HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1ITEM 3.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 3, 2013
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT' PERMIT FOR A NEW 6,099 SQUARE -FOOT
TWO STORY RESIDENCE, 1,411- SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT AND
A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE GERTH LANE RIGHT OF WAY
WIDTH FROM 50 FEET TO 40 FEET; LANDS OF CHEN; 2210 PAGE
MILL ROAD; FILE #100-13-ZP-SD.
FROM: Brian Froelich; AICP, Associate Planner
APPROVED:. Debbie Pedro, AICP, Community Development Director."
` RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Deny tthe re'quested'Right of Way width reduction based on the Findings of Denial -in
Attachment #I and advise the applicant to :redesign .the project to ' canply with the
standard right of way width and required, setbacks.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at the corner'of'O1d Page Mill Road and Gertli Lane. All
properties that access Gerth Lane have addresses on Old Page Mill Road or Page Mill
Road.
The applicant is proposing a new 6,099 square foot, two-story residence with a 1,411
square foot basement. As part of this request, the applicant proposes a reduced right of
way width dedication. `The applicant is proposing to reduce the right of 'way, width from
50 feet to 40 feet wide. In addition, the applicant is proposing to' use the Old Page Mill
Road- frontage as the front property line to measure the 40 foot front . setback and the
Gerth Lane frontage to be a side yard with a 30 foot setback. = '
The propertyis l.."1 acres with an average 'slope of 12.7%q. The site is currently developed
with a single story residence and attached garage: The existing structures .are to be
demolished . and the driveway access is proposed to be relocated 45feet. east of the
existing driveway on Gerth Lane. The site accesses a 30 foot wide right'of way-easeinent
(Gerth Lane). Matadero Creek traverses the property along the, eastern boundary. .
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 1.1 acres
Average Slope: 12.7%
Lot Unit Factor: 1.04
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 2
Area Maximum Proposed
Development 14,547 9,388
Floor 6,100 6,099
*Basement exempt from Floor Area 1,411
Site and Architecture
Existing Increase Left
5,940 3,448 5,159
2,611 3,488 1
The 1.1 acre site has a 12.7% slope that.ascends east to west. Matadero Creek marks the
low point of the property and runs parallel to Page Mill Road. The building site location
is shifted toward the higher ground on the 'site and away from Matadero Creek. The 100
year flood elevation is shown on plan sheet C-1.
The design of the proposed two story residence utilizes .all of the allowable floor area but
reserves over 5,000 square feet of development area. The proposed site layout includes a
three car_ garage in the area of the existing garage however the garage doors are
reoriented to a new street access point at a lower elevation along Gerth Lane. The exterior
building materials include cement plaster `ivith'pre-cast and wrought iron features, and a
concrete tile roof. The residence includes a partial basement (1,411 sf).
The proposed residence complies with setbacks and height standards per Title 10 of the
Municipal Code. It must be noted that the setback compliance assumes a reduced right of
away and. a 30 foot property line setback from the Gerth. Lane frontage.
Driveway & Parking
The proposed driveway will utilize a relocated access from Gerth Lane approximately 45
feet downslope of the existing. driveway: The driveway directly approaches the proposed
three car garage and one surface parking space.
Outdoor Lighting
Outdoor lighting is shown on the elevation plan sheets.. The plan shows a combinationof
wall mounted and recessed lighting.
Grading & Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the project Civil Engineering plans and has
determined that the proposal complies with the Grading Policy and the Town's drainage
standards. Grading quantities include:
950 cubic yards of cut
300 cubic yards of fill
650 cubic yards export
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 3
The site grading and cut are primarily for the basement excavation and driveway
realignment.
The lightwell and basement drainage directs water into area drains conveyed into pipes
that connect to an energy dissipater. The downspout and building perimeter drainage are
directed into pipes that convey to a detention basin. The detention basin and dissipater
locations are approximately 50 feet .from the top of-Matadero. Creek bank and comply
with structural setbacks.
Geotechnical Review
The applicant has'provided a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Earth Investigations
Consultants. The Town's Geotechnical consultant has peer reviewed .the proposal and
recommended standard conditions that include follow up documentation and inspection
by the project geologist. (Attachment #6)
Trees & Landscaping
The site landscaping is a blend of natural and installed plant materials. All landscape on
site has not been regularly maintained. The site contains only one heritage oak tree (12"
and larger in truck. diameter.) in -the area of work near the existing driveway. The other
oak trees on site are near Matadero Creek and away from any possible construction
activity.
The site. contains several Eucalyptus trees all of°which would need to be removed with
the approval of a new- residence. There are several shrubs and trees that will need to be
removed to accommodate the new driveway and building footprint.
Green Building Ordinance
The applicant has submitted a GreenPoint checklist in compliance with the Town's Green
Building Ordinance. The building is -designed to achieve 91 points in the GreenPoint
Rated certification program.
Sanitation
The site will connect via gravity to the Palo Alto Basin Sewer manhole located in-Gerth
Lane.
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has required that the
building be sprinklered and notes that the site is located in the Wildland-Urban Interface
Area. (Attachment #7)
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 4
Town Committee's Review
The Pathways. Committee has recommended that the applicant pay the in -lieu fee.
(Attachment #3)
The Open Space Committee has recommended that an Open Space Easement be granted
over the area within 25 feet of the top of bank of Matadero Creek within the property.
(Attachment #4)
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented that landscape
mitigation plantings will be needed on the north side of the residence. (Attachment #5)
Right of WU Dedication
Overview — Right of way dedication is described in the following Municipal Code
Section:
10-2.1202 Right-of-way dedication.
Whenever a site development permit is requested for a lot which was created prior to January 1,
1973, and where the driveway or contiguous road rights-of-way are substandard, the Planning
Director or Planning Commission may require dedication of a right-of-way of sufficient width to
conform to current Town standards. (§ 15, .Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985; § 8, Ord. 384, eff.
October 18, 1996)
The Town has been successively subdivided over the past 100+ years. Many of these
subdivisions were approved prior to 1973 with right of way widths that are now
inadequate. The mechanisms for right of way dedication include subdivision, new
residence, or major addition development projects. The dedication is typically a condition
of project approval. Following project approval, the project engineer will prepare plat and
legal description documents for recording with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder.
The Planning Department has consistently applied the above Section with a condition of
approval for new residence and addition projects when Floor Area is increased by 25% or
more. The Town's Engineering Department keeps a record of all rights of way in Town.
These records were last updated in a comprehensive effort between March 1998, and
January 1999. The records note the existing right of way widths, needed dedications, and
all underlying documents that created rights of way.
For site development purposes, a right of way dedication requirement has the greatest
bearing. on setbacks because the, locations of the abutting property lines are adjusted to
meet required right of way widths (post -dedication).
The widths of rights of way in Town range between 40 feet and 60 feet with most roads
being either 50 feet or 60 feet (approximately 85%). The width standards are specific to
each roadway based on traffic, safety, and future development.
