Agenda packet — Los Altos Hills City Council, August 17, 2023 (part 6 of 6)

Resolution CC -23 Page 2
and a new swimming pool with conditions of approval issued on July 13, 2023, subject to the findings in Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on this 17th day of August 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

By: _____________________________
Linda Swan, Mayor
ATTEST:

Deborah Padovan, City Clerk

Page 683 of 770 ends

Resolution CC -23 Page 3

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS
Lands of Merkley – 25851 Estacada Drive – File# SD22-0066 & CDP23-0002 & VAR23-0001

1. With regard to the Conditional Development Permit (CDP23-0003) for a major addition at 25851 Estacada Drive, the Planning Commission finds in accordance with Section 10-

1.1007(3) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code as follows:
a) The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter.

The site, with respect to its existing development configuration, is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed development and other features. The existing development currently encroaches into the west and east side yard setbacks by XX feet. No further encroachment is requested along the western property line. The proposed total floor area and development area is over 600 square-feet below the property’s MFA and 200 square-feet below the MDA, and therefore the site can adequately accommodate the proposal. Subsequent additions wishing to utilize the remaining MFA and MDA would also require a Conditional Development Permit.
b) The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood.

The size and design of the proposed single-story structure is appropriate in size and shape in relation to the surrounding neighborhoods, which are characterized by single-story residences along Estacada Drive and two-story residences on Estacada Way. Additionally, the proposed additions are located in such a configuration that does not change the frontage of the structure; the visual impact to the surrounding neighborhood is generally unchanged apart from the front of the house moving closer to the street and increased height. The eastern neighbor will see additional building frontage and massing but it will not encroach closer to the property line. Compared to the previous proposal, massing has been reduced by approximately 10 inches due to the changes in roof pitch and the retention of hipped roofs on the easterly and westerly ends.
c) The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms.

The Estacada Drive neighborhood and surrounding area is more suburban than other parts of Town due to the smaller lot sizes in the neighborhood and proximity to Palo Alto. The character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible as the existing trees proposed for removal include invasive species or will need to be replaced with other screening trees.

As the site is generally flat, no grading is proposed for the proposed addition except for the minimum necessary to accommodate new foundations and pool excavation, the site will be otherwise unaltered.

Page 684 of 770 ends

Resolution CC -23 Page 4
d) The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance.

The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance. The project does not exceed MDA and MFA, does not exceed the maximum height, and does not encroach further into the setback.

2. With regard to the Variance (CDP23-0003) for a major addition at 25851 Estacada Drive with setback encroachments, the Planning Commission finds in accordance with Section 10-

1.1007(2) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code as follows:

1. That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

The site is exceptional in its small size/configuration. The project applicant seeks to remodel and add to the existing residence, which was first constructed in 1954 prior to the Town’s incorporation. While the extent of the remodel is substantial, retention, and expansion of, the existing footprint constrains development. The proposal maintains a single-story design to better fit in with the surrounding neighborhood rather than build a two-story residence. A conforming two-story residence could, not only impose greater visual impacts to the neighbors but, also add to privacy concerns given the proximity of the adjoining properties. Additionally, a conforming two-story structure could incur additional construction costs through structural and foundation reinforcement. Focusing additions in the center of the property would deprive the property of the ability to develop their exterior spaces without need for setback variances. Strict application of the Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by several other properties in the immediate vicinity.

2. That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable section of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners.

The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to guide the development of the Town in such a way that preserves the rural character of the Town and to provide for “adequate light, pure air, and safety from conflagration and disaster” primarily through the setback ordinance. The neighborhood was developed with a smaller side yard setback requirement prior to the Town’s incorporation. Many homes, including the residence on the eastern neighboring lot, do not meet the standard side yard setbacks of the Town. The granting of the variance would still serve the setback ordinance as the nonconforming setback will not be worsened. Additionally, newer construction materials would safeguard the subject residence and neighboring residences from fires. The granting of the variance would not grant a special privilege to the property owner as surrounding properties also have reduced setbacks, likely owing to their original construction dates. Staff did a thorough research on nearby properties that encroach into the side yard setbacks. 25881 Estacada Drive was granted a front yard setback encroachment of 11 feet and side yard encroachment of 12 feet to construct a swimming pool. 25875 Estacada Way was granted a variance when originally constructed in 1980 and again in 2007 for an addition. 25861 Estacada Way is a two-story structure with approximately 10-foot setback; however no variance or permit

Page 685 of 770 ends

Resolution CC -23 Page 5
could be located. 25851 (the subject property), 25835, and 25811 Estacada Drive have approximately 15-foot setbacks and were constructed pre-incorporation of the Town. 14554 and 14576 De Bell Road have approximately 15-foot setbacks and were constructed pre-incorporation. 14555 Miranda Road has approximately 10- to 15-foot setbacks and was constructed pre-incorporation. Additionally, the granting of the Variance would not grant a special privilege to the property owner as there are not many neighborhoods with similar constraints and existing development patterns which this could set a precedence for.

3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district.

The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public as the structure would not encroach into the front setback and would not encroach any further to either side. The frontage and visual impact would be similar to predevelopment levels apart from the structure’s height. When viewed from the front, the increased height appears less than it actually is due to the primary roof sloping away from the street. The granting of the variance could pose an increased visual impact to the easterly neighbor but no view will be blocked and so it would not be injurious to the property’s value.

4. That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property.

The variance would not change the use of the structure. Single-family residences are allowed in the R-A zoning district.

Page 686 of 770 ends

Resolution CC -23 Page 6

EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Lands of Merkley – 25851 Estacada Drive – File# SD22-0066 & CDP23-0002 & VAR23-0001

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

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 conditions of approval shall be printed on plans submitted for building permit plan check.

3. The project is subject to the Town’s Construction Time Limit Ordinance (Chapter 10, Title VIII of the Municipal Code). The maximum time for completion of the project shall be 24 months from the date of Building Permit issuance. Failure to complete the project in the allotted time may result in substantial penalties and fees.

4. The structure shall be no taller than what is shown on the plans dated July 7, 2023 except the garage which shall not exceed 19’-0” tall. Garage height shall be revised prior to submitting plans for building plan check.

5. Exterior finish colors of all buildings shall have a light reflectivity value of 50 or less and roof materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less, per manufacturer specifications. All color samples shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval at time of submittal for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior to final inspection.

6. Roof eaves of all structures shall not encroach into the required side and rear yard setbacks.

The roof eaves shall be shown on the site and civil plans in the construction drawings.

7. No new fencing is approved with this site development permit. Any additional or modified fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department with the required landscape screening plan and prior to installation.

8. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be down directed or shielded non-movable fixtures and shall not exceed 3,000 Kelvins and 600 lumens. Exterior lighting on the residence is approved as shown on the plans. Landscape lighting is not approved at this time and shall be submitted with the required landscape screening plan. Any changes to the approved lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two driveway or entry lights.

9. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells.

10. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.

Page 687 of 770 ends

Resolution CC -23 Page 7

11. All construction shall comply with 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Part 11, Title 24 mandatory measures. The property owner shall provide a 2019 CalGreen Residential Checklist demonstrating conformance with all applicable mandatory measures at time of building permit submittal.

12. All construction shall comply with Section R337 of the 2019 California Residential Code (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure).

13. The property owner shall remove all Stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens) plants from the entire property and in the road right-of-way by manual pulling or use of herbicide by October 1st of each year until the final approval of the project.

14. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Planning Commission. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. The landscape screening plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient landscaping) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.

15. A $5,000 landscape maintenance and water usage deposit shall be paid to the Town prior to final inspection of the new residence. Two years after the project has been completed, the applicant shall furnish staff with the last 12 months of water usage for the property and conduct a site inspection to ensure installed landscape screening is still present and has been adequately maintained. Inadequate maintenance of installed landscape screening and/or water usage greater than the annual usage indicated on the approved parcel water budget worksheet, may result in complete forfeiture of this deposit.

16. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly any heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chainlink) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of any grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period.

17. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that “the locations of the additions, are no less than 40 feet from the front property line and 14’-11” from the easterly side property line.” The pad elevation of the additions shall be similarly certified in writing to state that “the pad elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan.” The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final inspection.

Page 688 of 770 ends

Resolution CC -23 Page 8

18. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that “the height of the new garage addition complies with the 19’-0” maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the building pad if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials).” The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that “no points of the building shall exceed the proposed garage height and all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35’) foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure.” The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final inspection.

19. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

20. Any, and all, changes to the approved Grading and Drainage plan shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 1st to April 30th) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line.

21. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work proposed in the public right-of-way. No work within the public right-of-way shall commence without an encroachment permit.

22. All public utility services serving the new residence shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months.

23. Two copies of a Grading & Construction Operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director two weeks 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 Estacada Drive and Estacada Way, and surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; 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.

Page 689 of 770 ends

Resolution CC -23 Page 9

24. The property owner shall provide the Town with high-quality color photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways two weeks prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.

25. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $3,826 prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.

26. 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 plan check. The permit will authorize the use of water from specific on-site or off-site water sources.

27. Two sets of a final Grading and Drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department.

28. Two copies of an Erosion and Sediment Control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

32. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As Noted on Sheet A0) An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: 1) In all new one- and two-family dwellings. 2) In existing one- and two-family dwellings where during the process of a remodel and/or addition, the existing roof structure (joists, rafters, etc.) is removed over an area that exceeds 75% of the existing dwelling floor area. For any disagreement on the amount of roof structure being removed, a State of California licensed architect or structural engineer shall be utilized to calculate the percentage of the roof to be replaced. 3) In existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area by 50% or more. 4) In all attached Accessory Dwelling Units, additions or alterations to an existing one- and two-family dwelling that have an existing fire sprinkler system. 5) In all

Page 690 of 770 ends

Resolution CC -23 Page 10
new basements and in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50 percent.

Exceptions: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), provided that all of the following are met: a) The unit meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit as defined in the Government Code Section 65852.2. b) The existing primary residence does not have automatic fire sprinklers. c) The detached ADU does not exceed 1,200 square feet in size. d) The unit is on the same lot as the primary residence. e) The unit meets all access and water supply requirements of Chapter 5 and Appendix B and C of the 2019 California Fire Code.

33. Water Supply Requirements: (As Noted on Sheet C-1.1) Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor.

Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.

34. Address identification: (As Noted on Sheet C-1.1) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.

35. Construction Site Fire Safety: (As Noted on Sheet C-1.1) All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.

Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments prior to final building inspection approval.

NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date. All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years.

Page 691 of 770 ends

Attachment 2
RESOLUTION CC _-23

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS APPROVING THE APPEAL (APL23-0003) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JULY 13, 2023 DECISION AND REVERSING THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP23-0002), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SD22- 0066), AND VARIANCE (VAR23-0001) AT 25851 ESTACADA DRIVE WHEREAS, The Town of Los Altos Hills received an application for a Conditional Development Permit (CDP23-0002), Site Development Permit (SD22-0066), and Variance (VAR23-0001) from the property owners, Brendan and Taryn Merkley, for a major addition and remodel at 25851 Estacada Drive (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, based on the record presented before it, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301(e), 15303(a), 15303(e) and 15305(a) as the project includes additions to an existing residence, a new ADU, a new pool, and a variance; and
WHEREAS, the Project application was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project on May 4, 2023, and considered all evidence, testimony, written documentation, and public comments and continued the item to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the project on July 13, 2023, and considered all evidence, testimony, written documentation, and public comments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the project with added conditions of approval by a vote of four (4) ayes and one (1) no; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2023, Mayor Linda Swan submitted a Notice of Appeal (APL23-0003) to the City Clerk to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision approving the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit, and Variance.

WHEREAS, on August 17, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal and considered all evidence, testimony, written documentation and public comments; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby APPROVES the appeal and reverses the Planning Commission’s decision dated July 13, 2023, to approve a Conditional Development Permit (CDP23-0002), Site Development Permit (SD22-0066), and Variance (VAR23-0001) for an addition and remodel with setback variances and a new swimming pool with conditions of approval issued on July 13, 2023. The City Council refers the project back to the Planning Commission for consideration.

Page 692 of 770 ends

Resolution CC -23 Page 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on this 17th day of August 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

By: _____________________________
Linda Swan, Mayor
ATTEST:

Deborah Padovan, City Clerk

Page 693 of 770 ends

To: Elaine Ling, Interim LAH Planning Director August 2, 2023 Jeremy Loh, LAH Planner
From: Linda Swan, LAH City Council Member
Ref: Appeal of July 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting 25851 Estacada Way (File #CDP23-0002, SD22-0066 & Variance 23-0001 Appeal filed on August 2, 2023 by email
Background: The application for a 1,241 sq ft addition and remodel to an existing single-story residence resulting in an increased structure height to 21’ (in the setback) from existing 14’6”and a variance for 707 sq ft into the easternly side setback was first heard at the May 4,2023 Planning Commission (PC) meeting. This project potentially impacts the easterly neighbor since both are within 15’ of the setbacks between the 2 houses and the 21’ height proposal blocks the afternoon sunlight and creates a very large massing structure over the neighbor’s house. In a 5-0 vote, the project was continued to the PC meeting of July 13, 2023 with the following recommendations by the PC. The motion was continued and requested the applicant modify their design to address solutions to placement of additional parking, and reducing the roof’s height and mass along the eastern side, suggesting leveraging the use of the 40’ setback in the front and more of the western side of the property.

Findings: The final plans presented by the architect for the applicant at the July 13, 2023 PC meeting were not submitted in the documents presented in the PC packet. The story poles did not accurately represent the silhouette of the proposed plans. The staff report did not offer any other recommendations but to approve the plans even though the Planning Commissioners were against the original submittal from the PC meeting of May 4, 2023 and voted 5-0 to continue the project with major comments in regards to unusual height and location of proposed expansion which created a large massing on the eastern side impacting the easterly neighbor. The discussion at the July 13, 2023 meeting went on for 3 hours because the Planning Commissioners did not agree with the staff recommendation and there was much confusion over the plans as presented by the architect since there were new heights being presented for the first time. The motion was presented to end the discussion at midnight but confusion still remained and the vote was 4-1 with Commissioner Indaco dissenting.

Request: The project plans need to be clarified and correctly presented to the Planning Commission. The story poles need to be correctly reflecting the new proposal. The project needs to consider the first recommendations presented by the motion of the Planning Commission at the May 3, 2023 meeting.

Attachment 3

Page 694 of 770 ends

Approved June 1, 2023
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
May 4, 2023 Minutes
Zoom Meeting and Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California

1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Waschura called the May 4, 2023 Planning Commission Regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura

Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Ling, Associate Planner Loh, Administrative Clerk/Technician Brunner, Interim Projects Manager Padovan

2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Chair Waschura opened PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

No presentations from the floor.

Chair Waschura closed PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Approval of February 15, 2023 Special Meeting Minutes Chair Waschura called for a unanimous vote for approval of the Consent Calendar.

The Planning Commission approved the Consent Calendar as presented with all “ayes.” MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Chair Waschura moved to approve Consent Calendar containing the April 25, 2023 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.

No second was required.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES:

Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Commission Ex Parte
Commissioner Patel had communications with Barry Smith, neighbor to the applicant, on Item 4.2.

Commissioner Couperus had communications with Barry Smith, neighbor to the applicant, and Commissioner Indaco on Item 4.2.

Commissioner Indaco had communications with Commissioner Couperus, Barry and Julie Smith, neighbors to the applicant, and the applicants Branden and Taryn Merkley, and Carol Gottlieb from the Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC) on Item 4.2.

Vice-Chair Bredo had communications with the neighbors to the applicants, the Smiths on Item 4.2.

Chair Waschura had communications with Barry Smith, neighbor to the applicant, and the applicant on Item 4.2.

Attachment 4

Page 695 of 770 ends

2 Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 4, 2023 Minutes

4.1 27790 Stirrup Way – File #SD22-0032 – Lands of Parikh Site Development Permit for a new 5,000 square-foot residence with 2,861 square-foot basement.

CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) Continued from March 2, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing Project Planner: Jeremy Loh
Chair Waschura noted that this agenda item was continued to a date uncertain.

4.2 APN 336-35-044 (water storage tanks near 24752 Olive Tree Lane) – File #CUP22-0004 – Lands of California Water Service Company
Planning Commission hearing for two new chemical storage sheds, one containing 40% concentration Ammonium Sulfate and one containing Sodium Hypochlorite; chemicals needed to prevent nitrification of water during purification process.

CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15301(b)g Project Planner: Jeremy Loh
Associate Planner Loh presented the staff report and noted a correction on the file number to be VAR23-0001.

A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and staff ensued.

Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

The applicant, Brendon Merkley, introduced himself and his wife, Taryn, and spoke to the Commission about their proposed project and their design approach.

Chair Waschura asked the applicant about his architect, who was present at the hearing. He also inquired about the roof pitch choice.

The applicant introduced his architect, Chris, who was present at the hearing, and provided the Commission with an answer.

A question-and-answer session between the Commissioners and the applicant and his architect regarding roof pitch and potential solar installations ensued.

Public Comment
Barry Smith, a neighbor to the applicant, shared a presentation and spoke on behalf of him and his wife, Julie, against the proposed design as it pertained to the proposed roof design.

Brendon Merkley, the applicant, offered rebuttal comments to the concerns raised by public comment.

Commissioner Indaco asked the applicant a question about some of the existing trees on the property and the applicant's architect and staff responded. She noted her wish for T(ree) 18 to remain.

Chair Waschura asked about the cost of an architectural change at this time and the applicant declined to name a particular number, but noted that it would represent a significant expense and would require demolishing the existing home, instead of preserving most of the existing structure, as the current design represents.

Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Page 696 of 770 ends

3 Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 4, 2023 Minutes Commissioner Discussion
Commissioner Couperus began the Commission discussion by sharing a presentation highlighting past development projects and how those were relevant to later re-development decisions.

Senior Planner Ling provided the Commission with clarifying comments specific to a variance application and how this project satisfied all of the requirements.

Chair Waschura asked Commissioner Couperus clarifying questions regarding his presentation and comments and Commissioner Couperus provided responses.

Interim Projects Manager Padovan offered further clarifying comments regarding projects requesting variances.

A question-and-answer session between the Commission and Mr. Padovan ensued.

Commissioner Indaco shared a presentation and offered comments, using an earlier commission item as an example to highlight her thought process. She then shared photos of the current project's proposed development and provided the following suggestions for changes:
• utilize the 40' front area outside of the setback area • keep the hip roof less than or equal to 16'
• utilize the western side for expansion
• keep the trees on the eastern side that do not pose a threat to falling • relocate the 2 nonconforming open parking spaces anywhere on the lot Commissioner Patel offered comments regarding requesting applicants to provide uncovered on-site parking in the setback and noted his concerns regarding the roof structure.

Vice-Chair Bredo agreed with fellow commissioners' earlier statements regarding the visual impact of the proposed roof design and parking considerations.

Chair Waschura shared an image, provided comments, and noted his concerns regarding the proposed increased roof mass and its visual impact. He noted that he was disappointed that this project had progressed to its current state with this issue and suggested that planning staff may need further clarification to address this for future projects.

The applicant, Brendon Merkley, was invited to respond to Chair Waschura’s comments.

Commission discussion ensued.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Waschura motioned to CONTINUE to a date uncertain, requesting the applicant to modify their design to address solutions to placement of additional parking and reducing the roof’s height and mass along the eastern side, suggesting the leveraging the use of the 40’ setback in the front and more of the western side of the property.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES:

Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

Page 697 of 770 ends

4 Planning Commission Regular Meeting May 4, 2023 Minutes

5. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

5.1 Upcoming Meeting Assignments
• May 17, 2023 – Chair Waschura
• May 25, 2023, Special Joint – Vice-Chair Bredo
• June 15, 2023 – Commissioner Couperus
Chair Washura confirmed the upcoming meeting assignments and all affirmed.

6. REPORT ON PAST FAST TRACK/SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS

6.1 MAY 2, 2023
25091 Tepa Way – File #SD22-0085 – Lands of Reddy and Ravula New 3,744 square-foot two-story residence, 830 square-foot detached garage, 629 square-foot pool and spa, and 450 square-foot attached ADU. VERDICT 13867 Robleda Road – File #SD22-0086 – Lands of Kurmann Site Development Permit for a new 4,948 square-foot residence, 837 square-foot pool and spa, and 850 square-foot detached ADU. VERDICT
Associate Planner Jeremy Loh provided updates on past Site Development/Fast Track meetings, noting they were both approved, noting SD22-0085 had no additional conditions and SD22-0086 had additional conditions.

A question-and-answer session between the Commission and staff ensued regarding the projects.

8. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Senior Planner Ling provided the Commission with an update regarding an upcoming May 11, 2023 California Housing and Community Development (HCD) meeting.

Senior Planner Ling noted efforts on developing a new Reach Code proposal and has been working on potentially granting a contract with ID360 for remodeling the Reach Code updates, with additional work on providing a solar panel auto-permitting system.

Additionally, she noted continued efforts with CentralSquare to complete automating online submittal capabilities for all planning, building, and engineering submittals, which would eliminate the need for phone calls, emails, and in-person visits for application submittals.

A question-and-answer session between the Commission and staff ensued regarding Reach Codes.

Interim Projects Manager Padovan noted that the planning department conducted interviews for a new assistant planner but not sure if the selected candidate accepted the Town’s offer.

Commissioner Indaco inquired about a backfilling the Planning Director position.

Interim Projects Manager Padovan noted that the planning department has engaged a head hunter but the timeline for hiring was not clear.

9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:36 PM by Chair Waschura.

Respectfully submitted,
Keren Brunner
Administrative Clerk/Technician

Page 698 of 770 ends

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 4, 2023
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: 25851 Estacada Drive – File #CDP23-0002, SD22-0066 & Variance 23-0001 – Lands of Merkley
Request for a Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variance for a remodel and 1,124 square-foot addition to an existing 2,848 squarefoot one-story, single-family dwelling with existing non-conforming side yard setback encroachments.

FROM: Jeremy Loh, Associate Planner
APPROVED: Steve Padovan, Project Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:

1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to make a Categorical Exemption under CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(a) and APPROVE the requested Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit, and Variance, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 0.460-acre parcel located at the intersection of Estacada Drive and Estacada Way. The property is bounded by private properties to the north and east and streets to the west and south. The site is accessed by public roads and is currently developed with a 2,848 square foot, one-story, single-family residence. A permit could not be located for the existing residence but the Town’s GIS, which uses County data, indicates the house was constructed in 1954, prior to the Town’s incorporation. The existing residence is non-conforming with respect to the required side yard setbacks. The swimming pool was permitted in 1961. A garage appears to have been converted into habitable square footage in 1968, however the building permit does not specify it was a conversion and there are no plans on record. The property currently does not have a garage. An approximately 154 square-foot shed is located in the rear yard within setbacks. There are no records of any variances being approved by the Town on the property.

The existing left (west) side yard setback ranges from 14 feet, 9 inches to 23 feet, 10 inches, the existing right (east) side yard setback ranges from 14 feet, 11 inches to 15 feet and the existing front yard (south) setback is 60 feet. The existing development is a legal non-conforming situation that was constructed prior to the Town’s incorporation. The placement of the original structure is in the center of the property and there does not appear to be any easements or other constraints on the property. The surrounding residences and also built on substandard lots, and include nonconforming setbacks, floor area, development area, and/or parking.

Attachment 5

Page 699 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 2
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
May 4, 2023
Figure 1: 25851 Estacada Drive aerial Source: Google Earth

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public was notified of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners who own property within a 500-foot radius – April 21, 2023 • Posted at the project site – April 21, 2023
• Public Posting Places – April 21, 2023
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – April 21, 2023 Since the public notices were mailed, staff has received no written public comments.

