within the thirty foot setback, linearly along
the eastern prope line. Their directive,then, was to stay away from that formation,
leaving only the ar=a between that setback and the ten foot setback line along the
western property li e. This necessitated moving the driveway location to meet their
figures, using the e 'sting drive's location as part of the leach field itself The current_
3 a design,though extr-melt'tight, has been approved.by them.Not only is the`relocated
•
fplacement of the • ve imperative to achieve the layout,but even the drive's tightly
i" curved shape is a ction of the lineal requirements.
b
,
Page Four
Other constraints which affected the design were related to the family's size and age of the
children, thereby necessitating a need to consider the visibility of the children from the house and
their proximity. The courtyard concept evolved from, primarily, this issue. Additionally, the family
needed more space into which it could grow than the MFA allowed. Therefore, it was important,
...even vital...to create the basement space shown on the current plans. Otherwise,the Hamms would
have needed to reconsider selling this property; something they didn't want to do.
One of the very few issues which has been in our favor is the infringement into the setbacks.
of the existing house,it's decks and swimming pool, (something the Hamms are not interested in
keeping, or replacing at any time), as well as the existing driveway. The new home's current
configuration reduces that infringement to almost nothing in comparison to the existing conditions.
With regard to "grandfathering"issues,the code as enforced up to this date, ( and as interpreted to
me), allows for the infringement to remain as long as it does not increase same. This current design
not only decreases,by almost 50%,the area infringed upon by the residence itself, it also decreases
the infringement of the driveway by more than 90%, and the remaining developed area's substantial
infringement to nothing. •
I hope this note has assisted you in some way. I would be quite happy to further discuss it
with you at your convenience, so that this process flows efficiently(for everyone's sake), and the
Hamms can begin changing the concept into real lumber, glass, and stones.
Thanks for your time and attention,
Stephen Arnn
•
1 .
F
Herb ong
, Arborist WISA #148 I41TAC 1-1 vl G `F
T 1-1-
15
Bonair Siding .
Sta ford, California 94305
415-725-3175
Mr. Stephen Arnn 6/5/95
329 Hill Street
San. Francisco, . Calif. 94114 . . .
•
Re. 242 2 Elise C . , Los Altos Hills
Dear Mr. Arnn, . .
The following is a report on three oak trees
at 24292 Elise Ct in *Los Altos Hills. These : '
three trees- are a ong the edge of the driveway
on the south side of the property.
The first tree is the largestof
the group, approx mately 36" diameter' at breast
height (DBH) , Quercus douglasii. Tree shows
moderate vigor with 6-8 inches of new growth.
There i an old .c.vity at the base 1pproximately. ..
30 inches long. iost of the opening has
healed and the ca ity was filled with concrete. The •
callus tissue is .ctive and sealing the
wound. Surroundin• tissue of the wound and around
the base of the t.ee appear sound. There are
no areas of evide t decay or wounds. Deadwood
exists in the tre- and twiggy dieback throughout
the canopy.
A condition of co cern is that 3-4
primary scaffold .ranches have what appear to be a
bacterial canker •ausing bark dieback and
probably eventual death of the branch. There have
been some large b anches cut out of this tree in
the recent months indicating that thi6
situation may hav= been the cause of this .
treework. Dead b.rk on the infected primary scaffold
branches appear t• encompass up to 50.1760% around
the circumference of the branch. . This
condition is a se ious long term hazard for the
future. Branches with over 50% of the bark
dead will lead to eventual further decay, death
or brealage and s ould be removed. For the
primary 'scaffolds of this tree, their
removal would unfo. tunately leave a very disfigured
and unattractive s•ecimen. Long term
considerations sho ld be to replace or remove this
tree. • .
The second tree, Q. douglasii, approximately 24" DBH.
This tree has been recently pruned as the first.
Approximately 10 inches of new growth evident in
branches. The trunk is sound with a small wound at the
base on the east side that shows no.
decay and is healing well. Twiggy dieback as the
first tree. Some evidence of loose/infected bark as
the first tree in the upper branches of the
tree indicating possible infection as the first
tree. Canker symptoms evident but much less in
severity than the first tree.
There are no known treatments for this
problem except to prune and remove the potential
source of innoculum and fertilize the tree.
This tree is not as seriously infected
as the first tree and could possibly
respond to fertilizer treatment and pruning
to remove the diseased branches. Pruning is no
guarantee of removal of this disease and
curing the infection for the long term. Since the
infection is mild in this tree, stimulated growth
of the tree could help minimize the impact to
this tree and improve the aesthetic value.
