The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.1ITEM 4.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 25, 2013 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: A REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A TWO STORY NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT AND A SWIMMING POOL. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF SIX (6) HERITAGE OAK TREES AND 'A GRADING POLICY .EXCEPTION FOR THE NEW RESIDENCE, DRIVEWAY, FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND, SWIMMING POOL, AND YARD AREAS; LANDS OF JALIL; MIDDLE FORK LANE (APN 182-10-050 & 182-10-056); FILE #311-11-ZP-SD-GD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director RECOMMENDAT--ION: That the Planning Commission: Deny the requested Site Development Permit and Grading Policy Exceptions based on the Findings of Denial. in attachment 1; ALTERNATIVE Offer the applicant the option to continue the project and return with a plan that conforms with the Town's Grading Policy and preserves the heritage oak trees. BACKGROUND The vacant 3.491 acre property is located at the intersection of Middle Fork Lane and South Fork Lane. The property was created in 1980 as a part of a two lot subdivision. Middlefork Lane intersects the property, one side is 0.54 acre and the other 2.80 acre, as a result -the property' -has two Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) for property tax purposes but is one legal lot for development purposes. The surrounding uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the east, north, south, and across South Fork Lane to the west. The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a new -8,437 square foot two story residence with a . 3,097 square foot basement, and 606 ' square foot swimming pool. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval for Grading Policy exceptions and.the removal of six (6) heritage oak trees. On December 21, 2011 the application for a new residence was submitted for Site Development review. The amount of cut requested for the new residence, fire truck turnaround, pool and yard areas was up to 22' (not including the basement) and up to 12' of fill for the fire truck turnaround and residence. In July 2012 the story poles were erected to prepare for noticing for the August 2012 Planning Commission meeting. When the poles were constructed, several neighbors Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Jalil Middlefork Lane July 25, 2013 Page 2 of 8 notified staff of project concerns. The applicant decided to postpone taking the project before the Planning Commission to revise the plans. In March 2013, the revised plans were submitted for review. The residence was relocated down the hillside 10' closer to the front property line and the yard areas were redesigned which reduced the amount of cut and fill, and the amount of heritage oak trees requested to be removed was reduced from nine (9) to six (6). CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-2.301 (c) of the Municipal Code, this application for a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. 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: 3.491 acres Average Slope: 34.1% Lot Unit Factor: 1.688 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sgft) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 13,160* 0 12,886 12,886 274 Floor 8,440 0 8,437 8,437 3 (Basement 3,097) * 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 100' from the west (front) property line, 90' from the east (rear) property line, 75' from the north (side) property line, and 240' from the south (side) property line. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 32' and the maximum overall height of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) from the lowest point to the highest point is 35' (see height analysis below). Proposed exterior materials consist of a stucco exterior, stone veneer and concrete roof tiles. The main level of the new residence has 4,209 square feet of area which includes foyer, library, living room, four car garage, guest suite and bath, dining room, butler's pantry, kitchen, family room, and nook. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Jalil Middlefork Lane July 25, 2013 Page 3 of 8 The second floor has 3,189 square feet of living area which includes the master suite with a retreat, children's study, laundry room, and three bedrooms. The basement level has 3,097 square feet attached secondary dwelling unit, wine tasting room, theater, lobby, and entertainment lounge. Height The applicant has proposed increased property line setbacks to take advantage of increased building height allowed per Section 10-1.504 of the Municipal Code. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 32' and the maximum overall height of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) is 35'. Driveway & Parking Pursuant to Section 10-1.601 of the Municipal Code, a total of five (5) parking spaces are required. There are two -2 car garages and one exterior parking space proposed in compliance with property line setbacks. Trees & Landscaping There is a grove of oak trees located in the vicinity of the proposed new residence. The applicant is proposing to remove nine (9) oak trees six (6) of which are heritage. An arborist report has been submitted that states three (3) of the proposed heritage trees to be removed are in poor condition and two (2) are in fair condition (Attachment 6). The remaining landscape on the property consisting of oaks, deodar cedars, and acacia that are proposed to remain. Grading Policy Exception Total grading quantities for this project include 4,847 cubic yards of cut for the residence, basement, pool, driveway, and fire truck turnaround. Grading quantities for fill include 606 cubic yards for the driveway, fire truck turnaround and new residence. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed plans and concluded that the proposed grading is not in conformance with the Town's grading policy. kg`,6z ,� 3; Enlarged Setbacks'h E T '_;Setback for "q for27 for 3Zn$ tallstructure w. y ,r fall structure . , r, ;, .pro ose residence Front 40' 60' 100' Sides 30' 45' 75' (north), 240' (south) Rear 30' 45' 90' Driveway & Parking Pursuant to Section 10-1.601 of the Municipal Code, a total of five (5) parking spaces are required. There are two -2 car garages and one exterior parking space proposed in compliance with property line setbacks. Trees & Landscaping There is a grove of oak trees located in the vicinity of the proposed new residence. The applicant is proposing to remove nine (9) oak trees six (6) of which are heritage. An arborist report has been submitted that states three (3) of the proposed heritage trees to be removed are in poor condition and two (2) are in fair condition (Attachment 6). The remaining landscape on the property consisting of oaks, deodar cedars, and acacia that are proposed to remain. Grading Policy Exception Total grading quantities for this project include 4,847 cubic yards of cut for the residence, basement, pool, driveway, and fire truck turnaround. Grading quantities for fill include 606 cubic yards for the driveway, fire truck turnaround and new residence. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed plans and concluded that the proposed grading is not in conformance with the Town's grading policy. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Jalil N iddlefork Lane July 25, 2013 Page 4 of 8 The applicant is requesting a grading policy exception for the driveway, fire truck turnaround, swimming pool, yard areas, and residence. The Town's Grading Policy allows up to 8' of cut for a house, excluding basements, and 4' of cut for driveway, parking, and yard areas. Location Grading ,,clic � Proposed 8' cut (basement 15' cut House ' exempt) (26' overall including -basement) House (northwest corner) 3' fill 6' fill Pool, Yard Areas, Driveway, 4' cut 12' Cut Turnaround The purpose of the Town's Grading Policy is to assure that proposed construction retains the existing site contours and landforms, to the greatest extent possible. It is also intended to provide Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Jalil Middlefork Lane July 25, 2013 Page 5 of 8 guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill. Staff is unable to make findings of approval for the Grading Policy exception based on the following: s The proposed grading is not in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.1: "Uses of land shall ... minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design and landscaping" • The proposed grading is not consistent with the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10- 2.702(c): "The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape. The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings„ . • The proposed grading and retaining walls will encroach within the driplines of heritage oak trees and require the removal of six (6) heritage oak trees, in addition may impact the heritage trees proposed to remain. Recommended Findings of Denial is included in attachment 1. Geotechnical When the application was submitted, the Town's geotechnical consultant, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. noted that the development was "constrained by the presence of likely non - engineered fill, potential expansive soils, and anticipated very strong to violent seismic ground shaking." The concern was with the proposed project design and the proposed cuts could result in unstable slopes either during or after construction. Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. recommended that the project geotechnical consultant evaluate the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed development plans and consider static and seismic slope stability, address special design measures that may be required during the construction period and final slope stability (Attachment 3). The project geotechnical consultant responded the concerns of the Town's consultant. With the revised plans, the reliance on retaining walls to support the proposed cut was reduced. The basement walls and walls of the new residence are retaining the cut into the hillside. Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. have no objections to the currently proposed design and concurs with the project geotechnical consultant that the development layout is geotechnically feasible. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Jalil Middlefork Lane July 25, 2013 Page 6 of 8 Septic The new residence design includes seven (7) bedrooms. This requires a septic expansion system of 1,280 linear feet. Due to this requirement, the new residence cannot be located closer to South Fork Lane, away from the oaks and steep slope, because this is the location of the proposed expansion field. This septic expansion design is greater in size then what most new residences are required to install within the Town. Reduction in the number of bedrooms would reduce the size of the expansion field and allow greater flexibility in building siting. Drainage Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected in a 42" diameter 80' long PVC detention chamber, and will be metered out in 2 %2" pipes along the front property line. Outfall will be 30' from the front property line. 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. Neighbor Concerns When the story poles were constructed in July 2012 several neighbors voiced their concerns about the stability of the slope with the proposed construction, the size of the residence, the amount of oak trees proposed to be removed, drainage, and the amount of cut and fill (Attachment 7). Since the story poles have been constructed to represent the current proposal, neighbors have submitted letters in opposition of the revised proposal citing similar concerns (Attachment 8). 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 and a fire truck turnaround (Attachment 2). Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends the applicant construct a type 2B path along Middlefork Lane. The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented that the heritage oaks should be retained, it will be difficult to mitigate the residence because it sits on the hillside, the proposed retaining wall impact the health of the oak trees (Attachment 4). Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Jalil Middlefork Lane July 25, 2013 Page 7 of 8 The Open Space Committee is recommending an open space easement over the north east portion of the property encompassing the slope and grove of oak trees. The easement would be contiguous with the conservation easements on the.abutting properties (Attachment 5). Green Building Ordinance This project is required to comply with the Town's Green Building Ordinance. The new residence is designed to achieve 134 points in Build it Green's GreenPoint Rated program. CONCLUSION The proposed residence, driveway, and swimming pool are substantially out of compliance with the Town's Grading Policy and requires the removal six (6) heritage oak trees. The building design does not step with the contour of the land and is a design suited for a flatter lot. CEOA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a) and (e). ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Denial for the Grading Policy Exception 2. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated 12/28/11 3. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc., dated 1/19/12, 4/25/12, and 3/27/13 4. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated 1/16/12 and 3/22/13 5. Comments from the Open Space Committee dated 6/30/13 6. Arborist Report dated 6/20/11 7. Letters from Neighbors 2012 8. Letters from Neighbors 2013 9. Los Altos Hills Grading Policy 10. Worksheet #2 11. Development plans Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 Lands of Jalil Middlefork Lane July 25, 2013 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION LANDS OF JALIL, MIDDLEFORK LANE File #311-11-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed grading is not in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.1 which states that "Uses of land shall be consistent with the semi -rural atmosphere of the community, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design and landscaping". In addition, Program 2.2 of the Land Use Element states "limit grading on hillsides to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures. Structures should be located so that they are consistent with slope contours and compatible with the terrain." The requested grading .exceptions, exceed the minimum necessary, ..to accommodate a new residence. The subject property`isnot'unigue: in -size or shape -t- prevent the design of a new residence and associated retaining walls which would minimize disturbance to the natural terrain and vegetation.. 2. The proposed grading exception is not consistent with Section 10-2.702 (c) of the Los Altos -_ a aslittle , disturbance. as Hills Municipal . Code: a location of all structures.. should -create . , , , possible -to the natural landscape'. The amount of grading, excavation, or fill "shall- be the minimutri necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless gradingis proposed ;ito lower the- profile of buildings. Additionalgrading may be allowed for the purpose of lowering the -profile of the building. provided that at the completion `of:theproject the: visual alteration -of the natural- terrain is minimized. The removal of -vegetation"and' alteration of drainage patterns shall -be the-minimuni necessary to accommodate the "proposed'structure. One -of the reasons for the excessive. grading is to site the new residence at an elevation where the basement willbe exempt from, floor area .calculations. The excessive cut requested will not serve to lower the profile of the ' house but rather result; in a taller structure . on Elie higher elevation of the lot. - 3. Per Section -12-2.502 of. ,the Los 'Altos Hills Municipal Code, "...The Planning Commission... in reviewing development proposals or subdivisions,., shall seek to_ preserve and protect existing trees, especially Heritage Oaks and heritage trees, from: unnecessary removal or damage by .placing conditions on development approvals ". The :proposed'gradirig exceptions will occur within the driplines of heritage oak trees and could impact the -health:: of these protected trees. TACHMENT 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE ,� SANTA CLARA COUNTY c��E ESV D 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 cou sresmwc (408) 378-4010 a (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.t C 2 0 loin, o¢ Lo$ hao$ HILLLN REVIEW No. 11 3781 BLDG DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No. Proposed new 10,704 square -foot two-story single-family -residence with basement and attached garage. Comment #1: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply 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: Wildland-Urban Interface: This project is located within the designated Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements. 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: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required NOTE: For buildings in excess of 6200 square feet, the (4) four most hydraulically demanding heads in a room or compartment shall be calculated. Fire Department Connection: For buildings in excess of 6200 square feet, a fire department connection (FDC) shall be provided. The FDC shall consist of at least one 2.5" hose connection that is connected to the sprinkler riser with a pipe not less than the diameter of the sprinkler riser. 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. R313.2 as adopted and amended by LAHTC. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH ® ❑ . ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B AppllcantNama Stotler Design Group DATE 12/28/201 PAGE 1 of 3 SECIFLOOR 2 story + AREA 10704 LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Site Plan NAME OF PROJECT SFR - JALIL LOCATION ' 13000 Middle Fork Ln Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2750 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY. Harding, Doug 50L____j Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire 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 FIRE DEPARTMENT FE �- �� SANTA CLARA COUNTY I�IIi,� 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 COURTESYB SERVICE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org PLAN REVIEW No. BLDG DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No. 11 3781 Comment #4: 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). 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 Comment #5: DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS: Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill: 12 feet paved surface Los Altos and Los Altos Hills: 14 feet paved width Saratoga: 14 feet paved width with a two foot unpaved shoulder. 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 20% 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 157og radient be longer than 300 feet in length: For longer driveways, there shall be at least 100 feet of driveway at 157o or less gradient between each 300 -foot section that exceeds 157o. CFC Sec. 503 and SD&S D-1 Comment #6: TURNAROUNDS: Turnarounds are required for all driveways with a length in excess of 150 feet. TURNING RADIUS: The minimum outside turning radius is 36 feet, unless otherwise specified. CFC Sec. 503 and SD&S D-1 Comment #7: 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. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B AppllcantName Stotler Design Group DATE 12/28/201 PAGE 2 OF 3 SEC/FLOOR 2 story + AREA 10704 LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Site Plan NAME OF PROJECT SFR - JALIL LOCATION 13000 Middle Fork Ln Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2750 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 1 50% = as the Santa Clara Countv Central Fire 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 FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE �� SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 COURTESY B SERVICE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org PLAN REVIEW No. 11 3781 BLDG DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No. Comment #8: 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 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. CRY PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B AppllcantName Stotler Design Group DATE 12/28/201 PAGE 3 OF 3 SECIFLOOR 2 story + AREA 10704 LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Site Plan NAME OF PROJECT SFR - JALIL LOCATION 13000 Middle Fork Ln Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2750 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW ® 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 15070 Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire 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 ATTACHMENT 3 h COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS RECEIVED JA% 2 0 loll 1014N OF LOS RLT11 HILL" TO: Nicole Horvitz Associate Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Jalil, New Residence/ Grading Policy Exception 311-11-ZP-SD-GD 13000 Middle Fork Lane, Los. Altos Hills January 19, 2012 L5070 At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the permit applications for the proposed addition using: w. • Preliminary Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Services, Pre- Purchase Evaluation (report) prepared by Murray. Engineers, Inc., dated' July 21, 2010; • Architectural Plans (12 sheets) prepared by Giuliani and Kull, Inc., dated December 15,2011; and • Topographic, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Plans (4 sheets) prepared by Stotler design group, dated December 8, 2011. In addition, we completed a recent site reconnaissance and reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION Based on our review of the referenced documents, we understand that the applicant proposes to construct a 2 -story residence with a basement, a swimming pool, and various landscape/perimeter retaining; walls. We were not provided estimates for earthwork quantities but anticipate significant cut volumes for the proposed building pad and basement with a moderate amount of fill for the proposed driveway area. It Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 www.cottonshires.com Southern California Office 550 St. Charles Drive, Suite 108 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995 (805) 497-7999 9 Fax (805) 497-7933 Nicole Horvitz January 19, 2012 Page 2. L5070 appears that a total cut of approximately 22 vertical feet is planned at the rear of the residence (not counting basement excavation). SITE CONDITIONS The project site is generally characterized by moderately steep to very steep (approximately 15 to 65 percent inclination) southwest to west facing hillside topography. The proposed house site is located on a steep (40 percent inclination) slope. Previous grading on the site has created a very steep (approximately 67 percent inclination) fill slope in the eastern portion of the property adjacent to a previously installed and buried storm drain system. A moderately steep to precipitous (approximately 20 to 100 percent inclination) cut slope was observed adjacent to South Fork Lane in the western portion of the property. Drainage at the site is generally characterized by sheetflow directed toward the southwest and west. A broad swale is located along the northern edge of the property channelizing water southwest toward South Fork Lane. The Town Geologic Map indicates that the property is underlain, at depth, by sedimentary bedrock materials of Santa Clara Formation and Merced Formation. The bedrock is overlain by potentially expansive sandy clay (abundant desiccation cracking was noted). The nearest trace of the potentially active Monta Vista fault is mapped approximately 300 feet southeast of the subject property. Additionally, the active San Andreas fault is located approximately 3 miles southwest of the site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed residential development is constrained by the presence of likely non -engineered fill, potentially expansive soils, and anticipated very strong to violent seismic ground shaking. Our primary concern with the proposed project design is whether proposed significant cuts could result in unstable slopes either during or after project construction. We recommend that the Project Geotechnical Consultant evaluate proposed cuts and analyze slope stability under static and seismic conditions. To complete this evaluation, we anticipate that the consultant should complete subsurface exploration to the full depth of planned construction excavations. Completed preliminary sites borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 14 feet. Global slope stability analysis should be performed. The Consultant should also consider whether terraced retaining walls should be designed with surcharge loading from upper walls. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz January 19, 2012 Page 3 L5070 Prior to reaching geotechnical conclusions regarding project feasibility, we recommend the Project Geotechnical Consultant and Project Civil Engineer address the following items: 1. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluations - The Project Geotechnical Consultant should evaluate current site development plans and the geotechnical feasibility of proposed improvements. Consideration should be given to construction period slope stability plus verification of adequate long-term slope stability. Acceptable seismic stability of the proposed final site development configuration should be analyzed. Subsurface exploration and material testing should be extended to the full depth of planned project excavations. Slope stability and geotechnical suitability of proposed septic leachfield areas should also be evaluated. Supplemental recommended project geotechnical design measures should be provided. Measures to address slope stability during project construction should be summarized. The results of the Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluations should be submitted to the Town for review by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to reaching conclusions regarding the Site Development Permit application. 