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 5
Gerth Lane History Gerth Lane was previously determined to have a 60 foot wide
right of way requirement by the Town's Engineering Department.. The width of Gerth
Lane was then reduced to 50 feet by the City Council in approving a major addition
project in 1994 at 2240 Page Mill Road (north side of Gerth Lane). (2240 Page Mill Road
CC minutes — Attachment #9)
As a matter of background, when the properties along Gerth Lane were initially
subdivided in the 1940's, Gerth Lane was mapped as a .30 foot. wide right of way
easement exclusively over the properties. along the south side of Gerth Lane. Since that
time, a 3.0 foot right of way width has become substandard for any .road in Town. Thus,
the Council's action in 1994 to reduce the right of way width to 50. feet ineant that the
owner of 2240 Page Mill Road (north side) needed to grant 20 feet of right of way along
their frontage to be added to the existing 30 footwide right of way easement (south; side)
for a total of 50 feet wide. This situation is unusual because in most cases the right of
way widths are equally shared for properties on both, sides of a road::
Right of Way Policy - The Town adopted a Right of Way -Policy in 1989. The Policy
defines terms, declares standards and further outlines process for right of way dedication.
The Policy also assigns authority to the Planning Commission to' determine right of way
width. Section 6.c) of the Right of Way Poliey'states:
"In no event shall a road right-of-way of less, than 40: feet be approved. If right -of. -ways of less
than 50' are approved by the Planning Comission,' speck findings must be made relating to
traffic, safety and future development. "
Right of Way Policy Section 7 states:
"The setback for all new construction on all properties, shall be no less .,than 70' from the
centerline of the dedicated road right-of-way or vehicular easement. Corner lots will have
setbacks of 70' from the centerline of the major road and 60' from .the centerline of the minor
road. The Site Development Authority will retain the right to determine the side of greater
setback "
Right of Way Policy Section 7 has not beedapplied by the Town. Rather, the Town has
consistently applied setback standards following the Municipal Code Section 10-1.505
(c) which states:
"10-1.505(c) The setback line for any structure shall be:
(1) Where a parcel abuts on a single street or other access way, forty (40). feet from the
nearest such public or private street right-of-way, easement for vehicular access, or where an
official plan line has been established; from such official plan line.
(2) Where a lot abuts on more than one such street, easement, or official plan line, the
Planning Commission or the Site Development Authority, whichever entity first acts upon an
application relating to the development .of a particular property, shall designate the street,
easement or official plan line from which the forty (40) foot setback shall be measured, which will
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 6
in the judgment of the Site Development Authority, have the least negative environmental, visual
or aesthetic impact on neighboring properties and the public at large.
(3) Thirty (30) feet from property lines, nearest lines of public or private streets, rights-of-
way
ights-ofway easements for vehicular access, or off cial plan lines in all other instances. "
General Plan - The Town's General Plan Circulation Element includes the following
notations regarding right of ways:
GP -Cir pg I Introduction "Los Altos Hills, a rural residential community, takes pride in its
narrow, winding roadways which maintain and enhance the scenic qualities of the Town while
providing access to and from residential neighborhoods. The broad rights-of--wayallow residents
to wall; ride or run along the roads or along road -side paths, which often are connected to off-
road paths between neighborhoods. "
GP -Cir pg 4 Roadway Classifications "While most roadways are small and rural, the Town will
continue to require wide rights-of-way in order to avoid large cuts and fill, maintain vegetation
and accommodate paths, drainage,. and utilities. "
GP -Cir pg 7 Rights -of -Way "The right-of-way is the area that includes the roadway and the
paved area for driving, as well as other related uses such as utilities, pathways, drainage
channels and roadside vegetation. Objectives stated below will assist ' the Town in keeping
roadways as natural as possible. Note how the wider right-of-way allows for greater flexibility in
the design of the road and increased opportunities to preserve or provide vegetation as well as
reducing the amount of cutting and filling that would be required. The Town_ has attempted to
maintain 60 foot rights-of-way for most of its roads. "
GP -Cir pg 7 Goal C-1 Objectives "The policies and implementation measures should result in:
Adequate space. in public right-of-ways to accommodate rural roadways, pathways, utilities,
drainage, and vegetative buffers. "
GP -Cir pg 8 Goal C--1 Implementation Measures "Develop right of way standards to generally
accommodate roadway pavement, drainage, vegetative screening, utilities, slopes, and pathways,
and to avoid excessive cuts or fills. A general guide for width would be 60 feet, although this will
vary, depending on conditions. Additional easements for slope or line of sight may be required. "
GP Cir — pg 13 Goal C-5 Objectives "Spacious rights of ways wide enough so that trees and
shrubs can provide a substantial buffer between the roadway and paths and between the paths
and adjacent properties. The resulting corridor should be pleasing and safe for both vehicular
and non -vehicular travel. "
Project Background - The Planning Department's Application Checklist includes a line
item that requires the project planner to determine and disclose to a potential applicant if
a right of way dedication is needed with any development project. In this case, the right
of way records were provided to the applicant and the need for a 20 foot right of way
dedication was disclosed during pre -application meetings. The applicant expressed
concern over the right of way requirement because of the impact to the setbacks and
building site. In discussing options with the applicant, it was noted that Section 10-1.505
(c) (2) states:
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 7
(2) Where a lot abuts on more than one such street, easement, or official plan line, the
Planning Commission or the Site Development Authority, whichever entity first acts upon an
application, relating to the development of a particular property, shall designate the street,
easement or official plan.line from which the forty (40) foot setback shall be measured, which will
in the judgment of the Site Development Authority, have the least negative environmental visual
or aesthetic impact on neighboring properties and the public at large.
The applicant is proposing a design that utilizes Old Page Mill Road.as the front setback
and Gerth Laneas the side setback for this project.
Neighbor Comments
As of the writing of the staff report, the Town has received written 'comments' from seven
(7) neighboring properties. The written comments are included in Attachment #8 in the
order received.
The neighbors unanimously request that the Planning Commission require a 50 foot wide
right of way dedication along Gerth Lane. The neighbors also request the determination
that Gerth Lane be the front property line and to measure the 40 foot front setback from
the dedicated Gerth Lane right of way.
Summary
The applicant proposes a right of way width reduction to 40 feet along Gerth Lane where
a 50 foot. width is the standard. The Town's General Plan. describes a need for wide right
of ways to accommodate not just roads and utilities but to allow for flexibility of road
placement in a hillside community, to increase options for road grading with less need for
retaining walls, to provide a buffer for vegetation, and maintain and enhance the rural,
scenic qualities of the Town.
Right of way widths are a broad and Town wide topic that need more study and foresight
than is available with a single family residential development project. A case-by-case
approach to right of way dedication may lead to a lack of uniformity and consistency in
right of way width and thereby building setbacks along streets.
Minor modifications to the design and layout of the proposed residence and outdoor
living spaces would comply with both setback and right of way standards and result in a
similar size home, yard area, and use of the property.
