HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 Town of Los Altos Hills January 28, 1998
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE; LANDS OF
JAIN; 28510 MATADERO CREEK LANE; File#9-97-ZP-SD-GD.
FROM: Susan Manca,Planner )
APPROVED BY: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Dire&
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission EITHER:
1. Recommend approval of the requested Site Development Permit,subject to the
attached conditions of approval; OR
2. Approve the request, but modify condition #1 to require that additional
development area be reserved for outdoor living areas, such as for patios, decks,
walkways, a spa, etc. and determine a specific amount.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on the west side of Matadero Creek Lane, bordered at the
rear by Page Mill Road. The parcel was created with a 20 lot subdivision (Tract 7187)
that was recorded in 1981. The property is currently vacant. There is a conservation
easement located on the west portion of the lot.
The Matadero Creek Subdivision included many conditions of approval which limited
development below that allowed by the Municipal Code. The MDA was calculated
specifically for each lot based on the amount of area which was free of easements. In
addition a maximum elevation of the building was set for each lot. As the Town had no
floor area limitations at the time, maximum building coverage was applicable, at 44
percent of the MDA for each lot. Unlike other subdivisions in the Town, the Matadero
Creek Subdivision required that the buildings be sited in the building site circle as shown
on the Tentative Map. Amendments to the conditions in later years allowed for
additional development area on specific lots (not for lot 5).
CODE REQUIREMENTS
According to Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Code, all new residences are to
be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Generally, the sections of the Zoning and Site
Development Codes utilized to evaluate new homes include floor and development area
limitations, grading, height, setbacks, visibility, and parking requirements. In addition to
the Zoning and Site Development Codes, the conditions of approval of the subdivision
require that the Matadero Creek specific Development Area and Building Coverage be
reviewed as well as compatibility of size and architectural design with the existing houses
within the subdivision.
Planning Commission
January 28, 1998
Lands of Jain
Page 2
DISCUSSION
- Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 1.71 acres
Average Slope: 22.2%
Lot Unit Factor: 1.16
Floor Area and Development Area and Building Coverage:
Town Zoning Code Max. Prop. Exist. Incrs. Remain.
Development Area 10,919 8,376 0 8,376 2,543
Floor Area 6,096 5,902 0 5,902 194
Matadero Creek Subdivision Max. Prop. Exist. Incrs. Remain.
Limitations
Development Area 8,380 8,376 0 8,376 4
Building Coverage 3,687 3,682 0 3,682 5
Maximum Elevation 490 485
Staff has carefully reviewed the plans and supporting calculations for Development Area, Floor Area and
Building Coverage,and concurs with the above numbers.
Site and Architecture
The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Permit for a new split level
residence with a basement. The neighboring properties within the subdivision are a
combination of larger two story and one story residences.
The residence is designed as a split level house although the front elevation appears to be
a onestory residence. The north side of the house steps down 5 feet from the main level
of the house, to follow the contours of the lot. The roofline steps down at the north of the
residence to follow the step in the finished floor.
The maximum height of the house on a vertical plane would be 27 feet, although the roof
heights range from 17 to 20 feet at the front of the house. The height of the residence as
viewed from the right side elevation would step from 10 feet at the eave (40 feet from the
property line) in increments up to the highest ridge height of 25 feet as viewed from this
side (85 feet from the property line). The height of the residence from the lowest to
highest point would be 29 feet, as the house is located in an area of approximately 25
percent slope and the roof line somewhat steps down with the slope. Story poles have
been erected on the site outlining the new residence for the Commissioners' review.
The exterior materials proposed for the residence are stucco with a barrel tile roof and
stone accents. The residence would be screened by numerous oaks from the west, towards
Page Mill Road. The house has been located in the center of the lot, 40 feet from the
neighbor to the north and 47 feet from the property line to the south(although it is 30 feet
from the edge of the access easement). The applicant has designed the residence closer to
the street, in response to the comments from the neighbors at the architectural review
boards meeting regarding a previous design. Because of the placement on the lot, the
Planning Commission
January 28, 1998
Lands of Jain •
Page 3
finished floor has a maximum cut of 10 feet into the hill at the rear of the garage. It
should be noted that an earlier design for the residence fit the Town's grading policy__
- more closely, but was not reviewed favorably by the neighbors as it covered more of the
lot than was preferred. The design before the Commission reflects some changes which
were requested by the ARB regarding the earlier plans.
There are a number of architectural features, including the one story appearance from the
street,the varying rooflines, bay and arched windows and the number of indented areas of
the proposed new residence, which would help to reduce the appearance of bulk of the
house. Additionally, the two story elevation at the rear of the residence is oriented
towards Page Mill Road, and is not highly visible due to the steep slope above the road
and the existing oak trees.
Outdoor Lighting
No skylights have been proposed for the new residence. Outdoor lighting has not been
shown on the plans. Staff has included the standard condition (#10) for outdoor lighting,
requiring that fixtures be downshielded and that all locations be approved by the Planning
Department, with a maximum of one fixture per exit except at the garage and front entry.
Parking, Driveway, and Turnaround
Three of the four required parking spaces for the residence would be located within the
garage with a fourth space located to the west of the garage. All of the required parking
spaces are proposed out of the setbacks and have adequate backup area for the spaces. A
retaining wall is proposed at the west side of the back up area for the garage. The
maximum height of the wall would be 21/2 feet.
Grading
The plans indicate that the proposed project would include 1,500 cubic yards of cut and
200 cubic yards of fill. The finished floor at the southeast corner of the garage is
proposed to be 10 feet below natural grade and the media room is proposed to be cut 9
feet, whereas the grading policy recommends limiting cut for the main residence to 8 feet
maximum. The applicant has indicated that the reason that the development has been cut
further into the hillside than the guidelines suggest is in response to comments from the
ARB's comments regarding a previous design and to reduce the visibility from Matadero
Creek Lane. The center portion of the main level of the residence is essentially at grade.
The master bedroom area of the house is stepped down 7 feet from the main level of the
residence and the northwest corner of the master bedroom is proposed at 6 feet above
natural grade. The house has been designed along the length of the contours, but the
location of the residence has an average slope of about 20%, making it difficult to meet
the grading policy across the length of the house.
Basement
The applicant has included a 540 square foot basement with the residence which would
not count towards the floor or development area. The basement is designed to be
constructed entirely below adjacent and natural grade. The floor plan indicates a 4 foot
wide minimum separation of the basement wall and the lower floor area. It should be
noted that the difference in elevation of the basement floor and the lower floor is 7 feet.
Planning Commission
January 28, 1998
Lands of Jain •
Page 4
Outdoor Living Area
- The applicant has designed the residence to meet the building coverage maximum and the
development area maximum, although there appears to be minimal outdoor living area.
