HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1ITEM 3.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS December 5, 2013
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FORA NEW 6,095 SQUARE FOOT
TWO STORY RESIDENCE, 1,411 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT;
LANDS OF CHEN; .2210 PAGE MILL ROAD; FILE #100-13-ZP-SD.
CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 3, 2013 PLANNING
COMMISISON MEETING.
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner -3257--
APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Community Development Director D
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approv'e'.-'the requested Site Development.: Permit for the new residence and basement
subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment #1.
BACKGROUND _
The Planning Commission .reviewedthe application forr a new. residence and ..basement: ori
October 3, 201,3,.., and , continued ..the, :.application with specific ' -suggestions an`;d,
recommended rriodifications (meeting minutes Attachment #3). The Commission's
motion included the following directions: _
q Redesign with a 30 foot side y4d. setback along Gerth Lane . _
• Redesign with up to 18" eave encroachment into the setbacks
-- �-- Resite the building toallow for a standard -20 foot right of way dedicatiori along
-Gerih. Lane
Add a condition of approval.requiring that the Landscape Screening be heard by
the:Planning Commission
Lot .Unit Factor: ` 1.04
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 2
Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left
Development 14;547 9,388 5,940 3,448 5,159
Floor 6,100 6;095 2,611 3,488 5
*Basement exempt from Floor Area 1,411
The Planning Commission gave direction to the applicant regarding the project, and the
applicants have modified the plans in response to the comments. These changes include:
1. Redesign with a 30 foot side yard setback along Gerth Lane.
The revised plans show a similar sized home, architectural style, and floor plan layout.
The building finished floor elevation - and location on the property are basically
unchanged. The first floor width of the building was reduced by approximately seven (7)
feet.
2. Redesign with up to 18" eave encroachment into the setbacks.
The revised plans show an 18' roof eave encroachment along the Gerth Lane frontage
parallel to the 30 foot setback line. The plans also include a partial encroachment at the
setback line opposite Gerth Lane. The encroachment is partial in this location because the
setback line is at an angle to the residence.
The revised drawings include an encroachment of up to 12" for the family room chimney.
Although minor, this request constitutes a Minor Variance .per Section 10-1.1007(2)(d). A
Minor Variance was not described in the public noticing for this project. The project
would need to be continued and renoticed if the Planning Commission is to consider the
Minor Variance request. Planning staff would not support a Minor Variance request and
has included a condition of approval requiring that. the.- chimney be redesigned to;:comply_ .
with setbacks prior to the Building Permit process (condition #16).
Planning staff did not find the chimney encroachment during the initial plan checking of
the revised plans. Also, the applicant reportedly did not 'believe the chimney
encroachment constituted a Minor Variance and therefore did not disclose to staff that a
Setback Variance was part of the proposal.
3. Resite the building to allow for a standard 20 foot right of way dedication along
Gerth Lane.
The design has been altered to accommodate the 20 foot right of way dedication and 30
foot side yard setback from Gerth Lane.
4. Add a condition of approval requiring that the Landscape Screening be heard by
the Planning Commission.
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 3
Condition of ' approval #3 requires Planning Commission review of the landscape
screening plan.
Neighbor Comments
As of. the writing of the staff report, no additional , neighbor comments have been
received.
Summary
The attached October 3, 2013' Planning Commission staff report (Attachment #2) and
meeting minutes (Attachment #3) include additional . background. information and
comments regarding the project.
With a revised chimney design, the applicant has followed the direction provided by the
Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA)
The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a).
ATTACHMENTS
L Recommended conditions of approval
2. Planning Commission staff reportand attachments, October 3, 2013
3. Planning Commission minutes from meeting, October 3, 2013
4. Written comments received following preparation of the October 3, 2013 staff
.report
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A
NEW RESIDENCE AND BASEMENT
LANDS OF CHEN, 2210 PAGE MILL ROAD
File # 100-13-ZP-SD-GD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT - Please work with Brian Froelich, Associate Planner 650-
947-2505 to complete the following conditions:
1.: No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first
- reviewed and. approved by the Planning. Director- or the Planning Commission,
depending on the scope of the changes.
.!,-,2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus);. Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River
Red Gum (E. - camaldulensis), Swamp, - Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E.
melliodora); or Manna: Gum . (E. viminalis) eucalyptus. trees on; the property
located within 150' .of any. structures or.roadways shall: be=removed prior to fnal
-inspection. Removal of e'ucalyptus'trees- shall take place between the beginning of
August and the end of January to. ,avoid -disturbance...of nesting birds protected
under the Federal Migratory Bird.Treaty:Act,(MBTA) and California Department of
Fish and Game Code Section 3500 of seq unless a nesting bird survey is first
conducted,and there,is.a determination that there are no active nests within the tree._
3: After comp l'etiori`of rough` framing of at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a
final inspection, -the applicant- shall, submit landscape. screening and erosion
control plans for review by the Tianning .Commission , ; The '_application for''
landscape screening and, erosion' control shall be accompanied by- tlie` applicable
-fee and deposit. The' plans'shall'`be reviewed at a- noticed Planning- Commission
:,hearing.. -Attention shall. be giveim-to plantings which will be adequate to break up ..
the view of the structures from surrounding properties and `streets All an staging
�, ,
required for screening purposes and 'fo1- erosion control (as determined by the City
Engineer) must be .installed- prior, to final inspection: The jandscape `screenins.
elan shall comply with Section:.10-2:809' (water. efficient..landceaninul`i►f-ttiP
Los Altos. Hills- Municipal Code:
4. A. landscape maintenance -deposit -in -the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to
final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establisiimnent
and maintenance-shall'be; made two years after, the- installation... -The `deposif�will.
_.be released at- that .time if the required plantings,remain viable.
5. Prior: to 'requesting.,the foundation inspection, -a registered civitengineer or
licensed land surveyor -shall certify in writing and state that "the-Zoca'fion':of the
ne*residence is no.less than 40'. from the front property line and 30''frn, the
sides and, rear: property`- lines." The elevation of the new residence' `shall `be
similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation -,of the``new-residence
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 5
matches the elevation and location shown on the approved Site Development
plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the
Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection and prior
to final inspection.
6. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new
residence complies with the structure height shown on the approved plans,
measured as the vertical distance at any point from the building pad, to the
highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The
overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that "all
points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-
five (35) foot horizontal band measured from the lowest visible natural or
finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line
and the highest point of the roof structure or appurtenance." The applicant shall
submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to: the Planning Department prior to
requesting a final framing inspection and prior to final inspection.
7. Building mounted lighting shall have frosted glass or be down lights. No lighting
may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights.
8. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or
colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
9. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
10. No new fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing, walls or gates shall
require review and approval by the Planning Department, prior to installation.
11. At the time of submittal of plans for building. plan check, the applicantshall
submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the
Town's Green Building Ordinance:
A. A GreenPoint rated checklist with the building permit application to
indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The
checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and
shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction
plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where
feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the
required points.
B. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to
indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points
or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified
green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the
construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 6
individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building
measure to be used to attain the required points.
12. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified professional as for the scoring
system used (GreenPoint Rater or a LEED AP) shall provide documentation to the
Planning Department verifying that the building was constructed in compliance
with GreenPoint Rated or LEED® certification.
13. Noise generating construction activities shall be limited to Monday through
Saturday between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30 pm. and shall not exceed
allowable noise standards set forth in the Municipal Code. No heavy noise
generating equipment is ,allowed to be used on Saturdays and no construction is
allowed on Sundays or holidays as noted per Chapter 7, Sec.5-7-01 of the Los
Altos Hills Municipal Code.
14. The applicant shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District
or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to
school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School
District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the
receipts.
15. The property owner shall grant an Open Space Easement to the Town to cover all
of the area within 25 feet of the top of Matadero Creek, within the property. No
structures are permitted and no grading or fill shall be permitted in this area.
Native vegetation may be planted within the easement but no irrigation or
sprinkler systems are permitted. The property owner shall provide a legal
description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land surveyor or
registered civil engineer and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The
grant document shall be signed- and notarized by the property owner and returned
to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building permit.
16. The building floor plans and site plans shall be amended to redesign the Family
Room chimney to comply with the 30 foot side yard setback. The project designer
shall prepare the revised plan and provide two (2) copies to the Planning
Department, prior to acceptance of plans building plan check.
17. Prior to beginning any grading operation, tree fencing for all oak trees 12" in
diameter and greater in the areas of work. The tree protection measures must be
implemented throughout the course of construction. Town staff must inspect the
fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The
property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the
inspection. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within
the drip lines of these trees.
Tree fencing requirements:
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 7
• Fencing shall be located at the drip line of the tree or trees.
• All trees to be preserved shall be protected with chain link fences with a
minimum height of five feet (5') above grade.
• Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts,
driven into the ground to a depth of at least two feet (2') at no more than
10 -foot spacing.
• Fencing shall be rigidly supported and maintained during all construction
periods.
• No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the
drip lines of these trees at any time.
• No trenching shall occur beneath the drip line of any trees to be saved.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - Please work with John Chau, Assistant Engineer
650-947-2510 to complete the following conditions:
18. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their letter dated July 3,
2013, the applicant shall comply with the following:
A. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall
review and approve all geologic and 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.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant
in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check.
B. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction. The inspections shall 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 shall be
described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review prior to final inspection.
19. Peak discharge at 2210 Old Page Mill Road, as a result of Site Development
Permit 100-13, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge
value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to
reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. Provide the
data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 8
of the peak discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design
peak runoff rate for a 10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage
design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value.
All .documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies) shall
be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check..
20. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system,
construction of the energy dissipators, and completion of the grading activities
and state that items have been installed and constructed per the approved plans. A
stamped and signed letter shall -be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to
final inspection.
21. All hydrant use is strictly prohibited by the Purissima Hills' Water District. A
permit for obtaining water for grading and construction purposes must be
obtained from the Purissima Hills Water District, and submitted for approval to
the Town Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building
check. The permit will authorize the use of water from specific on-site or off-site
water sources.
22: Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the
Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading
moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City
Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except
to allow for the construction of the driveway access.
23. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The
applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to
start the application process. for undergrounding -utilities which can take up to 6=8
mnntlhc
24. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the. Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all
appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and
erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked
during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All_
areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion
control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
25. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the
property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning
Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The
grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding
dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Gerth Lane and
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 9
surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary
facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for
construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for
collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the
GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with
the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
26. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any
damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways,
and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of
occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing
conditions of the roadways and pathways. prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check.
27. The property owner shall have the private wood bridge analyzed by a structural
engineer and provide maximum load capacity which . can be utilized for
construction equipments and vehicles prior to acceptance of building permit plan
check
28. The property owner shall dedicate a 20' wide half -width public right of way to
the Town over Gerth Lane. The property owner shall provide legal description
and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land
surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication
document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the
property owner and returned to the Tow_ n prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check.
29. The property owner shall provide a copy of the Residential Service Design Load
Information to the Public Works Department prior to acceptance of plans for
building permit plan check.
30. The property owner shall submit an elevation certificate for the Construction
Drawings of the new residence to the Town that indicates the new residence
meets F.E.M.A. requirements for the new construction prior to acceptance of
building permit plan check.
31. The property owner shall submit elevation certificates for the new residence to the
Town that indicates the new residence meets F.E.M.A. requirements for the new
construction during Building under Construction and at Finished Construction
prior to final inspection.
32. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee .of $53.00 per linear foot of the
average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check
Lands of Chen
Planning Commission
December 5, 2013
Page 10
FIRE DEPARTMENT - Please work with the Santa Clara County- Fire Department 408-
378-4010 to complete the following conditions:
33. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the. Santa Clara County
Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans
prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire
Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and
approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department,
prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
34. This project is located within the designated Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area.
The building construction shall comply with - the provisions of the California
Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Vegetation .clearance shall be in compliance
with CBC Section -701A.3.2.4 -prior to project final -approval.
35. 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.
CONDITION NUMBERS 14, 15, 16, 18A, 19, -24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, .AND 32
SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF _ BY THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND/OR THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO
ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
ATTACHMENT 2
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. •OF. WAY
WIDTH FROM 50 FEET TO 40 FEET; LANDS OF CHEN; 2210 PAGE
MILL ROAD; FILE #100-13-ZP-SD.
