HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Regular ti I
I
TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS October 11, 1995
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION,LANDS OF LE FEVRE; SOUTH
SIDE OF ALTAMONT ROAD,EAST OF JULIETTA LANE.
FROM: Suzanne Davis,Planner JTD
APPROVED BY: Curtis S.Williams,Planning Direc or
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve
the Tentative Map,subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission considered the proposed subdivision on September
13, 1995. The major issues raised by neighbors and the Planning Commission
include the proposed modification to the conservation easement on lot 4, the
preservation of trees and the natural setting, the location of the proposed entry
road, the impact of the lot 2 building site and the proximity of the Elizabeth
Court cul-de-sac to the Cleary property. Adequate access to the Cleary property
was also discussed.
DISCUSSION -s
The following are staff comments on the changes which have been made to the
tentative map, and on new information received since the September 13 meeting:
Conservation Easement
A majority of the Commissioners indicated that they were not in support of
modifying the conservation easement on lot 4. The testimony from neighbors
was all in favor of leaving the conservation easement the way it is. The area
where the easement is proposed to be shifted is bisected by the human habitation
setback and would be difficult to develop even without a conservation easement
over it. The City Council in formally accepting the conservation easement in
1991,indicated that the easement should Iremain for the benefit of the residents of
the Eshner subdivision and the public. Staff recommends that the conservation
easement which was established with the Eshner subdivision remain in place,
and that the proposed conservation easement not be approved. Condition#6 has
been modified to reflect this recommendation.
y
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 2 '
If the Commission decides to recommend the shift in the conservation'easement,
development 'thin the area that would be removed from the easement could be
restricted in an manner det- mined to be appropriate.
Trees '
1
Several neighbors expressed concern about the trees on'the property,particularly
those on lots 1 and 2 which fare the most likely to be impacted. The Tentative
Map has been revised to shsw all trees within the building circles. The lot 2
building circle i dudes a 64- nch' heritage oak. The lot t 1 building circle includes
12 oaks with tr diameters larger than 6-inches. Of these trees, a 16-inch and a
cluster of three 12-inch oaks are considered heritage trees based on the trunk
diameters. Staff has add Id a condition of approval stating that if any
development isproposed w 'ch will encroach into the dripline of any heritage
oak a report fro a certified rborist must be submitted with; recommendations
on the proper construction t use and any needed measures for protecting the
tree(s). i
The applicant r quested that condition#26 be reworded to read "heritage" trees
rather than"significant"trees Staff has made this change with the provision that
at the time any work is done on the property the Planning Director may request
that in addition to the he itage oaks, any mature'; tree in the vicinity of
construction be fenced for pr tection from equipment,'debris and/or storage of
construction materials.
The applicant requested to r move a 15-inch Live Oak on lot 1 as an adjacent
neighbor desired to have the tree taken out. The neighbors would like the tree
removed as it blocks their vie of the bay (see letter from Terry& Vicki Oldberg
received August 4, 1995). Be ause the oak tree is healthy and in good condition,
staff advised thapplicant tht the tree cannot be removed. The tree is located
near the westerl, property li a and would not interfere;with the development of
a new residence or related im rovements on lot 1.
Lot 2 Building Setback from Cleary Property
,
Staff recommends that the Commission establish a greater building setback from
the east property line, which is the common line with the Cleary property. An
increased setback would prey nt any new development from infringing too dose
to the Clearys hme. Staff su gests a minimum of 50 feet rather than the 30 feet
required by code. Condition 29 specifies this requirement.
Driveway and Access to the C eary Property
I
Since the September 13 meeting the applicant has met with the Clearys for
further discussions on the ac ess to their property. The Commissioners agreed
I
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 3
that they would be willing to look at an access easement over lot 2 if the two
parties could reach an agreement. The applicant can inform the Commission of
the results of the negotiations at the meeting.
The City Attorney has advised staff that the Commission may take action on the
subdivision application even though there is a quiet title action by the Clearys
which has not yet been resolved. i
Access to Subdivision Lots
The applicant objected to the relinquishment of access on all portions of
Altamont Road except for the intersection with the public road (Elizabeth Court).
Staff recommends against any access points to the lots other than Elizabeth
Court.
Location of Elizabeth Court
There was concern that the proposed location for Elizabeth Court would not be a
safe intersection with Altamont Road. As pointed out in the staff report of
August 9, 1995, the street intersection is in the location recommended by the
traffic consultant(TJ M)for the 1992 Eshner subdivision application.
