HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.3Item 3.3
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 4, 2009
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MAJOR ADDITION AND REMODEL TO THE
MAIN RESIDENCE, AND AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (POOL CABANA) WITH A
BASEMENT GARAGE; LANDS OF EATON; 12791 WEST SUNSET DRIVE; FILE
#73-09-ZP-SD-GD
FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director a-0
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the addition, remodel, and accessory
structure, and the Grading Policy exception for the pool cabana, subject to the recommended
Conditions of Approval in Attachment 1 and Findings of Approval in Attachment 2.
The subject property is one of two properties at the end of West Sunset Drive. The surrounding
uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the west, east, north, and south. The
applicant proposes to construct a new two story addition with basement, interior remodel and
new pool cabana with a basement garage.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
As required by Section 10-2.301 (c) of the Municipal Code, this application for an addition and
Grading Policy exception has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The
Zoning and Site Development sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate proposed
projects including floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height, setbacks,
visibility, and parking requirements.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area:
1.32 acres
Net Lot Area:
1.11 acres
Average Slope:
24.3%
Lot Unit Factor
0.77
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 2 of 12
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area (sgjt) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining
Development 9,242* 9,736 9,242 -494 0
Floor 5,000 4,077 5,000 923 0
(House basement: 774, cabana basement: 483)
*legal non-conforming MDA per Town records
Site and Architecture
The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a 923 square foot
two story addition and a 774 square foot basement to the main residence. In addition the
applicant is proposing and a 520 square foot pool cabana with a 483 square foot basement
garage.
The existing residence is located primarily on a cut and fill building pad. There is a moderately
sloping hillside at the east side of the property. The average slope of the property is 24.3%.
Currently the existing residence extends into the side yard setbacks, the applicant is proposing to
remove the portion of the house that encroaches into the setback. Due to the unique shape of the
lot and the siting of the existing house on the property portions of the new eaves are proposed to
encroach into the setbacks by up to 4'. Per Section 10-1.505 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal
Code, "for additions, remodels and new construction on properties where the options for siting of
structures are substantially constrained by existing natural features of the lot (e.g., steep slopes,
significant natural water courses, unusual lot configurations or size, mature oak trees, earthquake
fault zones, or native vegetation) or by dedicated conservation, open space, or access easements,
eaves may extend into any front, side, or rear yard not more than four (4) feet."
Property
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 3 of 12
The proposed additions meet the setback, height, floor area, and development area requirements
established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.
The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 26' and the maximum overall height of the
building (including chimneys and appurtenances) from the lowest point to the highest point is
32'. Proposed exterior materials consist of composite wood paneling and cement plaster siding,
aluminum windows and doors, and a flat roof.
The new basement level of the residence has 774 square feet of living area. The basement is
wholly underground and exempt from floor area calculations pursuant to Section 10-1.208 of the
Municipal Code.
The first floor of the house has 2,650 square feet of living space with a living room, kitchen,
dining room, family room, and two bedrooms.
The second floor has 574 square feet of living space with a bedroom and study. The applicant is
proposing to add 800 square feet to this level to create two (2) additional bedrooms and a master
suite.
The new detached accessory structure will include 520 square feet of pool cabana, with a 483
square foot basement two (2) car garage.
Driveway & Parking
The property is accessed from a shared driveway easement off of West Sunset Drive. 2,667
square feet of the existing driveway will be removed and replaced with grasscrete. The property
currently has two (2) parking spaces located outside of the property line setbacks.
Pursuant to Section 10-1.601 of the Municipal Code, a total of four (4) parking spaces are
required. There is currently a two car garage at the main residence and the applicant is proposing
a new two car basement garage under the pool cabana to bring the property into conformance
with the Town's parking requirements.
Grading Policy Exception
Total grading quantities for this project include 720 cubic yards of cut for the house, basement,
and pool house with basement The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed grading
plan for the pool house and concluded that it is not in conformance with the Town's Grading
Policy.
The applicant is proposing up to 7'6" of cut for the pool cabana where 4' is allowed for accessory
structures.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 4 of 12
With the proposed cut, the applicant will be able to add the required two (2) additional parking
spaces located outside of the property line setbacks and lower the profile of the accessory
structure. There will be minimal removal of vegetation and alteration to the drainage patterns.
