The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.2ITEM 3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 6, 2013 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: A REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH I AN I ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT AND A SETBACK EXCEPTION FOR EAVE ENCROACHMENT; LANDS OF TAVASSOLI AND EMAMI; 13761 LA PALOMA ROAD; FILE #278-12-ZP-SD-GD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Plannez�o, APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director v? RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: ; - Approve -the requested Site Development Permit for residence with an -attached ......:......... p secondary dwelling Unit and a setback exception for the roof eaves to encroach up`to 2" into the side -yard . setbacks, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and Findings of Approval in_Attachments.1-:and BACKGROUND, The 1.0 acre property is located at the western side of La Paloma Road. There is- currently a 3,404 square foot- residence and garage built in 1953 on the property. In addition there are four (4) accessory buildings on the property. The surrounding uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the west, north, south, and across La Paloma Road to the east. The -applicant -is -requesting approval -of a Site Development Permit to demolish' -the existing structures,, except -.for the, existing, garage .located within the south property line setback, and construct a -5;999 square foot two story residence with an attached secondary dwelling unit. Legal Non -Conforming Structures to Remain The pool, pool 'equipment, and two (2) - car garage are currently encroaching/located within . the south side property line setback. These structures ..are on previously approvedplans-arid the owner is not proposing"to modify these at this time. If any of the structures need to be replaced, restored, or repaired more than ' 50% o, the entire structure shall be removed pursuant, to Section 10-1.401 of the'LAHMC (condition of approval #6). The applicant has provided a letter from a structural engineer to verify the condition of the existing garage is structurally sound and suitable to remain "as -is" as a part of the new residence (Attachment 8). Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoli & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 2 of 12 CODE REQUIREMENTS This application for a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission -for-review pursuant to Section 10-1.1007(2) of the Municipal Code. The Zoning and Site Development sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate proposed projects including floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height, setbacks, visibility, and parking requirements. DISCUSSION Site Data: Net Lot Area: 1.0 acres Average Slope: 8.4% Lot Unit Factor: 1.0 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sq ft) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 15,500* 12,785 13,582 797 1,981 Floor 67000 4,494 5;999 1,505 1 * 500 sq ft development area bonus Per Section 10-1..502 (b) (6) of the LAHMC Site and Architecture The proposed project meets the height, floor area, and development area requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The new residence is located a minimum of 204' from the east (front) property line, 110' from the west (rear) property line, the building walls are 30' from the north (side) property line, and the building walls are 30' from the south (side) property line. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 25'6" and the maximum overall height of the building (including 6himneys and appurtenances) from the lowest point to the highest point is 27'. Proposed exterior materials consist of a stucco exterior, clay tile roof, and stone veneer. The main level of the new residence has 3,145 square feet of area which includes a family room, kitchen, nook, foyer, wet bar, living room, secondary dwelling unit, and dining room. The second floor has 2,118 square feet of living area which includes the master bedroom and bath, three bedrooms with baths, laundry room, workout room, and storage room. Driveway & Parking The existing'driveway will be removed and replaced with a new driveway primarily within the same location. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoh & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 3 of 12 Pursuant to; Section 10-1.601 of the Municipal Code, a total of. five (5) parking spaces are required. The existing garage can accommodate two (2) cars and three (3) exterior parking spaces are proposed in compliance with property line setbacks. Trees & Landscaping The property has mature landscaping along the perimeter consisting of pines, cypress, lollypop tree, pear, privet, walnut, birch, maple, pistachio, liquid amber, china doll, and xylosma trees. There are no heritage oak trees on the property. One birch tree, near the proposed entry, is .proposed to be removed with this application. Grading and Drainage Total grading quantities include importing 4 cubic yards of fill for the new residence. The Engineering Department has reviewed the -proposed grading plan and concluded that it is in conformance with the Town's grading policy. _.. . Water runoff generated from the new development will flow into splash blocks , then into the grassy swale. The proposed application has less impervious surface then the existing development so no detention on site is required. Pursuant to Section 10-2:503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Department will review and approve the final drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as -built" grading and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection. Exception In evaluating an exception, the Planning Commission must determine if there are unusual or limiting physical circumstances on the lot that create a practical difficulty for the applicant to comply with the, typical standards. The current residence encroaches into the north side yard, setback up to 12'. In addition, the existing legal non conforming two car garage located within the south side setback (proposed to remain) 6' feet from the property line. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoli & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 4 of 12 a,9, ----- _ �� -�i�"Gad —�--,. • ., N= (e) Residence to be remov it ` (n)residence --- (n) Rmf eave Because the property is unusually narrow and the available width to build in is 62', the applicant is requesting. an eave encroachment of up two (2) feet within the north side and south side property line setbacks. The proposal .is; reducing the overall amount of setback encroachment compared to existing conditions. Neighbor Concerns On December 12, 2013 planning, staff received an email from Dave and Lisa Mooring at 13791 La Paloma Road (along the north property line of the subject property) stating that the proposed residence needs to comply with' the Town's "La Paloma Corridor Policy". The La Paloma Corridor is referenced as an area at the north end of La Paloma Road, and that the policy requires low profile single story homes in the La Paloma basin (Attachment 5). When the Moorings built their house in 1995 they submitted .plans for a 27' tall new residence, the Planning Commission and City Council required that it be lowered to 24'. Staff has researched this policy,and.found that it was not formally created by the City Council by policy or .resolution. In the 1990's the Planning Commission and City Council were requiring that homes within this area to be lowered and varied setbacks on. a case by case basis to retain the visual openness between neighboring residences. In response to the practice of routinely requireing more restrictive development standards in this area, Council directed staff to draft a' policy restricting the height of new residences and increasing the front setback in the late 1990's. A draft La Paloma'Corridor Policy was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1998 (Attachment 7). The draft policy stalled in process and was never reviewed or approved by the City Council. Archive research has revealed that five (5) new residences along the northern portion of La Paloma Road were required .to be a maximum height of up to 24' by. the Planning Commission and/or City Council during this time. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoli & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 5 of 12 On May 17; 2013, the City Attorney provided a letter to the Mooring's stating that this policy is not in exist ence'and. the Town staff cannot require the proposed house to be, lowered (Attachment 6). However, the Planning Commission evaluates applications on a case by case basis with the development standards set forth in the Municipal Code The Commission has the discretion to limit the height of structures and require greater setbacks in accordance with the adopted regulations (LAHMC Sections 10-1.504 (f) and 10-1.505 (e)). Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring a sprinkler system throughout all portions of the new residence (Attachment 3). Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends the applicant construct a type 2B path along La Paloma Road (condition #27). The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented to include .the standard skylight warning (Attachment 4). Green Building Ordinance This project is required to comply with the Town's Green Building Ordinance. The new residence is designed to achieve 168 points in Build it Green's GreenPoint Rated program. CSA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a). ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Recommended Findings of Approval of the Setback Exception 3. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated December 17, 2012 4. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated December 12, 2012 5. Email from neighbor at 13791 La Paloma Road (Lands of Mooring) dated December 12, 2012 6. Letter from Meyers Nave dated May 17, 2013 7. Staff report with draft La Paloma Policy dated July 8, 1998 8. Letter from Engineering West dated January 11, 2013 9. Worksheet #2 10. Site Development Plans Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoli & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE. WITH ATTACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT LANDS OF TAVASSOLI. AND EMAMI, 13761 LA PALOMA ROAD File # 278-12-ZP-SD-GD PLANNING DEPARTMENT: :_.l.. -;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.- All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum .(E: camaldulensis), Swarimp Gum (E rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property located within. 150' of any structures or roadways, shall be removed ,pnor .to finaL inspection: of the new... residence,- Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take`place between the begmriing of August and . e-end`:of January to avoid- disturbance=of nesting birds protected -under the Federai--MigratoryBird`—Treaty Act (MBTA) ,and California Department of Fish and Game Code., Section , 35.00 ,et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and -there is a determination�thdt th&6e are -no active nests within the tree. 3. ' After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans ,.for review by the Site Development Committee. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at anoticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed -.prior to 'final inspection .of the new residence. The landscape screening plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient landscaping). of the Los -Altos Hills Municipal Code. 4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An 'inspection of the landscape to ' , ensure adequate establishment . and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 5. Prior to beginning any grading -operation, all significant trees, particularly the heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the. drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and . structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect -tlie .fencing `and tlie trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner slall.call for Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoli & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 7 of 12 said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of .equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. 6. The legal non -conforming pool, pool equipment, and two (2) car garage encroaching within the south property line setback shall be removed when the 5.0% of the area is repaired, restored, or replaced per section 10-1.401 (d) of the LAHMC. 7. Exterior finish colors of all buildings shall have a light reflectivity value of 50 or less and roof materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less, per manufacturer specifications. All color samples shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior to final inspection. 8. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the.new residence and roof eaves are no less than 40' from the front property line and 28' from the side, and 30' from the rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to. requesting a final inspection. 9. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence complies with the 27' maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall. be similarly certified in writing and state that "all points of the buildings (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35 ) foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letters) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final inspection. 10. No new fences are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require. review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 11. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the plans. There shall be one light per door or two for double doors. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or be down lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoli & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 8 of 12 12. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material).. No lighting maybe placed within skylight wells. 13. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 14. At time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance: a. A GreenPoint Rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points: The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure. to be used to attain the required points. b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed. by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. 15. Prior to fmal inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building professional shall provide documentation verifying that the building was constructed in compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED® certification. - 16. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 17. Two sets of a final Grading and Drainage plan shall be submitted for review and 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 site grading and drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans prior to final inspection. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoh & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 9 of 12 18. All hydrant use is strictly prohibited by the Purissima Hills Water District. A permit for obtaining water for grading and construction purposes must be obtained from the Purissima Hills Water District, and submitted for approval to the Town Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building check. The permit will authorize the use of water from specific on-site or off-site water sources. 19. 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 (October 15 to April 15) 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. 20. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should.contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. 21. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. 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. 22. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on La Paloma 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 GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 23. 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoli & Emann 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 10 of 12 24. The property owner shall dedicate a 30' wide half -width public right of way to the Town over La Paloma 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 property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 25. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' wide sanitary sewer- easement along the existing sewer main line to the Town. 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 property owner- and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 26. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final -inspection.- An -encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public, right of.way prior to start work. 27. The property owner shall construct a type 2B pathway along La Paloma Road to the satisfaction of the Engineering. Department prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department for all work in the public right of way prior to start work. 28. The driveway shall be roughened where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final inspection. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 29. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted. to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos,. CA - 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 30. Provide and access driveway with a paved all weather- surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13'6", minimum circulating turning radius of -36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Grades of 20% for up to 300 feet may be permitted with the approval of the Chief. Installations shall conform to fire department standard details and specifications sheet D-1. CFC Sec. 503. 31. 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoli & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 11 of 12 32. Potable water supplies shall be protected from -contamination cause by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design, of any water based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply.systems or storage. 33. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and our standard detail and specifications SI -7. CONDITION NUMBERS 7,16,17,18,, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED :OFF BY, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.. Project approvalmaybe appealed if done so- in writing within 2-2 days of the date of this notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the BuildingDepartment after the appeal period is over provided the applicant has completed all conditions - of approval required prior to, acceptance of plans for building plan check. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until June 6, 2014) 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. Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that these Conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000, . you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you. may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Tavassoh & Emami 13761 La Paloma Road June 6, 2013 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 SETBACK EXCEPTION LANDS OF TAVASSOLI AND EMAMI, 13761 LA PALOMA ROAD File # 278-12-ZP-SD-GD 1. The property has is narrow and provides for a width of 62' outside of the property line setbacks to build. The shape of the property causes a hardship on development on the .property. 2"_ -The intent-and,purpose of the ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the exception 'will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property -owners. 3. Granting the setback exception for the .subject property will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning -district. 4. Granting, of. the,. setback exception. for .the, -subject property does not, allow .a use or activity, which is not expressly authorized.by ili616riink Ordinance. j,LARA �,� ( ) r) ATTACHMENT 3 FIRE DEPARTMENT VT'D� �,� SANTA CI.AI�A COUNTY -... 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos; CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 -(408) 378-9342 (fax)' •:www.sccfd.org DEC' 13-20311Z TOWN 060ALTOS %83 BLDG DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No. Plans submitted call fora remodel without specifying the exact square footage of the area to be remodeled. Page C1 of the plans notes the requirement to comply with NFPA 13D without specifying the conditions required for compliance. In addition, compliance with 'Calif. 2012 Building Code' is noted: There is no such code.' The currently adopted code edition is dated 2010. Comment #1: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and watersupply As_they pertain to fire .department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to; and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Comment #2: -NOTE: Based on graphically illustrated demolition on page D1.0 and new construction graphically illustrated on page ALO, it -appears the majority, of th&existing structures will be demolished: Data`provided on page Cl would indicate this 'involves approximately 5,282 square feet, with anexisting 717 square -foot garage to remain. Thefollowing requirements are -based on this incomplete information. Comment #3: Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic residential fire sprinkler, system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and two-family_ dwellings and in existing one-. and- two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase.the, building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that `does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building -area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractors) or. subcontractor(s)are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to de'termtiie'if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler -coverage. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate,fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. Section R313.2 as adopted and amended byLAHMC _... City PLANS SPECS -NEW RMDL. AS ._OCCUPANCY .CONST. TYPE, DATE;. _,,--.-J PAGE LAH [I [I-❑- 11 ❑ SFR ]APPI[cantName, V-13 Robert Symons Associates 12%07%201_ .-,1 .OF 3 SEC/FLOOR AREA. LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT-TYPEOR.SYSTEM.• Residential Development Design Review NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR 13761 La Paloma Rd Los Altos Hills'`' TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2000 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS - 50176 REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 :: BY- : `Harding, Doug urganizea as tne. Janta Llara Uounty Central Nre Protection"District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga F R£ DEPARTMENT 1 ..