The location of the cul-de-sac bulb in relation to the Cleary property was brought
up by Commissioner Gottlieb at the last hearing. The Clearys also expressed
concern about the proximity of the right-of-way to their property. It was
suggested that the cul-de-sac be moved further away from the common property
line to provide a better buffer and to allow more space for landscaping. No
changes have been made to the tentative map in this regard. The actual paving
will not be as close to the Cleary property as the right-of-way line,although if the
cul-de-sac bulb is not shifted, any landscaping in this area would have to be done
in the right-of-way. Staff recommends that there be a minimum of 30 feet
between the edge of pavement and the property line so that the roadway does
not encroach into the setback and there is ample space for planting. Staff also
recommends that a landscape plan be required for approval of street trees along
Elizabeth Court and for buffer planting between the cul-de-sac and the Cleary
property. Conditions#30 and#31 have been added to address these issues.
Pathways
The applicant requested that the requirement for an easement on the easterly side
of lot 2 be eliminated as a path in this location would create a privacy problem
for whoever develops this lot. The Master Path Plan shows a connection between
julietta Lane and Altamont Road through the LeFevre property. Staff
recommends that the applicant provide i an alternative connection between the
I J
Planning Comission 1'
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 4
Julietta Lane and Elizabeth C urt cul-de-sacs if the lot 2 pathway proposal is not
acceptable. i '
Human Habitation Setback
The Town Geoli gist reco ended that the applicant's geotechnical consultant
review the current map and evaluate whether the depicted seismic setback is
accurately locaed and appy priate at this site based on new seismic data. The
applicant's consultant has res, onded that the human habitation setback is in the
proper location I(see Attachm nt 4). . I
Other Commens
The applicant 4quested that condition#6 be changed to delete the requirement
for expansion of the conserva 'on easement on lots 1 and 2 to include the heritage
oaks. Staff has deleted this rding since the oaks are protected by the Heritage
Tree Ordinance and the addi 'on of condition#28 provides for adequate review
of any trees which may be impacted by future development.
Commissioner Schreiner commented that although the Mitigation Monitoring
Program has addressed the issue of the wildlife corridor, the Negative •
Declaration dinot include the same provisions. Condition #6 includes the
provisions that no structure are allowed within the 'conservation easements.
The wording co d be expanded to specify that fencing is either not permitted or
that any fencing, within the c nervation easements must be open and of a style
that would not interfere with 1he movement of wildlife.
Findings and c7of a proval have been prepared for the Commission's
consideration. Additions to conditions are shown in bold and deletion are
shown with strike-through.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or
public may have.
f
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval
2. Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 1995
3. Letter from Terry&Vicki Oldberg;received August 4, 1995 (one page)
4. Letter from Terrasearch,dated September 13, 1995 (one page)
5. Revised Tentative Map and related plans (four sheets)
cc: Tom LeFevre
14850 Manuella Road
Los Altos Hills,CA 94022
Bill Kull
Giuliani &Kull
20431 Stevens Creek Boulevard,Suite 230
Cupertino,CA 95014
Gary Cleary&Nobuko Saito Cleary
26410 Altamont Road
Los Altos Hills,CA 94022
•
,
Planning Co fission
October 1995 i
Lands of LeFevre
Page 6
FI7INGS FOR APPROVAL OF FOUR LOT'S SUBDIVISION
LANDS O LE FEVRE -ALTAMONT ROAD
1. The subdivision as pr posed would create fourlots ranging in size from
1.21 acres to 8.83 gross acres,with Lot Unit Factors of from 1.04 to 3.69. In
this and all other resp cts, the lots conform to the Town of Los Altos Hills
Subdivision Ordinanc .
2. The pro osed subdivision would create lots 1 which would meet the
General Plan standards of one acre minimum net lot area for land with an
average slope between 0 and 10 percent, and one!acre to seven acres for
land with an average lope between 10 percent and 50 percent, and in all
other resects would b consistent with the General Plan.
3. Access to all four lots is proposed off of a new public cul-de-sac off of
Altamont Road. Ade uate services, including sanitary sewer, water, fire
and police protection, re available to serve the subdivision, as described
in the attached inform tion and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
project.
4. All lots are physically uitable for the proposed development. The Town
Geologist has stated cncerns that can be addressed through mitigation
measured and conditions set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and conditions of apii.oval for the project. It has been determined that
each of the newly proposed lots contains a site suitable for building.
Therefore,the site is suitable for the proposed density of development.
5. Since all ignificant environmental effects of the project as identified in the
Initial Study for the roject have been mitigated as discussed in the
Mitigated Negative D claration, the design of the subdivision and the
proposed improvemen s are not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantial y and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
6. All sign 'cant enviro ental effects of the project as identified in the
Initial Study for the roject have been mitigated as discussed in the
Mitigated Negative eclaration, and therefore the design of the
subdivision and the roposed improvements ',are not likely to cause
serious p u blic health p oblems.
i
7. The City Engineer and Planning Director have reviewed the project and
have determined that a design of the subdivision and the improvements
will not conflict with a sements, acquired by the public at large,for access
through or use of, pro erty within the proposed subdivision, given the
retention of the existin conservation easement. ; ,
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 7
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION
LANDS OF LE FEVRE 7 ALTAMONT ROAD
Geotechnical/Earthwork
1. The project geologic consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the subdivision improvement plans to assure that the
consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated as
required by the Town Geologist. The results of the plan review shall be
summarized in a letter by the project geotechnical engineer and submitted
to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final approval of the
subdivision improvement plans.
2. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect,test(as needed), and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should
include,but not necessarily be limited to: excavations, grading, and trench
excavation and compaction. The results of these inspections shall be
described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the
City Engineer for review prior to final project approval for the subdivision
improvements and for each of the new residences.
3. The surface of the areas to be cut and filled at the site shall be stripped,
cleared and grubbed to remove all existing vegetation and/or other
deleterious materials. The actual depth of stripping is unknown and shall
be determined in the field by the project Geotechnical Engineer. Stripped
material from the site shall not be used as engineered fill but may be
stockpiled and used later for landscaping purposes. Plans showing the
exact areas to be stripped and depth of stripping shall be submitted for
approval to the City Engineer prior to approval of the subdivision
improvement plans.
4. Any non-engineered fill shall be removed, or if required to remain in its
current location, shall be recompacted as engineered fill. The actual extent
of removal shall be determined i9 the field by the Geotechnical Engineer
during grading and shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to final project approval.
+
Planning Comxission
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 8
L.n. . . E. -m-n P••i • :.
5. A 10 fool wide pathw.y easement shall be granted to the public along the
east and south proper lines of lot 2. Also, additional pathway easement
shall be ranted for e Type IIB path to be constructed along Altamont
Road if its does not fit ithin the right-of-way. The pathway easement shall
be kept clear of obstacles,vegetation and obstructions. The easement shall
be accomplished as pact of the subdivision Final Map.
6. The existing conserva:on easement on lot 4 shall be abandoned, retained
i
. : : . . _ - - . - . :. In addition a seeend conservation easement
shall be granted on the t portion of lots 1 and 2 where the slope exceeds
The boundaries of t 's casement shall be approved by the Planning
Department The conservation easements shall be kept clear of structures.
Clearing shall not be permitted, except for removal of poison oak. Any
new planting within the conservation easements shall be native species.
The conservation easements shall be indicated on the Final Map and shall
also be sett out in separate easement documents to be approved by the City
Attorney,prior to appr' val of the Final Map. i
7. The Final Map shall rovide for the requested easements to all utility
companies,including ut not limited to: Pacific Bell,Pacific Gas &Electric
Company and cable tel vision.
8. Vehicular access for L is No. 1,3 and 4 shall be restricted from Altamont
Road and shall be acco plished as part of the Final'Map to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer an the City Attorney.
9. The appliant shall de 'cate to the Town of Los Altos Hills a 60 foot public
right-of-hay as shown on the Tentative Map as Elizabeth Court (or other
approved, street name). The dedication shall be ;accomplished as part of
the Final Map to the sa 'sfaction of the City Engineer and shall be accepted
at this time.
10. The applicant shall grant public utility easements and public utility access
easements to the Town of Los Altos Hills where needed within the
subdivision for utility construction and maintenance to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. This will provide access for installation and
maintenance of the public water system. The applicant shall dedicate 15'
wide sani ary sewer ea ements to the Town of Los Altos Hills at locations
that are determined to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
dedications shall be ccomplished as part of,, the Final Map to the
satisfaction of the City ngineer. �
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 9
Improvements
11. A project grading plan which includes an approved drainage and erosion
control plan to minimize the imjacts from erosion and sedimentation
shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of grading permits. This plan shall conform to all standards adopted by
the Town of Los Altos Hills and shall comply with all appropriate
requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and
erosion/sediment control including, but not limited to: a) restricting
grading during the grading moratorium from November 1 to April 1;b)
protecting all finished graded slopes from erosion using such techniques
as hill slope benching, erosion control matting, hydroseeding; c)
protecting downstream storm drainage inlets from sedimentation; d) use
of silt fencing to retain sediment on the project site; e) any other suitable
measures outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Manual of Standards.
12. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be
designed as surface flow whenever possible to avoid concentration of the
runoff. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The proposed storm drainage system
shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns and shall be
connected to the existing systems crossing Altamont Road. If inadequate,
the applicant shall improve the system and attempt to obtain all required
easements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All drainage
improvements shall be constructed or.bonded for prior to recordation of
the final map.
13. Fire protection improvements including installation of a fire hydrant shall
be constructed as requested by Los Altos Fire Protection District.