CODE REQUIREMENTS
As required by Section 10-1.1007 of the Zoning Ordinance, this application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. A Conditional Development Permit is required when a proposed project is located on a property with a LUF of 0.50 or less. Pursuant to Section 10-1.1007(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, when reviewing a Conditional Development Permit application, the Planning Commission must determine if the proposed development meets the standards of the Town by considering evidence in support of the findings for approval (see Attachment 1).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Site Development Permit to construct a 1,044 square-foot addition to an existing 2,833 square-foot residence and related hardscape improvements. The proposal includes a setback encroachment not to exceed the existing legal-nonconforming setback encroachment and a 1-foot, 8-inch height increase. Maximum development area (MDA) and

Page 700 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 3
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
May 4, 2023
maximum floor area (MFA) are calculated differently for lots requiring a Conditional Development Permit, the resulting MDA and MFA for the subject property is shown below.

Site Data
Gross Lot Area: 0.460 acres
Net Lot Area: 0.460 acres
Average Slope: 6.65 percent
Lot Unit Factor: 0.460
Floor Area and Development Area
Area (sq. ft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 6,700 6,749 6,504 (245) 196
Floor 4,600 2,848 3,972 1,124 628

DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Development Permit for a remodel, a 1,124 square foot one-story addition, and a new pool on a parcel with a Lot Unit Factor of 0.460. All new development on a property with a Lot Unit Factor of 0.50 or less requires the approval of a Conditional Development Permit. The proposed additions are far below the Town’s 27-foot maximum height limit and within the allowable MFA and the MDA for the lot. Project plans are included in Attachment 4. The additions are located to the front, back, and easterly side of the residence. The new pool and patios will be located at the rear of the house.

The addition to the front of the residence involves the construction of a new two-car garage which complies with the Town’s 40-foot front yard setback. The addition on the westerly side of the home maintains the existing building wall line, encroaching no further into the side yard setback than the existing nonconforming residence (which was constructed prior to the Town’s incorporation and did not require a variance). The westerly side yard encroachment ranges from 23 feet, 10 inches to 25 feet, 4 inches. The addition on the easterly side of the home also matches the existing building wall line with a yard encroachment of approximately 15 feet. The additions to the rear or the residence will encroach into the easterly side yard setback, also matching the existing building face which encroaches approximately 15 feet.

The existing residence has a maximum height of 14 feet, 6 inches with a hipped roof with a standard 4:12 pitch. The proposed additions and remodel increased the roof pitches to a relatively sharp 10:12 on the sides and 5:12 in the center of the residence. The roof height will increase up to a maximum of 19 feet tall which is still below the 27-foot maximum height permitted. The roof design will also change from a hipped roof to gable roofs. The encroaching areas will increase in massing as the wall heights will increase from approximately 9 feet to 10 feet tall. The north-south running gables would slope away from the east and west property lines while the east-west running central gable would present a flat face to the east and west property lines. Worth noting is that the change to a gable roof will eliminate roof eave encroachments and only a gutter will extend beyond the face of the structure. See figure 2.

Page 701 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 4
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
May 4, 2023
Figure 22: Existing and proposed easterly elevation (Not to Scale) Source: Christopher Anderson, Architect The existing development has no covered parking spaces but does include two uncovered parking spaces outside of setbacks. This condition appears to have existed since 1966. This proposal is for a major addition and remodel that would effectively result in a new residence. Therefore, staff encourages conformance with covered and uncovered parking requirements where feasible. The proposal includes construction of a new two-car garage outside of the front yard setback but maintains the existing side yard setback encroachment. The proposal also includes one uncovered parking space within the setbacks for an ADU, which is permitted. No other uncovered parking is proposed outside of setbacks. Worth noting is the Town’s Off-Street Parking ordinance was first adopted on October 3, 1986, after both the original house was constructed and the garage was converted.

Conditional Development Permit Findings
Prior to granting any permit on a lot requiring a Conditional Development Permit, the Planning Commission must make four findings. The findings, and staff’s assessment of the project in relation to said findings, are as follows:

1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter.

2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood.

Page 702 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 5
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
May 4, 2023
The size and design of the proposed single-story structure is appropriate in size and shape in relation to the surrounding neighborhoods, which is characterized by single-story residences along Estacada Drive and two-story residences on Estacada Way. Additionally, the proposed additions are located in such a configuration that does not change the frontage of the structure; the visual impact to the surrounding neighborhood is generally unchanged apart from the front of the house moving closer to the street. The eastern neighbor will see additional building frontage and massing but it will not encroach closer to the property line.

3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms.

The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible as the existing trees proposed for removal include invasive species or will need to be replaced with other screening trees and no grading is proposed except for the minimum necessary to accommodate new foundations and pool excavation, the site will be otherwise unaltered.

4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance.

Variance Request and Findings
Per the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code section 10-1.505(c)(3), the side and rear setback lines for any structure are 30 feet from property lines, nearest lines of public or private streets, rights-ofway easements for vehicular access, or official plan lines. The existing structure was built in 1954 and it currently encroaches into two side yard setbacks. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Town’s 30-foot side yard setbacks to maintain the existing building line. The total area of encroachment is approximately 750 square feet and, while the structure will remain single-story, the maximum height will increase from 14 feet, 6 inches to 19 feet.

In evaluating the Variance findings, the Planning Commission should consider the fact that the existing setbacks are being maintained. While the new massing poses a visual impact, the variance request itself is only for setbacks, which technically aren’t changing. The increased impact on neighbors, specifically the closest neighbor to the east, is the increased height in the center of the structure where the roof changed from a hip roof to a gable roof. Worth considering is that the Town’s ordinance related to legal non-conforming structure authorizes the Planning Director to approve additions to nonconforming structures not to exceed one-story and 19 feet in height. While this is unrelated to the Variance requests, this provision could be used to consider additions under 19 feet as not substantially increasing massing of a single-story structure. It should also be noted that ADUs and SB 9 structures can be up to 16 feet in height and only 4 feet from the side and rear property lines. Thus, staff supports approval of the Variance given the minimal impact compared to the existing conditions. Recommended findings for approval of the variance are included in Attachment 1 and variance findings prepared by the applicant are included in Attachment 2.

Prior to granting any Variance, the Planning Commission must make four findings. The findings, and staff’s assessment of the project in relation to said findings, are as follows:

Page 703 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 6
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
May 4, 2023

The granting of the variance would still serve the setback ordinance as the nonconforming setback will not be worsened. The granting of the variance would not grant a special privilege to the property owner as surrounding properties also have reduced setbacks, likely owing to their original construction dates.

The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public as the structure would not encroach into the front setback and would not encroach any further to either side. The frontage and visual impact would be similar to predevelopment levels apart from the structure’s height. The granting of the variance could pose an increased visual impact to the easterly neighbor but no view will be blocked and so it would not be injurious to the property’s value.

4. That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property.

The variance would not change the use of the structure. Single-family residences are allowed in the R-A zoning district.

Fencing & Gates
No property line fencing is proposed with this application. The application does include a preliminary landscape plan that shows four-foot high, stucco site walls to create a more private front yard area. These walls would need to provide a 40-foot setback from the centerline of adjacent road rights-of-way. Because Miranda Way is only a 40-foot right-of-way, the proposed wall would need to be set back 20 feet from the property line, the plan shows only 5 feet. Any new fencing will require a Zoning permit and review by Planning staff prior to installation.

Outdoor Lighting
Seven outdoor lighting fixtures are shown on the elevations, their locations flank doors consistent with the Town’s outdoor lighting policy. The landscape plan does appear to show exterior lighting.

Proposed path lights comply with the outdoor lighting policy but there are 12 step lights proposed

Page 704 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 7
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
May 4, 2023
in setbacks where normally only 2 light fixtures are allowed. An exception would need to be granted to approve more than 2 lights in setbacks. The Commission can approve a lighting policy exception if it finds the light fixtures are needed for safety. All light fixtures shall be shielded and down directed per Town requirements and shall not exceed 600 lumens and 3,000 Kelvins.

Trees & Landscaping
The landscape plan shows approximately 16 trees proposed for removal, none of which are heritage oaks. No trees are required to be removed for the actual additions, however. Four trees are required for removal to construct the ADU. The trees proposed for removal include two yuccas, a canary island palm, and several deodar cedars. Tree protection fencing is proposed for all existing trees on site.

