Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.2 LI. TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 13, 1995 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION,ADDITIONS TO THE FIRST FLOOR,AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK;LANDS OF MC NEES 24990 LA LOMA DRIVE. FROM: Suzanne Davis,Planner SD APPROVED BY: Curtis S.Williams,Planning Dire RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Make the findings as required by Section 10-1.1107(2)(b) of the Zoning ordinance for the granting of a variance; and 2. Approve the requested Variance and Site Development Permit, subject to the recommended conditions. BACKGROUND: . The property is located on the south side of La Loma Drive,two lots west of La Loma Court. The property was created as part of a 12 lot subdivision(Toyon Hills Estates,Tract 1275)which was recorded in 1954. There are no.existing easements on the property. There are several nonconforming situations on the property. Both ends of the existing house and two accessory buildings are within the side setbacks. One of the two storage buildings will be removed. A,.new storage building.is proposed to be added under the existing deck off the back of the house, and will not encroach into any setbacks. The applicants are requesting approval of a variance to allow an existing covered patio that within the side setback to be enclosed. Prior to submittal of the subject application,the applicants submitted their geotechnical report for review by the Town Geologist. The Town Geologist reviewed the report and visited the site prior to making recommendations on the project. Mr. McNees disagreed with the1recommendation to underpin the foundation for the entire house,as this would be very costly, and he feels that it is not necessary. The City Council considered an appeal from Mr.McNees on December 7, 1994, and stated that there should be some compromise on the matter(see Attachment 6). A subsequent letter to the applicants from acting Town Planner Mike Porto is also attached for the Commission's information. (Attachment 7). Staff has included a_condition of approval requiring a recorded restriction acknowledging the Town.Geologist's concerns, as wellas plan review Planning Commission September 13, 1995 Lands of McNees Page 2 and final letters from the applicant's geotechnical consultant, as is standard for all projects. DISCUSSION: Site Data: Net Lot Area: 1.26 acres Average Slope: 19.5% Lot Unit Factor: 1.0 Floor Area and Deyelopment Area: Area Max. Prop. Exist. Incrs. Left Devel. 11,438 10,754 8,885 +1869 +684 Floor 5,225 4,749 2,783 +1966 +476 The applicants are requesting approval of a Site Development Permit for additions to Ithe first floor and a small second story addition to an existing one- story residence. A workshop is also proposed to be added below the house, partially under the existing deck. The existing house is just over 2,100 square feet,with a 519 square foot attached garage. There are also two small accessory buildings on the site. The 72 square foot storage shed immediately adjacent to the garage will be removed, and a two foot wide addition will be made to the garage. Eight square feet of this addition will encroach into the side setback. The area being removed from the setback exceeds that which will be reconstructed within the setback,and the new flooriarea will be in an area previously occupied by floor area. Therefore the degree of nonconformity will be reduced on the east side of the house, and the encroachment (2 feet by 4 feet) is not considered a variance, as allowed by the nonconforming provisions,Section 10-1.401 of the Zoning Ordinance. A variance is being requested to allow an existing patio that is within the roof line of the house to be enclosed and integrated into the floor plan. Both ends of the existing house were built closer than 30 feet from the side property lines. The patio is part of the area that encroaches into the side yard setback. The patio presently has two walls and a roof, so it is not technically considered floor area. The patio is located at the southwest corner of the house and is not seen by neighbors due to its location and the heavy vegetation�on the site. The only changes from the outside Would be the addition of two walls. The dilemma for the applicants if the patio area is not enclosed is that it would be difficult to enlarge the master bedroom. Given the existing floor plan and the fact that the ` • I Planning Commission September 13, 1995 Lands of McNees Page 3 west end of the house is already in the side setback,_the room cannot be easily expanded without a variance (see development plans,sheet 3). The applicants have chosen what they feel is the most logical option, and one which will provide some additional floor space while best working with the existing development. The building envelope will not be changed by enclosing the covered patio, and there will be less disturbance to the site. The new second floor will cover 13% of the first floor. The highest point of the house will be 20 feet as measured from existing grade. Story poles for the second story addition have been placed on the site. The proposed additions would bring the total floor area to 4,749 square feet. The project would be 684 square feet less than the allowable MDA and 476 squarefeet below the allowable