Planning Commission Action Items
The applicant's request prompts the following actions of the Planning Commission:
1.) Per the Town's Right of Way Policy, the Planning Commission has the authority to
allow right of way widths less than 50 feet if findings are made for traffic, safety, and
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 8
future development. The Planning Commission shall make fmdings for approval or
denial.
2.) Per Section 10-1.505 (c) (2), the Planning Commission shall designate the street from
which the front property line shall be measured (Old Page Mill Road or Gerth Lane).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEM
The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings for denial for reduced Gerth Lane right of way width
2. Right of Way Policy, February 15, 1989
3. Pathways Committee minutes from meeting, May 22, 2012
4. Open Space Committee recommendation email, August 14, 2013
5. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, May 10, 2013
6. Cotton and Shires Associates Letter, July 3, 2013
7. Fire Department Comments, May 1, 2013
8. Neighbor letters of opposition in order received
9. 2240 Page Mill Road CC minutes, January 5, 1994
Lands of Chen ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commission
October 3, 2013
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 1
FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR A REDUCED RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION
LANDS OF CHEN, 2210 PAGE MILL ROAD
File # 100-13-ZP-SD-GD
The proposal is not compatible with the following General Plan Circulation
Element citations:
GP -Cir pg 1 Introduction "Los Altos Hills, a rural residential community, takes pride
in its narrow, winding roadways which maintain and enhance the scenic qualities of the
Town while providing access to and from residential neighborhoods. The broad rights-of-
way allow residents to walk, ride or run along the .roads or along road -side paths, which
often are connected to off-road paths between neighborhoods. "
GP -Cir pg 4 Roadway Classifications -"While most roadways are small and rural, the
Town will continue to require wide rights-of-way in order to avoid large cuts and fill
maintain vegetation and accommodate paths, drainage, and utilities.:"
GP -Cir pg 7 Goal C-1. Objectives "The. policies and implementation measures should
result in: Adequate space in public"right-of ways_.to accommodate rural roadways,
pathways, utilities, drainage, and vegetative buffers.
GP=Cir -=pg 8 Goal C-1 Implementation Measures "Develop" --right of way standards to
generally accommodate roadway pavement, drainage, vegetative screening, . utilities,
slopes, and pathways, and to avoid excessive cuts or fills. A general guide for width
would be 60 feet, although this will vary depending on conditions. Additional easements
for slope or line of sight may be required. "
GP Cir _ pg 13 Goal C -S Objectives "Spacious rights_ of ways -wide enough so -that trees
and shrubs can provide a substantial buffer between the roadway and paths and between
the paths and adjacent properties. The resulting corridor should be pleasing and safe for
both vehicular and non -vehicular travel. "
2. The application of the standard Gerth Lane 50 foot right of way dedication and
setback requirements 'do not deprive the owner of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the area. Minor modifications to the design and layout would comply
with both setback and right of way standards and result in a similar size home,
yard area, and use. of the property.
3. The City Council. has determined that Gerth Lane is a roadway needing a 50 foot
wide right of way in 1994 with the approval of an addition project at a
neighboring property on the same side of Gerth Lane.
26371 FREMONT ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA 94022
DATE: February 15, 1989
0 Cal
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ire.;
FROM: Bill Ekern, Acting City Mana-ger*,gr
RE: Recommendations from Planning Commission.,
Road Right -of -Way Polio—
y
RECOMMENDATION.
TTA . CHMENT2�
(415) 941-7=
07 1 .
It. is the recommendation: of Staff that- the. Cou"noil adopt. the at-
'.tached policy statemdnt,, as.....vmo.d.i_f'ied..b' Y: I thd Planning Commission.
on February 8 1-9$9- It is also the recommendation that
the. city
Council, direct- the -City ..A.-.ttorney toprepa-re- -draft -ordinances . to
accomodate the def inition:'of ' "Short Cill-de sac, a r6 -def inition
of building .setback. and to codify the ability 'of the Planning
Commission to -determine future `rlght=of.-way vidthsof private
roads.
.Finally,, the City Council -should adopt ass -Policy -Exhibit the
Town Map Labeled "Major Roads."
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Subcommittee
report -with certain modifications. The report is repeated.below
lith the modifications underlined. The original -report ls"at-
tached.
The,-Tdwri' Map Vhicb.'is in ybiit, packet- shows the -roads which' are
recommended to -b`e: 'd-oftsideeod. major* :by_ Staff -and the Planning Com-
mission. Once any modifications,, if any, are agreed upon by the
Council, Staff believes.that approving a copy of this map as an
exhibit to the policy statement will 'facilitate :public under-
stdnding;of the, -policy 'and:,ea:s:e :planning and site devel-opment de -
cis ions*.
DEFINITIONS:
1. Right-of-way: Generally defined in Municipal Code Section 9-
1,246 and 9-1.703. Section. 9-1`,703 talks spe-
cifical-ly about 'the required widths. Itis
also worth.noting the language in the purpose
statement of Section 9-1.701.
Right -of -Way Policy
February 15, 1989
ROADS:
2. Arterial: Defined in Section 9-1.248, as roads which
provide through traffic movement between areas
and across the City.
3. Collector: Defined in Section 9-1.250, a,s roads .which,
because of their design and location, are in-
termediate in importance between a local road
and ... a thoroughfare,..: and has the purpose
of collecting local traffic and carrying it to
A thoroughfare.
4. Local: Defined in Section 9-1.256 as one which is
used primarily for local traffic..or access to
the abutting property.
5. Cul-de-sac; -Defined :-in'-Section:.-9-1-i,252 as any,road having
but one outlet for vehicular travel, the
terminus .of said road: being within the sub-
divison, enclosed by parcels .of land compr-is-
ing'lots or parcels of the subdivision, and
having special facilities for the turning
around of vehicular traffic.
6. Short cul-de-
sac: As defined in #5, above, except further.
defined as enclosed by not more than 4 non
-
subdividable parcels.
OTHER DEFINITIONS:
7: Major Remodel: The addition -to an existing residence that
results in a 25%,- or more, increase in floor
area, 'including a bedroom,.garage or secondary
dwelling unit.
Definitions #6,7 are not at present codified. These would be ad-
ditional policy statements by the Council. Previous discussions
at the Commission level have established the 25% floor area in-
crease as the definition of a major addition.
POLICY STATEMENT:
1.a. Arterial and Collector streets shall have a right-of-way
width of 60 feet.
PA OP 9
Right -of -Way Policy
February 15, 1989
b. A subdivision of land, a new residence on an existing lot,
or a major remodel on an existing lot that fronts on an
arterial or collector street shall dedicate right-of-way
such that the half street right-of-way,fronting that proper-,
ty shall.be .30 feet.
2.- A new local -street or- cul' -de -sac created, by a subdivision
shall have a right; -of -way width of 60 feet.-
3. A new short cul-de-sac created by a subdivision shall. have a
right-of-way Width of 50 feet..