The third tree is an 18 inch Q. douglasii with a
Q. agrifolia suckering atthe base. This tree is
growing on a slope at the end of the driveway. Vigor
of this tree is poor with new growth only
about 2-3 inches in length. The canopy of
the tree is thin. Twiggy dieback of small
branches indicating stressed condition with large stub
cuts remaining in the tree. The trunk is sound
with no evidence of decay or serious infection
as the two earlier trees. This tree could
benefit from regular attention, feeding and care.
Fertilizing or feeding trees should be at
the rate of about 1-2 pounds of actual nitrogen
per 1000 square feet of area that will be covered
with the fertilizer within the dripline of
the tree. Fertilizer can be applied as
dry granular or liquid feed. Mid-to late
winter is the best time for fertilizing.
Allow for winter rains to carry the nitrogen into
the ground or liquid feed and inject the diluted
materials into the ground. .
No evidence of pi scale or other pests evident
at this time so n• recommendations re given
for such treatment
If there are any q estions stemming from this evaluation
or if I can be •f assistance in any way,
please do not hesitate to let me know.
Si e-
•
-r• Fo
j:;:. ATTACl4 me KIT 5
�r�
if))
r ! n� , •`
SURaGER,Nkr -11
INC.
LEON F. DOLEZAL 1590 Cordilleras Rd.
366-5986 Redwood City, Calif. 94062
Stephen Arnn. Design June 7,1995
329 Hill St.
San Francisco, CA. 94114
Reference: 24292 Elise Ct., Los.Altos Hills, CA.
Stephen Arnn,
After an on site inspection on June 1 , 1995 and again on June 7,
1995, I have prepared the following 'report regarding potential
construction impact stress on three Blue Oaks near the existing drive and
at the left side of the above referenced address and as option #2,. three
Blue Oaks at the left rear, with the 1X14" DBH Oak duplicated in either
option.
The Blue Oak, Quercus douglasii, is usually small to medium sized
ranging from 30-40 feet "high with a DBH (diameter-breast-height) of 10-
15 inches. Trees from 14-20 inches are from 175-280years old. This
introductory information is from Sudworth's, "Forest Trees of the Pacific
Slope", 1967. The three trees in question are in their natural realm and
considered mature to over-mature'.
As standing, the larger of three Blue Oaks, 1X30", is suffering from
obvious Valley Oak" Canker. The control for this oak canker is irradicative
pruning with excision at a point approximately 12 inches below thecanker
to remove an important 'source of inoculum. This tree demonstrates the
canker on two primary uprights and on several secondary laterals. There
is large dead wood evident from the cankers. To- remove the cankers, the
tree would havevery little structure; and symmetry remaining. The- other
two Blue Oaks are sparsely foliated 'compared to their immediate peers
and are generating approximately 3-4 inches of new growth in 1995 with
no :Oak Canker evident. I did not perform a crown rot inspection, but
considering the dry environment which the Blue Oak requires and that
evident on site, crown rot orbasal decay is not likely to be a
consideration in regards to the survi;vabilty of these trees. The sparsity
of foliage appears to be a function of pre-existing excess fill from the
6-7---- re, W ;7?,..'W1 ,)-zi.:.--:-•---.;.:,.:,,,i j iirt; ,Ili f... : .‘,:.:.,. .
. MIN ( ,i)) I If-zz.=(
1t i
i REE , 4{ L:� j
SURGERY . + 1 �.y.
INC. . .4
LEON F. DOLEZAL 1590 Cordilleras Rd. )
366-5986 Redwood"City, Calif. 94062 �'~•
page 2
original grading on the up ill side of the three downhill oaks.
Option *1 of the proposed construction project requires an
approximate n gative 6 foist grade change within 10 feet of the 1X30" Blue
Oak and within 3 feet of' 1 , 19" Blue Oak. It does not appear that the third
Blue Oak ( 1X14") at the le t rear of the drive wi!l be effected by the
primary grading. The clo-e proximity of this large grade change will
remove approx mately 40 of root systems of. the two Blue Oaks nearest
the drive. The loss of str ctura.l root support and feeding capacity will
create a structural hazard and severely impact the feeding capacity of
these trees which as I und-r. stand have had approximately 45 years to
adjust to the current surroundings. As the primary feeding roots are
within 18-24" of the surface and range from approximately 1/2 to 11/2
drip line radius,•it is of' co cern if there is a 6" grade change in this area.
A 6 foot grade change wil give these two trees little survivability
potential .
In option *1 , I would suggest that the two Blue Oaks, 1 X30" and
1X19", be removed prior t primary grading. Pe 1mits should be obtained
for this removal. Addition lly, there are two multi-trunked redwoods
near the pool deck and con idering the surface rooting characteristics of
the Coastal Redwood and i s water demanding habit, I would suggest that
the two redwoods be remo ed prior to any landscape changes.