MFA for the property. Proposed exterior materials are wood siding and trim,brick accent and composition shingle roofing. The existing siding is wood and the present roof is wood shake. Should the exterior colors be changed,the Planning Department will review them for compliance with the Town's adopted color board. Existing trees and shrubs provide good screening of the sitefrom neighboring properties. No trees are proposed for removal. The site is also relatively well screened and not very visible from off-site locations. On-site parking includes two spaces in the garage,two uncovered spaces adjacent to the garage and two uncovered spaces in front of the house. The spaces next to the garage are within the side setback, and a portion of another space is within the front setback. It is also possible to park other vehicles in the driveway,but these spaces would be in-tandem spaces. The existing parking will all be maintained with the proposed project. 1. The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of approval, as specified in Attachment 2. Minimal grading will be necessary for the project. Final drainage will be reviewed by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected,prior to final inspection. The Pathways Committee has requested that a Type IIB path be installed along the La Loma Drive frontage. The Committee has also requested that a 10 foot wide pathway easement be granted along the west property line and a 20 foot wide pathway easement be granted along the south property line. The easements would be used for a future path near the creek. The applicants are not in agreement with the Pathway Committee recommendation, and will explain their position to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Planning Commission September 13, 1995 Lands of Mc ees Page 4 Staff is availa le to answer any questions from the Commission or any member of the community. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Recommended Variance Findings 2. Reco Immended Conditions of Approval 3. Applicants letter dated August.4, 1994 (two pages) 4. Pathway Committee recommendation dated July 24, 1995 (one page) 5. Report from William Cotton&Associates dated!Apri128, 1995 (three pages) 6. City Council Minutes of December 7, 1994 (two pages) 7. Letter from acting Town Planner Mike Porto to Mr. &Mrs. McNees, dated May 8,1 1995,with attachments (five pages total) 8. Worksheet#2 9. Development plans: topography survey &site plan,floor plans,roof plan and elevations (five Sheets). cc: Sterling&Mary Lee McNees 24990 T a Loma Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 94022 Planning Commission September 13, 1995 Lands of McNees Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 VARIANCE EVALUATION AND FINDINGS. FOR A MAJOR ADDITION&REMODEL LANDS OF MC NEES-24990 LA LOMA DRIVE 1. Because of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size,shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this Title is found to deprive such property of privilegesenjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Because the house was constructed under previous standards and currently has floor area, a garage and a covered patio encroaching into the required side yard setbacks,and due to the existing siting and location of the house on the lot,the strict application of the zoning standards would deprive the subject property privileges that are enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Those privileges would be the right to a reasonable addition to the existing non-conforming structure in a reasonable configuration relative to the current floor plan of the house. 2. Upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners The intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance will still be served because the minor addition of 9711square feet to the main living floor will be within the existing roof line,is already development area, and the proposed encroachment will be a minimal increase over the existing encroachment due to removal of a 72 square foot storage shed. Additionally the southwest corner of the house is significantly screened from the surrounding properties and the roadway by existing vegetation, and the enlarged and remodeled house will be similar to homes on other properties in the neighborhood and within the same zoning district. Planning Commission September 13, 1995 Lands of McNees Page 6 3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. The addition will be constructed so as to be compatible with the existing dwelling and neighborhood,the house is substantially screened by existing mature vegetation on the site and the project meets or has been conditioned to meet all applicable Town codes and policies. 4. The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel of property. The proposed use as a single family residence is a permitted use,will be similar to other homes in the neighborhood and is consistent with the residential agricultural (R-A) zoning for the site. Planning Commission September 13, 1995 Lands of McNees Page 7 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MAJOR ADDITION&REMODEL LANDS OF MC NEES-24990 LA LOMA DRIVE A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. Any changes or modifications_to theapproved plans shall be approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. All new outdoor lighting including fixtures to be placed on the house must be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation.: Lighting shall be low level,low wattage, and shall not reflect or encroach on adjacent properties. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for two entry or driveway lights. 3. Subsequent to framing, a landscape screening plan shall be reviewed by the Site.Development Committee. Particular attention shall be.given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence fromsurrounding properties. The landscape plan shall include new trees to replace the two trees to be removed. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control must be installed prior to final inspection. 4. A landscape maintenance deposit,equal to the cost of materials and installation for all landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control, shall be postedprior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made one year after the installation. Fifty percent (50%) of-the bond shall be returned following the date of the inspection, if maintenance is adequate. The remainder will be released two years after installation if,the plantings remain viable. 5. • . Two trees areshown to be removed. If any other tree six inches in diameter or larger is removed to accommodate construction or if a tree is damaged or destroyed during construction,it may be required to be replaced. The replacement tree(s) shall be equal in size to the removed or damaged tree(s), as determined by the Planning Director. Removal of any additional oaks requires prior approval by the Town, and three to five replacement trees will be required,depending on the size and condition of the removed tree. Planning Commission , September 0, 1995 Lands of McNees Page 8 6. Prior to beginning any grading operation or construction,the significant trees in the area of construction(excluding those to be removed) 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 throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment,vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the driplines of these trees. 7. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light: No lighting may be placed within the skylight wells. 8. 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. 9. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new roof on the residence and for the new workshop. 10. The location and height of the residence shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in the location and height as approved by the Town and shown on the Site Development Plan. A letter of compliance shall be submitted Ito the Town,prior to final inspection. 11. A 10 foot wide pathway easement shall be granted along the west property line and a 20 foot wide pathway easement shall be granted along the south property line. The applicant shall submit a plat and legal description prepared by a registered civil engineer, and the Town will prepare the grant document. The signed, notarized document shall be returned to the Town, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Planning Commission September 13, 1995 Lands of McNees Page 9 • B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 12. The applicant shall comply with the. following relating to the geotechnical evaluation of the project: . a. The property owners shall sign a recorded restriction which acknowledges the following: "The Town Geotechnical consultant disagrees with the applicant's geotechnical consultant's view that the new and remodeled portions of this property as shown on these plans mitigates or alleviates the structural conditions present withinand under the existing residence at the time of the issuance of the building permits for the new and remodeled areas.' The Town of Los Altos Hills, in issuance of the building permit fojr the new and remodeled portions of the structure is not accountable for those conditions present and attributable stability and integrity of the home." The Planning Department will prepare the recorded restriction, and.the property owners shall return the signed, notarized document to the Town, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. The project geotechnical, consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e. site . preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that his recommendations have been properly incorporated.. . The results of the plan review shall be summarized in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineering Dep4rtmentfor approval, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. c. . The project 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,.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 project geotechnical consultant in a letter to be submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to final inspection. Planning Commission September 13, 1995 Lands of McNees Page 10 13. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. 14. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium between November 1 and April 1 except with prior approval from the City Engineer. To grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 15. Any new public utility services serving this property shall be undergrounded. 16. -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. . . I " 17. 