Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 3, 2012 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: A REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, A SINGLE STORY DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT WITH A BASEMENT, AND THE REMOVAL OF ONE (1) HERITAGE OAK TREE.; LANDS OF MORGAN; 13209 WEST SUNSET DRIVE; FILE #59-1,1-ZP-SD-GD (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 3, 2012 FAST TRACK HEARING) FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Plannevl /W APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for a new residence with a basement, detached secondary dwelling unit with a basement, and the removal of one (1) heritage oak tree, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND The subject property is located at the southern side of West Sunset Drive. There is currently a 1,812 square foot two story residence and garage built in 1938. The property has a moderate steep to steep east to southeast facing slope. The surrounding uses include one and two story single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the east, south, and across West Sunset Drive to the north and west. The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to demolish the existing house and construct a 3,885 square foot two story residence with 'a 2,143 square foot basement (which includes an 858 square foot daylighted basement garage), and a 999 square foot single story detached second unit with a 999 square foot basement. CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed project was scheduled for a Fast Section 10-2.1306 of the Municipal Code, this forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 1.03 acres Net Lot Area: .84 acres Track hearing on April 3, 2012. Pursuant to application for a new residence has been Item 3.4 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 2 of 12 Average Slope: 22% Lot Unit Factor: .62 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sq.ft) Maximum * Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 8,000* 5,403 7,802 2,399 198 Floor 5,000 1,862 4,884 3,022 116 (Basement 3,142) *includes 500 sq. ft. solar bonus per Section 10-1.502 of the LAHMC Site and Architecture The proposed project meets 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 new residence is located a minimum of 43' from the north (front) property line, 190' from the east (side) property line, 40' from the south (rear) property line, and 65' from the west (side) property line. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 24'6" and the maximum overall height of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) from the lowest point to the highest point is 33'. Proposed exterior materials consist of a stucco exterior with stone veneer, clay tile roof, and balconies with wrought iron railings. The basement level of the new residence has 2,143 square feet of area which includes a three car garage, laundry room, mud room, recreation room, a wet bar, wine cellar, mechanical room, and bathroom. The basement is wholly underground (except from the daylighted garage) and exempt from floor area calculations pursuant to Section 10-1.202 of the Municipal Code. The main level has 2,463 square feet of living space with a foyer, living room, gallery, office, guest bedroom, family room, dining room, kitchen, and breakfast nook. The second floor has 1,422 square feet of living area which includes the master suite, and two (2) bedrooms with bathrooms. The detached secondary dwelling unit is located 70' east of the main residence has 999 square feet of living area with a 999 square feet basement, and consists of a living room, dining room, kitchen, two (2) bedrooms, one car garage, recreation room, laundry room, and mechanical room. The single story building is 16' tall. Driveway & Parking The existing driveway will be removed and replaced with a new 14' wide driveway 45' east of the current location. Pursuant to Section 10-1.601 of the Municipal Code, a total of five (5) parking spaces are required because the application includes a secondary dwelling unit. The basement garage can Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 3 of 12 accommodate three (3) cars, one (1) garage space with the second unit, and one (1) exterior parking space is proposed at the front of the residence. Outdoor Lighting The applicant is proposing eighteen (18) shielded/down lights located on the exterior of the residence and eight (8) shielded/down lights on the secondary dwelling unit. Staff has included condition #11 for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be down shielded or have 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 either shielded, downlights, or have frosted glass. Trees & Landscaping One (1) heritage oak tree (26.4" in diameter) is proposed to be removed within the vicinity of the new backup area adjacent to the basement garage. Per the arborist report (Attachment 3) this tree is in fair condition and has a structural defect that increases failure potential. Condition of approval #7 requires that the applicant replace this tree at a 3:1 ratio of 24" box oaks. In addition to the oak tree, two (2) fruit trees, two (2) walnut trees, an olive tree, pine tree, and palm tree are proposed to be removed. A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after framing of the new residence (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 and carried in 2-30" PVC pipes and slowly metered into a detention system along the north property line outside of the property line setbacks. 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 corrected prior to final inspection. Neighbor Concerns On March 18, 2011, the application for the new residence and secondary dwelling unit was submitted to the Town for review. In November of 2011, after the story poles were erected in preparation of the Fast Track hearing, the neighbors voiced their concerns regarding views, bulk, and siting. Once the applicant was made aware of the neighbors' objections, he requested to delay the hearing so he could work with the neighbors and address their concerns. After talking Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 4 of 12 with the neighbors, the applicant voluntarily revised the plans to lower the roofline of the house by two (2) feet. This was accomplished by reducing the plate height by one foot in sections of the residence and lowering the residence into the grade an additional foot. CUT 2' 1 Original proposal -, . T (NORTH) ELEVATION The project was noticed for the April 3, 2012 Fast Track hearing with the lowered roofline. The story poles were modified to represent the new proposal in addition to the original proposal. Seven (7) neighbors attended the April 3rd hearing and expressed concerns including: • View obstruction for the uphill neighbor and a request to lower the house an additional 2' in height • The house blocks light and is obtrusive as viewed from W. Sunset • The design of the house is out of character of the neighborhood Due to the neighbors concerns, the project was forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Letters and emails from the neighbors commenting on the project are included in Attachment 3. In addition, the applicant has submitted a petition from eight (8) residents noting their support of the project (Attachment 4). Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring a sprinkler system through Geotechnical Review The Town's geotechnical consultant Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc has reviewed the soil and foundation reports prepared by Geoforensics, Inc., dated January 11, 2011 and June 30, 2011 and recommends approval of the permit based on conditions 18 a & b (Attachment 6). Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 5 of 12 Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends the applicant pay an in -lieu fee (condition #29). The Environmental Design and Protection Committee noted that the existing landscape mitigation should be maintained if possible (Attachment 7). Green Building Ordinance This project is required to comply with the Town's Green Building Ordinance. The new residence is designed to achieve 153 points in Build it Green's GreenPoint Rated program. CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a). ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Arborist report dated February 24, 2011 3. emails/letters from neighbors 4. Support petition 5. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated March 25, 2011 6. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates dated August 3, 2011 7. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated March 31, 2011 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT AND A DETACHED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT WITH A BASEMENT LANDS OF MORGAN, 13209 W. SUNSET DRIVE File # 311-11-ZP-SD-GD PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 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 determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. 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. The landscape screening plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (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, particularly the heritage 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 7 of 12 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. 6. The applicant shall follow recommendations in the arborist's report dated February 24, 2011 with tree protection measures for the heritage oak trees located on the property. The applicant shall submit a report from a certified arborist regarding the health of trees and certify that the tree protection measures suggested by the arborist were followed during the construction and the health of the trees after construction, prior to final inspection 7. The 26.4" oak tree to be removed (tree #9) shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio of 24" box oaks, prior to final inspection. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the new residence and roof eaves and secondary dwelling unit are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence and secondary dwelling unit shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence and secondary dwelling unit 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. 9. 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 and secondary dwelling unit 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 buildings (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. 10. No new fences are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 11. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the plans. There shall be one light per door or two for double doors. 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 Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 8 of 12 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. 13. 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® certification. 16. 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. 17. To qualify for development area credits, the following conditions must be completed: a. Applicant must provide manufacturer's specifications and data for the materials including water absorption rate, installation procedure, and maintenance requirement guidelines with plans submitted for the building permit. b. Applicant must provide hydrologic calculations prepared by a registered civil engineer to demonstrate that post -development peak discharge value for water runoff does not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property with plans submitted for the building permit. F � , Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 9 of 12 c. No less than 2,752 square feet of permeable concrete shall be installed on the driveway, as shown on Sheet A-5 of the approved plans, prior to final inspection. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 18. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated August 3, 2011, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Geotechnical Plan Review -The project geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e. site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameter for retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant should evaluate the following as part of their plan review and provide supplemental recommendations as necessary: • Verify that basement sub drains and provided with adequate discharge. • Review all temporary shoring measures for basement construction. • Evaluate geotechnical design and locations of proposed drainage discharge points. The results of the geotechnical plan review shall be summarized by the project geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. Geotechnical Construction Inspections- The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations, and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final inspection of the new residence. For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., dated August 3, 2011. 19. Peak discharge at 13209 W. Sunset Drive, as a result of Site Development Permit 59-11, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. P � i Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 10 of 12 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 10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre - development value. All documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 20. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system, construction of the energy dissipaters, 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. 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 Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 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 W. Sunset Drive 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 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 11 of 12 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 26. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, prior to final inspection. 27. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. An as -built mylar shall be required to be submitted to the Town prior to final project approval. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. 28. A sewer hookup permit 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 start work. 29. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $50.00 per linear foot of the average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 30. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 31. 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 32. This project is located within the designated Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A3.2.4 prior to project final approval. 33. Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination cause by fire protection water supplies. It 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 . + A Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Morgan 13209 W. Sunset Drive May 3, 2012 Page 12 of 12 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. CONDITION NUMBERS 16, 18 a, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 29 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 May 25, 2012 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 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 May 3, 2013 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 year. ARBORIST REPORT Submitted To: Mr. Mike Morgan .13209West Sunset Drive Los Altos Hills,.CA 94022 Project Location: 13 ' 209 West Sunset Drive Altos. Mills, CA Submitted By: McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC John H. McClenahan ISA Board Certified Master Arborist,. WEA 476 B member, American Society of Consulting Arbonsts February 24, 2011 ©Copyright McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 2011 Attachment 2 RECEIVI LIAR 18 2011 TOVVN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS JIM IM McClanahan Consulting, LLC Arborictd=ists Since 19ll 1 Arastradero Road. Portola Valley, CA 94028-8012 Telephone (650) 326-8781 Fax (650) 854-1267 wwwspmcclenahan.com February 24, 2011 Mr. Mike Morgan 13209 West Sunset Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Assignment As requested, I performed a visual inspection of 12 trees to determine species, size, condition and impacts from proposed construction including Tree Preservation Guidelines. Background The site contains an existing singlefamily residence proposed for demolition and construction of a new single family residence. A site -plan dated October 2010 was provided with tree numbers included. Tree numbers 2-4, 14, 16, 17 and 19-32 were not included in this survey for various reasons. Trees 2, 3, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22 and 26-32 can be fenced to separate tree environments from the construction area. Tree 4 was removed. Trees 16, 20 23, 24 and 25 are miscellaneous fruit trees proposed for removal to accommodate accessory structure. Summary Proposed site improvements will reroute the driveway, construct a new home and accessory building. From this survey trees 9, 11, 12 and 15 will be removed. Trees 6, 13 and 18 will sustain the greatest impacts to be determined when grading occurs. Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) have been defined. Tree Preservation Guidelines are included. A qualified arborist should be notified at least three working days prior to work within a TPZ. Methodology No root crown exploration, climbing or plant tissue analysis was performed as part of this survey. In determining Tree Condition several factors have been considered which include: Rate of growth over several seasons; Structural decays or weaknesses; Presence of disease or insects; and Life expectancy. The following guide for interpretation of Tree Condition as related to Life Expectancy is submitted for your information. 0 - 5 Years = Poor - 5 - 10 Years = Poor to Fair 10 - 15 Yeas = Fair 15 - 20 Years Fair to -Good 20 + Years = Good-' Mr. Mike Morgan Page 2 Tree Description/Observation 1: Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 46.5" Height: 65' Spread: 60' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: On Plan Observation: Crown is slightly. sparse. with branch dieback. Five large scaffold.limbs.exhibit weak attachments. Minor bleeding observed on low trunk.. Minor western sycamore borer infestation observed. Moderate to high fialure potential of large scaffold limbs. Any grading or excavation within. designated TPZ of 20 -feet mush be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. 5: Blue oak (Quercus douglasii) Diameter: 24.9" Height: 50' Spread: 45' Condition: , Poor to Fair . Location:: On Plan Observation: Tree dormant at time of inspection. Dead limbs observed in crown. Bifurcation at 4 -feet creates an inherent structural defect. Recommend removal of dead limbs. Any grading or excavation within designated TPZ of 12 -feet must be accomplished by hand digging.. A. qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. 6: Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Diameter: 28.9" Height: 70' Spread: 30' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: On Plan Observation: Crown is slightly sparse with minor dieback. Any,grading or excavation within designated TPZ of 14 -feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. 7: Valley oak (Quercus. agrifolia) Diameter: 30.4" Height: 60' Spread: 50' Condition: Fair Location: On Plan Observation: Bifurcation at 15 -feet creates an inherent structural weakness. Moderate accumulation of deadwood and endweight. Any grading or excavation within designated TPZ of 15 -feet must be. accomplished by hand digging. A qualified.arborist. must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. 8: Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Diameter: 31.9" Height: 80' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: On Plan Observation: Minor deadwood in crown. Ivy surrounds root crown. Any grading or excavation within designated TPZ of 20 -feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one:inch in diameter. Mr. Mike Morgan Page 3 wgag5q, Valley oak Diameter: 26.4" Height: 45' . Spread: 40' Condition: Fair Location: On Plan Observation: Codominant leaders at 12 -feet create an inherent structural defect that increases failure potential: Grows to phototropic lean. Proposed for removal. 10: 'Valley oak Diameter: 28.1" Height: 40' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair Location: On Plan Observation: Tree dormant at time of inspection. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. Existing driveway is 10 -feet from trunk. Any grading or excavation within designated TPZ of 13 - feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. 11: California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera) Diameter: 15.8" Height: 50' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair to Good Location: On Plan Observation: Two steel pipes are growing out of low trunk. Proposed for removal. 12: Yew (Taxus baccata) Diameter: 15.2" Low Branching-' Height: 16' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair Location: On Plan Observation: Low branching growth habit creates an inherent defect. Proposed for removal. 13: Deodar cedar Diameter: 26.2" Height: 75' Spread: 36' Condition: Fair Location: On Plan Observation: Moderate accumulation of deadwood. Any grading or excavation within designated TPZ of 13 -feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. New drvieway will impact approximately 30 percent of lateral root environment. 15: Olive (0/ea europaea) Diameter: 7.4, 6.6, 3.4" Multi Trunk Height: 14' Spread: 14' Condition: Fair Location: On Plan Observation: Multi trunk growth habit creates poor structure. Proposed for removal. Mr. Mike Morgan Page 4 18: Coast live oak Diameter: 16.0" Height:- 30' Spread'.30' Condition: Poor to Fair. Location: On Plan Observation: Crown exhibits a moderate accumulation of interior deadwood. Grows to an exaggerated lean away from proposed driveway. Proposed new driveway will impact less than,-, 30 percent of lateral root environment..F.urther.evaluation is -required to determine if retention is feasible after construction. Any grading: or excavation within designated TPZ of, 1.0 -feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter.: TREE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Tree Preservation and Protection Plan In providing recommendations for tree preservation, we:recognize that injury to trees as. a,result of construction include' mechanical injuries. to trunks, roots and.branches, and inju_ry.as a result of changes that•occur,in the growing environment. To minimize these injuries, we recommend grading operations encroach no closer than five times the trunk diameter, 7 (i.e. 30" diameter tree x5=:150" distance). At this distance, buttress/anchoring roots would be preserved and minimal injury to..the:functional root area would be anticipated. Should encroachment.within .the area become necessary.,- hand digging is mandatory. Barricades Prior to initiation of construction activity., temporary. barricades should be installed around _all.; trees in the construction area. Six-foot high, chain link fences are to be mounted.,onsteel posts, driven 2 feet into the ground, at no more than 10 -foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the drip line of the trees or as close to the drip line area as practical.. These. barricades will be placed around individual trees and/or.groups--of,trees as the existing environment dictates. The temporary barricades will serve to protect.trunks, roots,and.branches frommechanical injuries, will inhibit. stockpiling• of construction materials:or debris within. the sensitive;'drip.line' areas and will prevent soil compaction from increased vehicular/pedestrian traffic. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground around the tree canopy shall not be altered. These barricades should remain in place until,finaf inspection of the building. permit, except for work specifically_ required in the approved,. plans to be done under the trees to be -protected. Designatedareas• beyond the drip lines of any trees should be provided for construction materials and onsite parking. Root Pruning (if necessary) During and upon completion of any trenching/grading operation within a tree's drip line, should any roots greater than one inch (11") in diameter be damaged, broken or severed, root pruning to include flush cutting and sealing of exposed roots should be accomplished under the supervision of a qualified Arborist to -minimize root deterioration beyond the soil line within twenty-four (24) hours. Mr. Mike Morgan Page 5 Pruning Pruning of the foliar canopies to include removal of deadwood is recommended and should be initiated prior to construction operations. Such pruning will provide any necessary construction clearance, will lessen the likelihood or potential for limb breakage, reduce 'windsail' effect and provide an environment suitable for healthy and vigorous growth. Fertilization A program of fertilization by means of deep root soil injection is recommended with applications in spring and summer for those trees to be, impacted by construction. Such fertilization will serve to stimulate feeder root development, offset shock/stress as related to construction and/or environmental factors, encourage vigor, alleviate soil compaction and compensate for any encroachment of natural feeding root areas. Inception of this fertilizing program is recommended prior to the initiation of construction activity. Irrigation A supplemental irrigation program is recommended for the conifer and fruit trees and should be accomplished at. regular three to four week intervals during the period of May 1st through. October 31 st. Irrigation is to be applied at or about the `drip line' in an amount sufficient to supply approximately fifteen (15) gallons of water for each inch in trunk diameter. Irrigation can -be provided by means of a soil needle, `soaker' or permeable. hose. When using `soaker' or permeable hoses, water is to -be, run at low=pressure, avoiding runoff/puddling, allowing the needed moisture to penetrate the soil to -feeder root depths. Mulch Mulching with wood chips (maximum depth 3") within tree environments (outer foliar perimeter) will lessen moisture evaporation from soil, protect and encourage adventitious roots and minimize possible soil compaction. Inspection Periodic inspections by the Site Arborist are recommended during construction activities, particularly as trees are impacted by trenching/grading operations. Inspections at approximate four (4) week intervals would be sufficient to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the Tree Preservation Plan and.to provide recommendations for any additional care or treatment. All written material appearing herein constitutes original and unpublished work of the Arborist and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Arborist. Mr. Mike Morgan Page 6 We thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance in your tree preservation concerns. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance in these concerns, kindly contact our office at any time. Very truly yours, McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC By: John H. McClenahan ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, WE -.1 member, American Society of Consulting Arbonsts JHMc: pm 10 r ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like a medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord -tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees. 9! � /`T ,�� Arborist: John H. McClenahan Date: February 24, 2011 RECEIVED APR 2 ri 2012 MOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Comments on the Proposed Morgan Residence by owners/residents on West Sunset Drive Anderson Bertolini Brown Hastings Helmer Kalbach Solle l t ;4 . i��4P''. _. _.. r:�� .. �{, _ ,.'s .... .,.% .. s ..� .. d� "� , — ��� �l '�� f -� .� 4.3 n � !` . 4��` r €' -'�''_ r •Fa r.. _ . t a� / i l t ;4 . i��4P''. _. _.. r:�� .. �{, _ ,.'s .... .,.% .. s ..� .. d� "� , lie WA, :Cl ti I �y I1lr .; �IZIP F' ` Ir r 03/27/2012 I FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION /1• - r-0• EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE A) KEYNOTE MATERIAL/COLOR - = I CLASS A, ] P■CE CLAY TEE 54APED S . W 7 STUCCO B/ SMOOTH TROWEL PIKW a, I: ! STONE VENEER A6 IATES ARCHITECTS N FINISH COAT STUCCO 0/ ROAM SNAP! COPPER IALtERNA;E: G.I. PAINTI S ALUSNUM CLAD WOO UNDO15 (SEE PLAN 530-268-3055 SR ■ Y S WOOD ENTRY DOOR W/ GLASS 1 SIDELITES W1 GLASS i SI 1..1 n A...1. - 11- RAILINGS I A) 1BROUGHT IRON - PAINT CORBEL I 54APED S . W ATTIC VENTI! COPPER (ALTERNATE: 61. PAINTI GUTTERS 1 DOWNSPOUTS N COPPER IALtERNA;E: G.I. PAINTI CHIMNEYR STONE VENEER 0/ WOO FRANING FLASHING ru 1..1 n A...1. - 11- t .11 •!�1 $A� €€$11!! s i .! $ilii i I i116 •_ �ii'�i�l3?aa: ! a: ss!?e+iiaa:v, ' ism I ! I?ilE'aIIEs z::_ •li=s-�-�--���1_;�=■■ �_>,=■�.,rw-qqiw�_ E�-s_-■ri-a-�-a=a=tri=�=�=i=�=�=�=�=�=s=�=�=sly ��I�� I�IRi �� �� wig i' i��, i wwjjl■wj !� �, ■■11- 11 Fil �, I ■ i ■::�•■-7 FOR I'! '-iwjli.I '1 i�wll■il#��1� 1 �wjjl�wj i�,:i� ■ ■ a� i� � II II �-- � II II r.'s•:I!r® p�.11i.l I�■IIbII ��� � �w�L/!!I � 'III IIIIIIfIIII � � II IIIA II I II l I 1 I 1.-1•- r— ,1.– !�– I iwNw�I�wj�w�INiI�I�w�Awwi Nw�Jlwj �, I I,,,_, .�_�.:_�_w��.■.:�:_ _ _ _IIS■II�•I ■Mini �i� a� u I I u ulll u . ..Ilallllll �IIII��IIIII�IIIIIIiIIfII .a l.`, I.i���ls■��-:,._-.� _ _, ._,. r:2'\ RIGHT (NORTH) ELEVATION 0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Guidance from LAH Fast Track Guide Philosophy A. Fit the design of the house to the character of the site. The character of the site. and its surroundings should determine the design of the structures and their placement on the lot. Ultimately, the landscaping will be the finishing touch that will blend the home with its surroundings. 1. Houses on prominent hilltops or ridgelines may be,ireele be required to be one story. 2. Hilltops or ridgelines shall not be cut down, flattened, or similarly graded to create a building pad in excess of the actual area covered by the principal residence. 3. On a sloping site, the structure should be rose be stepped down the hill utilizing one story building elements. Avoid stilts over downhill slopes. Cut foundations should be used instead on a hill terrain. Generirl`.1111111surtd'Use Eleurent 'l'olicy .L.1: "Uses•.of.', lmtrl. hall -be colrsislent with•llte'serui-rural dlniosphere: wf`1110, Con1111unki), mini like (101111•Grnrce to nahiral terrain,, uririinrise ,rcrirwal' q/' the nalrnrilvegelalion, rrlNl`ci&ile Ilii, marlrirr/tir conif afil;dily cf,ilet%i/opinenl Wiih 'ilia anil lrrnr!scrrhiug."'"