Attachment 4. February 5, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS StaffRep01i to the Planning Commission

Transcription

1 Attachment 4 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HLLS StaffRep01i to the Planning Commission February 5, 2015 SUBJECT: CONDTONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMT AND STE DEVELOPMENT PERMT FOR A NEW 3,511 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SNGLE FAMLY DWELLNG WTH A 1,398 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT ON A.359 ACRE LOT AND SETBACK VARANCE REQUESTS TO ALLOW FOR TWO REQURED UNCOVERED PAR<NG SPACES N THE SDE YARD SETBACK, VEHCLE BACK-UP AREA WTHN 10 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LNE, ROOF EAVES ENCROACHNG UP TO ONE FOOT NTO THE SDE YARD SETBACKS, A CHMNEY ENCROACHNG ONE FOOT NTO THE SDE YARD SETBACK AND A REAR PATO ENCROACHNG FOUR FEET NTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK; LANDS OF KDC DEVELOPMENT, LLC; DEERFELD DRVE; FLE # ZP-SD-CDP-VAR. FROM: Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner ef' APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, ACP, Planning Director S\ RECOMMENDATON: That the Planning Commission: Approve the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances subject to the findings for a Conditional Development Permit and Variances included in Attachments 1 and 2 and the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 3. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2014, a Certificate of Compliance was recorded establishing two legal parcels on the lands forri1erly identified as Burke Road (see Attachment 4 - the subject parcel is identified as APN on Exhibit "C"). One parcel is at the corner of Burke and Deerfield and the other is an interior lot directly abutting the corner lot and fronting on Deerfield Drive. The nonconforming lots were created before the Town was incorporated and are not part of a recorded subdivision. The lots are nonconforming because they are less than one acre in area. The applicant owns both parcels and intends to develop two new residences. The subject parcel, the interior lot, would be developed first and the second parcel will be developed at a future date. Sheet A 1.2 in the plan set shows the proposed site layout for both properties. Parcel Merger Requirements Section of the Municipal Code states the following: "f one of two or more contiguous parcels or units of land in the City owned by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel or lot size to permit its

2 Planning Commission Lands of KDC Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page2 use or development under the zoning law of the City or this chapter or any other provision of the Municipal Code or any uncodified ordinance of the City, and at least one of such contiguous parcels or units is not developed with a building for which a permit has been issued by the City or which was built prior to the time such permits were required by the City, then such parcels shall be merged for the purpose of the Subdivision Map Act of the State, and specifically Section of the Government Code of California." The State Subdivision Map Act has since been amended and Section no longer exists. State laws governing parcel mergers are now under Article 1. 5 of the Map Act and the criteria for merging nonconforming parcels are listed specifically under Section (see Attachment 5). Under the new law, the Town must adopt a parcel merger ordinance which implements the procedures listed in Section and the parcels must meet a specific list of requirements before the Town can deem the parcels merged. The Town currently does not have an adopted parcel merger ordinance complying with Section nor do the parcels in question meet the parcel merger requirements in that section. Therefore, Section is not applicable to this project. An update of the Town's subdivision ordinance is recommended to bring the Municipal Code into compliance with state law. Subject Property The subject property is the interior lot located on the south side of Deerfield Drive approximately 120 feet from the intersection of Fremont Road, Burke Road and Deerfield Drive. The parcel is a substandard,.373 acre lot (.359 net acres) that is generally rectangular in shape and is largely undeveloped (net acreage is the gross lot area minus the paved area for Deerfield Drive within the 20-foot right-of-way easement). The subject lot and the adjacent comer lot were originally developed with one dwelling and there is a stable that straddles the property line between the subject lot and the comer parcel. The stable will be removed in conjunction with the development of the property. There are no other structures on-site. The property has a gentle east to west slope with the lowest point being the drainage swale along the westerly property line. Vegetation consists of three conifer trees at the back comer of the lot, brambles along the drainage channel, and small oaks, an acacia tree and shrubs along the street frontage. Deerfield Drive is a public roadway with a 40 foot right-of-way. There is a 20 foot roadway easement across the front of the parcel. On January 13, 2015, the owners and their architect met with staff and several Deerfield Drive residents to discuss the resident's concerns with regard to building intensity, merging of the lots, setbacks, driveway locations, construction access and code enforcement problems related to the tenants on the corner lot. These issues are analyzed further in the Discussion section of the report under "Comments from Surrounding Residents".

3 Planning Commission Lands of KDC Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page 3 PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is requesting Conditional Development and Site Development Permits to construct a 3,511 square foot, two-story dwelling with an attached two-car garage and a 1,398 square foot basement on a parcel with a Lot Unit Factor of.359. All new development on a property with a Lot Unit Factor of.5 or less requires the approval of a Conditional Development Permit. The proposed dwelling is within the maximum 27 foot height limit, the maximum floor area and the maximum development area requirements. However, the applicant is also requesting the following variances from the required 30 foot side and rear yard setback regulations: 1) Allow two of the four required parking spaces to be placed in the side yard setback along the easterly property line; 2) Allow the vehicle back-up area for the garage within 10 feet of the property line; 3) Allow for roof eaves to encroach up to one foot into both side yard setbacks; 4) Allow the chimney to encroach one foot into the side yard setback on the west side of the dwelling; 5) Allow the rear patio to encroach four feet into the rear yard setback (approximately 35 square feet in area). The following table is a summary of the requested floor area and development area and the maximums allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Site Data: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area: Average Slope: Lot Unit Factor:.373 acres.359 acres (excludes paved area within Deerfield Drive roadway easement) 6.65%.359 Area Maximum (sq.ft.) Proposed Existing ncrease Remaining (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) (sq.ft.) Development 5,690 Floor 3,590 Basement (exempt) Total area of dwelling with 4,909 basement and garage 5, , , , (1,398) The owner/developer has stated that their goal is to produce a dwelling that utilizes sustainable construction practices and is in scale with existing homes on Deerfield Drive.

4 Planning Commission Lands ofkdc Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page4 CODE REQUREMENTS The following code sections are applicable to the project: Section (c) - Calculation of maximum development area allowed and requirement for a Conditional Development Permit. Section 10-l.503(c)- Calculation of maximum floor area allowed and requirement for a Conditional Development Permit. Section (a) and (c) - Side and rear yard setback requirements for structures and hardscape. Section Variance Procedure Section Conditional Development Permit Procedure Section (2)- Variance Approval Conditions Section (3) - Conditional Development Permit Approval Conditions Section Grading not permitted within 10 feet of a property line Section (h) - Driveway located within 10 feet of the property line DSCUSSON Site Design and Architecture The proposed project consists of a new two-story residence with a basement and attached twocar garage. The dwelling faces north (towards Deerfield Drive) and incorporates dormer style windows on the upper front elevation, a covered front entry porch, decorative wood trim around and below the windows, and wood siding on the exterior. The architect has placed the garage at the side of the house to create a more visually appealing front entry and street elevation. The design also incorporates multiple wall setbacks and roof eaves on each side and between floors to reduce the two-story mass of the building. The proposed building walls and basement light wells are located at the setback lines resulting in eaves and a chimney that encroach up to one foot into the side yard setbacks. There is no building encroachment into the front or rear yard setbacks. The finished floor elevation of the first floor is approximately two to five feet above Deerfield Drive. The property will be graded to create a building pad, driveway, parking area and rear yard area. Excavation for the basement will result in a net export of approximately 780 cubic yards of material. Driveway & Parking The proposal includes a new driveway access off Deerfield Drive that is approximately 50 feet from an existing driveway that provides access to the comer lot. The driveway consists of cement pavers, is 14 feet wide, and incorporates two (2) surface parking spaces perpendicular to the two-car garage. There are two additional parking spaces in the attached garage for a total of four parking spaces, which meets Zoning code requirements for a new residence. A variance is required for the open parking spaces within the 30 foot side yard setback and the back-up area that encroaches to within 4 feet of the side property line (10 feet is required). Although the size and shape of the building envelope would allow for a conforming four car

5 Planning Commission Lands of KDC Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page 5 garage or a combination of a garage/carport facing Deerfield to be built, the designer has chosen a garage on the side to present a more visually appealing street elevation and to reduce the amount of paving in the front yard which is more in character with the rural residential area. A fire truck turnaround was not a requirement of the project because all areas of the house are within 150 feet of the street. Outdoor Lighting Outdoor lighting is shown on the building elevations and consists of two lights in the front entry, wall mounted lighting on either side of the garage door, and wall lights at the doors facing the rear yard. No exterior lighting is shown facing the property to the west. Proposed lighting complies with the Outdoor Lighting Policy. Standard lighting Condition #11, regarding outdoor lighting, requires that fixtures be down lights, shielded and/or have frosted/etched globes. Applicants are required to submit outdoor landscape lighting details with the landscape screening plan once the structure is framed. Grading & Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the civil engineering plans and has determined that a variance is required for the garage back-up area which is within 10 feet of the property line. The site grading and cut are primarily for the basement excavation, driveway and parking areas. The grading quantities include: 800 cubic yards of cut 20 cubic yards of fill 780 cubic yards export The drainage design directs water into area drains and swales and conveys the water to a detention basin consisting of two large diameter pipes installed below grade and located in the front yard to convey water away from the adjacent property and towards the drainage channel. The volume to be stored is based on the amount of rain water from a 10-year storm event, 1- hour duration over the proposed two dimensional impervious surfaces. Overflow would meter out to an energy dissipater/bubbler and flow to the drainage ditch after the storm event has passed. n addition, the Flood nsurance Rate Maps indicate that the property is not within a flood hazard area. Geotechnical Review The applicant has provided a Geotechnical nvestigation prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering dated January The investigation found that the soils have low expansive qualities and that the site is suitable for the proposed dwelling. Specific grading and foundation design recommendations have been included in the report and will be included in the conditions of approval for the project that will also include follow up documentation and review of the construction documents by the project geologist (Conditions 18, 19, and 20).