Grading & Drainage
Grading is limited to the amount necessary for the new impervious surfaces. The drainage design incorporates earthen swales, area drains and 4” PVC pipes draining into box bubbler. The pipes conveying the water to the bubbler serves as storage. The Engineering Department has reviewed and approved the proposed project and their conditions have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 1).

Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department approved the plans with standard conditions of approval.

The Fire Department conditions have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 1).

Town Committee Reviews
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC) The Committee suggests setback-compliant second floor additions for the property while retaining existing legal-nonconforming portions in order to limit the impact to neighbors. The Committee was also concerned about the amount of lighting proposed in setback areas. The Committee requests four parking spaces but recognizes that two spaces will need to be located in setbacks.

For reference, the Committee’s report is included in Attachment 3.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed additions are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(e), which allows for additions to an existing structure provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. The proposed pool and walls are categorically exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(e), which allows for the construction of appurtenant structures such as pools, garages, walls, etcetera.

CONCLUSION
The property’s size and the age of the existing structure provide a reasonable basis to approve the additions within the required side yard setback. The proposed additions will not extend further into the either side yard than the existing residence. In addition, the proposed additions are far below the Town’s building height limits and within the allowable maximum floor area (MFA) and the

Page 705 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 8
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
May 4, 2023
maximum development area (MDA) for the lot. Thus, staff supports approval of the project subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution with Findings and Conditions of Approval

2. Applicant’s Variance Findings

3. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Report, dated November 11, 2022

4. Project plans (25 sheets) – planning commission only

Page 706 of 770 ends

Approved July 13, 2023
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
June 1, 2023 Minutes
Zoom Meeting and Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California

1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Waschura called the June 1, 2023 Planning Commission Regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura

Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Ling, Associate Planner Loh, Administrative Clerk/Technician Brunner, Interim Projects Manager Padovan

2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Chair Waschura opened PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

No presentations from the floor.

Chair Waschura closed PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Approval of May 4, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
Chair Waschura called for a unanimous vote for approval of the Consent Calendar.

The Planning Commission approved the Consent Calendar as presented with all “ayes.” MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Chair Waschura moved to approve Consent Calendar containing the May 4, 2023 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.

No second was required.

MOTION
PASSED:
5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ex Parte
No ex parte to report.

4.1 12355 Hilltop Drive – File #SD21-0046 – Lands of 12355 Hilltop Drive LAH LLC Site Development Permit for a new 5,359 square-foot residence with 3,461 square-foot basement, 718 square-foot pool, and 746 square-foot ADU.

CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) Attachment 6

Page 707 of 770 ends

2 Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 1, 2023 Minutes Project Planner: Jeremy Loh
Referred to the Planning Commission at the February 21, 2023 Fast Track Hearing.

Chair Waschura noted that this agenda item would be continued to a date uncertain due to insufficient noticing by planning staff.

Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

No comments.

Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Waschura motioned to CONTINUE to a date uncertain.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Indaco.

MOTION
PASSED:
5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

5. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

5.1 Past Meeting Assignments
• May 17, 2023 – Chair Waschura
• May 25, 2023, Special Joint – Vice-Chair Bredo
• May 31, 2023, Special Study Session – Not Assigned
Chair Waschura provided highlights of the May 17, 2023 City Council meeting.

Commissioners Indaco and Patel provided highlights from the May 31, 2023 Special Study Session, which centered around the use of the Purissima little league field.

5.1 Upcoming Meeting Assignments
• June 15, 2023 – Commissioner Couperus
• No July 2023 City Council Meeting
• August 17, 2023 – Commissioner Patel
• September 28, 2023 – Commissioner Indaco
Chair Waschura confirmed the upcoming meeting assignments, and all affirmed.

Commissioner Couperus provided comments from the May 25, 2023 City Council meeting, centered around the "entitlement" argument, spoke about a density bonus, and discussed the phrase of "no net loss" made by the City Attorney, Steve Mattas.

Chair Waschura also noted that phrase and had questions regarding the density bonus.

Page 708 of 770 ends

3 Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 1, 2023 Minutes Commission discussion ensued regarding the past May 25, 2023 City Council meeting on the agenda item that discussed the Housing Element and the Twin Oaks conceptual drawing.

6. REPORT ON PAST FAST TRACK/SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS

6.1 MAY 9, 2023
26481 Purissima Road – File #SD22-0087 – Lands of DCV Enterprise Partners LLC Site Development Permit for a 5,001 square-foot addition and remodel to an existing 4,181 square two-story residence, 195 square-foot detached bathroom, and associated hardscape improvements. APPROVED

6.2 MAY 16, 2023

CANCELLED

6.2 MAY 23, 2023
12105 Oak Park Court – File #SD21-0077 – Lands of Azadeh Site Development Permit for a new approximately 864 square-foot swimming pool and spa. CONTINUED TO MAY 30, 2023 SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARING 26616 Westwind Way – File #SD23-0001 – Lands of Chakravarthy Trust Site Development Permit for landscape screening for an approved new residence.

APPROVED
14096 Seven Acres Lane – File #SD23-0007 – Lands of SA96 LLC Site Development Permit for landscape screening for an approved new residence.

APPROVED
Associate Planner Jeremy Loh provided updates on past Site Development/Fast Track meetings and noted that the 12105 Oak Park Court project was continued to a date certain and approved at the May 30, 2023 hearing.

8. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Interim Projects Planner Padovan provided the planning department report. He spoke about the Town receiving a letter that stated that the Town achieved a substantial compliance rating from HCD.

He also shared the hiring of the new Assistant Planner Jonathan Fox to the planning team.

Senior Planner Ling provided an update on the items the planning team needs to address to complete the housing requirements from HCD.

She outlined the items and their timelines.

Chair Waschura requested that she plan out the next 2 years with benchmarks to discuss.

Senior Planner Ling also announced that the July 6, 2023 Planning Commission Regular meeting would be cancelled and a special meeting on July 13, 2023 would be scheduled, instead.

Page 709 of 770 ends

4 Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 1, 2023 Minutes

9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 6:39 PM by Chair Waschura.

Respectfully submitted,
Keren Brunner
Administrative Clerk/Technician

Page 710 of 770 ends

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 13, 2023
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: 25851 Estacada Drive – File #CDP23-0002, SD22-0066 & Variance 23-0001 – Lands of Merkley
Site Development Permit, Conditional Development Permit for a 1,241 square-foot addition to an existing 2,731 square-foot residence, including a new attached 528 square-foot garage where there previously was no garage; new 657 square-foot swimming pool; new hardscape improvements; and detached 699 square-foot ADU. Variance request for 707 square feet to encroach 15 feet into side yard setback with a maximum height of 20’-11”.

Continued from May 4, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting
FROM: Jeremy Loh, Associate Planner
APPROVED: Elaine Ling, Interim Community Development Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:

The existing left (west) side yard setback ranges from 14 feet, 9 inches to 23 feet, 10 inches, the existing right (east) side yard setback ranges from 14 feet, 11 inches to 15 feet and the existing front yard (south) setback is 60 feet. The existing development is a legal non-conforming situation that was constructed prior to the Town’s incorporation. The placement of the original structure is in the center of the property and there does not appear to be any easements or other constraints on the property. The surrounding residences are also built on substandard lots, and include nonconforming setbacks, floor area, development area, and/or parking.

Attachment 7

Page 711 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 2
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
July 13, 2023
The application is for a 1,241 square-foot addition and remodel to the existing residence, resulting in an increased structure height. 707 square-foot new floor area requires a Variance to encroach approximately 15 feet into the easterly side yard setback up to the existing non-conforming setback. The original application was reviewed at the May 4, 2023 Planning Commission regular meeting. Discussion of the Variance request focused on the impacts caused by the increased height and massing with respect to the easterly neighbor. The Commission continued the item, advising the applicant to consider a redesign and/or reduction of the height and massing.

