Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.13./ TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 28, 2007 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR NEW RETAINING WALLS AND DECKS; LANDS OF SHIMMON; 24301 ELISE COURT; FILE #78-07-ZP-SD-GD. FROM: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director -JR RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: • Approve the application subject to the attached conditions of approval in Attachment 1, which include a requirement that the retaining walls be redesigned and rebuilt to comply with the Town's grading policy; OR • Approve the application as proposed, grant an exception to the grading policy, and modify the conditions of approval so that the retaining walls can remain as built. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 3 -acre parcel located at the northwestern end of the cul-de-sac at Elise Court. The property has an average slope of 33%. A conservation easement has been dedicated to protect the steep slopes and oak trees that slope down from the house towards the old quarry area below. The legal non -conforming house extends into the side setback; previously existing patios and retaining walls also were located in the side setback. Since September 2002, construction approved and completed on the property has included the following projects: • Remodel and major addition to the existing residence (including a basement expansion) • Construction of a swimming pool and decks • Construction of a detached 838 -sq. ft. second unit (or office) Building permits for these projects were finaled between June and October of 2006. Since that time, the proposed retaining walls and decks were constructed without permits. A stop work order was issued on April 6, 2007 and the applicant was required to submit a site development application for the retaining walls and decks. As required by Sec. 10-2.1318 of the Site Development Code, the penalty for the violation was ten times the normal application fee ($8,900 rather than the usual $890). In 2002 the Planning Commission and the City Council considered a request for a grading policy exception to allow the construction of retaining walls and decks around the pool. The grading Planning Commission Lands of Shimmon 24301 Elise Court June 28, 2007 Page 2 of 6 policy exception was not granted and the plans were revised to comply with the Town's maximum depths of cut and fill. As required by Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Code, this application for new retaining walls and decks has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval,. Site development review includes grading, drainage, and landscape screening. Zoning review encompasses compliance with setbacks and development area limitations. DISCUSSION Project description: The proposed site development includes retaining walls along the driveway and around the building site, as well as decks around the pool and the second unit. The proposed retaining walls and decks have already been constructed. The project plans reflect as - built conditions as well as reductions in development area needed to comply with the maximum development area (NIDA) for the site. Floor area and development area: As shown on the table below, the MDA has been exceeded by 817 square feet. To bring the development area into compliance, the proposal includes the removal of 881 square feet, including portions of wood decking around the second unit and the pool, the solar heating system for the pool, and a fire pit in the front yard (all constructed without prior authorization from the Town). Area Maximum Proposed Existing Decrease Left Development 11,953 11,889 12,770 -881" +64 Floor 7,635 6,871 6,871 0 +764 'Areas to be removed. The MDA of 11,953 square feet includes a 500 -square -foot bonus for roof -mounted solar panels, for which a permit was issued May 24, 2007. The bonus is available only if the project complies with all code requirements, including MDA. The applicant is requesting that a 336 -square -foot area of synthetic turf new the pool be counted at 10% because it is permeable and allows water to percolate to the subsoil. Grading: Although the new walls are in the same general locations as the previous walls, they were pushed out farther from the house and their configuration was squared off in order to create a bigger flat area around the house for decks and lawn. Like the previously existing walls, some of new walls are closer than 10 feet from the property line. As indicated in the attached comments from the Engineering Department, the newly constructed walls do not meet the Town's grading policy (Attachment 4). In some areas, the proposed retaining walls are 13 feet in height and the depth of fill is 13 feet, whereas the Town allows a maximum wall height of 4 feet and maximum fill of 3 feet. In addition, the differential between the existing grade and the deck Planning Commission Lands of Shimmon 24301 Elise Court June 28, 2007 Page 3 of 6 elevation at contour elevation 448 is up to 10 feet, whereas the Town allows a maximum differential of 3 feet. Need for replacement: The previously existing walls were crumbling and in need of replacement. In April 2006, the project engineers determined that the previously existing walls were a safety hazard and recommended that they be replaced "as soon as practically feasible" as indicated in the attached correspondence. (Attachments 7 & 8) The owner presented a preliminary plan for replacement of the walls and was advised by staff that the deteriorating walls could be replaced in the same location and at the same height, but that new walls in different locations or heights would have to comply with the grading policy. (Attachment 9 Grading policy exceptions: The grading policy states that "cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e. "step down" the hill." Attachment 4) Exceptions to the grading policy may be granted if individual sites dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. However, there appear to be no site conditions that would warrant an exception to the grading policy. Previous actions: On June 12, 2003 the Planning Commission considered a request for a Site Development Permit involving a grading policy exception to allow construction of the pool, retaining walls and decks that exceeded the maximum height of 4 feet and fill of 3 feet. The Planning Commission found that there was nothing unusual about the site that warranted an exception to the grading policy, and the Planning Commission required the project to be redesigned to comply with the Town's maximum depths of cut and fill. On appeal to the City Council, the Planning Commission's decision was upheld. (See minutes in Attachments 5 & 6.) Building inspections: The new retaining walls were constructed without Town approval and did not receive any inspection. If the Planning Commission approves the retaining walls as built, the applicant will be required to obtain a building permit and comply with all standard building inspection requirements to the satisfaction of the Building Official. As per Sec. 1-205(b) of the Municipal Code, the penalty for construction without a building permit shall be three times the usual permit fees, which are based on valuation of the construction. Environmental Design Committee: The Environmental Design Committee visited the site on May 16, 2007 and noted that the visual impact of the retaining walls is well mitigated with landscaping. (Attachment 10) Tree Protection: Based on the arborist report in Attachment 11, the proposed driveway reconstruction will not adversely impact the four heritage oak trees along the driveway provided the existing pavement is carefully lifted and very little grading is done. The arborist's recommendations are included in Condition 3. Planning Commission Lands of Sbimmon 24301 Elise Court June 28, 2007 Page 4 of 6 Neighbor Comments: Four letters have been submitted from immediate neighbors supporting the application. (Attachment 12) The neighbors are looking forward to the completion of the construction project and do not welcome the prospect of additional work involved in tearing out the new walls. SUMMARY Site Development Code Section 10-2.702(c) states that "the location of all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape. The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures." The proposed 13 -foot retaining walls and areas of 13 -foot fill exceed the Town's grading policy. Terraced retaining walls and landscape areas that meet the grading policy can be accommodated on the subject property. As a result, staff recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions of approval, including a requirement that the project be redesigned and rebuilt to comply with the grading policy. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Worksheet #2 3. Comments from the Engineering Department 4. Town of Los Altos Hills Grading Policy S. Planning Commission minutes of June 12, 2003 6. City Council minutes of August 7, 2003 7. Letter from Cleary Consultants, Inc. dated April 19, 2006 8. Letter from Yu Strandberg Engineering dated April 20, 2006 9. Email from Leslie Hopper to David Dearden (construction manager) dated May 2, 2006 10. Environmental Design Committee comments dated May 16, 2007 11. Arborist report from Urban Tree Management dated May 21, 2007 12. Neighbor letters 13. Site development plans cc: Edward Shimmon 24301 Elise Court Los Altos, CA 94022 Planning Commission Lands of Shimmon 24301 Elise Court June 28, 2007 Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR NEW RETAINING WALLS AND DECKS LANDS OF SHIMMON, 24301 ELISE COURT File #78-07-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The applicant shall revise the project to meet the Town's grading policy and submit three (3) sets of revised plans to the Planning and Engineering Departments for administrative review and approval. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending upon the scope of the changes, shall approve any other changes or modifications to the approved plans. 2. Prior to beginning any grading operation or demolition, all significant trees are to be fenced at the drip line. The 6 -foot tall chain-link fencing shall clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the chain-link fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to issuance of building permit. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The chain- link fencing must remain throughout the course of construction and the construction crew shall pay special attention to the cue of the existing trees. No storage of equipment, vehicles, or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of the fenced trees. To protect the heritage oak trees along the driveway, the removal of existing asphalt paving and installation of new paving shall be done under the supervision of a certified arborist. As recommended by the project arborist in a report dated May 21, 2007, the existing asphalt must be carefully cracked and/or removed so as not to scrape away more than the top 3 inches of existing base rock. The machine should start at the end closest to the house and work backwards toward to street in order to avoid compacting the newly exposed soil. No further excavations in the driveway area shall be allowed. Additional base rock and sand can be laid and slightly compacted as a base for the new pavement. Interlocking pavers that allow for water permeation and air circulation are recommended for optimum health of the oak trees. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall provide a letter from a certified arborist verifying that the driveway reconstruction has been completed in a manner that is consistent with these requirements. Planning Commission Lands of Shinvnon 24301 Elise Court June 28, 2007 Page 6 0£ 6 4. Clearance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District shall be obtained prior to issuance of a demolition permit and a building permit. 5. No modifications to the approved plans shall be allowed except as otherwise fust reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 6. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $10,000.00 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscaping to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. The deposit will be released after two yews if the plantings remain viable. 7. All outdoor lighting for the driveway and landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Lighting fixtures shall generally be shielded downlights. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of lighting should not be directly visible from off the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 8. Any, and all, changes to the approved site development plan shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 and April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line unless expressly authorized. 9. Final grading and drainage shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection 10. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection 11. The driveway shall be fully constructed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. C. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 12. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits and as a penalty for violation shall pay three times the usual permit fees. The applicant shall meet all building review and inspection requirements prior m final approval. ATTACHMENT Z MAY 2 3 200? TOWN OF LOS ALTOS ELLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26374 Fremantlzmd • Los Altos )3tlls,O��T C�) 441.7222 • FAX (650) 441.3164 MUSTiNG AIM pROpOSM DBvBLOPNfE NT AREA AND FLOOR AREA . �Tl TN wrm YOUR®PPLIC4TtON CALCULATED BY Matthew Mosey Swett Architects Inc " -f May LJ 1- __,VEL OpAREA (sQDARE FooTAc� Existing Pro case TotalP (Addhiana arDe]edoas) Fm� ✓ - A. Souse and Garage (ft= Pam 2. A.) 6,033 624 624 B. Decking C. DrivewayandParkiag 2,054 124 17R (Measured 107 along eeoparhne) 705 D. Patios and Walkways 705 B. Tennis Court 261 256 F. Pool and Docking ._ 995 838 G. AccessaryBnildings(froaaParta) 838 yS & Any other coverage 509 11i'Y� ' it TOTALS10912 Maxmmum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #1) S 11,453 r— vtN t rI,9S3 2. FLUORO (SQUAREFOOTA-W Existing Proposed Total (Additim or Ddedow) A. Hot= and Garage 4,132 L 1st Floor 4,132 1,199_ b. 2nd Floor 1,199 0 C. Attic and Basement 4 702 d. Garage 702 B. Accessory Buildings 838 a. 1st Floor 638 b. tad Floor c. Attic and Basement 6,871 ✓ TOTALS 6,871 _ 7,635 NlaximamFloor Area Allowed -WA (from Worksheet #1) xa!wd arias ATTACHMENT 3 June 21, 2007 TO: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner FROM: John Chau, Assistant Engineer RE: Shimmon Residence 24301 Elise Court File#78-07-ZP-SD Retaining Walls and Decks At your request, the Engineering Department has completed its review of the subject property's site development plan using: • Site Master Plan prepared by Swart Architects, Inc. dated June 13, 2007 and Site Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan prepared by Berry and Associates dated September 15, 2004 and last revised April 23, 2007. Both plans were received on June 20, 2007. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on our review of the referenced plans, it appears that the project engineer has generally not met all the requirements of the Engineering Department. The applicant understands that the site grading is not in conformance with the Town's grading policy and is requesting that the project be considered in its current state. The project does not conform to the grading policy as follows: a) The newly constructed retaining walls and grading do not meet the Town's grading policy. The Town limits grade differences between the existing ground and the proposed finish floor elevation or finish grade to a fill differential of 3'. Up to 13' of fill and 13' feet high retaining wall were constructed at the northeast corner of the house. b) The newly constructed decks do not meet the Town's grading policy. Grade differences between the existing ground and the proposed finish elevation exceed the Town's maximum allowable differential of 3'. Up to 10' differential between existing ground and the deck elevation at existing contour elevation 448. c) The proposed fence and gate are located in the right of way/ingress egress easement. Consequently if the project is approved, we recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Any, and all, changes to the proposed Site Plan shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. 2. Final grading and drainage shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final approval. 3. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. Please note that the above comments do not preclude additional comments from other reviewing bodies. Additional comments may follow upon receipt of the items requested above. IASALTOSATTACHMENT �f �1 GRADING POLICY r � CALIFORNIA Code Sections: Section 10-2.7020 of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings." Section 10- 2.703(a) requires: "Type II foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." Intent The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It is also intended that the policy provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides, and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. While balanced cut and fill is desirable to minimize import or export of soil, to or from a site, it is recognized that the Town's policies and the guidelines below may encourage export as cut is generally preferred over fill. These policies are intended to be used by staff in evaluation and making recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding site development applications, and as guidance for applicants. Individual sites may dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 26379 Front Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 650/941-7222 Fax 650/941-3160 Policy Re: Grading page 2 Policies: 1. Cats and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, ie., "step down" the hill*: Cut Fill House 8'** 3' Accessory Bldg. 4' 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8') for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. Anoroved by City Council: April2, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2003 Page 12 pTpGHMEW 5 Approved 7/10/03 3.7 LANDS OF SHIMMON, 24301 Elise Court (202-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and landscaping improvements and a request for exceptions to the Town's Grading Policy for a retaining wall height in excess of 4 feet and a vertical differential from existing grade in excess of 3 feet for a pool and deck. (staff -Angelica Herrera) Staff introduced this item recommending approval with condition 91, that the applicant shall revise the project to meet the Town's Grading Policy and submit three sets of revised plans to the Planning and Engineering Departments for administrative review and approval. The grading that is proposed is excessive for an accessory structure noting not every property in Town has the topography to accommodate pools, decking, etc. without at least making attempts to meet the Town's grading policy. The original plans actually showed a pool that did meet the Town's grading policy and the question at that point was that the decking did propose retaining walls that were in excess of what is allowed by the grading policy. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Eric Blasen, project landscape architect, provided the old plan for review, if needed He discussed the proposed design noting the applicants just had a child so they redesigned the plan to include a fence all the way around the pool and gate for safety. The owners also wanted area around the pool for some space. He continued with different scenarios of design layouts that they went through before settling on what is being proposed including lowering the pool site with additional steps. Their goal was to keep the pool as close to the house as possible so they would not be encroaching into the hill. The Planning Director stated that they allow wall heights of maximum of 4 feet. The setback for retaining walls is not 30 feet but 10 feet so there is no issue with setbacks. They are concemed with precedent. He referred to the Wahl resident on Stonebrook Drive noting terrace retaining walls can work. They may not have a vast expansive flat lawn but it is a hillside property. Staff would prefer a combination of a lower deck and terracing walls. The object is to minimize wall height. Commissioner Kerns asked if there was any issue with the request for a conservation easement. Eric Blasen was not sue but felt it should not be a problem with the owners. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Kerns directed the applicants to work with staff to either lower the pool or add terrace walls, or a combination of both, to meet the Towns grading policy. Commissioner Clow felt most homeowners on a steep slope would like to build out flat, however, they have ordinances against it. There is no reason to deviate from the grading policy. He would prefer seeing the pool 2-3 feet lower which would be a good way to step down the design so it fits the contours of the property more naturally. Commissioner Cottrell felt if the applicant could meet the ordinance with 4 foot walls and keep a flat deck, he had no problem If not, they need to look Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/10/03 June 12, 2003 Page 13 at lowering the pool deck. Commissioner Wong felt the project should meet the 4 foot maximum requirements and not set a precedent for the rest of the residence. Chairman Vitu agreed with Commissions Cottrell and Wong. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Kems and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to approve the request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and landscaping improvements and a request for exceptions to the Town's Grading Policy for a retaining wall height in excess of 4 feet and a vertical differential from existing grade in excess of 3 feet for a pool and deck, Lands of Shimmon, 24301 Elise Court, with recommended conditions off_ rroova—l. The applicant shall work with staff to meet Town or anni —ces and to come Yt v+tme graamg Pofic9. �G Gmsto�i�7'aKd 111 ut Gm ZI �LvrLL AYES: ChairmanVitu, Commissioners Clow, Wong, Kerns & Cottrell NOES: None This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees -none 5. 5.1 Schedule Planning Commission meeting for June 26, 2003 The Planning Director introduced this item noting there may not be a need to schedule a second meeting in June. He will advise the Commission by June 13, 2002. 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for May, 15th, Commissioner Cottrell, reported on the following: approval of the garbage, recyclables and yard trimmings collection Franchise Agreement between the Town and Los Altos Garbage Company; View and Sunlight Obstruction from trees ordinance; Housing Element; wood burning appliances; and sewer fees for non-residential sewer connections (new sewer fee rate schedule). 