FROM: Bria&Froelict, AICP; Associate Planner
APPROVED.'_:Debbie-Pedr6, AWP, Conunuti t ..bevelopment Diie' 66 .
' `RECOMMENDATION: `That the Planning Commission:
Deny t64equested Righi of Way width= reduction based 'on the Finding"s of `Denial .in
Attachment #I "and advise the applicant„fo ,redesign the project to comply_ with -the
standard -right of way width and required sethacks.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located- at the cornei of 01d Page Mill Road and Gerth -Lane. All
properties that access Gerth Lane have addresses on..Ola Page M11 Road or Page (Mill
Road:
The applicant is roposing a new .6,099 square foot, .two=story residgnce with a. 1,411
• :,;
square foot Basement As part of this request, the applicant proposes a reduced;right of
way'ikidth dedication: The applicant is -proposing to : educe the right of way width from
50 feet to 40.feet wide- In .addition -the applicant is proposing to'use the 101d Page Mill
s
Road:.,frontage as, the :front pr operty_linc'`to n easure the 40 foot front,sgtback..and the
Gerth Lane frontage to be a side yard with a 30 foot setback.
The property is 1:1 acres with an .average slope o_f 12 7% The site is currently ceyeloped
with`'a "sin a story -residence and -attached '
garage:`The existing structures .are to `be
�.
de>ziolished .and the.'driveway access` is proposed to `be relocated, 45.- feev%east =o the:
existing driveway on Gerth Lane: The site accesses a' 3 U foot wide -ii of =way easement
(Gerth Lane).. Matadero Creek traverses dh ' - roperty along the eastern boundary ,
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 1.1 acres
Ayerage Slope: , 12.1%
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
5,94.0 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 with'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 down slope of the existing driveway: The driveway-. diiectly 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 combination. of
wall mounted and recessed lighting.
Gradina & 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 andbasement 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 j basin, and Aissipater
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 tliat 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 Way 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=of4ay 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 pioject 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 4998, 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 approvinga major addition
project in 1994 at 2240 Page Mill Road (north sideof Gerth Lane).. (2240 Page Mill Road
CC minutes — Attachment #9)
As a matter of background, when the properties'. along GeA 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 30 foot right of way.: width has.. become substandard for any .road: in Town.. Thus,
the Council's -action in 1994 to; reduce the:right.:Qf.way. width to 50 -feet -meant 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 foot wide right of wayeasement (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-yPolicy: 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:Commissionto-deiernune righi,of way
width. Section 6.c) of the Right of Way Polic'-'states:
"In no event shall a road right-of-way of Less than 40 feet be approved If right -of :ways of less
than SO' are approved by the Planning Commission, speck f ndings must be made relating to
traffic, safety and future development. "
Right of Way Policy, Section 7states: .
"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 vehiculareasement. 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 ,nte. -righto,detrmi. the,side .of,greater
setback "
Right of Way Policy Section 7. has nofbeenapplied 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
officialplan line has been established; from such iffi%ial plan line.
(2) Where a lot abuts on more than one such street, easement, or, tial plan line, the
Planning Commission or. the Site Development- Authority, whicheverentity first acts upon an
application relating to the-. development .of a, particular:property, shall designate the street,
easement or official planline 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 00) feet from property lines, nearest lines of public or private streets, rights-of-
way
ights-ofway easements for vehicular access, or official 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 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-wayallow residents
to waM; 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:
Adequatespace. 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 kagnegative 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 Lane as 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 areincluded in Attachment Win 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 findings 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 (CEQA)
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, 201.3
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
1. 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 wally 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 Goa! C-1..Objediyes . ``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 -I -Implementation Measures' "Develop riglif of way stane7arrds 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-SDbjectives -"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.
ATTACHMENT 2
26371 FREMONT ROAD, LOS ALTOS MILLS, CALIFORNIA 14122 'r (l/q KI-T1t2
e+ w
DATE: 'February 15, 1989 0; •
California y'`
TO: Honorable Mayor and- City Council
FROM: Bill Ekern, Acting City': Manager ,
RE: Recomme'ndations_-'from- Planning Commission,
Road•Right-of-Way `,Ji, y
RECOMMENDATION:
It -"is the 'red.ommendation> -of Staff that the Couincil adopt the at
� tached .policy .statepent as ,: mo:d; ied: b'y' the` Planning Commission.
on February 8, 1-9$g. - It `is :also the recommendation that the. City
Counci1;-d1rect-the Ztg Attorney.-to:'-prepa-re-.-draft -o-rdina.nces- "to
accomodate the `defiai-tion`-of" "Short Cul=
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 rin -Section: -9-1 :232 -as :any road. -having
but;one outlet for vehicular travel_, the
terminus .of :said. road. being within -thesub-
divison, enclosed *by -parcels .of. land- com�pris-
ingslots 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.no.t 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.
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.str'eet shall• dedicate. right-of-way
such that. the Yialf street right=:of-way fronting that. proper.-.
ty. shall be -.3O feet.
2. A n` w._ 16 al :°street. or'. cul=4e-sad "creat1.ed--b a : subd-i-vision ,
shall have a right=of-way vi`dth' of 6O feet. -
3. A new, short cul =de-sac:-breated'.by.a -s,ubdivision shall. have a.
right -o --way width 'of. 50°. feet.:
4. A subdivision, of land, a new residence on an -,existing lot.or
a major remodel--on-an-existing-lot othat-_has,fr.ontage on. an
existing local -atreet or- short: cul d' -1sac -created r.ior- .to
the` adoptidif of` thi30'''s policy `shall dedicate right-of-�iay.
-equal to 25' or 7°fr
''om the defined-ee'ritee1iri'e'-of the road,.
whichever is equal to the dedication that now exists 'for: the
majority= ofthe "'lots on.,the street; -unless the. majority is
25' or less, in -which casethe 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-wap dedications
greater ° thah� set 'forth in =this 'p6licy ` to °`meed unig a condi=
.tions such ��as a split level^:roadway -design: This concept is.
addressed, in 'Municipal. Code.. -Section 9-11.703(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 .fiowri standards for right-of-way
and construction.
6.a) A determination shall.be made by the Planning`Commissi.on of
the future planned width of an existing -private, road. This
determination shall be. made-. at -.-the time. of the _first sub-
division or .construction of-.' new,residence or 'a major„
remodel. of an existing residence which, fronts 66”, succi -exist-
ing.private road.
6.b) An irrevocable offer of'dedication of'-the,-determfned 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.
6.0 In no event shall a road right-of-way of--less-than 40 feet
be approved. -If right-of-ways of lesd 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 se tba.ck for all new.construction on all properties. shall
be no less :than '70-'. -from the centerline of the dedicated.-
r'oad right-of-way or vehicular easement. Corner lots will..
have setbacks of 70' from the centerline of the major road
velo menti AUZnori6y will re6d1L1 LoLm L".1 L1V ..VV-uC VC1lu111C 1,11C
Ti—de 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. )
8. Per. Sections 9-1.222. and 9-1.703(c),. slope control easements
shall be required in'add.ition 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 accepted.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 determina-
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 T -HE 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 -Tay 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 could be obtained by
using the larger setback requirements and other easements which
do not affect potential lot development.'
It.i.s important to-note-the-,.policy-relatingto site development
permits. An analysis of the dedications and .right -of -wap 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 - he 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 -gray .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.provide a basis -for
defining when.a dedication -is appropriate and to provide a
rationale for the requirement consistent with the law.
attachments:
Original Staff Repart with Recommendations, dated 12/22/88
Memos from Committees
ATTACHMENT 3
Los.Altes.HiMs Pathway. Committee FINAL (Approved 06/24/13 w/o amendments)
Minutes of Meeting of Monday, May 22,•2013
1. ADMINISIXATIVE
Chairman Eileen.Gibbons called the.meeting to Order, at 7:05;PM.
Members present: Weegie Can-%% AnnDuwe, Eileen Gibbons; Vic Hesterman, Breene Kerr,
Joseph ffieitman; Tim Wacner,' Sue' Welch, Denise Williams
Members. absent: Ni :kDanckeLnAlichelle ldirkin `
Coemcilnember_present: John-RAdf)rd (CC liaison to w . -
Members ofpublic.present; Chiistopher•Huang (Easttabok Ventures)
Michael Sego (1.31.40 Avila Court)
Art, Kaman garp2034 isie'Way)
John Chen (2200Page Mill Road).
The agenda was approved as.written..' .
2.: CON -5f -
None.
3. PROPERTY REVIEWS. The following properties was reviewed for pathway recommendations:.
A. :'Unlmown: Easd rookaddress: � 1.1768 Maedalena' n of Eastbrook Ventures LLC). The reason for
PaI&WZY.'xview is construction of a new:residence. The developer (Huang) Was pres6& The property is the
parcel is the_Ncholson snbdivision.,closm-6-the4I 280'c&ramp. Pathways on'this subdivision have been
discussed at multiple PWC meetings during tfie:past2 years: Ttie assigned address will be 1.1768
Magdalm&l c gmeml consenm:was.that &'nbdhider-hasmet'*ath,
pathways easements and constructing pathwzys, The P Y ` seProviding
Planning Commission:asked-for aa:easement along
Hale Creek fmm Dawson.that candot be blocked by fencing;..landscaping; oi*>other obstructions. Although
no off-4,oad path:is rcq ed in this- creek side easement:az-this dine;'it would provide'valuable access to
Dawson and should be°considered for addition to the M`theaster Path'Plan':infim"—.1Aj Dnwe at
that:.1) Townataff confirm thavthe easement along-Hale.Creek1ft isb on-11768'Magdalena; and 2)
the Town_ require:the.developer,to recons&uct efmdng`•IIB.pathways after construction. Breene Kerr
seconded. The vote was- ananimonsly',in favor:.:::.
B. 13140 Avda Court (Lands of Sego and Zhue). The reason for pathway review is`constiructiowof a new
residence. The developer (Sego) was Present, The property is at the end of Avila Court, a cul-de-sac off
IIena Road that serves S parcels. The..l4jasterPath P1aii•:includes an off;road Pa6way'easement on the'
southern half of, &e -western: bordec.oftherparceUtThis i, l0-fo6t wide
Ptian easement .
-provides .a.cionnection between Elena Rnad.(viaMaple Leaf, Court) to<the page Mi�1` Road -area (by way of
Via Feliz). Joe Kleitman moved that4he Town ask the owners. of 13140 Avila eonrt for the pathway
easement asshown on the Master, path Plan (on the western border of the parcel ap to 27801 Via
Felin);- and; askahe homeowner tq:buiild a native .path.there: Ann -Dawe seconded: The vete-was 8 in'
favor, l opposed (wCl'pathredundant and:obtrtisive-oithisp±o_ .
C. 12030 Elsie Wavtlands of Recurve Venft mem ne•reason for pathway ttviear is'conskuction of anew
residence. The developer Wamanger)-was present: -The properfy.is onthe north'e'ast side of Elsie Way, a
Private cul-de-sac Concepcion Road that serves 3 parcels: The Master Path Plan does not show any off-road
Pathways exitmg Elsie Way and no roadsidepaths exist:aWg-A s.cul e=saciSreene.-Kerr moved that
Town request a pathway ht -lieu -fee from. the developer of 12030 Elsie Way. Joe Weitman seconded.
The :vote -was unanimoaslyln. favor.
D. 2210 Page Mill Road Qands of Om) The reason forpathway review is construction'of anew residence.
The developer (Chen):was present. The property a on -tire west side of Old Page Mill Road at the
intersection with Gerth Lane and has:frontages on both stf Bets. 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 lade and no ..
�•` - roadside paths exist along this cui-de-sac. Matadero Creek rims along the -Old Page -MR -frontage and no
roadside paths exist along this road Old Page Mill Roadhas heavy bicycle traffics and the roadsides are
n
frequently used for parking near this parcel. A roadside path built at this site would likely encourage
t
parking. Tim Warner moved that Town request a pathway in -lieu fee from the developer of 2210
Page Mill Road. Breene 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 Dawe 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 constriction 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 -lieu
fee from the developer of 2210 Page Mill Road. Breene Kerr seconded. The vote was unanimously in
favor.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A Open Space Committee 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 P.W.C. 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
ndwhether pathway. maintenance funds could be used for this activity. Joe Kleitman agreed to draft a letter
-describing the nexus of pathways and open space :and generally supporting atrial 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.