4. A subdivision of land, a new residence on an existing lot or
a major remodel on an existing,l, that .has frontage on, an
existing .local street or short cul-de-sao created pr.ior`.to
the adoption of this policy shall dedicate right-of-way.
equal to 25' or 30' from the defined cer;ierline-•of the. road,
.whichever is equal to the dedication that now exists for the
majority= of the "lots 'on. the ."street, unless "the. majority is
25' or less, in which case the dedication -shall be 251. In
no event shall the dedicated .right-of-way width be less than
a 20 foot half street.
5. The City Engineer can recommend right-of-way dedications
greater than set forth in this. policy to`meet unique condi-
.tions such -as a split level roadway design. This concept is.
addressed in Municipal Code Section 9-1`.70(e).,-
6. PRIVATE ROADS
It is the policy of the Town_not to approve the creation of
new private roads and to accept existing private roads as
public roads when they meet Town standards for right-of-way
and construction.
6.a) A determination shall.be made by the Planning'Commission of
the future planned width of an existing private road. This
determination shall be. made at.the time of the first sub-
division orconstruction of a new residence or'a major,
remodel. of an existing residence which fronts on such exist-
ing private road.
6.b) An irrevocable offer of dedication of the -determi'ned right-
of-way width shall.be required upon subdivision or site de-
velopment, but such offer of dedication shall not be ac-
cepted by the Town .until the complete right-of-way is avail-
able.
vail-able.
6.c) In no event° shall a road right-of-way of less than 40 feet
be approved. If right-of-ways of less than 50' are approved
by the Planning Commission, specific findings must be made
relating to traffic, safety and future development.
Right -of -Way Policy
February 15,. 1989
7. The setback for all new.con struction on all properties shall
be no less than'70-1-from the.centerline of the dedicated.
road right-of-way or vehicular easement. Corner lots will
have setbacks of 70' from the centerline of the major road
and 601..from the centerline of the minor road. The Site De-
velopment Authority will retain the right to determine the
side of greater setback.(Staff recommendation: on lots:.
which have frontage on roads with 30' half -street rights-of-
way, the applicant is not..required to demonstrate on their
site plans that the structures are 70' from the centerline,
all others will be required to show the surveyed centerline
on their site .plans.)
S. Per. Sections 9-1.222. and 9-1.703(c),. slope control easements
shall be required in addition to the right -.of -way dedication
when it .is recommended by the City. Engineer..
NOTES:
As further explanation for dealing with private roads:
1. Such a determination will assure.that.all property owners
are treated uniformly .and that the private road .may
eventually be acoepted.into the public road system.. _
2. It is advantageous -for the Town to own and maintain the
roads to better solve drainage and access problems for the
general .public.
3. The following factors shall be considered .in the deteraina-
tion of the appropriate right-of-way for a private road:
a) The maximum number of lots that.could ultimately be
served by the road;
b) The potential _for classification of the road as a short
cul-de-sac or local road.
c) The effect on the conformity of existing lots by the re-
quirement of -any additional right-of-way.
RATIONALE FOR THE POLICY:
In general, it is .the belief of the subcommittee that there are
benefits to the Town, both now -and in the future, with wide
rights-of-way. The right-of-ways help preserve .the open space
while allowing the Town to.undertake public improvements such as
tree planting, roadside pathways and, potentially, bicycle lanes.
Right -of -Way Policy
February 15, 1989
However, it was recognized that there are -certain roads, those
designated as local and cul-de-sac, which are not heavily
travelled and on Which certain benefits cou-ld be obtained by
using the larger setback requirements and other easements which
do not affect potential lot development.
It is important to note -the policy relating to site development
permits. An analysis of the dedications and .right-of-way of a
street will be done before additional right -of -wap is required by
the site development.authority. If more than half of the street
is of the greater dimension, the precedent would be presumed to
have been set and .the dedication -would be required.. The project
would, of course, have to be of the type or scope indicated.in
the policy to' trigger the requirement. If the majority of the
right-of-way.is equal to that bordering the project site, then no
requirement would be levied.
FINAL COMMENTS BY STAFF:
At any and all phases of requiring dedication of property, the
current court cases must be kept in mind by the different au-
thorities: Statements relating the requirement for dedication
should be entered into the record as clearly as possible.
The intent of this policy document is to providea basis for
defining when..a dedication is appropriate and to provide a
rationale for the requirement consistent with the law.
attachments:
Original Staff Repo -rt with .Recommendations, dated 12/22/88
Memos from Committees
Pa&re 9
ATTACHMENT 3
Los.Altos_Hills Pathway Committee FINAL (Approved 06/24/13 w/o amendments)
Minutes of Meeting of Monday, May 22, 2013
1. ADNIMSTRATIVE
Chairman Eileen Gibbons called the meeting to order. at 7:05• PM
Members present: Weegie Caughlan, Ann Duwe, Eileen Gibbons, Vic Hesterman, Breene Kerr,
Joseph Kleitmanjim Warner, Sue Welch, Denise Williams -
Members absent: Nick DuackeL.1achelle Mirldn
Councilmember present: John -Radford (CC liaison to PWC) -
Members of public present: Christopher Huang (Eastbrook Ventures)
Michael Sego (13140 Avila Court)
Art Kamangar (12030 Elsie. Way)
John Chen (2200 Page Mill Road)
The agenda Was approved as.written.
L COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR•
None.
3. PROPERTY REVIEWS. The following properties was reviewed for pathway recommendations::
A. Unknown Eastbrook.address• 11768 Magdalena ds of Eastbrook Ventures LLC), The reason for '
pathway_review is construction of a new residence. The developer (Huang) was present. The property is the
parcel in the Nicholson subdivision closest to the -1-280 exit ramp. Pathways on this subdivision have been
discussed at multiple PWC meetings during the past 2 years. The assigned address will be 11768
Magdalena. The general consensus was, that the subdivider•has met pathway requirements by providing
pathways easements and constructing pathways.. The Planning Commission.asked for as easement along
Hale Creek from Dawson that cannotbe blocked byfencing, Wulscaping,-or other obstructions. Although
no off-road path.is-mpired in this creek side easementat this tine, 'it would provide valuable access to
Dawson and should be:considered for addition to the Master'path`plan`.in the'future. Ana Dawe moved
that: -1)Town staff confirm that the easement along Hale..Creek''exists on -11768 Magdalena; and 2)
: the Town require.the.developer,to reconstruct existing'1IB pathways after construction. Breene Kerr
seconded. The vote:was unanimously in favor:
B. 13140 Avila Court (ands of Sego and Zhue). The reason for pathway review is constriction. of a new
residence. The developer (Sego) was present. The property is at the end of Avila Court, a cul-de-sac off
Elena Road that serves 5 parcels. The Master Path Plaa;includes anoff-road-pathway easement on the
southern half of the western border ofthe-parcel This10-foot arida pedestrian -equestrian easement
-provides-a connection between Elena Road:(via Maple:Leaf Court) to the page Mill Road,area (by way of
Via Feliz). doe Kleitman moved that the Town ask the owners. of 13140 Avila Court for the pathway
easement asshown on the Master Path Plan (on the western border of the parcel up to 27801 Via
Feliz); and ask the homeowner to build a native path there. Ann-Duwe seconded. The vote was 8 in
