Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 ITEM 3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 5, 2015 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN FOR A NEW RESIDENCE; LANDS OF WEALE; 27181 SHERLOCK ROAD; FILE#294-14-ZP-SD. FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Consultant Planner Cg APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, Planning Director SP RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the landscape screening plan subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND On December 12, 2002, the Planning Commission approved a Site Development Permit for a new residence and driveway and a variance to locate the house and parking within the front setback. See Attachment 2 for staff report and minutes. At the public hearing of December 12, 2002, two neighbors had specific concerns about screening of the house. Mr. Lester Thompson, 27070 Sherlock Road, is located to the east of the home felt that the structure would overlook his home. The property owner located at 27223 Sherlock also had concerns with the views from her home. That property has since been sold. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 2.0 acres Net Lot Area: 1.86 acres Average Slope: 35.1% Lot unit Factor .86 Maximum Proposed Existing Remaining Development Area 7,818 339 7,414 65 Floor Area 5,000 0 4,959 41 Landscape Screening Plan Pursuant to Section 10-2.805(a) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, in evaluating the adequacy of proposed landscaping, the applicant must demonstrate that the shape, outline, color, and form of all structures will be unobtrusive when viewed from any location off- site at the time landscaping has matured. The site has fifteen mature oak trees that have Planning Commission Lands of Weale February 5,2015 Page 2 been maintained around the home. Thirteen years have passed since the commencement of construction and many of the oaks have grown to provide increased canopy and screening of the new home. The applicant is proposing new planting of Manzanita and California Lilac at the front of the home along Sherlock Road. The shrubs will be planted between the road and the top of the slope. These plants will grow to between 5 and 15 feet tall when mature and will provide screening from the street at the front of the home. Some of the proposed planting is within the Sherlock Road right-of-way due to the 60 foot wide dedication that was made at the time of the new residence approval. The Engineering Department has reviewed the planting plan and determined that it will be acceptable Outdoor Lighting Plan The applicant has provided a lighting plan that complies with Town standards. Eight solar pathway lights have been proposed at stairways for safety (Attachment 3 - cut sheets for light fixtures). Oak Trees An Arborist report(see Attachment 4)has been prepared for the site indicating tree number 12 has died due to infection with sudden oak death. Tree number 13 has been given a poor rating and continues to decline as a result of the loss of function of a large percentage of its woody root system. All other trees remain in the same condition that they were in prior to start of construction. The Arborist noted that several of the trees require root crown excavation. Condition number 3 requires the applicant to perform this work prior to final inspection. Staff recommends that the dead coast live oak be replaced with one new tree (see condition number 4) to ensure that there is adequate screening of off-site views. Town Committee Review The Environmental Design and Protection Committee reviewed the drawings on October 3, 2014 and commented that the plants were appropriate native species (see Attachment 5). Neighborhood Concerns The Architect of the neighbor directly to the west (27223 Sherlock Road) met with staff to discuss the landscape plan and commented that the existing shrubs and trees between the homes provide adequate screening. The neighbor would like to make sure that the new landscaping does not block the driving surface of the road or create a maintenance issue. Staff received an email from Joan Sherlock (27261 Sherlock Road) who would like the meeting postponed because she is traveling (see Attachment 6). Ms. Sherlock commented on the length of construction and would like to review the plans prior to making any comments. Planning Commission Lands of Weale February 5,2015 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA) The proposed landscape screening is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15304(b) Minor Alterations to Land. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. December 12, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report. 3. Light fixture cut sheets 4. Arborist Report prepared by Walter Levinson dated October 28, 2014. 5. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, October 3, 2014 6. Email from Joan Sherlock, January 28, 2015 7. Proposed Landscape plans (Commission only) Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 Lands of Weale February 5,2015 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN LANDS OF WEALE, 27181 SHERLOCK ROAD File# 294-14-ZP-SD PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. Any changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required landscaping shall be first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or Planning Commission, depending on the scope of changes, prior to planting or commencement of work. 2. All required plantings and lighting shown on the plans shall be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. All exposed slopes must be replanted for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection of the new residence. 3. All recommendations contained in the Walter Levinson Arborist Report dated 10-28- 14 shall be implemented prior to final inspection. 4. One 24 inch box size coast live oak shall be planted on the western side of the residence to replace the dead coast live oak, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department prior to final inspection. 5. A landscape maintenance and water use deposit of$5,000.00 shall be posted prior to final inspection of the new residence. An inspection of the screening plantings to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. Prior to deposit release,the property owner shall also furnish to the Town the second year (months 13-24 following receipt of the Certificate of Completion) of water use and billing data from the subject property's water purveyor. If the site water usage exceeds the calculated PWB, the deposit will be held for an additional 12 months.At the end of the additional 12 month period,the property owner shall provide the Town with the previous 12 months (months 25-36) of water use and billing data from the subject property's water purveyor. If the water usage still exceeds the estimated PWB,the deposit shall be forfeited to the Town, in full. All Town staff time and materials expended to ensure compliance with this condition will be deducted from the deposit. 6. Exterior and outdoor lighting locations are approved as shown on the plans. Please note that any additional lighting shall be first submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to installation. Generally, lighting shall be the minimum needed for safety, shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, the source of the lighting shall not be visible from off the site. Planning Commission Lands of Weale February 5,2015 Page 5 7. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control, as determined by the City Engineer, must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. 