Improvements shall be constructed and ready for use, or a bond posted to
ensure completion,prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
14. All lots within the subdivision 4hall be connected to the public water
system as part of the subdivision improvements. A water main shall be
installed to serve the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the Purissima Hills Water District prior to the recordation of the Final
Map or be bonded for. Services shall be installed to the property lines.
Any necessary fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the Final Map.
0
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 10
15. All existing and prop sed utilities located within the subdivision shall be
placed underground, 'n accordance with Subdivision Ordinance, Sec. 9-
1.1105. Cable television, gas, electric, and telephone services, to the
property lines are included in this requirement. Plans for location of all
such uti[ities are to be included in the improvement plans for the
subdivision. Improvements shall be installed or bonded for prior to
recordation of the Fin Map.
16. A sanitary sewer sys em shall be constructed' on Altamont Road and
Elizabeth Court to the atisfaction of the City Engineer and the City of Los
Altos. Altamont Roashall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer upon completion of the sewer installation. The affected roadway
shall be slurry sealed after the pavement is patched, as directed by the
City Engineer.
17. The applicant shall de ign roadway improvements for Elizabeth Court(or
other approved street ame) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
usable pbed width f the street shall be 22 feet. The terminus of the
roadway shall be des gned as a turnaround that is adequate for a fire
truck, to the satisfa tion of the City Engineer and Los Altos Fire
Department. Improv ments shall be constructed or bonded for prior to
recordatipn of the Fina Map. j
I ' •
18. A Type IIB path shalla installed on the top of the bank along Altamont
Road, to the satisfacti n of the Engineering Department. The location of
the path shall be approved by the Pathway Committee and the
Engineering Department. Driveways shall be roughened where they cross
any path4,7
ays.
19. The applicant shall b responsible for continuity of access and utility
service toi the Cleary p perty throughout all phases of construction.
Planning and Zoning
20. Any, and all, wells on the property shall be shown on the Improvement
Plans, and shall be p operly registered with Santa Clara Valley Water
accordance with the VWD standards.District (6CVWD). ells shall either be maintained or abandoned in
21. Payment of Park and ecreation fees, Pathway in-lieu fees, Roadway in-
lieu and all other app. cable fees shall be required prior to recordation of
the Final Map.
C f
Planning Commission
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 11
22. Elizabeth Court (or other approved street name) addresses shall be
assigned and approved by the Town for all four lots as required by the
Los Altos Fire Department,and in accordance with the Town's policies.
23. All subdivision conditions of approval shall be met and subdivision
improvements shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to acceptance of any site development permit or building permit
applications.
24. The applicant shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any
damage caused by construction{ of the subdivision improvements to
pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways prior to
final approval of the subdivision.
25. A grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the
subdivider for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning
Director prior to issuance of grading permit for subdivision
improvements. The grading/construction operation plan shall address
truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian
safety on Altamont Road and other surrounding roadways; storage of
construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for
construction vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris
box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction
debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage
Company for-the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town
and no other hauler is allowed within•the Town limits.
26. Prior to beginning any grading or construction operations, all significant
heritage trees.shall be fenced at the dripline. The Planning Director may
at his discretion require other trees in the vicinity of construction to be
fenced for protection from equipment, debris or materials storage. The
fencing shall be of material and structure to clearly delineate the dripline.
Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to
commencement of grading or construction. The fence must remain in
place throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment,
vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the driplines of these trees.
27. Upon discovering or unearthing any possible burial site as evidenced by
human skeletal remains or artifacts, the person making such discovery
shall immediately notify the County of Santa Clara Coroner and no
further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the
County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. This shall be accomplished to the
satisfaction of the County Coroner's Office and the Planning Director, as
may be necessary during the construction of the subdivision
improvements.
Planning Co 'ssion
October 11, 1995
Lands of LeFevre
Page 12
28. If any development is,proposed which will encroach into the dripline of
any heritage oak, a r-port from a certified arborist must be submitted
providing informatio on the health and condition of the tree(s) along
with any recommend tions on the proper construction techniques and
any needed mitigatio measures for protection of the tree(s).
29. The east rly side set ack for lot 2 shall be a minimum of 50 feet. This
restriction shall be s own on the Final Map and a recorded restriction
shall be prepared by t e City Attorney,and signed and notarized by the
applican prior to app oval of the Final Map.
i
30. The paved surface of the public road (Elizabeth Court) shall not be
closer than 30 feet from the common property line between lots 1 and 4
and the Cleary lot. The cul-de-sac shall be shifted if necessary to
accomplish this.