(G U�1) 17111age , Vit', cur"r�Y I4t g r PILL I Los Altos Hills Municipal Code section 10-2.702 (b) 7 LAH Municipal Code Issues • The proposed house clearly interferes with the views from the Anderson house (13021 W. Sunset) and Solle house (13101 W. Sunset) — LAH Municipal Code (10-2.701) requires that "site, location and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from off-site; that scenic views are retained; that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape; ....." L-13 LAH Municipal Code (cont"d) — Language regarding views is also included in the LAH Municipal Code (10-2.702a, paragraph 8) "The location of buildings and structures shall be selected so as to minimize...... the impairment of scenic views from off the site". — Other wording in 10-2.702, section (c) indicates that additional grading may be allowed to lower the profile of a structure, e.g., "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". Neighbors' Comments • Mark Solle (13101 West Sunset) e-mailed the Planning Commission (12/14 and 12/15/11) — "the full height of three fullfloors at the corner of the house facing Sunset and the home's driveway is a serious concern': — "The structure blocks a large portion of the winter afternoon sunlight, creating a large shadow effect': — "It is way oversized and is way too close to the street" — "we actually would like to have a properly scaled house as part of the neighborhood. But we object to the scale, and especially, the height of this project': 10 Neighbors' comments, cont'd • Gary Kalbach (13300 Burke Rd, corner of West Sunset) also emailed the Planning Commission (12/15/11) — "The proposed residence actually seems to be designed to go as high as possible, resulting in the appearance of a massive home looming 30-40 feet off the ground and substantially above the natural contour of the land': — "The Proposed Residence does not step down the hillside, therefore is much more than six feet above the existing home for most of its extent, and certainly is bulkier looking': — It certainly does not meet the test of fitting the lot slope or character of the neighborhood. The proposed development just sits up there as a three story tower. 11 Neighbors' comments'. concluded • Hamilton Helmer, 12995 West Sunset — Its height, vertical structure and lot placement will make it an eyesore and incongruous with every other property on West Sunset — This development will very much assault the integrity of our neighborhood • Gina Bertolino, 12851 West Sunset — The structure will create a claustrophobic tunnel effect by putting an abrupt three story wall, coupled with such an enormous amount of square footage, just next to the narrow, winding, private West Sunset road... — It seems to be far out of line with the character of homes on our street. 12 The Major Issue • The proposed project does not align with the spirit or intent of the LAH Guidelines • Note that all the other homes on West Sunset comply with the letter and spirit of the guidelines • 7 families have noted this, and most have written to the Town of LAH about this 13 How can these problems be solved ® Preferred solution — Re -design the house to follow the natural contour of the lot (and follow the guidelines of LAH) • One/two story, split level design would fit into this site MUCH better • Similar to Kalbach and Solle approaches with their homes • Will block less of the Anderson view • Will not loom over Sunset Drive or the Solle view • Will fit into neighborhood MUCH better • Alternate solution — Leave the house where it is, but — Further reduce the height of the house • Grading lower on the lot 14 Mark Solle 13101 W. Sunset Dr. Los Altos Hills, Ca 94022 April 23, 2012 To: Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Ms. Ray Collins, Chair Mr. Richard Partridge Mr. James Abraham Mr. Eric Clow Mr. John Harpootlian Re: Proposed Morgan Project- 13209 (formerly 131,31) W. Sunset Dr. Dear Planning Commissioners: We live at 13101 W. Sunset Dr., directly across W. Sunset from the proposed Morgan project. We object to the design of this project and plan to speak at the Planning Commission meeting on May 3, 2012. Some of my.objections are included below. Thank you, Mark Solle Why the Morgan Project is Inappropriate! Does the proposed Morgan project meet the numerical requirements to build on the lot? Perhaps they do. But the numbers do not tell the whole story. The Town has development guidelines. These guidelines are intended to help developers create a development that aligns with the Spirit and Intent of the Town Land Use Philosophy. The Town guidelines talk about "designing your home to fit the site and to be unobtrusive in the neighborhood". This house blocks light and is extremely obtrusive as viewed from W. Sunset. The Town guidelines talk about "scenic views are retained". This house blocks views from above and below. The guidelines talk about "on sloping sites, the structure should be stepped down the hill utilizing one story building elements". This three story house protrudes out of the slope and creates an imposing monument. I recognize that the lot is a difficult shape. But it appears that the developer wants to maximize the size of the house and the view so as to maximize his return on investment. As a result the house is pushed to the highest position on the lot. In order to maximize size, the house is pushed to the limits of the setback lines, making it very close to the street. So the house looms large over the street, blocking light and views. The house is inconsistent with the character of the West Sunset neighborhood. Most of the homes on West Sunset are single story or they display as single story homes from the street and then follow the slope down away from the street. Other recently developed homes tastefully fit on the lot and follow the natural slope down. There is even an historic Neutra house just one lot away from the subject project! My major objection is to the height of the project. I would love to have a tasteful home that fits with the character of the neighborhood and ultimately has people living in it. But it is the way this development is proposed that creates the problem. I know that a lot owner/developer has rights. But so do the owners of homes in the neighborhood. We purchased homes in this neighborhood because of its character and the fact that the Town has a Land Use Policy that speaks to the idea of building homes that "Fit the Site and are Unobtrusive". We do not believe that this project aligns with the Spirit and Intent of the Town's philosophy or guidelines. Once a house is built, it is permanent. We ask that you support a change to this project now! k RECEIVED Gary Kalbach APR 28 2012 13300 Burke Road TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 April 23, 2012 Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Ms. Ray Collins, Chair -Mr. Richard Partridge Mr. James Abraham Mr. Eric Clow Mr. John Harpootlian Re: Proposed Morgan Project -13131 West Sunset Dr. Dear Planning Commissioners: We live at 13300 Burke Road and our property is adjacent to the Morgan property on West Sunset. Months ago I reviewed the proposed Morgan House design and saw no initial problem; however, when the story poles were. erected, I was immediately alarmed at how the proposed home did not fit the neighborhood. In addition, I was appalled at the apparent conflict of Town guidelines with the proposed house. The proposed house is designed to be as high as possible, a three-story home on the top of the 20% grade lot. The result is a "three story tower", not fitting the lot slope Town guidelines or the neighborhood. The other homes on the street, carefully fit the contour of the land. My wife and I are very much aware of. the Towns ordinance and intent to have houses "stepped down the hill utilizing one story.building elements" (Municipal Code 10-2.702 (b). We finished building our home 8 years ago. It took over 8 years of design and redesign to meet both our goals and the Towns of having a home "stepped down the hill". Thanks to the creativity of then Town Planning Director Carl Cahill, we have what he called a "model for other residents" to the Town Council. On the other hand, it would be clearly a double standard if the Morgan house were approved as a looming tower above the street. In discussion with the other neighbors, I believe a redesign or lower elevation of the Morgan house would solve the appearance problem. Just as we made a substantial cut in the land and redesigned to "utilize one story building elements" the Morgans could easily fit the Town guidelines and fit into the neighborhood look and feel. One solution, lowering the house by several feet, could take a variance by the Planning Commission. Please help us maintain the character of the neighborhood. Please do not approve the plans as proposed, creating a double standard from the approval of our home 12 years ago by Carl Cahill as Town Planning Director. Yours truly, Gary Kalbach CC: Carl Cahill, Town Manager Nicole Horvitz From: Jerry Brown (ferry@sunja.