8. No fencing is approved with this plan. Any new fencing or gates shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 9. The property owner shall contact the Building Department and acquire any and all required building permits prior to commencement of work on landscape or hardscape: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 10. Any revisions or additions to the previously approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review by the Engineering Department. The plan shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and approved prior to commencement of this project. The approved plan shall be stamped and signed by the project engineer and shall supersede the previously approved drainage plan. 11. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 and April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 12. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 13. All irrigation systems must be located at least five feet from the Town's pathways and outside of the public right of way and public utility easements. The Town staff shall inspect the site and any deficiencies shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the action. Building Permits cannot be accepted until the appeal period has lapsed. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until February 5, 2016). 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. ATTACHMENT 2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS December 12, 2002 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: S1'1'h DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND POOL; LANDS OF WEALE; 27181 SHERLOCK ROAD;FILE#93-02-ZP-SD-GD-VAR. FROM: Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner cAAVY APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill,Planning Director C.C RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit and Variance subject to the attached conditions of approvaland findings; OR 2. Direct the applicant to redesign to further reduce the visible profile or height of the house. CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Code, this application for a new residence and pool has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Criteria for review from the Site Development Code include grading, drainage, building siting, landscape screening, and outdoor lighting. Zoning Code review encompasses compliance with floor and development area limitations, height, setbacks, and parking requirements. The requested variance requires that the Planning Commission review the application, pursuant to Section 10-1.1107 of the Zoning Code. Section 10-1.1107(2) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four findings that must be made to support a variance from the Site Development Code, in this case to approve the encroachment of a structure and parking space within the required 40-foot front setback. The evaluation of the variance should include physical site conditions that result in an undue hardship on the property when the Site Development Ordinance is strictly applied; The approval of a variance also requires that the Planning Commission approve certain findings. Staff has prepared findings for approval for the Commission's review (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND The subject property straddles Sherlock Road, off of Moody Court. The irregular shaped 2.0-acre parcel is bounded by.other private properties on 5 sides, as seen in Attachment 10. A 25'-wide right of way easement for Sherlock Road servingseveral residences unevenly bisects the subject property. There is a small house, garage and shed on the northern half of the property and a small cabin and shed on the southern half. - The property is populated with numerous oak trees and contains substantial area with slopes Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 2 of 16 greater than 30 percent. Staff determined the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Article 19, Section 15303(a), "New Construction" that allows one single-family residence in a residential zone. DISCUSSION This application has undergone several rounds of staff and neighbor review and architectural revisions to produce the present proposed building siting and height. Early on, staff advised the applicant of Code Section 10-2.702(b)(1), which states, "single story buildings and height restrictions may be required on hilltops, ridgelines, and highly visible lots." Initial plans sited the house farther north, away from Sherlock Road, but due to the potential loss of substantially sized oak trees, the building was relocated closer to the access easement and into the required setback to preserve the canopy of several Heritage Oak trees. Staff considered a 30-foot setback from the existing right of way an appropriate setback for this restrained lot. There is precedent for allowing reduced setbacks from access easements when properties have been similarly constrained. At 27855 Moody Road, a variance was approved to allow parking and a new two-story residence, with full basement, to encroach 28 feet into the 30-foot setback from an access easement that bisected the flattest portion of the lot. At 26871 Moody Road, the 40-foot front setback was taken from the property frontage on Moody Road rather than from the edge of the 35'-wide access easement winding through the property. The two-story residence with partial basement was located within 30 feet of the edge of the access easement, but no closer than the location of the existing structure, which was located as close as 5 feet of the access easement. The reduced setback for this application raised neighborhood concern. On a recently approved partial two-story residence on Sherlock Road, a 60' right of way easement and 40-foot front setback from the edge of the proposed access easement was required. A reduced setback was not considered in that particular case, as the entire 3.20-acre parcel is entirely located on the south side of Sherlock Road. Although staff considered the reduced setback appropriate, the applicant seeks a variance to encroach into the 40-foot front setback. • Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 2.0 acres Net Lot Area: 1.86 acres Average Slope: 35.1% Lot Unit Factor: 0.86 Floor Area and Development Area: Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left Development 7,500 7,342 3,648 +3,694 +158 Floor 5,000 4,913 3,289 +1,624 +87 Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 3 of 16 Site and Architecture The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Permit for a two-story residence with an attached two-car garage, daylighted basement, and a swimming pool. The first floor of the proposed new residence is 2,587 square feet; the second floor is 1,982 square feet, in addition to 344 square feet of lower level space not conforming to the basement ordinance. The second story accounts for approximately 40 percent of the total floor area for the main residence. Covered terraces and decks on the first and second stories of the residence, as well as, an outdoor pool and lawn area constitute the outdoor living area. Proposed decking covers 376 square feet, patios and walkways constitute 164 square feet, and the pool and surrounding deck area constitutes 505 square feet. The main residence forms an obtuse U-shape situated parallel to contour 720. The pool area is located on the only other flat area on the eastern portion of the lot. As seen on Sheet A1.0, adequate rear- and side-yard setbacks are proposed. The third parking space and a portion of the first and second stories encroach into the 40-foot front setback taken from the proposed 60' right of way easement. However, Section 10-1.1107(2) of the Zoning Ordinance gives the Site Development Authority, in this case the Planning Commission, discretion in approving the location of the proposed structure and parking based on four findings. .. c:;r ,?;t a ,-� The architectural style of the %IP ;�,,,, � t," ,r, . ,�. u: new residence include s a stucco � T,. ; 1` ` r i - L.a,'`..1`.:. X tf ` exterior with a clay tile roof, ;� 4 • 'giti a,� . 3' , �� �= ° `r le,�` similar to the adjacent 1 i � ,t � ,h 0' ,,if. ` .l = ,4 �t A -f .; neighbor's residence seen in the li„,‘„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,c.,„;' `”` 'i '' `•raiiV ii� j f% '.4 Ls ',`': photo on the left. Staff has `.P\) '," i i, P _ r t '6 r . • required in Condition 5 that roof ,� . w,, v. L e�y, 1 w, 't r �� r i V:11 �J1-441,t; and exterior materials conform °'-i ~ r� i?