Outdoor Lightin
The applicant is proposing shielded downlights located on the exterior of the residence. Staff has
included condition #10, requiring that fixtures be down shielded or frosted glass, low wattage,
and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted lighting
specifications indicating that all proposed fixtures will be shielded, downlights or have frosted
glass.
Trees & Landscaoine
The existing landscaping consists of a variety of trees including heritage oaks and pines. There
are four (4) trees proposed for removal with this application including a cypress, juniper, fir, and
pine tree.
A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after framing of the new addition
and pool cabana. (Condition of approval #3) Furthermore, any landscaping required for screening
or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection, and a maintenance
deposit to ensure viability of plantings will be collected prior to final inspection.
Drainage
Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected in a 4" storm drain pipe
around the perimeter of the property and carried into a bubbler on the west side of the cabana.
There are two (2) additional 4" storm drain pipes which then discharge onto the grasscrete
driveway. Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code,
the Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design
complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Department will review and approve the
final drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as -built' grading
and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies will be
required to be coarected prior to final inspection.
Neighbor Concerns
To date, staff received correspondence from two (2) neighbors in support of the proposed project.
(Attachments 7 & 8)
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 5 of 12
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring a sprinkler
system throughout all portions of the residence and accessory building, and a fire truck
turnaround. (Attachment 3)
Geotechnical Review
The Town's geotechnical consultant Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc. has reviewed the soil and
foundation report prepared by Romig Engineers dated June 23, 2008 and recommends approval
of the project based on conditions 14 a & b. (Attachment 4)
Committee Review
The Pathway Committee recommends dedication of a pathway easement with a "minimum width
of 5' and sufficient additional width to preserve the existing pedestrian -only path on the west side
of the property." The Town's Engineering Department recommends that the condition be revised
so the width of the pathway easement is the Town's standard easement width of 10'. A 10'
pathway easement is necessary to accommodate a 5' path and adequate clearance on either side.
The 10' pathway easement request is consistent with all other pathway easements throughout
Town. (Condition #21)
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented on including the standard
skylight condition. (Attachment 6)
CEOA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Findings of Approval for Grading Policy Exception
3. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated May 13, 2009
4. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates dated April 7, 2009
5. Recommendations from the Pathways Committee dated April 27, 2009 and Extract of
Minutes from Special Meeting March 8, 2005
6. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated May 1, 2009
7. Email from Kenneth Manrao dated May 14, 2009
8. Email from Tim Koogle & Pat Scott dated May 27, 2009
9. Grading Policy
10. Worksheet 42
11. Development plans: site, topographic, grading & drainage, floor, elevation, section, and roof
Staff Report to the Planning Commission Attachment I
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 6 of 12
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR AN ADDITION INTERIOR REMODEL, AND POOL CABANA
LANDS OF EATON, 12791 WEST SUNSET DRIVE
File # 73-09-ZP-SD-GD
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
I . No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission,
depending on the scope of the changes.
2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River
Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E.
melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property
located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to 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 detemrination that there are no active nests
within the tree.
After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a
final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion
control plans for review by the Site Development Committee. The application for
landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable
fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing.
Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view
of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping
required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City
Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence.
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. The 2,667 square feet of grasscrete shall be installed per the approved plans, prior
to final inspection.
Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly the
heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 7 of 12
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 property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in
advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of
construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within
the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and
retained throughout the entire construction period.
Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the
addition, roof eaves (eaves may encroach into the side yard setbacks by up to 4'
as shown on the site plan) and cabana are no less than 40' from the front
property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the
addition and cabana shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the
elevation of the new residence and cabana 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
foundation inspection and prior to final inspection.
8. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new
residence and cabana complies with the 27' 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 framing inspection and prior to final inspection.
9. No new fencing is approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and
approval by the Planning Department prior to installation.
10. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the floor plans and site plan. Light
fixtures shall have frosted glass or be down lights. No lighting may be placed
within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor
lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 8 of 12
11. 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.
12. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
13. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District
or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to 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.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
14. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated April
7, 2009, the applicant shall comply with the following:
Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall
review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and
grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage
improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and
driveways) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly
incorporated. The consultant shall evaluate any proposed drainage
modifications and new drainage discharge structures associated with the
proposed project.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical
consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior
to acceptance ofplans far building plan check.
b. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant shall inspect,
test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be
limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining
walls and pool prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project
shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted
to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 9 of 12
For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the
letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., dated April 7, 2009.
15. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed as
surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. The proposed
drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns. Final drainage
and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any
deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to
final inspection. A final letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating
that the site drainage was constructed in conformance with the approved plans and
recommendations prior to final inspection.
16. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall first be
approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place
during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior
approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of
any property line.
17. 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 66=8
months.
18. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all
appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and
erosion/sediment control. 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.
19. 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
20. 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 Sunset Drive West and
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 10 of 12
surrounding roadways; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary
facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and puking for construction
personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of
construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste
Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and
no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
21. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement to the Town
along the common property line with 12950 Robleda Road. The property owner
shall provide legal description and plat exhibits prepared by a registered civil
engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication
document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be
signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to
acceptance ofplans for building plan check
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT:
22. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County
Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans
prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire
Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval.
The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final
inspection and occupancy of the residence and accessory building.
23. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway
turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside.
24. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road
fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background
CONDITION NUMBERS 13,14 a, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND
SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN
CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of this notice.
The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may
submit construction plans to the Building Department after June 26, 2009 provided the applicant
has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page I1 of 12
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 June 4,
2010). 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.
Attachment 2
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Lands of Eaton
12791 West Sunset Drive
June 4, 2009
Page 12 of 12
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR THE POOL CABANA BASEMENT GARAGE
LANDS OF EATON, 12791 WEST SUNSET DRIVE
FILE # 73-09-ZP-SD-GD
1. The proposed grading is consistent with Section 10-2.702.c of the Los Altos Hills
Municipal Code, the proposed grading will help lower the profile of the structure and
render it less visible from off-site.
2. The proposed grading will not result in the placement of retaining walls that are highly
visible from off-site.
3. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation or
alteration of existing drainage patterns.
4. The Grading Policy emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or
foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. The proposed sunken
garage requires no fill.
ICEIVEL Attachment 3
,gPoaoo0 FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY MAY t 8 20C..
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1MOFLOSALTOSWLLS
(408) 3784010 • (408) 378-9342 (tax) • wwm.sccfd.o
M:rcv
PUN REVEW NUMBER 09 1172
11 PERMrt NUMBER
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS FILENUMBER 73-09-ZP-SD-GD
COOFSEC.
CPC Sec.
508.3, per
Appendix B
CFC Sec.
903.2, as
adopted
and
amended
by LAHMC
SHEET
REQUIREMENT
Design review of a proposed new detached 970 square foot two-story pool house
with the attached garage on the lower level. A 1146 square foot addition is
proposed for the existing 3,745 square foot single-family house with attached
iew of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access
water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be
Arued as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with
?ted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make
lication to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
Itruction permits.
uired Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual
;sure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire
rant(s) which are not spaced at the required spacing.
Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinklers are required in all new
and existing modified buildings when gross floor area exceeds 3,600 square feet or
that are 3 or more stories in height. Exception:One-time additions to existing
buildings made after 01 / 01 /2008 that do not exceed 500 gross square feet. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in all new structures located in the
designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. Exception: Any non -habitable accessory
structures to single family residences that have gross floor area of 500 square feet
or less. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing
buildings located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface areas when
modifications are made that increases the gross floor area. A State of California
licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a
completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for
Ce, PUNS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
OCCUPANCY
CONST. TYPE
AWI"MNam
OPTE
PAGE
LAH N ❑ ❑ ® ❑
R -3,U
V -B
JACKSON + COHORTS
5/13/2009
1 DP 2
SEChLOOR
AREA
LOAD
DESCRIPTXIH
RY
2story +bsmt
see plans
Residential Development
Harding, Doug
NAME OF PPOJECT
LOCATION
SFR - EATON
12791 Sunset Drive West
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Semmg Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, las Altos,
Ins Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
FIRE DEPARTMENT •fECEIVED
m SANTA CLARA COUNTY MAY is 209 1
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 „
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (far) • u .sccfd.org( "OF LOS ALTOS FALLS ale Lowy x...mllm
Me�v
PUN REVIEW NUMBER 09 1172
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS BLDG PERMn NUMBER
FILE HUMBER
CODMEC. I SHEET
FC Sec.
