2008091516 staff report\6
DATE:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
September 11,2008
MEETING DATE:09/15/08
ITEM NO.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL ,~___
TOWN MANAGER ~~
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITHIN AN APPROVED PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2Y2:PD.APN 537-29-007 &008.
ARCHITECTURE &SITE APPLICATION S-08-55:KENNEDY ROAD @
FORRESTER ROAD.APPLICANT/APPELLANT:ROB DE SANTIS.
PROPERTY OWNER:ACORN TRUST.
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony.
2.Close the public hearing.
3.The Council may take either ofthe following actions:
a.Deny the appeal and uphold the Planillng Commission's decision to deny
Architecture &Site application S-08-55 (motion required).
b.Grant the appeal and approve Architecture &Site application S-08-55 (motion
required).
4.Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution if approved or
denied (no motion required).
If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or
modified relative to the appeal:
1.The Council needs to find one or more of the following:
PREPARED BY:~~z~~ct~mrnunity Development
Reviewed by:~Assistant Town Manager ~Town Attorney __Clerk FinanceLCommunityDevelopmentRevi"d:9111108 8:41 AM
Reformatted:5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR ACORN MEADOWS PD;FILE #S-08-55.
September 15,2008
(1)Where there was error or abuse ofdiscretion on the part ofthe Planning Commission;
or
(2)The new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that
was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission;or
(3)An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address,but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
2.If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning
Commission is new information as defined in Subsection (2)above,it is the Town's policy
that the application be returned to the Commission for review in light ofthe new information
unless the new information has a minimal effect on the application.
3.If the appeal is approved,use the findings and consideration ofthe Architecture and Site
applications (Attachment I),and modify the conditions in Attachment 2 as appropriate.
4.Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate resolution(s).
BACKGROUND:
On May 5,2008 the Town Council approved a Planned Development (PD)application for a new
residence,accessory buildings,pool,tennis court and pond on a 13.71 acre property.As part ofthat
action,Council approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan and
introduced the PD Ordinance.The PD Ordinance was adopted by Council on May 19,2008 (see
Exhibit 2 of Attachment 6).The applicant submitted the PD application in response to Planning
Commission concerns voiced at a December 2004 Study Session.The Commission indicated a
strong desire to have land use closure to prevent future development and ensure preservation ofopen
space.The PD provides land use closure with respect to numerous issues raised by the Commission.
The PD as approved has extensive design detail.Typically PD's have schematic plans that are
approved through the PD process as "Official Development Plans."The plans are then refined and
evolved in terms of architecture,grading and site improvements during the Architecture and Site
(A&S)process.In this case the applicant provided extensively detailed plans during the PD process
with very refined architecture,grading and site improvements with detailed conditions to the extent
that even the outdoor lighting is included on the landscape plans.These very detailed plans were
approved as the "Official Development Plans."This left very little for subsequent evaluation and
refinement during the A&S process.
In approving the PD,the Council approved four exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards &
Guidelines (HDS&G),as allowed within the HDS&G themselves,and deterruined that the project
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR ACORN MEADOWS PD;FILE #S-08-55.
September 15,2008
was otherwise compliant with the HDS&G as well as with the Hillside Specific Plan.The four
exceptions to the HDS&G are as follows:
•Main residence exceeds the allowable floor area
•Main residence and art stndio exceed allowable height limits
•Development is allowed outside the LRDA
•Cuts and fills exceed allowable depths
On August 13,2008,the Planning Commission considered the Architectnre &Site (A&S)
application for the project.The Commission continued the matter for two weeks and requested that
the applicant provide additional fencing,lighting,and landscape details including hydraulic and
iITigation calculations.
On August 27,2008,the Commission considered the revised fencing,lighting and landscape plans
and details.The Commission voted 4-3 to deny the A&S application based on its interpretation that
elements ofthe project only addressed in the A&S application did not comply with the HDS&G and
the landscape plan is incomplete.The applicant appealed the Commission's decision on August 28,
2008.
The Town Council is considering an appeal by the original project applicant of the Plillrning
Commission's denial of the A&S application.Denying the appeal will leave the Commission's
denial standing,requiring the applicant to retnm to that body for additional A&S review as directed
by the Commission in order to continue the project.Granting the appeal will require meeting one or
more ofthe criteria established by past Council policy.If the appeal is granted the A&S application
will be before the Council in its entirety for Council action as it chooses.However,the A&S
decision is constrained by and must be compliant with the prior Council approval of the PD.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant (appellant)is requesting approval of an Architecture and Site (A&S)application for an
approved PlaIllled Development (PD).The conceptual development plans contain a main residence
with attached guest unit and gill'age,pool and cabana,art stndio,gatehouse,pond,and a tennis cOUli .
and pavilion.The PD allows for an 8,650 square foot primary residence and a total floor area of
14,700 square feet.
DISCUSSION:
Architecture &Site
Staff and the Consulting Architect reviewed the plans for consistency with the PD Ordinance and
adopted development plans.The proposed project complies with the approved PD Ordinance and
Official Development Plans.The Consulting Architect recommended that the column/jamb elements
PAGE 4
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR ACORN MEADOWS PD;F~E #S-08-55.
September 15,2008
separating the windows in the circular form on the rear elevation be the same as the building wall
base material or treated as decorative half-round column elements.The applicant agrees with this
change and a condition has been included requiring that design detail to be refined when the
constlUction plans are prepared.General project data is provided in Exhibit 6 of Attachment 6.
Exterior materials and colors are presented in Exhibit 7 of Attachment 6.
StOlY poles were not installed since the size,location and building heights have been established
through approval of the PD.In addition,the house is being lowered into the site and story poles
would extend only a few feet higher than the existing grade.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The main residence and accessory buildings are set apart from development on surrounding
properties.The development will not relate directly to other residences in the area due to large
setbacks and topographic barriers.Homes sizes in the immediate area vary from 3,589 to 8,905
square feet and lot sizes from .88 to 10 acres.
Green BuildingiSustainability
The applicant has committed to building a green project.Staff used the Build It Green standards
(adopted by Town Council on June 2,2008)to determine that the project can meet certification
requirements.Condition #3 ofthe PD Ordinance requires the project to be certified as green through
evaluation using the GreenPoint checklist.The checklist must be completed by a Certified Green
Building Professional.The applicant completed a preliminary checklist and far exceeded the
minimum number of points (50)needed to achieve certification with a score of280 points.
Open Space Easement
As offered by the applicant and required by condition #19 ofthe PD,an open space easement will be
granted over approximately 10 acres ofthe property.The easement grant must be completed before
an occupancy permit is issued for the main residence.The open space easement will include the
natural hillside areas not being developed and will preserve those areas in a natural state.
Landscape Plan
A landscape plan has been provided (see Attachment 5).Ornamental planting is proposed in the
immediate vicinity of the developed areas,with native and low water plantings transitioning to the
natural hillside areas.The Planning Commission was concerned that not enough detail was provided
on proposed ornamental planting.Landscape plan details are not a required element of an
Architecture and Site application for a single family residence and are not typically inclusive of a
detailed planting plan at this point in the process.A planting plan will be submitted with the
PAGES
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR ACORN MEADOWS PD;FILE #S-08-SS.
September 15,2008
construction drawings and will be reviewed by staff and the Consulting Arborist prior to issuance of
any building pennits for the project.
As recommended in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,condition #9 requires evaluation ofthe area
south of the pool and cabana to detennine if additional planting is needed for screening of the rear
yard and back of the main residence once these improvements have been constructed.Landscape'
screening and trees required as mitigation for trees that are removed will be required to be planted,
prior to final inspection and issuance of an occupancy pennit.
Water Usage
COlmnissioners expressed concern about water usage on the site.About 15%of the property will be
landscaped and more than half of the plantings will be native and low water using species.The
approved PD allows a well to be installed subject to issuance of a pennit by the Santa Clara Valley
Water District.Taking a conservative approach of a well producing at the low end of the range for
the area (I 0-200 gallons/minute),the applicant has indicated that landscape water can be completely
provided for by installation of a well.Other than the turf areas,low volume emitters will be used to
irrigate landscaped areas.Condition #10 states that landscape water usage shall be minimized to the
extent possible through use of low volume emitters.
Fencing
Applicable HDS&G fencing standards are as follows:
1.Fences and walls shall not exceed a height ofsix feet measuredfrom the highest side ofthe .
fence or wall and should be limited to those areas where fences and walls ofthis height are
necessary for protection ofornamental landscaping,security,or play areas.
2.The use offences and walls shall be minimized and located so that natural landforms appear
to flow together and are not disconnected.The primary emphasis shall be on maintaining
open views,protecting wildlife corridors,and maintaining the rural,open,and natural
character ofthe hillsides.
3.Solid fencing materials shall not be used unless needed for privacy.
4.Deer fencing up to a maximum height of eight feet shall be limited to areas around
ornamental landscaping.Larger areas shall not be enclosed unless specific reasons for
keeping deer out have been demonstrated to the satisfaction ofthe decision making body.
5.Fences shall not be allowed in areas that would impede the movement of wildlife as
determined by the decision making body.
PAGE 6
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNCa
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR ACORN MEADOWS PD;FaE #S-08-55.
September 15,2008
There is existing fencing along the north,east and west property lines.The perimeter fencing is
shown on the approve PD plans.New split rail fencing that allows wildlife movement will be
installed along the south property line,following Kennedy Road.The fence will be set back 30 feet
from the road and will blend with the existing trees and vegetation.Fencing to be installed in the
interior of the property includes a wrought iron fence around the pool and a security fence that will
be wrought iron where visible and vinyl coated chain link where it cannot be send from off the site.
The majority of the security fence has been located adjacent to the tree line so it will not be seen.
The applicant provided a colored fencing plan that shows the areas where wildlife movement can
occur (see Attachment 14).Staffbelieves that the proposed fencing plan complies with the HDS&G
fence standards in that it is open style,is strategically located to minimize visibility and allows for
wildlife movement over a large portion of the property.
Lighting
Outdoor lighting locations are shown on the Fencing and Lighting Plan (Attachment 4).All light
fixtures will be down directed including the lights to be attached to trees (see Exhibit 13 of
Attachment 9).The tree mounted lights are not intended to light up vegetation.These fixtures will
provide soft lighting along the driveway and pathways.Lighting has been located to provide
adequate pedestrian and vehicular safety and security.An arborist will review and approve the
method of attaching the lights to trees.
Copper Roofing
The use of copper roofing on the art studio was also raised as a concern.As discussed recently by
Council,the Town does not currently have a policy or prohibition on the use of copper;however,the
Draft Residential Design Guidelines discourage the use of copper and pennit the Town to require an
alternative.The applicant has indicated that alternate materials will be considered or a coating may
be used on the copper to seal it.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission considered the application on August 13 and 27,2008.On August 27 tile'
Commission voted 4-3 to deny the application (Vice Chair O'Donnell and Commissioners Micciche
and Jensen did not support the motion).The findings for denial were that the planting plan is
inadequate and the proposed security fencing is not in compliance with the Hillside Development
Standards &Guidelines.The August 13,2008 minutes are Attachment 8.A verbatim transcript was
prepal'ed for the August 27,2008 meeting (Attachment 12).
APPEAL:
The Planning COlmnission's decision was appealed by the applicant on August 28,2008.
Attachment 13 is the appeal statement and Attachment 15 is a supplementallettel'submitted by the
PAGE 7
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR ACORN MEADOWS PD;FILE #S-08-55.
September 15,2008
applicant.The applicant's letter responds to the Planning Commission concerns including·
landscaping,water usage,fencing and wildlife movement and use of copper.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)was prepared for the Planned Development and was
approved by the Town Council on May 5,2008.The MND indicates that the following evaluations
were to be completed and considered as part of the A&S review:
•General Plan and HDS&G compliance
The project is in compliance with applicable General Plan policies and with the HDS&G
with the four exceptions made by Council.A General Plan compliance table,HDS&G
checklist and GreenPoint Rated Standards checklist are contained in the projectfile.
•Visual impact of retaining walls and consistency of retaining wall design
Retaining walls will be faced with an aged limestone that is also being used on the main
residence (see Exhibit 8 ofAttachment 6).
•Visibility of the pool and cabana from residences to the south
Views from these homes already include views ofresidential development on nearby ridges'
and hillsides and addition of the project structures would not substantially degrade the
visual character.This impact was determined to be less than significant and although no
mitigation measure can be required a design recommendation was included for Town
consideration.As discussed earlier in this report,Condition #9 was included to require
fUrther evaluation following construction ofthe pool and cabana.This is a more practical
means ofadequately assess the need for landscape screening.
•Change in visual character of the site due to grading
Visibility ofa proposed home is not strictly defined as a significant visual impact and the
Town has established a precedent for approving homes that are visible from surrounding
areas,but the designs of these homes must be consistent with the HDS&G.Architectural
review was completedfor the project and an extensive landscape plan will be implemented to
re-vegetate the site and replace trees that will be removed.
•Stormwater runoff (compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
[NPDESj permit program)
Preparation and implementation ofa Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
and compliance with NPDES Permit Provision C.3 is required.The SWPPP is currently
being prepared and will be required to be completed prior to start ofrough grading.An'
erosion control plan has been prepared and approved by Engineering.Materials will be
stoc1piled on the site and perimeter erosion control improvements will be in place prior to
commencement ofwork.
PAGE 8
MAYORANDTOWNCOUNC~
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR ACORN MEADOWS PD;FILE #S-08-55.
September 15,2008
•Consider narrowing the driveway
The applicant is working with staffand the Fire Department to narrow the driveway width in
locations that will not compromise sight lines or emergency vehicle access in an effort to
reduce grading,the height and length of retaining walls and the amount of impervious
coverage on the site.Condition #23 requires the refinement of the driveway width to be
completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Director of Community'
Development,prior to acceptance of construction plans for building plan check.The
driveway will be surfaced with permeable concrete.
CONCLUSION:
This application is unusual given the level ofdetail regarding the project in the previously approved
PD Ordinance.In approving the PD Ordinance along with the Official Development Plans,Council
was required to and did make findings of compliance with the General Plan,the Hillside Specific
Plan,and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.The approved PD Ordinance
constitutes law that Council,staff and all boards and commissions are now obligated to follow.The
findings made with regard to the approved PD Ordinance are conclusive as to the matters addressed
in the Ordinance.
The Architecture and Site application concerns matters not determined by the PD Ordinance.To
approve the Architecture and Site Application,Council must find that the project complies with the
General Plan,Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
Regarding the extensive and detailed architectural and site improvements already approved in the PD
Ordinance,a motion to approve the current application may incorporate by reference the findings
made in support of the introduction of the PD Ordinance,and then additionally find that the limited'
items discussed by the Planuing Commission and any others identified by Council not addressed in
the PD Ordinance also comply as evidenced by the analysis contained in the Staff Report dated
September 11,2008,along with any other evidence in the record Council may find relevant.
Ifthe Council decides that the A&S plans are consistent with the Planned Development and that the
A&S application should be approved,the following actions should be taken:
1.Find that the project is consistent with Planned Development Ordinance 2162
2.Find that the project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside
Development Standards &Guidelines;
3.Find that the project is consistent with the considerations for approval of Architecture and
Site applications (Attachment 1);and
4.Approve Architecture and Site application S-08-55 subject the conditions in Exhibit 2 and as
shown in the development plans (Attachment 3)and fencing,lighting and landscape plans
(Attachments 4 and 5).
FISCAL IMPACT:None
PAGE 9
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR ACORN MEADOWS PD;FILE #S-08-55.