favor, I opposed (WC; path redundant and obtrusive -on thisro e
P P rty),
C. 12030 Elsie Way (ands of Recurve Ventures).
The*- reason for pathway review is- construction of a new
residence. The developer (Kamanger) was present. The property is on the northeast side of Elsie Way, a
private cut -de -sac Concepcion Road that serves 3 parcels. The Master path plan does not show any off-road
P exiting Elsie Way and no roadside paths exist.along this.cul-de-sac. Breene Kerr moved that
Town request a pathway in -lieu fee from. the developer of 12030 Elsie Way. Joe Kleitman seconded.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
D. 2210 Page Mill Road (ands of Chen). The reason for pathway review is construction of anew residence.
The developer (Chen) was present. The property is on the west side of Old Page Mill Road at the
intersection with Gerth Lane and'has frontages on bothstreets. Gerth is a private cul-de-sac; Old Page Mill
Road is public. The Master Path Plan does not show any off-road pathways'exiting Gerth lane and no
_ roadside paths exist along this cul-de-sac. Matadero Creek runs along the Old Page Mill frontage and no
roadside paths exist along this road Old Page Mill Road' has heavy bicycle traffic and the roadsides are
F1na1PWC Min VLM77 417=Pt Z
frequently used for parking near this parcel. A roadside path built at this site would likely encourage
-- parking: Tim Warner moved that Town request a pathway in -lien fee from the developer of 2210
Page Mill Road. Breen Kerr seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor.
E. 25611 Burke Lane (Lands of Moussavian and Karroubi). The reason for pathway review is construction of
a new residence. The developers were not present. The property is on the north side of Burke Lane, which
is a private cul-de-sac serving about 11 parcels. An off-road path exits the end of the cul-de-sac and
connecting to La Paloma. Ann Duwe moved that the Town confirm.that there is an easement
conferring public access across Burke Lane in front of 25611 Burke Lane, and if not, to request such
an easement from the developers. Joe Kleitman seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor.
F. 25755 Carado Court (Lands of Precision Capital LLC). The reason for pathway review is construction of a
new residence. The developers were not present The property is on the north side of Carado Court, which
is a private cul-de-sac serving.5 parcels. No roadside paths exist on this cul-de-sac and no off-road paths
exiting it are shown on the Master Path Plan. Joe Kleitman moved that Town request a pathway in -lien
fee from the developer of 2210 Page Mill Road. Breen Kerr seconded. The vote was unanimously in
favor.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A.
Open SpaceCommittee Open Space Stewardship Proposal. Sue Welch, who is also a member of the LAH
Open Space Committee, presented a summary of. the OSC proposal requesting funds from the Town
FY2013-14. budget to pay for stewardship activities in Town open space preserves: The major goals are 1)
to develop and start implementing a program for control of invasive weeds; and 2) to provide public
outreach, education, and volunteer opportunities for the community. OSC is requesting a formal letter of
support from the PWC. PWC was generally supportive of using Town funds (including pathway funds if
allowable) for management of invasive.weeds along pathways as well as in open space. Discussion also
included the feasibility of expanding the program • to include high priority pathways in this proposal and
whether pathway maintenance fiords could be used for this activity. Joe Kleitman agreed to draft a letter
describing the nexus of pathways and open space and generally supporting a trial program to control
`invasives in these areas. Eileen Gibbons moved that the letter of support be drafted and distributed to
PWC members for review. Ann Duwe seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor.
5. OLD BUSINESS
A.
Update Hale Greek Area for General Plan off-road =..Chair Eileen will formally request from the
Planning Commission that the Hale Creek paths .(approved by the PWC at the April 20123 meeting) be
added as an amendment to the off-road map in the General Plan. She showed maps of the existing and
updated routes. See attachments.
B.
Paths Needing Repairs.: PWC members complied a list of paths that need maintenance. These include:
- Path between at Rhus Ridge and,Francemont A tree has fallen over blocking the path.
- Artemis Ginzton trail near Moody Road Barbed wire needs to be removed.
- Paths in Byrne Preserve. The bridge near the riding arena is still covered with mud and may be rotting.
C.
Stanford (Arastradem) Trial Proiect Work has started
6. REPORTS FROM OTHER MEETINGS
A.
Bicycle Sharing Prorgram Time Warner met the Youth Commission (representing kids from public and
private schools in the area). The group was very supportive of the program and viewed favorably the
concept of having bikes that could be ridden one way (ie., downhill in the morning) as well as having apps
to track the bikes. Tim will contact Palo Alto about how they manage their program and vendors they are
using. He willwork on starting the LAH program during the summer. Mountain View and Cupertino are
j
also launching bike share programs. : .
B.
Circulation Element Chair Eileen Gibbons has not received any information from Nicole Horwitz about
PWC.comments on this document from the meeting -on.
=_MuTr A19r,/11A
ATTACHMENT 4
Brian Froelich
From:
Susan Welch [skwelch@earthlink.net]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:40 AM
To:
Brian Froelich
Cc:
george@clifford.net; Roger Spreen; Nancy Couperus
Subject:
Open Space Committee recommendation for 2210 Old Page Mill Road
Hi Brian
Nancy and I just visited the parcel at 2210 Old Page Mill Road that Brian asked the Open
Space Committee to review.
Matadero Creek is substantial here (still has water) and runs through the property parallel
and relatively close to O1d.Page Mill Road. We recommend the Town require a standard riparian
setback (25 feet from top of bank on both sides of creek) and a conservation easement over
this 25 -foot riparian easement to protect.the riparian vegetation. The top of bank is well
delineated. There do not appear to be other areas within the parcel that warrant protection
in'an additional conservation easement.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this parcel.
Sue Welch
LAH Open Space Committee
CC: George Clifford, Chair, Open Space Committee
Roger Spreen, Open Space Committee
Nancy Couperus, Open Space Committee
1
P11°D
ATTACNT 5
MAY 2 3 2013
Pathway Committee To%iN ()F LOS ALMS WILLS
Meeting Date: Mey Z l ; a U File. #: /00 " 3 " cZ P Sy
Applicant Name -__Q e
Property Address:y ect a f
Recommendation:
In -Lieu Fee
Notes/comments:
Construct Type II B Pathway
Notes/comments:
Dedicate pathway easement
Notes/comments:
Restore existing pathway
Notes/comments:
F] Other
Notes/comments:
ATTACHMENT 6
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
July 3; 2013
L5083A
TO: Brian Froelich
Associate Planner
TOWN. -OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
SUBJECT:. Supplemental Geotechnical Peer.Review
RE: Ch.en, hte,v-Residerce.(Revisib.n):
100-13-ZP-SD-ZP
2210 Page Mill Road
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of
the subject site development permit application for the proposed new residence and
associated improvements using:
• Reply to Peer Review (letter) prepared by Earth Investigations
Consultants, dated June 24, 2013;
• Geotechnical Investigation. (report) prepared by Earth
Investigations Consultants, dated Apri115, 2013;.