31. Prior to Final Map ap royal, a landscape plan for the subdivision shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Site Development
Commitee. The plan shall emphasize street trees and plantings within
the rightof-way of the subdivision roadway, plantings to mitigate the
visual impact of the road from the Cleary property, and restoration of
any oth r disturbed areas. A landscape maintenance deposit (or
certificate of deposi ) of $10,000 shall be provided to assure the
continued maintenan a of the plantings. Staff shall inspect the site two
years after landscap installation, and shall refund the deposit if
planting remain via 1 e. Re-planting of dead or unhealthy plants may
be required,with the o eposit reduced accordingly.
{
AT ACk lul€NT 2
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95
September 13, 1995
Page 5
variance to allow encroachment into the required side yard setback with the folio . 'ng
am- - • ents/changes to the conditions of approval: #11,delete the side ya - •athway
easement; - rear yard pathway easement shall be 10 feet wide, (eas- -nt only,not
improved);#19, : 've path at the front of the house with the j •ers trimmed;#12,
wording to be reviewe e - the City Attorney;and#2,Va i. ce Evaluation and
Findings, deleting reference r- . ding eliminatin: - •are footage from one side and
moving it to another.
AYES: Chairman McMah. ommissione tutz,Schreiner,Gottlieb,Finn&
Cheng
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: s ssioner Doran
em will be on the City Council consent calendar October 4, 1995.
4.3 LANDS OF LEFEVRE (95-94-T4 Review of Draft Negative Declaration
and Tentative Map for the proposed four lot subdivision of 9.45 acres,
located on the south side of Altamont Road,east of Julietta Lane
(continued from August 9, 1995).
Mr.Williams noted the receipt of two letters;one from Pamela Packard and one from
the Fire Department with more specific conditions as to what needs to happen prior to
construction on the site. The Fire Department requests could be incorporated into
condition#13. Commissioner Doran noted previous discussions relating to a view
corridor easement. Mr.Williams commented that the Town has accepted a
conservation easement over this property(typical restrictions). One of the benefits of
the conservation easement was for visual purposes. There are also CC&Rs from the
original subdivision which originally established the conservation easement. The
CC&Rs do discuss protection of views for property owners. The Town does not get
involved with CC&Rs. It appears that originally there was an intent to protect the view
for the Eshners who lived in the main house However,the conservation easement,as
dedicated and accepted by the Town,was not restricted for view purposes. The
conservation easement is conserving the slope,the view and the visual buffer along
Altamont Road. The Planning Commission and City Council can determine that certain
uses can be allowed (other than structures)within the conservation easement.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Tom LeFevre, 14850 Manuella Road, discussed the history of the purchase of the •
property,the proposed subdivision, and the previous subdivision proposals. He is not
proposing any reduction in the conservation easement,just a slight shift south. The
submittal is for a four lot subdivision. He has met with many of the neighbors
regarding the trimming of the trees and the overall project,spending the most time with
the Clearys. Prior to the purchase of the property,the Clearys had a Quiet Title action
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95
September 13, 1995
Page 6
with the previous owners over aining access along the existing driveway. He has
inherited that lawsuit. They doave an agreement in principle which is included in the
staff report. He discussed other oncerns of the Clearys and'offers made to them (trade
and/or buying of land,shared iveway). He has continued to allow the Clearys to use
the electric gate at the front of th property which is inconvenient to him. He has
agreed to let the qearys have th electric gate and the pillars at the front of the
property,to be relocated when a subdivision goes in. He felt he has taken the
discussion with the Clearys as fa, as he could prior to this meeting.
Mr.LeFevre disco sed the condi ions of approval. #5,the addition of a request for an
additional pathway on the easte boundary of lot 2 which would beintrusiveand
interferes with pri acy for lot 2. 6,changing the conservation easement to include the
Heritage Oaks which he felt was not necessary as there is an ordinance which protects
Oaks. #8,restricting vehicular a I cess for lots 1,3 and 4. The previous traffic study did
not consider all the possible loca ions for driveways. A portion of Altamont along lot 4
has adequate sight distance and e would like this to be a possible access. #26,would
like to change "si 'ficant trees" o "Heritage trees.".
Bill Kull,20431 Ste ens Creek Bl d.,Cupertino, discussed the subdivision background,
the progression from a EIR to a l egative Declaration. Originally the project was for a
six lot subdivision. When it was down sized,it met the CEQA guidelines for categorical
exemption and a EIR was no ion o er necessary. They did use some of the information in
the EIR as a planntool to crea e the negative declaration.
I
Nobuko Cleary,26410 Altamont, oad,owner of the property which is surrounding by
the LeFevre property. Her conce involved: oak tress being destroyed by the
subdivision;preservation of the ature surroundings;opposed the shifting of the
conservation easement;and the unlawful construction of a chain link fence which
violate the conservation and vieweasement. She requested that the conservation,view
easement be left as is to protect eir natural setting and bay view. The shifting of the
easement would ruin both.
Mr.Webber,26495 Altamont,completely supports the Clearys and was strongly
opposed to the shifting of the co servation easement only to be able to build one more
house.