FC Sec.
REQUIREMENT
and approval prior to beginning their work.
D -GD
Prre Department (Engine) Driveway Tum -around Required- Provide an
approved fire department engine driveway tumaround with a minimum radius of
36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department
Standard Details and Specifications D-1. See Page C1.1 of plans. NOTE: Easement for
access is documented as being non-standard and cannot be modified to comply with our
Standard D-1.
9 Premises Identification: 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
To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental
Review Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan
submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan
.AH ® ❑ ❑®❑ I R-3, U I V -B
story +bsmt I see plans
SFR -EATON
JACKSON + COHORTS
Residential Development
12791 Sunset Drive West
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
&aging Santa Clam County and the communitiea of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hllls, Los Gtos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Samloga
5/13/2009 12—op 2
Harding, Doug
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TO: Nicole Horvitz
Planning Department
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review
RE: Eaton, Major Addition
#73-09-ZP-SD-GD
12791 Sunset Drive West
RECEIVED
PPR 0 J 2009
Attachment 4
April 7, 2009
L0228A
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
At your request, we have completed geotechnical peer review of the subject
application using:
Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Romig Engineers
Inc, dated June 23, 2008; and
Architectural Plans (15 sheets, various scales) prepared by Jackson
+ Cohorts Architects, latest revision dated April 3, 2009.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent maps from our office files.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced documents indicates that the applicant proposes to
demolish the southernmost wing of the existing residence and construct a new addition
that respects current properly line setbacks. We understand that the new addition will
include a basement. We also understand that the proposed project will result in a net
increase of floor area of approximately 920 square feet.
In our previous geotechnical peer review regarding the subject property, we
evaluated proposed construction of a garage and pool house in the area west of the
existing residence.
SITE CONDITIONS
Based on our previous site inspection, we concluded that the existing residence
is located on a pad cut into the central portion of the property with a fill prism
extending along the northeastern side of the house, under the northern side of the pool
NortRem California Office
330 Village Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95030-1218
(408) 3545542 • Fax (408) 3541852
rmad losgamsgcottonshirea.com
www.cottonshires.com
Central California office
6417 Dogtown Road
San Andmas, CA 95249-9690
(209)736-4252 • Fax (2W) 736-1212
e -math. cottonshiresgstarbsnd.net
Nicole Horvitz April 7, 2009
Page 2 L0228A
and under the northern side of the driveway. Natural drainage at the site is
characterized by sheetflow downhill to the northeast.
The Town Geologic Map indicates that the site is underlain, at depth by bedrock
of the Santa Clara Formation. (semi -consolidated to consolidated, conglomerate
interbedded with poorly sorted sandstone, siltstone, and claystone). The Project
Geotechnical Consultant has determined that bedrock is locally overlain by up to 4 feet
of surficial material (i.e. colluvium and artificial fill). The subject property is located
approximately 0.4 miles northeast of the mapped Monta Vista fault.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed improvements are constrained. by potentially expansive earth
materials and the susceptibility of the site to violent seismic ground shaking. Based on
our review of the referenced documents, it appears that the Project Geotechnical
Consultant has adequately characterized the site geotechnical conditions and provided
recommendations that in general, appear appropriate for the proposed construction. We
do not have geotechnical objections to the proposed site development layout or
recommended geotechnical design criteria.
Consequently, we recommend geotechnical approval of the subject permit
application with the following conditions:
Geotechnical Plan Review — The applicant's geotechnical
consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and
grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The
consultant should evaluate any proposed drainage modifications
and new drainage discharge structures associated with the
proposed project.