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for June 5'h, Commissioner Kerns, reported on the following: analysis of Fast Track review program; consideration of agreement between Peter Duxbury, Duxbury Architects and the Town of Los Altos Hills for architectural services for the new Town Hall; and the Ad -Hoc Pathway Easement Committee's findings and appropriate follow-up action 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for June 19`h - Commissioner Wong 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for July 3'" - cancelled ATTACHMENT (v Councilmember Kerr explained that he had walked the pathway easement on the property and asked Schreiner is she was aware of the path alignment after you leave the Mendez property. Schreiner said she would research this issue. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Cheng, noted that there was an additional letter from a neighbor of the property expressing concern over potential traffic issues. Cheng added that she has visited the site and it is quite wonderful, however, she understands the neighbors concems. Originally the applicant intended to build a residence and now the intent of the site has changed The neighbors have voiced wricems about traffic, noise, events and health issues from the flies. She would like an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the transferability of the CUP for a commercial stable. City Attorney Matters noted that the Use Permit runs with the land in perpetuity. They are written with requirements of periodic reviews to ensure that the conditions are being met. Reviews are required after any change of ownership to ensure that the facilities are in compliance and the CUP can be revoked if it is determined there is a nuisance or a clear violation of the conditions. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Warshawsky, seconded by Fenwick and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the conditional use permit for a commercial stable (Maple Leaf Farm) Lands of Mendez, 27581 Elena Road, subject to the original conditions of approval with the following modified conditions: 1) they allow up to two (2) public events per year on the premises subject to review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the event; and 2) that the City Council review the subject permit one (1) year from the date of the permit approval and then every three (3) years thereafter or upon the ownership transfer of the property to ensure that the use and operation of the facility camplies with the conditions of the Use Permit. AYES: Mayor Cheng, Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley, Commcilmember Fenwick, Councilmember Kerr and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Fnnn .3 Appeal of a Planning Commission's approval of a Site Development Permit for a new pool, deck and landscaping improvements: Lands of Shimmon; (202-02-ZP-SD-GD) 24301 Elise Court. g Director Carl Cahill introduced this item to Council noting that the applicant made significant revisions to his plans to comply with the Town's grading policy. Cahill added that the project, as revised, should have minimal offsite aesthetic impact. Cahill introduced Assistant Planner Angelica Herrera to answer any questions from Council. 14 City Council Meeting Minutes August 7, 2003 Ed Shimmon, applicant - 24301 Elise Court, thanked Council for visiting his property. He and his landscape architect have worked closely with staff to meet Town's policies and looks forward to getting a swimming pool on his property. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Councilmember Fenwick suggested that a proj ect of this scope could best be served by an administrative review and approval. Councilmember Kers concurred MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by O'Malley, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the revised project plans subject to the conditions of approval of Attachment 1 to the staff report to the City Council dated August 7, 2003 for the site development permit for a new swimming pool, deck and landscape improvements; Lands of Shimmon; 24301 Elise Court. AYES: Mayor Cheng, Mayor Pro Tem O'Malley, Councilmember Fenwick, Councilmember Kerr and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 11.4 Introduction of Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Code Ordinance with regard to Residential Care Facilities as a permitted accessory use and structure, Section 10-1.701 Mayor Cheng noted that the approval of this Ordinance would bring the Town into compliance with State law. Assistant Planner Angelica Herrera introduced this item to Council and concurred with the Mayor's observation adding that the purpose of this proposed ordinance is to bring the Town Zoning Code into compliance with State law and will also satisfy one of the goals of the Town's Housing Element OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Fenwick, seconded by O'Malley and passed unanimously to waive reading and introduce the ordinance amending section 10-1.702 (Accessory uses and structures permitted (R -A)) of Article 7 (Residential - Agricultural District (R -A)) of Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos I -fills Municipal Code. Council adjourned to Closed Session at 10:05 p.m. 12. CLOSED SESSION 15 City Council Meeting Minutes August 7, 2003 ATTACHMENT 7 YU•S ENGINEERING INC. April 20, 2006 Leslie Hopper, Senior Planner Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: 24301 Elise Court — Los Altos Hills Dear Ms. Hopper: I recently visited Edward Shimmon's house at 24301 Elise Court on April 6, 2006 to investigate the replacement of existing retaining walls on the property with more permanent retaining walls. The existing retaining walls are in very bad condition and represent a significant threat to the Shimmon residence and a life -safety concern for anyone on the downhill side of the wall. Failure of the existing retaining walls will undermine the existing foundations of the main house and the swimming pool, and cause settlement in the existing foundations. I observed the following conditions, which are keyed to the Existing Conditions Site Plan, attached: Condition I: FAILING HAZARD FWalls at on the verge of collapse and pose both a life -safety hazard and gh risk of severe damage to improvements on the site. Site Plan tions A -F and 1. Condition II: HIGH RISK FWallsre at a high risk of failure. Site Plan location G. 155 FILBERT STREET SUITE 236 OAKLANO CA 94807 T.510,763. 