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet Cl) prepared by
RW Engineering, dated April 12, 2013; and
• Architectural Plans (8 sheets, various scales) prepared by Stotler
design group, dated June 27, 2013.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent' technical documents' from our office
files.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story residence with attached
garage, driveway, and partial basemet. In our previous geotechnical peer review (dated
April 30, 2013), we recommended thattheProject Geotechnical Consultant evaluate the
potential presence of undocumented fill materials at the proposed new residence site
and consider fill removal and/or establishment of foundation footings into competent
native materials. (ideally bedrock) beneath the site.
Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office
330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St. Chary Drive, Suite 108
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995
(408) 3545542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933
Brian Froelich July 3, 2013
Page 2 L5083A
RECENT GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS
The Project Geotechnical Consultant has completed supplemental site subsurface
exploration and identified up to 3 feet of undocumented fill at the proposed building
site. The consultant recommends that undocumented fill be entirely removed from the
proposed construction site during rough site grading. The consultant has considered our
comments about foundation embedment but concludes that continuous footings may be
utilized as long as they are embedded into engineered fill materials or competent native
earth materials.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The rolect --Ged chnical Consultant 'ham Cons-Rdieted :-the &)=ne its 6f o?—,,-
previous
':rprevious geotechnical peer review, completed supplerimental subsurface exploration, and
addressed our previous recommendations. For satisfactory new residence performance,
it will be important for the Project Geotechnical Consultant to verify (during
construction) that footings are embedded into competent earth materials. We
recommend geotechnical approval of building and grading permit applications with the
following conditions:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and
grading, site drainage improvements and design . parameters for
foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated. Supplemental
geotechnical design criteria should be presented for the partial
basement, as warranted.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review and gpproval.pnor. to issuance of building
permits.
2. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical
consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections
should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation
and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements,
and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the
placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the
project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a
Brian Froelich July 3, 2013
Page 3 L5083A
letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to
final (granting of occupancy) project approval.
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
accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu
of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
"�F -Respedfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
-7, J
Ted Sayre
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
TS:DTS:kd
ATTACHMENT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
fttit\�Iu4 SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
\22aff. SY SSmin= (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www'.sccfd.org
REVIE No 13 976 1
BLDG.'
DEVELOPMENTALREVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No.
Proposed new 6,805 square -foot two-story single-family residence with attached garage.
I
!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
1performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building
Department'all' applicable �constrtiction pernuts. '
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 com liance with.CBC
P
!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: noted on page T1 of the plans 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 -tune addition to an
,existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s),
'occupant(s) and any 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'require, NOTE:
;Covered porches', patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire 'sprinkler coverage. A'State'of'California
licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations; a conppleted'pern'it application and
.!appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work' DR313.2 as
adopted and amended by LAHTC
i
MAY 062013
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Cfty PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
LOS N ❑ ' ® ❑ ❑
I OCCUPANCY
SFR
CONST. TYPE
V -B
AppllcanWame DATE
Stotler Design Group 05/01/2013
PAGE
1 oFL__t_J
SEC/FLOOR
2 story
I AREA
6805 sf
LOAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR
LOCATION
2210 Page Mill Rd Los Altos
TABULAR FIRE FLOW
2250
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
I REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
1500
BY
Harding, Doug
50 0
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Seruinq Santa Clara Countu and the enmmunitio_c'nF rmmnhnll r—H.- T. AIS....
1
CLARA+pO�
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
`°URTM 65ER"`E (408) 378-4010 •(408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org
PLAN
REVIEW No. .3 976
BLDG —----
DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No.
'Comment # 4: Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: noted on page T1 of the plans
Provide an .access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14
'feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 -feet outside and
123 feet inside, and. a maximum slope of 157o. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard
'Details. and Specifications. sheet D-1.
;Comment #5: Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn -around Required: noted on page T1 of the
;plans Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of
36feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Departrnent Standard Details
:and Specifications D-1.
;Comment #6:. Premises Identification: noted on page T1_ of the plans Approved numbers or addresses
':shall be placed on all new and.existing buildings in such a position as.to be plainly visible and legible
1from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CFC
ISec. 505
{
I,
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.
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
ireproduced onto the future plan submittal.
I:
i
City PLANS SPECS NEW RMOL AS
LOS ® ❑ N ❑ ❑
I OCCUPANCY
SFR
CONST. TYPE
V -B
AppllcantName DATE
Stotler Design Group 05/01/2013
PAGE
2 OF[E
SEC/FLOOR •
2 story6805
AREA
sf
LOAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR
LOCATION
2210 .Page Mill Rd Los Altos
TABULAR FIRE FLOW
2250
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
1500
BY
Harding, Doug
50 0
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cuperffno, Los Altos,
ATTACHMENT 8
Brian Froelich
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:53 AM
To: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich
Cc: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW Cici and John Chen's House Proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane (Old Page Mill Road)
From: Marie Bryant fmailto:bryantmarie58Cdgmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:47 PM
To: Deborah Padovan
Subject: Cid and'John Chen's House Proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane (Old Page Mill Road)
As residents of Gerth Lane for more than 30 years,we are in complete agreement with the concerns expressed
by many of our neighbors. There is a real need for the Town of Los Altos Hills to conform to its well
established rules as they were conceived and adopted by members of.our town council years ago.
We oppose the right -of --way variance.
We also oppose the comer lot designation.
We wholeheartedly support plans that conform to the town's existing rules.
Gerth Lane is a unique little lane and it is well worth preserving its beauty and historical significance.
Thank you in advance for taking our concerns into consideration as you discuss and act on this,
Dr. Kenneth L. and Marie Bryant
2250 Old Page Mill Road
Palo Alto,CA 94304
Brian Froelich
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:54 AM
To: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich
—cc.Jaime-McAvo
Subject: FW: Pratt -letter re Oct. 3 hearing for Chen application for site development permit
Attachments: Chen letter.doc; ChenMap.pdf
From: Margot Pratt fmailto:margotpratt@gmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:46 PM
To: Deborah Padovan
Cc: Vaughan Pratt
Subject: Pratt letter re Oct._ 3 hearing for Chen application for site development permit
Dear Debra,
Attached please find our letter for distribution to the relevant people, together with the attachment
("ChenMap.pdf') promised therein.
Margot Pratt
September 25, 2013
Tothe LD -s Ato-s-Ml s—Rlanning o mission --
Re: Cici and John Chen's house proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane (Old Page Mill Road)
Our property is directly across the road from the Chens. We therefore appreciate the
opportunity to express our opinion about their proposed house.
The Chens are asking that the 50' right of way on Gerth Lane be reduced to 40'. They
are also asking that. the property be treated as fronting onto Old Page Mill Road in order
to reduce the setback from.Gerth Lane from 40' to 30'.