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:20 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: Morgan Residence Nicole, I am the immediate neighbor above the Morgans on Sunset Drive. I'm sorry I can't make the meeting today. I will be returning on a flight today a little to late to make it. I have very mixed feelings about writing a letter regarding Mike and Wen-san's construction project. On the one hand, it is a difficult and expensive process for a homeowner to get approval and permitting from any city and on the other hand what is built will be part of the neighborhood for years to come. Once the Morgans had a plan in hand they were very good about presenting it to us individually and explaining their reasoning for the design and how it was carefully crafted to meet all of the town's restrictions. In deed, it does appear to meet all the numerical requirements, and for the most part the design does a good job of presenting well to the street e.g the garage is hidden from view. However, one issue is that the presentation of the front of the house is, in my opinion, out of character for our street and most of Los Altos hills. I understand everyone in Los Altos Hills is permitted to build houses of a certain size and that seems reasonable, but I think when a two story structure is right against the setback, care should be taken not to overwhelm. In the case of the Morgan's proposed design, the exterior wall exposed to the street is two stories high plus a roof. It would be preferable if there were at least some break in the exterior texture if not in the actual structure of the house. I am also quite concerned about the effect on the view from our neighbors, the Andersons. As an example, I would point to the house at the intersection of Fremont and Burke which used a Mansard roof to give a much less overpowering appearance while still presenting a two story face to the street or the Kalbach house which was designed to follow the lines of the land. At this point a change in the Morgan's design would, no doubt, be costly in terms of architect fees a lost time on their project and most important the very good relationship all of us on "the hill" have had. Note, however, that while the Morgans did discuss the completed design with us, they were not willing to discuss the plan before it was complete. Although there is no requirement to do so, those of us who have recently built or added on to our homes, namely the Kalbachs and ourselves, openly discussed our design with our neighbors during the entire design process. When it came time for town approval, there was no opposition as we reached a consensus ahead of time. Admittedly, Morgans do have a very constraining lot geometry, so we might expect a different kind of structure to deal with that. But I would like to see something a little less imposing to -the passerby. I hope that a solution can be found that will give everyone what they desire, but at this late date, I don't see what can be done without causing a delay in the Morgan's construction project. Perhaps you might be able to facilitate such a solution. Thanks, Jeremy Brown 1 Nicole Horvitz From: Hamilton Helmer [hamilton.helmer@deepstrategy.com) Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:20 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Larry Anderson; grandike; jerry; G B; Robin Hastings; laliahelmer; Judy Anderson; Lalia Helmer; Gary Kalbach Subject: The Morgan development Dear Nicole, I am a resident of West Sunset Drive and wanted to write you a note expressing my views on the development of the Morgan property. Unfortunately I have a prior meeting commitment on April 3, so I will be unable to attend. My father was an architect and I grew up in a small and lovely town — Woodstock, Vermont. Despite much development, Woodstock managed to maintain its unique and wonderful ambiance. I have brought the sensibilities that come from this background to my views on the future trajectory of Los Altos Hills. Our street, West Sunset Drive, is a wonderful neighborhood and physical layout is an important element to this. Preserving the "look and feel" of the houses directly on this street is terribly important. The current homes ALL are consistent with the slope of their land and their setbacks. The proposed development is completely out of place. Its height, vertical structure and lot placement will make it an eyesore and incongruous with every other property on West Sunset. I do not know the powers of the planning commission but I am certain that this development will very much assault the integrity of our neighborhood. If you consider the three recent developments on our street, there is a pattern of adherence that I hope we can continue to follow. The Kalbach residence was a large, important addition and yet great care was taken to fit with what preceded it. This involved height, setback and planting decisions. It would have been easy to put a very large and imposing tall structure there, and this would have been a eyesore. I am on 12995 West Sunset Drive and there have been two houses nearby which have been recently significantly reworked. In both cases, care was taken to respect the original placement and architectural intent of the structures. The result is a harmonious whole that contributes to every West Sunset neighbor. Thanks so much and again my apologies for not being able to attend the meeting. Hamilton Hamilton W. Helmer http://economics.stanford.edu/faculty/helmer Nicole Horvitz From: Gary Kalbach [gary@kalbach.net] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 8:36 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Larry Anderson; grandiike@aol.com Subject: Re: Morgan plans for 13209 West Sunset Nicole: I just received the notice of public hearing for the Morgan residence on April 3. Unfortunately, I will be out of town on that day; however, I wanted to voice my opinion on the proposed structure. I understand Mr. Morgan lowered his roof line about two feet because of objections of height and bulk. The revised story poles reflecting this reduction appear no different from the street than the original poles. I voiced objection to the original design because it was out of character with the neighborhood, appearing too bulky as a three story building. It still has those undesirable characteristics and I still believe it it out of character with the neighborhood and certainly does not reflect the design character that governed construction of our home 8 years ago. We went through a number of design changes over an extended period before reducing the house to fit into the natural slope of the land. I hope we don't have a double standard in the Town on such bulky appearances. I have thought about what is fair to Mr. Morgan and can only feel that what is fair to him and the neighbors is to reduce the size or apparent size of the building so it fits into the natural slope of the land just as we were forced to do! I understand he has met the technical requirements to pass on a fast track basis; however, it certainly does not meet the test of fitting the lot slope or character of the neighborhood. The proposed development just sits up there as a three story tower. Thank you for your consideration, Gary Kalbach 13300 