Figure 1: 25851 Estacada Drive Aerial Source: Google Earth

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public was notified of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners who own property within a 500-foot radius – June 30, 2023 • Posted at the project site – June 30, 2023
• Public Posting Places – June 30, 2023
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – June 30, 2023 Since the public notices were mailed, staff has received no written public comments.

CODE REQUIREMENTS
As required by Sections 10-1.1003 and 10-1.1007(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, this application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval due to the Variance request.

Pursuant to the Variance sections of the Zoning Ordinance, when reviewing Variance requests, the Planning Commission must make findings for approval of the Variance. Variance findings are included in Attachment 1.

Page 712 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 3
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
July 13, 2023
Additionally, a Conditional Development Permit is required when a proposed project is located on a property with a LUF of 0.50 or less. Pursuant to Section 10-1.1007(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, when reviewing a Conditional Development Permit application, the Planning Commission must determine if the proposed development meets the standards of the Town by considering evidence in support of the findings for approval. Conditional Development Permit findings are included in Attachment 1.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Site Development Permit to construct a 1,124 square-foot addition to an existing 2,848 square-foot residence and related hardscape improvements. The proposal includes a setback encroachment not to exceed the existing legal-nonconforming setback encroachment and a 4-foot, 6-inch height increase. Maximum development area (MDA) and maximum floor area (MFA) are calculated differently for lots requiring a Conditional Development Permit, the resulting MDA and MFA for the subject property is shown below.

DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Development Permit and a Variance for a remodel, a 1,124 square foot one-story addition, and a new pool on a parcel with a Lot Unit Factor of 0.460.

All new development on a property with a Lot Unit Factor of 0.50 or less requires the approval of a Conditional Development Permit. The proposed additions are far below the Town’s 27-foot maximum height limit and within the allowable MFA and the MDA for the lot. The proposal will encroach 15 feet into the easterly side yard setback and 8 feet, 2 inches to 4 feet, 8 inches into the westerly side yard setback. The footprint of the additions is unchanged from the original proposal.

Revised project plans are included in Attachment 4. The original discussion and in-depth project description is included in the original staff report for the May 4 Planning Commission meeting included as Attachment 2.

The existing residence has a maximum height of 14 feet, 6 inches with a hipped roof with a standard 4:12 pitch. The originally proposed additions and remodel increased the roof pitches to a relatively sharp 10:12 on the sides and 5:12 in the center of the residence. The revised plans show reduced roof ridges and structure height, the sides now have a roof pitch of 9:12 and the center of the residence has a pitch of 4:12 matching the original residence. The roof height will increase up to a maximum of 20 feet, 11 inches tall at the garage addition which is still below the 27-foot

Page 713 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 4
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
July 13, 2023
maximum height permitted. The central roof ridge running from west to east has a maximum height of 19 feet, a decrease of approximately 10 inches from the previous proposal. The originally proposed roof design would change from a hipped roof to gable roofs on all sides. The resubmittal retains a hipped roof on the westerly and easterly sides to reduce the visual impact and massing on the adjacent neighbors and as viewed from the street. The encroaching areas will increase in massing as the wall heights will increase from approximately 9 feet to 10 feet tall. Additionally, the garage wall height increased in order to match the new roof ridge in the center of the residence.

Worth noting is that the change to the roof design will eliminate roof eave encroachments and only a gutter will extend beyond the face of the structure. See Figure 2 for comparison of the existing elevation and the proposed elevation. The images in Figure 2 are not to scale with each other.

Figure 22: Existing and proposed easterly elevation (Not to Scale) Source: Christopher Anderson, Architect Conditional Development Permit Findings
Prior to granting any permit on a lot requiring a Conditional Development Permit, the Planning Commission must make four findings. The findings, and staff’s assessment of the project in relation to said findings, are as follows:

Page 714 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 5
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
July 13, 2023

3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms.

4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance.

Variance Request and Findings
Per the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code section 10-1.505(c)(3), the side and rear setback lines for any structure are 30 feet from property lines, nearest lines of public or private streets, rights-ofway easements for vehicular access, or official plan lines. The existing structure was built in 1954 and it currently encroaches into two side yard setbacks. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Town’s 30-foot side yard setbacks to maintain the existing building line. The proposal will encroach 15 feet into the easterly side yard setback and 8 feet, 2 inches to 4 feet, 8 inches into the westerly side yard setback. The total area of encroachment is approximately 750 square feet and, while the structure will remain single-story, the maximum height will increase from 14 feet, 6 inches to 20 feet, 11 inches.

Page 715 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 6
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
July 13, 2023
Town’s ordinance related to legal non-conforming structure authorizes the Planning Director to approve additions to nonconforming structures not to exceed one-story and 19 feet in height. While this is unrelated to the Variance requests, this provision could be used to consider additions under 19 feet as not substantially increasing massing of a single-story structure. The majority of the additional/changed frontage to the easterly neighbor will be less than 19 feet tall while the garage will be 20 feet, 11 inches tall. It should also be noted that ADUs and SB 9 structures can be up to 16 feet in height and only 4 feet from the side and rear property lines. Thus, staff supports approval of the Variance given the minimal impact compared to the existing conditions. Recommended findings for approval of the variance are included in Attachment 1 and variance findings prepared by the applicant are included in Attachment 2.

Prior to granting any Variance, the Planning Commission must make four findings. The findings, and staff’s assessment of the project in relation to said findings, are as follows:

Page 716 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 7
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
July 13, 2023
setbacks, likely owing to their original construction dates. Staff did a thorough research on properties that encroach into the side yard setbacks. 25881 Estacada Drive was granted a setback variance to encroach 11 feet into the front setback and 12 feet into the side setback to construct a swimming pool. 25875 Estacada Way was granted a variance when originally constructed in 1980 and again in 2007 for an addition. 25861 Estacada Way is a two-story structure with approximately 10-foot setback; however no variance or permit could be located. 25851 (the subject property), 25835, and 25811 Estacada Drive have approximately 15-foot setbacks and were constructed pre-incorporation of the Town. 14554 and 14576 De Bell Road have approximately 15-foot setbacks and were constructed pre-incorporation. 14555 Miranda Road has approximately 10- to 15-foot setbacks and was constructed pre-incorporation. Additionally, the granting of the Variance would not grant a special privilege to the property owner as there are not many neighborhoods with similar constraints and existing development patterns which this could set a precedence for.

4. That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property.

The variance would not change the use of the structure. Single-family residences are allowed in the R-A zoning district.

Page 717 of 770 ends

Planning Commission Page 8
Major Addition at 25851 Estacada Drive
July 13, 2023

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution with Findings and Conditions of Approval

2. Applicant’s Variance Findings

3. May 4, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report

4. May 4, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

5. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Report, dated November 11, 2022

6. Project plans (25 sheets) – planning commission only

Page 718 of 770 ends

ATTACHMENT 8
Project Plans are available for review at Town Hall

Page 719 of 770 ends

Page 720 of 770 ends

Page 721 of 770 ends

MERKLEY

Page 722 of 770 ends

Page 723 of 770 ends

Page 724 of 770 ends

At a recent neighbor meeting, any opinions or questions were voiced and almost everyone was fully in favor of the Merkley project. I’m glad to live in a neighborhood where we can get together with neighbors for open discussion. We were all in agreement that there should be more clearer codes for the sub-standard lots. This is something the city should focus on and several of our neighbors were interested in helping with this. Understandably, such a process will take time. In the meantime, I’d urge the council to approve this project that was already approved by the Planning Commission and is well supported by a majority of immediate neighbors. Let the Merkley Family bring their 1950ies home into the present century.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kindly,
Janna, Estacada Drive
--
Janna Land

Page 725 of 770 ends

Page 726 of 770 ends

Page 727 of 770 ends

Dear Los Altos Hills city,
We live on Estacada Drive and are neighbors with the
Merkleys. We truly look forward to the renovation they are doing as it will be a phenomenal lift up to the neighbor!
In particular, we like how they have rigorously planned and kept us in the neighborhood informed as the project has developed.