September 15,2008
Attachments:
I.Required Findings &Considerations (four pages)
2.Recommended Conditions of Approval (eight pages)
8.August 13,2008 Planning Commission Minutes (seven pages)
12.August 27,2008 Planning Commission Minutes (74 transcribed pages)
IS.Applicant's letter (three pages),received September 9,2008
Previously received under separate cover:
3.Development Plans (22 sheets),received August 7,2008
4.Fencing and Lighting plan (one sheet),received August 19,2008
5.Landscape Plan (two sheets),received August 22,2008
6.August 13,2008 Planning COlmnission report with Exhibits I through 8
7.August 13,2008 Planning Commission Desk Item
9.August 27,2008 Planning COlmnission report with Exhibits 10 through 14
10.August 27,2008 Planning Commission Addendum Exhibits IS &16
II.August 27,2008 Planning COlmnission Desk Item with Exhibits 16 through 19
13.Appeal statement (two pages),received August 28,2008
14.Fence and Wildlife diagram (one page),received September 4,2008
Distribution:
Rob &Ranae DeSantis,200 Forrester Road,Los Gatos,CA 95032
Richard Landry,Landry Design Group,11333 Iowa Avenue,Los Angeles,CA 90025
Andy Faber,Berliner Cohen,10 Ahnaden Blvd.,II th floor,San Jose,CA 95113-2233
BNL:SD
N;\DE\!\SUZANNE\COUNClL\REl'ORTS\FWD.TO TC\APPEALS\KENNEDYACORN-A&S.DOC
TOWN COUNCIL -SEPTEMBER 15,2008
REQUIRED FINDINGS &CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road
Architecture &Site Application S-08-56
Requesting approval of a grading plan for an approved Planned Development on property zoned
HR-2Y2:PD.APNS 537-29-007 &008.
PROPERTY OWNER:Acorn Trust
APPLICANT:Rob DeSantis
FINDINGS:
Required compliance with Hillside Development Standards &Guidelines:
•That the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards &Guidelines.
Required compliance with Hillside Specific Plan:
•That the project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 29.20.150,Required considerations in review ofArchitecture &Site applications:
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including,but not limited to,the following:
(1)Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion.The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets;the layout ofthe site with respect
to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestlian entrances,exits,drives,and
walkways;the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion;the
location,arrangement,and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities;the
circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development,and the surfacing,lighting and
handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities.
a.Any project or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical intersections
shall be analyzed,and a determination made on the following matters:
I.The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate
existing traffic;
2.Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied;and
3.Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one
(1)year after occupancy.
Page 1 of3
Attachment 1
b.The deciding body shall review the application for traffic roadway/intersection
capacity and make one (1)of the following determinations:
1.The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing the
roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2.The project will impact a roadway(s)and/or intersection(s)causing the
roadway(s)and/or intersection(s)to exceed their available capacities.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1 )b.l.may proceed.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (l)b.2.must be
modified or denied if the deciding body determines that the impact is
unacceptable.In determining the acceptability of a traffic impact,the
deciding body shall consider if the project's benefits to the community
override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections from the
general plan and any applicable specific plan.
(2)Considerations relating to outdoor advertising.The number,location,color,size,height,
lighting and landscaping ofoutdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation
oftraffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development.Specialized
lighting and sign systems may be used to distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as
the downtown area and Los Gatos Boulevard.
(3)Considerations relating to landscaping.The location,height,and materials ofwalls,fences,
hedges and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal
storage areas,utility installations,parking lots or unsightly development;the planting of
ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion;and the unnecessary destruction
of existing healthy trees.Emphasize the use of planter boxes with seasonal flowers to add
color and atmosphere to the central business district.Trees and plants shall be approved by
the Director ofParks,Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose ofmeeting special
criteria,including climatic conditions,maintenance,year-round versus seasonal color change
(blossom,summer foliage,autunm color),special branching effects and other considerations.
(4)Considerations relating to site layout.The orientation and location of buildings and open
spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of the
neighborhood;and the appearance and harmony ofthe buildings with adjacent development.
Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g.downtown,Los
Gatos Boulevard,etc.).Buildings should maximize preservation of solar access.In the
downtown,mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new
parking facilities shall be encouraged,and shall include such crime prevention elements as
good sight lines and lighting systems.
(5)Considerations relating to drainage.The effect ofthe site development plan on the adequacy
of storm and surface water drainage.
Page 2 of3
(6)Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design ofbuildings and structures.The
effect of the height,width,shape and exterior construction and design of buildings and
structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the neighborhood and
purposes of the zone in which they are situated,and the purposes of architecture and site
approval.Consistency and compatibility shall be encouraged in scale,massing,materials,
color,texture,reflectivity,openings and other details.
(7)Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture.Streets,walkways,and building
lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of the Town.Street
furniture and equipment,such as lamp standards,traffic signals,fire hydrants,street signs,
telephones,mail boxes,refuse receptacles,bus shelters,drinking fountains,planters,kiosks,
flag poles and other elements ofthe street environment should be designated and selected so
as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image.
(8)Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons.The adequacy of the site
development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically disabled persons.
Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total valuation of alterations,
structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value established by resolution of the
Town Council,shall require the building to be modified to meet the accessibility
requirements oftitle 24 ofthe California Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility.
In addition to retail,personal services and health care services are not allowable uses on non-
accessible floors in new nonresidential buildings.Any change ofuse to retail,health care,or
personal service on a non-accessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that floor
to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility requirements of
title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify the building for
unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those requirements.This provision
does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment of this chapter.All new
residential developments shall comply with the Town's adaptability and accessibility
requirements for physically disabled persons established by resolution.
(9)Considerations relating to the location of a hazardous waste management facility.A
hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500)feet to any
residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public or private
school primarily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18).An application for such a
facility will require an environmental impact report,which may be focused through the initial
study process.
N;\DEV\FINDINGS\2008\KENNEDYACORN-A&S.DOC
Page 3 of3
TOWN COUNCIL -SEPTEMBER 15,2008
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road
Architecture &Site Application S-08-56
Requesting approval of a grading plan for an approved Planned Development on property zoned
HR-2Y2:PD.APNS 537-29-007 &008.
PROPERTY OWNER:Acorn Trust
APPLICANT:Rob DeSantis
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1.APPROVAL:This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the
conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans
approved on August 27,2008 and noted as received by the Town on August 7 &19,
2008.Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the
Community Development Director or the Planning Commission depending on the scope
of the change(s).
2.EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL:The Architecture and Site application will expire two
years from the date of the approval pursuant to Section 29.20.335 of the Town Code,
unless the approval is used prior to expiration.
3.TOWN INDEMNITY.Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires
that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend,
indemnify,and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn,set aside,or void the permit or entitlement.This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval.
4.PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.All conditions included in Planned Development
Ordinance 2162 shall be complied with unless modified by the conditions contained
herein.
5.EXTERIOR COLOR.The exterior color of the house shall not exceed a light reflectivity
value ono and shall blend with the natural vegetation.
6.DEED RESTRICTION.Prior to the issuance of a building permit,a deed restriction
shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that
requires all exterior paint colors to be maintained in conformance with the Town's
Hillside Development Standards.
7.ARCHITECTURE.The final detailing for the windows on the circular element on the
rear elevation shall be reviewed and approved by staff with input from the Consulting
Architect,prior to issuance of a building permit.
8.OUTDOOR LIGHTING.House exterior and landscape lighting shall be kept to a
minimum,and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto
adjacent properties.The outdoor lighting plan can be reviewed during building plan
check.Any changes to the lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior
to installation.
Page 1 0/5
Attachment 2
9.LANDSCAPE PLAN.Any non-native species and/or ornamental planting shall be
located within 30 feet of the perimeter of the area formed by the main house,pool and
cabana,and within 30 feet of other structures on the property.A planting plan shall be
included with the construction plans and shall be reviewed for HDS&G compliance
during the building plan check process.
10.IRRIGATION.Water usage for landscaping shall be minimized to the extent possible
through use oflow volume emitters.
Building Division
11.APPLICABLE CODES.The project shall conform to the 2007 California Building,Fire,
Mechanical,Electrical,and Plumbing Codes.The CC's are based on model codes;2006
International Building Code and Fire Code and 2006 Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical
Codes and the 2005 National Electrical Code.
12.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans shall be provided with the building
permits submittal (maximum size 24"x 36").
13.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full
on the cover sheet of the construction plans.A compliance memorandum shall be
prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions
of Approval (inclusive of the PD Ordinance)will be addressed.
14.SOILS REPORT:A soils report,prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations,shall be submitted
with the building permit application.The report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineer specializing in soils mechanics (California Building Chapter 18).
15.SHORING.Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations that
exceed four (4)feet in depth or that remove lateral support from any existing building,
adjacent property or the public right-of-way.Shoring plans and calculations shall be
prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall conform to Cal/OSHA regulations.
16.FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS:A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer
or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation
inspection.This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as
specified in the soils report;and,the building pad elevation,on-site retaining wall
locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans.Horizontal and
vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil
engineer for the following items:
a.Building pad elevation
b.Finish floor elevation
c.Foundation comer locations
d.Retaining Walls
17.BACKWATER VALVE.The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025.Please provide
information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the
installation.The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District
(WVSD)requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood
level rims less than l2-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
18.WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE.This project is in a Wildlife Urban Interface Fire
Area and must comply with Chapter 7A of the 2007 California Building Code.
Page2of5
19.DEFENSIBLE SPACE.A Defensible Space/Fire Break Landscape plan prepared by a
California licensed architect shall be provided.The plan shall be in conformance with
the California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section
51182.
20.LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION.A letter shall be provided from a California licensed
architect certifying that landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been
completed in compliance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California
Government Code Section 51182,prior to final inspection.
21.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS:The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as
the second page.The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service
Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
22.APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following departments and
agencies approval before issuing a building permit:
a.Community Development -Planning Division:Suzanne Davis at 354-6875
b.EngineeringlParks &Public Works Department:Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
c.Santa Clara County Fire Department:(408)378-4010
d.West Valley Sanitation District:(408)378-2407
e.Local School District:The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate
school district(s)for processing.A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to
permit issuance.
TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS &PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
23.DRIVEWAY WIDTH.The applicant shall reduce the driveway width to the satisfaction
of the Town Engineer and the Director of Community Development prior to submittal of
plans for building plan check.Width reductions shall be made strategically to reduce
retaining wall height and length,tree impacts,grading volumes and impervious area
while still satisfying Engineering and Santa Clara County Fire Department standards.
24.DRIVEWAY APPROACH.The developer shall install a Town standard residential
approach.The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Details.
25.SITE DRAINAGE.Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks.No through
curb drains will be allowed.
26.NPDES.On-site drainage systems shall include a filtration device such as a bio-swale or
permeable pavement.
27.SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE.Drainage piping serving fixtures which
have flood level rims less than twelve (12)inches (304.8 mm)above the elevation of the
next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system
serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backfIow of sewage by installing an
approved type backwater valve.Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through
the backwater valve,unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec.6.50.025).The
Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer
overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater
valve,as defined section 103(e)of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section
6.50.010 of the Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition.
Evidence of West Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is
needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
Page 3 0/5
28.SANITARY SEWER LATERAL.Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley
Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
reused.Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line.
29.UTILITY SETBACKS.House foundations shall be set back a sufficient distance from
utility lines to allow excavation without undermining the foundation.The Town
Engineer shall determine the appropriate setbacks based on the depth of the utility line,
input from the solids engineer and the type of foundation.
30.COSTRUCTION STREET PARKING.No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000)pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from
the Town Engineer (§15.40.070).
31.GOOD HOUSEKEEPING.Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction.Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours.
The storing of goods and/or materials on the street will not be allowed unless a special
permit is issued by the Engineering Division.
32.TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN.The project sponsor shall work with the Engineering
Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and coordinate with the Police
Department,Santa Clara County Fire Department,School District(s),and any public
transportation agencies that share the same route(s)as construction traffic for the project
to develop a Traffic Control Plan.The Plan shall be incorporated into the bid documents
(specifications)and shall include,but is not limited to,the following measures:
a.Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize
traffic disruption for schools,residents,businesses and special events.The
schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with coordination of
the trucking operation.
b.All construction traffic shall not exceed a speed of 15 MPH.
33.NEW TREES.All newly planted trees are required to be double staked to Town
Standards.
34.GENERAL.All existing trees being retained and replacement trees are specific subjects
of approval of this plan and must remain on the site.
35.PERMIT ISSUANCE.Permits for each phase (reclamation,grading and landscaping)
shall be issued simultaneously.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
36.REQUIRED FIRE FLOW.Required fire flow is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi.residual pressure.
37.WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE.A State of California licensed (C-16)Fire
Protection contractor shall submit plans,calculations,a completed permit application and
appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning work
38.AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED.An approved automatic fire
sprinkler system is required for the new residence,guest quarters,garage,and all
accessory structures 500 square feet or greater.The sprinkler system shall be
hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)Standard #13D
and local ordinances.The fire sprinkler system supply valving shall be installed per Fire
Department Standard Detail &Specifications W-lISP-6.
Page 4 0[5
39.PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S)REQUIRED.Provide pubic fire hydrant(s)at location(s)
to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company.
Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet,with a minimum single hydrant flow of
1,500 GPM at 20 psi residual.If area fire hydrants exist,reflect their location on the civil
drawings included with the building permit submittal.
40.FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION IDENTIFIER.Prior to final inspection the general
contractor shall ensure that an approved "Blue Dot"fire hydrant location identifier has
been placed in the roadway as directed by the Fire Department.
41.FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED.An access
driveway with a paved all weather surface,minimum unobstrncted width of 12 feet,
vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches.Installations shall conform to Fire Department
Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-I.
42.FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED.Provide
an approved Fire Department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36
feet outside and 23 feet inside.Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard
Details and Specifications D-l.
43.EMERGENCY GATE/ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.Gate installations shall conform to
Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-l and shall not obstrnct and
portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways when open.
Locks,if provided,shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation
44.PREMISE IDENTIFICATION.Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings
so they are clearly visible and legible from Kennedy Road.Numbers shall be a minimum
of four inches high and shall contrast with their background.
N;\DEv\CONDITNS\2008\KennedyAoom-A&S.doc
PageS 0/5
Chair D.Michael Kane called for a break at 8:55 p.m.and reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
3.Kennedy Road @Forrester Road.Architecture &Site Application S-08-55.Requesting
Architecture and Site approval for a new residence,pool,tennis court and accessory
stmctures within an approved Planned Development on propelty zoned HR-2Yz:PD.
APNS 537-29-007 &008.PROPERTY OWNER:Acom Tmst.APPLICANT:Rob
DeSantis
Associate Planner Suzanne Davis presented the staff report.
Town Attorney Orry Korb commented on the Planning Commission's purview in considering
this application,which is limited to the Architecture and Site Application and not the Planned
Development that was previously approved by Town Council.
Commissioner Philip Micciche inquired about the desk item which is a letter from an attomey
regarding a possible conflict of interest.Town Attorney Orry Korb commented that the
letter expressed concern that members ofthe Commission may have pre-decided this issue by
attending a meeting and holding discussions.He said in speaking with the Commissioners,there
does not appear to be an issue.
Commissioner John Bourgeois inquired about the Commission's purview in fmding that the
project is compliant with the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines (HDSG)apart from the
four exceptions that Town Council approved.
Town Attorney Orry Korb explained that the Commission must defer to the decision of the
Town Council that the project is compliant with the HDSG with exceptions.Was intelTupted by
a dismption from the audience.
Chair D.Michael Kane asked for the cooperation of the audience in this matter.Commented
that the only items before the Commission tonight are Architecture and Site issues and HDSG
issues apart from what was already approved by Town Council.
Town Attorney Orry Korb further commented the Town Council directed that this Architecture
and Site Application be considered by the Plmming Commission rather than Development
Review Committee,and that the Connnission's purview is limited to the proposed architecture of
the stmctures.The Commission is still required to make general findings on standards and
gnidelines other than those already approved under the Planned Development.
In answer to a question by Chair D.Michael Kane,Town Attorney Orry Korb cOlmnented
the Commissioners are not required to recuse themselves from involvement in an application if
they are not biased.The Commission's decision on the Planned Development does not constitute
bias.
Chair D.Michael Kane opened the public hearing.