S. OLD BUSINESS
A Update Hale Creek Area for General Plan off-road man. _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 Rep ..PWC members complied a list of paths that need maintenance. These include:
Patti 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 (Arastradero) Trial Proiect Work has started
6.: REPORTS FROM OTHER MEETINGS
A Bicycle Sharing Program. Time Wamer 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 bilces 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
{ 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.
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 recommeridation for 2210 Old Page Mill Road
Hi Brian
Nancy and I just misited 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 Old_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 conservationeasement." . ` . . . -
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
i
iyED
ATTAINT 5
MAY 2 3 2013
Pathway Committee 10%IN OF LOS ALTOS RLS
Meeting Date:_JM c, 4 Z 11 U I File. #: / oG 3 P S () ^ G- Lb) .
Applicant Name:_ C-� e h ,To Vl V1, C
Property Address: `2 � / y
Recommendation:
1p -Lieu Fee
Notes/comments:
Construct Type II B Pathway
Notes/comments:
Dedicate pathway easement
Notes/comments:
Restore existing pathway
Notes/comments:
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:. Cli lVt�w=kesiderce.(Revisi )
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 Jupe 24, 2013;
• Geotechnical 'Investigation. (report) • p%epared. liy Earth
Investigations Consultants; d`aied April 15, 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.
Ii1 addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents- from our office
files.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes toconstruct a new two-story residence with attached
garage, driveway, and partial ba'semet.` In our' previous geotechnical peer review (dated
April 30, 2013), we recom*nended that .the 'Pioject.Geotechnical Consultant evaluate the
potential presence of undocumented 1 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.
NortheraCaliformia 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
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 fillat 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 � Pro7ect = Gediffidinical Gor.-ultant -has - C . = Id. the zcr.X.-M^ts sof or --
previous
previous geotechnical peer review, completed supplemental 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 Approval _ prior 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 is
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.
-Rest editrlly siibmitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Ted Sayre
Principal Engineering Geologist,
CEG 1795
i
David T. Schrier
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
r ATTACHWNT 7
°ate
FIRE, DEPARTMENT
IRE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd.; Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 -(408)318-9342 (fax) wwW.sccfd.org
PLW
REVIEW N, 113 P976
LOG.,
DEVELOPMENTAL,.REV.IEW-..'C'OMME-N
.'COMMENTS PER
!Proposed new 6,805square-foot _tvV(&-_!5_t_oif single-family residence with, attached garage.
Corn fent #1 Review of thisDdVelbpmentA,proposal is limited to acceptability- of -6ite access
and
water supply 'asthey pertain to fire department operations, and `shall not be construod Pa's' 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
,136partm6nt'allapplie!ble construction
'Comment #2: Wildland-Urban Interface: This Project is located -within the designated Wildl "and -
;Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California
!Building Code (CBC) Chapter *7A.'Note .that vegetation clearance: shall: beincomplia
nce with.CBC
Sett6ii 701A-31.4 prior to project final"approval. Check with. thePlanning Department or related -
D
landscape plan requirements.
.0 ment #3: Fire SprinklersRequired: noted on page TI of the plans An. automatic residential fire
,sprinkler system shall.be installed in one- and two-family dWellings as
- '`zfollows: -In all new one- and
�two4amilydwelingg"and in.exsting one -'and two'f mflydweflingswhen additonsaremade that
'increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet: Exception:'A. one-time additl6n1dan
existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area.: NOTE: The owner(§),
,occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s)-are responsible for consulting with the' water purveyor of
i�Ui ti 'NOTE:
.Ire�ofd in order to determine if--4ny:mo ca on or upgrade of th6,.exist'n'g water service d
Nuire.
Covered�-po"'r'i±,"'m'-'pa*ti'o's, balconies, and-attk'sipakies ma'yhie'--b
require pn.nk1ei:coverage. A'State`qf California
licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractorshall submit plans, calcul'� le i
ition§,- a coin��'Ae_t daP'2��dt appy dationand
mfeir work -A R313.2 as
.appropriate fees to this deipart'm'enffor review and approval prior to beginning t.
adopted and amended by LAMC
MAY 0 62013.'.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HalS
Crel PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL "OCCUPANCY
LOS 0 El CM 0 [3
SFR
CONST.-WPF
V -B
ApticanMmm DATE
Stotler Design'Group 05/01/20131
PAGE
. 1
OFM
SEC/FLOOR
2 story
I AREALOA6
6805 Sf
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR
LOCATION
2210.Tage''Mill Rd Los Altos
TABULAR FM FLOW
2250
REDUCTION FOR
FIRE SPRINKLERS
0 20 PSI
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 500
Harding, Doug
50901.
Organized- as the Santa Clara: County Central Fire Orote6tion District
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos,. CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 •(408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org
DEVELOPMENTAL- REVIEW COMMENTS
REVIEW No
113 976
BLDG
- �—
PERMIT No.
SEC/FLOOR
2 story
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 m;mmum unobstructed width of 14
feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and
23. feet inside, and. a aximum slope of 1570. Installations. shall conform- to Fire Department Standard
Details:.and Smpecifications. sheet D-1.
!Commeint #5: Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn-aroundRequired: noted on page T1 of the
;plans Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of.
36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department 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 -
from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CFC
Sec. 505
!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 vnotes"' on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced.diagrams to.be
;reproduced onto the future plan submittal.
City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
LOS ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑
OCCUPANCY
SFR
CONST. TYPE
V -B
jApplfcanfflame DATE
Stotler Design Group 05/01/2013
PAGE
2 OF[E
SEC/FLOOR
2 story
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
TABULA_ R FIRE FLOW
2250
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW ® 20 PSIBY
1.500
Harding, Doug
0 50
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central.Fire Protection District
ATTACHMENT 8
Brian Froelich
From:
Deborah Padovan
Sent:
Thursday, September 26, 20137:53 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 rmailto:bryantmarie58@gmail.comj
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:47 PM
To: Deborah Padovan
Subject: Citi and'John Chen's House Proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane (Old•Page Mill Road)
As residents of Gerth Lane for more than -30 years *6 are in complete agreement with -die 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 yearg ago.
We oppose the right-of=way variance.
We also oppose the cornier 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 A1to,CA 94304
4
Brian Froelich
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:54 AM
To: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich
—cc. - JaimefiJh Avo —
Subject: FW: Pratt letter re Oct 3 hearing for Chen application for site -development permit
Attachments: Chen letter.doc; ChenMap.pdf
From: Margot Pratt f_mailto:margotaratt@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
To. os Ahos 11ills Pl nningLphimissjion
Re: Cici- and John, Chen's house proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane (Old Page Mill Road)
Our, is. directly across the road from the Chens. We therefore appreciate the
opportunity to imress.our opinion.about their proposed house.
The Chens are as
kiog.,.that the 50' right of way. on Gerth Lane be reduced to 40'. They
are also;kin that:.the property be treated as fronting onto Old Page Mill Road in order
to reduce th setbaek;from.Gerth Lane from 40' to 30'.
Regardingalie first request, the story.poles show the visual impact to be out of proportion
to the neazby:houses ;v-As°:the first house seen on entering Gerth Lane it sets a tone hrour
semi- rurat-street;that.we"are uncomfortable with. Vire 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 sone -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 cgrmer lot:: Theplans 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.: Weare therefore unconvinced of the need to treat the property as
fronting onto O1&Page. MillRoad.
In. cgnclusion; 1) We oppose ahe 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)
650-494-2545
marg•OtprattAgmail.com prattna.cs.stanford.edu
Brian Froelich
From:
Deborah Padovan
Sent:
Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:19 AM
To:
Brian Froelich
Cc:
Jaime McAvoy.
Subject:
FV1/: 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 fbr their upcoming: meeting
To the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Re; Cici and Johri Chen's house proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane ("Subject Property's
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 thelot 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 t6 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
ight-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 bymany 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 3053052)
2235 Gerth Lane, Los Altos Hills, CA 94364
Brian Froelich
From: Ainslie Mayberry (ainslie@virtuaicfo.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:46 AM
To: Deborah Padovan
Cc: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich; Margot Pratt; V Pratt~ Gary Kremen; Petia Kremen; Chuck &
Roberta Gillis; Cheryl & Marc Bader Bryants; John Nagel
Subject: Lands of Chen at 2210 Old Page. Mil[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 0ctober3, 2013 Planning Commission.meeting,
Please advise if I need to hand deliver or fax'' 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
September 26, 2013
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Re: Cici and John Chen's proposed project at 2210 Gerth Lane (Old Page NO 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 Comer Lot, the result will be the long
(-140 ft) dimension of the structure to be, a mere 20' from a 50' wide Gerth Lane.
Allthis 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 Mi11.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, 2013'12:52 PM
To:
Brian Froelich,
cc,:
Jaime McAvoy.
Subject:
FW: two more comments
From: Margot Pratt [mailto:marootpratt@gmail.corn
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 ate 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
September 26, 2013
To the Los A1tos.Hills Planning Commission
Re: Cici and John Chen's house'
roposal 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
semiiural 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 comer 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 40 Old Page Mill Road
Mayorvornmerited "on the
The Town Planner, at .the oit�e, - "
e request letter. ::from Mr.
Spangefilberg which the' Council had: just received .that iftertico
all theoi
. standards f the Town, lead: n. '.She:-reported'that
dbl e'enmet, on the., Helliwell proj&f and:: a
topographical survey -had 'bee;n'sAmi'tted by the applicant -'.-She furiher'commientie:l
that the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements did not apply to single
e family
homes'..
Eric Spangebber
g; attorney, kdoresenting'Mrs.- Spange''nberg at 2100 Old Page Mill,,
Road, referred to his.letter tothe'Cptulcil; dated. 1/5/9C Ift
rt :r6it
ad`h�-dressed
reasons why b oJect . was inappropriate and, alternative
yhe , believed thispr,
realities should have been pursued by Dr.. He*11iWell. Mr. Spangehbef k*,-`sta.tedI . at he
did not feel the Town followed its own ordinances.
interpretation. of the height ordinance'and. 4' - He did not agree with the staffs
hizaturall -grade-level:.:i',He thought the
in, natural
height should be measured' fro. which
na. ra gw
...e was before, anything was done
to the lot. Mr. Spangenbeig _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 D' ikbilities- Act standards.-' This
was an invasion. -c; . f privacy . onhis in' o' project
s ther's' 16 "" '
they objected to `its approval.
Dr. Helliwell, applicant, comm' jea, That' atb'
theyeen concerned about a
possible
impaet'6f 'their project and had 'addressed -A by
. z. .. o#`the comments raised the Plan'
Commission. Their proje' ning
project was Indt-Vis-ible"aitiW11 from the Spangenberg's property;
-there was no visual impact. He.h'
ot6d as a matter of fact, that the project was
actually 'closer to. their other neighbors. who :had no objection At all to the project.
Mrs. Spangenberg,`2100-Old 'Page Mill Road
commented that -they hid. had -a difficult'
time getting the plans and reports on"th'L S* Ordilfict before the -Planning Commission
met. She further commented that they
Wdri'66 only neighbors bothered by. this
project.
Dauber stated that she had gone to the.'Spahg6nzberg's home- and. she* could not see
the Helliw611 project at all from any room 4,
.(heir house.' Hubbard noted that there
would be a ' landscape plan required which would help address the privacy issue.
Tryon commented that shedid notagree with. ''
the practice of road right of way
dedications which resulted in n -less than one acre and so a narrower right of.way-.
should be required.;
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To"change'the- fir
st. sentence 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'"t"u'rn, around space."