2. Updated Civil Engineering Plans — Civil plans should present anticipated cut and fill volumes. Considering the extensive use of proposed exterior retaining walls, the distribution of various wall types (modular block, pier -supported, soil -nail walls, etc.) should be noted on the project grading and drainage plans. Updated Civil plans should be submitted to the Town for review by the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant. LIMITATIONS This geologic and geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1�J � Nicole Horvitz January 19, 2012 Page 4 L5070 accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:JN:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL, CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 " '- T- ), 4 � David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS March 27, 2013 L5070B RECEIVED APRp�2013 TO: Nicole Horvitz Associate Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Dahl, New Residence/ Grading Policy Exception 311-11-ZP-SD-GD Middle Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the grading and site development permits for the proposed new residence using: Supplemental Information, Feasibility of Project (letter) prepared by Murray Engineers, dated March 22, 2013;.... • Preliminary Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Services, Pre - Purchase Evaluation (report) prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc., dated July 21, 2010; • Architectural Plans (14 sheets) prepared by Stotler Design Group, itaikCi ivlctilll 5, 2-Ot3; • Topographic Plan (2 sheets, 20 -scale) prepared by SMP Engineers, dated May 22, 2012; and • Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Plans (5 sheets, various scales) prepared. by Giuliani and Kull, Inc., dated March 7, 2012. In addition, we reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. Northern Califomia Office Central California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St. Charles Drive, Suite 108 Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933 www.cottonshires.com Nicole Horvitz Page 2 DISCUSSION March 27, 2013 L5070B We understand that the applicant proposes to construct a 2 -story residence with a basement, a swimming pool, and various significant landscape/perimeter retaining walls. Estimated earthwork quantities include approximately 4,847 cubic yards of cut and 606 cubic yards of fill. In our previous project geotechnical peer review (letter dated April 25, 2012), we indicated that we did not have objections to the Project Geotechnical's conclusion that the proposed site development concept was geotechnically feasible provided that appropriate slope stabilization methods were implemented in final project design and construction. Since then, we have received an updated set of development plans that illustrates a reduced reliance on exterior retaining walls to support proposed cut slopes. The basement walls and eastern wall of the residence appear to be retaining cuts into the local hillside. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Recent changes to the proposed design concept have resulted in reducing the visibility of project retaining walls. Previous plans depict terraced retaining walls above the proposed residence that reached a total exposed wall height of 25 feet. Recently submitted plans depict a maximum exposed wall height of 13 feet. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has evaluated the revised project plans and concluded that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical perspective. We do not have objections to the conclusions presented by Project Geotechnical Consultant and concur that the proposed development layout is geotechnically feasible. If the depicted development layout is deemed acceptable by the Town, then a design - level geotechnical investigation should be completed, and submitted to the Town for review, prior to acceptance of detailed plans for building permit plan -check. We understand that project construction will utilize staged excavation and staged retaining wall construction to avoid creation of extensive unsupported temporary cut slopes. LIMITATIONS This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz Page 3 March 27, 2013 L5070B accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:JN:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 "A4T. David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. n ' COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS RECEIVED APR 2 6 2012 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS TO: Nicole Horvitz Associate Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Jalil, New Residence/ Grading Policy Exception 311-11-ZP-SD-GD 13000 Middle Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills April 25, 2012 L5070A At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the permit applications for the proposed addition using: • Supplemental Response to Geotechnical Peer Review (letter) prepared by Murray Engineers; dated April 1.1, .2012; • Preliminary Engineering Geologic and. Geotechnical Services, Pre - Purchase. Evaluation (report) prepared -by Murray. Engineers;. Inc.,. dated July'21, 2010; • Architectural Plans (12 sheets) prepared by Giuliani and Kull, Inc., dated December 15,2011; and • Topographic, -Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Plans (4 sheets) prepared by Stotler design group, dated December 8, 2011. In addition, we completed a recent site reconnaissance and reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION We understand that the applicant proposes to construct a 2 -story residence with a basement, a swimming pool,; and various, significant landscape/perimeter retaining walls. We were not provided estimates for earthwork: quantities: but. anticipate significant cut volumes for the proposed building pad and basement with a moderate amount of fill for the proposed driveway area. It. appears that a total cut of Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St. Charles Drive, Suite 108 Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933 www.cottonshires.com Nicole Horvitz Page 2 April 25, 2012 L5070A approximately 25 vertical feet is planned at the rear of the residence (not counting basement excavation). This cut is to be supported by five tiered retaining walls. Significant grading and retaining wall construction is required because floor levels do not substantially conform to existing steep site grades. In our previous project geotechnical peer review (letter dated January 19, 2012), we indicated that our primary concern with the proposed design was whether indicated significant cuts could result in unstable slopes either during or after project construction. We recommended that the Project Geotechnical Consultant evaluate the geotechnical feasibility of currently proposed development plans considering static and seismic slope stability, address special design measures potentially required for construction period and final slope stability, and evaluate the suitability of proposed septic Ieachfield areas. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The Project Geotechnical Consultant has indicated that final geotechnical design parameters will need to be based on a future design -level geotechnical investigation. However, the consultant concludes that with appropriate use of soil nails, tie -back anchors, deep piers or combination of these elements, that the project appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. The consultant indicates that use of such methods to ensure slope stability should not significantly alter the depicted development appearance. During construction, the consultant notes that retaining walls will likely require sequenced excavation and wall construction in segments (top-down construction approach). Based- on supplemental discussion with the consultant, we understand that depicted septic leachfields are also deemed feasible from a geotechnical perspective. We do not have objections to the conclusions presented by Project Geotechnical Consultant. If the depicted development layout is deemed acceptable by the Town, then a design -level geotechnical investigation should be completed, and submitted to the Town for review, prior to acceptance of detailed plans for building permit plan -check. LIMITATIONS This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz Page 3 April 25, 2012 L5070A of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 TS:DTS.JN:kd COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMVFlTjjE ,,�E ............. ...... ...... ............. u------------ -------------------- U J --------------- ..................... ............... . ......................................... . ........... ..... ... ...... 4 licatlo.. .... ... ................................. ..... p.n..for: ... .............. ........... .................................. . ... ................................ * - ----- * ---- --- - .... ..... ............... . .......................... . . . . ........................................................................ ALTOS 4i3_rican_tNa_m,e":_ ............... .. - - --- ---- - ---------------------------- .................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Applicant"Address: 7� ............................ . .... w ....................................... I F- Reviewed 4y: Al ........... ................................................................................................................................. --------------------- Date: ------- ... ST ----------- - ------------ Y. . .. .. . ................. ......... ................. . ...... . ................................................ . ............. lll_sN_D . ....... ....... . . . ..... .... . ..... . .... .— ............ .............. COMMENTS ...................... ........... ...... ................. .............................. .................... .......................................................... . ......... . .. Site Impact k4km f,4-. c -e.. ........................... . . ............................. . ..... . . .... ........ .. -v-- --------- -------------- ---------------------- .......... - ----------------------- - .......... ---------- ...................................... ............ -- -------------------------------- .................. ... . . ........................... Li htin . _.ice - --------------- ................. ------- - ----------- ...... ................................................... .... ...................... 77 . ...... .. ........... .. - ------------- ........................................... ...................... f ......... ........ ... . ...... . ........................................... ------ .. ........................................ . ............ . ..... - --------- - 7 ---------------- ..... ------- ............ ols,2� ..... ........ ... . . .......... ... .......................................................... --"--""---._....__...._•----•..... ............. --- ------ m ................... . ...... ...... ............................. ................................................................................................................................. . ...... . ......... --•---""-"-"----....-._...__.._.......-._.....--- ------------ -------- ....... ... . ...... . .. . ..................... ... . .. m .. ................... ...................................... ................................................................................................................................................................... w .................... ..... - - ------ ------- ------ ........................................................................................................................... .............. ......... . ......... . ...................... . ...... -------------- ..... . ... ......................... ---- -------- ----- - ----------- f-. Z m — — . ....... TS ........ ..... ........................................ .................. ................ ........................ . ............... ----•-•-------------".....----"-"".................... .qrainage — --------- ------------ -----•------...•-•...--••- .................... . ....... . .................... . ...................... . .................................................... . ............................... - ............................................. ................ ........... . ......... -T V ------ - ---- --- ..... . ..... J's ---------- rq ..... .... ------ - ------------- �K .............. . ......... . . ........ m .. .. Yom---......:............. ....... . ..... ........... ------------ .............. hsf.% M_. ...... . . ..................... Easements ------••-------------------- 1 ....... ........... . . .....olvi.. -- .......... CA'o.. e................... T ..... ....... .......................... Existing Vegitation ........... . .. .............. ----•.....•--•............. ........................ . -... ......... .... V441'e. .......... yl;�� --•--•••-•.. . _....:::.:.._---.:-=-=—..... ....... ............ --•...-._.....----•--•............... ------- ** ----------- ----------- ------- ------ - ------- ------ - --- ......................... . ........ . e. ....... ........................... ....... . ............ 0; ..... .. ... ......... .... Mitigation= w ✓ 1. ......... . .............. ............... ............ .... ..................................... ......... .......... ... -- ----- ------------------------------- - -------- --- A ........................... . ..................... . ...... ..... .. ....................................................................... ...... * -- ------- A-p� PC -p -l -r- &-" Luz� -NIL 4r -no tf 01 7 bti J, �cl PIA W01 Environmental Design and Protection Committee' Review ed by: Z4, Applicant Name P U (_ Address c 3a a-0 Site impact/lighting/noise: ;�A-L-c L_ Date P V t 6. 1 q— Creeks, drainage, easements: ILI Ei isting Vegetation: Significant issues/comments: J TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 2 0 ATTACHMENT 5 To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Debbie Pedro Date: June 30, 2013 'Subject: Open Space Committee Comments on Proposed Development at 13000 Middle Fork Lane (Lands of Jalil) From: Roger Spreen, Chair, LAH Open Space Committee The following comments are summarized from the Open Space Committee meeting on Thursday, June 20, 2013. 1. Background: this is a 3.5 acre parcel located on the' south side of Middle Fork Lane with frontages on both Middle Fork and South Fork Lanes. It is.less than 250 feet from Matadero Creek, a well-preserved riparian area' with significant wildlife activity. A portion of the parcel is within the Open Space Conservation Area designated by the Town for special protection because of its environmental sensitivity. There is an existing open space easement on the south end of the property: The eastern (uphill) border of the parcel is steeply sloped with some areas 30% or more. 2. Although the slope -density ordinance�provides a maximum MFA/MDA, it does not guarantee maximum development on every parcel. Certain lots have constraints, both topological and/or historical (i.e. easements, roads, etc.) that do not support the full MFA/MDA. Inability to achieve full MFA/MDA should not be a reason to allow exceptions to standard protections and guidelines. 3. The northeast corner is a highly sloped portion of the hillside near the uphill border of the property along Middle Fork Lane, which incorporates a. grove of oak trees (both Valley oak and Coast Live oak) ranging from 9" to 46" in. diameter. This grove is a signature feature of the hill, and is highly visible from off-site.' The proposal to cut backthis grove of oaks is the greatest concern to the Open Space Committee. We believe the entire grove should be protected (a) to protect the trees themselves, (b) to preserve connection of the easement to the existing easement on the adjacent property, and (c) -to protect the grove from the significant grading proposed right up against the grove. Thus, we propose an open space easement protecting this portion of the hill. This is consistent with the Town's standard conditions of approval ("An open space easement may be required over portions of the property with'steep slopes generally in excess of 30% and -the presence of heritage oaklrees and/or creek corridors.") 4. In determining open space easements, a key factor is the connectivity of that area with related terrain. This parcel is the last property to come up for development in this area, and thus connectivity with previously established open space easements is a significant consideration. The proposed easement (in the NE corner) is directly contiguous with a large existing open space easement on the adjacent uphill property. (See attachment with adjacent easements indicated.) This adjacent easement also shows the Town's pre- existing intent to value and protect the slope and the forestation in this area. Creating connectivity between the existing and proposed easements will greatly enhance the conservation value of both easements. 5. .A major concern is the effect of the proposed grading and development on the grove. Here are some aspects of grading near oak trees (from San Luis Obispo county's "Development Around Oak Trees," http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/environmental/Development+Arou nd+Oaks.pdf): "Coast live oak trees have a very sensitive root system that consists of .both shallow and deep roots. The extensive. shallow (feeder) roots usually extend .1/3 to 1/2 again the dripline-to-trunk distance beyond the drip line of the tree." - "During development, if trenching is -necessary (e.g., for utilities) under oak trees, substantial portions of the root system can be severed, reducing the tree's ability to take up water and nutrients." - "Where possible, grading/trenching should be restricted to areas outside the drip.line and root zone of the trees." "...substantial cuts away from trees may change drainage patterns and cause the soil to dry more rapidly in the summer. This could result in insufficient moisture available to the trees; in turn, they may die of a lack of water, or weaken with a greater exposure to disease." 6. The applicant's arborist recommends removing several of the trees, including the largest (47" diameter), as their shapes pose a risk of falling limbs. From an open space perspective, we believe the optimal situation is to leave the entire grove in its current state, and let those trees continue to grow naturally, if they are not endangering permitted construction: 7. Both the proposed easement (in the NE corner) and the existing easement (in the southern end) must be left unfenced as required by normal easement restrictions. If the applicant is allowed to reduce the NE corner oak tree grove by removing trees as proposed in the development plan, we strongly. recommend that this be mitigated by requiring an additional 30 foot wide open space easement along the eastern border of the property connecting the two easement areas (the NE corner and the 2 south end). No fencing is allowed in any of these easements. This will provide valuable connectivity in the area and will have little or no impact on the applicants' use of this part of the property, which is sloped and located above the proposed 11- 15 ft high retaining walls. 8. Though sanitation is not directly an open space issue, we are aware that the Santa Clara County Dept of Environmental Health has proposed a new Septic System Ordinance (on track to be enacted this fall) that "allows alternative treatment technologies" and "modernizes construction standards and siting requirements," which can enable a smaller footprint for constrained properties. While this would not be directly applicable to this property (as it would only apply to unincorporated areas), we wanted to raise an "FYI" that there may in the near future be alternatives for properties constrained by septic siting requirements. See the FAQ at "http://www.sccgov.org/sites/deh/Consumer Protection Division/Program and Services/Land Use Program/Documents/OWTS/OWTS FAQ LAH.pdf' Recommendation Summary: A. Require an open space easements in the NE corner to protect the entire grove of oaks on this steep slope. B. If the applicants are not required to establish an OS easement over the entire grove in the NE corner and are allowed to remove trees here, then this action should be mitigated by establishing a 30 -ft OS easement along the east border of the property connecting the new easement with the existing southern easement. Attachment: Map of existing adjacent open space easements along the east border. 3 Kielty Arborist Services Certified Arborist WE90476A P.O. Box6187 Sari Mateo, CA 94403 650 _ 525 =1464 June 20, 2011 Stotler Design Group Attn: Mr. Scott Stotler 349.First Street Suite A Los Altos, CA 94022 Site: Lot at South Fork and Middle Fork, Los Altos Hills, CA Dear Mr. Stotler, ATTA�q& NT 6 MAY 0 7 2013 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS As requested on Wednesday, June 15, 2011, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. The property has recently been -purchased and your concern as to the health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height)._ The trees were given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The heights of the trees were measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. Survey: Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 1 Valley oak 30.1 70 50/45 Good vigor; fair form, multi at 6 feet. (Quercus lobata) (Quercus lobata) o oss ecavnri rurn. *indicates removal is planned. Southfork/6/20/11 (2) Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 3 Coast live oak 14.9-18.0 55 40/40 Fair vigor, poor -fair form, codominant at (Quercus agrifolia) base, suppressed by larger oaks. (QuercusIII I air (QuercusIII I - - (Quercus lobata) �� L{;1s) � • �" ""�gYf��it}1 0 6 4� . 0 o f3 G � lobata) 10 Valley oak 1.5,6 55 40/20 Fair vigor, tall doe DBH. (Quercus lobata) QuercusTom— III I 0 0[ JUf10 Tu - 0 r�4; 12 Valley oak 20.1 60 40/40 Good vigor, fair form, trunk bends.west. (Quercus lobata) . 1 a U5.3' � ar a r ,o omits ; fie . (Quercus lobata) s UPpnssed M 1 4. 14 Coast live oak 30:2 55 45/45 Fair vigor, fair form, -heavy lateral limb, (Quercus agrifolia) _ tractor scars on trunk. 15 Coast live oak 23.8 55 50/40 Fair vigor, suppressed by larger oaks, heavy (Quercus agrifolia) to -the south and west. : 16 Valley oak . 12.2' 60 40/15 Fair vigor, fair form, suppressed by #17, tall (Quercus lobata) for DBH. *indicates removal is planned Southfork/6/20/11 Tree# Species 17 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 18 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) (3) Valley oak DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 31.2 60 45/50 Good vigor, fair form, codominant at 6 feet 20 with a poor crotch. 11.2 60 35/20 Fair vigor, fair form, tall for DBH, suppressed by #17. 19 Valley oak 10.5 6C (Quercus lobata) 20 Coast live oak 10.3-9.8 55 (Quercus agrifolia) 21 Coast live oak 12est 55 (Quercus agrifolia) 22 Valley oak 11.3 55 (Quercus lobata) 23 Valley oak 13.2-12.6 50 (Quercus lobata) 24 Valley oak 16-20 65 (Quercus lobata) 25 Coast live oak 26-18 60 (Quercus agrifolia) 26 Coast live oak 14.2 60 (Quercus agrifolia) 27 Valley oak 11.9 60 (Quercus lobata) 28 Blue oak 15est 60 (Quercus douglasii) 29 Valley oak 15est 60 (Quercus lobata) 30 Valley oak Best 55 (Quercus lobata) 35/20 Fair vigor, fair form. 35/30 Fair vigor, codominant at base. 40/25 Vigor is fair, form is fair, trunk bends north east. 40/25 fair vigor, fair form is fair, codominant at 5 feet. 35/35 Vigor is poor, form is poor -fair, codominant. 50/45 Fair vigor, fair form, codominant at 3 feet, inner deadwood. 50/60 Vigor is fair, form is fair, heavy northern leader. 35/30 Suppressed by #25. 35/30 Suppressed by #25, shares root zone with #26. 40/35 Suppressed by larger trees, leans south. 40/35 Suppressed by larger trees, leans south. 15/15 Leans heavily to the south. Southfork/6/20/11 (4) Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 31 Valley oak 10.7 60 40/25 Suppressed, good vigor. 40/25 Suppressed, good vigor. 35/25 Vigor is fair, form is fair. 35/25 Vigor is poor -fair, abundance of lower deadwood.. 25/15 Vigor is poor, abundance of deadwood. 3 0/3 0 Leans to southwest, fair vigor. 35/25 Trunk bends west, poison oak in canopy. 35/25 Trunk bends west, poison oak in canopy. 35/30 Leans heavily to the west. 50/55 Fair vigor, good form. 55/30 Leans heavily to west, good vigor. 35/25 Shares root zone with #41. 50/45 Fair vigor, fair form, heavy lateral limbs. 35/30 Suppressed by #43. (Quercus lobata) 32 Valley oak 10.2 60 (Quercus lobata) 33 Coast live oak 10.3 60 (Quercus agrifolia) 34 Blue oak 27.7 60 (Quercus douglasii) 35 Blue oak 10.1 50 (Quercus douglasii) 36 Valley oak 11.4 60 (Quercus lobata) 37 Coast live oak l0est 55 (Quercus agrifolia) 38 Coast live oak 1Oest 55 (Quercus agrifolia) 39 Valley oak 15est 60 (Quercus lobata) 40 Coast live oak 30est 70 (Quercus agrifolia) 41 Valley oak 15est 60 (Quercus lobata) 42 Valley oak 17est 65 (Quercus lobata) 43 Valley oak 31.7 65 (Quercus lobata) 44 Valley oak 13.5 50 (Quercus lobata) 40/25 Suppressed, good vigor. 35/25 Vigor is fair, form is fair. 35/25 Vigor is poor -fair, abundance of lower deadwood.. 25/15 Vigor is poor, abundance of deadwood. 3 0/3 0 Leans to southwest, fair vigor. 35/25 Trunk bends west, poison oak in canopy. 35/25 Trunk bends west, poison oak in canopy. 35/30 Leans heavily to the west. 50/55 Fair vigor, good form. 55/30 Leans heavily to west, good vigor. 35/25 Shares root zone with #41. 50/45 Fair vigor, fair form, heavy lateral limbs. 