Plarming Commission Minutes Page 7 Augnst 1 ~')flflQ
Attachment 8
Rob DeSantis,applicant,commented on the history of the project.Commented that the
Architecture and Site Application is consistent with the Planned Development and is a national
model for green building.Also commented Friends of the Hillside have filed a CEQA lawsuit
against him and the Town.Commented that it has come to his attention that some Planning
Commissioners may have spoken to members of the public or the opposition,attended Friends of
the Hillside meetings,and possibly contributed financially to the CEQA lawsuit.Asked that
each Commissioner make a public statement as to who they talked with about his project or the
lawsuit,if they had attended any meetings about the project,and/or contributed funds to the
Friends of the Hillside or lawsuit.If so,he asked that those Commissioners recuse themselves.
Chair D.Michael Kane asked Mr.DeSantis ifhe was concerned about any of the
Commissioners being biased.Mr.DeSantis said he was not concerned.Chair D.Michael
Kane then asked if any of the Planning Commissioners felt they should recuse themselves or if
they had contributed funds.The Commissioners indicated there was not a need to recuse
themselves and that none had contributed funds.
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore suggested that an alternate material be used in place of the
copper roof,gutters,vents and flashings since the Town discourages the use of copper due to
environmental consequences.
Dick Konrad commented that a hydrology study and environmental assessment be conducted
prior to the installation of a well to determine the potential effects of a well on the
area's water table,and that water efficient landscaping and irrigation be incorporated.Also
commented this project represents conspicuous consumption rather than sustainability.
David Weissman cOlmnented on the need for wildlife penneable fences or to eliminate fences
altogether since much of the project is in open space.Suggested that any fences added after
construction and not shown on the plans be required to be animal friendly.Suggested that the
Town's landscape standards be incorporated into the official conditions of approval and
documented as complete before an occupancy permit is issued.
David Greene commented that this is not a green project due to 140 trees being removed.
Y ouwanda Dreger commented in opposition due to concerns with landslides,drainage and fire
when land mass is changed.Showed a picture of 30 acres being subdivided into 12 lots and
commented on how it will change the Town.
Bernadette Chadwick commented on the importance of story poles and felt they should have
been required for this project.Objected to the amount of grading.Commented this project is
getting special permission while other projects have had to downsize.
Steve Imrie commented on concern with the amount of dirt that will be removed and its impact
on the whole community.
Richard Whitaker commented on concern with development that has already occurred on the
hillside.
Planning COlmnission Minutes Page 8 August 13,2008
Sandy Decker commented in opposition to the project due to 22 of the 29 Hillside Guidelines
not being met;the square footage of the house;the amount of cut,fill and off haul of dirt;and
that the project is still being changed.Urged the Commission to deny the project.
Rosemary Greene commented on concerns with the trend of the Town granting projects with
exceptions to the HDSG.Urged the Commission to adhere to the Town's guidelines to protect
the Town and hillsides.
Jack Faraone,neighbor across the street,commented in support of the project in that it is
thoughtfully sited,it is not the biggest house in the neighborhood,and it will be a green project.
Peter Donnelly spoke in opposition and asked that the Planning Commission enforce the
HDSG.Also commented that past decisions on house sizes should not be a precedent for new
decisions.
Anil Singh commented in support ofthe project in that the house matches the neighborhood,it is
being built green,they are setting aside acreage for open space,the hillside has been worked
before,and that if this house is not allowed,they may end up with several houses on this parcel
instead of only one.
Florence Smith commented on concern with setting a precedent of not following the HDSG.
Leonard Pacheco urged the Commission to condition the application to require a major redesign
of the structure to lessen the environmental impact on the hills and the landscape.
Paul Quintana asked the Chair to poll the Commissioners if any of them had positive or
negative biases,and if so,that they recuse themselves.Chair D.Michael Kane cormnented he
would not poll the Commissioners.Mr.Quintana then commented that the applicant indicated
he could have complied with the HDSG ifhe had wanted to,and that the project is not green due
to its extreme abuse of the environment.Commented that he has lost faith with the Planning
Department and the Department Director in that their interest lies with the applicant and not the
Town.
Lee Quintana commented on deficiencies in the Initial Study.Asked that the Commission find
that the project is not consistent with the HDSG,
Commissioner Philip Micciche inquired about the statement that the project does not meet 22
out of the 29 HDSG.Town Attorney Orry Korb commented Town Council addressed all of
the issues concerning parts of the development that may not have been in compliance with the
guidelines as Wl'itten through the exceptions they were allowed to make,and was not aware
that any of the guidelines were not complied with.
Chair D.Michael Kane called on Rick Ardizzone who was not present.
Ray Davis made a remark to the applicant and was given a warning by Chair D.Michael
Kane,Mr.Davis commented that State land use laws designate that the Plmming
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 13,2008
Commission is independent from Town Council and that planning is its only charge.Also
commented that in reviewing Architecture and Site Applications,the Commission shall consider
all relevant matter,such as the development policy for infill projects which was left out of the
public discourse.Quoted from the Infill Policy,noting that in-fill development should blend
with its surroundings.
Alrie Middlebrook commented that the amount of cubic yards being removed negates this
project from being green.Also commented on concerns with displacement of water,drainage
issues and watershed protection.
Christine Currie commented on inaccuracies with the Assessor's Parcel Number on several
documents.Asked for clarification of where Mr.DeSantis has been living for the last 20 years.
Commented that much of the environmental information was incomplete and asked that the
Commission wait until the documents are in hand before making a decision.
Associate Planner Suzanne Davis commented the APN was incorrect on the title sheet of the
staff report due to a typo and that it is correct on the other documents.
Rob DeSantis rebutted statements that were made and commented that the project is consistent
with the approved Planned Development.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc inquired about the landscape plan and fencing,which is not
shown on the plan.Rob DeSantis commented that he does not plan to change anything on the
current landscape plan aside from any unforeseen issues that may arise.Also commented that
the fence will be a wildlife permeable fence.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc inquired about the driveway width.Rob DeSantis commented he
will be working with the Town to minimize the width of the 20 foot driveway where possible.
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore inquired about the gate house,since it was not included in the
plans.Associate Planner Suzanne Davis connnented the gate house structure was shown in the
Planned Development plans and has not changed.
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore inquired about the retaining wall and pathway material.Rob
DeSantis commented they will have no retaining walls in excess of five feet high.The majority
of the walls are three feet high or less and the materials will be consistent with the house.The
pathway will be a permeable surface.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc inquired about hydrology tests and whether water well and
irrigation was part of the review.Rob DeSantis commented they should assume they will not
use a well for inigation because they have not done all the studies to make sure it makes
fmancial sense.
In answer to a question by Commissioner Philip Micciche,Mr.DeSantis described plans to
reduce the export to be off hauled.Associate Civil Engineer Fletcher Parsons described the
truck route for the off haul.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 August 13,2008
There being no further testimony,Chair D.Michael Kane closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore commented that the design was not the rural character they
were looking for in the hillsides.
Commissioner Philip Micciche commented that there could have been two 6,000 square foot
homes on the property rather than one 9,000 square foot home.Inquired how many other 8,000
square foot homes were in the area.Associate Planner Suzanne Davis commented the largest
is 8,900 square feet and that many are in the 5,000-6,000 square foot range.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc commented one of the principle tenants of sustainability is to
lighten the footprint on the environment which needs to be weighed when considering projects.
Further cOlmnented that she is not in favor of approving plans that are incomplete,noting the
landscape plans for the project.Should the project move forward,Commissioner Sayoc
suggested the following be added as conditions of approval:
•The standards on page 51 ofHDSG regarding water efficiency should be conditions of
approval because of the large parcel and the water conditions in the area.
•Ensure that omamentation and landscaping are not the priority over the best use of the water
conditions.
•Altemate material be used instead of copper.
• A fencing plan with illustrations be submitted for approval,using standards listed in the
HDSG.
•The amount of trucks off hauling dirt is a significant public health and safety issue and
should be enforced.
Commissioner Marcia Jensen inquired about the status of the litigation and if there were a
restraining order and how it will affect their action tonight.Town Attorney Orry Korb
commented there has not been a request for restraining order that he was aware of.
Vice Chair Thomas O'Donnell commented on the limited scope of the Planning Commission's
purview on this item.Commented that within the parameters ofthe Town Council approval he
was prepared to approve the application with conditions mentioned tonight.
Commissioner John Bourgeois commented he could not make the finding that the project is
compliant with the HDSG,regardless of Town Council action.Connnented that an example is
on page 48,Standards for Accessory Buildings,swimming pools and sport courts are prohibited
on slopes greater than 30 percent.
Town Attorney Orry Korb commented Town Council made the determination that subject
to four exceptions,the project is in compliance with the HDSG.
Commissioner Joanne Talesfore commented there was no lighting plan for them to evaluate.
Also commented that it is a grand house,but is not rural and could not picture it in the hillside.
The argument is not with the Planned Development,but with the architecture.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 Augnst 13,2008
Chair D.Michael Kane commented there are missing pieces and suggested that the item be
continued for 2-4 weeks for further study.
Motion by Vice Chair Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Philip Micciche to
approve Architecture and Site Application S-08-55.The required findings were made as noted
in Exhibit 4 of staff report dated August 13,2008,and the application incorporated conditions as
noted in Exhibit 5 of staff report dated August 13,2008,including conditions added by
Commissioner Marico Sayoc.
Chair D.Michael Kane inquired about continuing the application for two weeks to include the
missing items.Associate Planner Suzanne Davis said that fencing and lighting details could be
provided by then.Chair D.Michael Kane commented he would not support the motion in
order to have time to consider the missing items.
Motion failed 2-5 with Chair D.Michael Kane,Commissioner John Bourgeois,
Commissioner Marcia Jensen,Commissioner Marico Sayoc and Commissioner Joanne
Talesfore dissenting.
Motion by Chair D.Michael Kane to continue Architecture and Site Application S-08-55 for
two weeks for further consideration and to have all the facts.
Commissioner Marcia Jensen seconded the motion if the discussion were limited to fencing,
landscape plan,and lighting plan so there is not a second generalized discussion.Maker of the
motion commented it should be limited to the Architecture and Site Application,of which those
were components,otherwise they would be deciding the rest of the Architecture and Site
Application tonight.Commissioner Marcia Jensen withdrew her second.
Motion died for lack of second.
Motion by Commissioner John Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore
to deny Architecture and Site Application S-08-55 based on not being able to make the finding
that the project is consistent with the HDSG,evidenced by:Page 9,Objectives #7 and #9;page
18,Site Planning Standards #3;page 36,Bulk and Mass Standards #2;page 48,Accessory
Building Standards #3;page 51,Landscape Design Standards #3, #4,#5 and #7;page 53,Plant
Material Standards #4.
Commissioner Marcia Jensen commented she could not support the motion because the
Commission is bound by Town Council Resolution 2008-056 which makes findings regarding
approval of the Planned Development for the project.
Motion failed 3-4 with Chair D.Michael Kane,Vice Chair Thomas O'Donnell,
Commissioner Marcia Jensen and Commissioner Philip Micciche dissenting.
Motion by Vice Chair Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Philip Micciche to
approve Architecture and Site Application S-08-55 except to grant a two week continuance to
Planning COlmnission Minutes Page 12 August 13,2008
consider landscaping,lighting,and fencing design plans so that final approval of the whole
Architecture and Site Application will be dependent upon approval of those plans.
Town Attorney Orry Korb suggested that the motion would be as worded but also to continue
the public hearing for the limited purpose of receiving evidence concerning landscaping,fencing
and lighting plan and receiving testimony from staff,the applicant and the public regarding those
three plans only.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc commented she would not support a bifurcated motion and would
prefer to see one package.
Town Attorney Orry Korb clarified the motion is to continue the public hearing for the limited
purpose to receive final landscaping,fencing and lighting plans and receive testimony from staff,
applicant and public solely with regard to those plans.No other action will be taken on the
application.
Vice Chair Thomas O'Donnell commented this does not mean that anyone is committed to
voting in favor ofthe project notwithstanding what those submittals are.So the rest of the
Architecture and Site Application is not approved.
Commissioner John Bourgeois asked if irrigation calculations could be added to the landscape
plans.Maker and seconder of the motion agreed.
Commissioner Marico Sayoc requested more hydrology numbers.Maker and seconder of the
motion agreed.
Motion carried 5-2 with Commissioner John Bourgeois and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore
dissenting.
Town Attorney Orry Korb commented the application is continued to August 27,2008,and
there will be no further notice of the public hearing.
Chair D.Michael Kane excused Commissioner Philip Micciche who had to leave the meeting.
,~~~~~[!J~~!!!!!IT9.!![:~~~t.-1\:Ichitecture &Site 1\:ppticatiolis S 071-=-+lfr65'i------
lllH~h S-07-167.Requesting approval to construct three new single family residences
within an ~ved subdivision on property zoned R-I:8.APN 421-13-032.PROPERTY
OWNER:Norcal-'strict Church ofthe Nazarene.APPLICANT:Citypoint Group
LLC/Joe Colonna
Chair D.Michael Kane suggested that thl be continued for two weeks due to the lateness
of the hour.The applicant indicated August 27 wo
Motion by Vice Chair Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Co issioner Joanne Talesfore
to continue Architecture and Site Applications S-07-165 through S-07-
August 27,2008,due to the lateness of the hour.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 August 13,2008
2
4
5
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
A ?PEA RAN C E S:
Michael Kane,C~air
John Bourgeois
Marcia Jensen
phil Micciche
Toro O'Donnell
Marico Sayoe
Joanne Talesfore
1
,
PRO C E E DIN G S:
CHAIR KANE:Our second public hearing tonight is
Item #2 on the agenda,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road,
A~chitecture and Site Application 8-08-55,requesting
Architecture and Site approval for a new residence,pool,
7
10
11
Director of community
Development:
Assistant Director of
Community Development:
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by:
Bud Lortz
Randy Tsuda
Orry Korb
vicki L.Blandin
(510)337-1558
tennis court and accessory structures within an approved PD
on property zoned HR-2%PD.These are APNs 537-29-007 &
008.The property owner is Acorn Trust.The Applicant is
10 IRob DeSantis.This item was continued from August 13,and
11 IMr.Lortz,do we have a Staff Report?
[:;
I'T
l,...
N
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"
25
DIRECTOR LORTZ:Thank you,Chair and ladies and
gentlemen.This application was considered at the prior
meeting and was continued to tonight's meeting.The Planning
Commission limited its discussion for this meeting in terms
of testimony and focus of the discussion on three areas:One
was the landscape plan,the other was the fencing,and the
third was the lighting.There was discussion at the last
meeting about the well.
I'd like to point out that this particular
application as it evolved its way through the process has
been highly evolved,which is unusual for a PD.PDs are
typically schematic and conceptual.The Planning Commission
wanted a lot more detail than is typical of a PD,and in
terms of the PD section of the Code,typically schematic
architectural elevations are provided.In this particular
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
2
case the pla~~ing Commissio~wanted much more detail,and so 1 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:What you said this
consequently more detail on the front end of a PD leaves
less flexibility through the Architecture and Site approval,
so the architectural style was set through the PD,the size
2 levening is I think a refinement of what we heard last time.
I still find myself somewhat confused however.You've told
4 IUS what we apparently cannot consider.It is not clear to me
5 IWhat is left.So does Staff or our Attorney have any
opinions on what's left?
10
11
12
13
14
15
of the home was set through the PO,the height of the home
was set through the PD,landscaping was set through the PD,
fencing locations was set through the PD,and in fact
uplighting was shown in the PD,so there was a lo~more
detail than is typical of a Planned Development and that's
why the discussion of the Planning commission has been so
focused.
The Planning co~~ission appropriately asked for
details on the fencing,and those are provided in the Staff
Report,not only reiteration of the fencing location,which
is shown on the PO,but also the style of fencing,and then
also the lighting,the detail of the types of light
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
DIRECTOR LORTZ:Well,because like I said,the
uplighting is actually shown in the PO,what is available to
you is the lighting types,and those are in the plans that
are in front of you;the style of lighting;those types of
things.The type of fencing is certainly at the Commission's
discretion,as is the landscape species,but the landscape
plans that were provided in the PO actually showed where
lawn was going to be,actually showed where ornamental
landscaping was located,so it got very,very specific,
which is highly unusual.