-4 ~tir,, , t-ttih2 R . to light reflectivity values of 40 sfY—! •J A--.1.7r:::, ''-.^e x '�1,,t+'M1�Y1, �j Ef �iM- ;re- e=Yi.;. 1♦ T • , and 50 respectively and be of an ---- 4',4,1-:,x t I ..;,,t, .1, ; - z.... ','.Y` 4,' :t:,. ,,,,: w; ',: earth tone color, due to the �'". ' - -= �` - - �; - visibility of the property. `"; a` r' • '." k ._. — Condition 9 requires non- reflective glass on the second story, including skylights, to reduce potential glare on surrounding properties. A sample of the exterior and roof materials shall be first reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the submittal of plans for building plan check. Height and Visibility The proposed new residence is sited on the highest point of the property, but is slightly lowered into the hilltop to minimize the visibility of the structure. The structure's building pad is cut into the hilltop to create a daylighted basement level with a first story finish floor that is approximately.2-4 feet lower than the existing residence finish floor. I Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 4 of 16 The location of the main residence has been revised from its proposed site on the original submittal to minimize impacts to the natural vegetation by saving Heritage Oak tree#s 6, 7, and 10, as seen on Sheet A1.1A. A majority of homes built along Sherlock Road are located within 20-40 feet of the roadway and are visible from at least'one direction. This site is one of the high points along Sherlock Road, adding to the visibility and potential view obstruction for nearby properties. Properties along Sherlock Road and surrounding streets are generally single- story or have modest second story features. Lots across the valley to the north contain a mixture of one- and two-story residences. The vertical plane height of the proposed new residence ranges from 24-27 feet from existing grade or building pad, whichever is lower. The maximum overall height is shown to be 35 feet as measured from lowest to highest point of the new residence. As seen in the image below, taken from the southwestern side of Sherlock Road, visibility of the proposed residence may be adequately screened with future landscaping. Story poles have been erected on the site outlining the proposed new residence for the Commissioners' review. Lighting and Landscaping No skylights are proposed on the new residence. The proposed lighting for the exterior of the house is shown on Sheet A1.2. Lighting has been limited to one fixture per exit with one additional light at the entrance of the driveway; for a total of 9 exterior lights on the residence and 4 outdoor lights. Minimal lighting is proposed in the setbacks due to the encroachment of the parking and main residence into the setback. Staff recommends that the exterior lighting be approved as submitted and that all outdoor lighting be forward to the Planning Commission for review along with the landscape screening plan as noted in Condition 2. The image on the right illustrates ' v .te.t .,; " °ir c.:„. the dense brush and oak tree :' �� � s � canopy along the northern and ,. ; � ti - t'� �� s eastern sides of the property and '��q.y rg' ;; .e. r .1 , „g . P P Y 7 gi jl at;; ,,i .- X. T 4 9. -, ,,*-g,1 15, '� ry ',a�L 3. the proposed new residence. A 1^.. 1,,:� f ; , .4.,%•- •:‘..,-4. �' ." _�;;' r sz' 'v.: .sly A� � iS} 7�l1 �. . `'�Sr{�.t�� t%e.�33'i yY4 i, number of existing oak trees are ' %� ti .K 4Z' '� .:F�-7,- f'" •"° §. ._S_, ,N.ix /dZ, also sprinkled on the portion of x ` ' � r. • I•n`"`', . ^tvo.: i the lot south of Sherlock Road ', "' 1}A°:�2�� :'- <- '`' '4 yr .,; et �. ��*B,d' '� 3 r-r�F •-r• " q'Si�15 p� n Most existing vegetation will not � v �,R 1.!'..4 � ;' _``ll '..:.,.4,1:4;i:7 ; . be affected by construction of I;'+ i t -e a t ' ; 4 l ,: :.',.,:,,.:—.M.;- �' +i-moi •-.0;1`- s' -4L. , _ . / F - ' `.,.F ; the proposed residence. se . .1 - However, the proposed structure -., ,,t ; ,c' =' r '� - r ", is located close to the dripline of . one large oak (22 inch as per the arborist report). Condition of approval 3 requires that the trees within the vicinity of the construction be fenced for protection and preservation. Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 5 of 16 New landscaping will be needed around the immediate western and southern areas of the residence, to partially screen the house from adjacent neighbors and Sherlock Road, and to prevent erosion of the lot onto the roadway. Staff has required in Condition 2 that all proposed landscaping plantings on the site consist of at least one-third drought tolerant plantings to minimize runoff and erosion. Due to its higher elevation, it is possible to adequately screen the new residence along the perimeter of the structure. The Planning Commission will review a landscape-screening plan once the house is framed. All planting required for screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection. Swimming Pool The pool is proposed on the eastern portion of the lot. Pool equipment has not been shown on the plans. Project condition of approval 10 will require that all enclosed pool equipment be located out of the setbacks. Driveway and Parking The garage entries will most likely not be seen from the street or most surrounding properties, with the possible exception of the westerly neighbor. The Zoning Ordinance requires at least four on-site parking spaces, which have been provided in the two-car garage and two single uncovered parking spaces located within the required setback from the access easement and at the lower portion of the lot (see Sheet A1.1). Other than the driveway access and one required parking space, no other pavement is proposed within setbacks. The proposed location of the parking space within the setback requires a variance from Code Section 10-1.505. Conservation Easement Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the property owner grant a conservation easement to the Town over all undeveloped portions of the property where the slope is 30 percent or greater to protect the existing dense oak tree canopy and prevent potential erosion of the northern sloped terrain. The conservation easement shall be worded to allow for the construction and maintenance of the approved septic system for the property. Variance The applicant is proposing to locate a portion of the proposed house and the third required parking space within the 40-foot front setback from the edge of the proposed 60'-wide right of way easement. The access easement divides the property into two irregular shaped pieces. Neither piece appears large enough to accommodate a moderately sized home and parking and also satisfy the minimum setback requirement. The applicant had originally set the house 30 feet back from the edge of the existing 25'- Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 6 of 16 wide access easement. Such a structure was considered visually moreobtrusive and less desirable to the immediate and surrounding neighbors due to the loss of substantial oak tree canopy. Reducing the size of the proposed home is another possible means to meet setback requirements. However, the applicant is proposing a modest increase in floor area to what is currently existing on the property. The square footage of the proposed residence is under the MFA for the property and covers a smaller building footprint than the existing structures on the site, as seen on Sheet A1.0. In addition, it is likely that the parking space location would still require a variance. It should be noted that access easements in Town are typically located near property boundaries so as not to unnecessarily restrict future development on the lot. Combined with a required 60' wide right of way dedication, requiring a 40-foot front setback from the edge of the access easement creates an undue hardship for