0475 1.510.963.0476 Condition III: NEED REPLACEMENT Walls are deteriorating and need to be replaced with properly engineered retaining walls. Site Plan location K Condition: IV PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL Retaining walls are required to implement permanent erosion controls, including drainage, grading, and restoration of the site to "natural' pre - construction conditions as much as possible. I have advised Mr. Shimmon to replace all of the old retaining walls on his property with properly engineered retaining walls as soon as possible. New retaining walls will help to maintain the integrity of backfilled materials around the Main House and swimming pool, and will help to prevent the kind of hazardous retaining wall failures and earth movements the property has already experienced. I can be reached at 510-763-0475. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this letter. Regards, David Strandberg, P.E 155 FILBERT STREET SHITE 234 OAKLAND CA 94507 T.510,763,0475 F.510.763. 0496 i CC'CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists Mr. Ed Shimmon 24301 Elise Court Los Altos Hills, California 94024 ATTACHMENT 8 J. Michael Cleary, CEG, GE Christophe A. Ciechanowski, GE Grant F Foster, GE April 19, 2006 Project No. 1120.2 Ser. 9802 RE: ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT SHIMMON RESIDENCE 24301 ELISE COURT LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Shimmon This letter report summarizes our observations and recommendations regarding the originally constructed landscaping retaining walls which immediately adjoin the residence and pool at 24301 Elise Court in Los Altos Hills, California. It is prompted by the weakened condition of the walls, which consist primarily of untreated wood post and lagging, and stacked masonry block and large rock, and the potential impact on the residence should they fail and remove support beneath the existing foundations. We understand that a 25 foot section of stacked block wall adjoining the pool on the south side of the home failed during a storm this past winter, as did a 30 foot section of wood post wall which retains the front yard on the north side. During our recent site visits, we observed that most of the original retaining walls below the home lean downslope or show signs of significant deterioration such as missing posts and lagging, or wood rot. Portions of the walls have been braced or partially replaced but their overall condition, and apparent absence of an engineered foundation appropriate for the site conditions, probably precludes their restoration. Based on the above, it is our opinion that the above retaining walls should be replaced with properly engineered walls at the same general locations. As discussed with you, we recommend that. the new walls be supported on drilled soldier beam foundations extending into the Franciscan greenstone bedrock which underlies the site. In areas where the original construction has "missing" sections of wall, new wall sections should be added to provide interconnection of the walls and greater structural rigidity. We understand that Matthew Mosey, project architect, is 900 N. SANANTONIO ROAD • LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94022 • (650) 940-0574 • FAX (650) 948-7761 w ..clearyconsultanisinc.com t Mr. Ed Shimmon April 19, 2006 Page 2 providing a wall layout plan incorporating the original wall siting and additional short sections of new wall as required to tie the retaining wall systems together. We recommend that the original retaining walls be replaced with properly engineered retaining walls as soon as practically feasible i.e. in the next several months once the slopes have dried out sufficiently to allow the existing walls to be removed safely. Wall installation should be performed in sections to avoid the removal of support; we can provide design recommendations for the retaining wall installations utilizing the findings of our previous studies on the property. Because the condition of the original walls could lead to loss of foundation support beneath the home and pool, the replacement wall installation should be completed this construction season. We have provided our findings and recommendations in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No other warranty is implied. We we pleased to have been of service to you on this project. If you have any regarding this letter, please call. Yours very truly, w N0.222 CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. EXE, 430-07 RpFE551ON� ��� ( �EGHNIpyf� c Chris Ciechanowski 64m . Michael Cl EX, 6130/07 Geotechnical Engineer 2584 `sgCfOrrOHN% Geotechnical Engineer 222 f Or CN CC/JMC:cm Copies: Addressee (2) Project Site (2) Atm: David Dearden, Project Manager CLEARY CONSULTANTS, INC. Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 9 Leslie Hopper From: Leslie Hopper Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:33 PM To: David Dearden (E-mail) Cc: Carl Cahill Subject: Shimmon residence—proposed retaining walls David, As you requested, I have reviewed the preliminary plans submitted for replacement of existing retaining walls and construction of new retaining walls. It appears that in some areas the proposed new walls (not replacement walls) are 11 feet in height, and areas of fill exceed the Town's maximum of 3 feet. This would entail Planning Commission approval of an exception to the Town's grading policy. The Planning Commission and the City Council have already determined that there is nothing unique about the property that would justify granting a grading exception. They are not likely to view the matter any differently now. Any new retaining walls and areas of cut and fill must comply with the Town's grading policy. Our recommendation is to replace the existing retaining walls in the same location and at the same height, and to construct the new retaining walls approved by the City Council on August 7, 2003. That would entail submitting structural plans for a building permit, which can be processed fairly quickly. Leslie 6/21/2007 3 h, rK W O-wW31�d9 -, av301 U!Se c7`• Environmental Design and Protection Committee ATTACHMENT /0 Landscape/ Hardscape Evaluation Applicant Date -7 Name Name %M,Wlio Address a(WI CSI Reviewed by: _ , Planting Plan: URBAN TREE MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 971 Los Gatos, CA 95031-0971 P 650.321-0202 F 408.399-8063 Certified Arborist WC ISA#623 Controctors License #755989 eD('ai A S (,t,/tv& g" vew\- di Pi ATTACHMENT /I 5/21/07 David Dearden, Construction Manager Shimmon Residence 24301 Elise Court Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 CC. Leslie Hopper Re: Driveway & Drain Comments To Whom It May Concern: Assignment It was my assignment to inspect the driveway reconstruction plans & existing drains near Oak Trees (Quercus agrifolia & Q. douglassir) & make comments. Summary The drains can easily be diverted away from the Oak trees. The driveway must be carefully lifted, very little grading will be allowed & then the driveway may be replaced. With careful attention & a site visit from the Project Arborist this will be a successful project. Discussion Currently there are a few drains that exit the new concrete wall between the office & the home. The drains are located above 2 — 3 Coast Live Oaks. At their current location the additional runoff water would dump right onto the tree trunks & could cause future root rot problems. In order to prevent any kind of problem from this excess water I recommend the drains be either diverted away from or extended below the Oaks so that there is no drain water within 8' of the Oak trunks. If these drains are to be piped underground then it must be stated that tree roots larger than 1 '/2" in diameter must not be severed. Currently there is an asphalt driveway winding to the house under some Oak trees. These Oaks are receiving additional care to try to improve their overall Health. The root collars have been carefully excavated to expose the buttress roots. Additionally, the trees have had their trunks & foliage sprayed to prevent insect & fungal infestations. The trees will receive supplemental irrigation once a month this summer & all bare soils will be covered with 6" of wood chips to help improve the root environment. w .urbantreemanagement.com . Sh( .Reride 5121M7 Page 2 In order to successfully remove the existing driveway & install a new driveway (probably pavers), it is important that the Project Arborist be involved at demolition & installation. The existing asphalt must be carefully cracked &/or removed so as not to scrape away more than the top 3" of existing base rock. The machine operator should start at the end closest to the home & work their way backwards towards the street so as not to drive over the newly exposed soil once the asphalt is removed. No further excavations are allowed as there are existing feeder roots in the soil that would be removed. The current Health of these trees will not allow for further soil/rock removals. Additional base rock may then be added (sand, too), the rock slightly compacted & then the proposed pavers can be installed. Pavers will allow for water & air circulation with the Oak roots, which is beneficial. Please contact me should you have any further questions Respectfully, Michael P. Young ATTACHMENT 12- May Z May 7, 2007 Leslie Hopper, Contract Planner City of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Dear Ms. Hopper: My name is Giselle Gorton. I am a neighbor of Ed Shimmon at 24245 Elise Court. My family and I live to the south of Ed and I am writing to let you know that we support Ed's application for a grading exception, which we understand he recently requested from the Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department. We understand that the grading exception will help Ed to "legalize" retaining walls that he recently constructed on his property. We have been looking at the retaining walls all the way through construction and they look fine to us. Ed has finished the walls the same color as the house, which we think is nice, and has also planted shrubs and trees to screen the retaining walls. I was very glad to see the walls built. As you recall, the winter of 2005-2006 was very wet and the old wall next to the swimming pool collapsed one night after a lot of rain. It really scared us, a whole bunch of dirt and concrete blocks rolled all the way to the bottom of the hill, right up to our fence. All the old walls around Ed's house were in terrible shape and needed to be fixed before more damage was done. We have been living next to the construction project for the past 4 years and we are glad to see the project almost finished. If you have any questions about our support for Ed's application, please feel free to give us a call. Our home phone is Sincerely, Giselle Gorton De Anza Properties May 8, 2007 RECEIVED MAY 15 2007 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Leslie Hooper, Contract Plami City of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: Edward