16 fixtures,and then the landscape plan has been reviewed for 16 CHAIR KANE:Commissioner O'Donnell.
17 compliance with the PD document.17 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Thank you,I appreciate
18
19
20
21
22
23
So essentially in the PD process the Council
adopted law.It is what we followed,just like we followed
the Zoning Ordinance,and so with that comes less
flexibility on the Architecture and Site approval process.
So with that,we conclude our Staff Report,but are here to
answer any questions you may have.
18
19
20
21
22
23
that.What I'm concerned about is that at our last meeting
one of the questions was we are required to make certain
findings,and if I understand the answer,we're required to
make findings but we really can't take evidence on what it
is which would support findings.So it is one thing to say
this has already been decided and you have no jurisdiction;
24
25
CHAIR KAN'E:
Commissioner O'Donnell.
Thank you.Questions for Staff?24
25
it is another thing to say and oh,by the way,we make the
findings necessary to support that.So I'd like some
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
3
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
4
clarification on how we make findings on what we can't ordinance,are covered by the findings that Council made
consider.2 Iwith regard to all of those.
RAY DAVIS:Here.3 r If there are,and I'm not saying that there are,
5
CHAIR KANE:Citizen Ray,don't callout from the
audience,please.It's going to be a long hearing and I
won't to keep it copasetic.
I'm just saying if there are any related landscaping,fence
design or other Architecture and Site issues that were not
covered by the PO,either specifically or not,but not
RAY DAVIS:(Inaudible)covered by the PO,then you have to decide those issues and
10
11
12
13
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Did you hear the
question?
ORRY KORB:Yeah,I assume that's a question to
me?
COMMISSIONER O'DO~~LL:Yes,please.
ORRY KORE:well first,you had testimony
previously concerning issues related to the landscaping and
you have make the findings required by the Hillside
Standards and Guidelines related to those issues.
But if there are no other issues,then you're
10
simply incorporating by reference the findings that have
11
already been made by Council,and just again to reiterate a
12
point that I made previously,you're required by law to make
13 findings with regard to all of the land use applications
14
13
16
17
18
19
fencing and other related issues in the A&S.You had
questions related to that and you continued the public
hearing,and when I say you I ~ean the entire Commission,
continued the public hearing for very specific purposes.I'm
not saying that you can't consider any other testimony that
has been given to date,or I should say in this hearing
14
13
16
17
18
19
that you review,and those findings are related to the
governing documents that effectively guide every decision
that you're required to make.However,if this is an unusual
situation where Council's prior decision effectively covered
most,perhaps all,but most of the issues that relate to
this project,and they made the findings already,so at this
20 Iregard this A&S application,ir-making your determination,20 Ipoint in time you're obligated to follow those findings to
21
22
23
24
23
but I am saying that the issues that went to the Council in
the PD and that are laid out in whatever detail they were
laid out in in the PO ordinance,in the maps,other official
plans that were incorporated very specifically in that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
5
21
22
23
24
23
the extent that those decisions have already been made,and
unless there is any,again,other detailed issue that has
not been covered by the PD and the decision made previously
by Council,then your findings are essentially to
incorporate t~e findings previously made,like them or not.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
6
5
2
10
11
12
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Thank you.
CHAIR KANE:Commissioner Micciche,welcome.You
missed Mr.Lortz'opening remarks,so Mr.Lortz,I'm going
to ask you to summarize how you framed the issue for
Commissioner Micciche so that I don't have to excuse him.
Bring him up to date with the rest of us.
DIRECTOR LORTZ:What I was mentioning in my
opening remarks was that the Planning Commission continued
this from the last meeting at which you were in attendance.
The Planning Commission focused its discussion for tonight's
meeting on three areas:landscape plan,the fencing and the
lighting.The well,which is included in a discussion item
in the packet,was approved by the Council,so it's an
DIRECTOR LORTZ:The detail of this level of
p~anting is a pallet of species and either within the packet
or whatever the Applicant is going to provide tonight in
4 Iterms of discussion items,but ornamental landscaping in
terms of whether it's a petunia or a geranium has not been
something that the Planning Commission has gotten into
before.Perhaps you want to get into that level of detail in
the future,but what the Applicant has provided is that same
kind of level of detail as was provided in other
applications where ornamental landscaping is identified and
10
then more native species are identified,and that has been
11
the areas where the Planning Commission has wanted to get
12
into detail.Now the interesting thing about this PD is
evening matches the PD drawings.
orna~ental landscaping was actually shown on the PD and
we've made sure that the landscape plan that's provided this
13
14
15
16
approved item,which actually is now beyond this
jurisdictio~and is subject to approval by the Santa Clara
valley Water District.And then finally I was just
reiterating as was the Town Attorney the specificity of the
13
14
15
16 CHAIR KANE:Other questions for Staff?
17 IpD was unusual in this case in that it was very,very 17 ICommissioner Bourgeois.
19 Iquestion.Another thing we have limited jurisdiction over
18 Ispecific.Lfu,dscape plans were prOVided,architectural
19 drawings were provided;very,very detailed plans,which is
18 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:If I could have my second
20 lunusual of a PD.20 I tonight is if there were changes from the PD,is that
21 CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Commissioner Bourgeois.21 Icorrect?Because my recollection is that when we asked about
22 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I have two questions of 22 the fencing plan he said the wildlife-friendly fence that
21
24
25
Staff if I may.Mr.Lortz,you said one thing we do have
some jurisdiction over is the plant species pallet.Did we
receive a plant species list,because I could not find one?
21
24
25
parallels Kennedy and a fence around the pool,and that's
it,and now we have a much bigger security fence on the
fencing plan.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
7
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
8
DIRECTOR LORTZ:The ornamental landscaping is
typical a location of the more security type of fence,
because theY're trying to keep wildlife out,because of the
4 I ornamental nature of the l~~dscaping.So what we did was
Architecture and Site.So if you can clarify that,and then
I have other questions.
DIRECTOR LORTZ;This PD is more evolved than the
4 lones that you've probably seen previously.We've been trying
match the ornamental landscaping with the plan that has been
shown for the security fencing.Now the wildlife corridor
fencing is a split-rail fence,allows for wildlife to
migrate through.If the Planning commission has a concern
about the design split-rail fence with some other type of
design fence,that's certainly within your prerogative.If
10
you want to do something else in terms of the location of
11
the security fence,you can do that,but the only thing is
12
is our concern was that it divides up into specific areas
5
7
10
11
12
to allow for flexibility of the footprint so the footprint
can slide slightly during Architecture and Site approval,so
if you wanted to shift it 3'back or forth.I know the
Planning Commission has been frustrated in the past about
making some minor adjustments in the footprint of the home
or the commercial building through the Architecture and Site
approval process,so that flexibility is available to you,
but the design of the home was very specific on PD drawings,
and what we did through this latest iteration as the Council
13
14
and creates some problems in terms of the security that he's
trying to provide for his children,something you might want
13
14
reduced the size of the home is tried to make sure that we
tested the proportions to make sure that the proportions of
to discuss with the Applicant.15
16
17
CHAIR KANE:
Commissioner Sayoc.
Other questions for Staff?
15
16
17
the architectural elements are appropriate as the home was
reduced in size.We ran that back through the consulting
architect and confirmed that the proportions are
18 COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Mr.Lortz,if you could just 18 Iappropriate.So this is a bit different than probably what
19 Iclarify a few things for me.I understood what you said.The
20 Ifirst clarification is if you could explain how this PD
19 Iyou've seen before in terms of specificity,not only in the
20 Iplans but also in the language of the text.
22
21 Idiffers from the other PDs that we've seen,because we have
had PDs come before us,at least in my one-and-a-half years,
21
22
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:I still don't quite
understand it,but I think perhaps we should as a follow-up
23
24
25
that provided detailed information,and we have been told
consistently throughout that PD that if there was public
comments those public comments could be addressed through
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
9
23
24
25
ask that the Council explain how one project is more evolved
than the other so that future direction could be further
explained.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
10
3ut I do have in front of me Ordinance 2162,very
specific to this,and I studied this very carefully,and
under pages two and three,#2 and #6,it says "The official
I think you've hit on a really important issue
2 I though,and this is an offline police question.The more
specificity the Planning Commission and Council gets into on
5
4 Idevelopment plans provided are conceptual in nature.Final
building footprints and building design shall be determined
during Architecture and Site approval process."And then#6,
5
a PD,the more you're bound by it through the Architecture
and Site approval process.When you look at the code about
PDs,the code says that basically under a PD the basic plans
7
10
11
12
13
14
"A landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved with the
Architecture and Site application."So isn't that telling us
that we still need to review this?
DIRECTOR LORTZ:The specificity ·of that language
is exactly as I mentioned earlier.The language says theY're
conceptual in nature.The footprint locations can be
adjusted during Architecture and Site approval.
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:But it also includes building
design.
10
11
12
13
14
that are supposed to be provided are tentative site plans
illustrating natural design features,sidewalks,parking
areas and schematic architectural drawings,and we have
evolved that considerably through the process,and the more
specificity you ask for on the front end the less
flexibility you have on the Architecture and Site approval.
CHAIR KANE:Mr.Korb.
ORRY KORB:I want to go a little further into
depth regard something that Mr.Lortz said earlier and
15 DIRECTOR LORTZ:There are two sentences there.15 language that Commission Sayoc was referring to.The
16
17
They evolve in specificity,and what we're saying is the
footprint can be shifted but the architecture is very set.
16
17
language concerning the conceptual nature of footprints in
the PD was placed there very specifically,as Mr.Lortz was
18 COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Okay,then I'd like to hear 18 Isaying preViously,to deal with an issue that we had run
19 labout the landscape plan.19 linto with PDs where once the detailed Architecture and Site
20 DIRECTOR LORTZ:Like I say,even uplighting was 20 Iwork came after the PD,which was normally the process,it
21
22
13
24
25
shown on the landscape plan.Now if you want to take an
ornamental landscape area and evolve it slightly just like
the footprint of the home and slide it just like you would
do on a footprint of the home,you c~~do that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
11
21
22
13
24
25
turned out that the very specific footprints in a PD were
not necessarily practical,that sometimes they had to move a
few feet in one direction or the other to accommodate the
architecture that was being proposed or that was appropriate
for the site,and the question then arose how do you deal
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
12
1 Iwith a PD ordinance-it's an ordinance,it's law-that has
2 Ivery specific lines?Can you move those lines?And the
question generally is how do you move those lines witho~t
afte~the public hearing is closed,because we're not going
to hear from the public regarding architecture,but the
Commission still has the ability to discuss the
5
architecture,and those are architectural elements?4 lamending the ordinance?So the language was inserted to
create some flexibility for the Commission and for Staff in ORRY KORB:Well first,the Commission'S decision
making those final adjustments necessary in order to
incorporate arChitecture into what has previously been
approved as a PD.It is not intended to allow for wholesale
adjustments to the footprints that are already approved for
to continue the hearing-this is a public hearing,so this is
just the additional evidence that can be brought into the
record at this continued proceeding-concerned issues about
landscaping,hydrology and fencing if I remember correctly;
I may have missed something.But those are Architecture andthesite,so if that's where your question is going,I just
10
wanted to make it clear that that's not the intent of that
11
language;it was to p~ovide some flexibility for reasonable
12
adjustments,but not for wholesale changes.I'll leave it at
13 that.
10
11
12
13
Site issues and they can be addressed by anybody in
testimony,but once the public hearing is closed,the
Commission is free to discuss all of the Architecture and
Site issues,not just hydrology,landscaping,et cetera.
14
15
CHAIR KANE:Well Commission Sayoc,I read the
language the same way you did.Is that helpful to you?
14
15
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So architectural
elements?
16 COMMISSIONER SAYOC:To be quite honest,no.But
17 Ithere's a lot of information here.There's still information
18 Ithat I had requested,specifically the hydrology.I'm hoping
16
17
18
ORRY KORE:Correct.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Thank you.
CHAIR KANE:Other questions for Staff?Seeing
19 Ithat as the course of the hearing progresses,maybe
20 I something will be clearer.
19 Inane,I'm going to open the public hearing,and we'll
20 Ishortly call the Applicant who will have up to five minutes
21 CHAIR KANE:I'm thinking the Applicant is going 21 Ito speak.After any other public members speak the Applicant
22
23
to address your hydrology request.Other questions for
Staff?Commission Talesfore.
22
23
will then have three minutes for rebuttal.If there are
members of the public who wish to speak on this matter after
24 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:This is for Mr.Korb.
24 the Applicant,please turn in a speaker card.May I have a
25
Getting back to the architecture discussion that we can have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
13
25
show of hands as to potential speakers on this matter?I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
14
4
1 Ihave 15 cards;I just wondered if any additional were coming
2 lin.I think we're going to do two minutes for the p~blic
speaking portion.I now call the Applicant,Mr.DeS~~tis.
ROB DeSANTIS:Good evening Chair and COrnIT,ission
The first thing is to understand the water sources
available for consideration,and there are three:rainwater
collection;an onsite well,which was approved in the PD and
will be permitted through the Water District;and municipal
5
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Members.I would like to start by thanking you for all of
your input and co~~ents you made at our last meeting.Your
comments and questions were thoughtful and I was happy to
provide the information requested and appropriate for this
stage of the project.The continuance you requested was for
further review of three items:landscape,landscape lighting
and fencing.All three items were submitted and I can
address any questions you may have when appropriate.
There was also some discussion regarding the use
of copper;I very much appreciated the comments about the
materials.At this point however it is premature for us to
eliminate copper,but there may be opportunities to seal it.
We are looking at the overall crew point rated system that
the Town and the County adopted and I believe that
maximizing the rating while balancing the architecture is
the best way to go.I'm confident that we will substantially
meet the requirements considered to be green.
I was also asked about water usage,so we studied
and considered ways in which to do that.Two things quickly
became obvious.There was no way at this stage to do a
precise hydrological water balance calculation,but there is
a good way to share our plan,and that is what I'll do now.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
15
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water.In looking at the annual rainfall,collection
potential and local well flow rates we were able to
understand approximate water resources.
The second item was then to break the site up into
different areas of landscape,non-landscape and structure.
Then,based on irrigation needs we could estimate water
requirements.So we did that,and here are the findings.
First,of the 13.7 acres only 10-15%will be landscaped.of
that,over half will be native and low water transitional
plants.with that above data we then looked at the water
requirements and this is what we found.Rain collection
potential could handle 150%with annual irrigation needs
alone.well water,at the minimum flow rate of the different
flow rates in the area,which are ten to 200 gallons per
minute,would produce 120-180 times the annual irrigation
needs.San Jose water could be used if it's ever needed,but
as it stands we would consume much less municipal water than
most landscapes in town.With this water strategy we feel
that we have the ability to achieve a balanced watering
design based on the variables we uncovered during the
project,such as flow rates,storage costs and the like.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
16
All of the submittals that have been done have
2 Ibeen consistent with the PD plan t~us approved under the
Conditions of Approval so that they are also fu~ly
ROB DeSANTIS:Sure.Two great questions.The
2 Ifirst question about the security fencing and how we came up
with the location of the security fencing,and this actually
4
5
10
11
12
13
consistent with the Hillside Standards and Guidelines as
approved by Council.unfortunately this afternoon you
received the typical eleventh-hour document from the same
few who always do this to try and confuse and delay my hone
and it's nothing new.It has been four years.At this point
we cannot further delay my home and dreams and need to bring
closure to this process.We have been responsive,thoughtful
and collaborative in our approach and therefore request that
you take action this evening.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Questions for the speaker?
Commissioner Bourgeois.
4
S
10
11
12
13
came from the questions that were asked last week of the
thoughtful process,because as it says,we can use the
fencing around the ornamental landscaping and the pool
fence,and then in looking at that we saw that we were going
to have these spots of fencing all around that wouldn't
necessarily be that attractive,but more importantly I've
been living by that property for the past several years and
there are a pack of coyotes,we've seen mountain lions there
as well as deer and all different types of wildlife,and I
have young children,I have small dogs,and we have a fenced
in area right now that's approximately two acres,and
14 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Thank you,Mr.DeSantis.14 several times over the past couple of years that fence has
15
16
17
18
19
2D
21
22
23
24
2S
I have questions about the security fence,as I'm sure you
probably gathered.Did I miss that in the PD?That seems to
be a new element to me and I'm just curious as to why you
selected that location.I'm sure there was some thought that
went into it;I'd like to understand the thought behind the
location of that fence,and then with that fence is the
fence that parallels Kennedy Road necessary?It seems a
little redundant to have the two layers of fencing,because
I thought it was just going to be the wildlife-friendly
fence and then the pool fence,so if you could talk me
through that it would be great.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
17
15
16
17
18
19
2D
21
22
23
24
25
in some way,shape or from protected my children,my dogs,
and obviously the planting materials.So we took a look and
said well what's the best location and how do we achieve the
safety for my family and the pets and the plants?We took a
look at where the contours were.Two of the four sides of my
property already have fences on them;all of the neighbors
along Forrester Road as well as my property right now,and
so we said well then rather than putting the security
fencing just around the pool area,because that would be the
most visible area of see that,we said lets go ahead and put
a security fence along the line of the contours such that it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
18
5
can't be seen by the neighbors above on the southwest side
of the ~il1 and can't be seen by us;it's the safest
location and it covers a whole different activity,so that's
4 IhOW we came up with that.
With respect to the rail fence,you're right.
Taking t~is on to the next evolution based on the
for your planting plan?I mean I saw the planting zones and
the type of vegetation,but do you have an actual species
list?
ROE DeSANTIS:We do not have a species list.At
one point in the process we did and I think if you go back
to even maybe first Planning Commission meeting notes you'll
7
discussions that we had last week and realizing this fence,
if we said hey,let's do up the rail fence along the rest of
ehe property,I'd be okay with that,and as it turns out the
find a sa~pling of the pallet.But if you'll notice in the
conditions of Approval for both A&S,I believe,and in the
PD,is that the plants used,that's one of the conditions in
10
11
12
13
majority of the habitat that we see an that property-I'm an
avid mountain bike rider as well-is all along the slope
along Kennedy Road where there's the 600 trees providing the
coverage and the protection for them and not in the open
space.
10
11
12
13
there that we would be following the low transition plants
that's allowed for in the Hillside Guidelines and we would
be following all the rules,so at this stage to figure out,
no offense to Staff,to figure out whether it's petunias or
geraniums,with the complexity of this project we haven't
14 CHAIR KANE:Commissioner Bourgeois.14 gone there for the ornamental,but we have said,and it's
15 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:If I could just follow-15 conditioned in the approval,both in the PD and should you
16
17
up.So I just want to make sure I heard you correctly in
that the purpose of the fence is to keep wildlife out and
16
17
approve it tonight,that we would live within those
guidelines.
18 Ikeep your family and vegetation,plantings,safe,and the 18 CHAIR KANE:Mr.DeSantis,in your opening
19 I location was to reduce the visual impact.Did I get the gist
20 lof it correct?
19 I remarks ,did you say you had the permit from the Santa Clara
20 IvaI ley Water District or you were applying for it for the
21
22
ROB DeSANTIS:Yes,I would say the location was
to minimize the visual impact and take a look at the natural
21 Iwell?
22 ROB DeSANTIS:No,I believe my exact words were,
23 contours of where that seemed to make exact sense.23 "which was approved by the PD and will be permitted through
24
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:okay,and one final 24 the Water District.ff
25
question,if I may_Do you have a plant pallet picked out
25
CHAIR KANE:will be?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
19
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
20
ROB DeSANTIS:Yeah,will be.will be.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Other questions for the
speaker?Commissioner Sayee.
aesthetic cannot be trumped by water quality,better health,
and copper is a significant area that I've been studying,
and so I definitely want to see those calculations.
4
10
11
12
13
"
15
16
COMMISSIONER SAYOe:Hello,Mr.DeSantis.I'm just
going to start off by saying that we're in difficult
positions this evening.You're trying to build your dream
home and it's a very complicated project we have before us.
I think I made it clear I'm still unclear on the exact
nature of our scope,but I'm trying to make a decision as
one person that is not arbitrary nor capricious,so with all
that information in front of me I'm trying to get a better
understanding of your decision,so I appreciate your walking
me through it.
The first you mentioned is the copper.The Bay
Area does not meet its water quality standards in toxic
chemicals;copper is included in that list.When the
decision was made to include copper on your roofs as well as
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ROB DeSANTIS:Can I respond?
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Sure.
ROB DeSANTIS:I understand exactly what you're
talking about,because we went and researched it,and I
think that there are a couple of different answers.
One,we would never do anything surrounding this
architecture that was either against the law or against a
rule.If the Town councilor the Town of Los Gatos has put
an ordinance saying no copper roofs,then we wouldn't do it.
We did the research and didn't find that.They sell copper
gutters going in today and a plumber that I was watching on
TV here today said,"Call up and ask about the plumbing."My
goal is not to be argumentative.
The great thing about this is when we do do those
17 I your gutters and all those areas,because of the size of 17 calculations,if we do come up with an issue,we can coat
18
19
20
21
"
23
24
25
your house,were the calculations done so that the storm
water discharges,accommodating the copper?Do you have
total maximum daily loads so that those calculations are
then calculated into the discharge that's going into the
copper load in the Bay Area?These are very specific
questions,I understand that,and I ask this not only of
you,but of your team.I know I'm the ~copper lady,H
everyone calls me that,but this is a huge issue and to me
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
21
18
19
20
21
"
23
24
25
it,seal it,wrap it in a bag such that it doesn't do that,
if we want to do that as an option.We have potential to do
other options as well and during the detailed design process
of the construction drawings,that's when we would do those
calculations.
I empathize with where you are in trying to handle
this complex project,being on the Planning Commission for
only the past year-and-a-half.I've been working on this for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
22
four-and-a-half years.I've spent hundreds of thousands of 1 Idata to Support it,and so when you were creating this
dollars doing ~~y,many different analyses and the ODes 2 Ipallet of ornamentals versus turf versus so on,give me the
that were prioritized to us,many,many,many around 3 Ithinking and the rationale behind it and at least the
4 I grading,I've been able to figure out ways in which to keep guidelines that you guys were using.
5 all the dirt on site,to take away all the dirt,and we did ROE DeSANTIS:I will,perfectly.Thank you for
all these different studies on many different angles.allowing me to.
7
I'm not prepared at this stage to spend any more
money doing any more analyses until I get into the
construction phase and it makes sense.So if you need to
So first of all when we came to the Planning
Commission and the first round of the Town Council I brought
what I thought is a really neat thing about collecting rain
10
make a decision based on that,I totally respect your need
to make a decision,but assume that there will be no further
water and the use of water and potentially using it in a
10
well,and if you go back and check the meeting minutes
12
COMMISSIONER SAYQe:
13
want to follow-up?
14 COMMISSIONER SAYQe:
12
11
yOU'll find from one of those two meetings that I was told,
~Water isn't in our jurisdiction.It's a nice thing,but
that's not what we're here talking about,"so that was one
of the reasons why I hadn't done some of that work ahead of14
13
Yes,I do have a follow-up.
analysis on the copper done prior to that.
Commissioner Sayoe,did you
11
15 I'm not asking for more information,I just want that clear.15 time.I have looked and had my team look to try and
15 That information should be readily available.Decisions 15 understand how many applicants are asked to do a hydrology
17 should be made on research already done and not the other 17 analysis just so I could see how they did it,and
18
19
20
way aro~~d.So I was hoping that that was something that
could be provided ahead of time.But I don't want to get
argumentative either,so let's move OD.
18
19
20
unfortunately we failed to really find too many hydrology
analyses.So this project has been very consistent in that
I've been asked to do many,many things from caluvium
21 The second issue,the landscaping plan.See,once 21 analysis to you name it.
22 again we're in a quandary,because you have some preliminary 22 The thought process though in this project and the
23 water information,but yet we're being told that we have a 23 theories are precty simple.The amount of landscaping we
24
final landscape plan,so I don't understand how you can make 24 have in our plan is pretty easy to break up,because when I
25
a final landscape plan when you don't even have the water
25
first heard it I was like how are we going to do this,and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
23
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
24
1 lthen I got my team and several mi~ds and talked to some
consultants and I said well you kind of attack it this way,
CHAIR KANE:Commissioner Sayoc.
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:This will be my last comment,
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
but they said it's plus or minus,and that's ODe of the
reasons why I gave ranges,and I gave conservative ranges,
because the actual landscape plans that you have in front of
you show really less than 10%being landscaped of the
property,and I said 10-15%,and the reason why I did that
in doing the hydrology analysis I wanted to be conservative,
because I've followed the philosophy all along in this
project to be very open,take every comment to heart and to
work on it,and ~hen not give you an answer that I think
we're going to get away with,but to be very conservative,
because this is my town and I never wanted to believe that
this was going to be an enemy.
So that's the approach that I took.I think it's
4
5
7
10
11
12
13
14
and then I'd like to give my other commissioners a chance.
Un=ortunately the Hillside Design Guidelines don't give us
percentages,they give us feet,and so when I was looking at
it and your plans,like a perfect example is that it says,
~Turf grasses are prohibited within 30'of the main house,"
and so with the plans I drew what 30'of your main house is,
and so it's pretty clear to me that the shaded pink areas
are areas prohibited,and like you said,you have 13.7
acres,and I understand that other applicants weren't
required to do certain hydrology tests,but given the large
amount of land you have,.this was something that should have
been looked at as you were doing your environmental data.So
I just want to give you,these are the things that I need to
15
16
mean the turf areas are less than 17,000 square feet,.37
pretty self-explanatory.You've got 13.7 acres.Right now
less than an acre is going to be landscaped in total,and
17 Ihalf of that is going to be in the form of this transitional
15
16
17
make a decision.
ROB DeSANTIS:Great,and that was looked at.I
18 Iplanting which requires,as a couple of people have told me
19 Isince,even for two years they don't even require water,so
18 lacres.I currently have an acre-and-a-half of lawn where I
19 Ilive.Many of my friends in different areas of town have
20
21
22
23
24
25
I can cover the water issues no problem,and we've laid out
the area,so I don't know what else I can do for you in the
transitional plants.You've clearly listed out in the
Hillside Guidelines the list of plants I can use;I said I'm
going to use those,so I'm kind of at a loss for what else
to do.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
25
20
21
22
23
24
25
much more than .37 acres of grass.One of the things that I
would highlight is one of the things about this project was
to put that level of detail in over the past few years and
have it looked at,and have it scrutinized,and as the
Hillside Standards and Guidelines say,it says,~Exceptions
can be made,"and it says that meet this criteria,and that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
26
1 Icr~teria was found to be met and those exceptions were made,
2 Iso if there's something that you don't like about that 3D',
that's why we submitted it.
1 DIRECTOR LORTZ:If you feel that there is a
disconnect,then ask for some change there.
CHAIR KANE:Other questions for the speaker?
4 DIRECTOR LORTZ:Chair.4 ICommissioner Talesfore.
5
10
11
12
13
CHAIR KANE:Mr.Lortz.
DIRECTOR LORTZ;This may help.There is a
condition in the PD about ornamental landscaping and
basically they must comply with it.It's Condition #5.It
says,~All formal landscaping shall be confined to within
3D'of the perimeter of the area formed by the main house,
pool,cabana,and within 3D'of other structures on the
property."So that was shown on the PD,so they essentially
have complied with that condition as part of this process.
It's a ~ittle different than drawing a circle around each
5
10
11
12
13
COMM:ISSIONER TALESFORE:I have a question about
the well,for Staff I guess,or to the Applicant,I'm not
sure who to ask_The question is if the well is not
permitted and we have a drought year,then you will have to
depend on the municipal resources for water,correct?
ROB DeSANTIS:Or San Jose water.Yes.
DIRECTOR LORTZ:Or the cisterns.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So what's in the PD?Does
it say if the well isn't in there it would be inconsistent
with the PD or not?Can you clear that up for me?
14 structure;it's within the boundary of those structures as
14 DIRECTOR LORTZ:No.The well is allowed if they
15 it meandered through the property_15 have to...If can't get a well from the Water District then
16 CHAIR :KFI.NE:Thank you.Commissioner Bourgeois.15 they're on municipal water_
17 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:If I could follow-up on 17 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And that's in the PD?
2D lout how much water we'd be using from the cisterns and the
18 Ithat point with Mr.Lortz,because actually I had a question
19 labout that,because I read that and it's very clear,but
2D when you look at the plans there is still an ornamental
18
19
DIRECTOR LORTZ:And the cisterns_
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay.And could we figure
21 I landscaping area along one of the road cuts that is not 21 Imunicipal resources?Has that been done?
22 adjacent to any of the structures mentioned in the PO,so 22 ROB DeSANTIS:No,and because,again,me putting
23
24
25
the map isn't consistent with that language and I don't know
what to do with that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
27
23 a well in is me trying to participate in green_
24
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:You've answered my
question.That's fine.Thank you.
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
28
ROB DeSAl~TIS:Thank you.
CHAIR KANE:Other questions for the speaker?
seeing none,thank you.After all the other public speakers
Also,again,the water issue I think is an
important issue given the fact that we are in a drought
cycle.There was no mention of an irrigation system that I
4
5
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
have spoken,Mr.DeSantis,you'll have three minutes for
rebuttal.The gentleman in the black shirt,security,could
you scoot to your left?Is that convenient,please?I'm
going to make that the hot seat,or the staging area.On
deck.Our first speaker is Mr.Paul Quintana followed by
Youwanda Dreger I and Ms.Dreger I would you take the on deck
seat,please?
PAUL QUINTANA:My name is Paul Quintana and I
live at 5 Palm Avenue,Los Gatos,California.
CHAIR KANE:I'm sorry to interrupt you.I want to
remind you and the timers that we're going for two minuces
given the volume of the speakers.We'll start your clock
again.
4
5
7
10
E
12
13
14
15
saw anywhere in the plans as to what type of irrigation was
going to be done.Overhead,drip?I mean nothing spoken of.
There was a comment by the Applicant that he has
seen ~ountain lions on the property,deer,coyotes,and it's
interesting that he has seen these,because there's no
biology report,nothing that fences interfere with animal
corridors or what's going to happen to the native plants
that are already there and given the watering system,none
of this is included in there.
I really believe that you don't have the
information needed to make a final vote and this should be
continued in spit of the terrible financial drain to him,
until he gets to the stage that you need to make an informed
16 PAUL QUINTl!.NA:Okay.I wanted to echo some of the 16 decision.Thank you.
17 Iconcerns over the incompleteness of the application as it 17 CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Youwanda Dreger followed
18 Istands before you.I was concerned looking at the hydrology 18 Iby Richard Konrad;come on down.
20 IDreger;I live at 16200 Maya Way,Los Gatos.Thank you for
19 IgOing on and saying how much pesticides,how much
20 herbicides,how much fertilizer is used and where does that
15 YQUWANDA DREGER:Hello,my name is Youwanda
22 22
21 Irun off to?Where does the water go carrying these
chemicals?Into what cisterns,into what water supply system
21 Iallowing me to stress this issue again,although I won't be
speaking for me,I'm speaking for 12 young people who will
23
24
25
and where does it go?I really don't have any idea about
that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
29
23
24
25
be more impacted with your decision than I will,because
they'll live longer.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
30
1 I They've drawn you a picture and they've said,
2 I "Protect the hills and follow the rules,"like they have to
follow tne rules on the school ground.Don't let one person
hold on the issuing of any grading permits until the final
A&S plans are approved.
To do otherwise would clearly be putting the cart
5
be an exception.They have no ~eason to be an exception.
They must be treated the way the rest of us are treated.