- --SANTA-CLARA COLJ�iY--- -- ---- -- ---- 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org PLAN REVIEW No. - 12 3863 BLDG DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No. Comment #4: Water Supply Requirements. Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and / or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 Comment #5: Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. Gates across the emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved access devices. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key switch shall be installed; if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox padlock shall be installed. Gates providing access from a road to a driveway or other roadway shall be at least 30 feet from the road being exited. CFC Sec. 503 and 506 Comment #6: DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS: 14 feet paved width. VERTICAL CLEARANCE: The vertical clearance shall be in accordance with the Fire Code, 13 feet, 6 inches. GRADE: Maximum grade shall not exceed 15% (6.75 degrees). Exception: Grades up to 207o may be allowed by the Fire Chief provided an approved automatic fire sprinkler system is installed throughout the affected dwelling structure including attached garages. In no case shall the portion of driveway exceeding 15% gradient be longer than 300 feet in length. For longer driveways, there shall be at least 100 feet of driveway at 15% or less gradient between each 300 -foot section that exceeds 157o. CFC Sec. 503 and SD&S D-1 Ctty PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B AppllcantName Robert Symons Associates DATE 12/07/201 PAGE 2 OF 3 SECIFLOOR AREA LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 13761 La Paloma Rd Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2000 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 5077 Is ric Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga AK cv a FIRE DEPARTMENT -nr-ne SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org 12 3863 Comment #7: Premises Identification: 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. CFC Sec. 505 Comment #8: Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI -7. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMOL AS LAH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PLAN CONST. TYPE V -B REVIEW No. DATE 12/07/201 BLDG DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No. 12 3863 Comment #7: Premises Identification: 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. CFC Sec. 505 Comment #8: Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI -7. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMOL AS LAH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B AppllcantNeme Robert Symons Associates DATE 12/07/201 PAGE 3 OF 3 SEC/FLOOR AREA LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 13761 La Paloma Rd Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2000 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW ® 20 PSI BY Harding, Doug 1 5070 11500 rganize as tne nanta Uara County Central Fire Frotection Distric Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ATTACHMENT4 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE, ----------------- - ------------------------- Application for: ..................................................................... ------- * --------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- * --------------------- ... ......... .. ............................ .................................. m ...................... ............................ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant Name . .................................. ................ ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- "e ------- ...................... .............................................................. ...................................... Applicant Address: ------- - ----------- ............ ----- .7. .... ...... ..................................-.-.-.-.--..--..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--. ............................................................. Reviewed by: ..6....j.. .. . CtsC ------- ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------.-.--..--..-.--.-..-.--..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--..-.-.-.-.-.-.- a Date: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ COMMENTS Site Impact 0 Sz'- 4\3 I PJ ............................................................. ............................ ................................. 0- Lighting .......................... ................................. 0 ...... -}}A -------------------------- ............................................................................ ------------------------------ e - ------ ------- ------------------- --- --- C/11)k ......... ..... .................... ......... .................. 6.7-77 .............. -------------------------- - - - ------------------ ----------- ...... - - -- -------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- r IT -------------------------------------------------------------- ...... ..................... . ....................................................................... ............................................................. Noise ............. - ----------------------------- --- -------------------------------------------------- ------ ----------- : ------------------------------------------------- ............................................................. . .................... - --------------------------------------- - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- . . ...... .. ..... * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------ 044,k - -------------- (�T - - -- ; ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------- .... 7 ------ z:�� - ---------------- ----------- ---- -------------- k ........................ 7 -------------------- Creeks .......................... . ............................... .. ---------------------------------------------------------=-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ .................................................................................................................... --------------------------------------------- ....... - -------------- I ------------ ------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------- ..................................... . ................................... .............. ------- -------------- I ------------------- "----' --- - Drainage- ............................................................... -------- ------------------------------------ ..................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------ ---- ------------------ -.. --------------- --------- . ..................:...................... 7 ........................................................................................................................................ ------------------------- - -- - ----------------------------- ........................ ................ ................... Easements ----------------------- - - ..... ----------------------------:-------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ........................... ........................................................................ ... . ..................... - - ------------------------------------ -------------------------- ...................................... ----------------------------------------------------------------- ........................................................ - ----------------------------------------- - ----------------------------------------- - --------------------- - ------ ----- ................................................... .......................................................................... ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------=--=-------------------------------- Existing Veoitation .......................... -- ........................... ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------- ..................................................................................................................................... ---------------------- - - ----------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Mitiqati--on----------------------------- ---- ............... : ........... ...... ........................... ................... ....... . ................. ----------- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . I ............................................................................................................ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ m -------- --------------------------- . ............... .............................................................. ATTACHMENT 5 Nicole Horvitz From: Dave Mooring [dave@davemooring.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:28 AM RECEIVE® To: Nicole Horvitz; Debbie Pedro Cc: Lisa Mooring; dave@mooring.com C 12 Zo'Z Subject: 13761 - La Paloma Basin Dear U LOS ALTOS BILLS ear Nicole and Debbie: The new property owners of 13761 La Paloma showed us preliminary drawings of a two story, 27 foot tall house, and we wanted to make sure you understood our perspective. We have expressed our concerns directly to Malahat and Abbas, advising them that neither 27.foot tall or two story designs meet the restrictions set in the "La Paloma Corridor", and that the Council and Town have been very clear since 1990 that the La Paloma basin, between Fremont and Newbridge, requires low profile single story homes. Malahat was well. aware that the seller of 13761 was a strong advocate of the basin restrictions. Our home, at 13791 La Paloma, is 21 feet tall and single story, and is the directly adjacent northern - —neighbor-of-1-3761.--Sharing-our-concer,n--and-s-imilarly-impacted;-is-the southern neighbor at 1-3751 also single story and very new construction. Qside,from the Town consistency and precedent on this, we are very concerned withprivacy. The 13761 plans may 6e-atearly stages, but they should be able to demonstrate no invasion of privacy, whether through story poles..or_models.._. We welcome any~new home design that is-consistentvit ' its'neighboring homes, town precedent,. and respects the privacy of our property. Sincerely, Dave and Lisa. Mooring 575 Market Street, Suite 2080 San Francisco, California 94105 tel (415) 421-3711 fax (415) 421-3767 www.meyersnave.com , meyers I nave May 17, 2013 David & Lisa Mooring 13791 La Paloma Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 ATTACHMENT 6 Melissa D. Andrikopoulos Attorney at Law mandrikopoulos@meyersnave.com Re: Height of Development at 13761 La Paloma Road (file # 278-12-ZP-SD-GD) Dear Mr. & Mrs. Mooring- This ooring This letter is `in response to your email to Los Altos Hills Planning staff, regarding potential development -at -13761 -La Paloma Road_ -At -various -points ur-recent years,residents --in- the -- - - viciniiy of La Paloma Road have raised questions and concerns about the possible existence of a Town ordinance or policy that restricts the height of residences in the La Paloma corridor to 23 feet, or to single -story structures. Town staff and our office have reviewed all available records and have determined that the Town has adopted no such policy or ordinance: The Planning .Commission evaluates applications for development along La Paloma Road consistent - with development standards set ,forth in the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission has the discretion to limit the height of structures in accordance with these adopted regulations. However, there is no Town policy or ordinance limiting development in the vicinity: of La ,Paloma Road to 23. feet -or single -story structures. The;-Ylanning Commission will continue to consider and evaluate the height of a proposed structure on a case-by-case basis, as part of the overall design .review process. Sincerely, . Melissa D, Andrikopoulos Assistant City Attorney cc: Carl Cahill, City Manager Debbie Pedro, Planning Director Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner MDA 2083243.1 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION OAKLAND LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ROSA FRESNO ATTACHMENT 7 Town Of Los Altos Hills July 8, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: POLICIES AND ORDINANCES REGARDING: 1) CHIMNEY HEIGHT; 2) LA PALOMA CORRIDOR; AND 3) CARPORTS FROM: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Dire RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Discuss the attached ordinance and policy language and provide direction to staff to prepare the necessary ordinances, policies and environmental, documentation for public hearings and for City Council consideration. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission and City Council conducted joint study sessions on October 29, 1997 and February 10, 1998 to discuss a number of issues of concern related to plarinmg review., .The Planning Commission has, previously_ reviewed. a number of these . issues, but has not developed them to -a point of recommendations to the -Council, due-ta lack of -time and the absence of .Commissioners. On June 17, 1998'the City`Couicl directed staff•to prepare policy or'ordinance'language regarding: 1) chimney height limitations; and 2) ; development standards and boundaries for the La Paloma corndor. ". llieie policies or ordinances would require consideration and recommendation" by- the-- Commission prior -to action --by- the Council-.--- _On "June. -23, 19.,98,..the Commission, ,in reviewing -a specific. project, expressed concern about a proposed carport which= was not included in floor area -calculations, and directed staff to develop ordinance, language requiring garage parking for each site. DISCUSSION Attached .is .a matrix comparing many of the Town's development standards to those .of other 'similar 'Peninsula residential communities, as requested. previously by the Commission.. The matrix has. been updated with the inclusion of some of Palo- Alto's hillside"zoning -standards. Each of the three issues above is. discussed separately below. Chimney Height Limitations The Commission has expressed concern on many projects that chimneys are pro -posed -to be large and obtrusive, and has frequently -limited the chimney heights to those prescribed as the minimum under the Uniform Building Code, i.e'." the top of the chimney at least 2 feet above the roof and at leasf 10 feet horizontally'away from the roof. The Town's Zoning Code addresses chimney heights in Section 10-1.504(c)(1), which states, that:. "Chimneys and appurtenances can extend above the twenty-seven (271) foot height limit. However, the maximum height including chimneys and appurtenances shall.not exceed thirty-five (351) feet and Planning Commission: Carports, Chimneys, La Paloma July 8, 1998 page 2 all points of the building must lie within a thirty-five (351) foot horizontal band based from the lowest visible natural or ftished grade." Staff has prepared language (Attachment 1) which would amend this section of the Code to limit. chimney heights to "the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code, unless the Site Development Authority determines that there would not be any visual impact from chimneys in excess of this height" (but still not to exceed 3.5 feet). The amendment is presented in a stA1etkeugh/bold format to highlight the changes from the current ordinance. La Paloma Corridor Over the past dozen years, the Commission