the property owner and does not accomplish much of its usual intended purpose. Setbacks mitigate bulk and height of structures as viewed from adjacent and nearby properties and streets. Setbacks are intended to give neighboring property owners a reasonable measure of natural light. and privacy. Allowing the applicant to encroach within the 40-foot front setback on the interior portion of the lot will not deprive adjacent property owners of natural lighting or privacy and will not substantially increase the height or bulk of the structure as viewed from adjacent properties. Staff has prepared recommended findings in Attachment 2 for the Planning Commission's review. Grading and Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of approval as specified in Attachment 1. All proposed grading on the site conforms to the Town's grading policy. Proposed grading quantities for the project include 1,340 cubic yards of cut, 470 cubic yards of fill, and 870 cubic yards to be off-hauled. The proposed house and driveway includes 1,175 cubic yards of cut and 20 cubic yards of fill. The remaining fill is concentrated at the pool area,and in the form of an earth berm south of the proposed structure to mitigate potential visibility of the structure from across the valley to the south and immediate southeasterly neighbors (see Sheet C1). The proposed drainage for the site involves sheet flow away from the new residence, with two energy dissipators located at least 30 feet from the east and west property lines. The final drainage will be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to final inspection of the residence per condition of approval 13. Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 7 of 16 Septic System The existing septic system partially located on the western and eastern sides of the property will be expanded to accommodate the additional floor area. The County Health Department and Town's geotechnical consultant have reviewed the plans and have preliminarily approved the location of the system. The plans reviewed by the County Health Department did not indicate the recently revised western property boundary. Condition 12 requires two copies of the site plan showingall proposed floor area stamped "Approved" by the Santa Clara County Health Department. Conditions 21 and 22 require the applicant to acquire a permit for the septic system from the Santa Clara County Health Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check and that all conditions of the County Health Department be met prior to final inspection. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has determined that the flow capacity of the nearest fire hydrant will not be adequate for a home of the proposed size. A fire sprinklersystem is required to be installed throughout all portions of the building. Committee Review The Pathways Committee has requested a on-road pathway easement, but as there is not possible location for the construction of a pathway, staff is requesting that the applicant pay a pathway in lieu fee of$33.00 per linear foot of average lot width. The Environmental Design Committee suggests requesting a conservation easement over heavily wooded areas with 30 percent or more slopes. In addition, the committee warns of high erosion potential, which should be addressed in the landscape-screening plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the time of final framing of the new residence. SUMMARY The proposed two-story new residence has raised the concern of neighbors as seen in Attachment 9. A number of residents from Sherlock Road signed a letter requesting that the Planning Commission uphold Article 7 of the Municipal Code as to the height of the proposed structure on a ridgeline. The impacts of building a two-story residence on the proposed site have been minimized, in most instances, relative to existing grade. The house sits lower on the hilltop, than the existing structure. A view of the two-story façade is primarily seen from Sherlock Road to the south and southwest, and to lesser extents from across the valley to the north and to immediate neighbors on the west. If the Planning Commission determines that the visibility of the new residence can not be adequately mitigated from all directions through Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 8 of 16 landscaping, earth tone exterior and roof materials, and minimal exterior and outdoor lighting, then the Commission should require the applicant to reduce the height of the structure to a single story pursuant to Section10-2.702. The proposed project is below the allowable floor and development area for the property and appears to be in general compliance with the requirements of the Zoning and Site Development Codes, with the exception of the request for a variance to encroach into the 40-foot front setback. Staff has prepared findings in support of the variance.for the Commission's review. The Planning Commission does have the discretion pursuant to Sections 10-1.245 and 10-2.702(b) to require the structure to be reduced in height, if the Planning Commission considers it excessive for this ridgeline site. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval; 2. Recommended findings for approval of the Variance; 3. Worksheet#2; 4. Tree Survey, Assessment and Recommendations for 27181 Sherlock Road, revision date November 20, 2002; 5. Cotton, Shires &Associates,Inc., Geotechnical comments,.dated June 13, 2002; 6. Santa Clara County Fire Department comments, dated June 4, 2002; 7. Environmental Design &Protection Committee evaluation,received June 13, 2002; 8. Pathway Committee recommendation, date received September 30, 2002; 9. Letter from members of Sherlock Road neighborhood, date received December 5, 2002; 10. Parcel map of 27181 Sherlock Road and surrounding properties; 11. Development plans cc: Howard and Sylvia Weale Torin Knorr 720 Dolores Street 253 South B Street Stanford, CA 94305 San Mateo, CA 94401 li Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 9 of 16 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SIM DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A NEW RESIDENCE, PARKING, AND SWIMMING POOL LANDS OF WEALE, 13310 LA PALOMA ROAD File#93-02-ZP-SD-GD-VAR A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission (depending on the scope of the changes). 2. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening, outdoor lighting, and erosion control plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Particular attention shall be given to plantings that will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. Staff recommends that one third of all proposed plantings be drought tolerant plantings. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control (as determined by the Planning Department and City Engineer)must be installed prior to final inspection. 3. Prior to beginning any grading operation or demolition, all significant trees in the vicinity of construction are to be fenced at the drip line. The chain link fencing shall clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to granting of demolition permit. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fence must remain throughout the- course of construction and the construction crew shall pay special attention to the care of the existing trees. No storage of materials, equipment, vehicles, or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of the fenced trees. Any grading or work to be done within the dripline of a Heritage Oak tree must be supervised by a certified arborist and a report shall be submitted prior to final inspection indicating the health of the Heritage Oak trees and that any repair work on the trees has been completed according to the arborist's original project recommendations. 4. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit) equal to $5,000.00, shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 - Page l0of16 5. Exterior finish colors shall be chosen by the applicant and shall exhibit a light reflectivity value of 50 or less, per manufacturer specifications, and be an earth tone color to blend in with the natural surroundings. Roof materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 -or less, per manufacturer specifications, and be an earth tone color to blend in with the natural surroundings. White trim area should be minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, columns, railings, and trellises.; All color samples shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s)prior to final inspection. 6. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 7. Fire retardant roofing(Class A)is required for all new construction. 8. The Planning Commission shall review any additional outdoor lighting with the landscape screening plan. _ Lighting fixtures shall generally be shielded downlights. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. Any security lighting shall be limited in number and directed away from clear view of neighbors, and shielding with shrouds or louvers is suggested. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of lighting shouldnot be directly visible from off the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights,except where determined tobe necessary for safety. 9. Non-reflective glass shall be used on all second.story windows and all skylights and a sample shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the submittal of plans for building plan check. 10. Standard swimming pool requirements: a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site. b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the satisfaction of the Town Engineering Inspector. c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety. d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides for noise mitigation, and the enclosure shall be screened with landscaping. The pool equipment enclosure may not encroach,into any required setbacks. 11. The property owner shall grant a conservation easement to the Town over all undeveloped portions of the property where the slope is 30% or greater. A provision shall be made in the conservation easement agreement to allow for the construction and maintenance of the approved septic system for the property. The property owner shall provide legal description and i Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 11 of 16 plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The grant document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 12. The applicant shall submit two copies of the final site plan showing all proposed floor area stamped "Approved" by the Santa Clara County Health Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 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. Two copies of the final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by the Engineering'Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 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. A letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations 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 (November 1 to April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 15. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 16. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and prior to final inspection, the location and elevation of the new residence shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location and elevation shown on the approved Site Development plan. At the time of framing inspection for the new residence, the height of each building shall be similarly certified as being at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan. 17. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 12 of 16 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. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. 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. 18. 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 Sherlock Road and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; clean-up area; 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. 19. 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. 20. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,prior to final inspection. 21. A permit for the septic system shall be issued by the Santa Clara County Health Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 22. Conditions of the Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to final inspection. 23. The property owner shall dedicate a 60' wide public right of way to the Town over Sherlock Road, 12.5' to the east of existing centerline of the road and 47.5' to the west of existing centerline of the road. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 13 of 16 property owner and returned to the Town prior to submittal of plans for building plan check. 24. The applicant shall pay a pathway fee of $33.00 per linear foot of average lot width. The fee shall be paid prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 25. As recommended by Cotton, Shires &Associates in their report dated June 13, 2002, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Geotechnical Plan Review — The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and final grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. For conformance with prevailing local design parameters, minimum 16-inch diameter foundation piers should be considered, reinforced with a minimum of four #5 vertical bars. The consultant should specifically evaluate and comment on the following items: • The proposed septic leachfield placement should be evaluated. The potential impact of the leachfield on the slope stability shall be assessed. If necessary, alternative locations for septic leachfield lines should be recommended. • The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate proposed locations of drainage dissipators with respect to potential slope stability and erosional impacts. • Supplemental geotechnical design parameters deemed necessary for the proposed basement should be prepared. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. Geotechnical Field Inspection—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 and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. Planning Commission Lands of Weale December 12,2002 Page 14 of 16 The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy)project approval. For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires &Associates dated June 13, 2002. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 26. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in the new residence. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Fire Department, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check, and the sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department,prior to final inspection. 27. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. D. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 28. All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet#2 to school district offices (both the elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their receipts. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments at least two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. CONDITION NUMBERS 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19,21,23, 24, 25a,AND 26 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until December 12, 2003). 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. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/9/03 December 12, 2002 Page 5 Co ssioner Clow voiced support of the project with the . anges suggested ($25,000 bond; ad 'onal trees previously noted, and the requeste• .1 lars and mail box as shown on the plans). Co • • 'ssioners Cottrell,Wong, Kerns a a itu also voiced support. MOTION SECONDED —.ID PASSED:�Motno by Commissioner Wong and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to a.or`e the request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan, Lands of•6ei an & Cheng, 24004 Oak Knoll Circle, with the following additions/changes to) condition f approval: $25,000 bond for landscaping to be installed within six 7riths; approving thb .pillars and mailbox move; and requiring the additional trees (one/oak tree at the corner and t additional 15 gallon Deodar Cedar between the evergr s along Stonebrook Drive). AYES: ,Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Kerns, Wong, Cott e1 & Clow NOES: //None • This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period. 