I live up in the hills and unless Mr.DeSantis can
speak to the animals,let me tell you,after 30 years they
still use the same path across my driveway that they have
4 Ibefore the horse,taking actions that are potentially
irreversible will further jeopardize our hillsides.Why are
we even considering what seems to be this rush to judgment
by talking about or employing bifurcation,partial
approvals,et cetera,all before the final picture is
complete?Such hast only results in waste and mistakes.It's
just a personal observation on attending this meeting and
9
10
11
12
13
always used,so he should look at the trails of the animals
and figure out where his fences and retaining walls should
go,because they don't change and they won't be able to
understand why you've taken their homes away,but I'll tell
you,if it's taken away they'll migrate down just like they
do from my hillside down to Lama Alta,Johnson and Los Gatos
10
11
12
13
the prior meetings.Based on the inputs of the community and
the questions of the Planning Commission,I just don't
understand why the Staff seems to be rushing to conclusion
on this project.Thank you.
14
15
Boulevard.Deer are on Los Gatos Boulevard periodically when
we have a bobcat or mountain lion up on Aztec and Maya Way.
14
15
CHAIR KANE:
Zenon zubrYcky.
Thank you.Peter Donnelly followed by
16 Thank you.16 PETER DONNELLY:Having followed this item over
17 CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Richard Konrad followed by 17 Ithe past few years I empathize with you and the situation
18 I Peter Donnelly.lB Iyo u find yourselves in.It's self-evident that the majority
20 lapproved tonight in its entirely,either through denial or
19 RICHARD KONRAD:Should this application not be 19 10f you are asking yourselves why am I being asked to make a
20 decision on an issue that is apparently already been
21 Icontinuation,I then ask the following logical measures be 21 Idecided.In human dynamics there is only one thing worse
22
23
24
25
taken:Number one,put a hold on issuing any tree removal or
tree relocation permits until all potential studies are
completed and final plans are approved.Number two,put a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
31
22
23
24
25
than not being asked for your opinion,and that is to be
asked for it and then have that ignored or not even listened
to.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
32
I was going to help you out here wit~a few items the persistence or is it just plain politics?I don't know
from the Hillside Standards,but you guys know this;YOU
know the standards.I'm just going to highlight a couple of
2 )What it is,but this group should give the answer it gave
3 when this was originally presented to you.Say no:send it
4 Iback to the Council with a message that this body is truly
independent and beyond reproach.I thank you.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Commissioners,on the lastanythingelse.They're not less stringent;theY're more
5
4 I them.Planned Developments:The rules for ?lanned
Developments are much more stringent than they are for
7
stringent.Exceptions from the standards in this doc'~ent
7 few speakers I was remiss to ask if there were any questions
may only be granted after carefully considering the of the speaker.If you have any questions of the speakers,
10
11
constraints of this site.When did that happen?Exceptions
to maximum floor a~ea may be approved if the project meets
certain criteria in addition to all standards and guidelines
being met.
10
11
just let me know,because I'll probably just go right
through the cards if you don't.
ZENON ZUBRYCKY:My name is Zenon Zubrycky and I
live on 128 Terasita Way in Los Gatos right above Mr.
12
Anyhow,you get my point.It seems like the Town
12
DeSantis'property about 300'up,and everyday I'm looking
13
"
15
council missed a few details.The Hillside Standards and
Guidelines are tough rules.Some say theY're too tough,but
they are the rules and there's a democratic process in place
13
14
15
at this property from my bedroom,kitchen,living room and
the family room,same as the other 55 people in the
neighborhood who agreed and signed to see this beautiful
16 to change the rules.The only thing that can go wrong now is 15 house that one of the commissioners mentioned.I agree,it's
17 when those rules aren't enforced and the process isn't 17 beautiful;I'm looking forward to looking at it.
18 followed.18 What bothers me is that a member of this committee
19 My family and I followed those rules and it cost 19 said that building does not belong in the hillside.well I
20 us a lot,time and money.We too have children that wanted 20 am proposing a solution to the hillside protection crowd.
21 to grow up in this neighborhood.The end result of our 21 Buy the property on the hillsides at about $5-10 million
22
23
project is not exactly what we planned to do,but it's going
to be a great addition to our neighborhood whilst respecting
22
23
apiece and we will not be meeting here again on hillsides
stretching four-and-a-half years.If this is too much for
24 the surrounding habitat.Why then do others get to do things 24 you,I propose a one-time levy for all the parcels in Los
25
differently and not follow the rules?Is it the money,is it
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
33 34
1 IGatos at about $100,000 each and this circus will end.Thank 1 Ilandscaped and well-sited over two fully Hillside Guidelines
you very much.Please approve this project.
,
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.
RAY DAVIS:Boo.Boo.
CHAIR KANE:We'Te not going to have that after
compliant projects that would be possible with a
subdivision.In fact,my fear is the DeSantis project will
4 I somehow be derailed here tonight and that sometime in the
near future the lot will be developed and I'll be facing two
each speaker.We just really aren't going to do that,
please.Mr.Jack Faraone followed by Dale Hill.
JACK FARAONE:Hi,Jack Faraone at 158 Kennedy
or perhaps even three 6,000 square foot homes,driveways,
garages,outdoor lighting and water usage,though it will
all be within the Hillside Guidelines.With the immediate
10
Road,directly across Kennedy from the DeSantis project.
What I've noticed after having attended numerous
Planning Commission meetings over the years is that a few
neighbors preferring the DeSantis PD over what is suggested
by the Hillside Guidelines,it seems clear to me the
10
Guidelines should be rewritten such as these kinds of
11
neighbors on adjacent properties typically object to a
11
developments are more clearly allowed.
1212
13
14
15
project because their view is obstructed,a roof seems too
high or windows offer views into previously private
backyards.curiously,that's not the case here.Here we have
neighbors on adjacent properties unanimously supporting the
13
14
15
Lastly I ask that the wishes of the adjacent
property owners carry more weight than those speakers who do
not live in the immediate neighborhood.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you,sir.
16 project and a vocal group of activists,who I'm sure are 16 JACK FARAONE:Thank you,and I can talk about
17 Iwell intentioned,who don't live in the immediate 17 Iwildlife corridors if anybody is curious.
1818Ineighborhood,are opposing the project.They clearly have a
19 Ipolitical agenaa.They don't live in the immediate
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Dale Hill followed by
19 IKathleen Hewitt.
DALE HILL:Good evening.My name is Dale Hill;I20
21 live at 150 Robin Way,which is just down Kennedy Road from
22 the site we're talking about,and I'll be very brief.
23 As a former member of the Planning Commission at
24 the time that this subdivision was approved I don't envy youWe,the immediate neighbors,much prefer the
Development Standards and Guidelines,a document that
clearly allows for exceptions,be literally applied.
24
22
2Q Ineighborhood,yet they seek to specify what the character of
our neighborhood should be and demand that the Hillside
23
21
25
DeSantis project,which is beautifully architected,
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
35
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
36
1 I your task tonight.It seems to me that you are truly between
2 I the proverbial rock and a hard place.
3 I The basic problem is that this is a flat land
RAY DAVIS:Yes,indeed.Boy,what we have to go
through as citizens of Los Gatos in order to express
ourselves as Americans do,unbelievable.I sat here tonight
5
4 land I heard that DeSantis cat,this guy who was...4 Icompound set on a ridge.Where it should have been designed
to follow the contours of the land,it was designed as a CHAIR KANE:Citizen Ray,we don't (inaudible).
7
10
11
12
13
valley floor project,which is not what we're supposed to be
talking about.
I have only one comment relating to the issues
we're allowed to speak about tonight and that is that I do
not think that he should be permitted to have a well.This
is going to take water from other properties,and I speak as
someone who has had property,not in this area,and we did
put in a well,but if municipal water is available,I think
it should be required.Thank you.
RAY DAVIS:I heard him talk about his family
home.
CHAIR KANE:You address the Planning Commission
or I'll find you out of order.You talk to us.
RAY DAVIS:What do you think I'm doing?I heard
10
this man say he's talking about his family home.You read
11
the minutes from Manhattan Beach Council meeting;he says
12
the same exact words almost.His family home is in Manhattan
13 Beach.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Kathleen Hewitt followed
by Citizen Ray.
KATELEEN HEWITT:My name is Kathy Hewitt and I
live at 18400 Overlook Road,Los Gatos.As a supporter and a
member of Friends of the Hillside I researched the 30 homes
listed on the Attachment #10 of the February 5,2007 Town
council Report of homes in Los Gatos larger than 7,000
square feet.This research found that all of the homes on
the list were built prior to the adoption of the Hillside
Standards.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
CHAIR KANE:Citizen Ray,address your comments to
me.
RAY DAVIS:Then his architect down there says no,
he lives in Mimosa Beach.How many family homes does he
have?This man speaks with forked tongue.Disgusting.
But speaking to the issues tonight,I'm going to
speak about the landscaping.I did review the so-called
document.It's a two dimension layout of the 13.7 acres;
that's all it was.One plant list.I couldn't believe it.
More forked tongue.Then I thought how are we supposed to
24
25
CHAIR KANE:
Bidgia Moreton.
Thank you.Citizen Ray followed by 24
25
evaluate this landscaping in regard to the property?I said
has anybody seen the property?Hell,no,only the Town
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
37
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
38
Council.You people are precluded from going out to the
property and seeing what it actually looks like.I was
3 Iprecluded.Everybody here was precluded.I couldn't believe
4 lit.That is so corrupt,and I want to tell you I am finally
at the point where I'm going to the FBI.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.
RAY DAVIS:FBI for corruption.
CHAIR KANE:On that note,Citizen Ray,Thank you
very nuch.Brigid Moreton followed by Dr.weissman.
1 lanimals?will drawing large amounts of well water affect the
2 I local water tables and impact local streams such as Ross
3 ICreek?
4 I And if the well is taken off the table,but only
collected rainwater and tap water are used for irrigation,
you still need to know the following answers to adequately
assess the project:What about graded slope stabilities in
drainage issues?Where will the pesticides and the
algaecides used in the pond drain to?What of the herbicides
10
transitional planted areas?Where will these runoff products
and the fertilizers used on the extensive irrigated lawn andRAYDAVIS:My pleasure,thank you.Don't think
10 I"'m kidding.11
CHAIR KANE:Ray,that's a warning.
12
3RIGID MORETON:My name is Brigid Moretoni I live
11
12
end up?In Ross Creek and in San Francisco Bay?How will
these drainage runoffs affect the native oaks already on the
13
14
15
at 120 Cardinal Lane and this addresses the hydrology
problem.
The Planning Commission required a hydrology
13
14
15
property?I don't know any of the answers,because there are
no studies.Thank you.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Dr.Weissman followed by
16 report for this project two weeks ago.Ignoring the fact
17 I that we all just got some of this information tonight and
16
17
Bernadette Chadwick.
DAVID WEISSMAN:Dave Weissman,Francis Oaks Way.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have not had a chance to review it,we can still ask did the
Applicant do what was required?
To evaluate this project thoroughly and to see if
it's consistent with the Hillside Standards and Guidelines I
think you,and all of us,need to be able to answer the
following questions:What is the basic hydrology of the
area?~fuere would the well go and how destructive to the
environment will it be?will the noise affect the local
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
39
18
19
20
21
"
23
24
25
You are being given a page of the Town's codes and I ask
that you look at the yellow highlighted areas,which I will
now read into the record.Section 29.20.310,~The Planning
Commission on it's own motion may hold a hearing to consider
modifying or revoking any zoning approved that had been
granted pursuant to this chapter or any prior ordinance.
After the hearing the Planning Commission may revoke or
modify a zoning approval if it finds that one or more of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
40
1 I following grounds exist,"and I direct your attention to #3,1 ORRY KORB:Excuse me;I'm speaking now.You and I
2 I~That the use for which approval was granted is so exercised
3 as to be detrimental to the public health or safety or to be
a nuisance."I best believe that the Town's attorney mandate
2 lare all bound by decisions made by the elected officials of
the Town,the Town Council,again.Whether you agree with
4 I those decisions or not we're bound by them,and I as a
5
10
11
12
13
to this ?lanning Commission that those issues of Mr.
DeSantis'project,already approved by the Town Council are
off the table is in error under the language of this
section.
W.~ile the public may have been gagged by Mr.Korb
two weeks ago,clearly the planning commissioners cannot be
gagged and are free to speak up for the concerned citizens
of this town.The majority of the Commission has expressed
continued major misgivings with this project;two weeks ago
some of you even talked about and said you would understand
5 Imember of Staff am as well,and I was asked what the scope
of your determination is and I advised you.
And secondly,Dr.Weissman's reference to Section
29.23.315 and 29.20.310 of the Town Code is in error.Those
sections are intended to deal with situations where a
entitlement granted by this body or by the Town Council,or
10
even by Staff if Staff is authorized to do so,is exercised
11
in a manner to violate either the terms and conditions of
12
the approval or in some other manner that violates the
13 public health,safety or welfare,then this commission can
17 Ibuilt on a foundation of free speech and one of the first
18 Iprinciples of free speech is protected conscience.
14
15
14
voting your conscience and your mind,most notably Ms.
Talesfore and Mr.O'Donnell.Well,this now seems like an
appropriate time for such action.After all,this r-ation was
14
15
16
17
18
hold a hearing.What Dr.Weissman is arguing is that the
Town Council in the mere approval of this PD project is
violating the public health,safety and welfare,and the
Town Council has made its determination that it is not doing
so.Again,whether you agree or not,that's their
19 CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Mr.Korb,a question for 19 Idetermination and they're authorized to make that
20 Ithe speaker,or carnm~~t?20 Idetermination and you're authorized to do nothing more than
21 ORRY KORB;While I have no question for the 21 Ito defer to that decision and to decide within the policies
"
"
speaker I'll first say that I did not gag the Planning
Commission and I take offense at that remark.
"
"
that have been approved for you by Council.This section
cannot be used as a means of trying to overturn a decision
24
2S
DAVID WEISSMAN:You gagged the citizens.24
2S
made by Council.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
41
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
42
1 CHAIR KANE:Th~,k you,and thank you,Dr.gone on I have noticed that most of these have either
2 IWeissm~~.Bernadette Chadwick followed by Larry Arzie.
3ERNADETTE CHADWICK:Good evening,my name is
disappeared totally or they're in a very small number.The
coyotes have co~e down closer to us,the deer have almost
4 Bernadette Chadwick;I live at 220 Wooded view Drive and our 4 I disappeared,the possums are totally gone,the skunks are
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property is directly across the valley from Mr.DeSantis'
property.
I would like to first commend the Planning
Commission for all the work they've done with this project
and others.I don't know you personally,but I know you as a
commitment to the co~~unity and I know this must be very
frustrating for what you have been going through with
listening to all the various viewpoints.
I would like to make a comment briefly about
saying that people who are not neighbors should not be
concerned about this project,and I would like to note that
many people are very large minded and they think of the
whole community and they think of the whole region,they
think of how everything fits together,and so to say it's
not our business is being small minded,so I'd like to point
that out.
We moved into the neighborhood at Wooded View
Drive about 22 years ago and I wanted to tell you the
animals that we saw,because that's what I want to talk
about.We saw raccoons,deer,squirrels,skunks,possums,
bobcats,foxes,but the native the gray fox,coyotes,
turkeys and myriad kinds of birds,and as the years have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
43
5
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
totally gone,the raccoons do come around a little bit,
foxes occasionally,and the bobcat every once in a while.
The reason I think this is is because as wooded view was
extended and new homes were built and other homes were fixed
up,fences and gates were put in,so I think we need to
think about that part of the property a lot.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you very much.Larry Arzie
followed by Gil Decker.
LARRY ARZIE:Larry Arzie,Los Gatos.
You know,the brand new fence titled iron security
fence appears to follow the LRDA,the Least Restricted
Development Area.In the plans shown to us two weeks ago
this was called unencumbered open space,so that alone
should not be allowed.How big a security fence do we need
in the first place?Certainly not this big.
I'm going to go on to lighting since everything
was pretty well covered on the fence.The lighting schematic
shows that 36 trees have lights on them.Well,even if
facing downward,such lights could interfere with
nocturnally active animals.In any case such lights should
be required to have infrared motion sensors which face
horizontally and not upwards so as to be triggered by owls
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
44
1 land to stay on for no more than 30 seconds once activated.
2 IOtherwise I C~i see the whole hillside being lit up at night
even if these lights face downwards.Think airport.