Richard McGowan,27150 Juliett Lane,was present when the City Council accepted the
conservation easement which Jul s Eshner placed on the subdivision map in 1976. He
read a portion of the resolution which is also the wording on the map noting"a
conservation easement reserved f r preservation of views and slope control purposes."
A part of the consei{vation easem nt was for the sewers. This was accepted by the
Town. He felt Mr. LeFevre's app 'cation to move the conservation easement to the
south would be very disruptive.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95
September 13, 1995
Page 7
John Scott,26385 Altamont Road,was in support of the Clearys. When they purchased
the property,it was their understanding that the easement was valid. When Mr.
LeFevre purchased the property he knew of the easement but was hoping to overturn it.
He also noted the dangerous stretch of highway by lot 4.
Mr. Chan,newest property owner,had signed the petition in favor of not shifting the
conservation easement.
Gary Cleary,26410 Altamont Road,gave a presentation of five main issues: (1)impact
on there property: commenting on the location of the chain link fence erected by Mr.
LeFevre in relationship to his house/cottage;the bulb of Elizabeth Court cul-de-sac
being too close to their property;and request for additional setback for separation. (2)
Quiet Title action on property not yet settled:driveway not reflected on the map. (3)
Elizabeth Court and safe: requesting more buffer area for their living areas; and the site
distances coming from Elizabeth Court onto Altamont,requesting the end of the court
be moved a little to the left. (4) conservation of the heritage oak forest: some oaks
missing on plan; and the easement should be moved to the dripline. (5) the
preservation of view and slope conservation easement: request to keep the conservation
easement in present location. He discussed the background of the LeFevre subdivision
presenting area maps. The road issue has not been finalized as yet. A signed petition of
41 names opposing the relocation of the LeFevre subdivision conservation easement
was presented to the Commission. Dr. Cleary discussed the debate over the access
easement to the property noting he did not have a recorded easement. He would prefer
to come into.the property by dropping down and entering from Silent Hills Lanes. It
was noted this access went through lot 2 to access Silent Hills Lane. The result would
be to lessen the development area of lot 2 masking it less than 2 acres.
Guy Jinkerson,Environmental Design and Protection Committee, addressed the
Commission as both a committee member and a close neighbor. He asked if
conservation easements were portable. He was not sure it should be moved just for the
adjustment of development. His main concern was for lots 1 and 2. There are at least 20
more oak trees then appear on the map. He did agree with the staff concerns referenced.
August 9th indicating lots 1 and 2 really work better combined as one lot. To develop
this into two lots would cause incredible damage to the natural setting. There was also
a safety issue with any road that is brought out onto Altamont. He asked that the
Commission review this project carefully as the area provides a beautiful country drive
which is rare and worth keeping.
Steven Pahl,27431 Black Mountain Road,discussed corrections to the staff report and
issues relating to the review of the Site Development plan in 1989. Many of the issues
brought up by the 1989 site development committee have never been addressed
induding the EIR. Another issue was on page 2 of the staff report regarding trees,
specifically lot 2 of the proposed subdivision) It indicates that a conceptual
development plan shows that a house can bei built without encroaching too dose to
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95
September 13, 19951
Page 8 �
I
major trees on lot 2. This has ne er been the standard in Town. The standard is
whether there are any major tree within the building circle on lot 2. The Merrill
subdivision was turned down on that issue only. The test is "within the building circle
are there any major trees." On lots 1 and 2,they cannot say there are no major trees.
Another issue relates to the cons rvation easement adopted by the Town which
overlays a private easement by t e Clearys. Theirs is purely a view easement. The
Town picked up the conservatio easement in 1991. He also felt there was an illegal
subdivision done in 1989 as the ont of the Cleary home is;clearly facing a lot 2 where
there should have been a 40 foot front setback. If lot 2 is clearly going to have a 40 foot
front setback with the access off f Elizabeth Court,there should be 80 feet between the
Cleary home andhatever buil 'ng circle you have on lot 2. He suggested a zoning
overlay with a 50 f i 1 t front setb ck rather than a 40 foot. L'astl y,to approve this
.
subdivision is adopting the prob em,acknowledging there is no easement access to the
Clearys over the current drivew y,Elizabeth Court. He did not believe the Town had
the ability to approve this partic ar tentative map without the access issues being
resolved. Mr. Pahl repeated Mr. eFevre's request to change'"significant trees" to
"Heritage trees" (#26)which has ever been done as a Commission as "Heritage trees"
are a defined term within the Town. He did not believe any of these trees have been
defined "Heritage."