The results of the pian review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer along with other documentation for building permit
plan -check.
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection — The geotechnical consultant
should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical
aspects of the project construction. The inspections should
include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and
grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and
excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the
placement of steel and concrete.
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Nicole Horvitz
Page 3
April 7, 2009
L0228A
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the
project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a
letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to
final (granting of occupancy) project approval.
LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to
assist the Town with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to
review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our
opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles
and practices of the geotechrdcal profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other
warranties, either expressed or implied.
TS:DTS:kd
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
�a�Y
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
%
David T. Schrfer
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2334
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Attachment 5
Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee DRAFT
Minutes of Meeting April 27, 2009
1. ADMINISTRATIVE
Chairman Nick Dunckel called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM
Members present: Anna Brunzell, Courtenay Corrigan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe,
Eileen Gibbons, Bill Silver, Bob Stutz, Tim Warner, Sue Welch
Members absent: Chris Vargas
Associate Members absent: Nancy Ginzton
Council Members present; Ginger Summit
Members of the public present: Donna Sylvanovich
George Levin, 12791 W. Sunset
Susan Levin, 12791 W. Sunset
Tom Klope, landscape architect for 13310 La Paloma
Brian S. Krough, assistant to Tom Klope
Bennett Gates, 25400 La Rena
Joan Gates, 25400 La Rena
The agenda was approved as amended below.
2. NEW BUSINESS
A. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations:
i. 12791 W Sunset (Lands of ???). The reason for pathway review is construction of a major
addition. The property is at the end of W. Sunset, which is a private road without public
access. A well -used footpath already exists on the property parallel to the road and
running up past the water tower and connecting to La Rena. La Rena has public access in
the roadway. This off-road pathway is on the Master Path Plan (MPP) approved by City
Council in 2005 and is part of a potential loop route in the area. Routes in this area
generated a large amount of discussion during the MPP review. Chairman Dunckel
reviewed an extract of minutes from the March 8, 2005 City Council meeting discussing
these paths. The recommendation was to retain the existing informal paths for future
formal pathways and because W. Sunset is a private road without public access, the
paths would not be published or identified on any maps until W. Sunset becomes a
public road. It was also noted that because of its narrow, winding topography, W. Sunset
should be marked as pedestrian only.
The Levins were present representing the owners. They requested that the pathway
easement be limited to 2.5 feet wide because of thew concerns about privacy for their
pool area. They said that few people use the path.
Bennett Gates (25400 La Rena) reported that the only access for this path route off La
Rena is up his driveway, which is steep asphalt and does not proved suitable footing for
horses. He does not object to foot traffic but does consider the route unsafe for
equestrians or bicycles.
Councilmember Ginger Summit reported that the Town had agreed in past discussions
with neighbors that this pathway would be pedestrian only and would be posted as
such.
The required width of the easement was discussed at length. There is concern that a
narrow easement will not provide sufficient room to lay a suitable pathway around trees
in the area, especially because the location of the existing pathway relative to the
property line is not known. There were also concerns that a wider path would pass too
close to the pool house. Bill Silver moved that the Town request on 12791 W. Sunset a
pathway easement with a minimum width of three feet and with sufficient additional
width to preserve the existing pedestrian -only path on the west side of the property.
Courtenay Corrigan seconded. Nick Dunckel amended the motion to require a
minimum width of five feet to allow the Town more room to lay the route. Ann Lowe
seconded. The vote was 4 in favor, 5 opposed and the amended motion failed. A vote
was taken on Bill Silver's original motion (3 feet minimum width) and the vote was 6
in favor, 3 opposed.
13310 La Paloma (Lands of Evershine). The reason for pathway review is a new
residence. There was confusion as to which parcel was to be reviewed. Saturday, April
23, Tom Klope, the landscape architect for the 13310 La Paloma projects, led the PWC
along the off-road pathway route on the western border of the parcels (lots A and C).
Apparently this was not the lot that Town planning staff had asked the PWC to review.
The PWC was to have reviewed the lot on the opposite side of the drive along La Paloma.