6 Planning Commission Lands ofkdc Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page6 Trees & Landscaping The property has several, small non-native and native trees and shrub species along with grasses that cover a majority of the property. No trees are planned for removal although the new driveway will impact an existing oak in the roadway easement. Staff recommends that the driveway be moved approximately five feet to the west to minimize impacts to the root system of the oak (Condition #17). This will likely result in the removal of the acacia which is an invasive species and should be removed regardless. The owner has not submitted a preliminary landscaping plan but is aware that the neighboring property is requesting substantial landscape screening along the drainage swale. Condition #3 includes a requirement for landscape screening along the westerly property line and a requirement that the final landscape screening for the dwelling be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. Green Building Ordinance The applicant submitted a GreenPoint checklist in compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance. The new dwelling is designed to achieve a point total of 56.5 which exceeds the minimum of 50 points in the GreenPoint Rated certification program. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans and has required that the building be equipped with fire sprinklers. The property is not located within the Wildland-Urban nterface Fire Area. Sanitation The new residence will connect to the existing sewer line that serves Deerfield Drive. A sewer reimburse fee will need to be paid prior to connection. No additional easements are required. Justification for Variances and Findings n order to approve a Variance, the Planning Commission must make the following four findings: 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;

7 Planning Commission Lands ofkdc Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page7 2. That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections 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; 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 wit/tin the same zoning district; 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. A project with a substandard lot size and a Lot Unit Factor (LUF) of.5 or less would generally qualify as meeting the criteria in Findings #1 and #2 based on the fact that the lot area is substantially less than the one acre minimum. Therefore, the imposition of the same setbacks and zoning standards does deprive the property owner of certain privileges, including a more restrictive building envelope, reduced patio and outdoor recreation areas, and design restrictions. The applicant submitted a letter dated January 15, 2015 in support of the variances requested (Attachment 6). The primary justification stated for the setback variances is the fact that the required yard setback encompasses a much larger portion of a substandard lot than a standard one acre lot. Figure 1.2 on page 4 of the letter shows that on a standard one acre lot, the setbacks encompass 53% of the total lot area whereas on the subject parcel, the setbacks encompass 81 % of the property. This places a substantial limitation on the size of the building footprint, especially given that the four required parking spaces must also be included within the building envelope. n addition, a design that places all four parking spaces within the building envelope would result in a large portion of the ground floor being used for parking which substantially alters the architectural design of the building and the useable floor area on that main floor level. n order to properly evaluate the proposed project and to gain a perspective on previous variance approvals in the immediate surrounding area, staff reviewed the Town's records for variances on properties along Deerfield Drive and on several substandard properties along Burke and Fremont Roads. A map showing the location of these properties is included as Attachment 7. The following table provides a summary of those findings:

8 Planning Commission Lands ofkdc Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page 8 Properties Approved with a Variance Address Net Lot Existing or New Variance Granted Size/LUF Residence Burke NA Existing Guest Cottage in side yard setback Burke.453 acres New Parking in side yard setback and.453 LUF increase in MF A Deerfield.4 acres New Allow for a 20 foot side yard.4luf setback for dwelling Deerfield.44 acres Existing/Room Expansion over maximum.37 LUF Addition allowed building coverage and 4 foot encroachment into side yard Deerfield.43 acres Existing/Room Exceed maximum MF A and.31 LUF Addition MDA Deerfield.381 acres New Parking in the side yard setback.33 LUF Deerfield.478 acres Existing/Room Exceed maximum MF A and.43 LUF Addition MDA Fremont NA New Parking in the side yard setback Proposed Project Deerfield.359 acres New Request for parking and back-up area.359 LUF in side yard setback; request for roof eaves and chimney in side yard, patio in rear yard Of the 12 properties on Deerfield Drive, five have been granted some type of variance over the past 30 years. With regard to variances granted on new dwellings in the area, the two most recent occurred in 2005, for parking in the side yard setback. t is possible to construct a dwelling with required parking on the subject site without the need for any variance. However, staff supports a setback variance for the required parking, the back-up area and the rear patio due to the substantial reduction in the development area that results from the strict application of the 30 foot side and rear yard setbacks on the.359 acre lot. n addition, the proposed project with the parking and back-up area encroachments results in a design that is more architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. Furthermore, the garage and parking along the easterly portion of the lot should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding residents because the improvements abut property owned by the applicant and any new structure on that abutting lot will be designed to address that impact. Staff does not support the one foot encroachment for the chimney or the roof eaves. A variance for the roof eaves is a de facto increase in the maximum floor area for this type of architectural roof style. The Town code already has a built-in exception for substandard lots allowing for increased development. For example, if the two lots had not been legally split, the MF A on

9 Planning Commission Lands ofkdc Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page9 the combined lot would only be 5,000 square feet instead of the 7,060 square feet that is currently allowed when the MFA figures on the two lots are combined (3,590 sq.ft. on Deerfield Drive and 3,470 sq.ft. on Deerfield Drive). Staff believes that with some minimal design changes, the chimney can be accommodated within the building envelope and the building walls can be moved in one foot to accommodate the eaves. f the amount of :floor area proposed is necessary to make the project more economically feasible, then an architectural design featuring a structure with little or no roof eave should be considered. Therefore, a variance for roof eaves should require further justification beyond a substandard lot size (e.g.: steep topography, excessive easements, etc.). Regarding the last two findings, Finding #3 can be met because the development of the property will not be detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties as the parking and back-up encroachments can be screened by landscaping and will not be significantly visible to existing residents. Finding #4 can also be met because the variance is not for a use or activity that is not permitted in the zone district. Findings for Conditional Development Permit The Planning Commission must make the following four findings to approve a Conditional Development Permit (CDP): 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 of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood; 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. The Deerfield Drive neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes that were originally built in the 1940s and have either been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are typically larger than the previous home. A majority of the properties are less than half an acre in size with an LUF of.5 or lower. As shown in the table above, five of the properties have received CDP and Variance approvals over the past 30 years for reduced setbacks and/or increases in MF A and MDA. Therefore, the proposed request for a new dwelling that does not exceed the MF A or MDA and meets all other development standards with the exception of setbacks for parking, back-up and a rear patio is compatible with the existing development pattern in the area. n addition, no significant trees or vegetation are impacted by the development and there is adequate remaining area on the property to provide screening from

10 Planning Commission Lands ofkdc Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page 10 the street and surrounding properties. The applicant has submitted a letter dated January 15, 2015 that provides additional support of the Conditional Development Permit findings (Attachment 8). Comments from Surrounding Residents As of the writing of the staff report, the Town has received six letters from surrounding property owners, four of which live on Deerfield Drive (Attachments 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14) The following is a summary of the concerns stated by the residents in the letters and at the meeting on January 13, 2015: 1) Build one dwelling on the merged lots. Several residents have stated that the construction of one house on the two lots owned by the applicant would be a more compatible design with the neighborhood and more in keeping with the rural character of the area. They believe that the proposed floor area is excessive in comparison to the other dwellings in the neighborhood. 2) The new dwelling should not be granted a variance for roof eaves in the setback. The amount of floor area proposed is excessive and the structure should meet all required setbacks. 3) Drainage issues on property and in the roadway. The property has poor drainage and there is standing water in front of the property on the street after a heavy rain. 4) Building design is oversized for the lot and neighborhood and does not meet the Fast Track Guide for New Residences. The proposed dwelling is larger than the existing homes on the street and the front fa9ade does not incorporate wall setbacks to break up the mass and bulk. 5) The location of driveways should take into account existing driveways on Deerfield. A resident across the street from the subject lot is concerned about multiple driveways on Deerfield Drive in close proximity to the intersection at Fremont/Burke Roads. Their request is that the corner lot utilize an existing driveway on Burke Road for access and construction traffic. 6) Limit or avoid construction traffic on Deerfield Drive. Deerfield Drive is a narrow roadway and construction vehicles will cause traffic problems. All construction traffic should access the site from an existing driveway on Burke Road. 7) Provide substantial landscape screening between properties. Provide dense landscape screening along the westerly property line and along the street frontage. 8) On-going code enforcement issues on the two properties. Concerns were raised about a trailer on the corner lot being used as permanent housing, trash, and parked cars.