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 plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust; noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on La Loma Drive and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; clean-up area,, 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. • i Planning Commission September 13, 1995 Lands of McNees Page 11 18. The property owner shall,inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and,shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 19. A Type IIB path shall be installed in the La Loma right-of-way along the frontage of the property and the existing driveway shall be roughened where it crosses the pathway. The work shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final inspection. 20. Upon completion of construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planning Department and Engineering Department at least two weeks prior to final inspection. CONDITION NUMBERS 11, 12,16,17 AND 18 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ALL OTHER CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT,PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. Properties residing within the Los Altos School District boundaries must pay School District fees before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet#2 to both the elementary and high school district offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until September 13, 1996). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. MCNEES 24990 La Loma Drive Los Altos Hills 415/948-0979 The lot at 24990 La Loma Drive, Los-Altos Hills, is the subject lot in this Request for Site Approval. It is a non-conforming lot by the town's present requirements. The lot contains 1.26 acres but is only 150 feet wide--short of the "160-foot circle.." The house was bulit in approximately 1957.. and setback requirements either did not exist or were less than they are today.. The existing structure encroaches on required setbacks on both ends (east and west) of the house. Because we must work with an existing floor plan and the location of the present house on the lot, it is necessary _to obtain approval for the proposed additions and changes which encroach. On the east the garage is presently ,encroaching; the proposed garage adds-no "net" encroachment. In fact, due to a slight change in the footprint of the garage area, the plan actually realizes a "net" decrease in encroachment and, therefore, a decrease in the amount of nonconformity to the east. On the west end of the house the present structure encroaches for the entire end of the existing house. The proposed 'change would add two walls to an area (a patio outside the master bedroom) that is already under the existing roof line. This enclosure would increase the size of the master bedroom. Further, on the west end, the _proposed plan would increase the size of two small bedrooms by approximately 70 square feet from the existing roof. Of this addition, approximately 20 square feet is encroaching. ',This additional encroachment is set back 12 feet from the existing end of the house. The present rooms are small, and this addition results in rooms of more adequate size and therefore more fundtional. Again, we must work within the present floor plan and the location of the present structure on the lot. It is our belief that the proposed changes will not be noticeable to neighbors. There is good shielding from all sides: On the east there is an oleander hedge (12 to 15 feet high) extending from the road and continuing to the back side,' of existing buildings. On the west side (end) is an even taller pittosporum hedge (approx. 20 feet high) extending from the road back along, the property line beyond existing homes. In addition, the grading between; subjectlproperty and the. iroperty) to the west is such that we are 6 to 8 feet lower than the house to the west. At the back of the lot there is an existing oak forest (estimated buck 30 feet of the lot) , plus the lot is over 400 feet front to back; and neighbors behind us seem far, far away. MCNEES - p.2 24990 La Loma Drive From the street (north), the house is set well back. There are large pine trees, natural toyons and an oleander hedge, plus the house is downslope (8 to 10 feet) from the road. Consequently, neighbors across the street and people passing on the street see very little of the house. In keeping with the town "guidelines for residential design," appearance from the street will be improved inthat existing garage doors face the street (north) ; on the proposed plan, garage doors are placed on the east end of the house. We do not believe that alny of the proposed changes will detract from the neighborhood or have a negative impact on surrounding property owners. To the contrary, general appearance and quality of the structure should be an asset and improve the overall neighborhood. I i krrAC 1-4I`/IKIT y- Town of Los Altos Hills Committee on Pathways, Recreation and Parks Meeting Agenda for Monday, July 24, 1995 Call to order, 7:30 p , Town Hall Roll Call i I/O 2 • Approval of Minutes • ./ X995 Announcements Reports from Council, Planning Commission & Site Development Meetings Old Business In lieu pathway fees based on LUF Altamont equestrian/pedestrian crossing (see attached memo) 12080 Green Hills Court; Lands of Powers: Restore II-B path along Green Hills Court, including a path around the mailbox. Remove small pine trees growing in and immediately adjacent to the path. 24990 La Loma Drive; Lands of McNees: Construct I1-B path along La Loma. Acquire a 10 foot easement along the West edge of the property and 20 foot easement along the South edge df the property. These easements will permit a future path to be constructed just North of the creek, given that the creek and a steep slope are along the South edge of the property. 