Tom LeFevre,in answer to several issues, commented on the following: the fence did
have a permit from the Town, ani he only put the fence up'after the Clearys had
trimmed a number of his trees w thout his permission;he felt he needed to define his
property line due tQQ� their actions moving the cul-de-sac upli the road;the cul-de-sac
edge of pavement 1 eing 95 feet t the corner of Cleary house;,the quiet title action and
the signed agreemertt which co 'ts him to build Silent Hills Lane in return for the
Clearys dropping the quiet title a tion;and trying to maintain the original conservation
easement,only shifting it slightlyso lot 4 will not be split in the middle by the
conservation easement. He note that there was nothing ori his title for this property
which gives the Clearys a guaranteed view. There is a conservation easement and the
wording as stated by Mr. McGo an are accurate. It is a conservation easement which
includes preservation of view. conservation easements talk about views. It
conservation easement does not pecifically give the Clearys a view easement over the
property at a stated elevation. It imply prohibits putting buildings in that area. He
further discussed the moving of the conservation easement in relationship to the
Clearys view.
Commissioner Doran noted for c arification, that staff recommended that the building
site for lot 2 be shifted away fro the Clearys property into that flat area. It was Mr.
LeFevre's understanding that the uilding sites were put on the map at this point just to
show that a 160 foot building site would fit on the property not that it was the specific
location. He felt this issue shoul be left until site development. There are several
neighbors that overlook lot 2 that are not here tonight that do not have a chance to
comment on what impact movin that building site might have.
i
i
I
i
I,
1
1
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95
September 13, 1995
Page 9
Commissioner Doran noted that one of the reasons they like to look at building sites at
the time of tentative map is that it allows the Commission,if they want to be restrictive,
to inform the applicant that they cannot build in a particular location. As part of the
tentative map,she knows this will be discussed. They do send maps forward with
restrictions on them and recorded.
It was noted that Mr.LeFevre's reference to lots 1 and 2 were actually parcels 1 and 2.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded
by Commissioner Stutz to conclude the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Finn,Cheng,Finn& Doran
NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb &Schreiner
Commissioner Schreiner requested discussion on the conservation easements on lot 4
and on the oak forest. She requested a plan showing an expanded conservation
easement in the area of lots 1 and 3. An engineer should review the survey over lots 1
and 2 for accuracy (all significant trees not shown). Mrs. Davis commented that the-
map in front of the Commissioners should reflect the accuracy of the trees. Also,the
ordinance states that a 12 inch or greater in diameter oak is a heritage oak. There are
also other trees that are designated heritage. Mr.Williams noted that the applicant
needs to include the trees which fall into the building circle on the map.
Commissioner Doran felt if the conservation easement was shifted more towards lot 4,
the Clearys would actually have a better view. Commissioner Stutz requested that the
easement on lot 4 remain as proposed. Commissioner Finn agreed. Commissioner
Cheng asked how they could move the conservation easement to make the view better
when it is already good. Moving it would decrease the conservation easement. Mr.
Williams felt the majority of the Commissioners favored not moving the conservation
easement unless Mr. LeFevre and the Clearys can work out some kind of an agreement
to restrict this area in some way.
Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the bulb on Elizabeth Court could be moved over a little
more towards lot 2 which would help if the Clearys gain access to their property. She
would also like to see lot 3 with more acreage.
Discussion ensued regarding pathways noting Silent Hills Lane does have a pathway
easement over it but there does not appear to be a pathway easement from Silent Hills
Lane down along the boundary to Altamont. The Commission requested a clarification
of the location of pathway easements in this area. The Commission agreed,if the
Clearys and applicant could agree,they would be willing to look at an access easement
I
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/95
September 13, 1995
Page 10
over lot 2 for the Clearys. Co. 'ssioner Schreiner wanted'further discussion regarding
a request for a pathway between lot 2 and the Cleary property to Elizabeth Court.
Commissioner Gottlieb would 1' e the applicant to consider giving lot 2 the option to
use Silent Hills Lane. There was I of total agreement to this request.
Commissioner Scheiner request..d discussion of the Negative Declaration,particularly
what may be considered a subst.t tial change. The protection of the wildlife corridor
throughout the document was nit well addressed (significant impact). The Mitigation
Monitoring Program document addressed the concerns regarding the wildlife corridor.
The mitigation indiates open fe cing. However,it was not addressed in the same
manner in the Negative Declara 'on. She would like conditions for the conservation
easement to protect the wildlife, ddressing fencing,barriers,etc.
MOTION SECONDED AND PA SED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded
by Chairman McMahon to continue this item to the October 11th meeting.
AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Gottlieb,Stutz,Schreiner,Cheng,
Finn&Doran
NOES: None f
II
• ► emaining item were continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
5. ' I RT FR q M THE TTY I IL MEETIN
5.1 Planning •.mmission Re•resentative for the September 6th .. -eting-continued.
5.2 Planning Coma° ion Re.resentative for-the Septemb
m - 20th meeting-
Commissioner Finn. .