11 Planning Commission Lands ofkdc Development LLC February 5, 2015 Page 11 Staff has addressed most of these issues in the staff report and has included conditions of approval that require landscape screening, the relocation of the driveway on Deerfield, and the requirement that all construction access be provided from Burke Road through the corner lot. Regarding code enforcement issues, staff has contacted the owners about these issues and they are in the process of removing debris and potentially removing the tenants. Town Committee's Review The Pathways Committee recommended that the applicant pay a pathway in-lieu fee. (Condition #28). The Environmental Design and Protection Committee provided general comments that the lot cannot support the proposed dwelling and that the lots should be merged. ENVRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA) The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303(a) - construction of a new single family residence where public services are available in a residential zone. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditional Development Permit Findings 2. Variance Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Recorded Certificates of Compliance 5. State Map Act Section Letter from Applicant on Variance Application dated revised January 15, Map of Variance Approvals in the Surrounding Neighborhood 8. Letter from Applicant on Conditional Development Permit dated revised January 15, Letter from Alice and Doug Rimer dated January 27, Letter from Barbara Goodrich dated January 27, from Judy and Stewart Krakauer dated January 26, from Scott Akiyama dated January 23, from Ray Strimaitis dated January 22, Letter from Helen and Virgil Gualtieri 15. Proposed Plans- Planning Commission only

12

13 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 FNDNGS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDTONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMT LANDS OF KDC DEVELOPMENT LLC, Deerfield Drive File# ZP-SD-CDP-VAR 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. The subject property is relatively flat with direct access to a public road. The entire structure is located within the building envelope, is within the maximum floor area, development area and height regulations, and does not encroach into the required yard setbacks. The applicant has requested a variance to allow required parking and the garage back-up area in the side yard setback and for a portion of the rear patio to encroach into the rear yard setback. These variances have been approved by the Planning Commission based on findings that the property is a legal substandard parcel and that the design of the garage and parking at the side of the dwelling provide an improved design over a front facing garage and that the design is more harmonious with the typical development in the surrounding neighborhood. 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 of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood The Deerfield Drive neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes that were originally built in the 1940s and have either been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are typically larger than the previous home. A majority of the properties are less than half an acre in size with an LUF of.5 or lower and five of these properties have received CDP and Variance approvals over the past 30 years for reduced setbacks and/or increases in their MFA and MDA.. Therefore, the proposed request for a new dwelling that does not exceed the MF A or MDA and meets all other development standards with the exception of setbacks for parking, back-up and a rear patio is compatible with the existing development pattern in the area and consistent with previous approvals for properties in the neighborhood. 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. No significant trees and shrubs are impacted by the development of the parcel as grading will be minimal and all oaks along the roadway will be preserved. A landscape screening plan will ensure that existing trees and shrubs will be supplemented by new

14 landscaping to adequately screen the residence, blend the visual impact, and preserve the rural character of the site. 4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance. The proposed residence is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development Ordinance with the exception of the request for a variance to allow the back-up area for the garage to encroach to within four feet of the property line. This variance has been approved by the Planning Commission based on findings that the property is a legal substandard parcel and that the design of the garage and parking at the side of the dwelling provide an improved design over a front facing garage and that the design is more harmonious with the typical development in the surrounding neighborhood.

15 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 2 FNDNGS OF APPROVAL FOR THE V ARlANCE REQUEST LANDS OF KDC DEVELOPMENT LLC, Deerfield Drive File# ZP-SD-CDP-VAR 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 proposed dwelling is located on a nonconforming lot of.359 net acres which is substantially less than the one acre minimum in Town. Therefore, the imposition of the same setbacks and zoning standards that apply to a one acre lot deprives the property owner of certain privileges, resulting in a more restrictive building envelope, reduced patio and outdoor recreation areas, and design restrictions. The required yard setbacks encompass 81% of the subject property whereas they only encompass 53% of a typical one acre parcel. This places a substantial limitation on the size of the building footprint, especially when the four required parking spaces must also be included within the building envelope. n addition, a design that places all four parking spaces within the building envelope would result in a large portion of the ground floor being used for parking which substantially alters the architectural design of the building and the useable floor area on that main floor level. 2. That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections 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 setback variances for the required parking, the back-up area and the rear patio are due to the substantial reduction in the development area that results from the strict application of the 3 0 foot side and rear yard setbacks on the acre lot. The approval of the setback variances results in a design that is more architecturally compatible with the neighborhood 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 development of the property will not be detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties as the proposed development does not exceed the maximum floor area or development area standards, adequate access to a public road is available, and the parking and back-up encroachments can be screened by landscaping and will not be highly visible to existing residents. n addition, the garage and parking along the easterly portion of the lot should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding residents

16 because the improvements abut property owned by the applicant and any new structure on that abutting lot will be designed to address that impact. 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 request is not for a use or activity that is not permitted in the zoning district.

17 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 3 RECOMMENDED CONDTONS OF APPROVAL FOR A STE DEVELOPMENT PERMT FOR A NEW RESDENCE AND ATTACHED SECONDARY UNT PLANNNG DEPARTMENT: LANDS OF KDC DEVELOPMENT LLC, Deerfield Drive File# ZP-SD-CDP-VAR 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink ronbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the prope1iy located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final inspection of the new residence. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. After completion of rough framing and/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 and 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. Emphasis shall be placed on dense screen plantings along the westerly prope1iy line outside of the drainage swale and between the open parking spaces and back-up area along the easterly property line. 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 (water efficient landscaping) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. 4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 5. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, paiiicularly any oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The prope1iy owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of

18 Lands ofkdc Development LLC Deerfield Drive Februa1y 5, 2015 Page 2 of6 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. 6. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall ce1iify in writing and state that "the location of the new residence and roof eaves are a minimum of 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the finished first floor 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. 7. 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 residence complies with the 27'- 0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling 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 "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. 8. 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 prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be painted in confmmance with the approved color(s) prior to final inspection. 9. No fencing is approved with this application. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 10. All hardscape and structures proposed to be removed/relocated shall be done prior to issuance of building permits. n addition, all garbage and debris shall be removed from the subject property and the corner lot and any outstanding code enforcement issues resolved prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the plans. Exterior light fixtures shall have frosted glass, be down lights or utilize fully shielded fixtures. Any additional outdoor lighting shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. 12. 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.

19 Lands of KOC Development LLC Deerfield Drive February 5, 2015 Page 3 of Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 14. At time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance: a. A GreenPoint Rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. 15. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building professional shall provide documentation verifying that the building was constructed in compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED ce1iification. 16. All prope1iies shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. 17. The proposed driveway location shall be moved approximately five feet further west to avoid the drip line of the existing oak tree in the roadway easement. 18. All construction access to the site shall be provided through the adjacent corner lot and shall utilize the existing driveway on Burke Road. ENGNEERNG DEPARTMENT: 19. Peak discharge at Deerfield Drive, as a result of Site Development Permit , shall not exceed the existing pre-development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre-development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a O-year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre-: development value. All documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan

20 Lands of KDC Development LLC Deerfield Drive February 5, 2015 Page 4 of6 copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 20. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system, construction of the energy dissipators, and completion of the grading activities and state that items have been installed and constructed per the approved plans. A stamped and signed letter shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to final inspection. 21. Any and all changes to the approved Grading and Drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access and the back-up area for the garage. 22. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. 23. Two copies of an Erosion and Sediment Control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Depaiiment prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway and any construction access driveway through the corner lot shall be rocked during construction ahd all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 24. Two copies of a Grading and Construction Operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Hillview Road and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Green Waste Recovery, lnc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 25. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.