Shimmon application for grading exception Dear Ms. Hopper: My Name is John V idovich, I am a neighbor of Ed Shimmon. I live at in Los Altos Hills, below the Shimmon property. I am writing to let you know that I support Ed's application for grading exception, which he requested from the Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department. The grading exception will help Ed to "legalize" the retaining walls that he recently constructed on his property. The new retaining wall on Ed's property replaced dangerously unstable wood and concrete block retaining walls that were in place when Ed bought 24301 Elise Court. I was very concerned about the poor condition of the retaining walls because my property could have been damaged by a failure of those walls. So I am pleased to see the new concrete retaining walls, which will not only protect Ed's new house but will also protect my property too. I think I am the only neighbor of Ed's who has much of a view of his retaining walls. The walls look very attractive, they have stucco coat, which is the same color and texture as the house, and Ed has planted shrubs and trees around the walls to create a nice finished look. If you have any questions about my support for Ed's application for a grading exception, please feel free to give me a call. My office phone is Sincerely, Jo idovich • Sunnyvale, California 94067 • Phone: Page I of 2 Leslie Hopper From: Todd Mozer [ Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:21 PM To: Leslie Hopper Cc: May 15, 2007 Leslie Hopper, Contract Planner City of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Dear Ms. Hopper My wife, Laura, and I live at and we are writing to let you know that we support Ed Shimmon's application for a grading exception, which we understand he recently requested from the Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department. We understand that the grading exception will help Mr. Shimmon to "legalize" retaining walls that he recently constructed on his property. Please understand that we are the closest house to the Shimmon residence (and the closest house to the retaining walls), and we are most effected by the house construction and final results of the home. As such, I would hope that you will weigh our opinions heavily. We have several specific items for you to consider: 1) It's time for this construction to end. We bought our house in 1999, because it was on a quiet cul-de-sac, which we believed to be a peaceful location where our children could be safe away from heavy traffic. This hope has been interrupted by over 4 years of heavy, noisy, disruptive construction. Forcing Mr. Shimmon to take down or modify his structures in any way will just add further time to complete this project. This is simply unacceptable to us. We have suffered through enough, and we won't stand for any new obstacles that delay completion. 2) We have seen the new retaining walls and they look fine to us. The retaining walls are certainly more structurally sound than anything that existed previously. As with the rest of his project, Mr. Shimmon has done a first class job, and the new walls work with the rest of the contemporary design of the Shimmon residence. 3) Our ONLY concern with the retaining walls is regarding tree plantings and landscaping that could affect our views. Mr. Shimmon has proven himself over the years to be a very reasonable person, easy to work and communicate with, and open to discussing any of our concerns or issues. I am confident we can work on view -blockage related issues directly with Mr. Shimmon, and without city involvement. I don't believe any other neighboring views would be affected by these retaining walls. 4) Fines and penalties. My own opinion is that Mr. Shimmon should be exempt from any fines or penalties due to his retaining walls. However, if such fines were to be imposed I would like to suggest that they be used for the betterment of the neighborhood. Mr. Shimmon has already been kind enough to improve the landscaping of our private street at his sole expense, and this should be factored in when considering any additional fines. If you have any questions about our support for Mr. Shimmon's application, please feel free to give us a call. Our home phone is and you can reach me at work Sincerely, Todd and Laura Mozer 5/16/2007 May 24, 2007 Leslie Hopper, Contract Planner City of Los Altos Hills 28379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: Shimmon retaining walls Dear Ms. Hopper: My name is Greg Malley. I am an immediate neighbor of Ed Shimmon. i live at in Los Altos Hills, a property that shares a property line with Ed's home. I am writing to let you know that I.support Ed Shimmon's application for a grading exception, which he recently requested from the Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department. I understand that the grading exception will help Ed to "legalize" retaining walls that he recently constructed on his property. The new retaining walls replaced old mod and geoblock walls that were built by the previous owners of Ed's house. The old retaining wells were In very bad shape, and a portion of the old walls next to Ed's swimming pool actually collapsed a couple of years ago. The old wood retaining walls were so weak they put the foundation of his house at risk of failure. In my opinion, all of the old walls needed replacing. I have a direct, close-up view of the new retaining walls. I believe the wells to be tastefully done, in keeping with the contemporary design of Ed's house. I understand that Ed is finishing the walls the same color as the house, and also planting shrubs and trees to screen the retaining walls. If you have any questions about my support for Ed's application, please feel free to give me a call. My cell phone is Sincerely, Greg Malley