January 5,
1994
0
71
I
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Dauber and
passed unanimously to approve the request for a 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`;to discuss, the City Council
Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
.Patricia Dowd
`City Clerk
The minutes of the January 5, 1994 City. Council Meeting were approved at
the January 19, 1994 City Council Meeting:
7
January 5, 1994
.'Approved November 14, 2013
ATTACHMENT 3
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
Thursday, October 3, 2013, 7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers, 26379 FremontRoad
1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
Present: Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge,
Chair Abraham
_ ;Absent:. Commissioner Couperus
-Staff " : Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director; Richard Chiu, Public
Works Director; Brian- Froelich, Associate Planner; Jaime McAvoy,
Planning Secretary
PRESENTATIONS FROM :THE FLOOR
_ Samuel Broydo, Los. Altos Hills, came to -mention theupcoming discussion element
based on AB1358, and notify the Commission that he had d sent materials for them to
review before they make their decision._ ;
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ex Parte Communications: Commissioner Mandle reported that .she spoke with the
property owners; ,visited the. site; and had spoken with multiple neighbors. Commissioner
Partridge reported that he had spoken with the property owners and neighbors.
Commissioner Tankha . reported that - she had spoken with. the property owners and
. neighbors. Chair Abraham reported that he had spoken to the property _ owners,
neighbors, and the architect.
a 3.1 LANDS OF CHEN, 2210 PAGE MILL ROAD; File.# 100-13-ZP-SD; A request
for a Site Development Permit for a 6,099 square foot- two-story new residence
and 1,411 square foot basement (Maximum height: 26'). The application is -also
requesting a reduced right-of-way width of 40' along Gerth Lane where 50' is..
required. CEOA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (Staff-
.
Chair Abraham requested to split the discussion into two parts: one for the right-
...of- way and one for the residence itself. The Commission agreed..
1
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 3, 2013
Approved November 14, 2013
Associate Planner Brian Froelich presented the staff report.
Commission asked questions of staff.
Public Works Director Richard Chin explained the purposes of right-of-way
dedications, and the criteria for dedication size.
Chair Abraham opened the PUBLIC HEARING.
Applicant Cici Chen spoke on behalf of her project.
Dan Tackas, Hatchmont/McDonald, traffic engineer, spoke on behalf of the
reduced right-of-way dedication.
Designer Scott Stotler spoke on behalf of the project.
Applicant John Chen spoke on behalf of his project.
Mark Bader, Los Altos . Hills, also building a home on Gerth lane, stated his
opposition to the waiver of the right-of-way dedication.
Margot Pratt, Los Altos Hills, stated her opposition to the waiver of the right-of-
way dedication.
Gary Kremen, Los Altos Hills, stated his opposition to the waiver of the right-of-
way dedication.
Chair Abraham closed the PUBLIC HEARING.
Chair Abraham re -opened the PUBLIC HEARING.
Paul Waserman, representing .the Snyder family, Los Altos Hills, spoke in
support of the project.
Mr. Chen responded to the comments made by his neighbors, and gave his closing
statement.
Commission discussion ensued.
Mr. Stotler spoke again, but to the design of the house in reference to the front
setback, now that the Commission has agreed to uphold the standard right-of-way
dedication.
John Nagle, Los Altos Hills, Gerth Lane Home Owner's Association President.
Speaking on his own behalf, not the Association's. Opposed to changing the front
section of the property to Old Page Mill Road.
2
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 3, 2013
Approved November 14, 2013
Mr. Kremen spoke again, requesting mediation with the Chens to keep the
neighbors involved in the Site Development process.
Vaughn Pratt, Los Altos Hills, is concerned about the visual impact of the house,
and while he is not opposed to the size, he is worried it will not stick to the rural
atmosphere of the neighborhood.
Ms. Chen spoke again.
Chair Abraham closed the PUBLIC HEARING.
Commission discussion resumed.
Chair Abraham called for a recess.
Commission reconvened at 10:00 PM.
Applicants requested to continue the public hearing, and request a direction on
where the commission stands on the 30 foot setback, so they can decide where to go
from there.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Partridge moved to
continue, to a date uncertain -a request for consideration of a 30 foot side setback
along Gerth Lane, and up to an 18 inch encroachment of the eaves into the setback,
and include the added condition that the applicant bring the Landscape Screening
Plan to the Planning Commission, based on a 20 foot right-of-way dedication. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Tankha.
AYES: Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Mandle,
Commissioner Partridge, Chair Abraham
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Couperus
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION CARRIED.
4. OLD BUSINESS - none
3
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
October 3, 2013
ATTACHMENT 4 -
CxERT11 T,ANE 1-10MT+aC3WNERS ASSOCfATION
Date: May T, 2013
To: Town of Los Altos H111s (including its Planning Department and Town Council)
RE Potential Garth Lane Road Right of Way Dedication
To whom this may concern;
It is our understanding that the town of los Altos Hills has required or may requesta dedication for the right
ofway along Gem Lane. According to the current Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1.103 "Rights -of -way -
Radius" and 10-21202 "Right-of-way dedication" state that the. town "may require dedication" and are subject to the
discretion or the Planning Director or Planning Commission. -At least one of our members in the planning phase of
development has been told that the Town might require such a dedication.
As owners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public dghtof way for Gersh Lane.
For over 50 years, we have maintained this road Stour own.expense, with no assistance from the Town. Unlike other
prtvate streets In Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which .fulty malntains our road. A public
dghtof way would saris no one in Los Altos Hills as Garth Lane Is a dead end, surrounded by other private land and
terminated atthe end by Stanford, There are no pathway trails anywhere near Garth Lane nor are there any properties
for future pathraay trails. Our one lane road is in.keepirtgwlfh the rural atmosphere thatwe love.`
We know 11M other California govemmentenHtfes, the Town is on a tight budget Any dedication will be a
long-term-mafntenance and liability burden on theTown. This does not Include any litigation that taking ofprivate
Property due.tu a forced dedication mightinvolve.
an summary; all paredI owners on berth Lane}afe opposed to any dedication of any public right of way.
Please contact us wim any response and thank you foryour time in advance.
Respectf*,
The Gert lane Homeowners Association
GERTH LANE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Date: May 7, 2013
To: Town of Las Altos Hills (including Its' Planning Department and Town Council)
RE Potential Garth Lane Road Right of Way Dedication
To whom this may concern:
It is our understanding that the town of Los Altos Hills has required or may request a dedication for the right
of way along Garth Lane. According to the current Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1.703 °Rights-of-way-
Radlusr and 10-2.1202 "Right-of-way dedication' states that the town °may require dedication' and Is subject to the
discretion of the Planning Director or Planning Commission. At least one of our members In the planning phase of
development has been told thatthe Town might require such a dedication.
As owners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way for Garth Lane.
For aver 50 years, we have maintained this road at our own expense, with no assistance from the Town. Unlike other
Private streets In Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which fully maintains our road. A public .
right of waywould serve no one In Los Altos Hlils. As Garth Lane Is a dead end; surrounded by other private land and
terminated atthe end by Stanford. There are no pathway trails anywhere near Garth Lane nor are there any properties
for future pathway trails. Our ane lane road Is keeping with the rural atmosphere that we love.
We know, like other California government entities, the Town Is on a tight budget. Any dedication will be a
long-term maintenance and llabflityburden onthe Town. This does not include any litigation that taking of private
property due to a forced dedication might involve.
In summary, all parcel owners on Garth lane are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way.
Please contact usatthe listed email addresses with any response and thankyou foryour time In advance.
Respectfully,
The Garth Lane Homeowners Association
in �.0 �� ► ���
yrs`'
--
G]ERTH LANE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Date: May 7, 2013
To: Town of Los Altos Hills (Including its' Planning Department and Town Council)
RE Potential Garth Lane Road Right of Way Dedication
To whom this may concern -
.
It Is our understanding that the town of Los ATMs Hills has required or may requests dedication forthe right
of way along Garth Lane. According to the current Los ATMs Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1.703 "Rights-of-way.
Radlus' and 10-2.1202 •Right of -way dedication' states that the town "may require dedication' and is subject to the
discretion of the Planning Director or Planning Commission. At least one of our members in the planning phase of
development has been told that theTown might require such a dedication.
- As owners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way for Gerth Lane.
For over 50 years, we have maintained this road at our own expense, with no assistance from theTown.-'Unlike other
private streets In Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which fully maintains our. road. A public
right of way would serve no one In Los Altos Hills. As Garth Lane Is a dead and, surrounded.by other private land and
terminated at the and by Stanford. Then: are no pathway trails anywhere near Garth Lane nor arethere any properties
for future pathway trails. Our one lane road is keeping with the rural atmosphere that we love.
We know, like other California government entities, theTown is on a tight budget. Any dedication will bee
long-term maintenance and liability burden on the Town. This does not Include any litigation that taking of private
property dueto a forced dedication might Involve.
In summary, all parcel owners on Gerth Lane are apposed to any dedication of any public right of way.
Please contact us at the listed email addresses with arty response and thankyou for yourtime in advance.
Respectfully,
The Garth Lane Homeowners Association
Print Name: 00
Addrss: 1l�-�Gty)�' � TA
(:'Y'ERT11 LANE II01NIE'C. WNERS ASSOCIATION
Date: May 7, 2013
To: Town of los Altos Hills (including Its Planning Departmerrtand Town Council)
Re Potential Garth Lane Road Right of Way Dedication
To whom this may concern:
Itis our understanding thatthe town of Los Altos Hills has required or may request a dedication forthe right
Of way along Gerth Lane. Accordlngto the current Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1,703 "Rights -of -way -
Radius" and 10-2.1202 "Right-of-way dedication" state thatthe town "may require dedication" and are subjectto the
discretion of the Planning Director or Planning Commission. At least one of our members in the planning phase of
development has been told that the Town might require such a dedlcatlon,
As owners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way for Germ Lane.
Forover 50 years, we have maintained this mad atour own expense, with no assistance from the Town. Unlike other
Private streets in Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which fully maintains our mad. A public
right of waywould serve no one in Los Altos Hills as Garth Lane is a dead end, surrounded by other private land and
terminated atthe end by Stanford. There are no petlhwaytrails anywhere near Gerth Lane nor are there any properties
for future Pathwaytralls. Our one lane road is in keeping with the rural atmospheretliatwe love.
We know, like otherCalifomia govemmententities, the Town is on a tight budget Any dedication will be a
long-term maintenance and liability burden on the Town. This does not Include anylitigation thattaking of private
property due to a forced dedication might involve.
In summary, all parcel owners an Gerth lane are opposed to any dedication of any public dghtof way.
Please contact us with any response and thankyou foryourtime in advance.
Respectfully,
The Gerth Lane Homeowners Association
Print Name: f �I� A(1 /y /� r�/ L. & YI%
GERTH LANE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Date: May 7, 2013
To: Town of Los Altos Hills (Including Its Planning Department and Town Council)
RE: - Potential Gerth lane Road Right of Way Dedication
To whom this may concern:
It is our understanding that the town of Los Altos Hills has required or may request a dedication for the right
of.way along Garth Lane. Accordingto the current Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1.703 "Rights -of -way -
Radius" and 10-2.1202 "Right-of-way dedication' state that the town 'may require dedication' and are subject to the
discretion of the Planning Director or Planning Commission. At least one of our members In the planning phase of
development has been told thattheTown might require such a dedication.
- As owners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way for Garth Lane.
For over 50 years, we have maintained this road at our own expense, with no assistance from the Town. Unlike other
private streets in Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which fully maintains our road. A public
right of waywould serve no one In Los Altos Hills as Garth Lane Is a dead end, surrounded by other private land and
terminated at the end by Stanford. There are no pathway trails anywhere near Gerth Lane nor are there any properties
forfuture pathway trails. Ourone lane road Is In keepingwith the rural atmosphere that we love.
We know, like other California government entities, the Town is on a light budget Any dedication will be a
long-term maintenance and liability burden on the Town. This does not Include any litigation that taking of private
property due to a forced dedication might Involve.
In summary, all parcel owners on Gerth Lane are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way.
Please contact us with any response and thank you for your time In advance.
Respectfully, -
The Garth lane Homeowners Association
SZb13
Date: May 7, 2013
To: Town of Los Altos Hills (including its Planning Department and Town Council)
RE: Potential Garth Lane Road Right of Way Dedication
To whom this may concem:
It is our understanding that the town of Los Altos Hills has required or may request a dedication iorthe right
of way along Garth Lane. According to the cuffent Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1.703 "Rights-of-WaY-
RadlusP and 10-2.1202 "Right-of-way dedication" state that the town "may require dedidation" and are subject to the
dLscretionofthe Planning Director orPlanning Commission. At least one of our members in the planning phase of
development has been told that the Town might require such a dedication.
As owners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way for Gerth Lane.