21 Lands of KDC Development LLC Deerfield Drive February 5, 2015 Page5of6 26. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed prior to final inspection. The maximum driveway width shall be 14 feet within the yard setbacks. 27. The prope1iy owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer hookup permit and a sewer reimbursement fee shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to of start work. 28. The prope1iy owner shall pay a pathway fee of $53.00 per linear foot of the average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. FRE DEPARTMENT: 29. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be installed in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department ( Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 30. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. 31. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and the Standard Detail and Specification S Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination cause by fire protection water supplies. t is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors 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. CONDTON NUMBERS 8, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 28 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SGNED OFF BY THE PLANNNG DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGNEERNG DEPARTMENT PROR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTON PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BULDNG DEPARTMENT. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of the Planning Commission decision. The building permit cam1ot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after March 2, 2015 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.

22 Lands of KDC Development LLC Deerfield Drive February 5, 2015 Page 6 of6 Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. f you believe that these Conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California Govermnent Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby fmiher notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. f you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until February 5, 2016). 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.

23 City Clerk ~ECORDNG REQUESTED BY: DOCUMENT: ( ATTACHMENT ~axes Copies.. Town of Los Altos Hills AMT PAD WHEN RECORDED MAL TO: City Clerk Town of Los Altos Hills Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA REGNA ALCOMENDRAS SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER Recorded at the request of Old Republic Title Company TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HLLS CERTFCATE OF COMPLANCE (Sec California Government Code) RDE # 026 3/13/2014 8:00 AM Owner: KDC Development LLC, a California Limited Liability Company 400 Reed Street, Suite 185 Santa Clara, CA Affected Assessor's Parcel Numbers: Parcel No. 1 APN: Parcel No. 2 APN: This certificate is being issued for two (2) distinct parcels: Parcel 1: APN , and Parcel 2: APN {Government Code Section: (f)(2}} This certificate relates only to issues of compliance or noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. The parcels described herein may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcels may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval. {Government Code Section: (f)(l)(E}}, Cyrus Kianpour, Acting City Surveyor for the Town of Los Altos Hills, do find, declare, and certify that the parcel comprised of APN , also described in Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B", and parcel comprised of APN , also described in Exhibit "C" and shown in Exhibit "D", are in conformance with Section of the California Government Code and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. The documents necessary to accomplish the Certificate of Compliance are attached hereto, and consist of the following named documents: 1} This Certificate 2} Exhibit "A" - Legal description, Parcel No. 1 3} Exhibit "B"- Plat to Accompany Legal Description, Parcel No. 1 4} Exhibit "C" - Legal description, Parcel No. 2 5) Exhibit "D"- Plat to Accompany Legal Description, Parcel No. 2 This Certificate together with the legal descriptions and plats included herewith constitute the Certificate of Compliance approved by the Town of Los Altos Hills in compliance with Section of the California Government Code. kf:~t);,,~~ '1'F' 3 _ 7 -- z ol 1 Date of Approval ---r-.-+--t+---- Cyru Kian ou, Acting City Surveyor Land Surv yor o.7515 ATTEST:{jj)J clp~ License Expire : lS

24 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Santa Clara On March 7, 2014 before me, Deborah L. Padovan, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) Cyrus Kianpour personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~whose name(.:sjcis/ai::~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that h~~ executed the same in his/mntm:lt authorized capacity(.res), and that by his/~n:~l<signaturefs<) on the instrument the person{:s, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~cted, executed the instrument. certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WTNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal)

25 EXHBT "A" LEGAL DESCRPTON FOR THELANDSOFKDCDEVELOPMENTLLC APN: ALL THAT CERTAN REAL PROPERTY, STUATE N THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HLLS, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALFORNA, BENG ALL OF PARCEL NO. 1 AS DESCRBED N THAT CERTAN GRANT DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 11, 2013 AS DOCUMENT NO , SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, MORE PARTCULARLY DESCRBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGNNNG AT Al" RON PPE LOCATED AT THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAD PARCEL NO. 1, SAD PONT ALSO BENG THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL NO. 2 AS DESCRBED N SAD GRANT DEED; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LNE OF SAD PARCEL NO. 1 AND THE EASTERLY LNE OF SAD PARCEL NO. 2 NORTH 30 52'00" EAST, A DSTANCE OF FEET TO A 1" RON PPE AT THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAD PARCEL NO. 1, SAD CORNER ALSO BENG ON THE SOUTHERLYRGHT-OF-WAYLNE OF DEERFELD DRVE (40' WDE); THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LNE OF SAD PARCEL NO. 1 AND THE SOUTHERLY RGHT OF-W A Y LNE OF DEERFELD DRVE SOUTH 77 52'00" EAST, A DSTANCE OF FEET TO A 1" RON PPE AT THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAD PARCEL NO. 1, SAD CORNER ALSO BENG ON THE WESTERLY RGHT-OF-WAY LNE OF BURKE ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LNE OF SAD PARCEL NO. 1 AND THE WESTERLY RGHT-OF W A Y LNE OF BURKE ROAD SOUTH 30 52'00" WEST, A DSTANCE OF FEET TO A 3/4" RON PPE AT THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAD PARCEL NO. 1; THENCE LEA YNG SAD WESTERLY RGHT-OF-WAY LNE, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LNE OF SAD PARCEL NO. 1NORTH77 52'00" WEST, A DSTANCE OF FEET TO THE PONT OF BEGNNNG. CONTANNG 15,102 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. AS SHOWN ON EXHBT "B" MADE A PART HEREOF. PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE SUPERVSON OF: END OF DESCRPTON G:\Correspondence\2013 jobs\ \legal\legal Parcel-] Page 1 of2

26 FOUND 3/4" OPEN RON PPE (BENT) --- SEE DETAL~ 0 ::t ~ ~~~~ ~ = ~ ~ Ml!ltJ if ~~cg rtw j ~ rg <tj ~B g ~ 11/:;:r.. 8!J ~ ~ ~ '- f::' 0)...: t)..::::. ~ - ::: DEERFELD DRVE (40') BASS OF BEARNGS. THE BEARNG S30"52'00"W OF THE WEST LNE OF BURKE ROAD, ESTABLSHED BY N30"52'00"E 0 EXSTNG MONUMENTS, AS DESCRBED N 21.12' N THAT CERTAN GRANT DEED RECORDED AS 7f\ S77"52'00"E.Q) _ '(1) J?lDOCUMENT NO , SANTA CLARA FOUND 1" OPEN RON PPE LANDS OF KDC DEVELOPMENT LLC PARCEL NO. 1 DOC APN: ,102 SQ.FT.± 0.35 ACRES± LEGEND --BOUNDARY PROPERTY LNE EASEMENT LNE PONT OF BEGNNNG FOUND 3/4" FOUND 1" OPEN RON PPE OPEN RON PPE -- - N77"52'00"W(1) '(1)!Lffe\!Nl~~ [F!Nlffe\~ffe\~~fMJifflffe\!Nl!Ql. il~u'il~~il~ A~!N~~~ ~ ~. BAY AREA REGON 2495 NDUS1RAL PKWY \\ ST SACRAMENTO REGON 3017 DOUGLAS BLVD, # 300 HAYWARD, CALFORNA ROSEVLLE, CA (P) (510) (P) (916) (F) (510) (F) (916) FOUND 1" OPEN RON PPE. COUNTY RECORDS WAS USED AS THE BASS OF ALL BEARNGS SHOWN UPON THS PLAT. REFERENCES ~<o ~'f ~ {g ~ {!$ ff E ~ ~ - ~ {(: o ~ ~;"- <J) ~ ":!ft,~ 0.:E.1.8 ~ -~,fl f:j ~ t:q <o SCALE: 1" = 30' (1) DOCUMENT NO EXHBT "B" PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRPTON FOR THE LANDS OF KDC DEVELOPMENT LLC LOS ALTOS HLLS, CALFORNA SANTA CLARA COUNTY APN: PAGE 2 OF 2 JOB :/J DRAWN BY: MH FEBRUARY 2014

27 EXHBT "C" LEGAL DESCRPTON FOR THE LANDS OF KDC DEVELOPMENT LLC APN:l ALL THAT CERTAN REAL PROPERTY, STUATE N THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HLLS, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALFORNA, BENG ALL OF PARCEL NO. 2 AS DESCRBED N THAT CERTAN GRANT DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 11, 2013 AS DOCUMENT NO , SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, MORE PARTCULARLY DESCRBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGNNNG AT Al" RON PPE LOCATED AT THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAD PARCEL NO. 2, SAD PONT ALSO BENG THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL NO. 1 AS DESCRBED N SAD GRANT DEED; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LNE OF SAD PARCEL NO. 2 NORTH 77 52'00" WEST, A DSTANCE OF FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAD PARCEL NO. 2; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LNE OF SAD PARCEL NO. 2 NORTH 30 52'00" EAST, A DSTANCE OF FEET TO THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAD PARCEL NO. 2, SAD PONT ALSO BENG ON THE CENTERLNE OF DEERFELD DRVE ( 40' WDE); THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LNE OF SAD PARCEL NO. 2 AND SAD CENTERLNE OF DEERFELD DRVE SOUTH 70 10'00" EAST, A DSTANCE OF FEET TO A 3/4" RON PPE ATTHE MOST NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAD PARCEL NO. 2; THENCE LEAVNG SAD CENTERLNE ALONG THE EASTERLY LNE OF SAD PARCEL NO. 2 SOUTH 30 52'00" WEST, A DSTANCE OF FEET TO THE PONT OF BEGNNNG. CONTANNG 16,238 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. AS SHOWN ON EXHBT "D" MADE AP ART HEREOF. END OF DESCRPTON PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE SUPERVSON OF: G:\Correspondence\2013 jobs\ \legal\legal Parcel-2 Page 1of2

28 BASS OF BEARNGS THE BEARNG S70i o'oo"e OF THE CENTERLNE OF DEERFELD DRVE, ESTABLSHED BY EXSTNG MONUMENTS, AS DESCRBED N THAT CERTAN GRANT DEED RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO , SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS WAS USED AS THE BASS OF ALL BEARNGS SHOWN UPON THS PLAT. REFERENCES (1) DOCUMENT NO \ --lb:- ~ (1![: i!ji! f 8 ~~ W ~fl J a.. o ;:::-. ' ~,,.,,. ~ (Q.. ~!8 (Q... "' ::l.ij ;:t /ii ~ A ~ & BRAZE ENGNEERNG, NC. BAY AREA REGON 2495 NDUSTRAL PKWY \\ ST SACRAMENTO REGON 3017 DOUGLAS BLVD, # 300 HAYWARD, CALFORNA ROSEVLLE, CA (P) (510) (P) (916) (F) (510) (F) (916) '.'.""\l~ ~ "l- "' o... ''0o fvj 34.2s f?' --- FOUND 3/4" OPEN RON PPE LANDS OF KDC DEVELOPMENT LLC PARCEL NO. 2 DOC GROSS AREA 16,238 SQ.FT.± 0.37 ACRES± NET AREA 14,173 SQ.FT.± 0.33 ACRES± LEGEND BOUNDARY PROPERTY LNE EASEMENT LNE S70~T) - ~3~4'(1) ::: DEERFELD DRJvE (40') sa.99 r ' RGHT-OF-WAY (2 MAPS 38) FOUND 3/4" OPEN RON PPE (BENT 21.12' PPE TO PPE FOUND 1" OPEN RON PPE [L~!ri][Q)~ (Q)[F [){[Q) fi!ll PJffe\~ ~L!NJ " il [Q)(Q) [Q)~%"~!L(Q)PJ[Mi]~!NJu L ~ SCALE: 1" = 30' PONT OF BEGNNNG FOUND 1" OPEN RON PPE N77"52'0o"w(1 ) '(1) --~!Lffe\!NJ[Q)~ F!Nlffe\~ffe\~fi[Mi]ll=Gffe\!Nl [Q)(Q) a '1]~1'\J~@)i]@) EXHBT "D" PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRPTON FOR THE LANDS OF KDC DEVELOPMENT LLC LOS ALTOS HLLS, CAUFORNA SANTA CLARA COUNTY APN: PAGE 2 OF 2 JOB # DRAWN BY: MH FEB RU ARY 2014

29 (b) This article shall provide the sole and exclusive a, ATTACHMENT 5 merger of contiguous parcels. On and after Januar: by local agencies only in accordance with the authority and proce by this article. This exclusive authority does not. howeve agate or limit the authority of a local agency or a subdivider with resp e following procedures within this division: () Lot line adjustments. (2) (3), 1ve, parcel, or final maps which create fewer parcels. [Amended, Chapter 727, Statutes of 1986] f Requirements for parcel merger A local agency 111f.\Y, by ordinance which conforms to and implements the procedures prescribed by this article, provide for the merger of a parcel or unit with a contiguous parcel or unit held by the same owner if any one of the contiguous parcels or units held by the same owner does not conform to standards for minimum parcel size, under the zoning ordinance of the local agency applicable to the parcels or units of land and if all of the following requirements are satisfied: (a) At least one of the affected parcels is undeveloped by any structure for which a building permit was issued or for which a building permit was not required at the time of construction, or is developed only with an accessory structure or accessory structures, or is developed with a single structure, other than an accessory structure, that is also partially sited on a contiguous parcel or unit. (b) With respect to any affected parcel, one or more of the following conditions exists: () Comprises less than square feet in area at the time of the determination of merger. (2) Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of its creation. (3) Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water supply. ( 4) Does not meet slope stability standards. (5) Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access and maneuverability. (6) ts development would create health or safety hazards. (7) s inconsistent with the applicable general plan ancl any applicable specific plan, other than minimum lot size or density standards. The ordinance may establish the standards specified in paragraphs (3) to (7). inclusive, which shall be applicable to parcels to be merged. This subdivision shall not apply if one of the following conditions exist: (A) On or before July l, 198. one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is enforceably restricted open-space Janel pursuant to a contract.

30 <1greement, scenic restriction. or open-space e<1se111ent. us ctcf"ined uncl set forth in Section 421 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (8) On July, one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is timberland as defined in subdivision (!') of Section 5 J 104, or is land devoted to an agricultural use as defined in subclivision (b) of Section (CJ On July one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is located within feet of the site on which an existing commercial mineral resource extraction use is being made, whether or not the extraction is being made pursuant to a use permit issued by the local agency. ( D) On July l one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is located within feet of a future commercial mineral extraction site :'S shown on 1 plan for which a use permit or other permit authorizing commercial mineral resource extraction has been issued by the locul agency. (El Within the coastal zone. as defined in Section of the Public Resources Code, one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of lane! has. prior to July, 1981, been identified or designated as being of insufficient size to support residential development and where the identification or designation has either (i) been included in the land use plan portion of a local coastal program prepared and adopted pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 of the PLtb!ic Resources Code). or (ii) prior to the adoption of a lane\ use plan. been made by formal action of the Culifornia Coastal Commission pursuant to the provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976 in a coastal development permit decision or in an approved lund use plan work program or an approved issue identification on which the preparation of a land use plan pursuant to the provisions of the California Coastal Act is based. For purposes of paragraphs (C) and (D) of this subdivision. "mineral resource extraction" means gas. oil, hydrocarbon. gravel, or sand extraction, geothermal wells. or other similar commercial mining activity. (c) The owner of the affected parcels has been notified of the merger proposal pursuant to Section , and is afforded the opportunity for a hearing pursuant to Section For purposes of this section, when determining whether contiguous parcels are held by the same owner. ownership shall be determined as of the date that notice of intention to determine status is recorded Effective date of mergers [Amended, Chapter 162. Statutes of 1995] A merger of parcels becomes effective when the locul agency causes to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located, a notice of merger specifying the names of the record owners and particularly describing the real property.!amended. Chapter 102. Statutes of 19841

31 YOUNG AND BORLK ARCHTECTS, NCORPORATED ATTACHMENT LYTTON A VE, SUTE 8 PALO ALTO, CA TELEPHONE (650) Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Division Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA Attn: Steve Padovan, Suzanne Avila.FAX (650) WEB Oct. 31, 2014 revised Jan. 15' 20 vr 5 Re: Variance Application Project Description and Findings Deerfield Drive (APN: ) The purpose of this letter is to address the findings for the Variances associated with our application for a new single family residence at the above address. These variance requests are submitted in tandem with our Conditional Use Permit application. Our proposal is for a new single family residence of 3,511 sf, (with basement below) on this 15,655 sf parcel. Upon careful consideration of the property and review of possible options, and based on guidance and feedback from Planning staff and neighbors, we are pleased to present this project for review. n order for a reasonable design to go forward for this property and for this project to be successful, w~ are asking for the following variances to be approved for this proposal: A. To allow the required uncovered parking spaces to be situated in the side yard setback area. Also related to parking, to allow the paving for the required 26 foot backup distance from the side facing garage to encroach as close as 4 feet from the property line. B. To allow the eave overhangs of this residence to encroach between 8 to 12 inches past the side building setback line C. To allow a rear patio on-grade to encroach into the rear yard setback area. D. To allow the Living room fireplace to encroach into the side building setback by 12 inches. E. Approval to allow grading within 10 feet of the property boundary, to correct conditions due to the previous use of the lot in tandem with the adjacent lot. Development of this property is also consistent with the General Plan Goal to ensure that all local housing needs and the Town's fair share of the regional housing needs are met. Towards this Goal, Program #5 looks to continue to facilitate and expedite the development of new residential and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of existing residential units. To suppo1i this position, this proposed project is an in-fill opportunity to increase housing on vacant or under-utilized parcels within the Town limits. As noted in our findings for the Conditional Use Permit, our proposed design will comply with all other Zoning requirements. Specifically, the proposal meets the MDA limit for the site, is below the MFA limit for the home, provides all required on-site parking spaces, and complies with the height limit. We feel that our overall design for this home and site, with meeting the above zoning requirements, and with the allowance granted within the above variances, would result in a successful project. The following findings are presented in support of our variance requests.

32 Re: Variances for lllldeerfield Drive (APN ) Oct. 31, 2014 Finding 1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications; The primary characteristic which limits this property's potential is its size. The site is relatively level, rectangular, buildable, and suited for a single family residence as we have proposed. However, net parcel size is 15,656 sf, and after allowing for the roadway dedication across the Deerfield frontage, that area reduces down to 14,173 sf. A survey of neighboring parcels in the surrounding area reveals an average lot acreage of 0.89 acre (38,764 sf.). This subject property was legally created with a parcel size of acre which is far below average (less than half). The parcel map for this area helps illustrate the disparity in sizes, shown in Figure 1.1. The same required building setback standards will apply, even though this property is well below the average lot size throughout Los Altos Hills. To compare impact due to lot widths, the side yard setbacks for any property in the Town are 30 feet. n an example of a typical sized lot of about an acre anywhere else in the Town (which may be 200 feet wide), the 30 feet setback portions on each side of the property represent only about 30% of the lot width. For our subject lot (which is 101 feet wide), the same 30 foot setbacks on each side represent about 59% of the lot. This disproportionate result of the zoning requirements is a significant limitation on this legally created property, as a direct result of the parcel size. n an additional example to compare the potential area for development, we consider the envelope available within the required building setbacks of 40 feet and 30 feet. This development envelope is where the house, the uncovered parking, patios, pools, and other elements that accompany a home are all required to fit. On a typical acre lot elsewhere in the Town (assuming 200 feet by 215 feet dimensions), the development envelope available within these setbacks would represent about 47% ( 20,300 sf) of the parcel. For our subject lot (approximately 101 feet by 132 feet), after adjusting for the roadway dedication, the development envelope available within these setbacks equals only 19% (2,787 sf). This comparison is shown in Figure 1.2. Based on this factor we ask for variance item A (uncovered parking location), item B (eaves), item C (rear patio), and item D (fireplace). n seeking to design a reasonable home that is proportionate to the site, the area taken up by parking leaves an inadequate amount of space left over for a home that would be anywhere close to the allowable home size per MF A. This proposed project will provide all four required on-site parking spaces per zoning (two covered, plus two more uncovered). Per zoning, all four of these spaces must be located inside the development envelope within the site setbacks. However, given the small lot size and resulting available development envelope, the two-car garage ( 400 sf) plus the two uncovered parking spaces ( 400 sf) together would account for 30% of the area available for the footprint of the home. To allow for the design of a home that is not unreasonably dominated by the parking solution, we ask for the allowance to locate the uncovered parking spaces in the side yard setback (item A). pg.2

33 ~ $. (1:) ~ 1;:; "" 0 '"'t v, ~ >::! '"'t ("l (1:)... :::::. ~ '"'t $. (1:) ~ '"'t <-9. (') ""... ':::! ;::; 5. :::;-.. "" 0 s. ;::: (}Q ~ ("l 0 ::::: ~ ~ '"'t c:; 0 ;::: ~ >i;:: ~ '"'t (') (1:)._ ""!T (1:) yo j,.. C,;\. l \!'!:Y ~ '>l:l 0."7.6C.i".OT l $9.ll. OFFCE TRACT~ 4~05 U7."'.1!l. nt.71,.ftt 1J2'! f2 ' 1ftW 'ij ;' 1.00' 0 F COUNTY ASSESSOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CALFORNA /fl i k ' f ~.Ji TRACT Nll : / W H.0.S;608/23 [@][}[] iur u1.' '\ 12'5\ O.'ft.'!> Ao:;. 0.'9AC. 0 <;:if(..('. ~ ''.;~ -:0<'\ i. ~ Ji.. ~.J!.. i.l ~ r 7T1f n"" np OZ' D"" " "" ~ l'f~~ ittw b '",?.zw/ """"'"'"''""' n _,, nm ~... ~<? ~,,.._ ~ ' 11 f --- l o. 'e't6 AC- -\-,,, HOO 107 ZU.J rto.n J ~..._ f"i "''".{o14 "' Y'... ""'" ~ o.952 AC. GR.!E. ~ 1..!:!. bu ' --- "'" BUR~ WU. L.ANE :+R/wl! 0ax:=:~ ~ ~r.~ '.":' -+=--=.f4~-=-, ~ ~ z to?,..!.h Li» k...., N:.,..,...,,.. DERMODY TRACT LOT 10 OF M. a M. TAAFFE SUB. of.ot 4 TAAF'FE PART 1 N 22 AC. ll 0M1 Aeo 21 45" Jct 01..., m..q. OC!l con. O ro o CD ::i. ::::!:?[g 0... CJ \ ~ tu- ~.\.,. "",oo LA'llREHCE E. STONE - ASSESSCR " """"""'"'--ody. eanp1o11,..;r R. ~ r. Cod-. s.:. m. Ef'f9c:tM ADii Y.cr o:::::i ~ ~ ;_,_,< _,,,.... N E5' o::i -a.j:>. Cl> "' 8'... 0 Cl> fl :n ~ a ~ ');: '"t: z -.J u.. i-'..;, ' ~ ~ 'O qo t.>.>

34 Re: Variances for &'llldeerfield Drive (APN ) Oct.31,2014 r ,, ~LDABL~NVELOF~0,50~ s.:_(41%)j A Typical Acre lot in Los Altos Hills -.. r. _.. _.,,...--i r BULDABLE ENVELOPE, :11e1 5F '(l'l%) J PROJECT PARCEL 14,116 5F - - L "'1. -., _.J Deerfield Drive Figure 1.2 depicting a relative size comparison between the subject parcel versus an average size parcel. Because of the limitation on the available building envelope, we are asking for a variance to allow the roof eaves to encroach 8 inches on the second floor, and 12 inches on the first floor, into the side yard setbacks (item B). n spite of best efforts, the proposed home design is not able achieve the allowable floor area limit set for the property. Multiple factors contribute to this, including the limited area available within the development envelope, the parallelogram shape, allowances to fit basement lightwells, and prioritizing a harmonious balance between the mass of the second floor above the ground floor. A different approach to massing might help achieve the maximum allowable floor area limit, but the result would be a two story block where the second story is about the same size as the first story. The result would have undesirable massing, character and definition. t would not be an appealing design as is the intent of satisfying Finding #2 of the Conditional Development Permit standards. Minor variances can be approved at the staff level for encroachments up to 2 feet into any side setback of less than 150 sf. n this case, only our gable end eaves extend up to 8 inches into the side setbacks, and first floor side eaves up to 12", and do not embody any square feet. f analyzed, the amount of eave that projects into the side setbacks is equivalent to approximately 60 sf. The fireplace as designed also projects about 1 foot and embodies only about 4 sf (item D). An alternative to allowing the variance for the eaves would include eliminating the eaves altogether. A lack of eaves would result in a clumsy design product, and not do the proper justice for its presence among the Deerfield streetscape. For a Colonial inspired home as is proposed to be successful, it deserves to have the accentuated eave forms as is characteristic of this style. Alternatively, reducing the house size to accommodate eaves would also take a toll on the ability to design a functional floor plan with feature and amenity that is enjoyed by other homes in the area. The home is already constrained below the allowable MF A limit, and further reductions reduce the feasibility of the house. pg.4