and Council have reviewed approximately ten new residences within the "La Paloma Corridor", generally meaning the area of the valley at the north end of La Paloma Road. In order to maintain an "open" and low profile appearance in this exposed valley, those residences have been limited to a maximum height of 23 feet and for the most part to a single story, or at least to have a single story appearance from La Paloma and Immediate neighbors. Additionally, setbacks along La Paloma Road have been varied from40-80 feet to avoid, the appearance of a "tract" layout. There has not, ' however, ever been a written policy to that effect; and no determination of the geographical boundary of the corridor..' Upon review of a recent project at 13870 La Paloma Road, the City Council directed that the La Paloma Corridor limitations should be' embodied in a policy statement for Commission and Council consideration, along with a map of the area to be affected. Staff notes that, within the area of. likely concern, there are probably only a handful of lots remaining which have not been developed under the restrictions proposed by the policy. While the Code is not explicit about compatibility issues, policy B-1 on page 15 of the Town's Design Guidelines states that: "In a neighborhood of predominantly one story dwellings, one story or modified two story structures are encouraged." Policy B-3 on page 16 of the Guidelines states that projects should: "Retain the visual openness between you and your neighbor by varying setbacks on all lots, whether gently sloping or hilly." These policies and the open and low profile character of the La Paloma corridor have been the basis for previous Town restrictions on proposed new residences. Attached is a draft policy (Attachment 2) for the corridor and an attached map outlining the extent of the development limitations. The map. generally covers all properties with access from La Paloma Road south of Fremont Road to Todd Lane, and several properties on the south side of Fremont Road, from near Concepcion Road to Fremont Pines Lane. Staff believes that these properties form the visual corridor of this portion of La Paloma Road. The policy statement would limit new residences and additions to a maximum height limit of 23 feet, measured from existing grade or the pad, whichever is lower, unless the Site Development Authority (Planning Commission or Council) allows fill below the house for flood protection purposes, in which case the height may be measured from the Planning Commission: Carports, Chimneys, La Paloma July 8, 1998 page 3 fill elevation. The policy would also generally restrict homes to a single story, but would contain flexibility to allow a minimal second story where no second story walls are exposed and where second story windows are limited to no more than a single small dormer on an elevation. The policy also would require varying setbacks from those on neighboring lots. The policy format is similar to that of other policies reviewed by the Commission and Council, and upon adoption would be incorporated into the Design Guidelines. Staff suggests that, prior to recommendation to the Council, the Commission may wish to invite comment from La Paloma Corridor property owners, or may at least recommend such a process to the City Council. Carports The Commission has frequently been concerned about the use of carports (or uncovered parking) to comply with the Town's parking regulations, as carports are counted only as development area and not as floor area. As a result, floor area is maximized, although the carport contributes to the size and bulk of the development as well. Occasionally the Commission has seen variance requests to convert carports into garages, exceeding allowable floor area. The reasoning is generally that garages are safer. and more attractive than carports. Section 10-1.601 of the Town's Zoning Code requires that each lot provide four (4) off- street parking spaces, and that an additional space be provided for a second dwelling. None of those provisions, however, requires any of the parking to be covered or enclosed. At the June 23rd Commission meeting, Commissioners suggested that it would be appropriate to require three of the required four parking spaces to be in a garage. The proposed ordinance language (Attachment 3) would alter the existing Code provision to impose such a requirement. The amendment is again provided in a A14ketkeugwbold format to highlight the changes from the current ordinance. Ordinance Process The amendments regarding chimney heights and carports would both comprise modifications to the Town's Zoning Code. Revisions to the Zoning Code require notice and public hearing before the Planning Commission and similar notice and hearing before the City Council. The amendments also require environmental (CEQA) review, in this case a Negative Declaration. Thais, if the Commission so directs, staff will have the City Attorney formalize the ordinances and will then prepare the necessary notice and Negative Declaration before returning to the Commission for action. Staff is available for any questions or comments from the Commission or the public. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Ordinance Amendment Re: Chimney Height Limitations 2. Draft Policy Re: La Paloma Road Corridor Development Limitations 3. Draft Ordinance Re: Carports and Garages 4. Matrix of Development Standards of Selected Peninsula Cities ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING CHIMNEY HEIGHT Chimney Height: Revise'Section 10-1.504(c)(1) of Chapter 10-1 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code to read as follows: "Chimneys and appurtenances can extend above the twenty-seven (27') foot height limit. However, the maximum height including chimneys and appurtenances shall not exceed thirty-five (35') feet and all points of the building must lie within a thirty-five (35') foot horizontal band based from the lowest visible natural or finished grade. Chimneys shall generally be limited to a height not to exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code, unless the Site Development Authority determines that a greater height would not be obtrusive and would comply with the 35 foot height limitation." 7/8/98 Draft ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT Policy Re: La Paloma Road Corridor Development Limitations Code Sections and Design Guidelines: Section 10-2.701 of the Site Development Ordinance states that the purpose of Code provisions regarding building siting is to: "insure that the site, location, and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from' off-site". Section 10-2.702(b)(1) of the Code indicates that: ".Single story buildings and height restrictions may be required on - hilltops, ridgelines, and highly visible lots". Policy B-1 on page 15 of the Town's Design Guidelines encourages one story or modified two story structures in a neighborhood of predominantly one story dwellings. Policy B-3 on page 16 of the Guidelines further recommends varying setbacks on lots to retain the visual openness between neighboring residences. Intent: The purpose of the above Code and Design Guideline provisions is to retain a -neighborhood's- openness; partly by -limiting height -where structures are visible -and by varying setbacks. The Town has attempted to preserve the open character of the La Paloma corridor by limiting heights and by requiring varied setbacks for new residences. The intent of this policy is to assure that future development occurs consistent with past practice and Code and Design Guideline provisions. Policy: 1. New development within the La Paloma corridor (map attached) shall be limited to a maximum height of 23 feet, measured from the existing grade or pad, whichever is lower. The Site Development Authority may allow the height to be measured from finished grade up to 2 feet above existing grade where fill is placed for the benefit of drainage and flood prevention purposes. 