6. NEW BUS SS
I
6.1 Fremont Hills Co try Club ater quality sample-continued.
7. OLD BUSINESS
I
7.1 Report from Lubco .. 'it--s.
8. APPROVA ,d F
1
8.1 Appr val of the Au• st 9, 1995 minutes-continued.
9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING -OF
AUGUST 15 AND 22,AND SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 ' N
1
1
1
1
1
ATrAc H M.EMT 3
RECEIVED
Terry and Vicki Oldberg AUG
27250 Juhetta Lane 4 1995
Los Altos
415 941 053394022 TOWIVQfLos
ALTOS HILLS
Planning Commission
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Dear Sirs:
With the proposal to develop the Lands of LeFevre,we would like to express my concern about the
preservation of the view from our property, 27250 Julietta Lane, which abuts the proposed
development of Lot 1.
Since the sale of the Eshner property,we have seen a progressive erosion of our view. We contacted
the previous owners of the property,proposing that the trees growing adjacent to our property line,
obstructing out Bay view, be removed. These trees are"volunteer"trees which have sprung up since
the purchase of our property. Because the property was in flux, we met with no success.
We support preservation of trees,but the trees interfering with our view are relative young trees, and if
the property had been maintained, would have been removed years ago. They also pose a hazard to
power lines which are in their line of growth.
If the planning commission approves the development of the "Lands of LeFevre," we would like to be
ensured that any structure erected on the property and any future landscaping on Lot 1 would not
impede our view. We would also like to negotiate the removal of the trees which have sprung up since
the purchase of our property, blocking our view.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Cordially,
J O24114-c7)
Vicki and Terry Oldberg
ATTACHMENT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
%), TERRA SEARC/J,ivc.
6840 VIA DEL ORO,SUITE 110,SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95119-1348 (408)362-4920 FAX(408)362-4926
Project No. 4815.002
i
13 September 1995
Mr. Tom LeFevre
14850 Manuella Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Subject: Lands of LeFevre
26410 Altamont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
GEOLOGIC UPDATE
Refs: 1) Soil and Geologic Investi ation Report
By Terrasearch, Inc., Dated 10 June 1981
2) Supplemental Geologic Investigation Report
By Terrasearch, Inc., dated 24 August 1992
3) Tentative Map and Conceptual Development Plan
By Giuliani & Kull, dated 3/31/92
4) Geologic and Geotechnical Review Letter
By William Cotton & Associates
Dated September 21, 1994
Dear Mr. LeFevre:
As recommended in the review letter by William Cotton & Associates (Reference 4), we have
studied recently completed geologic/seismic references and reports in regard to the subject site.
One such study (Hitchcock, et al, 1994) is probiably the reference referred to as "Lettis, 1994"
in the review letter. Although this study indicated a potential for previously unmapped faults
or "blind thrusts", its area of coverage did not extend as far north as the site. Hence, pertinent
site-specific indications were not found.
Since our supplemental report of 1992 (Reference 2), a site-specific investigation (Crosby &
Associates, 1994) was undertaken on a site about 1,000 feet north-northeast of the subject site.
In this spot, a previously unmapped thrust lobe was found to extend to the northeast from the
Altamont Fault. However, the Altamont Fault is a different fault than the (Berrocal) fault
which passes through the subject site. No additional fault extensions were found in the Crosby
study that appeared to project toward the subject site.
SINCE 11969
11840 DUBLIN BOULEVARD, DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA 94568 (510)833-9297 FAX(510)833-9548
Project No. 4815.002 Geologic Update/26410 Altamont Road 13 September 1995
We also made a recent visit to the subject site, and it is our opinion that the geologic/seismic
conditions and mitigations outlined in References 1 and 2 are still valid and appropriate for the
proposed development.
Should you have any questions relating to the contents of this letter or should you require
additional information, please cont.ct our office at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
TERRASEARCH, INC.,
Richard Rowland, .E.G.
Senior Geologist
RR/ld
Attachment: References Cited
Copies: 4 to Mr. Tom LeFevre
c:\wp51\4815002.up
TERRASEARCH, Inc. Page 2 of 3
; ,
Project No. 4815.002 Geologic Update/26410 Altamont Road 13 September 1995
REFERENCES CITED
Crosby, Jo and Associates, 1994, "Report on the Geologic Fault Investigation at the Planned
Office Structure, Packard Foundation, Los Altos Hills, California": consultants report for Mr.
John Nielsen dated April- 12, 1994 (their Project #3955A-1). '
Hitchcock, C.S., Kelson, K.I., and Thompson, S.C., 1994, "Geomorphic Investigations of
Deformation Along the Northeastern Margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains": U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report #94-187.
TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 3 of 3