Regarding. the first request, the story poles show the visual impact to be out of proportion
to the nearby houses. M the first house seen on entering Gerth Lane it sets a tone for our
semi -rural street that we are uncomfortable with. We therefore, ask that no variance_ on
the 50 -foot right-of-way requirement be granted. (We do however continue to ask that
our road remain private as: per the Gerth Lane homeowners' petition to the town of last
May.)
While it may be argued that this imposes an undue hardship on. the Chens, it appears to us
that even a one-story house with the maximum floor area could fit assuming a 30'
setback from the 50' right of way, as shown in the attachment.
Regarding the second request, we question the decision to allow the property to be
defined as a corner lot.: The plans show that all access is directly from Gerth Lane, and in
fact, access from "the front" is'impossible because of Matadero Creek. We would expect
that a two-story house. of the maximum floor area would fit even with a 40' setback from
the 50' right of way. We are therefore unconvinced of the need to treat the property as
fronting onto Old Page Mill Road.
In. conclusion, 1) We oppose the right-of-way variance.
2) We oppose the comer lot designation.
In addition, if the plans are approved, we ask that storm water drainage be addressed,
since this property is near the bottom of our hill. We also request that parking during
construction be limited to the Chen's side of the road.
Were this a lower profile house we would be less concerned about these setbacks.
Margot and Vaughan Pratt
2215 Old Page Mill Road (Gerth Lane)
650494-2545
margotpratt(a�gmail.com prattt@cs.stanford.edu
Claim: Lands of Chen can accommodate 6000 sf
(even without a ;second story)
S 69018' E
1 319.25'
1 1
, 1
1 �
e 1
, 1
1
74' 1
� 15'
1 1
1
1 40'
W 1 1
1
CM 35 First floor: 5995 gross s.f. 55' ; N
N N 1 1
rn w
55' 1 0
5' 9' °'
',
1 30' setbacks on three sides
_ - 1
1
M
0 20 40 80
• N
SCALE: 1" = 40' (print with "Page Scaling" = None)
DRAWN: 9/22/2013
Brian Froelich
From:
Deborah Padovan
Sent:
Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:19 AM
To:
Brian Froelich
Cc:
Jaime McAvoy
Subject:
FW: Please forward this Letter to the Planning Commission for their upcoming meeting
Attachments:
Planning Commission v5.pdf
From: Gary Kremen fmailtomkremen@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:17 AM
To:. Deborah Padovan
Cc: Debbie Pedro, Carl Cahill
Subject: Please forward this Letter to the Planning Commission for their upcoming. meeting
To the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Re; Cici and John Chen's house proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane ("Subject Property")
Thank you for your volunteering to serve on the Town's Planning
Commission. We understand it can be a thankless job. In.that context, we are
writing as a concerned neighbor of the subject property.
If someone requests a variance from the Town's existing rules, it is
wonderful that the Planning Commission considers inputs from the neighbors.
We do not support a variance with respect to the right-of-way reduction
We.ask that the subject property conform to the town's rules, and that no
reduction on the 50 -foot right-of-way requirement be granted. Independent and
without waiving any rights to the issue if the Town has a legal basis to this right-of-
way requirement for a private street, we do not see any reason for an exception.
People should have houses that fit with the lot specifics. By allowing a reduction,
the proposed house does not fit the lot.
We disagree with the finding that the subject property is a corner lot
We also question the legal finding to allow the subject property to be defined
as a corner lot. The plans clearly show that all access is directly from Gerth Lane,
and in fact, access from "the front" is impossible (and always has been impossible)
because of Matadero Creek Calling this a corner lot has allowed the house to be 10
feet closer to Gerth, with a 30 -foot setback instead of 40 -foot setback.
The net effect. of allowing these two conditions is to set the house 20 feet
closer to the road than would otherwise be allowed. We would like the house set
back that 20 feet as per the rules (especially given its. scale).
Possible solutions
Landscaping
One potential way we would consider some sort of moderate right-of-
way reduction, and it would have to be fully negotiated, would be for binding
conditions on that reduction. The first condition would involve landscaping.
Landscaping could be installed to fully obstruct of the house, in all seasons,
from any angle on Gerth Lane. The landscaping would have to be permanent,
in the form of a landscaping easement, and agreement to maintain such.
The second permanent condition would be that the fagade of the
house that faces Gerth Lane be designed (i.e. color, style) so'that when the
landscaping does not fully obscure the house, the fagade would blend in.
We are asking that these two conditions should be placed on any
building permit, regardless a right-of-way reduction being approved or not.
Alternative layouts that preserve MDA
One of our neighbors has sketched out at least one alternative layout
to preserve the MDA of the house but fit in the current right-of-way rules.
Mediation?
We are fans of the Chens and hope we can come to an agreement
This same hope is shared by many of the members of the Gerth Lane
Homeowners Association (GLHA). Unlike other similar organizations around
the Town, the GLHA has had regular meetings, with written minutes, going
back more than 50 years. Additionally, we have an enforcement mechanism
for road and bridge repair that is binding and runs with the land in all Gerth
Lane property deeds.
Given the emotions involved on Gerth Lane, we would consent to
mediation such as the Los Altos Mediation Program. ,
Gary and Petia Kremen (gkremen@aol.com or 415 305 3052)
2235 Gerth Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA 94304
Brian Froelich
From: Ainslie Mayberry [ainslie@virtualcfo.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:46 AM
To: Deborah Padovan
Cc: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich; Margot Pratt; V Pratt; Gary Kremen; Pet'ia Kremen; Chuck &
Roberta Gillis; Cheryl & Marc Bader Bryants; John Nagel
Subject: Lands of Chen at 2210 Old Page. Mill Road (Parcel 182-31-050)
Attachments: Letter to LAH Planning Commission 09262013.pdf
Ms. Padovan,
The attached letter needs to be forwarded to the appropriate Planning Commission members, and other pertinent
staff, in anticipation -of the October''3, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.
Please advise if I need to hand deliver or fax a copy, or if this email. and attachment is the correct. delivery
method
Thank you,
Ainslie Mayberry
2245 Old Page Mill Rd
Palo Alto, CA 94304
1
September 26, 2013
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Re: Cici and John Chen's proposed project at 2210 Gerth Lane (Old Page Mill Road)
We are writing as a concerned neighbor at 2245 Gerth Lane and appreciate the opportunity
to register our objections to the above project. At 6,099 square foot, the Chens' proposed
house is to be much larger than others adjoining or nearby. In addition, a request for a
variance is being made to place this structure even closer to Gerth Lane. than allowed by
Town rules. Furthermore, by calling the property a Corner Lot, the result will be the long
(-140 ft) dimension of the structure to be a mere 20' from a 50' wide Gerth Lane.
All this is being done when there is sufficient usable acreage to conform to Town rules,
with the correct Lot classification,. without the need for variances or exceptions.
Therefore, we ask that the house conform to the town's rules, and that a variance on the
50 -foot right-of-way requirement not be granted. Since the house can be fit into the
allowable. area, any waiver is unnecessary.