Option #2 minimzes 'he negative grade change for the two larger
oaks at the left side of thedrive, but further impacts the 1X14" oak at the
left rear plus a 1X12" Blue Oak with the addition of 1X11 " Blue Oak which
should incur mi imal impact. It is recommended that a pre-construction
root feeding be done prior to primary grading. The formulation to be
determined by theover-all timing of the project. Additionally, horizontal
and vertical mulch techniques should be applied under any proposed hard
decks within thl respectiv: drip lines of the trees involved. If turf block
or "grass-trete" can be uti ized without a concrete base but on sand, then
the aforemention mulching ay not be necessary. The initial negative
•
'TREE • .,'��. ,
SURGERv L; ,1. •
<> .♦
INC. `
LEON F. DOLEZAL 1590 Cordilleras Rd.
366-5986 Redwood City,'Calif. 94062 ' #~
page 3
grade change necessary to install the turf block:should be considered as
compared to the preparation required. to install interlocking pavers to aid
in determining the net impact on the e1xisting trees and to determine the
most effective design versus impact on the.. trees..
As replacements are considered for any of these trees, I might
suggest some of the deciduous oaks thatare adaptable to this area such as
the Black Oak, Quercus kelloggii, the' Red Oak, Quercus rubra or Q. rubra
"Shumardii",. or the Scarlet Oak, Quercus coccinea. If a water demanding
landscape is to be considered,' the Red Oaks are very attractive and more
tolerant. of water than the Blue Oak or, California Live Oak.
Thank you
Leon F. Dole AO
International ociety of Arboriculture
registration #2175
certification # WC-1721
State Contractor License # 663569
Attachment 6
Projects where a struct re was entirely demolished and nonconforming
characteristics were mai tained:
27451 Altamont Road (a*proved 10/94): project represented as a major
remodel, but the entire •tructure was demolished. Nonconforming
development area of 13,018 (allowable MDA= 7,2514), floor area of 4,905
(allowable MFA= 4,087) •nd approximately 500 square feet of floor area within
setbacks will be mainta. ed. Pooldecking, driveway and turnaround area
which encroach into setbacks have also been removed and will be
reconstructed with the onconforming characteristics.
12580 La Cresta Drive (a nproved 1993, with revisions 4/94): project
represented as minor ad ition/remodel, but the entire house and a majority
of the hardscape was de olished and reconstructed. Although the amount of
hardscape las reduced, here is still significant encroachment within the
front and side setbacks, • d approximately 36 square feet of the house extends
into the side setback. In .ddition, a new air conditioning unit and 2x5
concrete pad are in the si.e setback,between the encroaching floor area and
the property line. The d•velopment area of 15,600 is well over the allowable
MDA of 12,725, and the 1 oor area of 8,916 (not counting basement area which
was exempted) also exce:ds the allowable MFA of 5,457.
25325 La Lona Drive (ap•roved 1990 & 1991): A variance was granted to
allow existing a 1,417 sq are foot house to remain ion the site as a secondary
dwelling unit, and new 5 000 sq. ft. residence was approved with the
nonconforming develop ent area of 15,509 allowed to be maintained
(allowable MDA=10,382).
14780 Mantella Road (a•proved 7/94): A 500 square foot garage two feet from
property line was approv-d to be reconstructed and enlarged to 600 square feet
with a 16 foot setback, o the premise that the degree of nonconformity
would be reduced.
ATTACH M,EkT '7
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills,California 94022 •'(415)941-7222 • FAX (415)941-3160
PLANNING DEP
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELiOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION •
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME a,.,r,,,,r�
PROPERTY ADDRESS 2.(4 Z E l j se: Cour
r
CALCULATED BY S`bQ.V2 A n /Mark_(4e,l torn DATE -1 15 t 9
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
— 43-?O
A. House and Garage (from Part B) . (437 0 . .E- q-e)-7
B. Decking 2a0 2�
C. Driveway and Parking - 3D
(Measured 100' along centerline) '&(-4 o 3D'?3,2._ 50Q72_
D. Patios and Walkways I O ( iJO
E. Tennis Court
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) Ga — G20
H. Any other coverage
TOTALS ( c..F'7 (0) (37 ( 0) 1 S7
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) k ( ( 0
2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage —4 570
a. 1st Floor 437 0 +(4-c5"75 Lite)-75
b. 2nd Floor
c. Basement Ce ce mp ) ( 1 G ) ( 2c
d. Garage
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor • co - GO
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
TOTALS (44 50 ( ¢ 15 4t1 S
Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) (4 95
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY (AZn n f 2_-.Da l/is DATE G
Revised 12/09/93 LRL: MAC HD/ORIGINALS/PLANNING/Worksheet 112