2. New development shall generally be limited to a single story, excluding basements and attics not counted as floor area. Exceptions may be allowed when a single story appearance is presented from La Paloma Road, Fremont Road, and immediate neighbors, so long as the 23 foot height limit is maintained. Any second floor area .shall be encompassed within the roof of the structure, with only minimal dormers for light. 3. Setbacks for new development along La Paloma Road shall vary from 40 to 80 feet. Draft: 7/8/ 98 AN .4000/- 26300 26290 25; 1423] � 26110. 26078 ` 26020 1 14'200 26040 14211 a . 14160 26012 14155 26073 •�' RRY 26201 14140 26045 26294' 26023 75 Z�074 26007. 2.589 La Paloma Road _- - NE .26260 Corridor. I -46200 Boundary 14101 26000 2650 �• 26030 14100. 26090 26 .89 � 601 i7 REM • ROAD >3 12838!� ' 623-S' 6120 Q 26296 i�l28 13981 �C3970 26p70 26032 1 5 6{T139T=,;.} 26012 �e, 26303 '. 26240 7 13961 Jtl l � sSE aq' 1 s.. = 13264 12800 �� ('sJ O • , '�1.1 .�OZ 0 13940 .. •�'� . 11 2624 0, ;90 Acro I�1R �, Z tl -/{3930 13944 j 1+t 1}'7(0 �26 PG 13920 • 12799 � • . 780, MAU PER LANE^' `' • o• 12764 23 g•,i3eT0 j 13861 A47 0 • `ejefG G � 13900 I U 12734. .I 13831 a � x\X38 13 88 U � J •12739 ¢3801 1� 1 ' 12699 13 5 791 J 13800 AIN 13855 0.1 2693 - 13761-r+'_' - - �.N' 12.692 V� 26117 26089 26011 ZV 26063- -26035 12666, 2600`- 12"'2 TODD LANE 12690 13733 2 6096 26062 � ' 12667 13721 26018 259 12670 126g� I26� 13709 26p65 2660�45 12680 13685 .2�5 26 12650 13697 - G.00 17.635 12650 260TS 26005269y0 1269W 12640 13673 1 1260 13661 l ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING GARAGE PARKING Garage Parking: Revise Section 10-1.601 (Off -Street Parking) of Chapter 10-1 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code -to read as follows: -`Bach dwelling shall provide surfaced off-street parking facilities for a minimum . of four (4) cars including garage or carport space. Each second dwelling shall provide surfaced off-street parking for a minimum of one (1) car in addition to the four (4) required for the primary dwelling. A minimum of three (3) of the required spaces must be enclosed in a garage. Each parking space shall be at least ten (10') feet wide and at least twenty (20') feet long. Unobstructed vehicular access shall be available at all times." 7/8/98 Draft • ATTACHMENT 4 LOS ALTOS HILLS Development Standards Comparison with Other Cities and Santa Clara County The following tables compare selected development standards of the Town of Los Altos Hills to criteria in similar zoning districts in Peninsula cities and in unincorporated Santa Clara. County. In particular, districts chosen for comparison were those typically involving hillside land features and/or requiring one acre minimum lot sizes, although there were a couple of exceptions. Most of the cities surveyed require discretionary review for new residences, either by an architectural board or by that community's Planning Commission. The following is a brief discussion of the characteristics of each community included in the comparison, as well as its discretionary review process: Atherton: Entirelyresidential community with minimum 1 acre lot sizes (one primary zoning district); no significant hillside or geologic constraints; there is no discretionary review of new residences. Hillsborough: Entirely residential community with minimum half -acre lot sizes (one zoning district); discretionary review of new residences by Architectural and Design Review Board. Los Gatos: Residential and commercial zoning districts, with varying lot sizes; hillside zoning district was used for comparison, generally with 1-5 acre lot sizes; discretionary review of new residences by Planning Commission. Palo Alto: Multiple uses in community, with varying lot sizes; residential estate (RE) zoning district was used for comparison, with one acre minimum lot size; discretionary review by Architectural Review Board. Portola Valley: Primarily residential community, with some commercial, and varying lot sizes; 1 -acre combining district standards were used for comparison; discretionary review of new residences by Architectural and Site Control Commission. Saratoga: Residential and commercial zoning districts, with varying lot sizes; 40,000 sf district and hillside zoning district were used for comparison, generally with 1 acre and 2 acre minimum lot sizes, respectively; review of new residences by staff, discretionary review by Planning Commission if over 6,000 square feet in size. Woodside: Primarily residential community, with some commercial, and varying lot sizes; 1 acre district was used for comparison; discretionary review of new residences by Architectural and Site Review Board. Santa Clara County: Unincorporated residential area; hillside zoning district was used for comparison, generally with 1 acre minimum lot size; discretionary review of new residences only in the "west hillside" areas (Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Serreno, and Saratoga unincorporated). Los Altos Hills: Entirely residential community; single zoning district with 1 acre minimum lot size; discretionary review of new residences by the Planning Commission. LOS ALTOS HILLS Development Standardg Comparison with Other Cities and Santa Clara County City/Countyl Floor Area Development Area Maximum House Size Accessory Structure or FAR or Coverage Limits Size/Height Limits t1tfi13rt':u?t"dFr .s� Lot size x 0.163 + 723 sf; 2,250 None None; limited by floor area only No size limit; counts in floor area; +� min. � s f 1 acre lot = 7,823 sf 11' max. wall height; can be within j 10 ft of property line. ..mow Ir, s1zo QiY < tiY- 25% of lot size; 50% of lot (footprint plus ( tP P None; >8,000 sf requires Council q 1,000 sf; no special height limit P g 1 acre lot 10,890 sf hardscape); 40% w/i front setback approval: Y . S 1 acre lot = 21,780 sf q viH;'s' ,a:."(�� a'. None for lots >30,000 sf None for hillside zones None 15 feet max. height; no max. size 't 7� I. f"", p 301/6 of lot size; 25% of lot size; 6,000 square feet None, except for second units ,kr 1 acre lot =13,068 sf 1 acre lot =10,890 sf 1Por to a� ,x ' ti�,L�f�,,. Formula based on slope hazards; Formula based on slope hazards; 85% of floor area; Arch. Comm. None, except for second units; ,;y:;�. .��.:• t: adjusted for zone district; 5% bonus hardscape only; may increase with findings; g ; requires Arch. Comm. review �.,-' �•.:; : . ;;'.;.` 7s.;.;:J;•:;�; for <18 ft. height; g 1 flat acre = 7,808 sf includes detached ara a ore ort g g azP lflatacre=5,260sfi — 1 flat acre sf I :Sazatpga M . ` Based on lot size; 35% of lot size; 25% in hillside 7,200 sf 8,000 sf in hillside 15 feet max. height; no max. size ;2c:T; •::, •?; 1 acre lot = 6,060 sf district (2 ac. min.) district; includes attached garage 1 acre lot = 15,246 sf 18% of lot area; 15,000 sf; hardscape only; 40%+ 4,000 sf; 5,000 sf if 1.5+ acres and 1500 sf max., except for secorid 4r,;z!;ff;Y 1 acre lot = 7,841 sf to remain natural >12.5% slope; PC approves exception; excludes units; 17 ft. height limit w/I V plate 1 acre lot = 15,000 sf attached garage up to 11 % of house height; barns excepted max. (i.e., 440 sf) '.