3.6 LANDS OF WEALE, 27181 Sherlock Road (93-02-ZP-SD-GD- VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and swimming pool, and variance to encroach into the 40 foot front setback. Staff(Angelica Herrera) provided an overview of the site development permit request. She noted that the applicant has requested that the pool area be withdrawn from the application. Staff has received letters of concern from the following: Freda Hofland, Dona Charkowicz, Lester Thompson, and Mr. and Mrs. Patmore. Staff provided a statement outlining and discussing the neighbors concerns. The main concerns involve the heritage oaks that are on the property which are meant to be protected, and with the construction within the dripline of tree#2. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring an arborist report be submitted prior to final inspection stating the health of all of the heritage oak trees on the site and recommendations in terms of the grading and the work that was done within the dripline to determine if it was done according to the arborist recommendations. She further discussed the review process for the landscape screening plans. Another concern was the maximum development area numbers. The proposed MDA for the property is 7,500 square feet. The applicant proposed 7,237 square feet. Staff and the architect did not take into account the lower driveway on the south portion of the lot that was to be removed with the existing residence. Because of the revisions that have been done to the siting of the house, the lower driveway now needs to be kept in order to access the forth parking space. This added an additional 400 square feet to the development area figures, bringing it over the allowable. The applicant has withdrawn the pool area in order to comply with the MDA. Other concerns involved the house located within setback, incorrect boundary, and three stories on a ridgeline. Commissioners Vitu, Cottrell and Kerns disclosed they had met with the applicants on the site. Discussion ensued regarding the applicant being burdened with the 60 foot road right of way since they own both sides Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/9/03 December 12, 2002 Page 6 of the road, rather than the usual 30 foot half width. The Planning Director referred to the General Plan Circulation and Scenic Roadway Elements. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Torin Knorr, 253 South B Street, San Mateo, project architect, provided a history of the project, the variance request, the height, meeting with the neighbors, and working with revisions. He provided renderings of the project noting the house is actually a stepped house. He noted that the MDA/MFA is now in conformance and that the 23" oak tree will not be impacted by the basement. They have addressed the parking issue. He also noted that this house is not the only house on the ridge top, some even encroaching into the setbacks. He provided a number of views of homes on ridge tops from Deer Springs Road, Altamont Road, and Sherlock Road toward Sherlock Court. Howard Weale, 720 Dolores Street, Stanford, applicant, purchased the property 11/2 years ago. He and his wife enjoy the rural and wooded area. They have worked hard to accommodate the neighbors. There appears to be two concerns: encroachment within setbacks, and the style not fitting into the neighborhood. They have proposed a home to fit their family needs, all within code. He felt the variance findings were reasonable. Sylvia Weale, 720 Dolores Street, Stanford, applicant, noted that they did consider a one story home but decided on two stories to preserve the land. They are very sensitive regarding the existing trees. The three trees to be removed are in the center of the lot. She referred to condition #11 regarding conservation easement over all undeveloped portions of the property where the slope is 30% or greater, requesting this be changed to 50% or greater. Lester Thompson, 27070 Sherlock Road, is located to the east of the building site. From his direction this structure appears as a full three story structure which will overlook his master bedroom and bath. He did not feel the new landscaping could mitigate this problem. This three story structure will also be visible from Hidden Villa Ranch including the trails on Elephant Mountain, Deer Park Lane, and Byrne Park Lane. He felt this violates the Site Development Ordinance with regard to multi-stories on a ridgeline, and the Zoning Code with regard to the 35 foot special height limitation. The chimney above the roof line is at elevation 754 feet. The difference of 42 feet exceeds the 35 foot special height limitation. He felt the grading cut for the basement is in conflict with the Arborist's report. This alarms him since the basement grading excavation will be substantially within the dripline of the following oak trees: #2, #6, #7, and #13. This excavation appears especially inappropriate inasmuch as the four trees are an important part of the applicants use of natural vegetation to reduce the obtrusive nature of the two story structure on a ridgeline. Dona Charkowicz, 27223 Sherlock Road, provided a letter of concerns regarding the Heritage Oaks, the MDA, the house located within setback, the incorrect boundary, and the three stories on a ridgeline. The Heritage Oaks provide shielding. Tree #2 has been Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/9/03 December 12, 2002 Page 7 pruned without an arborist present and shrubs have been removed by the contractors. Contractors have stripped away bark leaving gashes on the trees. The staff report does not mention the damage to the trees. From the road you can see houses on Sherlock Road but they have privacy between the properties. If this house was moved away from the setback, it would allow an area for landscaping. The parking is not adequate suggesting parking on the other side. She further discussed views from her home, the incorrect boundary, and three stories on a ridgeline. Freda Hofland, 27070 Sherlock Road, provided a history of the project noting plan 1 was not in conformance, and plan 2 was better but still not in conformance. She felt the Heritage Oak trees safety was in question. She referred to the staff report, page 15, variance findings (modest home and modest increase in floor area), noting the applicants have alternatives: (1) build a one-story residence using the stepped down natural landscape and lower pad with less height on the ridgeline; (2) reduce the size of the residence; and (3) build two structures, one on either side of the road, as the former owner did. She concluded stating they expect the project to meet current Town regulations regarding MFA/MDA, setback, definition of a basement, height, and preservation of Heritage Oaks. She asked for careful attention to the sensitive ridgeline and the tree issue. Chris Schiebold, 27260 Sherlock Road, is currently building a house on his property which is a one story structure. He objected to a two story home on the ridgeline which has maxed out all of the height restrictions. This will be a very visible house referring to Article 7 of the Municipal Code. This proposed house belongs on a flat two acre site, not on a prominent ridge in Los Altos Hills. Susan Stulz, 27260 Sherlock Road, noted they are currently under construction. She felt the neighborhood was great and they received support regarding their new construction. She felt it was easy working with staff on a project that met all codes and ordinances with the help of their architect. As noted in the staff report, staff had advised the applicants of Code Section 10-2.702(b). She asked the Commission to make the best decision they can so they can all return to being good neighbors. Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, thanked the neighbors for their concern regarding protecting the trees and the ridgeline. She referred to the change to the slope density formula which allowed constraint lots more area. However, people are still applying for variances because they cannot fit their house on the lot. The edge is pushed again. Torin Knorr, architect, read a portion of Article 7, building siting, view protection, ridgeline preservation, creek protection, item (4) noting they have adhered to three out of four items. He discussed the stepping of the structure, the height of the chimneys (10- 1.504(1)), view of Mr. Thompson's site, the square footage of the basement including a 400 square foot garage, and the tree pruning done by an irresponsible contractor and the arborist report regarding the pruning. These trees have never been pruned. Normally, the trees are pruned prior to construction. Regarding the house to the street and having the property developed on the lower area, the driveway would not meet the Town grading Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/9/03 December 12, 2002 Page 8 policy for a driveway. The lower area also has the septic system. This is not a three story structure and they have met the variance findings. It was noted that the arborist was aware of the full basement when making recommendations. Sylvia Weale discussed the pruning of an oak tree which had only one large limb cut off which should not effect the screening. Also, they have changed the septic system which was approved today and revised plans should be received. Lastly, she disagreed with the three story facade noting it would not be visible. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow felt the site could not support everything the applicants are proposing. He would not support anything more than a one story structure on this site. This is a ridgeline, and highly visible site. These oak trees should be preserved (preserve ridgeline). He also cannot support the variance request. Again, they are putting too much living area on this site. He was concerned with the fact that every neighbor spoke out against the project. He would prefer a redesign to a one story, not impacting the oaks, and not in the setbacks. Commissioner Kerns felt this was a difficult site. The applicants have tried to make adjustments to accommodate the neighbors. They have sited the house as good as they could. He was concerned with the protection of the trees, making sure to reduce the impact on them. He could support the height as the site can be mitigated. The encroachment into the setback was not a concern as the existing structure encroaches more and pushing the house back would impact the trees. He was concerned with the 60 foot right of way as he felt the road would never be widened suggesting leaving the current 25 foot right of way. The request for a conservation easement over 50% or greater slopes rather than 30% or greater slopes was agreeable. Commissioner Wong felt the project conforms with the code. He would like to see an arborist on site to make sure the trees are protected. He also felt a one story home would be more damaging to the site. The variance request was a concern asking that the design be worked out to eliminate the variance. Commissioner Cottrell discussed ridgelines noting there are houses all over that ridgeline and all over town. As long as this house meets the height requirements, he can support the two story structure. It is a large house for the site but the size could be reduced to avoid the variance. He agreed that the trees should be protected also requesting an arborist be present during construction of the structure and basement. This is not a three story structure. There can be additional landscaping to mitigate any concerns. He also agreed with the applicant regarding the conservation easement over 30% or greater slope is too restrictive, recommending 50%. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/9/03 December 12, 2002 Page 9 Chairman Vitu did not feel this was a highly visible lot and it is well screened with the oak trees. A one story home would be more disruptive on this site. Regarding the variance, the road right of way makes this site very restrictive which is an excessive burden on the property. Many of the homes along Sherlock Road are built very close to the road. This is actually an improvement as the existing structure is closer to the road. She was also concerned with protecting the trees requesting the presence of an arborist on site during construction. She also agreed with the request for a conservation easement over the 50% or greater slopes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Kerns and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to change the wording in condition #11 from 30% to 50% slopes and add "following the tree canopy line as shown on the site plan", Lands of Weale, 27181 Sherlock Road. AYES: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Wong, Clow, Kerns &Cottrell NOES: None Discussion ensued regarding condition #23 and possible modifications to the right of way or to shift the house to possibly eliminate the variance request. Also discussed was changing the 40 foot setback to 30 foot setback referring to the Inglin project on Moody Road. The Planning Director reviewed setbacks per code. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to approve the request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and variance to encroach into the 40 foot front setback; Lands of Weale, 27181 Sherlock Road, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: the structure must meet the height ordinance; arborist report required on the health of tree #2 prior to acceptance of building plans for plan check; implement arborist recommendations; verify chimney height conforms with code; and revised condition#1 stating the pool is not a part of this approval. AYES: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Kerns & Cottrell NOES: Commissioners Wong & Clow This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period. 3.7 LANDS OF . I GULAR WIRELESS—( ands of Sarraf), 11997 Hilltop Drive (210-02-C V' ; Arequgsr a Conditional Use Permit renewal. This item was introduced by st f (An,;: ica Herrera) noting this was a renewal of an existing Conditional Use Pe t. No change 1 .roposed to the existing facility. Since this facility was found comply with the requi • CUP findings and the Wireless Communications olicy when it was originally appro,-d, and no complaints or other TTACHMENT 3 HYDE SOLAR LIGHTS ROUND(SET OF 6) }(�� � -$295 Sale$222-$236 y _ Our highly efficient solar lights use state-of-the-art r` technology to provide as much illumination as gll —J - �__--) conventional low-voltage outdoor lighting,yet - .. _ _._ require no wiring.Simply stake them into the I - , ground to illuminate walkways and gardens. \I! t - Ili � I I - Hide product details... } i l F (s I I • Crafted from corrosion-free cast aluminum with ( a I. glass cage # i ; 1,. k • Provides up to 9 hours of light daily when fully e•,, 1 1. �y ' M� charged , I • N �{ �'' y 1s' � '�}*•^ " • 2 bright-white LED bulbs shine throughout the k` s , /I r,t l'. .,,i' �' 4 �; , 1 ;�,per-, ,. s•... year,even on cloudy days u �.`"rL' • Large crystalline solar panels capture maximum -wok gtaky, . ;i_ '„.'1.1.r`" , energy o + 0tr. .�-- ,.. , q i,^w `ii, ,i-,%--''1.1.4--,// = I`,. • Innovative step-down technology adjusts the ...r4.1„....,2---r - q 1 - , amount of light emitted during the night, % '"U-1 `- ���,. y ,r'<,' F conserving battery power l4' `�`' -; P-Z, v .., ,-...:4171-,,,,,,Ie , .,..f , • Micro controller with sunlight monitoring and • batteryovercharge protection F` 4 'f ✓ 'I,V• .