For over 50 years, we have. malntalned this road at our own expense, with no assistance from the Town. Unlike other
private streets in Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which fully maintains our road. A public
right of waywould serve no one in Los Altos Hills as Gerth Lane is a dead end, surrounded by other private land and -
terminated atthe end by Stanford. There.are no pathway trails anywhere near Garth Lane nor are there any properties
for -future pathway trails. Our one lane road is in keeping with the rural atmosphere that we love.
We know, like other California government entities, the Town Is on a tight budget. Any dedication will be a
long-term maintenance and liability burden on the Town. This does not Include any litigation that taking of private
property due to a forced dedication might Involve.
in summary, all parcel owners on Gerth Lane are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way.
Please contact us with any response and thank you for your time in advance.
Respectfully,
The Gerth Lane Homeowners Association
- Charles Gillis
Print Name:
Address M M M Los Altos Hillis
i 6,4/?A r/3
(4:111.11[1 LANE tic��ll.:<► t'�ta:� .�.�u� t.�'t•t�b�
Date: May 7, 2013
To: Town of los Altos Hilts (including its Maiming Departmetd and Town Council)
Be Potential Gerth Land Read Right of Way Dedication
Towhom this may concern:
it is our undetstandngthat the town ofLos Altos Hills hosrequlredormay request ada"
wtioat IhedgM
of way along derth Lane. According to thecunentLosAltosNibMunicipalCodeSections9.1.703 Ighb o! -way
Radlus•and10.2.1202'11tot-of-waydedlcallon'statethatthetown'Mayrequirededication"andaresu )ecttothe
discretion of the Planning Director or Planning Commission.- Atteastanoofout members Inthe planning pf we of
development has been told thatthe Town mightmquice such a dedication.`
As owners of this private mad, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right at way force lana
For over 50 Veers, via have maintained this toad at out own expanse. with no assistance from Me lown-- Uni otbor
pdvatesira0tsiaLosAltosHilis.wehaveanactivehomsownersassociation,Whichf llymaintainsourmad. Apublte
dght of waywould serve no one tn'Los Alias Hills as Garth Lane Is a dead end, surrounded by othet private Is and
terminated at the end by Stanford. There ere no pathway trails anywhere near Gerth Lane nor aro them any 1 mperUes
far future "wraytratly. Our one laaufood Is In keeping with the rural atmosphere that we [we,
Wo knew, like othar Callfomin gwemmerd entitlos, the Town is on a 004 budget. Arty dedlraUonWIII be a
long-term maintenance and liability butdon on the Town. This docs not include any litigation that toting of dvate
pmpeny duo to aforced dedication migittimvlve.
In summary, all parcel owimrs an Garth Lane am opposed to any dedication otany public right of ay.
Pieria contact us with any response ami thank you foryour (fine In adwnco.
Respectfully,
The Gerth Lane Homeowners AssoclaUon
T—'
Address• l
GERTH LANE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Date: May 7, 2013
To: Town of Los Altos Hills (including Its' Planning Department and Town Council)
RE Potential Garth Lane Road Right of Way Dedication
To whom this may concern:
it Is our understanding thatthe town of Los Altos Hiils has required or may request a dedication for the right
of way along Garth Lane. Aocordingto the current Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1.703 "Rights-of-way-
Radlus" and 10.2.1202 "Right-of-way dedication" states that the town "may requlie dedication" and Is subjecttothe
discretion of the Planning Director or Planning Commission. At least one of our members in the planning phase of
development has been told that the Town might require such a dedication.
As owners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way for Gerth Lane.
For over 50 years, we have maintained this road at our own expense, with no assistance from the Town. Unlike other
Private streets in Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which fully maintains our road. A public
right of waywould serve no one In Los Altos Hills. As Garth Lane is a dead end, surrounded by other private land and
terminated at the end by Stanford. There are no pathway trails anywhere near Garth Lane nor are there any properties
for future pattrway trails.. Our one lane road is keeping with the rural atmosphere that we love.
We know, like other California government entities, theTown is on a tight budget. Any dedication will be a
long-tenn maintenance and liability burden on the Town. This does not include arty litlgatlon that taking of private
property dueto a forced dedication might Involve.
In summary, all parcel owners on Gerth Lane are opposed to arty dedlcatlon of any public right of way.
Please contactus atthe listed email addresseswith any response and thankyou foryourtlme In advance.
Respectfully,
The Garth Lane Homeowners Association
Print amee flylsltg, "6e,"
GERTH LANE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Date: May 7, 2013
To: Town of Los Altos Hills (Including its' Planning Department and Town Council)
RE. Potential Gerth Lane Road Right of Way Dedication
To whom this may concern -
A our understanding that the town of Los Altos Hills has required or may request a dedication forthe right
of way along Gerth Lane. According to the cur reat Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1.703 "Rights -of -way -
Radius° and 10-2.1202 Right-of-way dedication° states that the town "may require dedication" and is subject to the
discretion of the Planning Director or Planning Commission. At least one of our members In the planning phase of
development has been told that the Town might require such a dedication.
As owners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way for Gerth Lane.
For over 50 years, we have maintained this road at our own expense, with no assistance from the Town. Unlike other
Private streets In Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which'fully maintains our road. A public
right of way would serve no one In Los Altos Hills. As Gerth Lane Is a dead end, surrounded by other private land and
terminated at the end by Stanford. There are no pathway trails anywhere near Gerth Lane nor are there any properties
forfuture'pathwaytralls. Our one lane road Is keeping with the rural atmosphere that we love.
We know, like other California government entities, the Town Is on a tight budget Arty dedication will be a
long-term maintenance and liability burden on the Town. This does not include any litigation that taking of private
Property due to a forced dedication might involve.
In summary, all parcel owners on Gerth Lane are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way.
Please contact us at the listed email addresses with any response and thankyou foryour time in advance.
Respectfully,
The Gerth Lane Homeowners Association
(=1;I:'l'III'zZ
Data: May 7, 2013
To: Town of Los Altos Hills (including its Planning Departmentand Town Council)
RE Potential Garth Lane Road Right of Way Dedication
To whom this may concern:
It is ourunderstanding that the town of Los Altos Hills has required or may requests dedication forthe right
Of way along Garth Lane. Accordingto the current Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1.703'Rights-of-way-
Radius" and
Rights-of-wayRadius°and 10.21202 °Right -of waydedicetlon" state that thetown "may require dedication" and amsubjecttothe
discretion of the Planning Director "Planning Commission. Atteast one of ourmembers in the planning phase of
development has been told that thaTown might require such a dedication.
Asowners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way for Gerth Lane.
For over 50 years, we have maintained this mad at ourown expense, with no assistance from the Town. IMilka other
private streets in Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which fully maintalas our road. A public
right of waywould serve no one In Los Altos Hills as Garth Lane is a dead end, surrounded by other private land and
terminated at the and by Stanford.. There are no pathway trails anywhere near Garth Lane nor are there any properties
forfuturepathwaytrails. Our one lane mad is In keepingwlth the rural atmosphere thetwe love.
We know, like other California government entities, the Town Is on a tight budget. Any dedication will be a
long-term maintenance and liability burden on the Town. This does not include any litigation that taking of private
property due to a forced dedication might Involve.
In summary, all parcel owners on Garth Lane are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way.
Please contactus with any response and thankyou for your fte in advance.
Respectfully,
The Garth Lane Homeowners Association
1§1ntName: I.j �s 6 is e, Lr l kfirPl e, A VUR A- j
GERTH LANE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Date: May 7, 2013
To: Town of Los Altos Hills pncludinglts' Planning Department andTown Council)
RE: Potential Gerth Lane Road Right of Way Dedication
r
To whom this may concern:
It is our understanding that the town of Los Altos Hills has required or may request a dedledon for the right
of way along Garth Lane. Accordingto the current Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-1.703 °Rights -of -way -
Radius" and 10-2.1202 "Right-of-way dedication" states that the town "may requirededicatlon" and is subject to the
dlscn:tlon of the Planning Dlrector or Planning Commission. At least one of our members in the planning phase of
development has been told that the Town might require such a dedicatlon.
As owners of this private road, we are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way for Gerth Lane.
For over 50 years, we have maintained this road at our own expense, with no assistance from the Town. Unlike other
private streets In Los Altos Hills, we have an active homeowners association, which fully maintains our road. A public
right of way would serve no one in Los Altos Hills. As Gerth Lane Is a dead end, surrounded by other private land and
terminated at the end by Stanford. There are no pathway trails anywhere near Gerth Lane nor are there any properties
for future pathway trails. Our one lane road Is keeping with the rural atmosphere that we love.
We know, like other California government entities, the Town is on aught budget. Any dedication w111 be a
long-term maintenance and liability burden on the Town. This does notinclude any litigation that taking of private
property due to a forced dedication might involve.
In summary, all parcel owners on Gerth Lane are opposed to any dedication of any public right of way.
Please contact us at the listed email addresses with any response and thank you for yourtime In advance.
Respectfully,
The Gerth Lane Homeowners Assoclatlon
Qdrrt Name• TD " 6tJ diu"L, - &- da-
, -.-
'Z- SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM A
Distributed: t -OL
.5a
To The Los Altos Hills Planning Commission.
RE: Dr. and Mrs. John Chen's:house proposal'at 2210 Gerth Lane
From: John and Cid, Chen
Dear Planning Commissioners,
First, we would like -to. take this opportunitylo- express our gratitude for yoor review of
our house projectassodatingvlth the -application foe the right -of Way reducticin. We are Very
thankful that youcameto Pursite and 'viewed the proposed, development site as:well asth-e
neighborhood erivironment.
Wehave lived ori,Gersh Lane ihce'-.2009:an-d fell in love with the. ,Los Altos -Hills
neighborho-od:. Our threes daughters, have grown. from � childrenjorteenage.. girls; and we I . ook.
forword to continue livilrighereofter retirement in the:future.sd out girlt-.c . an come visit us
during vacations/holidays-With their. own families. We envision annual. reunions With, children
and graiTdchildren: for rnany:years-to-carne. In: Order. to Nfill'this'svim6n, we decid6d,to build a
house spacious enough to,,accommod . ate our -family needs!.
Last Friday. our. planner.,1VIr. Brian Froelich, forwardedto-us our nelghbor.,6bjection, -letters,
which indicated thelie abjectiowagairist the frentsetback, roadway way r -o -w reduction,. and, the
construction of -a: large house on GO rthr Lane in generaL: Wefully respect, theiropinions. We
hereby would like provide. a -'few, more facts onthese;issues.
1. Front setback, on old Pogd Mill. Road
> Staff Support: the planning .staff. :and-mpriagers (Mr. Bidan Froelibh, Ms, Debbie Pedro,
Mr. Richard Chiu- Mr. John Chou, and Mr, Cori cohill)-m r
etwith us- multiple times - es m f o
February 2013 through July-2013to, d iscussourho Use �projectj and the siaff 'agreed that
our,parcel is4torher I 6t:an.d'hastfrontages on t-Wo,right-O'f=ways% (Old Page,M111 -Road
and Qertfitane.)i FUr.th,erri'io.re,,.the.staff:was.in consensus -to,call, old Page Mill Road,
front-+ith-the40froiltsetbace rement. T e ft7staff la e
pro.ceed.ed to design thesite. plat- Please 'seethe.
comment from the engirieering.,department in our email exchange:
planning, and Engineering DeP artment response:.Yburproperty-at2110 Old Page Mill
Road is,a 'CqrhLr lot and has frontage on two. rights -of: way. TheTown'sSubdivision
Ordinance defines frontage as I follows:, 9-1-202 Frontage means that portion of the
length of a single pdrref orlot Which abuts pubitc or pr1VQ " -te road rfghtsaqfwOy,
> 'LAH Municipal Code 10-1102- Lot, corner. "Cornee'lot"n
vedns a lot abutting on two (2)
or more intersecting roods.
Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance (January 2013 rev.) further defined the frontage
of a corner lot:
tot frontage: The:boundary: of a dedicated public or private road right-of-wdy as it
fronts along a lot. To determine the front lot line forsetback purposes, see "lot lines."
Lot lines: The lines bounding a lot as defined herein, with the following specific
Classifications and criteria for determining setbacks. For purposes of this definition,
"street" shall mean "right-of-way;" as defined herein.