The applicant has included a small patio in the rear of the residence and a patio in the
front of the residence (not shown on the engineer's site plan). In addition, there is a
circular path around a fountain proposed in the front setback. No pool or spa is proposed,
although a pool would be difficult to site on the rear slope. Staff notes that steps from the
master bedroom lead to the rear yard, but no paved area or walkway is proposed at that
point.
Guideline #2 on page 28 of the Town's Design Guidelines states, "Plan for adequate
outdoor living when planning your total development area." Some participants in the
architectural review process have commented that the outdoor living area proposed is
unrealistic, and variances may be needed in the future. If the Commission so desires,
condition #1 could be modified to require additional outdoor living area, such as for
patios, decks, or walkways.
Trees
There are numerous heritage oaks on the west portion of the lot, most of which are
located within the conservation easement. The proposed development would not
encroach into the driplines of the oaks, therefore, no arborist's report has been required.
The conditions of approval do require that the oaks in the vicinity of the proposed
construction be fenced to ensure that they are not negatively impacted by the
construction.
Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board
The Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board has reviewed the plans but has not
approved the plans. The City Attorney has indicated that the ARB's approval is a CC&R
restriction only and that the Town may not require the approval prior to hearing the
application. The City Attorney further stated that the Town does not have either the
authority or obligation to enforce the CC&R's.
Correspondence to the applicants from the Committee, dated July 2 and October 16, 1997
is attached. Staff notes, however, that those comments are apparently in response to
review of previous versions of the plan.
Other Staff and Committee Recommendations
The proposed development has been reviewed by the Town Geotechnical Consultant and
additional information will be required to be reviewed prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check. The construction specifications for the residence may be required to
be changed from the standard construction methods to fit the site, but the changes to the
proposed construction would not alter the location and height of the proposed residence.
Additional information has been forwarded to the Town's Consultant for review.
The Pathways Committee has requested that the IIb pathway along Matadero Creek Lane
and the asphalt path above Page Mill Lane be restored, and condition #19 requires such
restoration prior to final building inspection. The Environmental Design Committee
notes that the residence will need screening from the neighbor to the north. It should be
Planning Commission
January 28, 1998
Lands of Jain
Page 5
noted that these comments were in response to a previous design in which the residence
was proposed at the north setback.
The Santa Clara County Fire Department requires that the applicant install fire sprinklers
to the residence to meet the required fire flow duration requirements. In addition, the
driveway must meet access and requirements for emergency vehicles, as indicated on the
plans.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community may have.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommended conditions of approval;
2. Worksheet#2;
3. Fire Department letter, dated March 3, 1997;
4. Letter from Cotton, Shires &Assoc., dated May 13, 1997;
5. Recommendation from Pathways Committee, dated February 25, 1997;
6. Recommendation from Environmental Design Committee, dated January 30, 1997;
7. Letter from the applicant's attorney, dated October 22, 1997;
8. Correspondence from the Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board, date July 2,
and October 16, 1997;
9. Development plans (5 pages).
cc: Lall and Shabnam Jain G& G Designs Jean K. McCown
P.O. Box 632 445 S. San Antonio Rd. Ritchey Fisher Whitman&Klein
Los Altos, CA 94023 Los Altos, CA 94022 1717 Embarcadero Road
P.O. Box 51050
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Planning Commission
January 28, 1998
Lands of Jain
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
. LANDS OF JAIN, 28510 MATADERO CREEK LANE
FILE#9-97-ZP-SD-GD
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The basement exiting and window wells shall be the minimum required by
the Uniform Building Code. Any further modifications to the approved
plans requires prior approval of the Planning Director or Planning
Commission depending upon the scope of the changes.
2. Subsequent to final framing, a landscape screening and erosion control
plan shall be reviewed at a Site Development Hearing. Particular 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 or for erosion control (as determined by
the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection, unless the
Planning Director finds that unusual circumstances, such as weather or site
conditions, require that planting be delayed. In those instances, a deposit
of an amount equal to the cost of landscape materials and installation, to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director, shall be submitted to the Town.
Landscaping shall in any event be installed not later than six months after
fmal inspection, or the deposit will be forfeited.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit (or certificate of deposit), equal to the
cost of materials and installation for all landscaping required for screening
purposes (including the redwood trees which have already been planted
and any additional screening required by the Town) or for erosion control
(as determined by the City Engineer),but not to exceed$5,000.00, shall be
posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure
adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after
installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings
remain viable.
4. Paint colors shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff in
conformance with the Town's adopted color board, and shall exhibit a
light reflectivity value of 50 or less. Roofs shall use materials which have
a light reflectivity value of 40 or less. White trim area should be
minimized, particularly on large surfaces such as doors, columns, railings,
and trellises. A color sample shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the
approved color(s)prior to final inspection.
5. Fire retardant roofing is required for the new construction.
6. Locations and specifications for outdoor lighting shall be submitted for
Planning Department approval prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be reviewed with the
Planning Commission
January 28, 1998
Lands of Jain
Page 7
landscape plan. Lighting fixtures shall generally be downlights."
Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or
where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. Any security
lighting shall be limited in number and directed away from clear view of
neighbors, and shielding with shrouds or louvers is suggested. Lighting r
shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties,
and the source of lighting should not be directly visible from off site. No
lighting may be placed within the setbacks except for 2 driveway or entry
lights, except where determined to be necessary for safety.
7. Prior to commencement of any grading on the site, all significant trees are
to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and
structure 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 fence must remain throughout the course
of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be
allowed within the drip lines of these trees.
8. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated
May 13, 1997,the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. The project geotechnical consultant should perform a site
inspection of the proposed building site. The consultant should
specifically verify the depth of overburden deposits affecting the
building site. The consultant should use test pits or boreholes to
help characterize thesite as deemed necessary. The fmdings of
this investigation shall be submitted to the Town for review and
approval by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check;
b. The geotechnical consultant shall review and update the
geotechnical design criteria prepared in 1989. Minimum pier
embedment into bedrock should be clarified and minimum steel
reinforcement for piers should be recommended.
Supplemental specific design criteria should be provided for
Keystone type retaining walls, if they are proposed for the project.
The potential for surcharge loading from adjacent terraced
retaining walls should be addressed. The global stability of
proposed terraced walls and cut slopes above the residence should
be evaluated.
Any necessary supplemental geotechnical design criteria should be
provided concerning the proposed basement..
The potential long term performance benefits of final 3:1 versus
2:1 graded slopes should be considered in light of identified soil
conditions.
Estimates of anticipated peak and repeatable seismic accelerations
associated with the nearby Monta Vista fault should be provided.
Planning Commission
January 28, 1998
Lands of Jain
Page 8
The results of evaluations to address the above comments should
be submitted to the Town for review by the Town Geotechnical
Consultant prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check
c. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve
all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e. site
preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for foundations and driveway) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of
the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical
consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for
review and approval prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check.
d. 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 prior to 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 (as
built) inspection.
For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter
from Cotton, Shires &Associates dated May 13, 1997.
9. A disclosure statement shall be recorded stating that the floor area (5,954
square feet) and development area (8,376 square feet) established for the
property under this permit is at the maximum level of development
currently allowed by the Town. The Planning Department will prepare the
statement and the signed, notarized document shall be returned to the
Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
10. 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. A final grading and drainage plan which has been stamped
and signed by a registered civil engineer and which shows the proposed
house drainage shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check. All drainage outfalls should
be located below the existing Town pathway. 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 letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating
that the drainage improvements were installed as shown on the approved
plans and in accordance with their recommendations prior to final
inspection.
•
Planning Commission
January 28, 1998
Lands of Jain •
Page 9
11. 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 between November 1 and April 1
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.
12. All public utility services serving this _ property shall be placed
underground.
13. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and prior to
final inspection, the location and elevation of the new residence shall be
certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor
as being in/at the approved location and elevation shown on the approved
Site Development plan.. At the time of framing inspection for the new
residence, the height of each building shall be similarly certified as being
at the height shown on the approved Site Development plan.
14. 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.
15. 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 plan shall address truck traffic
issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on
Matadero Creek Lane and surrounding roadways; storage of construction
materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction
vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash
dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris.
Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the
debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler
is allowed within the Town limits.
16. 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
shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the
roadways and pathways prior, to acceptance of plans for building
plancheck.
17. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer,prior to final inspection.
Planning Commission
January 28, 1998
Lands of Jain
Page 10
18. The property owner shall be required to connect to public sanitary sewer
prior to final inspection. Connection fees shall be collected with the
building permit fees.
19. The IIB pathway along Matadero Creek Lane and the asphalt pathway
along Page Mill Road shall be required to be rehabilitated to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final inspection.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT:
20. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting
the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background and be a
minimum of 4 inches with a 3/8 inch stroke.
21. Prior to fmal inspection, the applicant shall install a fire sprinidering
system, to assure that adequate flow is available to the residence. The
design of the fire sprinidering system shall be reviewed and approved by
the fire department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
22. The driveway shall be a minimum of 14 feet wide and shall have an
unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. The driveway shall
have an all weather surface that is designed and maintained to support the
imposed loads of fire apparatus (45,000 pounds).
Upon completion of construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planning
Department and Engineering Department at least two weeks prior to final building
inspection approval.
CONDITION NUMBERS 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 AND 21 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE
CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS
FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
All properties must pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or
the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, before receiving their building
permit from Los Altos Hills. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to
school district offices (both the elementary and high school offices in the Los Altos
School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their
receipts.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
January 28, 1999). 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.
•
•
A+ic.chr►-gent
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
26379 Fremont Road•Los Altos Hills,California 94022•(415)941-7222 •FAX(415)941-3160
WORKSHEET #2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
• TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION •
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME /'
PROPERTY ADDRESS ` - 0 �����
CALCULATED BY ; ��� � , A' '' ��q
1. DEVELOPMENT AREA ( MARE FOOTAGd
Existing Proposed Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage(from Part 2.A.) 59 C/, —
B. Decking 5a
C. Driveway and Parking
(Measured 100'along centerline) a 005
D. Patios and Walkways 1// 7
E. Tennis Court
F. Pool and Decking
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B)
H. Any other coverage •
TOTALS 3 I tc,
Maximum Development Area Allowed- MDA(from Worksheet#1) 16 619
2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) (F 555 ?"1t'O\
1
Existing Proposed Total /
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage
a. moor 3(47116'1
b. 2nd_Flosrlm.0 e( 6S- -
c. Attic and Basement ( 5 yo
d. Garage Z3
B. Accessory Buildings
•
a. 1st Floor
b. 2nd Floor
c. Attic and Basement
TOTALS 5
Maximum Floor Area Allowed- MFA(from Worksheet#1) ( 09(�,
•
'TOWN USE ONLY CHECKED BY J DATE I C1 f/`-7r .
Revised 2/26/96 ,
• Ar 3
CONTROL NUMBER
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER -
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 97- 0450
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
This plan review is for a new single family residence with an approximate fire
area calculation of 6, 525 square feet which includes both levels of living area,
attached garage and basement. Access is from Matadero Creek Lane a
conforming public street. Project planner is Susan Manca.
UFC 1 The driveway to this residence serves two residences, is less than 150 feet in
902.2.1 length from Matadero Creek Lane to the structure and shall meet the
requirements of Section 902 of the Uniform Fire Code.
UFC 2 Fire Apparatus Access Dimensions: The existing driveway to 28505 and the
902.2.2.1 remainder of driveway that will be built for 28510 shall have a minimum
width of fourteen feet and a vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches. These
dimensions shall be maintained.
UFC 3 Access Surface Requirements: Fire apparatus access roads (driveways) shall be
902.2.2.2 designed to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (45,000 pounds) and
shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving
capabilities.
UFC 4 Access Turning Radius: The turning radius of acces roads shall be less than 30
902.2.2.3 degrees for an inside turn.
UFC 5 Access Grade: The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed
902.2.2.6 fifteen (15) percent slope.
UFC 6 Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow is 2,250 GPM at 20 psi residual
Appendi pressure.The closest hydrant located I.F.O. 28520 Matadero Creek Lane does not
x III-A provide this required flow.
UFC 7 Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50 % in
Appendi residences equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, but can be no less
x III-A than 1,500 GPM. The closest hydrant can provide'this amount of GPM flow.
Section 5
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
❑ 0 0 0 G&G Design 3/03/97 1 OF
2
SEC./FLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Construction Dunlap,Dan
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
SFR 28510 Matadero Creek Ln
•
CONTROL NUMBER
BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER _
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 97- 0450
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
UFC 8 Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
901.4.4 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 and shall have a minimum height of four inches.
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
0 0 0 0 0 G&G Design 3/03/97 2 OF 2
SEC./FLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Construction Dunlap,Dan
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
SFR 28510 Matadero Creek Ln
q
Ma
rmal COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS '?:a;?f !t a
ia9I . „�
y 13;'i99 U' HILLS
L3047A
TO: Susan Manca
Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Review
RE: Lands of Jain, New Residence
File#9-97-ZP-SD
28510 Matadero Creek Lane
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of
the subject property using:
• Revised Architectural Plans (6 sheets, 30- and 8- scale) prepared
by G & G Design, dated March 1997 and received by the Town on
April 28, 1997.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent documents (Jain L3047) from our
office files.
DISCUSSION
Our review of the referenced documents indicates that the applicant is
proposing to construct a single-family residence and garage on a 1.75-acre lot. Access
to the proposed residence will be via a driveway from Matadero Creek Lane. The
building site is located in the northeastern portion of the property.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is generally characterized by gentle to very steep (i.e., 15 to 65 percent),
west-facing hillside topography. The proposed building site is located on a
moderately steep hillside that is inclined at approximately 31 percent. Drainage is
characterized by sheet flow to the west toward Page Mill Road.
The Town Geologic Map indicates that the site is underlain by greenstone
bedrock of the Franciscan Complex. These materials are overlain by unconsolidated
and potentially expansive clays and silts (colluvium and soil). The potentially active
Monta Vista fault is located approximately 700 feet northeast of the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on our review of the referenced revised architectural plans, the
proposed development has the following significant changes; 1) additional cutting
and utilization of terraced retaining walls above the residence; 2) proposed 2:1 rather
than 3:1 final cut slope inclinations upslope of the residence; and 3) proposed
basement construction. These changes will require additional evaluations and
Northern California Office Southern California Office
330 Village Lane 5245 Avenida Encinas •Suite A
Los Gatos,CA 95030 Carlsbad,CA 92008
(408)354-5542 • Fax(408)354-1852 (619)931-2700 • Fax(619)931-1020
e-mail:losg@csageo.com e-mail:carl@csageo.com
Susan Manca May 13, 1997
Page 2 L3047A
recommendations from the Project Geotechnical Consultant and a revised grading
_ and drainage plan from the Project Civil Consultant.
In our previous review letter we indicated that the site conditions may have
changed since the most recent (1989) site inspection by Terrasearch. A mound or
blanketing of non-engineered fill, possibly associated with construction of the
adjacent residence, may have been placed in the proposed building site. If present,
this fill could effect the expected depth to bedrock and may require engineering and
recompaction. In addition, updating and clarification of design parameters should be
provided.
In our opinion, the proposed site development layout is geotechnicaly
feasible given appropriate engineering design measures. It may be advisable to use
deep, pier supported retaining walls upslope of the residence to ensure the stability
of proposed graded slopes and this issue should be addressed by the Project
Geotechnical Consultant. Prior to approval of building permits, supplemental
geotechnical evaluations and an update of various project geotechnical design
parameters should be completed. Consequently we recommend that the following
conditions be satisfactorily addressed prior to issuance of building permits:
1. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluations - The Project
Geotechnical Consultant should perform a site inspection of
the proposed building site. The consultant should specifically
address whether site conditions have changed since 1989 and
verify the depth of overburden deposits effecting the building
site. The consultant should use test pits or boreholes to help
characterize the site as deemed necessary. The findings of this
investigation should be submitted to the Town for review.
2. Update of Geotechnical Design Parameters - The Project
Geotechnical Consultant should review and update
geotechnical design criteria prepared in 1989. Minimum pier
embedment into bedrock should be clarified and minimum
steel reinforcement for piers should be recommended.
Supplemental specific design criteria should be provided for
Keystone-type retaining walls, if they are proposed for the
project. The potential for surcharge loading from adjacent
terraced retaining walls should be addressed. The global
stability of proposed terraced walls and cut slopes above the
residence should be evaluated.
Any necessary supplemental geotechnical design criteria should
be provided concerning the proposed basement.
The potential long term performance benefits of final 3:1 verses
2:1 graded slopes should be considered in light of identified soil
conditions.
Estimates of anticipated peak and repeatable seismic
accelerations associated with the nearby Monta Vista fault
should be provided.
COTTON, SHIRES& ASSOCIATES, INC.
Susan Manca May 13, 1997
Page 3 L3047A
The results of evaluations to address the above comments
should be submitted to the Town for review by the Town
Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of permits for site
construction.
2. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical
consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for
foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the
Town in 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 accepted
principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all
other warranties, either expressed or implied.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
Michael Pearce
Staff Engineer
Patrick O. Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
POS:MP:st
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
112 S _ t-.c r o ...-,f-J
Town of Los Altos Hills
2/25/9,7
To Planning Commission & Staff the drainage ditch between the path and
the road. 2/24/97
Erom: Les Earnest, Pathways
Committee Chair 24021 Oak Knoll Circle;Lands of J.Lohr
Properties: No request. 2/24/97
Subject 1997 Pathway 24036 Oak Knoll Circle;Lands of J.Lohr
recommendations Properties: Restore II-B path along Oak
This is a cumulative listing of all Knoll Circle. 1/9/97
pathway recommendations for 1997, in 12117 Oak Park Court:Lands of J.Lohr
alphabetical order by street and number,
with the effective date at the end of Properties: Restore II-B path along Oak each item. In cases where a Park Court 2/24/97
recommendation for a given address has 4 12254 Tepa Way;Lands of Duncan:
been revised, two dates are shown but Construct IIB path along Moody Road
only the final recommendation is listed. between the road and Adobe Creek.
•
Where construction or upgrading of 2/24/97
paths to the II-B standard is 26045 Torello Lane;Lands of Hofing:
recommended, it is to include irrigation Restore II-B along Manuella Road and
at least 5 feet away from path and a construct II-B path along Torello Lane.
non-slip surface on any crossing 1/9/97
driveways. Where there is"no request" 25810 Vinedo Lane; Lands of Rose-
the Committee recommends that in lieu Construct H-B path along Altamont at
fees be collected where possible. the approximate location of the current
12025 Adobe Creek Lodge Road;Lands of fence line and a native path in a 10 foot
Le Joie: Restore II-B path along Adobe easement along the East boundary of the
Creek Lodge Road. 2/24/97 ;property. If necessary,acquire an
26415 Anacapa Drive;Lands of Janson easement adjacent to Altamont right of
&Sessions: Restore II-B path along La way that encompasses the path.
Cresta. 2/24/97 2/24/97
13833 Barton Court;Lands of Barton: No ' /
Ept
request 2/24/97 "
27863 Black Mountain Road; Lands of '97 ; '97
Addison/Marshal : No request. 1/9/97
1)560 Blandaum:rNr; Laantdslof „o9/97 SUS ALTOS • ' x.11 i,j(RoT y
uz
13410 Burke Road; Lands of Rabbani: No
request. 2/24/97
25350 Esperanza: Lands of Simmons:
Construct II-B path along Esperanza.
2/24/97
13001 La Cresta; Lands of Hsiaoc No
request 2/24/97
28510 Matadero Creek Lane; Lands of
Jain: Restore II-B path along Matadero
Creek Lane and the asphalt path above
Page Mill Road. 2/24/97
12631 Miraloma Way;Lands of Breetwor:
Restore II-B path along Summerhill and
construct II-B path along Miraloma with
A+lzcJ wm124-4- Lo
RECEIVED
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMMITTEE
NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION J A N 3 0 1997
Applicant's Name:
Uwe �- TOWN OF LOSALTOSHILLS
Address: d" fr-/ O l/1' a/,'P' .
Reviewed by: Co
PI(-7/2 4 e Date: / 3 cr- .
Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building
site. Recommended protection during construction.)
's &4 / r. # 0 , 2 L1 . irr ./ _ ,, U Clae
i
/ I . l c • i�,i \�• k$ �':d A ,
• _ % I�L1.re, cif- V' in_, ` e aw C o e__,.
Proposed Grading: ',pact on water table; nearby vegetatio.. Erosion potential. All L 30-,.(06(y-
grading at least 10' from property line?)
Creeks and drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Sufficient
space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will
construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a
need for removal of invasive species?)
- Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation
(height, color, landscape).)
2 Q aLQPm i C kQ, (* CO�✓� /t4(7g
190CAL pC/4-10 ( M 'irilQ) — SU&tgQ-4-cil0---i4.0\r-
•
Other Comments:
p itctchmm+ I
• .RITCHEY FISHER WHITMAN & KLEIN
A T TOR _ t' r
October 22, 1997
Members of the Matadero Creek
Architectural Review Committee
do Mr. Rick Ellinger, Chairman
28520 Matadero Creek Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: The Jain Project
Lot 5 Matadero Creek Lane, Los Altos Hills
Dear Members of the Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee:
This office represents Shabnam and Lall Jain, the owners of Lot# 5 on Matadero Creek
Lane, Los Altos Hills. We have been retained by the Jains to review the events that have
occurred with respect to the Architectural Review Committee ("ARC") review of their house
plans and to assist them in obtaining approval of their plans by the Town of Los Altos Hills. •
This letter is in response to your memorandum to the Jains dated October 16, 1997 which
comments on a house design reviewed by you on October 13, 1997.
The ARC has demonstrated by its previous course of conduct that it is incapable or
unwilling to be fair and objective in its review of the Jains' residential project. Therefore, for the
reasons set forth in this letter, the Jains decline to participate further in the process run by your
Architectural Design Committee ("ARC") but instead intend to present their single family
residential project directly to the Town of Los Altos Hills.
Over the course of the last year, the Jains and'their designer, Glenn Calhoun of G&G
Design, have made repeated submittals of house designs to the ARC. The ARC Meeting
Minutes and other documents reflect that the ARC has been predominantly focused an the
application of numerical criteria for the development of this parcel (particularly building
coverage and maximum floor area) as defined by the Town of Los Altos Hills when it created the
subdivision. However, nowhere in the Matadero Creek Subdivision CC&Rs defining the scope
of review of the ARC does it provide that the ARC has authority to determine how the Town of
Los Altos Hills' development criteria are to be interpreted or applied. Indeed, it would be an
illegal delegation of authority for the Town to give this power to a private design committee such
as the ARC. For this reason, it is questionable whether the ARC's comments on the Jain house
have been within its authority or could be binding in any way on the Town of Los Altos' review
of the proposed design.
On September 4, 1997, the ARC initiated a:request to the Town Council to repeal Town
Resolution 1559 which allowed an increase of building coverage of up to 2,000 square feet for
lots in the Matadero Creek subdivision. This request was apparently intended to prevent the Jain
project, as it was then designed, from using this allowable square footage. This action was taken
in conjunction with the continued refusal of the ARC to approve plans which conformed to the
1717 EMtnARCADERO ROAD •P.O. Box 51050 •PAT n ALTO rA 94303 .TEL 650!8574717 •Fix 650;857-,?88
A Professional Corporation
•
Members of the Matadero Creek
Architectural Review Committee
October 22, 1997 •
Page 2
2,000 square feet coverage exception. Again, the ARC did not have a legal right to deny an
application presented to it on the basis that it objected to an adopted Town policy. In any event,
the issue was rendered moot when the Town Council rejected the request. The 2,000 square feet
exception remains legally available for use on the Jain property.
Most recently; the Jains submitted a.revised proposal designed to comply strictly with the
Town's development limitations for this lot, without utilizing any of the 2,000 square feet
exception to enlarge the building coverage. This submittal was made based on an assertion by
the Chair of the ARC that only this type of proposal Would be approved by the ARC. The new
design is within the stated limitations of 3,687 square feet of building coverage, 6,096 square feet
of maximum floor area and 8,380 square feet of maximum development area, all as specified by
the Town's development criteria. While the ARC's most recent review memo dated October 16,
1997 questions whether the plans show a building designed to these criteria, the submission to
the Town of Los Altos Hills will be entirely conforming to those standards.
Notwithstanding the design's conformity with all Town development criteria, the ARC's
comments in the October 16 memo assert that the house design is still unacceptable because it
exceeds a total floor area of 5,100 square feet. There is no lawful basis for limiting this proposed
residence to 5,100 square feet. The justification in the memorandum references a previous ARC
memorandum which purported to limit the house floor area to a total of 4,600 square feet. Not
only is there no explanation as to how the ARC arbitrarily moved from one number to the other,
neither of these numbers are justified by any Town restriction on development, nor by any
legitimate concern regarding the siting, height, size, bulk or setbacks of the proposed structure.
The ARC has also demanded that the Jains post a $20,000 landscaping bond. There is no
precedent for this arbitrary figure in the Matadero Creek subdivision.
The ARC must act in good faith, not.in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and any
conditions must be fair and applied uniformly in the context of the entire subdivision. The Jains
do not feel it is reasonable to yet again redesign their house to meet the ARC's arbitrary
conditions when their plan is entirely consistent with the development limits established by the
Town.
The neighbors most immediately affected. the Lefkowits, have requested various design
changes, including that the Jain house be further away than the required 30 feet setback from the
Leflcowits house. The design to be submitted to the Town honors their requests. The house is
limited in its footprint to 3,687 square feet. The setback is in excess of 40 feet. Additional living
space is all provided in a second lower level, much of it below grade, which does not increase the
height or bulk of the stricture on the site. The total square footage is well below the majority of
Members of the Matadero Creek
Architectural Review Committee
October 22, 1997
Page 3
the houses previously constructed in the Matadero Creek subdivision. Finally, the plans have
been preliminarily reviewed by the Town Planning Staff for conformity with Town requirements
for this subdivision and will be subjected to formal plan checking when they are submitted.
Finally, there is a substantial problem with what has occurred over the past year in that
the ARC's procedures have consistently violated the due process rights of the Jains. Design
committees such as the ARC are held to due process standards similar to those applicable to
governmental administrative bodies. Cohen v. Kite Hill•Improvement Association,(1983)
142 C.A. 3d.642, 651. These standards include the right to have matters heard by an impartial
body, with full notice and opportunity to be present and to respond to factual assertions and
allegations made which may affect one's property rights. It is unknown whether the ARC has
any rules and procedures providing the due process protections or even if the present members
have been properly elected as provided by the CC&Rs.
Far more serious, however, is the fact that the ARC has permitted an immediately
adjacent property owner to participate as a voting member when that member obviously has a
conflict of interest which should disqualify her from participating. TwootherARC members
live within 500 feet of Lot #5. Meetings of the ARC have occurred where the Jains, their
designer,or both, were told they could not attend as participants or even to hear the discussion of
their project. This practice was continued with the October 13 ARC meeting when the only
persons present were ARC members and "neighbors" consisting of the spouses of the Committee
members. For these additional reasons, the Jains have elected to move forward through the
Town of Los Altos Hills process where they can be assured that their project will receive an
impartial and fair evaluation.
Sincerely yours,
JEAN K. McCOWN
JKM:sv
cc: Lall and Shabnam Jain
Glenn Calhoun
Curtis Williams
Sandy Sloan
•
s
Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee:.'
Memo
To: Shabnam and Lall Jain
CC: Jeff Peterson, City Manager
Curtis Williams, Planning Director
Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner
Susan Manca, Planning Technician
Planning Commissioners:
Carol Gottlieb
•
Mary Stutz
Emily Cheng
Guyton Jinkerson
Dorothea Schreiner
Environmental Design and Protection Committee: •
Dexter Hake
Sharyn Brown
Ralph Creek
Sandra Humphries
Robin Knutson
Donna Raynor
Robin Robison
From: Rick Ellinger, Chairman
Matadero Creek Architectural Committee
Subject: Summary of Committee Meeting of October 13, 1997
Date: October 16, 1997
Shabnam and Lall:
Thank you for submitting a revised preliminary plan for development of your Lot 5.
The Committee met on October 13 to give careful consideration to this new plan. I have
enclosed a summary of that meeting along with several attachments that will help clarify
the Committee's findings and recommendations.
As stated in the attached Summary, the Committee is very willing to meet to review
•
revised preliminary plans or a complete Application for Architectural Review, based on
how you would like to proceed.
Please contact me at(650) 941-9429 when you are ready for further Committee action.
Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee I
Summary of Committee Meeting of October 13, 1997
Members Present: Rick Ellinger, Ruann.Ernst, Connie Lefkowits, Pammi Kapoor
Members Absent: Shaku Nagpal
Neighbors Present: Betty Chiu, Charlie Ellinger, Bob Lefkowits, Bill Riffle
Agenda Items: 1. Review of Revised Preliminary Plan for Lot 5
2. Review of Revised Plan for Lot 7
1. REVIEW OF REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR LOT 5
In response to feedback from a Committe meeting on July 2, 1997 that reviewed a previous
preliminary plan for Lot 5 (see"Summary of Committee Meeting of July 2" attached),the
owners of Lot 5 (the Jains), submitted a revised preliminary plan for the Committee's review
and comments.
The Committee spent more than three hours discussing its review process and the current
preliminary plan for Lot 5. The Committee reviewed its meeting of July 2. It then reviewed
the current preliminary plan for Lot 5. It re-affirmed its recommendations of July 2 and made
some additional recommendations based on the current plan. Finally,it enumerated the
remaining steps that will allow its review of Lot 5 plans to proceed to final approval as
expeditiously as possible. These items are summarized below.
1.1 Review of July 2 Recommendations and Review Process
The firstone and one-half hours were spent reviewing the Committee recommendations made
in its meeting of July 2, 1997. The Committee devoted a significant amount of time reviewing
the Matadero Creek and Los Altos Hills Design Review Guidelines, and the detailed floor area
and development area numbers for all of the lots in the subdivision, with special emphasis on
the lots of similar size to Lot 5. It wanted to make sure that its recommendations were based
on objective and consistent criteria, and were fair to all parties concerned.
After this careful review, the Committee concluded that all of the recommendations of its July
2 meeting and all of the rationale behind those recommendations had not changed, and were
still applicable to Lot 5.
1.2 Review Of The Current Preliminary Plan
The Committee then spent significant time reviewing a new preliminary plan (not dated)
submitted to it on October 3, 1997 with a cover memo from the Jains of the same date. The
Committee expressed its appreciation to the Jains that the plan now accommodates some of the
Committee's recommendations and some additional inputs from the July and August
10/16/97 Page 1 of 4
meetings between the Lefkowits and Jains. Specifically, the Committee was appreciative that
the current plan had the building higher on the property, reduced the building coverage and
provided at least a 40 foot setback from the property line with Lot 4.
However, further detailed review of the preliminary plan revealed several violations of City
ordinances and Matadero Creek CC&Rs, as well as several significant design elements that do
not conform to the Committee recommendations of July 2. In addition, the current plan raised
a number of concerns that Committee believes need further clarification. These areas are
enumerated below.
1.2.1 Violations of City Ordinances and Matadero Creek CC&Rs
1.2.1.1 The total floor area exceeds the Maximum Floor Area(MFA) of 6,096 square feet.
According to city ordinances, any attached decking more than 2 feet above the
natural grade counts toward floor area. When the square footage of the deck above
the garage is added to the floor area shown, the total exceeds the MFA.
1.2.1.2 The total development area exceeds the Maximum Development Area(MDA) of
8,380 square feet. The square footage of the proposed floor area plus walkway
plus first 100 feet of driveway already add up to more than the MDA. When
additional outdoor living areas (see item 2.2 below) are added, the total
development area will exceed MDA by a significant amount.
1.2.2 Design Elements that do not conform to the Committee recommendations
1.2.2.1 The building coverage exceeds the 3,687 square feet allowed by the Matadero
Creek CC&Rs. Per item 1.1, the deck above the garage counts toward building
coverage.
1.2.2.2 The total floor area exceeds by a substantial amount both the Committee's original
(July 2) recommended maximum of 4,600 square feet and its revised (October 13)
recommended maximum of 5,100 square feet. The current preliminary plan shows
approximately 6,500 square feet of floor area(including the garage and the deck
above the garage).
The Committee wants to re-emphasize that it current recommendation (see
Recommendation 1.3.2 below) to limit the floor area to no more than 5,100 square
feet including garage is based on objective, detailed analysis that includes City
ordinances, the Matadero Creek CC&Rs, and comparison with the other
comparable lots in the subdivision.
1.2.3 Additional Concerns Requiring Clarification
1.2.3.1 The specifics of the retaining wall shown on the northeast corner of the building are
not clear. The Committee is concerned about the height of the wall and the design
consistency with the neighboring structures. The Committee would like a more
detailed plan to address these concerns. -
10/16/97 Page 2 of 4
1.2.3.2 It seems that the "bonus space" basement on the northwest side of the house will
require very significant excavation. The Committee wants to make sure that any
excavation required meets all city requirements for safety, drainage, disposal of
removed earth, and any other relevant requirements.
1.2.3.3 It also seems that this "bonus space" basement does not meet the intent of the
City's definition of"basement". It is not clear that how this basement will be
surrounded by earth on all four sides. Nor is it clear that the entire basement will be
completely below the natural and finished grade. The Committee would like a more
detailed plan to address these concerns.
1.3 Recommendations
The Committee is making the following recommendations based on its October 13;1997
review of the 10/3/97 plan for Lot 5.
1.3.1 With the exception of recommendation 1.3.2 below, there are no changes to the
Committees recommendations of its meeting on July 2, 1997.
1.3.2 After careful review'of its July 2 recommendation 2.3 regarding total floor area, the
Committee is amending this recommendation to now recommend that the total
floor area(including garage and any applicable decking) not exceed 5,100 square
feet. The rationale for this recommendation has not changed.
1.3.3 The Committee is re-affirming its position that building coverage not exceed 3,687
square feet.
1.3.4 Any future preliminary "bubble",plans and/or final detailed plans submitted to the
Committee for consideration should correct the discrepancies enumerated in
Sections 1 ("Violations of City Ordinances and Matadero Creek CC&Rs") and 2
("Design Elements that Do Not Conform to the Committee Recommendations")
above, and address in detail the concerns enumerated in Section 3 ("Additional
Concerns Requiring Clarification") above.
1.4 Disclaimer
The Matadero Creek Architectural Committee ("the Committee") wants to make it clear that it
has no jurisdiction over City ordinances such as excavation, drainage, fire safety, sanitation and
many others that apply to all homes in Los Altos Hills. Thus any final approval from the
Committee is only an approval of the plans conformance to the architectural elements of the
Matadero Creek CC&Rs and Site Development Plan. Each owner in the Matadero Creek
Subdivision is still required to obtain all necessary City approvals before proceeding.
1.5 Remaining Steps
To avoid any future confusion, the Committee re-affirmed its position of July 2 that, before it
can grant final approval to any plan, it must have a complete application with all required
10/16/97 Page 3 of 4
•
materials. A blank"Application for Architectural Review" is attached to clarify exactly what
materials are required to be included in the application.
The Committee then expressed its willingness to continue to be flexible in working with the
Jains to expedite the Jains' submission of a complete final application that can be approved by
the Committee. Specifically, the Committee is willing to meet as expeditiously as possible to
review any revised preliminary "bubble" plans and provide feedback, if the Jains feel such
additional preliminary review(s) would be helpful.
Alternatively, if the Jains wish to submit a complete application with all required materials that.
conform to all of the recommendations contained in this Summary, the Committee is happy to
skip the intermediate reviews, and move as quickly as possible toward final approval.
Conversely, the Committee would not be inclined to spend time reviewing either preliminary
"bubble" plans nor a final application that do not conform to the above recommendations.
Finally, the.Committee realizes and appreciates the amount of time and energy being expended
by all parties related to Lot 5, and hopes all parties can come to an objective,fair and friendly
agreement among neighbors.
2. REVIEW OF REVISED PLAN FOR LOT 7
Since the Committee did not finish agenda item 1 until after 11:00 pm, it decided to table
agenda item 2 until October 15, 1997.
10/16/97 Page 4 of 4
Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee
RE: Lot 5 Matadero Creek Lane
Owner: Jain
Summary of Committee Meeting of July 2, 1997
The Matadero Creek.Architectural Committee met on July 2, 1997 to review a preliminary
plan submitted by the Jains for Lot 5. The Committee is currently comprised of five
members as follows:
Rick Ellinger, Chairman
Ruann Ernst
• Pammi Kapoor
Connie Lefkowits
Shaku Magphal
All Committee members attended the meeting. Immediate neighbors Kaz Yanase, Charlie
Ellinger, and Bob Lefkowits also attended.
After reviewing the preliminary plans for Lot 5, the Committee took formal action in two
areas. The first was.to request additional information required to make the Application
complete. The second was to make a series of recommendations for modifications to the
preliminary plans.
The actions in the two areas are listed below. The reasoning behind each recommendation
is also summarized. The Committee indicated it would be very willing to meet with the
Jains and their architect to explain its recommendations in further detail.
1. Additional materials requested by the Committee to complete the Application:
1.1 A site drawing and site plan that is drawn to scale, has accurate calculations for
coverage area, floor area and development area, and is dated to show that it is the
most current revision. (The preliminary plan was not to scale and contained
several inaccurate calculations).
1.2 A landscaping plan as described in clause 19 (a), 4 of the Matadero Creek
CC&Rs.
1.3 A grading plan that includes the drainage plan.
1.4 Specifications of the building materials and colors to be used.
•
7 r.,i 07 Paee 1 of 2
2. Recommendations of the Committee:
2.1 The one-story design with the stepped foundation should be maintained.
2.2 The location of the building should be moved higher on the property (i.e. to the
east). This will get the building well out of the drip circle of the Heritage Oak on
the northwest corner of the lot, and will preserve the sight line from Lot 4 to the
ridge line.
2.3 The floor area should be reduced to remain consistent with the proportions of the
neighboring properties. The Committee considered three different proportions of
the existing lots on Matadero Creek Lane in arriving at this recommendation.
• 1. The average ratio of building coverage to Maximum Development
Area(MDA) for the existing lots is 43 percent Using.this measure,
the maximum building coverage for Lot 5 would be 43% of its MDA
of 8,310;or 3,573 square feet.
2. The average difference between floor area and MDA for the existing
lots is 5,300 square feet. The smallest difference is 3,800. Keeping a •
realistic difference between floor area and MDA allows enough room
for outdoor living areas such.as patios and decks, in addition to an
adequate driveway (see item 2.4). Using the minimum value (rather
than the average) as a measure, the floor area would not exceed the
8,310 MDA minus the 3,800 minimum, or 4,510 square feet.
3. The ratio of floor area to MDA for the existing lots averages 55
percent. Using this measure, the floor area would not exceed 55
percent of 8,310, or 4,571 square feet
Even though Lot 5 has the smallest MDA in the entire Matadero Creek
subdivision, the Committee felt proportion 1 (yielding a 3,573 square foot
maximum) might be too restrictive. It felt proportions 2 and 3 were more
realistic.
Thus, the Committee is recommending a floor area of 4,500 - 4,600 square feet
to be very consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood.
•
2.4 Additional driveway area should be included to allow off-street parking for at
least four cars. This is required by clause 14 of the CC&Rs.
2.5 The City should request a landscaping bond of at least$20,000 be posted to
insure compliance with the approved landscaping plan. This should be done to
avoid recurrence of a situation on another lot where the site plans were approved
based on the planned landscaping, but the landscaping was never installed.
7 Jul 97 Page 2 of 2
II. Review & discuss all items listed on the 'Summary of Committee
Meeting of July 2, 1997
- (Please refer to the attachment#A for issues corresponding to the items listed below
Items #1.1.1.2.1.3 &1.4 : To be addressed in the meeting by the Architect
Item#2.1 : Preferable, however needs to be further discussed and clarified.
Item#2.2: To be discussed in the meeting by the Architect
Item#2.3.1: This has been previously addressed. This building coverage is without the
2,000 sq.' ft option. which no body has used on the existing lots:
Item#2.3.2: Need to clarify the validity of your numbers. you have listed
MDA for lot#5= 8,310
The smallest difference=3,800
Based on this you have calculated the floor area to be 8,310-3,800=4,510 sq.' ft
We have the following set of numbers
MDA for lot#5 =8,380
The Smallest difference=973
Based on this ,the floor area should be 8,380-973=7,407 sq. ft
Item#2.3.3: The Architectural Committee has indicated the ratio of Floor area to MDA for
the existing lots averages 55%. However, our calculation show that the ratio should be
61.57% . Based on this, floor area should be 61.57% x 8380=5,160 sq. ft
Therefore, by using your recommended criteria, the Floor area should be 5,160 to
7,407 sq.' (The average existing house is closer to 7,000 sq.').
We are proposing 5,653 sq. ft residence (well within 5,160 to 7,407)
Comparison of Proposed versus Architectural Committee recommended criteria:
Criteria used Existing Lots Existing Lots Existing Existing
comparable lots to comparable lots
#5 to #5
Architectural Proposed Architectural Proposed
Committee Committee
Ratio 5,160 5,662 5,635 5,941
Smallest 7,407 8,063 7,407 7,577
difference
NOTE: The only difference in calculations between proposed and Architectural
is that the proposed is using DA(actual developed area) instead of MDA.
Item #2.4: This is already incorporated on the site plan you have
Item #2.5: What prompted this? There is no such condition placed on the recent approved
lots.
III. Based on the outcome of today's meeting, develop 'Next Steps'
•
r
• I-TTRCI-{atENT
Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee
RE: Lot 5 Matadero Creek Lane
Owner: Jain
Summary of Committee Meeting of July 2, 1997
The Matadero Creek Architectural Committee met on July 2, 1997 to review a preliminary
plan submitted by the Jains for Lot 5. The Committee is currently comprised of five
members as follows:
Rick Ellinger,Chairman
Ruann Ernst
Pam mi Kapoor
Connie Lefkowits •
Shaku Magphal
All Committee members attended the meeting. Immediate neighbors Kaz Yanase, Charlie
Ellinger,and Bob Lefkowits also attended.
After reviewing the preliminary plans for Lot 5, the Committee took formal action in two
areas. The first was to request additional information required to make the Application
complete. The second was to make a series of recommendations for modifications to the
preliminary plans.
The actions in the two areas are listed below. Thereasoningbehind each recommendation
is also summarized. The Committee indicated it would be very willing to meet with the
Jains and their architect to explain its recommendations in further detaiL
1. 'Additional materials requested by the Committee to complete the Application:
1.1 A site drawing and site plan that is drawn to scale, has accurate calculations for
coverage area, floor area and development area, and is dated to show that it is the
most current revision. (The preliminary plan was not to scale and contained
several inaccurate calculations).
1.2 A landscaping plan as described in clause 19 (a),4 of the Matadero Creek
CC&Rs.
1.3 A grading plan that includes the drainage plan.
1.4 Specifications of the building materials and colors to be used.
7 Jul 97 Page 1 of 2
f fl 1Tfl� M 1=�1 I R
2. Recommendations of the Committee:
2.1 The one-story design with the stepped foundation should be maintained.
2.2 The location of the building should be moved higher on the property (i.e. to the
east). This will get the building well out of the drip circle of the Heritage Oak on
the northwest corner of the lot, and will preserve the sight line from Lot 4 to the
ridge line.
2.3 The floor area should be reduced to remain consistent with the proportions of the
neighboring properties. The Committee considered three different proportions of
the existing lots on Matadero Creek Lane in arriving at this recommendation.
x,3,1. The average ratio of building coverage to Maximum Development
Area(MDA)for the existing lots is 43 percent. Using this measure,
the maximum building coverage for Lot 5 would be 43% of its MDA
of 8,310,or 3,573 square feet.
;43.2. The average difference between floor area and MDA for the existing
lots is 5,300 square feet. The smallest difference is 3,800. Keeping a
realistic difference between floor area and MDA allows enough room
for outdoor living areas such as patios and decks,in addition to an
adequate driveway(see item 2.4). Using the minimum value(rather
than the average) as a measure, the floor area would not exceed the
8,310 MDA minus the 3,800 minimum,or 4,510 square feet.
, . The ratio of floor area to MDA for the existing lots averages 55
percent. Using this measure,the floor area would not exceed 55
percent of 8,310,or 4,571 square feet.
Even though Lot 5 has the smallest MDA in the entire Matadero Creek
subdivision,the Committee felt proportion 1 (yielding a 3,573 square foot
maximum)might be too restrictive. It felt proportions 2 and 3 were more
realistic.
Thus, the Committee'is recommending a floor area of 4,500-4,600 square feet
to be very consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood,
2.4 Additional driveway area should be included to allow off-street parking for at
least four cars. This is required by clause 14 of the CC&Rs.
2.5 The City should request a landscaping bond of at least$20,000 be posted to
insure compliance with the approved landscaping plan. This should be done to
avoid recurrence of a situation on another lot where the site plans were approved
based on the planned landscaping, but the landscaping was never installed.
7 Jul 97 Page 2 of 2