+'• j? _ t- I �^2 • - ' • •-- • Uses 1 state-of-the-art lithium phosphate `t ...,/:,,, ��: ' 14t1i1,"ti y�` , , ;Q I,r _� batteries(included) tit • r11'I1- �'l,tt • Energy-efficient Nichia LEDs provide 35 lumens �j 0�r+ ,�a t I a 4f�i z �' . of warm illumination ( \ , x • a ` • ,t a LED lights never need to be replaced r M„ ��r'' . - �' • Batteries are replaceable i ��- �• r4, Ar,://41411/rf k ,.t. • Automatic on/off light sensor g �.q�- • Manual on/off internal switch : ,e. ^ti ' _A.I 4 or'Wy ,�_ --, t# �r sr I'e, c `�� •• Easy to assemble,they require no tools or tstib; :� --0.14%.,(. �= ' r-r- -�" ' ' r'`„e. �"i wiring and easily stake into the ground ',3 ,�^%nw4'•S y _e,,, ` „to... °�%'4 'i °' '-i-,41-1,. - • Weathered zinc finish ' fh , , fr' 9,. c> '' Jr e( •`(�'' ty 1 • Set of 6 DIMENSIONS 6W diam.,15"H Finish Options HYDE SOLAR LIGHTS ROUND(SET OF 6)-6M"DIAM.,15"I1 ''.7-----.-:--- -` $295 Sale$222-$236 ITEMtt 42900088 BRZ rII 41i, FINISH PRICE QUANTITY 1 ,, ," `+� ',Antique Bronze 1 $295 Cy 0 ` �I " Sale$222 ea k.�Y;��. 'I` AVNLAB ILFIY&DELIVERY yam +°..,, , , ,,j; Expect delivery on or before 11/09/14. Standard Delivery Shinning BOOKMARK&SHARE [ Tweet g0 INTRODUCING RH FINANCING SPEND 53000 OR MORE, PAY AS LITTLE AS $44 PER MONTHS 5,99%APR FOR 84 MONTHS" ABPi.Y NOW OR IN OUR GALLERIES,.DETAILS..:i ATTACHMENT 4 Walter Levison AL,, CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WC-3172 10/28/2014 Re: 27181 Sherlock, Los Altos Hills/Oak Tree Status To whom it may concern: Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist(WLCA)was requested by the owner to perform a follow-up visit to the above noted site to verify existing conditions of oak trees previously surveyed by WLCA in 2002. The following are WLCA's findings and suggestions for tree maintenance based on the field visit today. The original tree map is attached to this memo for reference. Original Tree Tag Condition Current NumberSpecies Rating Condition Notes and Recommendations Equivalency Rating 2014 2002 Requires root crown excavation by an arborist 1 Coast live oak Fair Fair to remove fill soil to expose the natural flaring (Quercus agrifolia) buttress roots. Requires root crown excavation by an arborist 2 Coast live oak Good Good to remove fill soil to expose the natural flaring (Quercus agrifolia) buttress roots. Requires root crown excavation by an arborist to remove fill soil to expose the natural flaring 3 Coast live oak Good Fair to Good buttress roots. (Quercus agrifolia) Root loss from construction of stairs and landings. 4 Coast live oak Good Good No comments. (Quercus agrifolia) 5 Coast live oak Good (Tree removed (Tree removed per site plan) (Quercus agrifolia) per site plan) 6 Coast live oak Fair Fair Tree was topped to clear the new residence (Quercus agrifolia) airspace. 7 Coast live oak Good Good No comments. (Quercus agrifolia) 8 Coast live oak Fair Fair No comments. (Quercus agrifolia) 9 Coast live oak Good Good No comments. (Quercus agrifolia) 10 Coast live oak Good Good No comments. (Quercus agrifolia) Requires root crown excavation by an arborist 11 Coast live oak Good Good to remove fill soil to expose the natural flaring (Quercus agrifolia) buttress roots. Coast live oak Death appears to be due to infection with 12 Excellent DEAD, sudden oak death pathogen (aka SOD) (Quercus agrifolia) 1 of Walter Levison©2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email drtreec sbcglobal.net Walter LevisonALS A CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WC-3172 Coast live oak The tree may continue to decline or die as a 13 Good Poor. result of the loss of function of a large (Quercus agrifolia) percentage of its woody root system. Coast live oak Requires root crown excavation by an arborist 14 Excellent Excellent to remove fill soil to expose the natural flaring (Quercus agrifolia) buttress roots. 15 Coast live oak Excellent Excellent No comments. (Quercus agrifolia) Author's side note: Some of the reduction in live twig extension and live twig density we are seeing on these trees may have been caused by factors outside of human control such as, but not limited to: a. Droughty soil conditions (soil moisture deficit) b. California oak moth larvae infestations, which have been unusually intense over the last 24 months or so. Root crown excavation should be performed by a qualified tree care company, using dull rounded hand tools, to reestablish original soil grade between the trunk edges and two feet out from the trunk edges, such that the buttress root flares are exposed as normal. Call reputable companies in the peninsula area such as The Shady Tree Company, Advanced Tree Care, Trees 360, etc.for quotes. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct.Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent. management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. 2of3 Walter Levison©2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email drtreeasbcalobal.net • Walter Levison f.,�,h CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WC-3172 This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. • Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues.Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant 3 of 3 Walter Levison©2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email drtreena sbcalobal.net . . / 4iø / 5 ' r . , 1', 166,,..„a 1/ kJ In /-4,,,,,,„..----V I, 4„,„„) • • ''''''''''::''.--4: /11 I , 000 i 1;t ' t 6 4 illiro ,"!`r's •-/' Ai, 401011116 orit 44ir 1111.I :4111:'' t t 4,34.,.. ...:-.4'......„.., lb 1 4,-..' *sr"' gitio * , 0 anumna 0 - 001111e6r hailei , .. ii. . .,,, , , ...,„.. ,,, „„ippe dee 4 . #fi—iiii4b7,,,‘ 1,,,, - - / ,,,,,„'... -,,,,,.,..,,,/,--- r ' t, irpti, . ,.\kS, I° " , ,s;% 104 iiir.d.,...4., ii,,,:t. "Ii..,,, /00:4 40101$1 • 0# ,,, * \;.-,,,,,-; ,. '—' '''' ,..,11.4'4 ..4 ( / Ilib 0 1 _.,.....--- a, --' ' --7'''''''-. 7 7 i/ 04 ,,, 1 t.......,,. ‘-* -21".• . --.(---4---.^ # jr-',,,,,,,,,,,,::...„,-- / t iiit i 1'111)1 . -11 71, 61_ . , )..4 ( I , .4,. t - i I i \ 4* diks\ p ---,A.'' - 1 k. s 110 1111104 N \I . _ . ' \ , 'itii ''''' 1*4:111:::: '''''' 'ill/ 1 It ,'''\'.. ; :J: t i „ \\kits 1-1;- ., _ . -c ', , ,-; r.;.: - , 7 1 . ...., • icA.- `-' ATTACHMENT 5 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE P3 FSPS' Application for: �Cr �y� . .6_4,_p_coli-r �s�I201 Applicant Name: fjecti ONac,(. ` Applicant Address: ------- Reviewed by'--•------------------------..._ Date: /__0/ II* COMMENTS Site Impact (PiC(4/1 Lig ting _ - • Noise Creeks ------...----------•-•------•--------------- • Drainage Easements Existing Vegitation - - - - Mitigation t� ) ATTACHMENT 6 Cynthia Richardson From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:05 AM To: Cynthia Richardson Subject: FW: Lands of Wheale, 27181 Sherlock Road From:Sherlock,Joan [mailto:j.sherlock@sap.com] Sent:Tuesday,January 27, 2015 8:27 PM To:Suzanne Avila - Cc: kerryk@gmail.com; kay.nicholson@gmail.com; schieboldconsulting@gmail.com; sstulz@gmail.com Subject: Re: Lands of Wheale, 27181 Sherlock Road Hi Suzanne, I received notification this eveningof the Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Wheale's landscape screening plan. Unfortunately I leave tomorrow morning for a 10 day business trip to Germany and will not have the opportunity to attend, nor to come by and review the approved plan from back in 2002. This was not enough warning. We've lived through 13 arduous years of a very ugly and badly maintained construction site next to our houses and I would like to have the opportunity to see what we're going to have to live next to - long term. The original plans were rushed through at the end of 2002 without an opportunity to comment at that time. Is it possible to put off the hearing until after February 8 when I return? I believe that's fair. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Joan Joan Sherlock Vice President SAP Global Marketing 3410 Hillview Ave Palo Alto,CA 94304 T +1-650-461-2958 M+1-650-400-1336 E j.sherlock@sap.com www.linkedin.com/in/joansherlock/ 1