We also object to the decision to allow this property to be defined as a comer lot. The
plans show that all vehicle access is directly from Gerth Lane, and in fact, access from "the
front" (Old Page Mill Rd) is impossible because of Matadero Creek. In fact there is not a
single access point to the supposed front of the property or house from Old Page Mill Rd.
Calling this a comer lot has allowed the house to be 10 feet closer to Gerth, with a 30'
setback instead of 40'. .
The resulting effect of allowing these two conditions is to set the house 20 feet closer to
the road than would otherwise be. allowed. The point at which the "walkway" connected to
the front door meets Gerth Lane is 16.5' below the first floor. Combining with .a 26' max
height, could place a 42' tall building within 20' of Gerth Lane. Too tall, too close!
Summary:
1. We object to, and oppose the right-of-way variance. It is un -necessary.
2. We object to, and oppose classifying 2210 Old Page Mill Rd as a comer lot. It is not.
3. We support a project that conforms to existing Town rules and ordinances.
The Town Fathers were singularly dedicated to "preservation of the rural atmosphere of
the foothills," which is reflected in the Green Sheets. Allowing this project to go forward
as proposed flies in the face of their intentions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ainslie Mayberry
John Nagel
2245 Old Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Brian Froelich
From:
Deborah Padovan
Sent:
Thursday, September 26, 201312:52 PM
To:
Brian Froelich
cc:
Jaime McAvoy
Subject:
FW: two more comments
From: Margot Pratt fmaiito:margotprattCalgmaii.coml
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:43 PM
To: Deborah Padovan
Subject: Fwd: two more comments
Hi Debra,
Here are two further comments about the Lands of Chen proposal to the. Planning Commission:
1. As owners of the unpaved portion of the Gerth Lane easement on the Chens' side, we want to preserve as
much of the vegetation as possible. This would particularly apply to the oaks, some of which are heritage, and
which would be the only vegetation screen for the next 20 years.
2. If the Chens are granted a right-of-way waiver, then the next property up from them, #2220, could use this as
a precedent to build a future home also closer to the road.
Margot and Vaughan Pratt at 2215 Old Page Mill Road, 650 494-2545
Brian Froelich
From: Baders [cmbaders@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:00 PM
To: Deborah Padovan
Cc: Brian Froelich; Carl Cahill; Gary Kremen; Petia Kremen; Vaughan Pratt; Margot Pratt; Ainslie
Mayberry; John Nagel; Charlie and Roberta Gillis
Subject: Re: Lands of Chen at 2210 Old Page. Mill Road (Parcel 182-31-050)
Attachments: 2210 Gerth letter.doc
Hello Ms Padovan,
Please forward this Letter to the Planning Commission for their upcoming meeting.
Thank you,
Marc Bader
2240 Gerth Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
1
September 26, 2013
To the Los A1tos.Hills Planning Commission
Re: Cici and John Chen's house proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane (Old Page Mill Road)
As concerned neighbors on Gerth Lane, we value the opportunity to express our opinion.
The Chens' proposed house is so much larger than others nearby and it is the first house.
visible upon entering Gerth Lane, thus, the visual impact is enormous and counter to the
semi,=ural feel of our street.
Therefore, we ask that the house conform to the town's rules,. and that no variance on the
50 -foot right-of-way requirement be granted. Since a large house can adequately fit into
the allowable area, a waiver is unnecessary.
We also question the decision to allow this property to be defined as a comer lot. The
plans show that all access is directly from Gerth Lane, and in fact, access from "the front"
is impossible because of Matadero Creek. Labeling this as a corner lot has granted the
proposed house to be 10 feet closer to Gerth, with a 30' setback instead of 40'.
The net effect of allowing these two conditions would set the house 20 feet closer to the
road than would otherwise be permitted.
In conclusion, 1) We oppose the right-of-way variance
2) We oppose the comer lot designation.
3) We support having the plans conform to the existing rules.
ATTACHMENT 9
11.1 Request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition including
a secondary unit, Lands of Helliwell, 2240 Old Page Mill Road
The Town Planner, at the request of the Mayor, commented on the letter .from Mr.
Spangenberg which the Council had. just received .that afternoon. She reported that
all the standards of the Town had, been met on the Helliwell project and a
topographical survey had been submitted by the applicant. ,She further commented
that the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements did not apply to single family
homes.
Eric Spangenberg, attorney representing Mrs. Spangenberg at 2100 Old Page Mill..
Road, referred to his letter to the Council -dated 1/5/94: In this letter he addressed
several reasons why he believed this project was inappropriate and alternative
realities should have been pursued by Dr. Helliwell. Mr. Spangenberg stated I at he
did not feel the Town followed its own ordinances. He did not agree with the staffs
interpretation of the height ordinance`and the natural .grade Ievel. He thought the
height should be measured from naturalgrade which was before anything was done
to the lot. Mr. Spangenberg also disagreed with the size of the secondary dwelling
and how the square footage was determined and further he believed that the Town
had not complied with the Americans with Disabilities- Act standards. This project
was an invasion, of privacy on his. mother slot and they objected to `its approval.
Dr. Helliwell, applicant, commented that the
Y_ `h.ad been concerned about a possible
impact'of their project and had addressed all bathe cdmments raised by the Planning
Commission. Their project was not. `visible 'h all from the Spangenberg's property;
there was. no visual impact. He noted, a, a matier of fact, that the project was .
actually closer to their other. neighbors who`had no objection at alt to the project.
Mrs. Spangenberg, 2100 Old 'Page Mill Road;,' -commented that they had had a difficult
time getting the plans and reports on this 'project before the Planning Commission
met. She further commented that
project. they were; the only neighbors bothered by this
Dauber stated that she had gone to the'Spangenberg's home and she could not see
the Helliwell project at all from any robin in,;fheir house. Hubbard noted that there
would be a landscape plan required which would help address the privacy issue.
Tryon commented that she did not agree with. the practice of road right of way
dedications which resulted in less than one, acre and so a narrower right of.way
should be required:
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To change'the.first`senten.ce of condition #11 to read: "A
20' half width right-of-way is required to be dedicated to the Town on Gerth Lane
and in addition allowance shall be made for'turn around space."
January 5, 1994
0
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Dauber and
passed unanimously to approve the request fora site development permit for a
major addition which includes a garage and a secondary dwelling for Lands of
Helliwell at 2240 Old. Page Mill Road, subject to the conditions of approval as
recommended by the Planning Commission''and amended by Council and the
findings as set out in the staff report.
11.2 Review of adoption of revised Household Hazardous Waste Element
and Source Reduction and Recycling Element of the General Plan
This public hearing is continued to the March 16, 1993 City `ouncil Meeting
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further new or old business".0 discuss, the City Council
Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
.f
i:�1.G.'),
yam.
i'
i.
Patricia Dowd
,,City Clerk
The minutes of the January 5, 1994 City. Council Meeting were approved at
the January 19, 1994 City Council Meeting:
January 5, 1904
7