1. ,The front lot line is normally the line that abuts a street.
2. The front lot line pf a: corner lot is normally the shorter line (representing the
narrower lot dimension) of the two lines abutting a street. If a corner lot's overall depth -
to -width dimensions are more strongly representative of the lot's orientation such that
an alternate frontage determination would yield a larger building envelope, the right-of-
way line that corresponds to the. lot width (longer line in that case) shall be deemed the
front lot line forsetback purposes. In the case of a curved corner, a determination may
be made by the zoning administrator that an appropriately. situated point along that
curve shall demarcate the, front lotline from the exterior side lot line.
Therefore, based on the staff support and the common practice of the Santa Clara County
zoning ordinance, we have complied with the requirement.
2. Gerth lane Ra -O -W (LAH):
➢ GP -Cir -pg 7 "The right -or -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.-"
The Right of Way Objectives: .
-- - - -------9--GP=Cir=pg7=" Fhe-policies and -implementation -measures -should -result -in: -7 --- -- - -
Adequate space in public right-of-ways to accommodate rural roadways,
pathways, utilities, drainage, and vegetation buffers:"
➢ GP=Cir-pg9 "Develop right of way standards to generally accommodate roadway .
pavement, drainage, vegetative screening, utility, slops, and pathways...
Gp-Cir-pg 14 "Spacious rights -of. --ways wide enough so that trees and shrubs can
provide a substantial buffer between the roadways and paths and between the
paths and adjacent. properties:
We fully appreciate the town's policies and efforts to maintain the rural -like
environment by managing sufficient space for roadway, pathway, utility, and vegetation.
Noted'herein the town R -O -W objectives, they all indicated the right-of-way, including:
• Roadway pavement (Gerth: 14ft)
• -Pathway (Pathway Committee voted no pathway on Gerth)
• Utility/drainage (on existing 30' easement)
= _ ; • Vegetation screening (on existing 30' easement)
Taking the example from the Arastradero. public road trail project, (one portion of
Arastradero Road is designed to be 1Z one. way); if Gerth Lane adapts the same -two-
way traffic with'a 24' pavement, then a.,40' r -o -w should be sufficient to meet -the
town's R -O -W objectives with the addition of.8' per side for utility/drainage/vegetation
screening.
• Furthermore, among the current 130 private streets, about 40 streets are
designated with 40' R -O -W. -These are Cul -De -Sac streets, -just like Gerth Lane
(see attachment 1).
• Gerth Lane's unique characteristics:
o 12' Bridge
o. Matadero Creek
o Cul -de -Sac
o Dead end to open space conserve and Stanford reserve
o Remote possibilities for future public development
o Road only serving 12 -households with very minimal traffic
We sincerely ask for your consideration in reviewing our case and allowing Gerth Lane to be a
40' r -o -w private street, if deemed, requiring a dedication.
3. The affected parcel -size:
➢ 20' dedication, 2210 Lot size reduced to 0.9 acre
➢ 10" dedication, 2210. Lot size reduced -to 1.0 acre
In 1994, our -neighbor at 2240 Old Page Mill Road obtained an approval from the City Council
for reducing the 30' dedication to 20' because the town intended to keep a minimum of 1 -acre
lot for the affected property.
We would like to ask to for -your approval as well in following this precedent case to support
keeping our land at a size of 1 -acre, per the town's 10-1.501 ordinance (minimum parcel size).
4. The Dedication process:
LAH-Circulation & Scenic Roadway Element — Jan 20j 1999:
"The Town's current process for.roodway dedication/acceptance is not documented -in an
ordinance: The town adopted q policy-in•1997 that details a process for acceptance of private
roadways which identifies the role of the Town and responsibility. of private road owners."
"The. dedication -of private roadways`to public ownership when requested by affected
property .owners, when -they have1een upgraded to current Town standard and where all
necessary. dedications have been offered by adjacent property owners."
"For every. private road not intended to, he dedicated to pdblic ownership the.formation of
maintenance agreements between property owners responsiblefor monitoring and maintaining
their respective private roadways:"
These statements indicated that:
➢ Current town practice of the roadway -dedication has no legal documentation -to support
its legality. This process triggers mostly when a.homeowner.'has to -apply for a permit for
the site development.
➢ Mostowners.compiy with the road dedication only because they have to obtain the
permit to process building. Affected property owners do notvoluntarily.>request these
dedication offers..
> Property owners can choose not.to-dedicate to the public by actively maintaining
private roads.
Therefore, we question the� legality. of the town's current process,of land dedication to public
ownership. The Gerth Lane Home Owners' ;Association. (%HOA) -has sustained the road
maintenance agreement since. 1957, and we -have actively preserved the road and bridge since
then. GLHOA's intention is for Gerth Lane TO NOT BE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC -OWNERSHIP. We
sihcerelyask for your support in honoring our unanimous request to keep Gerth Lane
private/NO Dedications.!.
S. March 21, 2013 LAH City -Special Meeting Minute: The Staff recommended accepting
private roads into the town only once they are brought up -to town standards and
keeping -.non -through roadsprivate with a recorded road maintenance -agreement.
We question the purpose of the town's request to ask dedi.cat 6h$ on Gerth'Lane. since the
town has no intentions to accept Gerth Lane, Therefore, we sincerely ask for your thorough
review of the town's dedication process and the 3/21/2013 council' meeting minutes to
consider our proposal in keeping Gerth Lane a private street with no dedications to public
ownership.
Town Of Los Altos Hills Study Sessions of Private Roads:
http:R-www..I.osal-toshitis.ca.gov/documents/c-ity- council meetings/20131LAH City Council 201
3 3 21/LAHCC 20130321 study session digital.pdf
Town Of Los Altos Hills Study Sessions of Private Roads PowerPoint Presentation:
htti3-,/Jwww.losaltoshills.ca.gov/`doc,,umehts/cltV council. rnqet1hgs/,2013jLAH CitV CoUngfi, 201
3: 3, 21/LAHCC 20130921. study session 0owerpoint presentation.ptl
6. TO address our heighhor complaints:
> Visual impaaofthe.h.qusesize:
* 2210:01d Page- Mill Proposed size — 6100 sf
* 2265 Old Page Mill in,construction now—'6733. sf
> Property, Setback (from the- center of the existi - hg -easement):
•2210 Old Pogo Mill (proposed) —55 ft
* 2265 Old Page Mill..(built) —50ft
* 2275 Old Page Mill (building now) —55 ft.
* 2215 -OldfiageNill. (built) = 85 ft,
We are not comfortable with: being discriminated against forbuilding a spacious -house
because,our house Is located near the -road entrance -(In fact, 2209 Old Page Mill is a
two-story house located n.eqrest the bridge entrance)::
Instead,we will work actively -with our landscape designertd, develop a -realistic
Ian ds6ape. screenin'g.p !ad that.n6tonly screens but also can: successfully blend in with.
the current rural environment Noted that the majority portion; of"the proposed house
fading Gerth'Lane it sto
ihdeed!or
n y,. the proposed house is almost Invisible from -the
bridge.point. of 'view (Picture I), Therefore, we believe that Vegetation buff6es,ctp be
the best solution. to minimizing the visual' impact from, Gerth-1ane.
We.very much appreciate your time in reviewingthis document:and we -look forward
presentingourcase on Thursday 1.0/3.
Sincere,ly,
John and Cic[ Chen
Attachment
Z. LAH 40' r-o-w private streets
2. Picture from Bridge
Private. Street List with. 40' r.o.w.
Name
Section
Reference
Almaden Court
Tr# -4116 & 4392
Appaloosa Way.
Tr# 465.7
Atherton= -Court
Tr# 5624
Bassett Lane
Tr#.4189.
Beatrice .Lane
Tr# 3331
Bella Ladera- Drive
-Reso. 1175, 1.97.8 &
Reso. 1300, 1.980
Birch I -MI Way
Tr# 3491"
B.rendel Drive
bulb:to end
Tr# 3505
Br-iones Court
-Tr# 4019
Buena Vista Drive
-P.M.602 .M 43
Burke Lane
-ROS 6.08/23
Byrne. Parte Lane
first bulb to end
TO 46.57 .& 5068
Calla- Del Sol
RM. 3015M. 15
Carado Court
Tr# -4227
Casa—Mia—Way
Tr# 4114
Cortez Lane
74'41:85
Country Way
Cul-de-sac Bulb -to .end
Crescent Lane
-Tr# 997
Cumbra Vista Court
' Tr# 2842
Darling :Lane
Tr# 6963
s'ly property. line of 27267 DeerSprings
Deer Springs Way Way to. end Tr#4875, 4657
Edgecliff Place
ET..=a -Court
.;WFalita-dace.
Tr# 3117
Tr# 13
Tr# 2842
Eucalyptus. Lane
Ginny Larre.
Jarvis VV,7,y
J ulletta Lane
Kriste. Lane
Laurdi Lane
Lennox Way
Lane Oak Lane
UcLzro- Lane
Lynn-daleMay
Old-Snakey R-6ad
Rhus Ridge. D(iye
Tanglewood, Lane
Templeton. Place
T-byonita Road
Tripoli: Court
Arroyo Way (not exist)
Hill: Way (need research)
Ridgewood: Lane. (share
driveway of 25860 &
25870 Vinedar Lane)
Tr* 3668:
T4 3328
P.M*, 327 M 22
sly property. line. of'24370 Julietta Lane to: Tr# 4897 & 5266-,
end
Reso. 852 -
ROS. 78 M.52
TO 2986.
Tr#3425
Tr# 4855
81Y 201
Reso, 5.7-94
Tr# 4994
se ly property line of 11950 Rhus- Ridge
Tr# 41:69
Road- to end
Moody- Rd to "tee"
Tr# 6355
TO 3487-
-Ravensbu rry Ave North to. South is
private, except se'ly property line. of
Reso,1030,1977,.
23750F Ravensbury Ave to. se1y property.-
Tr# 13
line of 2335*0- Toyonita: Rd
Tr# -41-58
P.M.,238 M 54
' .. , t a1y !� C �, ,'�"ye � 41 at h `Y't > -� � 4 T T� / r'1��� i `FF > �m�•�..�.
e„'c .- •a ,• �. ;:� � > Vit, �� . -1 >.
,. 1l..,,�!-'1 6t^K -��1,•Yrt�>��t'��'��'i �, {Z. ��"1 a 1 X .�,�' P.. .. _ _ • _ - `J
WN
• �t�'_+�'°nF � ' ��+�+...s�:I-+^."�'J�,KY Y P : = � lva,,.t_�: t> iVf'y � li i� _ _ -,'r ..�
»>� ?„-a'A'.-.: r ". s x• is ?{L•L LF1�"- 1�5� :I- nt. •'.t• - p,� 'c 16�
vlR
mza
Fj
�a,•.�.--•_ 't«'• ,� � `a.' '.:'r��'�'•.'"s ='mss.-'as"ti� t.s,_ _ x{�'T' p.•� {rri'f F7 ,t e,yi •?•
AOr
- +. r� i /{ �a�� • "^'. f C t�: A ��:rr•.i9"�• � � f5 `•i Y, 'cam �a
• ��'1"� ".�'.; S.f a � r-ic _ - a; • „� � }•ti �t .rS{. ,I�i .• �. :t•�r� >c ,
` 1 t< r ,• •y. r,., !v �' i r ,,'YIfF `@, '~� r dytf! «"ti• C
i.��,v �(• fA 11 S.r } t •. t � -i 61, �''i 'r-_ v" � �,,, ! - � '•. -ft.,. + .,�
',,1 . . �' •� � ti � � r'iT yr! It, �>`'�rG" i `"' - ,y v ��'.J r - _} ` t � -� •rr'
r 5. �r<� �-, I. •, -at L - >a � In � d _ t:t Y•�
t�' + ` !l �` • ; r r R l f �, 7` : {k�� }SYS r S' nt'rw.ria•�y; r a'�4 Ar n`ti'=�^��T'
T� X!tea �t
Y6.Y•iry/«w'.' _\\.vA
% 4 iG ,'�5 S + i •{Jt> fly.}'2 J.��4 }# T'
' • r �-t��"p�v�/' A�.� W t-��r.saF >s. r ��} atm* ,F 4;6rZ7, -f
1I < r r v - _, t y. ..i v>- .,,,t � •-+' i 1 -4
- Z�..t -t S\J t q; t ti i �1,r�c rt >i t •t µa>z `r > f �`•
•_ .. - h •_ � �' '_ k tr" " �:t ? F _;�` tr N"'r''h'.�'y ;{' .Y„' f}..,:, r •S, r ,r
- - ' � :s: ! -,t" t L. T ' � .tl' :•tet � � C "t,�:s w ' _`' ci �e� J. r L.; ' _
> ; .s. v > � •� f ^siw.��y,�� LS. '` `t � i T• a sc r•• � r r � : � " c� _•
a: rx { u _ ' %��uk -. .TFt-••=i`t N•% `•�� �s �.4 � \' \1� t� r •` `:
'" � -,�� ' ',,,n,,;nA:4't �� rr 4# t�' S�'�•7� ^ ; k r �+} .. •> ? .) c ✓` .: t..y
n t til �
_ d• P..4 --L� � �� s. 4 ��`i'�� r-i� T • t'rt�iwMfi. <L _ „ � 4 � - r4 r:.M� _ e
1, t c�'�4� .r„�z'.i = �"�-�f r�.�. �,E,z9•y r ` : rn43 _ ✓- �'J•�
r"N r Ty -- • S` �' Y• - g ; '�.� rid . s � .s 1 ; � y�•+•i� � •t=
- .s>�•'c.� dr 'Taj - ' tic.: i+'• -' �. _
Jaime McAvoy
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 20131:22 PM
To: cict Chen
Cc: Debbie Pedro; Brian- Froelich; Jaime McAvoy
Subject: RE: Our response letter and other document
Dear Ms. Chen,
#5SUPPLEMENT
AGENDA ITEM # 7J.