Lastly,the Planning Commission should put a deed
restriction on the property that no additional fences or
property lighting be allowed.More lights could be
positioned on the hillside in the future,adding to the
overall light position,and more fences could be added as
well,because we don't require permits for this once the
property is occupied,so think bigger airport.
10
You know,it is these potential unforeseen
11
conflicts in design that strenuously argue against approval
12
of such large projects without all the necessary
like to kind of reiterate and make sure that everybody is
reminded that you folks have a hell of a tough job sitting
up there.You reviewed this project in its current scope and
4 Iturned it down,because I think you did a hell of a good job
in analyzing it and looking at Hillside Standards,and sad
to say our Town Council on a 3-2 vote voted to approve it.
They sold out the Town.I know the Planning Director and the
lawyer are going to back the Council,but I'm not sure
they're operating in the interest of greatest number of
citizens.
10
If we let these hillsides go down the tubes you
11
can never recover them.I spent three years working for
12
Disney corporation in the San Fernando valley.These hills
13
14
information,and also urge against any bifurcation of any
such projects.
13
14
are raped;they'll never get them back.
This is not an issue.They're not anti-
15 CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Mr.Lortz,the speaker 15 development.If you follow the Standards and Guidelines you
16
17
18
made reference to future development of fences and lighting.
Is that a concern of Staff or is there a restriction?Can
you comment on that?
16
17
18
can get approval and the hillsides are protected.I've
talked to several people,inclUding one gentleman not long
ago that has two lots up there.He went through the tortures
20 I imposed,as suggested.
19 DIRECTOR LORTZ:A deed restriction could be 19 10f the damned but finally met every requirement.He's got
20 two nice harnes up there.He didn't fight the issue,he just
21
22
23
CHAIR KANE:
GIL DECKER:
Ridge,Los Gatos.
Thank you.Mr.Decker.
I'm Gil Decker;I live at 45 Glen
21
22
23
finally went through it and he spent a lot of money.
This is a monstrosity and you've got a tough job
to approve it or disapprove it,but take every advantage you
24
25
I think the specifics that have been brought up by
a number of the previous speakers are self-evident.I'd just
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
45
24
25
can of the A&S standards and turn this project down.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
46
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR ~~E:Thank you.Ernest Culp followed by
sandy Decker.
ERNEST CULP:Good evening,my name is Ernest
Culp.I'm here in support of Rob DeSantis and his project.
My parents moved here 44 years ago.Over 44 years
the Town has changed enormously.My wife and I live on
Johnson Avenue.In the short time we've lived on Johnson
Avenue the Town has changed enormously.The economy has
changed in 44 years.Different types of residents have moved
in.Certainly the hillsides have changed.Families have
changed.However,with the changing economy you have
different types of residents moving in,and it's a broad
economy here.Different family needs are being met,people
have different goals,different dreams,not only for
themselves but also for their families.
Mr.DeSantis has been a resident here for a number
of years.I've sat back and watched this process and watched
how intrusive it's been for him in regard to the press,not
only in the local paper but also in the Mercury News,and
I've only heard one side in all this;I've only heard those
against this project.Regardless if people are for or
against the project,I've also watched Rob come up here in a
very professional and articulate way,not only representing
himself but also the Town and the Town's requirements,as a
team player and attempt to have his goal met.He wants to
build a home for he and his family.He bought a parcel of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
47
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
land,13.7 acres,in Los Gatos off of Kennedy Road.Not a
visible lot,and I've heard his ego brought up a few times.
It's just a dream to build a home for himself and his
family,to become a part of the community,which he has
al~eady been a part of now.I think he's owned three homes
previously in town.Anyway,I'd like to see the project
approved.
CHAIR KANE;Thank you.Sandy Decker followed by
Lee Quintana.
SANDY DECKER;Sandy Decker,45 Glen Ridge.
I have never in my ten years of service appointed
and elected in Los Gatos seen a PD used for a single
residential application,and I have never even thought that
it would ever be used as justification for Architecture and
Site design and impacts before Architecture and Site comes
to a public hearing.
Mr.DeSantis continues to refer to the few who are
trying to delay his project.I would like to ask the Friends
of the Hillsides that are here tonight to stand.I also have
400 additional signatures of other Los Gatos residents who
feel the rules to protect the hillsides that many of them
contributed to should be followed,along with conformance to
CEQA.Thank you.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA:I had a completely different speech
to give tonight,which I set aside.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Itam #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
48
1 I I'd like to make a few commen~s.They're not going
2 Ito be jointed,they're going to be disjointed,but I'm going
3 Ito make them because theY've just come to me as I've
1 Ishit,I just looked at the time-is the environmental
2 Iconsultant...
(Timer goes off.)
4 listened.
First of all,Santa Clara valley Water District is
4
5
LEE QUINTANA:
really important.
Please ask me a question.This is
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
the responsible agency if a well permit is issued.The last
time I looked,the Negative Declaration initial study was
not distributed to the Santa Clara ValleY Water District;
they did not have a chance to respond.
Second,I believe it's Condition #27 on the
ordinance for special environmental design features states,
"Irrigation shall be provided by ansite well.If there is no
ansite well,the project is not in conformance.u This isn't
to say that an onsite well is a good idea.That has never
been done.
Exceptions:In addition to the exceptions that the
Town Council made specifically,there are also other
exceptions within the ordinance.The height of the accessory
structure,the landscaping in the area that can be in
ornamental landscaping,the amount of turf,the location of
the fences,those are conditions that are in the ordinance
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CHAIR KANE:Any questions for the speaker?
Commissioner Micciche.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:What was the question that
was so important?
LEE QUINTANA:I am sorry.I had thought that I
was going to be able to read something from my computer that
was part of the comments from the Town's environmental
consultant regarding environmental review in response to
comments.They describe the project initial study as being
the PD and that the A&S was not covered by it.There is much
language in there saying that certain aspects of impacts
from the project,such as visual retaining walls,change of
topography,all of those would receive additional
consideration at A&S and that the Hillside Standards and
Designs would be further considered at A&S in more detail.
Obviously that hasn't happened.
21 land some of the~have been somewhat manipulated in the 21 CHAIR KANE:Thank you,Ms.Quintana.I will
22
23
24
2S
conditions of the A&S.Council did not make finding for
those exceptions,and there are other exceptions.The only
thing I really want to get said before the thing goes off-oh
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
49
22
23
24
25
remind you that this is a family program.I have no other
speaker cards.I have one more speaker card.Start the
clock.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
50
CHRISTINE CURRIE:Good evening,roy name is
2 IChristine Currie and I am a Friend of Hillsides,a~d the
FriendsoftheHillsides.org is now more than 350 strong.I've
got ernails arriving each and every day and it's exciting,
because I look around me and I say this is my community.I'm
raising my kids here.These hillsides are mine,it's not a
proprietary thing,and lucky us to be here and be here
together.
KDSP radio gave us a beautiful mention today.New
1 Isupport of the comrr,unity,you help us all and it's inspiring
to me as a mother of two small kids,it's inspiring to me to
see our local government work,and it's inspiring to me to
4 Ibe a part of something bigger and better and I feel really
5 Igood about that,so thank you.
And like I mentioned in,I guess it wasn't ten
pages,I guess I did a little bit of a cull before I sent it
off to you,it's actually seven pages,but I don't know if
anyone has any questions or concerns,but I think for the
faces,new people,new neighbors,didn't know them,here
10
11
12
they are.Fabulous.Thank you for coming.
I just want to reiterate the hillsides belong to
all of us,not just the adjacent neighbors,and I'm sorry,
most part I think all of them were covered tonight.
10
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.The speaker reminds me
11
that we do have a Desk Item and there are a number of Desk
12
Items in that Desk Item;it's a total of 16 pages.Have we
13
14
15
I've got to apologize to each and everyone of you up there.
The eleven or ten pages ad nauseam,point-by-point,I didn't
mean to drop that bomb on you today.I tried to get it in
13
14
15
had a chance to look at all these items or would we like
some time?We're okay?Mr.Desantis,as the Applicant you
have three minutes for rebuttal.
16 earlier and I was told that I couldn't,so after doing some 16 ROB DeSANTIS:Well,first of all,for all my
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"
2S
other jumping through the hoops I was told that I could
indeed get it in today and I get it in literally by the hair
of my chinny-chin-chin,so I'm sorry about that,and if
there's any questions on that I'd love to answer them.
So again,getting back to the community that I
love,I just thank you all for the attendance,I thank you
for the emails,I thank you for the editorials,I thank you
for going to our Web site,FriendsoftheHillsides.org,
because your checks help us,your emails help us,your
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
51
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neighbors that are watching tonight and that came to
previous meetings and signed their signatures,although they
couldn't be here in person,there are many people watching
and many with families that can't come here to support my
project.
No PD for a single-family home has ever been done.
Well how many people have come before you and wanted to
merge lots rather than subdividing?How many people have
given up their development rights to subdivide?How many
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
52
people have dedicated more than half of their property for has been studied by more people in more ways than anyone has
open space?2 I imagined,and it's started to take a toll on my family.My
All homes build before the Standards,exceptions 3 Idaughter started kindergarten this week.She had just been
are allowed and it's never been tested until roe.Are we
surprised why?And the airport comment isn't worth
commenting 00.
But as an ignorant 16-year resident of Los Gatos I
am confused why a small n~~er of people would want to stop
my project.From embellished editorials in the press to
outright inaccuracies,I wonder why.I bought 13 acres of
10
farmed land over four-and-a-half years ago.I could have
11
sold it to a developer to subdivide,which would have
12
created a lot more grading,structure,tree loss,et cetera.
4
5
7
10
11
12
born when we started this.We are now looking at a three-
year completion project,which would mean I would miss her
experiences in half of her childhood life.
I would now like to move to the next stage so that
it can hopefully be family focused and enjoy creating a
family home.somehow over the four-and-a-half years family
focus has been lost and it's time for it to return.
The Applicant and A&S application before you
tonight is consistent in every way with the approved PD.
Please make a decision tonight either way.
13
"
Instead I came to the Town with an idea that all
constituencies felt was a good idea,including you.Had I
13
14
CHAIR KANE:
Commissioner Micciche?
Questions for the speaker?
15
16
17
18
been told no,I would have moved on,but I was not,maybe
because I spoke to a bunch of my neighbors before that and
these concepts were interesting,maybe different than what
Mr.O'Donnell would say.Instead the Town saw some great
15
16
17
18
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:TWO,if I may.Would you be
opposed to a deed restriction on the lighting,fences and
grading that there would be no additional if it would be
added to the Conditions of Approval?
20
19 I opportunities,especially creating our model green home with
a committed owner while at the same time giving up
19
20
ROB DeSANTIS:How many?You said the grading.The
grading I believe there already is a restriction.And what
21
22
23
development rights to subdivide.
It's the American Dream to have a f~~ily home,a
basic dream of life.Having a fun,positive experience along
21
22
23
are the others?
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:No,if it's subsequent to
building the property,after the property is built.
24
25
the way would also be nice.To date the collaboration has
been positive.The expense and time however has not.My home
24
25
ROB DeSANTIS:Right.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,~ennedy Road at Forreste=Road
53
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
54
1 COMM~8SIONER MICCICHE:So that there would be no
longer any additional lighting or fences?
ROB DeSANTIS:Yes.post construction,the fe~cing
ROB DeSANTIS:And so there are all these other
issues architecturally that go on,so am I prepared to
commit to no copper?I'm not.
4 land then the lighting,once we have the lighting in,then
5 I yes .
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:The second item,I'm not
4
5
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:All right.Thank you.
CHAIR KANE:commission Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I have a question.We
7
1D
11
12
known as the cooper mau,so I'm not sure I know what I'm
talking about there,but it does sound to me like it's anti-
environmental at this point.would you consider compromising
that and getting rid of the copper?I understand you might
coat it and you might do other things to it,but the fact is
coatings wear out,people don't upkeep things,and
eventually it could take it's toll.
10
11
12
didn't ever touch on this,but this is in reference to your
motor court,and I understand that the driveway leading up
to your motor court is permeable material?
ROB DeSANTIS:Yes.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And it's called out that
the motor court is cobblestone,and the reason I bring it up
is that when I did calculations,which I'm not the best
13
l4
ROB DeSANTIS:
and comment on another.
I'm going to back up on one comment 13
l4
mathematician,but it's around 2,300 square feet of motor
court I think,and it's going to be done in cobblestone
15
16
The deed restriction on lighting,I would need to
consider and I would be open to say let's employ a deed
15
16
material,and how exactly will that be finished off?Do you
know what I was asking?
17 I restriction maybe two years after completion in the event
18 I that there's a design issue that warranted that,so the deed
17
18
ROB DeSANTIS:No.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay.Is that going to be
19 Irestriction I'll back off on.
20 I With respect to the copper,I am more than happy,
19 Icemented in place?Is that going to be placed in sand?In
20 I other words,will that material be permeable or not?
21 land am in real time,exploring the options of moving away 21 ROB DeSANTIS:Cobblestone is not typically
22 from copper.If you move away from a copper roof then you've 22 cemented in,so it's typically put in with sand.
23 got to move away from copper gutters,because 23 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Well I've seen it both
24
25
architecturally it doesn't make sense.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I agree.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
55
24
25
ways,so I'm asking you will it or not be permeable?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
56
ROB DeSANTIS:In the spirit of me being
conservative,let's say the motor court will not be
permeable.
1 Ibe done.If I can't,what I can guarantee is it will be
sealed or coated if it violates any type of endangered
aspect.
4
10
11
12
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay.Yeah,there we go.
ROB DeSANTIS:I'd rather be conservative.
CHAIR KANE:Other questions?Mr.DeSantis,if
Commissioner Micciche wants to talk to you about copper,
which he doesn't understand,he may be making you an offer
you should not refuse,so I want to know if you're just
implacable on an issue that two commissioners are talking to
you about,or would you work with Staff to find alternative
materials?It would be a shame,14 acres on a piece of
copper.
CHAIR K1ll~E:Thank you.Other questions for the
speaker?Seeing none,I'm going to close the public hearing,
and I want to ask the commissioners if they would like to
take a short break before we begin discussion?Yes,someone
would.Commission Sayoc.
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Actually a question of Mr.
Lortz through you.Do you have a copy of the Negative
10
Declaration?I didn't bring mine and there was a reference
11
made by one of the public speakers about it.
12
DIRECTOR LORTZ:We have a copy of the Negative
13 ROB DeSANTIS:Right.So I will give you the best 13
Declaration,but not in the room,so I'd have to go get it
14
15
answer I can on that,because that was a good one that I
wanted to ask.First of all,if the Town ever put an
14
15
for you.
CHAIR KANE:Then we'll take a break to do that.
16 ordinance together saying no copper roofs or gutters,I'm 16 Let's be back in seven-and-a-half minutes exactly.
17 Ihappy oblige tnat.So all I want is equal treatment on that.17 (Intennission.)
18 CHAIR KANE:Okay,we don't have onei that's 18 CHAIR KANE:I want to thank all those who spoke
19 I irrelevant.I want to know if you'd be willing to work with
20 Ithem on alternative materials.
19 I tonight,and having closed the public hearing I turn to the
20 Icommission for discussion or a motion,and first I ask the
21 ROB DeSANTIS:I would be unbelievably happy to 21 ICommission for a show hands for those who were able to visit
22
23
24
25
work with them without making it a condition,and I would
ask on that the four-and-a-half years that the Town has
gotta~to know me and know my word,I am true to my word,
and if I Cfu,do quality architecture without copper,it will
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
57
22
23
24
25
the site since the last hearing and ask if there are any
disclosures or additional evidence that needs to be put on
the record?Let us being then with commission Bourgeois and
move to his left.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
58
1 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Lucky me.There were some be continue this and get more detail?I know that's probably
2 Icomments tonight about speaking ~~d voting your conscience,
and I really disagree with those comments.I think as a
4 Iplanning commission we have words,we have ordinances,we
have guidelines,we have standards and that's how we need to
vote.There are those that have told me that I didn't listen
to the ordinance that was passed by Town Council the last
time I voted at the last Commission meeting,so I really
took that to heart and I've been looking at the evidence
2 Inot what anyone wants,to go through this again.
Then I come to the fencing plan and this new
security fence is a new element that was not in the PD,its
location,its type,it's size,the whole concept.At the
last meeting we were told the wildlife-friendly perimeter
fence that parallels Kennedy and a fence around the pool and
tnat was it.So this is a new element that's not covered by
the PD,and to my understanding it violates three standards
that's in front of us,what our purview is,what the PD
10
11
says,and really going back to the Standards.So in that
context I'd like to make a few comments.
in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines,and
10
those are,and I'll read them really quickly:UThat the
11
primary emphasis on fencing shall be maintaining open views,
12
13
14
15
First of all,water is a huge issue in California
and I would actually like to applaud this project on its
concept of capturing water and reusing it.I thi~~that we
should have more projects that are storing storm water
12
13
14
15
protecting wildlife corridors,maintaining the rural open
natural character of the hillsides.H The whole purpose of
these fences,and if you could see the map,the map is an
oversized plan,if you see that fencing plan it actually
16 onsite and beneficially reusing it,and I would love to see
17 Ithat happen mOre often.
16
17
cordons off a huge segment of the parcel.