—ta4.GLaa_C9wif None None None 12 feet avg. height,• 35% maxi rear yard coverage j "1 bsA7io�Iills?'it Formula based on slope; 1 flat acre Formula based on slope; includes None; limited by floor area only None except for second units 6 000 sf all floor area; 1 flat acre =15;000 sf lAs applicable in "hillside" districts and/or districts with one acre minimum lot sizes, or closest comparable zoning district. Development Standards Page 2 LOS ALTOS HILLS Development Standards Comparison with Other Cities/County City/County Maximum Height Single Story Height Basement Defined/ Garage Required/ 1 Counted as FA? Counted as FA? 30 ft with max. 22 ft. for exterior Not applicable Not counted if exposed walls <2 ft. Not required (no parking required); walls; increase to 34 /28' with PC above rade g garage counts as floor area g g � I �:�::. � .N.•..... -.:Y approval Hrlls oqugh�� 32 ft.; 22 ft. at setback line, then Not applicable Counted if>7.5 ft. ceiling height 2 enclosed spaces required; carport ~ at 45 degree an le j g ( `habitable' per UBC) not counted as floor area f ' �os_Gafos;_srs,,� 30 ft. above grade; 125 ft. max. if Not applicable Not'counted if more of area below Not required; carport not counted as `lo f1,4gk highly visible 3 stories prohibited grade than above grade floor area EM ° '�^ '. ,'Sala INI �^ 30 ft.17 ft. for second units Not counted if exposed no more 2 spaces required; at least one must u .•�� y; than 3 feet above grade gr be enclosed; c orts count as FA carports �' 28 ft; 34 ft. lowest to highest Not applicable; 5% FA bonus if Not counted if exposed walls <18'.' 2 covered spaces (garage or Carport) JPortol Va71e e : ' <18 ft. height above grade; can be partially required; garage or carport count :kb counted; min. UBC exits, but as floor area exceptions by Arch. Comm. j Saratoga; r? :£a" ot'•s' 26 ft. Not applicable; if ridgeline, 8 ft. Not counted if exposed no more 2 covered spaces required; carport max. above ridge elevation than 2 feet above grade; light wells counts as floor area if 3 walls and UBC min. roof wVooas,ae •'.- ;' 30 ft. 17 ft. w/11' plate height for Not counted if exposed no more Not required; garage counts'as floor accessory buildings than 2 feet above grade and not area; carport at 75%. _:. :• ' ;.i„�.`'Y `.�: habitable, and no exposed walls; 50% counted if habitable or one Kt,?�'Fit. 4. exposed wall P Sa`rita;.lara Cgiintyi 35 ft.; 30 ft. (west hillsides); 3 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable ".Y`.w..{�, T;h ;;j_•�j' `` ¢:�'? r% nY� is . stories allowed . 27 ft.; 35 ft. lowest to highest f None; single story may be req d. Not counted if ceiling of basement UBC Not required; carport not counted as floor y4,t for ridgelines below grade, min. exits/light. area lAs applicable in "hillside” districts and/or districts with one acre minimum lot sizes, or closest comparable zoning district. Development Standards Page 3 ' LOS ALTOS HILLS Development Standards Comparison with Other Cities/County City/Countyl Setbacks Second Unit Size and Story Poles or Color Requirements Other Limits Other Visual Aids 60 ft. front and rear side varies 600 sq. ft. max.; meet setback None; no discretionary review None • F�;;,,ti,�:As:•••.";; 01 by width of lot (30ift. for 100' reqmts.; height limit 11' walls �., • ,ts �:� Wit'; _,�•. �:�� :�,:;�? width) TiiIsh'orqu" "+s "i : ' . 25 ft front (street); 20 ft. rear; 20 ( ) only attached domestic quarters; Y 4 Story poles required rY P q None; reviewed b Arch. Board Y ft. side internal access )_o$`Cato"?` �'`;`h r �. r'" l'•y"ts 30 ft. front; 25 ft. rear; 20 ft. side Not permitted in hillside zones Story poles required 30% light reflectivity value in .r....:. ��...___.._.._.,.,.;. hillside zones; to blend with site Piao'Alto T ` 30 ft. front and rear: 15 feet side 900 sq. ft. max plus 200 sq. ft. for Uncertain- Uncertain covered parking; one-story/17 ft. 50 ft. front; 20 ft. fear, 20 ft side 750 s ft. max.; no special height q• sP g Arch. Comm. can require story q rY Earth tones; color approved b PP Y limit poles, models, etc. Aich. Comm. 30 ft. front; 50 ft. rear, 20 ft. side; 800 sq. ft. max.; 151 height; not Story poles required Earth tones; color approved by new lots based on %o of lot depth P allowed on slopes >10% P Planning Commission and width: 200/N 25%; 10% " ' 50 ft. front; 25 ft. rear, 20 ft. side; 1500 sf max. if not rented; 720 sf Story poles required Earth tones; color approved by r 30 ft. on rear and sides if height max. if rented; 17 ft. height max. Arch. Board >17 ;$ania.Clara'County.`: 30 ft. on all sides ' Allowable size depends on lot size Can be required if highly visible 60% light reflectivity value (west ;;;: :.:,r rte.• hillsides only) Lotlos l3iUs wfx: 40 ft. front; 30 ft. rear; 30 ft. 1000 sf max.; no height limit Story poles required 50% light reflectivity value; 40% sides , for roofs lAs applicable in "hillside" districts and/or districts with one acre minimum lot sizes, or closest comparable Zoning district. 7/1/98 ATTACHMENT 8 ENGINEERING WEST CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. January 11, 2013 Abbas Emami & Malahat Tavassoli 377 Lunada Drive Los Altos, Ca. 94022 Re: Garage Evaluation at 13761 La Paloma Road, Los Altos Hills, CA Dear Mr. Emami and Ms. Tavassoli, Pursuant to your requestandas you know, I visited your property at the subject address on January i-I,-20-11,-tQ.Perfonn-.a cursory -examination -of the -garage -regarding -it existing condition. The purpose for this was to make a preliminary evaluation of the structural aspects of the subject building in order to respond to comment #7 within a letter dated December 18, 2012, prepared by Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner for Los Altos FRUs P14nping.Department. . Having observed the exterior and interior surfaces of the garage where accessible on all its, - 6§ a*n'd' its roof, it is my opinion that the garage can be said to be structurally sound and suitable to remain 'as -is' as part of and attached to the proposed new 2 -story residence as detailed,on drawings prepared by your designer, Robert Symons Associates, dated 11711-12, rev. no.l. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Engineering West DFESSIO*4 13 Jeral O'Kelley, S.E. U F CAI_ 555 Meridian Ave.; Suite A e San Jose, California 95126 - Tel: (408) 295-9700 0 FAX: (4o8)295-1570 - ; RFCEIVFD t. ATTACHMENT 9 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS TMJ S TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650)'941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-3160 WORKSHEET #2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME AIE13A45 grit Atj I. � t-1AL6l1A-r--! AVR'A t50L 1 PROPERTYADDRES_S 137101 LA mAt or1A,'R 1 "'f 6 l vs 40 CALCULATED BY MO.00R'f 5YM ONS A556C 4A r 0,5 • . I DATE - 1../4 / 13 - .1. DEVELOPMEN'P AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) A. House and Garage (from Part 3. A.) B. Decking C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 100' along centerline) D. Patios and Walkways E. Tennis Court F. Pool and Decking G. Accessory. Buildings (from Part B) H. Any other coverage Existing Proposed- (Additions/Deletiom) 3� .7 N A ,1A Total 5-99'?. 5 N/A 4 3z o - X31 3q89 1Sz4 --934 -- S9o. - ufA N/A NA 20cp4 &4o , 2704 b. 2nd Floor c. CSO + too -4;1— TOTALS 12,7 8 s 797.5 13, 5a2 .5 Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) t 5, 5U0 �''"� 5' Fwl 2. TOTAL E%RERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS l 2,1'7:Z 1 " —. 112.57: L l, 4 L 3• L 3. FLOOR AREA (SQUAREFOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total . (Additions/Deletions) A. House and Garage a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement d. Garage B. Accessory Buildings a. 1 st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement 2Gt;9.� 47(0.o4 3145.(.4 21 i 2;.8(. 21 10 11 IIIA - N /A N/A► 73 5- •6p- 735 I ogo —i v°)o Ny� N�A —rye TOTALS Maximum Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from Worksheet #1) TOWN USE ONLY I CHECKED BY I DATE N A I1tfh 5999.5 [o, Oa n