Burke Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA gary@kalbach.net home 650-948-7177 cell 650-255-2551 Nicole Horvitz From: G B [ginachama@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:59 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: 13131 West Sunset building plan concern Hello, Nicole, I am a resident of Los Altos Hills, living on West Sunset Road. In seeing the storyboards that have gone up to show the major house reconstruction down the hill from me at 13131 West Sunset, I have a concern. I pass by this house every day on my drive to and from home. As designed, it looks as though the structure will create a clautrophobic tunnel effect by putting an abrupt three-story wall, coupled with such an enormous amount of square footage, just next to the narrow, winding, private West Sunset road that all in our neighborhood use. This would seem to pose both asthetic and visibility/safety issues for other residents and drivers & pedestrians on our street. Also, in terms of consistency and neighborhood style, all other houses on our street have a single -story approach facing the street access. This house, with its much greater dimensions and three-story construction, seems to be far out of line with the character of homes on our street. Thank you for passing this on and taking my concern into account. Gina Bertolino Nicole Horvitz From: Gary Kalbach [gary@kalbach.net] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 2:18 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: Proposed Residence - 13209 West Sunset Dr. Ms. Horvitz: I had the wrong email address for you on the original to this --sorry. Gary Kalbach Debbie Pedro, Planning Director Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner CC: Carl Cahill, City Manager RE: Proposed Residence - 13209 West Sunset Dr. Ms. Pedro and Horvitz: We built a home 8 years ago on the corner of West Sunset and Burke Rd. (former address was 13321 West Sunset), across the street and down one house from the Proposed Residence. Carl Cahill was the Planning Director at the time and worked with us toward a design that was "applauded" by the neighbors and approved by the Town, without neighbor objection, on a fast track basis. As I look at the story poles on the Proposed Residence, I am very concerned and believe it should not be approved on the proposed basis. I believe the three story house proposed does not fit in the one story neighborhood and appears too large and bulky for the lot size and topography. I understand that the lot is grandfathered as an undersized lot; however, my understanding was that intent of the grandfather provisions was not to allow or encourage a relatively large, bulky house far exceeding the normal allowable home based on size/ratio calculations. When we planned our home, we were sensitive to the character of the neighborhood and the long term close, cooperative feeling of the neighbors. We had known some West Sunset neighbors for over 20 years and enjoyed the rural nature of the one story feeling of the area. We were encouraged by the Town to stick with a one story design on our 1.8 acre site. In fact, we were encouraged to bring the site back to the natural contour and follow the contour with our home stepping down the slope. When our home was approved, Carl Cahill actually commended us for soliciting comments from neighbors and, in fact, getting written responses from the meetings. The Proposed Residence owner solicited our approval for an easement for sewer construction and told my wife and I that the proposed home would have little impact on the neighbors and would be only six feet above the existing home. The design may only be six feet higher than the top of the current home; however, it appears to be significantly higher than that and certainly is bulkier looking. The Proposed Residence actually seems to be designed to go as high as possible, resulting in the appearance of a massive home looming 30-40 feet off the ground and substantially above the natural contour of the land. This is contrary to all homes on the street, which seem to blend into the natural land.The design may only be six feet higher than the highest spot on the current home, but the current home steps down the slope. The Proposed Residence does not step down the hillside, therefore is much more than six feet above the existing home for most of its extent, and certainly is bulkier looking. I am hereby objecting to the proposed 3 story home as designed because it appears significantly bulkier and larger than earlier described and is significantly out of character with the rural, one story neighborhood which we enjoy. I believe approval and construction of the home as proposed would have an adverse effect on the charm and appeal of the neighborhood. Gary Kalbach clary@kalbach.net home 650-948-7177 cell 650-255-2551 Nicole Horvitz From: grandike@aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:52 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: Sunset project Hi Nicole, As the story poles continue to go up, we are more and more concerned about the scale of the project at 13209 W. Sunset Dr. The wall facing Sunset Dr. projects the image of a huge, imposing, three story edifice. It looks unattractive, blocks light, and does not fit the neighborhood. It is way oversized and is way too close to the street. We know that there will be a house on this lot, and we actually would like to have a properly scaled house as part of the neighborhood. But we object to the scale, and especially, the height of this project. I don't think that the story poles for the second (guest house?) structure are erected yet. I believe that there is supposed to be some viewing time allowed after all of the poles are erected before the hearing on Dec. 27. Can you tell me how long this viewing time is supposed to be? Thank you, Mark Solle 13101 W. Sunset Dr. Nicole Horvitz From: grandike@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:08 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: concern re 13209 W. Sunset Dr. Hi Nicole, We talked this morning regarding the proposed home at 13209 W. Sunset Dr. We met with the owner several weeks ago to review the plans and they looked liked they might be fine. He shared all of the information regarding his plan which we very much appreciate. But as we watch the story poles being built, we have begun to be very concerned about the height of the structure. I believe our concern is for the face of the house that is referred to as the "Right (North) elevation". Specifically, the full height of three full floors at the corner of the house facing Sunset and the home's driveway is a serious concern. The north facing wall is extremely high when you look at it from Sunset Drive. The structure is an imposing building, probably appearing this way because it is as close to Sunset as possible. The section of the house facing Sunset is very large, being three full floors. Further up the hill, we realize that part of the lowest floor is beneath the grade level and does not appear to be such an imposing structure. The structure blocks a large portion of the winter afternoon sunlight, creating a large shadow effect. Ironically, we had recently removed some trees on our lot in order to improve views for everyone and allow some winter sunlight to reach our house. The new proposed construction would end up blocking light even more than the trees we removed. We would prefer to see if a way could be found to lower the overall height of the structure by about 5 feet. Since we do not object to the house itself, only to the height, we would like to see if it is possible to grade the base level deeper by about 5 feet. This would make the structure seem to be shorter and would certainly block less light. In addition to dropping the height by about 5 feet, we would like to see