Distributed:
_.._.___Thank-you._Xour-email_has-been-received-and will-be-provided.-to-the-P-ianning-Commission--
Deborah L Padovan
City Clerk
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA -94022
Phone: 650-947-2513
From: dd then rmailt
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 12:11 PM
To: Deborah Padovan
Subject: Fwd: Our response letter and other document
resent...
--------- Forwarded message ----=----
From: cici then
Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Subject: Our response -letter and other document
To: dt)adovan(�,losaltoshill.ca.gov
Cc: Brian Froelich <bfroelichna losaltoshills.ca.gov>, Debbie Pedro <dpedroalosaltoshills.ca.gov>,
jinmi3cAggigH.com, Kavita Tankha <kavita .comcast.net>, jsmandle .hotmail.com.
richard.partridgg[?a comcast.net. John Chen Scott Stotler
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Re: 2210 Old Page Mill Road.House Project
Dear Ms. Padovan,
Please kindly forward the below attachment to the planning commission
members for tonight meeting at 7:00pm.
1: Our letter to the planning commission
2. Gerth Lane Road Maintenance agreement (19.57)
3. Most recent Gerth Lane Home Association- Meeting Minute
Thank you very much for your prompt assistance.
br,
Dr. John Chen and Cid Chen
-- - --------
To The Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
RE: Dr. and Mrs. John Chen's house proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane
From: John and Cici Chen
Dear Planning Commissioners,
First, we would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for your review of
our.house project, associating. with the application for the right of way reduction. We are very
thankful that you came to our site and viewed the proposed development site as well as the
neighborhood environment.
We have lived on Gerth Lane since 2008'and fell in love with the Los Altos Hills
neighborhoo.d. Our three daughters have grown from children to teenage girls, and we look
forward to continue living here after retirement in the future so our girls can come visit us
during vacations/holidays with their own families. We envision annual reunions with children
and grandchildren for many yearsto come. In order to fulfill this vision, we decided to build a
house spacious enough to accommodate our family needs.
Last Friday, our planner, Mr. Brian Froelich, forwarded to us our neighbor objection letters,
which indicated their objection against the front setback, roadway r -o -w reduction, and the
construction of a large house on Gerth Lane in general. We fully respect their opinions. We
hereby would like provide a few more facts on these issues.
1. Front setback on Old Page Mill Road
Staff Support: The planning staff and managers (Mr. Brian Froelich, Ms. Debbie Pedro,
Mr. Richard Chiu, Mr. John Chau, and Mr. Carl Cahill) met with us multiple times from
February 2013 through July 2013 to discuss our house project, and the staff agreed that
our parcel is a corner lot and has frontages on two right-of-ways (Old Page Mill Road
and Gerth Lane). Furthermore, the staff was in consensus to call Old Page Mill Road
front with the 40' front setback requirement. Therefore, based on staff approval, we
proceeded to design the site plan with such setback confirmation. Please see the
comment from the engineering department in our email exchange:
Planning and Engineering Department response: Your property at 2210 Old Page Mill
Road is a corner lot and has frontage on two rights-of-way. The Town's Subdivision
ordinance defines frontage as follows: 9-1-202 Frontage means that portion of the
length of a single parcel or lot which abuts public or private road rights-of-way.
9 LAH Municipal Code 10-1.202:. Lot, camper. '1Carr►er lot"means a lot abutting on two (2)
or more intersecting roads.
➢ Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance (January 2013 rev.) further defined the frontage
of a corner lot:
Lot frontage: The boundary of a dedicated public or private road right-of-way as it
fronts along a lot. To determine the front lot line for setback purposes, see lot lines:"
Lot lines. The lines bounding a lot as defined herein, with the following specific
Classifications and criteria for determining setbacks. For purposes of this definition,
"street" shall mean 'right-of-way," as defined herein.
1. The front lot line is normally the line that abuts a street.
Z. The front lot line of a corner lot is normally the shorter -line (representing the
narrower lot dimension) of the two lines abutting a street. if a corner lot's overall depth -
to -width dimensions are more strongly representative of the lot's orientation such that
an alternate frontage determination would yield a larger building envelope, the right-of-
way line that, corresponds to the lot .width (longer line in that case) shall be deemed the
front lot line for setback purposes. In. the case of a curved corner, a determination may
be made by the zoning administrator that an appropriatelysituated point along that
curve shall demarcate the front lot line from the exterior side lot line.
Therefore, based on the staff support and the common practice of the Santa Clara County
zoning ordinance, we have complied with the requirement.
2. Gerth lane R -O -W (LAH):
i GP -Cir -pg 7 "The right -or -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:`:-
The Right of Way Objectives:
➢ GP-Cir-pg7 "The policies and implementation measures should result in:.7
Adequate space in public right-of-ways to accommodate rural roadways,
pathways, utilities, drainage, and vegetation buffers."
➢ GP-Cir-pg9 "Develop right of way standards to generally accommodate roadway
pavement, drainage, vegetative screening, utility, slops, and pathways...
➢ Gp-Cir-pg 14 "Spacious rights -of -ways wide enough so that trees and shrubs can
provide a substantial buffer between the roadways and paths and between the
paths and adjacent properties.
We fully appreciate the town's policies and efforts to maintain the rural -like
environment by managing sufficient space for roadway, pathway, utility, and vegetation.
Noted here inthe town R -O -W objectives, they all indicated the right-of-way, including:
• Roadway pavement (Gerth: 14ft)
• Pathway (Pathway Committee voted no pathway on Gerth)
• Utility/drainage (on existing 30' easement)
• Vegetation screening (on existing 30' easement)
Taking the example from the Arastradero public road trail project, (one portion of
Arastradero Road is designed to be 12' one way), if Gerth Lane adapts the same two-
way traffic with a 24' pavement, then a 40' r -o -w should be sufficient to meet the
town's R -O -W objectives with the addition of 8' per side for utility/drainage/vegetation
screening.
• Furthermore, among the current 130 private streets, about 40 streets are
designated with 40' R -O -W. These are Cul -De -Sac streets, just like Gerth Lane
(see'attachment 1).
• Gerth, Lane's unique characteristics:
0 12' Bridge
o Matadero Creek
o Cul -de -Sac
o Dead end to open space conserve and Stanford reserve
o Remote possibilities for future public development
o Road only serving 12 households with very minimal traffic
We sincerely ask for your consideration in reviewing -our case and allowing Gerth Lane'to`be a
40' r -o -w private street, if deemed requiring a dedication.
3. The affected parcel size:
➢ 20' dedication, 2210 Lot size reduced to 0.9 acre
➢ 10' dedication, 2210 Lot size reduced to 1.0 acre
In 1994, our neighbor at 2240 Old Page Mill Road obtained an approval from the City Council
for reducing the 30' dedication to 20' because the town intended to keep a minimum of 1 -acre
lot for the affected property.
We would like to ask to for your approval as well in following this precedent case to support
keeping our land at a size of 1 -acre, per the town's 10-1.501 ordinance (minimum parcel size).
4. The Dedication process:
LAH-Circulation & Scenic Roadway Element —Jan 20, 1999:
"The Town.'s current process for roadway dedication/acceptance is not documented in an
ordinance. The town adopted a policy in 1997 that details a process for acceptance.of private
roadways which identifies the role of the Town and responsibility of private road owners."
"The dedication cf private roadways to public ownership when requested by affected
property owners, when they have been upgraded to current Town -standard and where all
necessary dedications have been offered by adjacent property owners."
"For every private road riot intended to be dedicated to public ownership the formation of
maintenance agreements between property owners responsible for monitoring and maintaining
their respective private roadways."
These statements indicated that:
➢ Current town practice of the roadway dedication has no legal documentation to support
its legality. This process triggers mostly when a homeowner has to apply for a permit for
the site development.
Most owners comply with the road dedication only because they have to obtain the
permit to process building. Affected property owners do not voluntarily request these
dedication offers.
➢ Property owners can -choose not to dedicate to the public by actively maintaining
private roads.
Therefore, we question the legality of the town's current process of land dedication to public
ownership.The Gerth Lane Home Owners' A`ssociation:(GLHOA) has sustained the road:
maintenance agreement since 1957, and we have actively preserved the road and bridge:since
then. GLHOA's intention is for Gerth Lane TO NOT BE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. We
sincerely ask for your support in honoring'our unanimous request to keep Gerth Lane
private/NO Dedications!
S. March 21, 2013 LAH City Special Meeting Minute: The Staff recommended accepting
private roads into the town only once they are brought up to town standards and
keeping non -through roads private with a recorded road maintenance agreement.
We question the purpose of the town's request to ask dedications on Gerth Lane since the
town has no intentions to accept Gerth Lane. Therefore, we sincerely ask for your thorough
review of the town's dedication process and the 3/21/2013 council meeting minutes to
consider our proposal in keeping Gerth Lane a private street with no dedications to public
ownership.
• Town Of Los Altos Hills Study Sessions of Private Roads:
httD://www.losaltoshills:ca.gov/documents/city council meetings/2013/LAH City Council 201
3 3 21/LAHCC 20130321 study session digital.odf
• Town Of Los Altos Hills Study Sessions of Private Roads Power Point Presentation:
http:/Iwww.losaltoshills.ca.Frov/documents/city council meetings/2013/LAH City Council 201
3 3 21/LAHCC 20130321 study session oowerpoint presentation pdf
6. To address our neighbor complaints:
Visual impact of the house size:
• 2210 Old Page Mill Proposed side — 6100 sf
• 2265 Old Page Mill in construction now — 6733 sf
? Property Setback (from the center of the existing easement):
• 2210 Old Page Mill (proposed) — 55 ft
• 2265 Old Page Mill (built) — 50 ft
• 2275 Old Page Mill (building now) —55 ft
• 2215 Old page Mill (built) — 55 ft
We are not comfortable with being discriminated against for building a spacious house
because our house is located near the road entrance (in fact, 2209 Old Page Mill is a
two-story house located nearest the bridge entrance).
Instead, we will work actively with our landscape designer to develop a realistic
landscape screening plan that not only screens but also can successfully blend in with
the current rural environment. Noted that the majority portion of the proposed house
facing Gerth Lane is indeed one story, the proposed house is almost invisible from the
bridge point of view (Picture 1). Therefore, we believe that vegetation buffers can be
the best solution to minimizing the visual impact from Gerth Lane.
We very much appreciate your time in reviewing this document and we look forward
presenting our case on Thursday 10/3,
Sincerely,
John and Cid Chen
Attachment
1. LAH 40' r-o-w private streets
2. Picture from Bridge
Pfly.afe -$txtet List with 4(Y'..r.mw...