Because the committee did not formally review that site, no action could be taken.
Tom Klope presented drawings and photos of the path along the west side of the other
properties (lots A and C, which the PWC walked on Saturday) and requested that the
owners be permitted to construct a native path rather than a IIB path as requested earlier.
(This easement has already been formally dedicated.) Klope argued that the steep
topography on the La Paloma side would require extensive cut -and -fill, retaining walls,
and other construction. The access from La Paloma is steep and will require steps. In
addition, other off-road paths in the area are native paths. Town Engineer, John Chau has
expressed concerns about a native path here because native paths generally do not hold
up as well as IIB paths and the Town has the onus of continued maintenance. Chau
believes that even a native path would require retaining walls here. Pros and cons of a
native versus a IIB path in this location were discussed. Ann Duwe moved that the
Town ask for a native path on the existing easement on 13310 La Paloma on lots A and
C; that the entrance from La Paloma be constructed to provide horse and pedestrian
access; and that an on -mad IIB pathway be constructed along La Paloma. Bill Silver
seconded. The vote was 8 in favor,1 opposed.
iii. 28368 Christopher's Lane (land of Wong) The reason for pathway review is the addition
of a second unit. The property is on the south side of Christopher's Lane where the road
makes a right-angle turn to the north. There are six properties between 28386 and the end
the cul-de-sac. The street is relatively wide with good sight -distance. Roadside pathways
exist on several other properties on the street. The roadside MPP map shows that this
property is on the side preferred for a roadside path. Although a roadside path is not
critical here, the consensus is that for consistency an easement should be requested. Anna
Bronzell moved that the Town ask the owners of 28368 Christopher's Lane to construct
a IIB pathway along Christopher's Lane. XX seconded. The vote was 8 in favor,1
abstention.
Extract of Minutes from Special Meeting of Town Council March 8, 2005
SECTION (Study Zane) 12
Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair, introduced this Section. Two areas in this segment had
generated the most discussion: 1) EastfWest Sunset connection and West Sunset to La Rena
connection (C2.3 and C2.8). Vargas noted that the design goal was to allow a downtown
access to Dianne Drive and La Rena. Both C2.3 and C2.8 currently exist as foot paths and
were deemed walkable and practical by the Pathways Committee. They recommended
retaining the informal paths for future paths but because West Sunset was 12 City Council a
private road without public access, the paths would not be published nor identified as
walking paths on any map until such time as it West Sunset became a public road. Vargas
added that West Sunset, because of it's curvy, winding topography, should be marked as a
pedestrian only path. 2) C2.11a and C2.11b with the design goal to connect La Paloma to
Robleda. The Pathways Committee had recommended to remove the path (shown in red) that
bisected the property and to relocate it to the boundary of the property (shown in purple).
Vargas noted that the Planning Commission had concurred with the Committees
recommendation.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Jones supported the Pathways and Planning Commission's recommendations
for Section (Study Zone) 12 and would not publicly identify the Sunset path until such time
as the road became public and then as a "pedestrian only" path.
Councilmember Mordo concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendations with
two exceptions: 1) he would retain the two blue arrows to preserve the right for a path if there
was a future subdivision and 2) he would direct the Pathways Committee to seek a
connection to Atherton Court in -lieu of C2.1 lb.
Mayor Pro Tem Ken spoke in favor of directing the Pathways Committee to study a
connection between Dianne and East Sunset.
Mayor O'Malley supported the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission's
recommendations for Section (Study Zone) 12. He concurred with the suggestion that the
Pathways Committee investigate a possible "swap" of easements with the property owner on
C2.1 lb.
Councilmember Warsbawsky supported the Pathways Committee and Planning
Commission's recommendations for this segment and directing the Pathways Committee to
review the connection from East Sunset to Dianne Drive and the potential connection through
Atherton Court versus C2.I lb
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Warshawsky and
passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation
for Section (Study Zone) 12.
AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember
Mordo and Councilmember Warsbawsky
NOES: None
Extract of Minutes from Special Meeting of Town Council March 8, 2005
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
,i/ /
Attachment 6
5 "viromnental Design and Protection Com7e MUND i
New Residence/Remodel Evaluation MAY O 1 LUM
Reviewed by: l—P<dL-�ys, PWNOFLOSALT4j,j,1IS
Applicant
Creeks, drainage, easements:
Existing Vegetation:
Significant issues/comments: —_
Attachment 7
From: KENNETH MANRAO [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:47 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: BROOK EATON
Subject: BROOK AND CINDY EATON - REMODEL PROJECT
Dear Debbie,
We are neighbors of Brook and Cindy Eaton. We live on the end of East Sunset(
) and directly border the Eaton's to their east.
We just wanted to write to express our support for their remodel project. The
Eaton's project will bring fresh landscaping and new design into our '30s
neighborhood.
Feel free to express our sentiments at the upcoming planning commission meeting in
June.
EATONS ARE GREAT NEIGHBOURS .
Regards,
KEN MANRAO . HOME :
Attachment 8
Nicole Horvitz
From: Pam Scott [
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 4:28 PM
To: Debbie Pedro; Nicole Horvitz
Subject: Letter of Support for Eaton Remodel
Debbie + Nicole,
We're writing to voice our support for the remodel plans Brook and Cindy Eaton have for their property
on East Sunset. I'm sure when you review their concept carefully you'll see that it is in keeping with the
neighborhood and will only serve to improve the general look and feel of this hilltop that many of us
call home. We hope you will consider prompt approval of their plans as we're looking forward to
progress being made. Although we won't be at the next planning commission meeting, we hope these
sentiments will be fairly represented.
If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks very much.
Pam Scott + Tim Koogle
5/28/2009
Attachment 9
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS WSAMSM
26379 Fremont Road ��
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
M
vv r .losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA
Grading Policy
Approved by City Council — 4/2/97
Code Sections:
Section 10-2.7020 of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "The amount of grading,
excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless
grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings." Section 10-2.703(a) requires: "Type 11
foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be
used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)."
Intent:
The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction
retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It is
also intended that the policy provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides,
and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to
raise the profile of the structure. While balanced cut and fill is desirable to minimize import or
export of soil, to or from a site, it is recognized that the Town's policies and the guidelines below
may encourage export as cut is generally preferred over fill.
These policies are intended to be used by staff in evaluation and making recommendations to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council regarding site development applications, and as
guidance for applicants. Individual sites may dictate a need to deviate from the criteria, to the
extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
Grading Policy
Page 2
Policy:
1. Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and
contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary
to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step
down" the hill*:
Cut Fill
House
8'**
3'
Accessory Bldg.
4'
3'
Tennis Court
6'
3'
Pool
4'***
3'
Driveways
4'
3'
Other (decks, yards)
4'
3'
* Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence
should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill maybe
permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet.
** Excludes basements meeting Code definition.
*** Excludes excavation for pool.
2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in
excess of three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the
slope.
3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8) for the portion of the
driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a
similar amount of cut.
4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above
for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage
purposes, as determined by the City Engineer.
Attachment 10
MNr u a CUU9
OS ALTOS HILLS
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
�/REAon4jse.ills,
G DEPARTMENT
California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 •FAX (650) 941-3160
1
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CALCULATED BY
1. UL V ELVYNIEIN'I AREA Existing
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
A. House and Garage (from Pan 3. A.)
B. Decking 3�/J
C. Driveway and Parking
(Measured 100' along centerline) �
D. Patios and Walkways
E. Tennis Court
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory Buildings (from Pan B)
H. Any other coverage
TOTALS �3
7500 ¢>er mvtq
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (from Worksheet #I)
2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing
(SQUARE FOOTAGE)
TOTALS
3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing
A. House and Garage
a.
I st Floor
b.
2nd Floor
C.
Attic and Basement
d.
Garage
B. Accessory Buildings
a.
Ist Floor
b.
2nd Floor
C.
Attic and Basement
TOTALS
Proposed Total
(Addifions/Delefionu
Proposed Total P`� w/5
7k+i=d
#¢/10
Proposed
(Additions/Deletions)
Total
Maximum Floor Area Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1)
TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY DATE