35/30 Suppressed by #43. Southfork/6/20/11 (5) Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 45 Valley oak 14.1 55 40/20 Suppressed by #43. (Quercus lobata) 46 Coast live oak 45est 70 50/60 Heavy to the south and west, good vigor. (Quercus agrifolia) 47 Coast live oak • 6-6 55 20/15 Fair vigor, poor form. (Quercus agrifolia) 48 Coast live oak 6-6 60 20/15 Good vigor, codominant leaders. (Quercus agrifolia) 49 Coast live oak 6est 65 15/10 Good vigor. (Quercus agrifolia) 50 Deodar cedar 8est 70 35/15 Fair vigor, good form. (Cedrus deodara) 51 Coast live oak 12est 60 30/30 Good vigor, fair form (Quercus agrifolia) 52 Coast live oak 14est 60 35/35 Good vigor, fair form. (Quercus agrifolia) 53 Coast live oak 8est 60 3 0/3 5 Good vigor, fair form. (Quercus agrifolia) 54 Coast live oak 12est 55 35/25 Good vigor, fair form. (Quercus agrifolia) 55 Coast live oak Best 50 30/30 Good vigor, fair form. (Quercus agrifolia) 56 Deodar cedar 10 65 35/15 Good vigor fair form, suppressed. (Cedrus deodara) 57 Deodar cedar 10 65 35/15 Good vigor fair form, suppressed. (Cedrus deodara) 58 Deodar cedar 10 65 35/15 Good vigor fair form, suppressed. (Cedrus deodara) Southfork/6/20/11 (6) Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 59 Coast live_ oak 7-8 60 30/25 Good vigor, fair form codominant at 1 foot. (Quercus agrifolia) 60 Coast live oak Best 50 30/20 Vigor is poor to fair, on bank. (Quercus agrifolia) 61 Coast live oak 7.0-6.1 55 30/20 Vair vigor, codominant at 1 foot. (Quercus agrifolia) 62 Deodar cedar 10 60 35/20 Good vigor fair form, poor location, wires. (Cedrus deodara) 63 Valley oak 6,2 65 35/15 Good vigor, fair form, tall for DBH. (Quercus lobata) 64 Valley oak 6.4 60 30/25 Fair vigor, fair form, codominant at 10 feet. (Quercus lobata) 65 Coast live oak 1Oest 65 30/30 Good vigor, fair form. (Quercus agrifolia) 66 Coast live oak 10-12 65 30/30 Good vigor, fair form. (Quercus agrifolia) 67 Coast live oak 10-11 55 30/30 Good vigor, (Quercus agrifolia) 68 Deodar cedar 14est 65 35/15 Good vigor fair form, suppressed. (Cedrus deodara) 69 Coast live oak 12-10 65 35/35 Fair vigor, fair form. (Quercus agrifolia) 70 Coast live oak 1Oest 65 30/25 Good vigor, fair form. (Quercus agrifolia) 71 Bailey acacia 6-6 55 20/20 Good vigor, multi at 3 feet. (Acacia baileyana) 72 Bailey acacia 6-8 55 25/20 Good vigor, codominant at 1 foot. Acacia baileyana) Southfork/6/20/11 (7) Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 73 Valley oak 12.6 55 45/30 Vigor is fair, form is poor suppressed by #75 (Quercus lobata) 74 Valley oak 20.3 60 45/35 Good vigor, fair form, suppressed by #75. (Quercus lobata) 75 Valley oak 16-16 70 50/40 Good vigor, fair form, codominant at 3 feet. (Quercus lobata) 76 Valley oak 16-16 60 50/40 Fair vigor, fair form. Codominant at 1 foot. (Quercus lobata) Observations: The trees on this lot are a mix of 3 species of native oaks and imported trees. The imported trees consist of Deodar cedars and Bailey acacias. The imported trees are all on the conservation easement and fair condition. No work is recommended at this time. Tree #2 with large cavities from failed leaders Oaks #1 through #23 are located in a grove in the uphill section of the lot. In the grove the oaks are bunched together, causing several of the trees to grow with poor form. Tree # 2 has a history of large limb failure and extensive decay at the failure points. The tree has good vigor with very poor form. Future failure of all or part of this tree is likely. Tree #11 is in decline and has poor form. The probable cause of the decline is root rot and may have been accelerated by the damage caused by the tractor when plowing. The tree will continue to decline and may fail as a result of the root rot. Oak #11 also has a history of leader loss and has decay at the points of failure. Southfork/6/20/11 (8) Tree#11 in decline Tree #15 has poor form. The tree is I a crowded section of the upper grove on the property and has been suppressed by larger oaks. The tree has grown off balance towards the light causing a significant risk of limb failure. Oaks and imported trees in the lower conservation easement are in fair condition and provide a good screen for the neighbors and is providing good habitat for native animals in the area. The oaks on the west side of Middlefork are in fair condition and are in a little used area on the property. When the fields were plowed, care was taken to protect the root crowns of these oak trees from tractor damage. Summary: The lot has fairly steep terrain with an abundance of native oaks. The lot has seen some maintenance including the annual tilling of the weeds and native grasses. The tilling process has injured several oaks. Three oaks on the site are problematic and are hazardous. Remove the 3 oaks as their removal will make the grove safer and will allow for remaining trees to thrive with less competition. 73 Oak #15 (right center) has poor form due to poor light quality in the grove. The smaller oaks in the upper grove are growing a suppressed manner with poor form. The smaller oaks have also been mechanically damaged when plowing. Removal of the smaller oaks will improve the grove and allow the desired trees to thrive. No replacement trees are recommended at this time as the lot has an abundance of trees and is unimproved. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#0476A Michael Kuranoff 13440 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills Planning Commission, Town of Los Altos Hills Re: Lands of Jalil, Middle Fork Lane Honorable Commissioners, C1 RECEIVED JUL 17 2012 ATTACHMENT 7 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Following are my thoughts and concerns regarding the.subject property. July 17, 2012 Not opposed to neighborhood development:.I worked diligently for approval of my adjacent neighbors, the Yongs, plans for a large new residence on the former Stegner property because their architect showed great sensitivity in adapting a large house into existing terrain and landscape, as required by the towns development ordinances. Grave concerns. over current plans for Jalil's proposed development: The various iterations of plans shown tome and the neighbors seem inconsistent and misleading. Grading numbers, tree removal counts and other details of the plan differ when described by the applicant and when reviewed with the town planning staff. In any and all of the plan iterations I have viewed, the scope of the project, in my opinion, is totally inappropriate for the difficult site it is being placed upon. Some Specifics: Project Size: The proposed house -is -enormous. Including a fully finished basement which houses a full in-law apartment, exercise room and eighteen seat theatre, total floorspace is well over 12,000 sq ft. Above grade floor space is 8437 sq ft. Maximum Floor Area as permitted by code is 8440 sq ft. Maximum permitted development area, (pavement, pools etc.) is limited by code at 13,160 sq. ft. The applicant is requesting 12,932 sq. ft, after using a solar exemption to increase his development area by 500 sq.ft and by using a permeable, ("Grasscrete") driveway to further permit the largest possible lot coverage. A recent email received from Mr. Jalil asking for my support of his most recent plan submittal states; "It is smaller and modest, as compared to initial plans we showed you". Since his most recent plans are within .035 of 1%.(3/8440) of the maximum allowable floor area, I can only assume that earlier submissions asked for even more exceptions than he is.currently requesting. In no way can this project be described as a "modest". Grading : When neighbor Dr. Francke and I reviewed plans in June, we were led to believe that cuts for the yard would total 12 vertical feet. -The current plan set -submitted by Mr. Jalil shows a yard cut of 22 feet (guidelines permit 4 -feet), a house cut of 14 feet (8 feet permitted), plus a cut for basement grading of an additional 12 feet. Requested fill is 12 feet, guidelines permit 3 feet. Guidelines require stepped foundations for lots exceeding 14% grade. This lot has an average grade of over 30% and no attempt to fit the house to the contour of the hill is proposed. -One. can certainly develop a house of any size on a lot of virtually any slope if enough grading is done. That seems to be the, strategy for this project. To appreciate the scope of the proposed grading, please consider the following. Engineering drawings show a total cut volume of 4893 cu yd, a fill volume of 620 cu yd, for a net export of 4273 cu yards of soil. Just numbers on paper. But note that a combined truck and trailer (freeway construction stuff) can hold only 12 cu yards. It is likely that a much smaller truck will be needed to access this site, without a trailer. If we assume that such a truck will hold 4 to 5 cu yd, the applicant is asking to remove between 800 and 1000 truckloads -of soil. With one truck departing every 3 minutes, it will take more than one week to remove the soil. This for a private residence in a town which discourages grading. Tree Removal: When tree removal was discussed with neighbors, 9 Oaks were shown. Currentlly submitted drawings show a total of 13 Oaks to be removed, most of them Heritage trees. Town ordinance prohibits Heritage tree removal except under extreme circumstances. The nearby Yong project will remove two trees. Some Middle Fork trees are well over 30 -inches in diameter. The ordinance requires replacement of 2 or more trees for each one removed. Replaced trees will take many years to reach maturity, perhaps subsequent generations will enjoy them, the neighbors surely will not. Difficult Communications: The information provided by Mr.Jalil and his building designer seem to consistently stretch the truth. In the email describing his "modest" development project, Mr. Jalil states that his lot is nearly 4 acres when it is in fact about 3.5 acres including .5 acres separated from his main lot by a public road. He has continually misstated the -number of trees to be removed and the amount of grading proposed. In a letter to neighbors asking that they approve his project, he references the "architect/building designer" and the "architectural" plans. Scott Stotler, his designer is not a registered architect and is not entitled to use the title. Perhaps a trained registered architect would have brought better design sensibility to the project.. A Slippery Slope: As stated above, the proposed development massively exceeds grading guidelines and tree removal regulations. -Other neighbors have expressed concerns about the grading, septic system outflow and tree removal destabilizing the hill. I would add to these concerns the following. The only way to reach my home and the homes of my neighbors on our private road, South Fork Lane, is to pass the toe of the slope of Mr. Jalil's property. I am 75 years old, my nearby neighbors are approaching a- similar level of "senior citizenship" and from time to time we need unimpeded access to medical care. Were an event such a flooding, earthquake or fire to occur, we could. easily be trapped by the closure of South Fork Lane. Mr Jalil's proposal for massive grading, tree removal, irrigation and sewage disposal can only exacerbate the slippage hazard on South Fork. Another Slippery Slope: Developers and applicants traditionally and consistently challenge and crowd the town's development ordinances. By giving in to ongoing requests for intensive development, the town appears to be favoring variances and exceptions to town guidelines and ordinances. Subsequent applicants will surely state as precedent the variances granted here and only ask for more. Consequently, other parts of the town could be affected by allowing excessive development on Middle Fork Lane. What To Do: I respectfully request that this application be rejected. In my opinion, the project needs extensive redesign. Grading beyond town guidelines and ordinances should not be permitted. Tree removal, if any, should be limited to non -heritage trees. And most important, the town must follow its development guidelines and require the house to be built to adapt to the contour of the hill, using a split level design if necessary. Sincerely, ichael Kuranoff Los Altos Hill Planning Commission July 16, 2012 RECEIVED JUL , 7 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS RE: Removal of large portion of the hillside for the development project on Middle Fork Lane by Rehan and Mariam Jalil. We are the neighbors adjacent to the. bottom part of the property at 13460 South Fork Lane. Jalil's property is just across the lane from us. Dr Cordell Green is. an engineer, computer scientist; and CEO. Dr Christine Green is a physician. We have lived here for 33 years. I (Cordell) had a long meeting with Rehan and Mariam and the designer Scott Stotler. And I went through the large planning document at the. planning commision last week. _.The.Jalils were very. pleasant to deal with and it seemed they would be good neighbors if they lived there. Yesterday I again talked to the surveyors and walked the property after the short boundary poles were in place, to be sure I understood the situation.. I have several concerns about the plans: 1. Removal of much of the Hillside: The cut of 22 feet, or about 33 feet including the basement, and very wide, is an egregious violation of the town's 4 foot maximum cut policy/ordinance. The fill of perhaps 8 feet is a violation of the town's fill policy/ordinance. .I understand that such an, extensive in -total removal of the hillside is unprecedented in the town. Or perhaps just close to it. Should the earth move from rains, earthquake, or construction or any combination thereof it would be disastrous. Of course Jalil has employed engineers who do their best to design special retaining walls and special drains that hope to solve these problems. But we should not be increasing the Risk of a major collapse, mudslide, or landslide by such a enormous removal of the hillside. Of course being at the bottom of the hill our house would be one of the most affected by mudslides, landslides, collapses, floods, or contamination. 