This truly speaks to the families deeper care of how their renovated home will fit in, and we believe this is probably one of the foundational pillars to the current projects success and acceptance with the neighbors!
Furthermore, we appreciate how they’ve made the right tradeoffs in terms of size and design. Fitting in a home in a neighborhood is not an easy task, and they’ve done this phenomenally well! Please do not hesitate to reach out to us should you have any questions, we can be reached at any time on:

Johan Land, ,
Janna Land,
Yours,
Johan and Janna, on Estacada Drive

Page 728 of 770 ends

Page 729 of 770 ends

From: TJ Mueller
To: City Council
Subject: 25851 Estacada Drive, Los Altos Hills Development Permit (CDP23-0002) Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 9:35:12 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of this this project and to DENY the Appeal (APL23-0003) of the planning commission’s July 13, 2023 decision and uphold the approval of a Conditional Development Permit (CDP23-0002), Site Development Permit (SD22- 0066), and Variance (VAR23-0001) at
25851 Estacada Drive with conditions of approval issued on July 13, 2023 planning commission public hearing.

Nancy and I have lived at 25861 Estacada Way for 9 years. I first moved to Los Altos Hills in 1964. During my childhood, my parents built 5 homes in Los Altos Hills. We always worked closely with the planning commission to get our plans approved.

We would like to support the current iteration proposed by the Merkleys for their remodel of the home at 25851 Estacada Drive. We feel that the proposed plan preserves the character of our neighborhood while providing an efficient use of space while mostly conforming to easements and setbacks on a less than 1 acre lot.

At some time in the future, we may consider remodeling as well. We feel that the Merkley's current plans represent an excellent proposal to preserve and enhance the value of the property.

From our discussions with other neighbors, everyone else is on board with the current proposed plans except for one neighbor. We are very concerned that a single veto can derail this process and this will have a negative impact on our property values.

Thanks for your consideration and we encourage you to approve Conditional Development Permit (CDP23-0002) in an expeditious fashion.

Sincerely
TJ and Nancy Mueller
25861Estacada Way
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Supplemental No. 6
AGENDA ITEM #6.C
Distributed 8/15/23

Page 730 of 770 ends

Page 731 of 770 ends

Dear Planning Commission,
TKS Construction and Development has been working as a builder and developer in various Bay Area districts for more than two decades. Our firm is focused on building and developing high end residences in neighborhoods within California such as Los Altos Hills, Pebble Beach, as well as Cupertino and Mountain View.

Between 2022 and 2023, we have completed or are actively working on 4 new-builds and 2 ADUs within Los Altos Hills. The trends for construction in our recent experience have been focused on “more open and airy homes” - driven by either a modern design or a modern take on a classic design - defined by larger windows, open kitchens, and higher ceilings.

In all 6 cases in Los Altos Hills alone (including ADUs that we have built) the minimum ceiling heights in bedrooms, bathrooms, and open areas have been 10’. Additionally, in each of these residences, in common areas we have seen ceilings range from 12’ to 16’. We would also like to point out that this trend has been followed in more compact neighborhoods like Mountain View, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale.

Today’s higher end market demands newer homes to have a minimum ceiling height in regular living areas (bedrooms, living rooms, kitchens) of 10’. Homes that do not have this feature are severely penalized. Indeed - most rebuild decision are driven by limitations on ceiling height of 8’- as bathrooms and kitchens can simply be remodeled.

As such - given the quality of the Los Altos Hills neighborhood; we believe that a limitation of a residence’s design in the manner suggested by one single neighbor on Estacada way would be dilutive to its the quality and elegance.

We thank you for your consideration, and urge you to promote this project - which fits beautifully within the neighborhood, and will be a home that continues to enhance the neighborhood’s appeal and value.

Sincerely,
TKS Construction & Development
TKS Construction & Development ; 320 Berkshire Drive, Morgan Hill, CA, 95037 www.tks-construction.com

TKS CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT
2 5 8 5 1 ESTACADA WAY

LOS ALTOS HILLS

Page 732 of 770 ends

Page 733 of 770 ends

Page 734 of 770 ends

Page 735 of 770 ends

Page 736 of 770 ends

Page 737 of 770 ends

Page 738 of 770 ends

25851 Estacada Drive Variance Analysis—August 17, 2023
Mayor Linda Swan
To determine whether a variance should be granted to 25851 Estacada Drive, I have endeavored to analyze the requirements in the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code and California State Law. I am not a planner and never have been, but wanted to look at this issue logically, to the best of my ability. Since this analysis is rather lengthy, I am submitting it in writing ahead of the Town Council meeting.

This lot is what is known as a Legal Non-conforming Lot. The house was built before the Town of Los Altos Hills was incorporated and therefore has 15 ft. setbacks rather than the standard 30 ft. setback required for most lots in town.

According to Municipal Code 10-1.401
(i) Increase in Nonconformity. An increase in nonconformity will occur when any nonconforming structure or portion thereof is altered to increase the footprint, volume, or height, or to increase the extent of the encroachment into the setback.
(g) Additions to Nonconforming Structures. An increase in nonconformity will occur when any nonconforming structure or portion thereof is altered to increase the footprint, volume, or height, or to increase the extent of the encroachment into the setback.

The plans for the house remodel show an added 707 ft2 of floor area within the 15 ft setback, increasing the footprint, volume, and height in the setback, thus increasing the nonconformity.

The code allows an increase in the floor area within the 15 ft setback by 150 ft2 with only the Planning Director approval, if certain conditions are met, including (from (g) (5)) “the addition would have no adverse visual or privacy impacts on neighbors or the general public”. In this case, there is an adverse visual impact on a neighbor. So, even an increase of 150 ft2 would not be allowed without Planning Commission approval. An addition of 707 ft2 would be considered even more onerous to the neighbor and thus, the homeowner was required apply for a variance.

Supplemental No. 13
AGENDA ITEM #6.C
Distributed 8/17/23

Page 739 of 770 ends

According to the LAH Municipal Code, a variance is a zoning tool that can be used to address certain situations, hardships, conditions, scenarios, etc. that could potentially restrict or prevent the otherwise allowed development of a piece of property.

The purpose of a variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant’s own making, which may result from the exceptional size, shape, topography, location, or other physical site conditions, or the use or development of property in the immediate vicinity. This property is not exceptional in any of these ways for this area of town.

In this context, personal family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not practical difficulties or hardships justifying a variance. In some cases, the location of existing structures may result in a practical difficulty or hardship. The location of the current house does not present a practical difficulty, even though the layout of the house may affect the layout of the remodeled house. The inability to obtain a certain architectural style or look is not identified as a hardship.

The State established core criteria that a variance application must (not should) satisfy before a municipality can approve a Variance. These include:

1. There are unique, exceptional, or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property that would otherwise deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and subject to identical zoning classifications.

Since most, if not all, of the properties in the vicinity, are legal non-conforming lots, and there is nothing particularly unique about this property in this area, this condition does not apply. The term “vicinity” of course is not precise, but my assumption is that houses in the same vicinity would be considered neighbors. If you were introducing a person at a party and would say, this is my neighbor, Jim, then we would presume that he lives in the vicinity of you. Houses a mile away, would not be in the same vicinity. Therefore, the majority of lots in Town, which are an acre or more, are would not be considered to be in the same vicinity.

2. That approval of a variance shall include conditions of approval to ensure that the exception does not result in a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and with identical zoning classification.

Page 740 of 770 ends

I believe that granting this variance would result in special privileges, because other properties in the neighborhood are being held to the standard of not adding more than 150 ft2 in the 15 ft setback.

The allowance of a four-foot setback for an ADU is set by state. Setbacks for structures other than ADUs are specified in our Municipal Code. They are two different things. The fact that an ADU can be located very close to the property line should have no effect on the setback specified for other structures. It should have no effect or influence whether or not a variance to our Municipal Code is given.

By state law, the applicant is allowed to build an ADU within 4 ft of the property line and may plan to do so. Our setbacks are specified in our Municipal Code.

They are two different things. The fact that an ADU can be located very close to the property line should have no effect on the setback specified for other structures.

It should have no influence on whether or not a variance to our Municipal Code is given. We have no control on how an ADU affects a neighboring property, but we still have local control of how variance requests affect the neighbors and set precedents for future developments.