35 Re: Variances for lll&loeerfield Drive (APN ) Oct. 31, 2014 Finding 2. That upon granting of the Variance, the intent of the purpose of the ordi11a11ce will still be served a11d the recipient of the Variance will not be gra11ted special privileges 11ot enjoyed by other surrounding property owners; The underlying intent ofthis application is to ask for the same right to build a single family residence that is proportionate to the site, and that all other residential properties within the Town also enjoy. On most properties throughout the Town, there is sufficient space on the site to allow the maximum house size to be built, surrounded by various hardscape and amenities built up to the maximum development area, and all proportionate to the site. Due to the limited lot size of this property and the zoning requirements, there is a significant impediment posed to achieving the same level of house size and development area, even in the scale proportionate to the site, unless the above variances can be granted. Uncovered off street parking in the setbacks is a common condition found elsewhere in the Town, to address limitations unique to individual sites. The location of these two proposed uncovered parking spaces would not be an anomaly to the immediate area or elsewhere within the Town. Deerfield Drive contains several properties that are similar in size to this subject property. n a few instances, approval was granted for the uncovered parking in the side or front yards. There would be little or no possibility of any usable backyard patio space to fit adjacent to the home unless a variance is approved for the rear patio encroachment in this application (item C). This is an amenity which is integral to any home in the Town. The large lots and rural character which embody Los Altos Hills, and which are enforced through zoning to preserve the natural environment, also make ideal conditions for enjoying the outdoors around your home at the individual level. t would be extremely challenging for outdoor family enjoyment to occur without even a modest outdoor patio space, such as what we've proposed as a minimum amenity to this single family home. Finding 3. That granti11g the 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; n spite of the small dimensions of this parcel, all of the structural development will still be limited to the center portion of the lot, as is consistent with Town-wide development. This will maintain the large buffer of open space between adjacent residences which is the intent of the zoning ordinance and a key characteristic of the rural feel of the Town. Also, by designing a home that is proportionate in size and scale to the property, it won't create the perception that a structure that is too large for its property is being inappropriately placed at this location. Only non-structural elements will encroach into the setback area (with the exception of the fireplace). With regard to the directly adjacent neighbor at the comer, any negative impacts will be comparable and mutually mitigated. Presently there is an old residence with multiple structures in poor condition. The proposed driveway and parking will sit adjacent to the current detached garage and parking off Deerfield, where additional non-conforming structures are located within the side setback. As part of a future application review, a proposed new home is designed for this adjacent comer parcel, also by our firm. The configuration of this proposed residence would also include a comparable arrangement. Regarding the spaces for the uncovered parking in the side setback area on this project, the space for uncovered parking next door is proposed to be located pg. 5

36 Re: Variances for BllDeerfield Drive (APN ) Oct. 31, 2014 just opposite the common property boundary so the impacts are also mutual and mitigated. The same intentional design solution applies to the orientation of the garage door opening and the backup distance of the driveway. Carefully placed tree screening staggering on each side of the shared fence line will ensure mutual screening of any cars parked in these areas. An alternative solution could orient the garage door to face the street rather than the side yard. The side facing orientation results in a more appealing design, where the pedestrian scale of the porch is featured, rather than being dominated by the two-car garage door which would be half the facade. More significant, the increase in pavement area needed across the frontage would be dramatic, with roughly 40 foot width by 26 foot depth of paved driveway across the front of the house and the adjacent uncovered parking spaces. This inefficient use of hardscape would easily result in the project exceeding the MDA limit, and would be counter to the Town's Development Area Policy which intends to both preserve the rural and natural features and minimize storm runoff and erosion. Finding 4. That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance; The purpose of the proposed development is to create a new single family residence of a quality and amenity that is comparable to its surrounding community. The proposal does not seek to exceed the allowable limits for floor area or development area for this site. The proposal does not seek to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces it is required to provide, a requirement which keeps street parking to its bare minimum throughout the Town. The proposal does not rely on massive grading or land disturbance to place the structure on the site. Without the approval of the above variance items, the strict application of the zoning would not allow for a reasonable home to be designed without significant compromise to its size, amenity, and quality. As stated, development of this property is also consistent with the General Plan Goal position on in-fill housing opportunities on vacant or under-utilized parcels, to ensure local housing needs are met. We feel the proposed design in this application is a carefully planned use of this site, is modest and functional, in proportion to the parcel and neighboring context, and represents a reasonable development solution for this property. While this project is being considered alongside a future proposed residence on the directly adjacent comer lot with similar circumstances and considerations, we ask that this proposed residence be reviewed and considered under its own qualities and merits as a thoughtful and appropriate use for this property. Overall, we feel both proposals are complimentary to each other and the surrounding neighborhood, and will be a great addition to the community of Los Altos Hills. Thank sdpol you for your time and consideration in review of this project. Daniel S. Rhoads Young and Borlik Architects, nc. pg.6

37 SURROUNDNG PROPERTES WTH APPROVED VARANCES ATTACHMENT 7 fl Shoup Park (Los Altos). ~ \, ~ ' f,: ; ' ; { ;.. i.! f ' ~ (_ i : ' \ f [ 1 j -:--~ ~ <-..:.:' "''-i.. '!': Redwood Grove (Los Altos) -" f. / 1209 \ (;", L~~END.. f './. ' PROJECT STE ) / D... PROPERTES WTH VARANCE APPROVALS ''

38 YOUNG AND BORLK ARCHTECTS, NCORPORATED ATTACHMENT LYTTON A VE, SUTE 8 PALO ALTO, CA TELEPHONE (650) FAX (650) WEB Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Division Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA Attn: Steve Padovan, Suzanne Avila Oct. 31, 2014 revised Jan. 15, 20Lk5 Re: Conditional Development Permit (CDP), Project Description and Findings Deerfield Drive (APN: ) The purpose of this letter is to address the Conditional Development Permit application for a new single family residence at the above address. We are additionally applying for associated variance approvals in tandem with this application. Upon careful consideration of the property, and based on feedback and guidance from Planning staff, we m e pleased to present this project for review. ntroduction: Our proposal is for a new 3,511 sf single family residence (3,590 sf MF A allowable), with a 1,400 sf basement. The proposed home is situated on a relatively level lot ( 6% avg. slope) with a Lot Unit Factor (LUF) of The design for the home is inspired by a Colonial farmhouse style architecture. The roof lines are steeper to present more of the roofing material; with second floor eaves dropped down to reduce the second floor plate height appearance and accentuate the dormer elements that present on the front elevation. Finish materials will include painted horizontal siding, double hung windows, and accentuated cornice, corner, and window moulding details, with composition shingle roofing. Findings: A Conditional Development Permit is required for projects such as this where the Lot Unit Factor (LUF) of the parcel is 0.50 or less. n this review, we respectfolly ask ifthe Planning Commission can determine that our proposed single family residence is appropriate for this site, based on the quality of our design and how it fits this particular site and surrounding neighborhood. For this conclusion to be made, the following findings need to be made and accepted as part of the approval. These findings are in support of the carefully presented plans and elevations for this design which accompany this application. 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 other such features as may be required by this chapter; The existing site is relatively level (~6% slope), generally rectangular in shape, and suited for a single family residence as we have proposed. The constrnction will not involve significant

39 Re: CDP for fl'l1 Deerfield Drive (APN ) Oct. 31, 2014 grading or topography alterations. The parcel size is somewhat smaller than the local average, and well below the stated Town policy of minimum one acre parcels. However it is not a lone occurrence in the Town. Specifically, most of Deerfield Drive contains lots of similar size, and most are less than a half-acre and 0.50 LUF so would necessitate a CDP and potentially variances for future redevelopment. The proposed floor area for the strncture is also being limited accordingly to keep the home size proportionate to the property dimensions. The small lot size will eliminate options for large outdoor features such as pools or tennis courts to be a part of this project. However, the project will provide all the required off-street parking spaces, meet the standards for driveway widths and clearances, meet the height limit for the strncture, provide ample outdoor yards and spaces, and will not exceed the MF A and MDA limits set in the zoning ordinance. 2. The size and desig11 of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity, a11d harmonious appeara11ce ill relatio11 to the size, shape, and topography of the site and in relatio11 to the surrounding neighborhood; The proposed residence is 3,565 sf, which represents about 23% as a ratio of floor area to the site area. n a comparison example, on a half-acre lot (21,780 sf) of same slope (less than 10%), for which the LUF would be 0.50 or greater, the allowable home size would be 5,000 sf based on the exception for minimum MFA and not require a CDP. On this half-acre site, this 5,000 sf home would represent about 23% as a ratio, which is an identical proportion to our proposed project. The proposed home size is also in-line with other newly constrncted home development in the immediate area, with lots of similar scale. A cursory review of neighboring homes along Deerfield Drive shows a range of about 2,500 sf to 4,000 sf. This proposed home is in the middle of that range. Despite being limited on floor area to below the Town allowed 5,000 sf minimum MFA, the project will invest in the additional expense and logistics to build a basement. The additional square footage will bring the total home closer to this typical 5,000 sf house size, but this additional square footage will be completely below grade so that the outward appearance of above ground volume stays minimized. The driveway access has been placed to avoid the removal of the oaks along Deerfield. The side facing garage accentuates the architectural style by featuring the architectural elements and minimizing the view of the large garage door opening. t is also the most efficient solution with the least amount of impervious paved surface to serve the garage and the uncovered parking spaces. The location of the uncovered parking spaces and the backup distance will however require a variance approval to achieve this design. Other properties around the Town and in the immediate area have taken this approach as a solution to providing the off street parking where lot constraints prevented otherwise. To mitigate the impact, continuous tree screening vegetation will be planted along the common property line to the right. The proposed finished floor elevation of the residence is set to involve minimal grading to achieve the building pad, the driveway and parking, and the patio space. A balance of small amounts of cut and fill will be employed to keep the profile down lower, as is the intent of the zoning ordinances. The finished floor elevation also allows for the basement to be completely subterranean as defined in the ordinance. pg.2