13850 Paseo del Roble; Lands of Mathiason: Construct a II-B path around the corner of Paseo del Robe and Page Mill Road, as follows. There is; a small tree near the power pole on th corner. Trim back the branches on the sides away from the roads, then construct a path adjacent to Page Mill Road beginning about 45 feet from the corner and going between the power pole and a large oak tree there, then around the small tree to a point on Paseo del Roble that is directly across the street from the pedestrian bridge. Article on Pathwys Day for Town newsletter duein early August Master Path Plan update New Business Town Pathway Map reprinting . 27979 Baker Lane; Lands of Rouse 13073Cumbre Vista; Lands of Wu - 24990 La Loma Drive; Lands of McNees 12101 Oak Park Court; Lands of Lohr 27435 Natoma Road; Lands of Geers 26010 Torello L IIne Presentations from the floor Adjournment i Witham Cotton 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, California 85030 • ;r and .idissociates j (408)354-6542 ATTACH k.A E w--v- 5 April 28 1995 Post-Ir Fax Note 7871 Date1131115/51= L3104A To M l KE 02 , From ed. CoJOept Phone# iy Fez# f • TO: Mike Porto Town Planner -TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Review RE: Lands of McNees, 24990 La Loma Court File #211-92-ZP-SD-GD `Ne have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the subject property using: Letter from Sterling McNees' to Jo Crosby and Associates - Proposed Foundation and Drainage Repair Work, dated March 8, 1995; '6. Letter from jo Crosby and Associates to Mr. and Mrs. Sterling McNees - Review of Proposed Foundation and Drainage Repair Work, dated April 21, 1995; and + Response to the Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Review (letter) prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates, dated September 2, 1994. DISC 5JS ION The applicant is proposing.to construct_additions to an existing single-family residence. The existing residence and attached garage are approximately 2,577 square feet in size. The proposed additions are approximately 1,727 square feet in size. The additions are located along the'north and south sides of the residence. A new,detached below-ground structure ("guest/storage addition") is proposed approximately 20 feet south of the residence. In our previous review report (dated August 26, 1994), we did not recommend approval of the proposed construction because the applicant did not include pima to stabilize the existing distressed house foundation prior to constructing the additions. We presented our opinion that the entire residence should be underpinned to ensure the long-term stability of the proposed additions and existing residence. In subsequent meetings with the applicant;we have clarified our recommendation that, as a minimum, the southern downslope perimeter of the residence should be stabilized by appropriate ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCES • FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • I Mike Porto April 28,:1995 Page 2 j L3.104A underpinning measures. The,referenced letter from the applicant presents a mitigation proposal that includes necessary site drainage improvements,but does not include any ' underpinning of the downslope.perimeter of the residence. We understand, through discussions with the project geotechnical consultant, that the applicant's proposal for adding "5 steel posts" along the south side of the house represents the installation of 5 • screw-jacks for purposes of re-leveling (rather than underpinning piers for the purpose of foundation stabilization). SITE CONDITIONS The existing garage slab,the southern portion of the residence and the backyard patio and deck areas exhibit distress in the form of settled and cracked slabs, pulled apart framing members, out-of-plumb doorways, and adversely sloping grades. It is likely that the 9bserved distress is the result of differential settlement of underlying fill and colluvial materials, expansive soils, and poorly functioning surface drainage facilities (e.g., Idose and disconnected downspout outfalls). The Town Geologic and Geotechnical Hazard Maps indicate that the potentially active trace of the Berrocal fault has been mapped approximately 180 feet west of the subject property. However, the project geotechnical consultant has submitted data that indicate the trace of the Berrocal fault is located along the site's western prc perty boundary(approximately 20 feet from the residence). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION A floor level survey completed by the project geotechnical consultant indicates that the residence has undergone an overall elevation change of 6.1 inches: The consultant has indicated that the existing residential distress is due to expansion and shrinking of the soils beneath the residence, and the inability of the existing shallow foundation to resist such movement. The greatest change in elevation (approximately 3.5 inches) was measured across the living room floor '(southern portion of the residence). Tle consultant has also indicated that where the existing footing is embedded on or close to bedrock,such as the front(north)cut pad area,little movement has occurred. The consultant has previously recommended underpinning the entire structure with reinforced piers to achieve uniform performance of the existing foundation. In a subsequent correspondence, the consultant clarified that' this recommendation was made so that the existing structure and proposed additions would be of comparable stability and would perform in a similar manner. However., the consultant has noted that the underpinning may not be economically feasible an si has concluded that underpinning the structure is not an engineering necessity. We concr with the prpject geotechnical consultant's evaluation that site:soils will continue toilmove (i.e., due to shrink/swell behavior and downslope creep).'with problems of seaonal adjustment, Even with the drainage improvements included in the applicant's repair plan, there is a very low level of certainty that the remodeled and expanded residence, as proposed, will perform within accepted standards for current construction. Itj is likely that the existing foundation will continue to move in a mariner that will result in long-term distress between older portions of the residence and the proposed new additions. The fundamental problem of inadequate foundation support, which has resulted in 6 inches of differential floor movement within the existing residence to date, will.remain without implementation of an adequate engineering solution. William Cotton and Associates Mike Forth April 28 1995 Page 3 L3104A • It is our geotechnical opinion,that the proposed remodeling and enlargement of the existing residence should not be approved without implementation of appropriate underpinning measures to stabilize the existing house foundation. If a decision is made by the'Town to grant permits for the construction as currently proposed, then the potential for future significant distress to the enlarged residence should be disclosed to the applicant and prospective future buyers of the property. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM COTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre I • Senior Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 Patrick 0 Shires Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 770 POS:TS:rb • is William Cotton and Associates • r t K/ Kyr G MOTION SECONDED AND CA r '. D: Moved by Johnson, seconded by Hubbard and passed unanimously to • sort the proposed draft of the Santa C a County General Plan and to requ.• the Mayor to send a letter to the Bo. • Supervisors stating this support. 6. NEW BU ESS 6.1 equest for contiguity/annexation - .tement for a building site approval for Lands of Kwan, 10 '4 I West Loyola (Town's Urban Service Area) i' Council discussed the Kwan,. elect which was in the Town's urban service a - . Johnson noted that.this ;an.area of so many nonconformities that he - eyed it would be quite diffi o require the applicant to conform to the T. s codes. Siegel concurred Johnson stating his opinion that the proje ould not be required to un. - go annexation to the Town nor to confor . : the Town's codes. Dauber disa• -ed stating that houses were being built o•- . regular.basis and if the Town di• of at some point start requiring confor ..' - to its codes, it would never happ: OTION SECONDED AND CARRIED• oved by Siegel, seconded by nson and passed by thefollowingroll call vo • o.state that the project at 108 est Loyola, Lands of Kwan, did not have : nex to the Town nor did it e to conform to the Town's codes. AYES: Mayor Pro Tern Siegel and Councilmembers Casey, Hubbard and Johnson NOES: Mayor Dauber 6.2 Request for appeal of certain findings in the William Cotton Geotechnical Report for Lands of McNees, 24990 La Loma Drive Mr. McNees, applicant, addressed the Council concerning his request for an amendment to a geotechnical report prepared by William Cotton and Associates on his remodel project. He did not agree with the requirement to underpin the entire house as the amount of proposed development was not that substantial and it would be very expensive to comply with this requirement. He believed it would be in the area of$50,000 to $60,000. The Planning Director referred to the 12/7/94 staff report which included the notation that the Town Geologist, William Cotton, recommended that the entire house be underpinned. Thisrecommendation was based on the recommendation ' � December 7, 1994 �. Regular City Council Meeting 3 • of the applicant's geologist, Jo Crosby. The Planner further commented that meetings had taken place,with the applicant, both geologists and staff to attempt to resolve this issue. It was suggested that other options for the project be considered which would address everyone's concerns. Pat Shires, William Cotton and Associates, noted that this lot was located in the Berrocal Fault and in their opinion certain geologic concerns needed to be addressed. However, he did point out that compromise was possible and options could be considered. Siegel suggested that a compromise be reached on this project. He believed the applicant could work with staff and the geologists toward a resolution of the issues. Siegel commented that the law required disclosure of all geologic findings and in addition a notice could be put in the title report concerning geologic reports. The applicant agreed with such a notice. Dauber recommended that the applicant's geologist, Jo (Crosby, bring a modified, affordable plan which had the concurrence of the Town's Geologist, back to the Planning Director for review. Hubbard concurred with these suggestions. AND MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Dauber, seconded by Siegel and passed unanimously to recommend the applicant work with his geologist, the Town's geologist and staff on a compromise that would reasonably address the size of the project, the cost involved and the geologic issues. 7. REPORTS FROM COM �' ' ES SUB-COMMITTEES AND COUNCILMEMBER ,fi,'"4 OUTSIDE AGENCIES 7.1 Safety mittee .1 Request for subcommitt-„, •` f Pathways Recreation and ;.< Parks Committee an; "afety Committee members to ' evaluate the Safe athway issue for emergency v-„r„f, e use PASSED BY CONSENS .'.' o concur with the Safety Cop ittee's r. recommendatio ,,`,or the formation of a subco `gee of Pathways Recreation a • arks Committee and Safet ,,c'•mmittee members to evaluate t. afety/Pathway issue for es�r gency vehicle use. Two memb- from each committee wou ; •e named to this subcommittee. 8. STA •.' REPORTS 8.1 City Manager 8.2 City Attorne December 7, 1994 Regular City Council Meeting 4 • • Iolet4T 7. LOSALTOS HILLS `i r iI CALIFORNIA May 8, 1995 Mr. and Mrs. Sterling G. McNees 24990 La Loma Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 94022 Subject: Structural Reinforcing 24990 La Loma Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. McNees: We are in receipt of correspondence dated April 21, 1995 from Jo Crosby & Associates wherein they state that."yo9 repair work would mitigate further movement to the existing foundation system" of your home. This information. _ was based on Crosby's letter of September 2, 1994 and is included with their recent letter (April 21, 1995) as attachments to this letter. The Town's Geotechriical Engineer,William Cotton and Associates,has reviewed the information supplied by Jo Crosby. Included for your review is Cotton and Associates' letter dated April 28, 1995 indicating their review of the submitted information. Your attention is drawn to the last paragraph of the Cotton letter which states: . "It is our geotechnical opinion, that the proposed remodeling and enlargement of the existing residence should not be approved without implementation of appropriate underpinning measures to stabilize the existing house foundation. If a decision is made by the Town to grant permits for the construction as currently proposed, then the potential for future significant distress to the enlarged residence should be disclosed to the applicant and prospective future buyers of the property." 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 415 / 941 - 7222 Fax 415/941-3160 1 1 May 8, 1995 j Mr. and Mrs Sterling McNees . Page 2 j As you can see, the Towri's Geologist remains concerned about the structural stability of your entire residence. However, the Town will not require you to undertake upgrades to the part of the structure not being remodeled as long as the requirements recommended by the Town Geologist are met. Therefore, assuming that the new areas and the area proposed for remodeling meet the current builiing codes, including structural stability, the Town will issue building permits for your project without underpinning the part in the existing structure, if the following acknowledgment is placed on the plans and signed by . you, stating: "The T wn geotechnical consultant disagrees ;with the applicant's geotechnical consultant's view that the new and remodeled portions of this property as shown on these plans mitigates or alleviates the structural conditions'present within and under the existing residence at the time of the issuance of the building permits for the new and remodeed areas. The Town of Los Altos Hills, in issuance of the building permit for the new,and remodeled portions of the structure is not accountable for those conditions present and attributable to the existing residence wth specific.regard to the structural stability and integrity of the home." The property owner agrees to notify all prospectivepurchasers of the property of this information. Signed: _ Dated: Sterling IG.'.McNees I You are encouraged to meet with the Planning Department Staff to determine the proper course for your application. . .. May 8, 1995 Mr. and Mrs. Sterling McNees Page 3 If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at your earliest convenience. We hope your recent hospital stay was short and we look forward to meeting with you again. Sincerely, i chael A. Porto Acting Town Planner cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Manager City Attorney Suzanne Davis,Planner William Cotton and Associates Jo Crosby &Associates 10 CROSBY & ASSOCIATES 11) GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 756 CALIFORNIA STREET•P.O.BOX 4220•MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040 •TELEPHONE(415)969.3266 O.BOX 2551 •MONTEREY.CALIFORNIA 93942•TELEPHONE(408)757.8109 