Uwe seeflon
Rle'ferd-=6
Almaden Car.t
Tri 9-41 6 &4192.
Applasaa.
1=r4
Bjtbhj4jl[ W
OrplIOM(Ne 4lb. to+ drjd
Tr9*36.05-
Bnofies-CM..'rt
TW 4911.0
f3404 �'[--Vjsta -Drive:
Burt-
R'Q Sw 600121.
Bymg--,lFIar'k. LAn-a 41tst bU!4-. toy end,
alp Def cel
P Mt Z06 -,-M1. .5
Paraduco.urt-
Casa Mid way,
ecfez Carte Tr#41 85
Wad
W
6udtryw --de-pac. 40lb-1Q.-end
.
Cpmbra Vista Court Tr#. 2442
Saffirig-tane TrA 6$63
Wly-prqperty.rins of 27267 -.Deer: Spnrigt
Deer Springs U1lay T r#4.8-75,.4657
Way t6 --end v
Etpcl - fff*. Place.
T- rg. 13
ZgFRace.
T W-. .2842
Eucaly.ptut Lane
Ginny Lane
Jarvis way
-dulfetta. Lane
iotte Lane
kauxel Lane
lerpox Way -
Lm. e. Oak, Lane
Lucere Lane
Lynnglafe W -BY
T-andlia,wood. Lane
-T
�.eIpp.letorl Place
Toyon'ita. Road
.Tn'p9lL:C.ou.rt
Arroyo W.by.-(ndoist)
Hill Way (ftodd: research..}
Ridgewood Larfo-.(-'shiare
drivaWAy-Of 26960 &
-2�82
. 7Q Vir.iddla Land)
Tr# 3668'
Tt#-332-;9
P.M.- .3-27 M'22
s!lY property line of 24370 JDIIeda. Lane- to TO -499.7 &- 5.266i
-
.'end
Resm W
ROS'78 M-'52
Tr#- 2086
741425
T -Jr# 4855
Rdso.-. 5.7-94
Tr#4994
se.1yf prope.ity line of 1-195G Rt up- Ridge
Tr#
Roc(d, to. end
Npoc)y k.d to: "tqel'
TO 307
kaven'sburry Ave.ftortit to South is. -
p.riyate- exj:.ept:soIry property Une of
Reso,.1030, 1977,7.
23750I Rav&nsbUry-Ave to dd'ly property.
T-413
tine of 23366 t6yob Ra- Rd
T rg 4158.
54'
4'N � �. .i��� i �•�-'TQM" tq l�Ytj �L .. `
ri
�, �. _ T ,,,r...^� �.. �_ ... 'Y -mss - f .t• �.. - � ` ..•.�
x r ^
_ '` f.,..n .d �"` � � of h�^'�.�' SCS„-:�(•6.<�„ �'"'+ k ,—.�J�7�3'; �f .']:„v+r5e .:..rte -
-^
- - �i-'�.•+'^5�}$- fy,�� is �i:�; �tj„a,�t�.+.Y� �� �� "'�-_ -'��_ 1 -
m
Z;Y
7�4
q% *AoqiROO 4
OU jAn OAJOS 0% NA441190
lq
.:own
4, I?oW*o eq
g lx4 %'?. " *. - C#' - , - ..'
'Qt* '.'44 JO
12jedoad. 40 '100a, .1060--vt l?lFvF
- -*! . ' - .
vu
V =0004 :ET.Wqi Wli' w' -o
ea - I -
OL)
SIR 'Eles a* lM6qiRsw
P-4 vD!
Ak;
- '4k
T -pooli, ills j
pun ".549, j�Ujo -qtao
sav mof%a6doad But%-vd%.DIWVd. -our,
29909*
T- slow- �w GaQv:'rTt*jLoj4'Ll",.A'-: Wolpip P'lu "T*AwftT
A..
7 le utguot) DIV
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Da
sm ul -%ol.-powaod" sq%. j6 zoWoq -%owlism. ea. 44 vvw
G&4v Aqazvq o
TTTX Psw -250 suM
."Vila -*t4t*tT6-: -s-vtq.T.* �Aopv "uTvvi
*66mod el !;ITv.4w_-vQ09- U-10 ""qwk. _tt%!.l" dvxl
oigplj% pulp voi ft -NA
I- A
....
. . .
. . .
ZKL
7�4
m
..rule "Cii. ail. "tterl except those Specifically' ifli 7 ally. c5111;nq for.
a majority TO" Of all saabera innos.
You r of members mAT call for an 8160tiOn
q:t tITA lbr'
I
giving th ,l,,ttsn,jcttcs to:-oach,,ar propairtf
ownsT.m• ggili j+ -reel' 6r -land iWoJecit 'is en-:
_t1i, il.
ad to, 3jamplor: a parV? V&th..-O_nG 9L 1 3 1.:
O'no
s&os4mjjjV.!&nd one With
site ilhslf�fiive an ;-A
two, one ao WjgmAiti6ik�j-subjea-t to. W6, %.fftstsmo
re!)t
two votes.
-be
to 441317* on
%4 and Vulir Improved or vqdant.
bf AeMpci
og.dim M
toad or 0
8etei�4tsa� andijtj�vr.v.I&ed, -by
ad _.pArw!,j'�,,Pn1T
Inst 1-aprow i.
to bd Aff'508410
vorer Goi-4 rt Wiwi x
If Ow -�wo or
_j%omosite contqins,
its
me
be 44bjaA_tO A
oand-Itloh that -at RnT
•
-.
then
Srtantion of cre-ISAUS. the number
shall be jaitbjest .1o' Cm
• '41-204M" Al.
ads6g.sm9nt In tca.ord witb proscribed ojqcmire;
be bod put*4 Oyj.efjtjieAta&
be-ITijs d6ne wktb- the -o"eld 178'"admmWee-
voric aments In'
6mVOwqr&A -to: a8zes
o*jj4S&r-v to folioil oomple
ember} not PA41no
hie IL 0009W)tis
S. -O 16"
!W3892 W1
30 days of vritten natiae of any assessment- shall be
daeried tbt use of the road *.nr have 29 -per month added
to tha assessment, untilpaid in full. The executive
Committee is ampoversd to take, whatever legal steps
are deemed adsisabls in.onf oast of Aollnqu*nov.
S".pt@n7;er 18, 1957.
Minutes of Gerth Lane Homeowners Association Meeting
April 2, 2012
• Meeting was called to order at 7:53pm.
• Roll call of the Gerth Lane.Road Maintenance Association
o There are 12 members in the Road Association .
o 7 of the 12 members present:.
• Ainslie Mayberry / John Nagel
• Gary
CTPnr
•
ii�i
Pratt Margot Pratt
1 Zoe ' Pratt
• Ken Bryan
• All aik
• Chuck Gillis
o N5 of the 12 members were;not:pre
• Jo Burchard
• The Hogans
• The Chens
• The Svnders
•. The Baders ending close)
• Minutes from last meeting — Vaughan is looking for them
• Bridge - update on bridge issues .
o Sign posting -for Fire Department requirement is done.
o Action item -- John to call rescue people to verify they will come
across bridge.
o Chuck brought up the need for the roadway boards to be tightened; a
possible Work Day activity
• Treasurers report
o Big past expense -- engineer report cost $2,000
o Fund is $600 currently in the red
o Assessment of $250 for each parcel * 12 parcels will be assessed.
o The bridge was last repaired July 1.6 and. July 17th 1988
o Flood in 1963 -1966 destroyed the bridge, rebuilding added second
pier.
o Ainslie's suggestion -- dues every year
Private and Confidential
Gerth Lane Homeowners Association
0 20,000 square foot in road
o Chuck moved herein 1985.
o Discussion of work weekend
• Work Day set for May 19th 2012.
■ Discussion of some.of the type of work required included
trimming of branches & foliage, maintenance of mailbox area
(both sides of Gerth Lane).
o Vaughan to get quote on installing Gabion rocks for sides of road
where erosion is a problem.
• Discussion on increasing the annual dues from $25 to $250 per year. Motion
was raised, seconded and resolution passed. Vote: 7 -yes; 0 -no. Annual-
assessment
nnualassessment will be sent to all members in Q1 of each
• Vaughan to set up a GLHA checking account at Stanford Credit Union or
other appropriate financial institution.
• Gary to get cracks filled, and road sealed quote from Dryco
• Gary and Chuck to get signs. for speed -limit; blind driveway, stop sign.
• Gary to call Mr. Roadshow on speed limit, blind driveway, stop sign rules
• Discussion on removing habitats that encourage rodents, i.e., heaped piles of
firewood (s.b. neatly stacked with both sides open), piles of branches and
twigs, piles of lumber/collapsed structures, etc.
• Discussion on continued Spangenberg illegal use of road
• George talked about his plans for. -construction.
• Ainslie (and others complained) about Big Creek lumber parking trailers
along Old Page Mill Road near mailboxes.
o No commercial parking -- Gary to call Liz Kniss
Meeting was adjourned at 9:40pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Kremen, Secretary
Private and Confidential
Gerth Lane Homeowners Association
SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvoy
AGENDA ITEM # "J • `
Distributed.
From: Brian Froelich
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:19 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Lands of Chen at 2210 Old Page Mill Road (Parcel 182-31-050)
Please forward .to PC
Brian Froelich, AICP
Associate Planner
Los Altos Hills
650-94,7-2505
Planning Department Counter Hours
10 am -12 pm&1pm-3pm
From: candrgillCalaol.com fmailto:candrgill@aol.coml
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:52 PM
To: Deborah Padovan
Cc: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich; margotpratt@gmaii.com; pratt@cs.stanford.edu; gkremen(cbaol.com;
pkremen(alme.com; cmbaders@yahoo.com; "<br)antrnarie58"(a)gmail.com; john.nagel0)me.com; ainslie@vlrtualcfo.net
Subject: Re: Lands of Chen at 2210 Old Page Mill Road (Parcel 182-31-050)
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Re: Chen house proposal at 2210 Gerth lane (Old Page Mill Road)
We are writing as a concerned neighbor at 2209 Gerth Lane (Old Page Mill Road) to register our objection to the above
project.
1. We object to and oppose the right-of-way variance requested.
2. We object to and oppose classifying 2210 Gerth Lane (Old Page Mill Rd.) as a corner lot.
3. We support a project that conforms to existing Town rules and Ordinances.
Thank you for your consideration.
Charles & Roberta Gillis
2209 Old Page Mill Road (Gerth Lane)
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Jaime McAvoy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Please send to PC
Brian Froelich, AICP
Associate Planner
Los Altos Hills
660-94,7-2506
Brian Froelich
Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:21 PM
Jaime McAvoy
FW Chen house proposal
HoganChenl-etter.pdf, ATT00001.htm
Planning Department Counter Hours
loam -12 pm& fpm -Spm
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 3:28 PM
To: Brian Froelich
Subject: Fwd: Chen house proposal
Sent from my Whone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Margot Pratt <margotpratt@p=il.com>
Date: September 26, 2013 at 2:41:14 PM PDT
To: <dnadovan(@Iosaltoshills.ca.gov>:
Subject: Chen house proposal
Hi Debra,
I am forwarding a letter on behalf of Dorothy Hogan at 2255 Old Page Mill Road regarding the
Chens' proposal to the Planning Commission because she doesn't have email.
Margot Pratt
2215 Old Page Mill Road -
1
September 25, 2013
To the Los Altos Hills Planning -Commission
Re: Cici and John Chen's house proposal at 2210 Gerth Lane (O1d.Page Mill Road)
We are writing as a concerned neighbor on Gerth Lane and appreciate the opportunity to
express our opinion. Because the Chens' proposed house is so much larger than others
nearby and because it is the first house visible on entering Gerth Lane, the visual impact
is.huge and counter to the semi -rural 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 be fit into the
allowable area, a waiver is unnecessary.
We also question the decision to allow this 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 Calling this a corner lot has allowed the house
to be 10 feet closer to Gerth, with a 30' setback instead of 40'.
The net effect of allowing these two conditions -is to set the house 20 feet closer to the
road than would otherwise be allowed.
In conclusion, 1)We oppose the right-of-way variance.
2) We oppose the corner lot designation.
3) We support having the plans conform to the existing rules.
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 and also request that parking during
construction be limited to the Chen's side of the road.
t