2. Lost heritage: Jalil has shown the town that he plans to remove 9 heritage oaks and four smaller oaks. These oak trees have deep tap roots whose removal will .further destabilize the hill. To mitigate, he will plant new trees that in 50+ years might approach the size of our lost heritage trees. And then provide re -stabilization. 3. Septic Springs: After a winter rain, small springs appear at the bottom of the middle fork property and in the road cut for South Fork Lane. This means that rainwater is flowing underground from. the hillside to the bottom of the hill. In the Jalil plans there is a huge septic drain field where his sewage is emptied. Meanwhile, the water for the springs has to -.come from up the hill. This means that some of it will pass through, under, over or around his septic drains. Given that these springs and their underground flow exist, we must ask what prevents these underground rivers from picking up the sewage and carrying it down the hill? If the county believed that the underground water couldn't pick up the sewage, they would allow drinking water wells at the bottom of a properly designed septic drain field. But wells are not'allowed at the bottom of even a well-designed septic drain field. Especially if the effluent is being carried further downhill. Would any of us drink from the springs at the bottom of the property? What problems could occur when the underground -water passes through the drain field and emerges in the existing springs? Alternatives: Can we make suggestions to help the developer put a house on that property? (a) Pump: What about moving the house down the hill and putting the drain field above it? Apparently the county has allowed his "overflow" sewage to be pumped up the hill to a second area but the county prefers no pump on the primary field. Is it not possible to pursue just as vigorously as is pursued his current plan, a plan that allows a second, also above the property, drain field that requires an exception to the county policy? His house and drains amd basins would be below the septic field and could help block some of the effluent's downhill flow. (b) Sewer. Why not pay to join the existing sewer? The neighbors that I talked to, that own the existing sewer, were amenable to negotiating adding additional capacity and safety to the existing sewer so that Jalil could join. Though according to the neighbors I talked to, this path was not pursued to more than a perfunctory level. It would be expensive to enhance the sewer, but should be a savings in the overall development costs and thus be more profitable. View? The current plan that removes much of the hillside, and removes the oaks, and introduces concerns about septic problems, will have a very high construction cost, likely much higher than a plan based on joining the sewer or lowering the house in someway. But developing a view might bring a much better price. We wondered, perhaps a minor point, ... although the Jalil's have three young children, the hill is so steep at the planned site, that the design does not include a yard for the children to play in. Perhaps a lower house, where it is less steep could accomodate a yard. We hope the Jalil's dream of developing the lot can be realized by some process of mitigating these risk factors. We certainly are quite open to alternatives. Dr. Christine Green Dr Cordell Green To the Planning Commision of Los Altos Hills Regarding the building plans of Rehan Jalil. July 17th, 2012 From Donna and Paul Prudence, 13452 South Fork Lane Our house is next to the property of Jalil. lust below it. RECEIVED JUL 17 2012 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Summary: We have looked at the plans, looked at the property, looked at the bounary stakes, looked at the Perc test pipes, met with Jalil, and we do not support the plan. We strongly recommend that the exceptions not be approved and the house not be built. You may have seen an earlier communication from ilye@164c other neighbors indicating that we approved the development. However after the meeting with Jalil we found that the information we understood from the meeting did. not fit with the plans or the property. We disagree with removing nine big, old oak trees so Jalil can get a better view. We disagree with removing so much dirt so that the house can be placed to get a better view. We disagree with his putting a septic drain field above our property. These fields do leak and ground water is contaminated. The county does not allow wells below the drain fields of course. The effluent could easily leak to our property. We have had two major floods on our property. One from a water leak and one from a large rainstorm that overwhelmed drains. We have attached some photos of one of the floods. His plan includes some drains and catch basins to mitigate the problem caused by his huge house plan, but we think it too will be overwhelmed when the significant rains come and the drains clog. We hope Jalil will find a way to attach to a sewer, or move his house down hill and put the drain field above his house. We would like to see stronger evidence that rains cannot overwhelm his (0.rov9<rs2-9 7 i/l aocmx Yn. A' 41-1 Ilk- S-� Uta Francke 13500 South Fork Lane Los Altos Hills Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission c/o Nicole Horvitz RE: Lands of Jalil development project Dear Planning Commissioners July 15, 2012 RECEIVED JUN 17 2012 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS On June 28, 2012, 1 signed Mr. Jalil's petition agreeing with his proposed project and I now wish to rescind it. My agreement was based on erroneous and incomplete information regarding the size of the house, the depth of the required grading and the number of oak trees to be removed. In the presence of myself and M. Kuranoff, Mr Jalil stated that the revised plans were for a smaller house than the original one, but subsequent data show that the current plans are just at the MDA/MFA limits. He also showed us 9 trees to be removed while now the number is 13, and the depth of the grading we were led to believe _,was much. lower.than_that_actually.proposed. _ Furthermore, I wish to offer two additional points for your consideration: Our hills are unstable and steep because we are -in a geologically active area. This particular hill is constantly moving downward, we see the effects in the- cracks in the road, in the ground and the moving creek edge. The geologist, Roland von Huene, who built my house knew that. He drilled holes all the way to the bedrock and planted poles. on which he built the house, so the earth can move around the.poles. The Jalil proposal represents a majordisruption of thehill structure with a potential destabilizing effect that cannot be accurately predicted. Those of us living just downhill from this disruption are put at risk of experiencing accelerated sliding. 2. -Instead of extending to the existing sewer lines as in the original plans that my late husband, Heinz Furthmayr, and -1 had been shown; the revised proposal includes a septic system with an extensive leach field just upstream of my property. The amount of water that will be pumped into this system by the inhabitants of a >12000 sq.ft.' house could be enormous. Since I have not seen any professional assessment of the risks of. overflow to my.property; this leaves me concerned To tum from the factual to a more spiritual theme: Wallace Stegner in his largely historical book "All the little live things" envisioned the destruction of exactly this hill, located directly .opposite the house of his character Marian Catlin; her little white house still stands on the -Green's property on South Fork Lane. Here I quote from- the cloth -bound 1969 First Edition: Page 313: °.:.that was the afternoon when Tom Weld drove his caterpillar across the tottering bridge and began. tearing great wounds in the hill.... We couldn't move our hill or turn our house_ the other way; and we could no more resist the laws of property, the permit of the planning commission and the notion that mutilation was progress." Page 327: "the bulldozerroared into life again, much closer than before, and bending, I could see it coming around the shoulder of the hill on a long descending angle evidently aimed at the junction with our lane about at the mailboxes. Clods broke from the wave of earth thrown downhill by the blade. Two or three made it all the way to the lane, jumped the bank, and burst like bombs. For a minute my head was full of the thought of those Indians who had made noble speeches to Congress and commissioners, speeches in which they spoke of such reverence for the Earth Mother that they would not plow her breast. I thought of the druids who worshiped trees, and of the Great Goddess who was ancient, and anciently worshiped, centuries before she came into history on the tablets of Sumer." Reading this, I can feel Wally's spirit roaming our hills, and for those of you who did not know him, attach a photo that he gave us before he died. If Wally were alive today, he would vehemently object the massive mutilation of this hill, more so than the destruction of his own home, because he valued Nature more than objects made by man. Sincerely, Uta Francke Nicole Horvitz err�n,r�a From: Tom Raffin [tar@thpartners.net] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:59 AM JUN 1'-12012 To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: Tom and Michele Raffin/13468 and 13470 Three Forks Lane TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Dear Nicole, We have lived on Three Forks Lane for 24 years. We own both 13468 and 13470 Three Forks Lane. We are close to the neighborhood and have sponsored an annual neighborhood party for 22 years. The Jalils and their development advisor visited us to explain their plans for the Middle Fork Project (intersection of Middle Fork and South Fork). We were under the impression the rest of the neighborhood was supportive of their plan. Thus, we signed their paper stating we supported their plan. Over the past week we have received visits and calls from many of our neighbors who are quite concerned with the project. Because of this we would like to remove our name as supporters of this project and we will make no decision until we hear more details about the potential adverse effects and what the Jalils plan to do in response to these concerns by the neighborhood. Regards, Tom and Michele Raffin Thomas A. Raffin, M.D. Colleen and Robert Haas Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University General Partner Telegraph Hill Partners 360 Post Street, Suite 601 San Francisco, CA 94108 Work: 415 765-6980 General: 415 765-6980 Cell: 650 799-1544 em: tar@thpartners.net www.thpartners.net July 16, 2012 Dear Los Altos Hills Planning Commission: RECEIVED JUN 10 2012 TOWN 0r L "SALTOS HILLS We are John and Linda Conover who reside at 13400 Middle Fork Lane on the hill directly above Lands of Jalil. We understand that you will be discussing the proposed development of those lands at the upcoming commission meeting on August 2, 2012. We will be directly impacted by those plans and we oppose their approval for the following reasons. The grading and fill requests are excessive and out of guidelines. There is no effort to fit the house to the contour of the hill. We believe that codes, guidelines and other town, county, state laws and mandates have been created by knowledgeable authorities to protect our life and property and that the applicants should not be permitted to be so completely out of compliance. THESE PLANS, AS PROPOSED, PUT US AT RISK. The tree removal requests, especially for the heritage oaks, are unnecessary. We would urge the plans to be redrawn to protect those trees. With such a large piece of property to work with, it is not unrealistic to ask that the trees be saved. The. proposed residence is too large a footprint for the land on which it is built. The current projection is not based on the larger contiguous piece of property, but includes property technically in the parcel, but actually across Middle Fork Lane. In addition, applicant is requesting a larger permitted development area by obtaining a solar exemption and use of Grasscrete driveway. All of these maneuvers to manipulate the numbers and increase house size, cause the house to dominate the property rather than fit into the natural landscape . We urge you not to approve these plans and to request that the applicants return to the drawing board and find a way to be compliant with the guidelines established by the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission. Thank you. Linda and John Conover r' ATTACHMENT 8 July SUN 7 8 Greetings to Los Altos Hill Planning Commission 10% Zola "CIO We are talking about the house on Middle Fork of Rehan Jalil. os® lj�� We are Deming and Judy(Chu) Xiao and we live at 13408 Middle Fork Lane. We are engineers and Deming is a vice president of a large electronics fun. Our son Christopher, currently in Medical School, also lives with us. Last year we met with Rehan and he explained his plan. His "New" plan this year appears to be slightly different, but most of our concerns listed in last year's letter, restated and updated below are still valid. ---------------------------------------- -------------------- .