And the precedent is what concerns me most. If one property owner is allowed a variance that does not satisfy the core criteria, then other property owners are going to expect the same privilege. I have been told that this variance would not set a precedent. Steve Padovan put together a table of variances that have been allowed in the past. The fact that a table of variances is pertinent, means that previous variances granted do set precedents or at least provide guidance. In the future, the table for the next variance request, of say a hypothetical request for 850 ft2 in the setback, would include 25851 Estacada Drive at the bottom, showing that 707 ft2 of floor area in the setback had been approved in the past. I believe that granting this variance would set a precedent for decades, as planners and residents look back on what has been granted in the past. And so, variance creep can occur.

And this is what concerns me most.

I received emails in favor of and against the variance and I respect the opinions of our residents, but we should follow the current Municipal Code. If most of the residents feel that the Municipal Code should be changed, that is a discussion for another time.

This analysis led me to appeal the Planning Commission decision.

Page 741 of 770 ends

Carol Gottlieb
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
RE: 25851 Estacada Drive
To the Council:

Supplemental No. 14
AGENDA ITEM #6.C
Distributed 8/17 /23
I am writing this letter as a private citizen, not connected to any of my committee's duties. However, I am writing as a former Planning Commission and as private resident who was granted a variance to build a master bedroom.

In my ten years on the Planning Commission, I don't remember such an extensive variance being granted. Usually the variance granted was for one side of the property only and at the same height as the existing residence and on the least intrusive side to the neighbors and in the case of 25851 Estacada Drive that would be Estacada Way.

Our variance was at the side of the house which bordered the flag lot driveway which increased the separation between my property and neighbors and was at the same height as the existing house.

In conclusion, I recommend returning the application to the Planning Commission for further review.

Sincerely,
Carol Gottlieb

Page 742 of 770 ends

Page 743 of 770 ends

Page 744 of 770 ends

Page 745 of 770 ends

Page 746 of 770 ends

From: Barry Smith
To: L nda S an; Stan ey Mo ; Lisa Schmidt; Ka ta Tan ha; George Tyson; C ty Co ncil Cc: Alisa Bredo; Stanley Mok; J tze Couperus; Rajiv Patel; J m Waschura; Peter Pi nejad Subject: FOR PUBL C COMMENT - Item # 6C - 25851 Estacada Drive Appeal Date: Thu sday August 17 2023 2:34:46 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
Los Altos Hills Town Council,
I am requesting that you accept this Appeal, and return this project to Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Attorney to resolve what have been entirely different code interpretations for "sub-standard" lots than what has existed for the past 10 years.

Our neighborhood met together at my request this past week, including the homeowner applicant and nearby neighbors. We had an open, positive discussion, sharing our various views. What became clear to me is that a few homeowners do not like our existing codes, and would like them to be more like LA and PA codes. They pointed out that our codes reduce the value of their home asset.

These are fair and valid points. And I think LAH has a clear process by which codes can be changed. New codes can be proposed, the PC can review and support, and the TC can approve. I fully endorse this process.

However, the current Planning Department is essentially establishing new building codes by themselves, without the PC and TC proposing, reviewing and approving these new codes. I assume this is well outside the PD’s authority.

Let me try to provide a 10-year historical PD context here to explain this.

The current PD asserts that a homeowner can increase the height of any and every encroaching structure up to 19’ (one-story) and no variances are required.

If this were the case, numerous renovated homes on substandard lots would have rebuilt very different homes, without even needing to requesting variances.

But this has not happened…at all. Why would any homeowner forgo such an easy way to increase the home’s livability, design and value? This makes no sense…until you talk to people who renovated in our neighborhood in the past 10 years.

These renovating homeowners were told something entirely different by the then LAH PD. For the past 10 years, the PD would not, and did not, approve anything remotely close to the height increases proposed here. In fact, below is what Steve Padovan told the current applicant.

In stark contrast, here is the new interpretation by the current PD:

Note that the PD only refers to variances pertaining to new proposed structures.

That is presumably why the PD did not require any variances for the ~50’ of existing, grandfathered encroaching structures increasing their wall and roof heights. The PD indicated that no variances were required for these structures, obscuring major elements of this proposal.

So from the current PD’s perspective, had the homeowner proposed the following, just on top of existing grandfathered structures, no variances would be required.

I am definitely not an expert on our LAH codes, but this interpretation is nowhere close to how the PD has ruled on encroaching height increases in the past 10 years.

Here is what one 2015 "renovating homeowner” was told by the then PD.

Existing non-conforming structures are grandfathered. A remodel requires no increase in nonconformity (footprint, volume, height) to what already encroaches setbacks Additions (new construction) are required to meet code.

Presumably this means if you increase the wall height of most all of your existing grandfathered walls, that no longer a "remodel", but a new home, and must then comply with 30’ side-setbacks.

My sense is the PD of the past 10 years and the current PD are living in alternate universes. And this is not good for LAH. This has wasted enormous, unwarrented hours and LAH dollars because of these two wildly divergent interpretations.

Accordingly, I recommend that the TC accept this Appeal, and instruct the PD/PC/City Attorney to sit in a room and get this resolved asap.

We, Los Altos Hills, can do—and should do—better than how we have performed in this process.

Respectfully,
Barry Smith
Estacada Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Supplemental No. 19
AGENDA ITEM #6.C
Distributed 8/17/23

Page 747 of 770 ends

Page 748 of 770 ends

Page 749 of 770 ends

Crime and Action Report
for
City Council
August 17, 2023
AGENDA ITEM #7.F
Posted 8/18/23

Page 750 of 770 ends

Today’s Update
▪ Latest Burglary Data
▪ Security Program Update
▪ Outreach and Education Report
▪ ALPR Information
▪ Next Steps (for September)
2

Page 751 of 770 ends

3 Residential Burglary—Since February Peak
2023 Total (Jan-July 30th): 35
Since February
• Added Sworn Overtime
• Emphasized Outreach
and Education
• Added Genesis
Security
• Increased
Neighborhood Watch
to 17 total groups

Page 752 of 770 ends

Genesis – Productivity Data (4/26-7/30)
4 Highlights:
• 11599 Miles
patrolled as of 7/30
• Each shift reports
3-4 unusual or
suspicious
circumstances
observed

Page 753 of 770 ends

Genesis Security Cost Projection
5 Service Dates: 4/19 through 7/30 (based on 9, 2 week invoices) Days Covered: 96 Days covered
Hours worked: 1531.34 Hours (to include holidays at higher rate) Ave Hours/day: 15.95 (1531.34 hours/96 days—7 days a week) Total Cost: $83,984.04 (Sum of all invoices-approximately $24K/Mo) Ave Cost/day: $874 dollars ($83,984/96 days)
Fund balance: $66,015 ($150k allocated minus $83,984)
Funds run out: late Oct 2023 ($66,015 balance/$874 per day) Total # of days: 177 days

Page 754 of 770 ends

6 Residential Burglaries (Since
January 1)
and
Neighbors Watch has increased to
17 groups
We are on track to reach our
targeted 20 groups by the end of
the year
Neighborhood Watch groups
engage the community to help
keep our Town safe

Page 755 of 770 ends

▪ Weekly and Quarterly public communiques
▪ Informational Effort at Picnic
▪ Encouraging Home Security Surveys (SCSO)
▪ Other Concepts Being Considered/Explored
▪ Coffee with the Sheriff, Wednesday, September
19 Added Outreach/Education
8

Page 756 of 770 ends

▪ 40 Cameras funded through June 30, 2024
▪ Prominent weakness identified (lack of sharing)
▪ Unavailability of data a hinderance to analysis
▪ Data sharing improvements underway
ALPR Update
9 GOAL: Fix data sharing issue this FY
Proposed changes to the ALPR Policy are under review with the County’s Office of Correction and Law Enforcement Monitoring

Page 757 of 770 ends

Crime and Action Report
ALPR Progress Report
Private Security Update
Long-Range Sustainability Data
Scaling Options
Staff Report on Overall Burglary and Law Enforcement in Los Altos Hills
Next Steps (for September Meeting)
10

Page 758 of 770 ends

AGENDA ITEM #8A-E