40 Re: CDP for Ell Deerfield Drive (APN ) Oct. 31, 2014 Overall, the feel of a smaller scale home will be consistent with the smaller size of the lot. n general, this part of the Town is a transition area between the higher density of adjacent Los Altos and the heart of Los Altos Hills. Many homes in this area are of similar smaller scale and appearance, compared to lots deeper within the Town. This reinforces a gradual and graceful transition experience when driving up Burke Road deeper into the Town. The farmhouse style of the home, with lowered second floor eave line and dormer roof elements, minimizes the appearance of the second story to visually reduce the overall impression of size. The texture of the wood siding can feel less "heavy" than other materials (such as a comparable stucco finish). We feel this home will be a nice presence near that comer, which is a nexus of several streets connecting into the greater Town-wide neighborhoods, and be a thoughtful contribution to the streetscape of Deerfield Drive. Figure 2.1 the proposed front elevation of the residence. 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 forms; As much of the existing site character as possible will be preserved with this project. Overall grading will be minimized. Minor amounts of grading will allow modest outdoor patio and yard spaces. All of the large specimen trees will be retained. And aside from some selective removals for driveway connections, most of the trees along the Deerfield Drive frontage will be retained, many of them oaks, also for consistency in presence along the street frontage Since this parcel has been used together with the neighboring property as one contiguous residence, the project will necessitate minor grading within the 10 feet on either side of the property line. With structures and improvements that straddle across the common property line, this action will correct this current non-compliant situation and create grading/drainage pg.3

41 Re: CDP forfll' Deerfield Drive (APN ) Oct. 31, 2014 configurations that comply with the Town standards. A variance approval will be required for this work. 4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development Ordinance; The proposed development complies with MDA and MF A limits calculated for this lot. The project provides all required parking, meets the height limit, and contains the entire structural footprint (including lightwells) within the setbacks. The exception to the setback conformance will be the variance items for elements which don't have a vertical presence. This will include the short eave overhangs, the rear patio on grade, and uncovered parking. The eave overhangs will be limited to 6 inch to12 inch projections, primarily on the side elevations. The outdoor patio only represents the flat surface material on grade outside the rear doors, and is modest in size (only 12 feet deep). Though it will necessitate a variance to fit the uncovered parking spaces due to the limited lot area, the correct number will be provided, and only embody a paved surface area that will be mutually screened between both neighbors, and with a mutual relationship with the uncovered parking spaces and driveway of the home next door. Summary: We feel this proposal is a high quality design, and the best use of the property, and will be a suitable addition to the neighborhood. While this project is being considered with a future proposed residence on the directly adjacent lot with similar circumstances and considerations, we ask that this proposed residence be reviewed and considered under its own qualities and merits as a thoughtful and appropriate use for this property. Thank you for your time and consideration in review of this project. SCJ:2:7o~ Daniel S. Rhoads Young and Borlik Architects, nc. pg.4

42 LANDS OF KOC DEVELOPMENT LLC; Deerfield Drive: ATTACHMENT 9 My husband and are the homeowners of, who have lived in our home for 8 years. We are writing you to respectfully request that you NOT grant the requested variances to the proposed project(s). We believe there are no special circumstances or hardships that support variances for either or both projects. Background Chronology nitially, two residences were being proposed by the developer: Deerfield Drive and Deerfield Drive. These lots of.347 and.359 acres, respectively, are the smallest lots on the street. viewed the proposals for the development with my neighbor, Judy Krakauer (25610 Deerfield Drive) on August 14, We both had significant concerns about the requested variances and suggested to Steve Padovan that the variances and complexity of the project could be easily solved by merging the lots and building one house. We communicated this both verbally and in writing to Steve, who said he would pass our concerns along to the developer. Merging of the lots was also recommended by the Environmental Design Committee. On December 22, 2014, received an from Steve Padovan to inform me that the developer had now rescinded the proposal for Deerfield Drive but planned to go forward with the proposal for Deerfield Drive. On December 31, 2014, Ray Strimaitis, owner of Deerfield Drive, and met with Suzanne Avila to discuss the proposal for Deerfield. We again suggested that the two lots be merged to create one home without the need for variances. We expressed concern about the length of construction for two lots at separate times and the significant inconveniences it creates for the neighborhood. On January 13, 2015 a group of seven concerned neighbors met with the developers, Mr. and Mrs. Kalbali, Daniel Rhodes (architect), and Steve Padovan. We reiterated our request for merging the lots, and in the event that the developer insisted on building two houses we suggested: 1) constructing a shared driveway for both houses, 2) building both houses at the same time to mitigate the construction time and congestion on our narrow street (Deerfield Drive) with only one access, and 3) using the existing driveway on Burke Road for construction parking and entrance. Mr. Kalbali refused to entertain any of our suggestions or address the underlying concerns. Discussion of Proposed Variances Small Lot Size - The requested variances are all associated with setbacks resulting from the maximization of structure size on each of the two lots. The applicant's primary argument to support the need for variances is the small size of the lot(s) compared to the other lots in the neighborhood. This argument is based on the developer's decision not to merge the two small lots which would eliminate the need for variances altogether. This argument is contrary to the city code that states "The purpose of the variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant's own making." By not merging the lots the applicant is making his own problem. We believe applicant has withdrawn the application for the other lot (25520 Deerfield Drive) in an effort to support their arguments for variances based on the small lot size by ensuring that this will be viewed as a standalone project. This new twist of developing only the inner lot now adds further insult to the neighborhood by extending the time frame for construction of the two lots over a multiple year period. Since the applicant

43 refers repeatedly to the adjacent property, and to the grading and demolition that will occur on the adjacent property, both proposals should be evaluated together. This would result in less staff time, less construction time, and significantly less impact on the neighborhood. The application shows a building envelope of 2,787 square feet. Subtracting areas earmarked for uncovered parking (400 sf), driveway backup area (520 sf), fire place (4 sf), eaves (60 sf) and a small patio (50 sf) would result in a building envelope of 1,757 sf, which would be doubled to approximately 3,514 square feet with addition of a second story. By adding the planned basement (1,397 sf) the living space is increased to approximately 4,911 square feet. This would be a very reasonable sized home, larger than all but one of the homes on the street, without requiring any special exceptions or variances, including the special treatment of the eaves. 60 square feet of the eaves encroach as a result of maximizing the size of the structures, an issue created solely by the applicant. Granting the eave variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. Fair Share Housing - The applicant argues that maintaining the two lots assists with the Los Altos Hills regional fair share housing requirements. This statement would be supported if the applicant was to build two modest homes that met all the code requirements. Two brand new homes of a smaller size could be a unique opportunity in the community for first time buyers or existing residents looking to down size. Unfortunately, the applicant is proposing to maximize the size of the home(s), thus creating the need for variance. Similar Privileges - The applicant argues that the small lot size deprives them of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, however no specific privileges in comparison to the neighbors are identified. Structure Design - The proposed structure size is 3566 square feet with the basement being 1,397 square feet which brings the total to almost 5000 square feet, significantly exceeding the average structure size on Deerfield Drive of 3062 square feet and almost double the median structure size of 2707 square feet. The overall design of the proposed house is unattractive. The LAH Guidelines Page 4 Number 6 states "On a visible lot, both the good and bad points for the design of a home tend to show up more obviously than on a more secluded lot. Therefore, it is important when planning a home on an exposed lot, to observe this guidebook more rigorously". Pages 19, 21, and 22 of the Guidebook provide examples of mitigating bulk and mass as compared to the current proposal. o Goal 111-A.1 ncreasing setback may help to mitigate mass and bulk. o Goal V - B.1 Plan for adequate outdoor living when planning your total MDA. o Goal V - B.3 Plan for the required four off street parking places. There is a pattern of inconsistent, missing and misleading information in the Building Plan: o On the Certificate of Conformance "Exhibit D", the eastern property line is inconsistent with that of the topographic map. This is a discrepancy that needs to be clarified. o On the garage floor plan of the proposal, the oval window details on first floor is not shown. This also needs to be clarified. The first floor rear elevation mud room window is also not shown. o There is no Arborist Report in the file. o There is no History Report in the file.