---.... ...-- - After the meeting, we seemed to have several misunderstandings about the property. From the meeting we thought it would not affect our property in any way. But looking at the boundary poles with red cloth that he put in yesterday, it appears: L to make a level spot for the house,,it will require a really huge amount -of moving of earth. We did'not understand the magnitude, and -maybe still don't. 2 the removal of much of the hillside -will increase the risk of the earth collapsing or sliding so that our house would slide down or sink. When the earth decides to move after heavy rains or earthquake, its forces can be very powerful. 3. he plans to cut down a large number of ancient oak trees. 3-4 feet in diameter? We must respect these ancient oaks. This land is their land as well as ours, and they have lived there for hundreds of years. What can we do to limit their deaths? Can we wait hundreds of years for them to grow? 4. apparently his overflow sewage will be pumped up the hill to a second area. Can his house be moved down the hill so there is less cut, and his sewage is pumped up to an area above his house? 5. Rehan appears to be a very successful venture capitalist. Why not just go ahead and pay our neighbor Tom Raffm to increase the capacity of the existing -sewer system? Perhaps the people on South Fork could help with the costs. And the increase in value of his house could be well worth the investment. 6. Rehan indicated that his house would not be visible to us, but we see even the very short (4 foot) stakes from our yard, even with the oaks still standing. Deming and Judy(Chu) Xiao Uta Francke June 18, 2013 13500 South Fork Lane Los Altos Hills Town of Los Altos Hills RECEIVED Planning Commission c/o Nicole Horvitz 8 2013 nhorvitz(Mosaltoshills.ca.aov ,UN 1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS RE: Lands of Jalil, Middlefork Lane, proposed development Dear Planning Commissioners I am the immediate downhill neighbor of this property and wish to register my opposition to the new . building plan because it is hugely out of compliance with the building guidelines of the Town of Los Altos Hills (as detailed in the letter by M. Kuranoff). The size and scope of the proposed structures are not substantially changed from the project which was proposed last July and subsequently withdrawn. To - reduce the number of oak trees to be removed from 13 to 9, the footprint of the house has been moved downhill by 10 feet, closer to my property on South Fork Lane. Very minor height adjustments have been made, but the enormous size of the residence and amount of lot coverage remain basically the same. This building does not follow the contour of the hill -and would require extensive removal of soil. Steep hillside is unstable. LAH hills are unstable and steep because we are in an active geological -seismic area. My property is located directly down the hill from the proposed home site. This particular hill is constantly moving downward toward the creek, we see the effects in the cracks in the road, in the ground and the moving creek edge. The geologist, Roland von Huene, who built my house knew that. He drilled holes all the way to the bedrock and planted poles on which he built the house, so the earth can move around the poles. The one-story house has many internal stairs and follows the natural slope of the hill. The 3 -story Jalil proposal represents a major disruption of the hill structure with a potential destabilizing effect that cannot be accurately predicted.. Those of us living just downhill from this disruption are put at risk of experiencing accelerated sliding, or worth, massive landslides in the wake of a storm. Septic system presents a potential danger. Instead of connecting to the town sewer system, the Jalil proposal includes a septic system with an extensive leach field just upstream of my,property. In the new proposal the house has been moved 10 closer to South Fork Lane, yet there is no indication of any changes to the proposed leach field; will it move downward as well? The amount of water that will be pumped into this system by the inhabitants of a >12,000 sq.ft. house could be enormous, and I am concerned about risks of overflow to my property and increased mobility of the wet soil Sincerely, Uta Francke Nicole Horvitz RECEIVED From: Carljcottr@aol.com JUN 18 2013 Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 3:56 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: Fwd: Jalil property TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Mr. Jalil's revised plans do not appear to have been changed much from his previous appllication. He continues to plan for the largest possible house on a difficult lot. I have two primary concerns about this project; 1) It is proposed to locate the house on a slope which really should be a conservation easement, and 2) Itis still proposed to remove an amount of dirt from the site which is far in excess of Town recommendations. Dirt removal is at the bottom of a steep slope where the st damage to the stability of the slope is most likely. Mr. Jalil has every right to build out his property to the maximum limit allowed. On the other hand, he needs to heed the limitations of slope and drain field and scale his plans down accordingly. Carl Cottrell 13480 N. Fork Ln LAH RECEIVED Michael Kuranoff June 17, 2013 13440 South Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills JUN 1 80 2013 Planning Commission, Town of Los Altos Hills TO�I�iI is i.;$ ALTOS HILLS Re: Lands of Jalil, Middle Fork Lane Honorable Commissioners, Following are my thoughts and concerns regarding the revised plans for the subject property. Changes to last years plans are minimal: Eleven months. ago, plans were .submitted by Mr. Jalil for a massive residence on Middle Fork Lane. The submission was met with strong opposition by a majority of neighboring property owners. and the proposed plans were never formally presented for consideration. Almost one year later, nearly identical plans have been resubmitted. Grave concerns continue in spite of the revised design: The size and scope of the project _ ___appears_to be very_ similar to the project which was.;initially_proposed_last July_. The house has been relocated 10 feet closer to South Fork Lane. Very minor height adjustments have been made, but the bulk of the residence and amount of lot coverage .remain basically unchanged. Therefore my opinion is also unchanged. This huge house remains totally inappropriate for the difficult site it is being placed upon. Some Specifics: Project Size: The proposed house is -enormous. The following numbers are from last year's submission. The revised floor space and coverage numbers have changed little if at all. Including a fully finished basement which houses a full in-law apartment, exercise room and eighteen seat theatre, total floor space is well over 12,000 sq ft. Above grade floor space is 8437 sq ft. Maximum Floor Area as permitted by code is 8440 sq ft. 'Maximum permitted development area (pavement, pools etc.) is limited by code at 13,160 sq. ft. The applicant is requesting 12,932 sq. ft, after using a solar exemption to increase his development area by 500 sq.ft and by using a permeable ("Grasscrete") driveway to further permit the largest possible lot coverage. The proposed residence will be nearly twice the size of other homes on Middle Fork Lane, and 3 to 4 times the size of other nearby houses- on North and South Fork Lanes. A Subdivision Anomaly: Mr Jalil's property consists of two separate parcels, the larger where he is proposing to build is about 3 acres. A smaller, unbuildable parcel of around .5 acres is located across Middle Fork Lane to the north of the main_ parcel.- -Even though this -small- parcel in no. way contributes to the utility of the main parcel, -Mr Jalil is entitled to include it's acreage in computing the allowable development area and floor area of his residence. Such inclusion permits his residence to be 10 to. 15% larger than otherwise would be permitted on the 3 acre parcel. Given the steep constrained building site on the main parcel, -it seems a shame -that an even larger than usual residence will occupy such a difficult parcel. Grading has changed: The revised plan set submitted by Mr. Jalil shows a yard cut of 13 feet (prior plan requested 22 feet, guidelines permit 4 feet), a house cut of 15 feet (prior request was 14 feet, 8 feet are permitted), basement grading continues to require an additional 12 feet of cut. Requested fill is for 11 feet, prior request was for 12 feet, guidelines permit 3 feet. Guidelines require stepped foundations for lots exceeding 14% grade. This lot has an average grade of over 30% and there -has been no change in attempting to fit the house to the contour of the hill. In spite of moving the house 10 feet closer -to the neighbors on South Fork Lane, the scope of the proposed grading is virtually unchanged. New cut'volume is 4847 cu yd (was 4893 cu yd) fill volume is now 606 cu yd (was 620 cu yd), for a net export. of 4241 (was 4273) cu yards of soil. It appears that the volume of soil to be exported is within 1 % of the export volume proposed last year. The applicant is still asking to remove between 800 and 1000 truckloads of soil. In the present plan, the huge excavation moves 10 feet closer to South Fork Lane and the adjacent houses, in spite of last year's concerns about stability of the hill and danger of losing access. to properties on South Fork Lane during severe weather. Tree Removal has also changed:. The revised plan calls for the removal of 9 Oaks, 5 of which are heritage. The old plan proposed removal of 13 Oaks, 9 of which were heritage. Therefore, by moving the proposed house 10 feet down the hill, fewer trees need to be removed. Nevertheless, ordinance continues to prohibit heritage tree removal except under extreme circumstances. Enabling Mr. Jalil to build a house that pushes every ordinance limit and overtly violates many grading and tree removal guidelines should certainly not be considered an "extreme circumstance". A Slippery Slope: The following paragraph is a verbatim re -statement of a potential hazard I spoke of last year. Since the prior development proposal was never presented to planning commission, this topic was not discussed nor made part of public record. Since it addresses the safety of adjacent neighbors, I am repeating it here. As stated above, the proposed development massively exceeds grading guidelines and tree removal regulations. Other neighbors have expressed concerns about the grading, septic system outflow and tree removal destabilizing the hill. I would add to these concerns the following. The only way to reach my home and the homes of my neighbors on our private road, South Fork Lane, is to pass the toe of the slope of Mr. Jalil's property. I am 76 years old, my nearby neighbors are approaching a similar level. of "senior citizenship" and from time to time we need unimpeded access to medical care. Were an event such a flooding, earthquake or fire to occur, we could easily be trapped by the closure of South Fork Lane. Mr Jalil's proposal for massive grading, tree removal, irrigation and sewage disposal can only exacerbate the slippage hazard on South Fork. What To Do: I respectfully request that this application be denied. In my opinion, the project needs.a complete redesign. Grading beyond town guidelines and ordinances should not be permitted. Tree removal, if any, should be limited to non -heritage trees. And most important, the town must follow its development guidelines and require that the house be built to conform to the slope and contour of the hill. Sincerely, Michael Kuranoff Nicole Horvitz RECEIVED From: conovercln@aol.com JUN 1 03 2013 Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 8:51 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: RE: Planning Commission meeting on Monday, July 1--Jalil PropMWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS To Nicole Horvitz and the Town Los Altos Hills Commissioners: As residents of Los Altos Hills and owners. of the property adjacent to and above the Jalil Property in question, we would like to make the following statement. We, John Conover and Linda Conover, are opposed to the development proposal for the. Jalil Property. The owner/builder's proposal clearly attempts to circumvent current code restrictions and is out of compliance with regulations in many areas. We would