if some landscape trees can be planted in front of the North elevation to soften up the appearance of the wall. As currently planned, we would not support the plan. I will talk with the owner to share our concerns. However, as I mentioned, we will be out of town on the day of the hearing (Dec. 27). So, we unfortunately cannot attend the meeting to voice our concerns. Hopefully, these concerns can be addressed without needing to proceed into an appeal process. Thank you very much for working with us on this. Mark Solle 13101 W. Sunset Dr. (immediately across Sunset Dr. from subject house) I1 s Attachment 4 RECEIVE PR 2 6 2012 r the'new home project at 13209 West Sunset Drive in Los 'Altos Hills. TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS We, the undersigned neighbors of Michael and Wen -San Morgan, have reviewed their project proposal for a new home at 13209 West Sunset Drive. We understand that both the original proposal and the revised proposal that was presented at the fast-track review meeting on April 3, 2012, comply with the town's planning requirements and hence urge the Planning Commission to approve the proposal as -is. Name [lv\,�' i Address I r Date q� 1 / 4 Name Lr Address 13 l- 5 �^� -� ►tib`/ Date L� Name twls Address Date Name Address Date Name Address 3 -2 0/j Date 12 Aao S t. Neighbor support for the new home project at 13209 West Sunset Drive in Los Altos Hills. We, the undersigned neighbors of Michael and Wen -San Morgan, have reviewed their project proposal for a new home at 13209 West Sunset Drive. We understand that both the original proposal and the revised proposal that was presented at the fast-track review meeting on April 3, 2012, comply with the town's planning requirements and hence urge the Planning Commission to approve the proposal as -is. Namefe S, l 4 Z4 Address 13 33 c u r SCC L A q +-t o ZZ Date L41 ;L -C/ t Z Name S Li r-CA1,'r\ G V Address I �j� c; LJi H) 9 ,-IO Z Z Date Name 'U I Address Date ll 2 0 4.[ Name Address Date Name Address Date Attachment 5 W FIRE DEPARTMENT �� �'SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-18182 9 2011 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HIM PLAN REVIEW 1 1 0790 No. BLDG PERMIT No. Proposed new 4,882 two-story single-family residence with basement and attached garage. Proposed new 1;000 square -foot detached habitable accessory structure with basement and attached garage. Comment #1: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Comment #2: Wildland-Urban Interface: This project is located within the designated Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply .with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements. Comment #3: Fire Sprinkles Required: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in all new structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. Exception: Any non -habitable structures accessory to single family residences that have a gross floor area of 500 square feet or less. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire'sprinkler coverage. 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 review and approval prior to beginning their work. CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC Comment #4: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying: the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated- into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water .supply of the purveyor of record. Final =approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH N ❑ N ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B ApplicantName Rh Associates Architects DATE 3/25/2011 PAGE 1 of 2 SEC/FLOOR see plans AREA see plans LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 13209 W Sunset Dr Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 1750 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERSREQUIRED FIRE FLOW ® 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 50% Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga GLS c FF COURTESY E SEMCE FIRE DEPARTMENT SAN'T'A CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS MAR 2 9 2011 TOMMLOWTOM No. BLDG PERMIT No. documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 Comment #5: 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 background. CFC Sec. 505 To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be restated as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS LAH N ❑- " : N ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCYCONST. SFR TYPE V -B ApplicantName Rh Associates Architects DATE 3/25/2011 PAGE 2 OF 2 SEC/FLOOR see plans AREA see plans LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 13209 W Sunset Dr Los Altos Hills " TABULAR FIRE FLOW 1750 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 1 50% Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill,:and Saratoga Attachment 6 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS August 3, 2011 RECEIVED L5051A AUG 04 2911 TO: Nicole Horvitz TOWN! Cf LJai ALTO HILLS Associate Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Morgan, New Residence and Auxiliary Structure 59-11-ZP-SD-GD 13209 West Sunset Drive At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of the applications for proposed construction using: • Response to Geotechnical Peer Review (letter) prepared by Geoforensics,:Inc., dated June 30, 2011; • Geotechnical Investigation Update (report) prepared by Geoforensics, Inc. dated January 11, 2011; and • Architectural Plans, Elevations and Details (10 sheets, various scales), prepared by RH Associates, Architects, dated March 2011. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence and construct a new residence with partial basement. An auxiliary structure with full basement is also proposed. In our previous project geotechnical peer review (letter dated April 11, 2011), we recommended that the Project Geotechnical Consultant provide supplemental design criteria prior to project geotechnical approval. Our comments related primarily to grading, pavement, and foundation design. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The Project Geotechnical Consultant has satisfactorily responded to the comments of our previous geotechnical peer review and provided supplemental design clarifications in general conformance with prevailing geotechnical standards. Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St. Charles Drive, Suite 108 Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 •Fax (805) 497-7933 www.cottonshires.com Nicole Horvitz Page 2 August 3, 2011 L5051A Consequently, we recommend geotechnical approval of permits for project construction with the following conditions: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The Consultant should evaluate the following as part of their plan review and provide supplemental recommendations, as necessary: Verify that basement subdrains are provided with adequate discharge. Review all temporary shoring measures for basement construction. Evaluate geotechnical design and locations of proposed drainage discharge points. The results of the Geotechnical Plan 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 Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as -built) project approval. LIMITATIONS This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz Page 3 August 3, 2011 L5051A accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical 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 Z -1�— Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 C�Jv Z' David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmentan resign and Protection Committe_ New Residence/R=e-wL&ie-L.E_valitation Reviewed by: , Applicant Name /'. &A % Address Attachment 7 DateJ- IS , ( ( RECM ii HILLS Site impact/lighting/noise: .Creeks, drainage, easements: Existing Vegetation: 20 Significant issues/comments: