HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 4'
3 . 3
Town of Los Altos Hills May 27, 1998
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE, SECOND
UNIT, CABANA AND POOL; LANDS OF RUTNER; 28500 MATADERO
CREEK LANE; File#151-97-ZP-SD-GD-AMEND.
FROM: Curtis S. Williams, Planning Dire s'_
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Site Development Permit, subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on the northwest side of the Matadero Creek Lane and
Matadero Creek Court intersection. The parcel was created with a 20 lot subdivision
(Tract 7187) that was recorded in 1981. The property is currently vacant. There is an
open space easement along the east portion of the lot, a conservation easement located in
the southwest corner, and a landscape easement to the south of the conservation
easement.
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 building coverage and a maximum elevation of the building were
set 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.
In 1996 the Planning Commission and City Council approved the owner's application to
modify the conditions of approval of the Matadero Creek subdivision to relocate the
access of the property from the south side of the lot to the east side, as is shown on the
plans. At that time, only the location of the access was reviewed.
•
On January 14, 1998, the Planning Commission considered a request for a site
development permit on the site, along with a request to allow additional development
area and building coverage as an amendment to the subdivision conditions. The
Commission recommended denial of the requested amendment, and postponed
consideration of the site development permit until the Matadero Creek limitations were
resolved. On March 4, 1998, the City Council approved an amendment (attached) to the
tract map conditions to allow a maximum development area(MDA) of 11,340 square feet
and a maximum building coverage of 4,700 square feet. The amendment further
specified that development area is to be applied as per the Town's current definition, i.e.,
including second floor area. Condition #10 requires that the applicant record a
disclosure statement indicating that these limitations are the maximum permitted on the
property.
}
Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 2
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 Building Coverage be reviewed as well as compatibility of size and
architectural design with the existing houses within the subdivision. The conditions of
the subdivision also created an architectural review board which reviewed the previous
version of the proposed residence, and took exception only with the deviation from the
allowable development area and building coverage limitations.
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Net Lot Area: 4.40 acres
Average Slope: 16.6%
Lot Unit Factor: 3.78
Floor Area and Development Area and Building Coverage:
Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left
Development Area* 11,340 11,332 - 0 - +11,332 + 8
Floor Area** 21,433 7,503 - 0 - + 7,503 -NA-
Bldg. Coverage* 4,700 4,443 - 0 - + 4,443 + 257
*Limits established by Matadero Creek subdivision approval, as modified by Council action on 3/4/98.
**Per Town Code; floor area is effectively restricted by development area and building coverage limits of
Matadero Creek subdivision.
Note: Allowable Development Area under Town Code exceeds 47,000 square feet.
Revised Submittal
In response to the Council's action on March 4th, the applicants have modified the
proposed project in several respects:
1. The development area has been reduced from 12,983 square feet to 11,332 square
feet, to meet the Council's limitation (11,340 square feet), a reduction of 1,651
square feet. Most of the development area (1,002 square feet) was deleted from
floor area of the house and cabana, and the remainder was deleted from the pool
and related paving.
2. Building coverage has been reduced from 5,165 square feet in the January
proposal to 4,443 square feet, to meet the Council's limitation (4,700 square feet),
a reduction of 722 square feet. Approximately half of the reduction was in the
first level of the house and garage, and the remainder was from the pool house.
3. The floor area of the project has been reduced from 8,505 square feet to 7,503
square feet, a reduction of 1,002 square feet. This reduction has been achieved
by deleting square footage equally from the first floor of the house, the second
floor of the house, and the cabana, which is now only 101 square feet.
Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 3
4. The driveway grade has been reduced to 15%maximum (previously 16.5%).
5. The library and family room have been stepped down by about two feet from the
main floor of the house, so that they better match grade and comply with the
Town's grading policy. The roof line has been modified somewhat to also better
follow grade.
6. The rear elevation (towards Via Ventana) has been modified with the lowering of
the library and family room to reduce some of the height of the walls at those
locations by about 2 feet, and stonework is proposed for those exterior walls to
break up the expanse of stucco.
7. A portion of the basement has been relocated from below the family room to
below the entry, so that no backfill is required to make the basement comply with
Code. The resulting cuts have been reduced by some lowering of portions of the
house as well, to substantially comply with the grading policy, and reducing
overall grading by 150 cubic yards.
The overall effect of the changes is not a dramatic alteration of the site plan or house
design, but is a number of refinements which bring the home closer to conformity with
the Town's grading policy, basement definition, and design guidelines.
Site and Architecture
The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Permit for a new two story
residence with a basement. The neighboring properties within the subdivision are a
combination of large two story and one story residences.
The maximum height of the house on a vertical plane would be 26 feet, although the roof
heights range from 17 to 26 feet at different areas of the house. The height of the
residence from the lowest to highest point would be 28 feet, as the house is located in an
area of approximately 20 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 concrete tile roof and
ledgestone veneer accents. Accents have been added to the rear elevation as well since
the initial design reviewed by the Commission. The residence would be visible from
residences along Page Mill Road and Via Ventana Drive, although those homes are
generally at least 300-500 feet away and located at substantially higher elevations than
the subject lot. The applicant has designed the residence low on the hill and has designed
the house to be cut a maximum of 10 feet into the hill to lower the overall elevation of the
new residence. The roofline elevation is proposed at about 545 feet, 10 feet lower than
the 555 foot elevation prescribed for the lot in the conditions of approval for Matadero
Creek. In addition, there are a number of architectural features, including the varying
rooflines, bay windows, second story balconies and the number of indented areas of the
proposed new residence, which would help to reduce the appearance of bulk of the house.
As discussed previously, the family room (at the center of the rear elevation) has been
lowered a couple of feet from the first design by relocating the basement, lessening its
prominence.
Planning Commission •
May 27, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 4
Second Unit
The second unit is attached to the main house, at the southeast of the proposed garages,
with its own entrance, intended for the use of the nanny and her children. The size of the
unit has been reduced slightly with an interior stairway to the second floor. The unit
would include a kitchen, living area, four bedrooms and two bathrooms.
Cabana
The pool house has been reduced from 398 square feet to a 101 square foot
cabana/changing room. The maximum height of the structure would be 12'9", and the
roof is to match that of the main house. As the unit now includes only the changing room
and bathroom, staff has not included a condition to require that the applicant file a deed
restriction with the Town stating that the pool house will not be utilized as a second unit.
Outdoor Lighting
Two skylights are proposed along the rear roof of the new residence. Outdoor lighting
has been shown on sheet 1 of the plans. Lighting appears to be minimal, with one light at
each exit. Staff has included the standard condition (#6) for outdoor lighting, requiring
that fixtures be downshielded and that all locations be approved by the Planning
Department.
Parking, Driveway, and Turnaround
All of the four required parking spaces for the residence would be located within the
garages. A fifth space for the second unit was previously located to the east of the
residence, along the driveway, but has now been deleted. Condition #1 requires that the •
fifth parking space be provided (approximately 200 square feet) and that development
and/or floor area be reduced accordingly. All of the required parking spaces are
proposed out of the setbacks and have adequate backup area for the spaces. No retaining
walls are proposed for the new driveway.
The driveway grade has been reduced to 15%, consistent with the Town's standards. Due
to the long driveway proposed, the Fire Department has required a turnaround on site.
The applicant has designed the turnaround to work with the required turnaround for the
garage space, with an additional area to be constructed of grasscells, which would be
counted at 10 percent of the coverage toward the MDA (see worksheet#2).
At the January 14th meeting, some Commissioners suggested the possibility of relocating
the garage to face Matadero Creek Lane, with the reasoning that it would be lowered so
as not to be visiblefrom that street, and that the garage doors would not be visible to the
homes on Via Ventana. Staff notes, however, that the garage is set back some distance
from the rear elevation of the house, and that reversing its location would make the rear
elevation more bulky. Also, only one garage door is oriented towards Via Ventana, and
it is partially screened by the remainder of the house, due to its recessed location.
Finally, it would be difficult to keep the driveway at 15% grade without a considerable
amount of fill being placed under downhill side of the garage, further increasing its bulk.
Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 5
Grading
The plans indicate that the proposed project would include 3,300 cubic yards of cut and
400 cubic yards of fill. The cut and fill heights, as well as the combined total heights, are
generally consistent with the Town's guidelines for grading limitations for the proposed
development on the property except for corners of the garage and nanny's unit, which
would be cut about 10 feet below natural grade, whereas the grading policy limits 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 to
obtain a low elevation to maintain views from across Matadero Creek Lane.
The majority of the house is at the same finished floor elevation of 520 feet, but the
library and family room have now been stepped down 2 to 3 feet at the rear. to better
follow the natural contours of the lot. The applicant indicated that the front had been
designed at the same level to allow adequate drainage around the north side of the
residence and to lower the house to minimize view impact, which was a primary concern
of the Architectural Committee.
Basement
The applicant has included a 1,904 square foot basement with the residence which would
not count towards the floor or development area. The basement is designed to be entirely
below natural grade. Backfill would no longer be required as the portion of the basement
which was previously above existing grade has been relocated.
The exterior stairwell from the basement appears to be larger than the minimum building
code requirements, therefore staff has included a condition that the plans be revised to
reduce the size of the landing at the exit of the basement (see condition#1).
Trees
The driveway is to be located in the vicinity of a 12 inch oak tree. The driveway at this
area is on grade, therefore the tree would not be disturbed during construction. Condition
#7 requires that the dripline of the oak tree be fenced prior to construction to insure that
the tree will not be negatively impacted.
Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board
The Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board had reviewed the plans and the
proposed modifications to the conditions of approval of the tentative map upon the
Commission's January review. At that meeting, the Board members expressed their
objections to the deviations from the allowable Matadero Creek subdivision limits. It is
staff's understanding that the Board does not object to the design of the house, so long as
the allowable development area and building coverage limits are met.
Other Staff and Committee Recommendations
The proposed development has been reviewed by the Town Geotechnical Consultant,
who has recommended approval with conditions (condition #9), including addressing
some minor concerns regarding the design of drainage trenches and the foundation. The
construction drawings are required to be reviewed by the applicant's geotechnical
consultant with a letter of compliance for review by the Town prior to issuance of
Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 6
building permits to assure that the concerns are mitigated. The review letter from Cotton
Shires & Associates, dated January 7, 1998, is attached.
The Santa Clara County Fire Department requires that the applicant install fire sprinklers
to the residence to meet the required fire flow duration requirements (condition #23). In
addition, the driveway must meet access and turnaround requirements for emergency
vehicles, as indicated on the plans. The applicant must also provide one private fire
hydrant on the site, with the location approved by the Fire Department(condition#25).
The Pathways Committee has requested that the IIb pathway along Matadero Creek Lane
be restored, and condition#21 requires such restoration prior to final building inspection.
The Environmental Design Committee notes that the residence will be highly visible •
from across the valley and that the color should match the Town's color board, as
required in Condition#4. Condition#2 emphasizes the need to plant screening along the
west of the development to decrease visibility from across Page Mill Road and Matadero
Creek Lane. In addition, the Committee emphasizes that mowing in the open space and
conservation easements is preferable to discing, as discing encourages the growth of star
thistle.
Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or community may have.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Recommended conditions of approval; -
2. Amendment to Final Map for Tract No. 7187, approved March 4, 1998;
3. January 14, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes;
4. Worksheet#2;
5. May 12, 1998 Letter from Applicant's Architect;
6. Fire Department letter, dated August 30, 1997;
7. Letter from Cotton, Shires & Assoc., dated January 7, 1998;
8. Recommendation from Pathways Committee, dated August 28, 1997;
9. Recommendation from Environmental Design Committee, dated August 18, 1997;
10. Development plans (5 pages).
cc: Bob.and Peggy Rutner Larry Bridgeman Pong Ng
10632 Magdalena Ave. 4546 El Camino Real#A-14 404 Saratoga Ave.
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Los Altos, CA 94022 Santa Clara, CA95050
Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
LANDS OF RUTNER, 28500 MATADERO CREEK LANE
FILE#151-97-ZP-SD-GD-AMEND
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The basement exiting and window wells shall be the minimum required by
the Uniform Building Code. The plans shall be revised to add a fifth
required parking space, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Engineering
Departments, and to reduce development area and/or floor area by an
equivalent amount elsewhere to compensate for the increase. The revised
plans and a revised worksheet #2 shall be submitted to staff for approval
prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check 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. Special
attention shall be given to planting along the west of the new development
to screen the residence and outdoor areas from the homes across Page Mill
Road. 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 final 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 shallbe 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, garage doors,
Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 8
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. 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 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 shall be low wattage, shall
not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source or 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, in
particular the oak tree located adjacent to the driveway, 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. Skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No
lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
9. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated
January 7, 1998, the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. 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 applicant's
geotechnical consultant shall specifically address the following
items as part of the plan review: 1) proposed drainage outfall
trenches with respect to the potential for adverse slope stability
impacts; and 2) the adequacy of proposed foundation grade beam
reinforcement to resist anticipated uplift pressures. 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.
b. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The
Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 9
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) project approval.
For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter
from Cotton, Shires & Associates dated January 7, 1998.
10. A disclosure statement shall be recorded stating that the development area
(11,340 square feet) and building coverage (4,700 square feet) established
for the property by Council approval is 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
11. Standard swimming pool conditions:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-
site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety.
d. Equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides for noise mitigation
and screening.
B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
12. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be
designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the
runoff. The proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing
flow patterns. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the
Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction
of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A 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.
13. 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.
14. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed
underground.
Planning Commission
May 27, 1998
Lands of Rutner
Page 10
15. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and cabana, and
prior to final inspection, the locations and elevations of the new residence
and cabana shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved locations and elevations
shown on the approved Site Development plan. The location and elevation
of the pool 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 prior to final inspection. At
the time of framing inspection for the new residence and cabana, the
height of each building shall be similarly certified as being at the height
shown on the approved Site Development plan
16. 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.
17. 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 Matadero Creek Court 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.
18. 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.
19. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened
where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
prior to final inspection.
20. The property owner shall be required to connect to public sanitary sewer
prior to final inspection. If it is determined that any construction is
required to be done in the public right of way, an encroachment permit
shall be required to be obtained from the Public Works Department prior
to commencement of construction of the sewer lateral.
Planning Commission
May 27, 1998 •
Lands of Rutner
Page 11
21. The IIB pathway along Matadero Creek Lane shall be required to be
rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final
inspection.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT:
22. 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.
23. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall install a fire sprinklering
system to assure that adequate flow is available to the residence. The
design of the fire sprinklering system shall be reviewed and approved by
the fire department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
24. Fire apparatus access and turnaround shall be constructed and maintained
in accordance to approved Fire Department requirements. In addition, the
driveway shall be installed to the satisfaction of the fire department prior
to start of construction.
25. One private on-site fire hydrant shall be installed at a location to be
determined by the Fire Department. The hydrant shall be installed an
approved by the Fire Department prior to final inspection. The design and
location of the hydrant shall be reviewed and approved by the fire
department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
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 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 23 AND 25 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 May 27, 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.
AMENDMENT TO FINAL MAP
TRACT NO. 7187
28500 MATADERO CREEK LANE (LOT 7)
LANDS OF RUTNER
FILE#151-97-ZP-SD-GD-AMEND
(Approved by City Council on March 4, 1998)
1. This map amendment modifies Condition #7B of the subdivision conditions of
approval for Tract #7187 (Matadero Creek Subdivision) and applies to Lot 7 of
the subdivision only.
2. The maximum development area (MDA) for Lot 7 is increased to 11,340 square
feet, an increase of 2,000 square feet.
3. Allowable building coverage for Lot 7 is increased to 4,700 square feet, or as may
be modified pursuant to Council Resolution No. 1559.
4. Development area shall be defined as provided in the Town of Los Altos Hills
Zoning Code, Section 10-1.502 on March 4, 1998, and as may be amended from
time to time.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 4
there is not a riparian corridor t i the site since the channel will be off site and
drainage on the applicants pre•-• "y will be an underground pipe. Commissioner Jinkerson
felt it was a good idea t•..•—.the the house back due to the view corridor. If the e house is
set back four feet, ' could help visually while not being a great im•.<•4 o the applicants.
Staff suggest-• : ving the applicant the option to either move :.,,-'_.entire house back four
•
feet or •: " g the house to increase the front setback.
•
ie Planning Director suggested revised plans.' • 'eating the northeast corner of the livin.
room portion of the house be no closer t u .-' 6 feet to the front property line, or
house may be shifted 4 feet bac.,. 'he applicant agreed with the opt;•:,: as stated.
Chairman Gottlieb expressed •oncern regarding contractors park:,.-,1'..n the path and
creating an unsafe situati.• • '.r school children. She suggested.._..••'gthening the condition
• for the construct:•. •ation plan requiring contractors to =."'' on the project site.
MOT • -; SECONDED AND PASSED: Mo ':*•••••.y Commissioner Cheng and seconded
• ommissioner Schreiner to approve ite Development Permit for a new resid- .•,-
and pool, Lands of Silvestri, witl., following additions/changes to the co$1 ns of
approval: reduce the height of exceed 23 feet; the house shall be -1 so that the
northeast corner of the.,,' > g room is no closer than 46 feet to the - -:•,`'•''property line; add
to condition #16 -construction parking shall be on-site w' •,: single access to the site
for construe ' • vehicles; and to condition #17 to induct-. .;. 'otographs of the street in f
of the ' • property (and pathway, if installed by t • ime).
AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Coin • loners Jinkerson, Schreiner heng
NOES: None
This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar February 4, 1998. •
3.3 LANDS OF RUINER, 28500 Matadero Creek Lane (151-97-ZP-SD-GD);
A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, second unit,
pool house and pool, and a modification to the Tentative Map Conditions of
Approval.
The Planning Director introduced this item by providing background information of the
Matadero Creek Subdivision. The difference-from then and now is that the second floor
areas were not counted as development area. The original limitations did not count second
floor calculations. Staff felt the calculations should be consistent with the CC&R
definition. He further noted that several of the lots had been granted special treatment
regarding development area. The project before the Commission is completely consistent
with most of the lots before the Town changed the code. This is consistent with how the
Matedero Creek Subdivision has been built out. The Planning Director fielded questions
• regarding total area minus conservation easements, and noted this project will not be very
visible from Matadero Creek Lane. Twenty of the 22 homes have been developed under
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 5
the assumption that second stories do not count toward development area. He asked if it
was appropriate to apply different standards to the last two lots than applied to the other
properties in the Matadero Creek Subdivision. Commissioner Cheng clarified if this house
was developed back in the early 1980's, these figures would not be a problem.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Dr. Rutner, 10632 Magdalena Avenue, Los Altos Hills, applicant, discussed the history of
the project, the size to accommodate his large family (five children and a long time nanny
with three children), the low profile, setting house back, which will blend it into the
neighborhood.
Pong Ng, 1513 Fairway Drive, Los Altos, project architect, stated lots 12, 14, 16, and the
old Davis property would have exceeded the MDA and/or MFA of the Matadero Creek
Subdivision (with the second story). In answering a question regarding if they allow this
property not to count the second floor, he provided an example: lot 16 has 3,800 square
feet on the second floor which did not count in the development area calculations. If they
have to count the 3,800 square feet towards the development area, they could not expand
any more. This amendment will not allow every resident in the Matadero Creek
Subdivision to gain footage as the footage is already within the buildings. The current
design has gone through the Matadero Creek Architectural Committee. This is a very big
lot, very low profile, with a berm on left hand side for screening to mitigate the home.
Commissioner Jinkerson asked how much of the cut is due to the basement and what
would be the effect if the nanny's quarters were raised two feet. Chairman Gottlieb
commented that over a third of the driveway is at a 16% slope. She also asked for the
reason for the placement of the garage. Mr. Ng noted the intent was to push the family
yard toward lot 5 to shield the view from lot 3. Chairman Gottlieb did not feel the garage
adheres to the Design Guidelines and the house does not step down (20% slope).
Katy Stella, 27975 Via Ventana Road, did not feel the house was well hidden or low
profile. It seriously impacts the Via Ventana area. She referred to the Design Guidelines,
pages 2, 13, 14, 19 and 22. This is a very large house with privacy and view impacts.
Ruann Ernst, 28525 Matadero Creek Lane, with the Matadero Creek Architectural Review
Committee and a neighbor, clarified that the committee did submit a report to staff
addressing several issues. There was an issue with consistency in how the rules and
regulations regarding this subdivision apply to MDA/MFA. The subdivision was more
restrictive and there are a number of people who bought for that reason. The Committee
has tried to be consistent with the set of numbers as guidelines. They do not consider
themselves the final approval body for numbers, fire, drainage, etc. They do make design
recommendations. The committee uses the Matadero Creek Lot Analysis Summary of
Allowable Numbers prepared by Town I-Iall staff dated 1990 (one page chart). There has
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 6
been an issue in the manner in which the numbers have been counted when viewing the
floor plan. In all the time she has been on the committee, they assumed the second floor
was counted. Her concern would be with consistency with the existing homeowners. She
went on record stating this project exceeds their chart, and any deviation would be made by
staff. She felt as a neighbor and committee member, it leaves them in a disastrous position
if the remaining two homes are treated differently and allowed a much larger MDA and
MFA in terms of retrofitting every other property in the area or at least considering the
possibility. It was noted that a "Summary of Committee Meeting of October 15, 1997"
was not a part of the record. Ms. Ernst provided staff with a copy. This report
recommended that the owners should submit a revised plan that meets the requirements for
MDA, MFA and the maximum building coverage as described in sections 1.1 and 1.2 of
the report. Any revised plan should adhere to the guidelines enumerated in 1.4 of the
report.
The Planning Director noted that the Town has development area limits in the conditions
of approval, and the CC&R's have development area limits and a review process. The
Town does not participate in the CC&R's and the committee's review process. The Town
does not have to wait for a recommendation from the committee although it is best to
receive their comments prior to Planning Commission review. He agreed that there does
need to be some consistency between staff and the committee. There appears to be a
difference of opinion as to whether or not the committee supports this project. He referred
to the staff report, Attachment 9, a letter from the Rutners, signed by a neighbor (not as a
committee member). The Town is not responsible for implementing the CC&R's per the
City Attorney's advice. The authority for the CC&R's and the enforcement lies with the
residents of the subdivision who those apply to. The Town is not a part of the CC&R's.
They were originally, up to the time the 20`x' lot was sold. If the committee had told staff
they did not want the applicants to build, there would have been a different
recommendation. His impression has been that the committee liked the design of the house
although there seems to be confusion regarding numbers. Staff had met with a few
committee members for review and the joint suggestion was that the best way to proceed
with the house, since the committee did like the design, was to request an amendment to
the numbers and because it seems to fit in this location, it appeared appropriate to move
forward in this manner. He concluded that the committee can always review the proposed
numbers per CC&R's.
Commissioner Jinkerson stated it was his interpretation that the CC&R's run with the land.
Anyone within that subdivision can sue to enforce those provisions. He requested a
clarification by reviewing the October 16, 1997 Matadero Creek Architectural Review
Committee Summary of their October 15`1' meeting before voting on this project. He
would not want to vote on a project that could result in a law suit. He would ask that the
City Attorney advise the Commission regarding this issue as there appears to be a
misunderstanding.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 7
•
Bob Lefkowits, 28515 Matadero Creek Lane, stated when he bought his house which was
one of the first houses built in the subdivision, it was built with the less restrictive "second
floor does not count" rule. When he applied for the swimming pool 18 months ago, second
floor numbers counted. If the second floor does not count, then.there is no issue with the
Rutner project.
Ann Ward, 27947 Via Ventana; stated their house is directly across from the proposed lot.
They were in the house when the property was subdivided. She discussed the history of
the property, the limitations of the lot, the Town's limitations regarding development, and
the CC&R's which are legally restrictive on the property. She felt the more restrictive
numbers should be adhered to. She was at the October 15, 1997 meeting when the
committee discussed the design. At that time she commented that the house should not be
any higher up the hill due to the sight line of the crest of the hill. At that time, she did not
review the plans. Her concerns were the CC&R's issue, and their future view of bulk.
Gerald Thomas, 27933 Via Ventana, who has full view of the lot does not feel it can be
mitigated at the street level. He requested the project meet the CC&R's without exception.
Dr. Brian Vickory, 27977 Via Ventana, felt the view of this property cannot be mitigated
from his house. He will be viewing this property from living room, dining room and
kitchen. The house is not hidden, or low profile from Via Ventana. Commissioner
Jinkerson disclosed he had an opportunity to view the project from Dr. Vickory's property.
Larry Bridgman, applicant's building representative, stated, after much review, they were
under the assumption they were within the guidelines. However, there was concern by
staff and the committee. They have demonstrated that they can come in under rules that
have been applied and meet the guidelines (not counting second story). The problem is
inconsistency. They were trying to come up with a method that would apply to this lot
only. They volunteered to come in as a resolution which would only pertain to this lot.
The resolution would go before the City Council to become a recorded document against
this lot. They were presenting the project in this way to simplify the concern regarding
setting a precedence if they were approved under the guidelines first presented. Regarding
the Via Ventana neighbors, there is only a small area on this property allowed to be built
on. Anything put on this property will be seen. He asked that they remember that this site
is almost five acres with only a small building circle. There is almost four acres of open
space. He felt they have listened to and implemented appropriate changes. After much
review of records, he felt there was a very inconsistent interpretation of the CC&R's. He
was only asking for the same interpretation used prior.
Commissioner Jinkerson was concerned with the CC&R's issue. Chairman Gottlieb
agreed.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 8
Dr. Meridith Vorsha, 27977 Via Ventana, voiced concern with the views from Via
Ventana, the bulk and massive structure. The house is beautifully designed, however she
requested a lower and smaller structure.
Nick Ward, 27947 Via Ventana, stated no one ever solicited their input. He further
discussed the size of the lot which was created to preserve the crest of the hill. The
footprint is restricted. He asked for consistency with the other Matadero Creek properties.
Pong Ng, discussed the proposed resolution which was discussed with the committee and
staff. He felt the proposed resolution was proposed in the spirit of cooperation, a solution
that both the committee and staff thought would work. He discussed a similar resolution
on lot 16 regarding the design.
Commissioner Schreiner asked Mr. Ng if they have to meet the CC&R's figures of 9,340
development area figure, would they have to reduce the house to 6,000 or 7,000 square
feet?
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Director, to answer Commissioner Schreiner's question, stated one option
would be to lose 3,500 square feet from the house. Another option would be to remove the
swimming pool or cabana. It was mentioned by Commissioner Schreiner that she had a
chart which indicated that no one has exceeded the development area numbers. The
Planning Director responded that the chart reflects the development area numbers allowed
today; they are not the same which were originally approved with the subdivision. He also
explained that they have heard from a number of neighbors from Via Ventana, and
regardless of the numbers, there is still an issue of visibility, bulk, and design. The
Commission has every discretion to reduce the size of the house, revise the design of the
house to address those issues. At the same time, they have no obligation to approve the
exceptions to go over 9,340 square feet of development area. As he had mentioned, the
Commission does not have to enforce the CC&R's. It was staffs understanding that the
architectural committee did not object to the increase in the development area as it affected
the CC&R's. He did not feel just coming back with information in two weeks would not be
beneficial at this point.
Commissioner Jinkerson noted issues with bulk, stepping it down the hill, and 16.5% grade
on portions of the driveway. He would also like to study the October 16`h committee report
before making a judgment.
Dr. Rutner stated when they purchased the property, they were aware of the rules, and of
the homes where the second floor counted. Who needs to decide this issue, the City
Council or the Planning Commission? We need a guideline. Regarding the Via Ventana
property owners, they will see a structure no matter. As it is, they are building this house
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 9
20-30 feet lower than the recommended CC&R's. If it is in fact the City Council who will
be making this interpretation, he would prefer going directly to them. He does not want to
build a house everyone dislikes. He would like clear direction.
Chairman Gottlieb asked the Planning Director if it would be appropriate to send this
application to the City Council to determine the numbers only (amendment request), then
return the project to the Planning Commission to review the design? Commissioner Cheng
felt the numbers are within Town code. The only problem appears to be the CC&R's. The
Planning Director stated the Town is not bound to uphold the CC&R's. Commissioner
Jinkerson stated, after reading the committee report, it indicates that the project exceeds the
allowable MDA by 38%, and the maximum building coverage by 25%, and requesting that
the applicant come back with a better plan. The Planning Director noted the applicant did
come back to the committee as noted in the November 17"' report. He further stated that
the numbers that are in the CC&R's are the same numbers that are in the conditions of
approval for the Town; 9,340. The only way the applicant can get this project approved is
to amend those numbers. They have heard from some committee members and some
neighbors that they clearly will not support this project. The Commission can send this to
Council for interpretation as requested by Dr. Rutner. Commissioner Schreiner voiced
difficulty granting any lot in this Town a free basement and a free second story.
MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner
Jinkerson, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner, and amended to continue the Site
Development Permit for a new residence, second unit, pool house and pool, and to deny
the modification to the Tentative Map Conditions of approval, Lands of Rutner, to a later
date. Recommend compliance with the original development area and building coverage
numbers for this lot, counting the second floor as development area. Based on the
application, it is not properly before them due to the committee has not approved the
application per CC&R's. Secondly, there are considerable design concerns regarding the
bulk and mass, not stepped down the hill; the orientation and visibility of the garage
(visible position), cut and fill at the garage and for the basement, the high visibility of the
lot particularly from Via Ventana, and the 16.5% grade on portions of the driveway.
AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cheng, Schreiner, & Jinkerson
NOES: None
This item will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing.
Brief break at 10:30 p.m.
3.4 LANDS 0 E & VITU, 13824 Moon L of 3) (Page Mill C +ad)
4 -SD-GD); A request for a S. velopment Pero' r" a new
esidence and pool, and variance t w grading over a . .erty line.
.,. . ,... - - - . . . _ ... _. . .... .... •... -.......• •••• •. ..• - - __ - . -. . . _ . . _...... •....
so.,. .
-'5..
7/
. . ._ ..,_. .
....
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS .
26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills,California 94022'• (415)941-7222 • FAX(415)941-3160
._. _ PLANNING DEP
• . WORKSHEET #2
w EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA
- • TU1 N IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION •
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME i' 6�T_ R ,.i --0._
PROPERTY ADDRESS Z a 5p0 ict,ekerp,o X2.0Q�--E lc cam+e
CALCULATED BY=::- .., \, 1-t E.--r-4 4 g Pmd c-, N c,. DATE 4. f 3 a -9 g
1. DEVELOPMENT-AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) s .
'" `` Existihg ; Proposed Total
;; , (Additions or Deletions)
i
A. House and:Garage (from.Part B) -, c7Z 4 -7 401-
B. Decking ! .4g,.. -.1.43,- -Go-
C. Driveway and Parking -K- ;��
(Measured 100'.along centerline) -a'
D. Patios and Walkways •--c:: - 6 I 0 G rc
E. Tennis Court -E3-- -r.. -- -49-
F.
F. Pool and Decking • -0-- ,T 7:5 ,17,S
G. Accessory Buildings (from Part 13) -630 10J 101
H. Any other coverage (13Keria-.3 -e- I "(�q o'1- )'4- Ci 64-)
Do�iS NOT Geon,
TOTALS -6,- 1 )(331. //,33 Z
4-Mc-,--ova tax:. S•r, die wets �r'L'. a la•r.. cari'12Pra2 C= ll2 SA.)
Maximum Development Area Allowed - MDA (fro=" Worksheet #1) 1 I, 3` o
P MATI+oE:52 .REk 012.40/r1Asc
2. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE)
Existing Proposed • - Total
(Additions or Deletions)
A. House and Garage .
-
a. 1st Floor $ 33'30 ! 3 33 o
b. 2nd Floor _4p.._ :3,l 8a t FS
c. Attic and Basement • $_ (. 5'y*((4� !J c o`)
d. Garage ;,. -4 - ' 8 6 4 1s-4
B. Accessory Buildings
a. 1st Floor - (o t t u t
b. 2nd Floor $ -e5;,- -B-
c. Attic and Basement -4;6- •8-- -G--
TOTALS --- -- 7,S03 /,So 3
•
MAY:1SE3AILITI109ES9D18-111.13
May 12, 1998 ��;`►9�t ;
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Attn.: Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director
Re: Rutner Residence -Design Changes
Dear Curtis: •
As discussed during our 4-27-1998 meeting, I am writing to summarize the design
changes in the Rutner Residence.
• Project Size: Previously, the square footage of the living area, garage and cabana
totaled 8,505 square feet. In the current application, the corresponding areas totaled
7,507 square feet. We have reduced the above ground portion of the project by
approximately 1,000 square feet.
• Building Coverage: Previously,the footprint of the main house was 4,707 square
feet. The cabana and second floor overhang totaled 458 square feet, for a total
building coverage of 5,165 square feet. In the current application,the main house
footprint is 4,214 square feet, a reduction of 493 square feet from the previous design.
The cabana and second floor overhang now totaled 229 square feet, for a proposed
building coverage is 4,443 square feet, which is within the 4,700 square feet approved
by Council. The total reduction in building coverage is 722 square feet from the
previous,application.
• Driveway Grade: The maximum driveway grade is now 15%, and it is for a small
stretch of the driveway only.
• Design with Contour: We now stepped down the library and the family room by
approximately two feet from the main house, and both are at grade on the downslope
side. The roof line is also modified to follow the natural grade as much as possible.
• View from Via Vantana: The current library sits where the piano room was, and the
plate height of the room is now ten feet, as opposed to 12' before. As mentioned
above, we have lowered the family room and the library floor area to meet existing
grade. As a result, the total visible wall height at the library area is reduced by a total
of four feet from before. To further help the rear facade bland with the natural
landscape, we are placing stonework on the family room and library walls. While a
two-car garage door faces the Via Vantana direction, it is located farther away than
the rest of the house. In addition, if we plant trees, such as Redwoods, on the
downslope edge of the fire truck turnaround, we should be able to effectively screen
the garage door from view.
• Cut and Fill: We relocated the basement from below the family room to below the
entry. We do not have any backfill above natural grade to fully bury the basement.
We relocated the library to the downhill portion of the house, and moved the
garage/nanny area further down the hill, thereby reducing the amount of vertical cuts
in those areas.
We believe that we had made a genuine effort to address the concerns of the Planning
Commission and the neighbors. The resulting vertical cuts, and other quantifiable
measurements such as building height, length, etc. are similar to the design recently
approved on lot 5. The major differences to our credit is that we have 4 plus acres and we
are below the maximum deign height of 555' by approximately 20'. We hope that you
will agree that this design meets with the intent of the design guideline and should be
approved as proposed.
If you have any questions,please call me at(408) 985-6048. Thanks for your help in this
matter.
Sincerely,
fryChun Pong Ng
cc: Mr. &Mrs. Bob Rutner
Mr. Larry Bridgman
h��LARA Coy EIRE DEPARTMENT -
"''r,4 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONTROL NUMBER
1FII�,E
' ` 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER
COURTESY 8SERVICE (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax)
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 97- 1 983
FILE NUMBER 151 -97-ZP-S
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
Site review for proposed new 8,965 square foot single family residence with a
1,025 attached garage and 398 square foot cabana.
UFC 1. Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow for this project is 2,750 GPM at 20 psi
Appendix Aresidual pressure for two hours. The required fire flow is not available from
II area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing.
uFc 2 Final Required Fire Flow: Required fire flow may be reduced up to 50% in
AppAendixIII- buildings equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems but, can be no less
Section 5 than 1500 GPM. Therefore, the final required fire flow is 1500 GPM at 20 psi.
residual pressure. This flow shall be taken from any two fire hydrants, on or
near the site so long as they are spaced at a maximum spacing of 250 feet.
9 3. Required Access to Water Supply (Hydrants): Portions of the structure(s) are
9033.2 greater than 150 feet of travel distance from the centerline of the roadway
containing public fire hydrants. Provide an on-site fire hydrant OR provide an
approved residential fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the
building.
9 4. Required Fire Flow Option (Single Family Dwellings): Provide required fire
9033.2
flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500 feet OR Provide an
approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. The
fire sprinkler system shall conform to National Fire Protection Association
Standard #13D, 1994 Edition, and local ordinance requirements.
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
GIULIANI & KULL INC 07/30/97 1 OF 2
SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
LANDS OF RUINER 28500 Matadero Creek Ln
A California 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
otiAxa CoG FIRE DEPARTMENT
` Yam SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CONTROL NUMBER
I " 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95030-1818
1y47' BLDG PERMIT NUMBER
COURTESY 6SERVICE (408) 378-4010 (phone) • (408) 378-9342 (fax)
PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 97- 1983
FILE NUMBER 1 5 1 -9 7-_Z P-S
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
CODE/SEC. SHEET NO. REQUIREMENT
UFC 5. Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway
902.2.2 with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 14
feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius
of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations
shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1.
UFC 6. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway-Turn-around Required: Provide an
902.2.2.4 approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum
radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire
Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1.
UFC 7. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: When open gates shall not
902.2.4.1 obstruct any portion of the required access roadway or driveway width. If
provided, all locks shall be fire department approved. Installations shall
conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications G-1.
NOTE: Applies if applicant intends on installing a gated access point. See
attachment.
UFC 8. Private Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 1 private on-site fire hydrant(s) at
903.2
location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant
spacing shall be 500 feet and the minimum single flow hydrant shall be 1500
GPM at 20 psi residual pressure.
UFC 9. Timing of Required Roadway/Driveway Installations: Required roadway/driveway
901.3
installations shall be in place, inspected, and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start
of construction.Bulk combustible construction materials may not be delivered to the construction
site until installations are completed as stated above. Clearance for building permits also may be
held until installations are completed.
DISTRICT PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST.TYPE PERMITTEE DATE PAGE
0 0 0 0 0 GIULIANI & KULL INC 07/30/97 2 of 2
SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY
Residential Development Hokanson, Wayne
NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
LANDS OF RUTNER 28500 Matadero Creek Ln
A California 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
RECEIVED
renCOTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. JAN - 8 1998
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS.
January 7, 1998
L3357B
TO: Susan Manca
Planner
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road -
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Review
RE: Rutner,New Residence, Cabana and Pool
151-97-ZP-SD-GD
28500 Matadero Creek Lane
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the
proposed project design using:
• Soil Report prepared by Nielsen Geotechnical, dated October 6,
1997; and
• Site Development Plan (1 sheet, 20-scale) prepared by Giuliani (Sr
Kull, revised August 13, 1997.
In addition,we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files
(TMI-81 Matadero Creek Subdivision).
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes to construct a residence, cabana, and swimming pool in
the southern half of the subject property. In our previous review report (dated
September 9, 1997), we recommended geotechnical approval of the basic site
development plan with the condition that specific geotechnical design criteria be
developed based on a site geotechnical investigation. We also recommended that site
drainage design be evaluated considering investigation of soil properties and slope
conditions. We noted that some portions of the drainage outfall trenches, indicated on
the site development plan, are located relatively close to the existing cut slope above
Matadero Creek Lane and potential seepage or slope stability impacts should be
considered.
Northern California Office Southern California Office
330 Village Lane 5245 Avenida Encinas • Suite A
Los Gatos,CA 95030-7218 Carlsbad,CA 92008-4374
(408)354-5542 • Fax(408)354-1852 (760)931-2700 • Fax(760)931-1020
e-mail: losil@csaeo.com e-mail:carl@csageo.com
Susan Manca January 7, 1998
Page 2 L3357B
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on our review of the referenced Soil Report, we conclude that the Project
Geotechnical Consultant has, in general, recommended satisfactory design criteria to
mitigate apparent site constraints. However, it appears that the consultant must still
review geotechnical aspects of the project design to verify compliance with design
recommendations, and evaluate geotechnical aspects of proposed site drainage design.
Consequently, we recommend geotechnical approval of permits for project construction
with the following conditions:
1. 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,
pool, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated. The
consultant shall specifically address the following items as part of
the plan review:
a) Proposed drainage outfall trenches should be evaluated
with respect to the potential for adverse slope stability
impacts and design revisions should be recommended if
deemed appropriate.
b) The adequacy of proposed foundation grade beam
reinforcement to resist anticipated uplift pressures should
be verified or specific uplift pressures on the base of grade
beams should be quantified for consideration by the
Project Structural Engineer.
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.
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection -The geotechnical consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the project construction. The inspections should include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site
surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations
for foundations and retaining walls 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 (as-
built) project approval.
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Susan Manca January 7, 1998
Page 3 L3357B
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
Ted Sayre
Supervising Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
a ..A;le.„<s,
Patrick O. Shires
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
POS:TS:rb
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
.
2
corner of the property measuring 50 feet 11240 Magdalena Road; Lands of Hu:
in the North-South direction and 100 Restore II-B path along Magdalena.
feet in the East-West direction. 4/28/97 3/24/97
13961 Fremont Pines Lane; Lands of 28625 Matadero Creek Court; Lands of
Ware & Cates: Construct II-B path along Groff & Taylor: Construct a native path
Fremont Pines Lane. 3/24/97 in a 10 foot easement along the
25311 Fremont Road; Lands of boundary with 28620 Matadero Creek
Fitzpatrick: Construct II-B path along Court so as to connect the cul-de-sac to
Fremont Road. 5/27/97 the existing path on the lower portion of
property. Restore the latter path.
26170 Fremont Road: Lands of 4/28/9T
Zatparvar: Construct II-B path along 28500 Matadero Creek Lane; Lands of dommii.
Fremont Road. 9/22/97 Rutner: Restore II-B path along Matadero
26242 Fremont Road; Lands of Yanez: Creek Lane. 7/28/97
No request. 7/28/97 28510 Matadero Creek Lane; Lands of
25528 Hidden Springs Court; Lands of Jain: Restore II-B path along Matadero
Taylor: No request. 4/28/97 Creek Lane and the asphalt path above
11195 Hooper Lane; Lands of Goluknov: Page Mill Road. 2/24/97.
Construct a native path from Hooper 12205 Menalto Drive; Lands of Godinho:
Lane to the existing path from Frampton No request. 6/23/97
Court within a 30 foot pathway
easement with the pathway slope not 12631 Miraloma Way; Lands of Breetwor:
exceeding 15%. 5/27/97 . Restore II-B path along Summerhill and
construct II-13 path along Miraloma with
14400 Kingsley Way; Lands of Clevenger: the drainage ditch between the path and
Construct II-B paths along Altadena the road. 2/24/97
Drive and Kingsley Way. 3/24/97 27371 Moody Road; Lands of Rocchetti &
13001 La Cresta; Lands of Hsiao: No Herdell: Construct II-B path along Moody
request. 2/24/97 Road on the property side of the ditch
25309 La Loma; Lands of Loughmiller: and acquire a road and pathwayeasement as needed to encompass the
Construct a native path in a 10 foot 7/28/97
easement along the southern boundary path.
of the property from the water tank 26075 Newbridge Drive; Lands of
access road to the southwest corner of Critchfield: Restore II-B paths along La
the property. Provide pathway easement Paloma and Newbridge. 5/27/97
over the access road. 5/27/97 amended 24021 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of J. Lohr
6/23/97 Properties: No request. 2/24/97
13870 La Paloma Road; Lands of Hill: 24036 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of J. Lohr
Restore II-B path along La Paloma. Properties: Restore II-B path along Oak
6/23/97 Knoll Circle. 1/9/97
13935 La Paloma Road; Lands of 24044 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of Lohr:
Silvestri: Construct II-B path along La
Paloma. 7/28/97 Restore II-B path along Oak Knoll Circle.
4/28/97
25703 Lomita Linda Court; Lands of
Stitt: Construct II-B path along 24052 Oak Knoll Circle; Lands of Lohr:.
Ravensbury Avenue that deals with the Restore II-B path along Oak Knoll Circle.
drainage problems there. 3/24/97 5/27/97 -
10705 Magdalena Road; Lands of Urbach: 12113 OaBPpr h ark Clunt; Lan; Oa dsa k of Courthr:.
No request. 6/23/97 6/23/97 .
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CON MITTEE 's R jay?
AUG=J
NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION j;!r:
Applicant's Name:
j---A4kiL. .N ..
�, -i,2)%! L-//,!��. _ ';,.2/ le ,� 2
Address: /
Reviewed by: Date:
Existing Trees: (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building
•
site. Recommended protection during construction.)
-/- W . ,/r',/ .% �,�iz-1
, J
.Proposed Grading: (Impact on water table, nearby vegetation. Erosion potential. All
grading at least 10' from property line?)
`f r, /ljn�-� Y //e --//,a� #-7,1, 0j.-zap
and drain4g: (S ould a conservation easement e reco nnnrien�ded`( Sufficient
Creeksb
space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will
construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a
need for removal of invasive species?)
/ r
---,',0 y-.7(7-, •,:l.' 1,,i,,,/, .:?( ./,c; .',.:-1_7,-()
• Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway
impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation
(height, color, landscape).) -
4(.4. ) ,.),..) ,, .7/., //, / • I I( &.i< i.- -7'-.- .7T,-",.;/..-.
/i f' -) r'i , %� /SIJ./A 1�� .,“,.,q/./.,;?:/-/-'''''',f/
;_:� "
• /yl r,(i, ��l-./�i��.� .. /27/- -/!-- ./: 4 .ice `-.
Other Comments: LJUf // i ��
7‘:,,. z(4:', / �� , % %//
CYC- /- a