request that the Commission require the builders to stay in compliance with all current codes and guidelines.. Project Size: The size of this proposed development is enormous and out of keeping with the surrounding residences. The owners have not only claimed size exemptions per inclusion of solar and permeable driveway, but they have included the second and very separate parcel of land owned by them and located across Middle Fork Lane, to increase the reported total lot size and to allow them to build a 10-15% larger residence on the three acre first parcel, than would ordinarily be permitted. We are requesting that the builders be. allowed to reference only the parcel of land that is actually being built upon and not include the separate parcel of land located across the street and on a separate hillside. The lands in those two parcels are not contiguous. Grading: Since our residence and pool is locate_ d on top of the hill that will be graded for the Jalil residence, we are especially concerned that all permitted cuts and grading fall within the guidelines established by the Town of Los Altos Hills. Presently, the new plan asks for permission to make cuts that are extremely out of compliance. For example, the revised plan asks for a yard cut of .13 feet; guidelines permit 4 feet. It asks for a house cut of 15 feet; guidelines permit 8 feet. It asks for basement -grading of 12 feet. The fill request is for 11 feet; guidelines permit 3 feet. It shows an average grade of 30% for the lot. We request that the builder be required to fit the house to the contours of the land, rather than removing huge amounts of dirt and cutting deeply into the hill on which our present residence is built. In spite of small changes being made in the revised plans for this development, the fact remains that the integrity of this property and the hillside that supports our property (!!) is being compromised and is clearly out of sync with city guidelines. We request that the ownedbudders be required to be in compliance with all building standards and guidelines. Tree Removal: This new plan requires the removal of 9 Oaks, 5 of which are heritage. Ordinance prohibits the removal of even one heritage tree except under extreme circumstances. Given that the owners have three acres at their disposal (not including the half acre across the street which artificially inflates the size of the buildable and separate three acre property), one would hope they would choose to build on the unwooded section of the property and/or reduce the size of the building. There is no extreme circumstance in this situation that justify the Oaks' removal. We request that the owner/builders build on the unwooded section of the property and/or reduce the size of this massive development and - save the Oaks. In closing, we have been dismayed for the last year that the extensive story poles and orange netting have been left in a dilapidated broken-down condition on the side of the hill, requiring us to explain to guests and visitors that they will be taken down "soon", once the land owner submits a new development plan and moves forward with building. Now that the new plan has been submitted, we are even more dismayed to learn that this is not a good faith effort to meet guidelines. In our estimation, there has been no real attempt to stay in compliance with the Town's expectations and safety standards. In fact, the owner/builders are not only out of compliance, they are hugely out of compliance. Therefore, we request that the Commission deny this request and remain true to their own building regulations and codes. Very Sincerely, John Conover Linda Conover Los Altos Hill Planning Commission RECEIVED JUN 17 2013 TOM OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 16, 2012 RE: Removal of large portion of the hillside for the development project on Middle Fork Lane by Rehan and Mariam Jalil. We are the neighbors adjacent to the bottom part of the property at 13460 South Fork Lane. Jalil's property is just across the lane from us. Rehan Jalil is a venture capitalist. Dr Cordell Green is an engineer, computer scientist, and CEO. Dr Christine Green is a physician. We have lived here for 33 years. The "new" plan is just a minor -change to the previous plan that violated the Los Altos Hills ordinance/policy. The letter below is a slightly revised version of our letter from the last attempt of Jalil. The numbers are not significantly different in Jalil's slightly revised plan. I (Cordell) had a long meeting with Rehan and Mariam Jalil and the -designer Scott Stotler. And I went through the large planning document at the planning commission. The Jalils were very pleasant to deal with and it seemed they would be good neighbors if they lived there. I again talked to the surveyors and walked the property with them again, to be sure I understood the situation.. I have several concerns about the plans: 1. Removal of much of the Hillside: The cut of 13-15 feet, or about 33 feet including the basement, and very wide, is an egregious violation of the town's 4 foot maximum cut policy/ordinance. The fill of perhaps 8-11? feet is a violation of the town's fill policy/ordinance. I understand that such an extensive in -total removal of the hillside is unprecedented in the town. Or perhaps just close to it. Should the earth move from rains, earthquake, or construction or any combination thereof it would be disastrous. Of course Jalil has employed engineers who do their best to design special retaining walls and special drains that hope to solve these problems. But we should not be increasing the Risk of a major collapse, mudslide, or landslide by such a enormous removal of the hillside. Of course being at the bottom of the hill our house would be one of the most affected 2 by mudslides, landslides, collapses, floods, or contamination. 2. Lost heritage: Jalil has shown the town that he plans to remove 9 heritage oaks and four smaller oaks. These oak trees have deep tap roots whose removal will further destabilize the hill. To mitigate, he will plant new trees that in 50+ years,might approach the size of our lost heritage trees. And then provide re -stabilization. 3. "Septic Springs Development": After a winter rain, small springs appear at the bottom of the middle fork property and in the road cut for South Fork Lane. This means that rain water is flowing underground from the hillside to the bottom of the hill. In the Jalil plans there is a huge septic drain field where his sewage is emptied. Meanwhile, the water for the springs has to come from up the hill. This means that some -of -it will pass -through, -under, -over- or around his septic drains. - Given that these springs and their underground flow exist, we must ask what prevents these underground rivers from picking up the sewage and carrying it down the hill? If the county believed that the underground water couldn't pick up the sewage, they would allow drinking.water wells at the bottom of a properly designed septic drain field. But wells are not allowed at the bottom of even a well-designed .septic drain field. Especially if the effluent is being carried further downhill. Would any of us drink from the springs at the bottom of the property? What problems could occur when the underground water passes through the drain field and emerges in the existing springs? Alternatives: Can we make suggestions to help the developer put a house on that property? (a) Pump: What about moving the house down the hill and putting the drain field above it? Apparently the county has allowed his "overflow" sewage to be pumped up the hill toa. second area but the county prefers no pump on the primary field. Is it not possible to pursue just as vigorously as is pursued his current plan, a plan that allows a second, also above the property, drain field that requires an exception to the county policy? His house and drains and basins would be below the septic field and could help block some of the effluent's downhill flow. (b) Sewer. Why not pay to join the existing sewer? The neighbors that I talked to, that own the existing sewer, were amenable to negotiating adding additional capacity and safety to the existing sewer so that Jalil could join. Though according to the neighbors I talked to, this path was not pursued to more than a perfunctory level. It would be expensive to enhance the sewer, but should be a savings in the overall development costs and thus be more profitable. View? The current plan that removes much of the hillside, and removes the oaks, and introduces concerns about septic problems, will have a very high construction cost, likely much higher than a plan based on joining the sewer or lowering the house in some way. But developing a view might bring a much better price. We wondered, perhaps a minor point, although the Jalil's have three young children, the hill is so steep at the planned site, that the design does not include a yard for the children to play in. Perhaps a lower -house, where it is less steepcould accommodate a yard? I am not sure why they wanted a house without a yard for the children. We hope the Jalil's dream of developing the lot and creating a more valuable property can be realized by some process of mitigating these risk factors. We certainly are quite open to alternatives. Dr. Christine Green Dr Cordell Green TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 vrww.losaltoshills.ca.gov Code Sections: ATTACHMENT -9 LOSALTOSHFU a CALIFORNIA. Grading . Policy Approved by City Council. 07/21/2011 Section 10-2.702 (c) of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall. be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings." Section 10-2.703. (a) requires: "Type II foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." Intent: The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction retains the existing .contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It .is also intended that the policy provide guidance, for "stepping", structures down sloped hillsides, encouraging terraced retaining. walls where possible, .and emphasizes cut to .lower -the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend ' to. raise the profile of the structure. While balanced cut and fill is desirable to, minimise import or export of soil, to or. from a site, it is recognized that the Town's policies and the guidelines. below may encourage export as cut is generally preferred over fill. These policies are intended to be used by staff in evaluation and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding site development applications, and as guidance for applicants. Individual sites may dictate a need to, deviate from the. criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Grading Policy Page 2 Policy 1. Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step down" the hill*: Cut Fill House 8'** 3' Accessory Bldg. 8'** 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) . 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of four feet six inches (4'6") feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. Supported decks shall generally not exceed three (3') feet above adjoining grade except where located within six (6') feet of a building. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of ten (10') feet for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. Terracing shall be utilized for cuts exceeding six (6') feet. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. 5. The Planning Director may approve exceptions for required driveways and Fire Truck turnarounds where cut does not exceed seven (7') feet and fill does not exceed five (5') feet at a noticed public hearing. ATTACHMENT 10 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 Rehan Jalil PROPERTY ADDRESS Middle Fork Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA CALCULATED BY _ STOTLER DESIGN GROUP DATE March 13, 2013 1. DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) (Additions/Deletions) A. House and Garage A. House and Garage (from Part 3. A.) 0 8437 8437 B. Decking 0 0 0 C. Driveway and Parking 0 (3097) ..... (30.97).. A— Attic- and Basement (1VIFA) (Measured 100' along centerline) 0 2970x50% 1485 D. Patios/Walkways/Terraces/Lightwells 0 2358 2358 E. Tennis Court 0 0 0 F. Pool and Deckin 0 606 606 c. Attic and Basement 0 0 0 TOTALS H: Any -other Covera e _ . _. _ ... 0. 0 -0- - TOTALS. :: 0 12886: 12886 Maximum.Development: Area':Allowed -.NIDA (from Worksheet # 1) 13160 #(includes additional 500sf credit for solai) 2. TOTAL EVIPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS 0 7928 - ---7928 - 3. FLOOR AREA (sQuARE FOOTAGE) Maximum Existing -- Proposed . ---- Total- -- (Additions/Deletions) A. House and Garage _ _.. _..__...._ a. 1 st Floor 0 4209 4209" _ _ ....... b. 2nd Floor 0 .3189 - 3189— c Athc:and Basement (Non -MFA) :. 0 (3097) ..... (30.97).. A— Attic- and Basement (1VIFA) 0- 0 0 -- e. Garage_ . 0 1039 B. Accessory Buildings a. 1 stFloor - : ._ 0 0 0 . : b. 2nd Floor 0 0 0 ........ _ . c. Attic and Basement 0 0 0 TOTALS -0 8437 _ -8437- .,-.-,8437- Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) I -` :8440 TOWN USE ONLY I CHECKED BY DATE -