SINCE 1965 C• FyProject 3984-19 April 21, 1995 Mr. and Mrs. Sterling McNees 24490 La Loma Drive Los Altos Hills, California 94022 Subject: Review of Proposed Foundation and Drainage Repair Work, 24490 La Loma Drive, Los Altos Hills, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. McNees: At the request of the Town of Los Altos Hills, we have reviewed the foundation and drainage work You intend to accomplish to your home at the residence captioned above. A detailed outline of this work is;covered in your letter of March 28, 1995, addressed to our firm. We have previously discussed our viewpoint regarding partial foundation repair, emphasizing the need for underpinning to be based on economics and esthetics, not on engineering necessity. It is requested that the reviewer for this project make reference to our initial response letter to the Town, dated September 2, 1994. It is our opinion that your planned repair work would mitigate further movement to the existing foundation system. Itis recommended our firm be present to review such work in the field to note compliance with our previous recommendations. We wish to thank you for using our firm for this project, and hope that we may be of further service,to you. We will be pleased to answer any questions that you might have regarding this response letter,,a copy of which is being sent to the William Cotton and Associates office. Very truly yours, JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES; John A. Stillman C.E.G. 1868 Staff Engineer o K. Crosby C.E.G. 357 G.E. 250 • eparaimvraikin r r1 new. Snit_ AND ROCK MECHANICS • EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING • GEOPHYSICS G 24990 La Loma Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: 415/948-0979 March 28," 1995 Jo Crosby & Associates Mr. John Stillman 756 California Street Mountain View, CA 94040 SUBJECT: Remodeling the residence at 24990 La Loma Dr. , LAH Dear John: • Crosby & Associates in their geological report for the subject remodeling recommended a complete set of piers under the present foundation. This is a costly recommendation (estimated ati $50,000 to $60,000) , and simply can't be justified on economic factors alone. Remembering that. the house has stood for .over 35 years the ocean waves of soil expansion and contraction and has no working cracks in the walls and no cracks in the ceilings, I propose, as a compromise, the following: 1.. Complete rebuilding of the drainage system around the house consisting of: (a) a closed gutter system (b) a shallow subdrain close to the foundation and (c) on the upslope side of the house, a deep subdrain system approximately 5 feet from the foundation and at least 2 feet below the. foundation. This agrees with Crosby's recommendation. 2. The garage and the second story to follow Crosby's recommendation which is a new foundation built to present-day standards. 3. A new foundation along most of the front of the house and approximately parallel and 8 feet distance from the present structure. A new floor will be tied between these 2 foundations. Since the native soils are only 0 to 3 feet below the present foundation, soil expansion islrelatively small. .No problems are anticipated. The present slope along the existing foundation is 1/2 inch. 4. Level the extended part of the living room to the level of the chimney (-.2 contour) by adding 5 steel pose , .g the existing foundation on the south side of the house. I hope that we can agree to foundation plans as proposed here, or that we can together agree to something similar..; Sincerely, / r • / ( L Sterling C,4 McNees TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road 9 Lus Altos Hills,California 94022 a (41!':441.7222 + FAX r41!)941.3160 PLANNING DEP ' RECEIVED WORKSHEET #2 ' SEP 1 _ p EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA A 0L(X) MA OSACTOSHj((S . • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION « PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME Mr_ j i , sT-6-RI_Ict\16V- .. ._iimap PROPERTY ADDRESS 2_,L{ 4.0b$ L; Lo Yrla Dr t t e . CALCULATED BY F'H-I IA c `T'' 1 DATE Alla- 31 1 4M" 1. P A . • 3 Y"-47-1111 .'� ' (SQUARE FOOTAGE) - ^ - Existing Proposed Total 2_6 SS (Additions or Deletions) Li (4 ( . A. House and Garage (from Pert B) 7G -71Z-7 ! 1.4e6 .42 -- :; B. Decking -70k_(A P)6.11-- 20D&O 4‘10 C. Driveway and Parking 3�� (Measured100'Ialong centerline,) • � ' . -- _ =6. , D. Patios and Walkways 1 l '5O " 2 I_.1.._ .....JE,. 5� E. Tennis Cour. F. Pool and De king ./ i , G.C2 ccessor Buildings (from Part B) 7 2--t- -- o —72 5 , • H. Any ether co1verage Ib�7S- TOTALS -g065 • • '��- L e G2? ' �' Imascegasinemsattvala • IMaximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) 1 1 , 430 I I 2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE} Existing 1 Proposed Total (A#ditions or Deletions) A. House and Garage .. 2 ( 3a. . ! . a. 1st Flog, 2 02 32- b. 2nd Floor , oli--;.Y (4_..__ . c. • Attic and Basement / : ; . • ......---- d. d. Garage _ � B. Accessory Buildings a.(2);st Floo 7 2- 4- 5 • -/Oa 5-3, b. 2nd Flo,r / l / c. Attic and Basement - ; / TOTALS 2 703 viswa.m. l%6 4741 Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MPA (from Worksheet. #I) . ,_,+,, ,_, , 1 TOWN E •N . . NECKED-BYI .. 2 he. . DATE • f �� 12/09/ s , Liu.: MAC kip/ORIGINAL$/'LANNINC/Worksheet*9 ,r