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