CHAIR KANE:Commission Bourgeois,could I ask you
18 However,I can't approve a planting plan that 18 Ito give us a page reference?
19 Idoesn't have any plants.With all due respect to the 19 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Sorry.That is page 42,
20 Jgeranium versus petunia discussion,we get well-intentioned 20 Isection #6,standard #1.
21 Ipeople that provide us with ornamental planting plans that 21 CHAIR KANE:Thank you.
22 contain invasive species;as a matter of fact we have one 22 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:And on page 43,standard
23
24
25
later tonight.So I can't approve a planting plan when I
don't know what type of plants are going in and what type of
irrigation is going in,so that makes me think well should
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item *2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
59
23
24
25
#4.UDeer fencing,or wildlife fencing,up to a maximum of
8'shall be limited to areas around ornamental landscaping.H
This goes much further than that.And #5,UFences shall not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
60
1 Ibe allowed in areas that would impede the movement of
2 Iwildlife as determined by the decision making body,U and we
heard a lot of testimony from the Applicant himself,there
4 lare significant wildlife resources using this parcel.
So for those reasons,this is something that was
not covered in the PD and it does not meet the Development
Standards and Guidelines,I'm going to go ahead and make a
motion for denial on those grounds.
CHAIR KANE:Are you in fact making the motion?
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Yes.
considerations of Sections 29.20.150 in the review of
2 IArchitecture and Site applications,which includes but are
not limited site layout,landscaping,et cetera,but I'm
going to make my comments regarding the architectural
elements as they are talked about in chapter five of the
Hillside Design Guidelines and those would be,but not
limited to use of large windows,glass doors,use of
architectural features that increase visual prominence
should be avoided,massive tall elements such as two-story
entries,et cetera.
10
CHAIR KANE:Are you seeking a second?
11
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Please.
12
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I will go ahead and
10
11
12
So if I looked at this project and even though I
might look at the project and take the turrets out,it's
still a very big,massive,bulky house and the objectives
13 second that for additional reasons.13 and the goals of the documents I had cited before really ask
14
15
CI-IAIR KANE:
Discussion?
I'll take that as a second.14
15
us to work with applicants or have the applicants address
those requirements that reduce that visual appearance.So
17 ladditional reasons?
1515COMMISSIONERTALESFORE:would you like to hear my even if I took those out,we would still have a very large
17 Ihouse.If I even asked the Applicant to inset the hundreds
18
19
CHAIR KANE:I'd love discussion.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I'm going to just jump
18 lof windows by perhaps a foot to lessen reflectivity and the
19 Ilight that will emanate from them at night,it's probably
20
21
22
23
24
25
right into this,but I'm going to address it with that the
Town Council when they approved the PD did send this forward
to the Planning Commission to look at Architecture and Site
requirements.Those have to be compliant with the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines,compliant with the
Hillside specific Plan,and then alignment with the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
61
20
21
22
23
24
25
not going to be enough.If I ask the Applicant to possibly
step back the side of the garage that takes up a large
proportion of the front fa9ade of the house,if I asked him
to step that back,it still wouldn't cut down on the
hardscape,and tonight he said he wouldn't probably have the
motor court be permeable.We're talking a lot of alteration
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
62
and a lot of infill of material that our Hillside Design
Guidelines,if you read any page in chapter five,will tell
you to avoid,both Guidelines and Standards.
1 Icontinuation or a motion of approval with certain conditions
2 Iwould be more to my thinking.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Commissioner Sayoc.
4
10
11
12
13
When the Town Council approved this they gave four
exceptions,but they didn't give the exception that the
Applicant could bypass Architecture and Site and that's why
we're here tonight,and I don't believe that the level of
excellence that's required for a PD that addresses and to
de-emphasize the volume,bulk and mass is herei I can't see
it.I have turned down and turned back for redesign,as the
rest of some of our commissioners have done over the years,
many other applications that came a lot closer to meeting
all of the requirements in our Hillside Design Guidelines,
and so for that reason I support the motion.
4
7
10
11
12
13
COMMISSIONER SAYOC;I'm going to support the
motion.The previous commissioners that are supporting the
motion have stated their reasons and I completely concur
with those.There are a couple of more things that I would
like to add though to the record.
As I mentioned earlier,one of the things that's
quite important is the finding that I make be supported by
evidence contained in the record,as I mentioned during the
discussion,there were several reports and studies that I
felt were lacking for me to make a decision.There are also
two more that I want to point out now after looking at the
14 CHAIR KAN"E:Commissioner Micciche.14 Negative Declaration and I'd like to include that as well.
15
16
17
18
19
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I'm wouldn't support a
motion for denial at all,my reason being is none of the
reasons given I feel couldn't be handled through either a
continuance or at least redirection of certain conditions.I
believe we could carne up with something for the copper,I
15
16
17
18
19
The first is with regard to the storm drainage,
which was something that we had discussed that relates very
strongly with the hydrology,the grading,and I know grading
is not an issue,but I'm going to focus more on the
hydrology and the landscaping.It says on page 15 of the
20 Ibelieve we could come up with something for the plants,to 20 INegative Declaration regarding to storm drainage,"Plans do
21
22
23
24
25
direct the Applicant to meet those standards that we feel
have to be met.On the fencing issue,if it's contrary to
the original PD,I can understand that,but I do not see
enough issues here that would warrant a denial.A
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
63
21
22
23
24
25
not indicate the locations of catch basins and inlets.These
improvements will be defined as part of the storm water
management plan,which will be required by the Town as a
condition of project approval."I think this ties in very
strongly with the landscape issues,the hydrology issues,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
64
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
ana a lot of the runoff issues that we had discussed today.
There are still same questions that remain,and based on the
info~ation I have in front of me this is a valid reason for
me not to vote for this project approval to move on.
The next thing,something that I kept talking
about,the water quality.I just want to put it back on the
record,this is documentation supporting it,new more
stringent water quality regulations of the Clean Water Act
have recently been triggered by the National pollution
Discharge Elimination System Permit Program has failed to
protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's creeks and
the South San Francisco Bay.Evidence includes violations of
ambient water quality criteria,high concentrations of toxic
substances,and there are consumption health advisories.If
you go to the specific information you'll find,again,
copper is highly regarded as one toxic chemical that can be
so easily remediated;just don't use it.There's no way to
mi tigate it.
So here's another portion in our official
documents in our Negative Declaration that gives me strong
reason to support the motion and not allow approval of the
project as it is.
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ago before many of you probably got involved in these Town
processes,I was on the Hillside Standards Committee and
participated in developing some of those standards,and
you've asked us to vote our conscience.My conscience
requires me to follow the legal process that's established
by the laws of California and the land,and it requires me
to follow the democratic process.Mr.Donnelly stood up and
said there's a democratic process to change rules.
unfortunately that happened in this case.This project came
before the Planning commission,it was denied,it was
appealed,it went to the Town Council,it went through a
democratic process to change the ordinance and develop a new
ordinance,which are now the rules we have to follow,
whether we like them or not.I'm not going to tell you
whether I like the rules or not,I'm just going to tell you
I respect the rules.I respect all of you coming here and
all the time and energy you've put into this,but I think
now the process requires a different forum,and you've gone
to that forum and that's the courts.
The Planning Commission is an appointed body,
which is required to follow the ordinances that are passed
by the Town of Los Gatos,so as a Planning Commissioner I
22 CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Commissioner Jensen.22 feel obligated to follow the ordinances of the Town.I do
23 COMMISSIONER JENSEN:since we're all making 23 that when I make decisions on other projects aside from
24
25
speeches,I cannot support the motion,and that is not
because I disregard the Hillside Standards.In fact,ages
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
65
24
25
this.You've asked us to consider projects all the same.In
doing that we need to follow the ordinances set by the Town.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
66
1 IOn May 19,2008,like it or not,Our Town Council passed an
2 I ordinance,and that approved a Planned Development for this
property,and one of the things it did is say in Section 2,
#4,it approved a water well for irrigation subject to
issuance of a permit from Santa Clara valley Water District.
The Town Council has taken the issue of the well off the
board.If people disagree,the court is the place for that
to be discussed.It also approved ornamental landscaping and
it only specifies that,"Any planting beyond those areas,
1 I So I think that unfortunately what we're
2 Idiscussing here is kind of painting and what the fence looks
3 like.The Town Council made an ordinance;it made findings
that there were not environmental impacts.You're
challenging that in court.I encourage to you keep doing
that;that's the proper forum.So I can't support a motion
that I think is in violation of the specific ordinance and
directives of the Town Council that we are obligated to
follow as a body of the Town.The democratic process
that being 30'of the perimeter of the area formed by the
10
main house,pool and cabana and within 30'of other
11
structures on the property,"someone could consider areas
12
beyond that to be native vegetation that is drought and fire
10
11
12
requires us to follow the law.That's the ordinance passed
~ay 19"",so I can't support the motion.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.I'm going to follow-up on
that,Commission Jensen,because that's where my dilemma has
13
"
15
16
17
18
resistant and planted in natural clusters;that's the only
direction that we have,that's the only thing we can do,I
don't think we have a~ything that indicates that's not being
done.
with respect to the fencing,the Town Council in
the May 19,2008 ordinance at page 3,Section 7,says
13
14
15
16
17
18
been.I've studied the PD and tried to define the narrow
corridor that remained to us on this reduced A&S scope
decision,and it got down to a pretty narrow corridor on the
three plans we asked for plus a discussion on hydrology,and
I came to the meeting thinking that it wasn't all out there.
But with the testimony tonight and listening to the
19 Ispecifically that fe~cing is allowed,~as necessary to 19 Icommissioners who understand some of these things better
20
21
22
23
24
25
provide security on enclose ornamental landscape areas as
described in Condition #5 to prevent wildlife grazing."So
the Town Council made a decision the fencing is okay to keep
animals out.Again,that could be challenged in a court
process.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
67
20
21
22
23
24
25
tha~I do,and I trust their judgment,and I'd respectfully
disagree that these issues are in front of us and are not in
disregard for the ordinance from the Town council,that they
put this before us as decision to be made and we have found
that there are questions and concerns in this narrow
corridor,and we found a degree of implacability in dealing
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
68
1 Iwith this on the issues that were raised.We're very close
to havi~g a deal,and in my mind I was very close to seeing
this project go forward,but I think in listening to the
discussion of the Commission and the discussion of the
Applicant,I've been moved to support the motion.
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Commissioner Jensen said
1 lit.It's fairly clear to me that the majority of this
commission wants to vote no on this.I don't.I don't think
things should be this hard and I have a different view of
4 Iwhat the Council decided and it's unimportant whether I
agree with it.You cannot have a system where the ultimate
body that makes the decision tells you something and you
ignore it.When people say vote your conscience,if your
many things that I agree with.Unfortunately our original
decision,fortunately or unfortunately,we don't get paid to
make decisions;we make decisions.The Council doesn't get
10
11
12
paid,but they make the final decision,and they made a
final decision.I didn't agree with what it began with,but
I agree now those are my marching orders.
conscience doesn't tell you to do what the law instructs you
to do,then you've got a misformed conscience.So my job is
to take this work that I'm supposed to do and follow what I
10
believe the law requires me to do.I'm not saying I'm right,
11
because I respect my fellow commissioners who disagree with
12
this,but my view tonight is much closer to Ms.Jensen's and
13
14
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think on the other hand this has been a very
confusing exercise.I've heard some people comment on things
that I don't think we have any jurisdiction to speak about,
but that's merely my opinion and I clearly could be wrong.
But it's unfortunate when we have something that
is so difficult,because of the way it came to us.That
ought not to be and I am embarrassed for the difficulty we
have put people through on this particular procedure.It
shouldn't take this long to say no or yes,and I am
empathetic with the Applicant who says,~Look,up,down,but
get it done,H and I think he's absolutely right.
The council made the decision that got us here.It
sounds like t~eY're going to make the decision that will end
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
69
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr.Micciche's position than the others.
I'm not going to say any more,because you could
really go on,but I think basically we should never go
through this again.If the Council basically wants to do
what they did on this one,and they believe that we have so
much detail that they want to approve that detail,when it
comes back to us,if it comes back to us,I sure would like
some better guidance of what it is we're supposed to deal
with.If the issues tonight only concern the kind of things
that Commissioner Bourgeois discussed,I can understand
that.If we get into some of the broader areas,then I don't
understand it.So I'll simply say tonight I don't support
the motion and I would ask the council if this ever occurs
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
70
again,please give us clearer instructions.Thank yo~very
2 Imuch.
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Further discussion?
4 ICommissioner Bourgeois.
think it serves the process well to do this yet again,so
that's why I decided to move for denial.
CnAIR KANE:Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:I understood Commissioner
5 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I would just like to
clarify my motion,because there may be some confusion.What
I heard the direction from Staff about what we had
jurisdiction over was plant species,types and locations of
fence,and that's what my motion is based on,and that's
Bourgeois'motion and I think it was well formed and I think
there was a basis for it,so I don't disagree with the
motion.However,when I head the support for the motion it
went far afield and I want to be very careful in my comments
to say that I believe those comments were not within our
purview,so when somebody says I support the motion for
10
11
12
13
14
because I feel I got direction that those were things I had
jurisdiction over tonight,and the fence is a new element
and I can't make the finding that it's in compliance with
the Hillside Standards and Development Guidelines,and we
don't have what I consider an adequate planting plan.That's
what my motion is based on.
10
11
12
13
14
reasons unrelated to the motion,I just want the record to
be clear that personally I think that's a confusion and
unfortunately I think it's a confusion that could have been
perhaps cleared up and I would just ask the Council in the
future to clear it up for us,because maybe I'm wrong,maybe
15 CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Mr.Lortz.15 that kind of saying that I support your motion on two or
16 DIRECTOR LORTZ:Just a thought.If what you just 16 three grounds,on six other grounds,is...
17 Isaid is certainly the way you feel,the question would be 17 CHAIR KANE:People have their reasons for
18 Iwhether you could approve the project with two things:One 18 Isupporting the motion.
19 lis that the ornamental landscape plan and the irrigation 19 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:No,I'm just saying if
22
20 I the Council would make it clear I don't think we'd have that20IPlanreturntothePlanningCommissionforapproval,and
21 whether this ornamental and security fencing plan be
returned to the Planning Commission for approval.
21 Iproblem.
22 CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Commissioner Micciche.
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:And that's why I made the
comment that I was thinking of a continuance,but I don't
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I'm only going to make one
more comment.When this project first started,as I recall
it was 25,000 square feet when we did a review meeting on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
71
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
72
it,and it was a joke;we quickly got that down.We've seen
it a number of times.My logic when I supported the fact
Reservoir Road where the landscape plan was returned to the
2 I?lanning Commission.
3 Ithat it could go forward was that if we put two 6,000 square 3 CHAIR KANE:Further discussion?seeing none,I'm
4 Ifaot homes on that,would I have hydrology issues more than
I have now?Would I have more fencing?Would I have roore of
all the things that we're talking about?So with the
4 Igoing to call the question.There'S a motion to deny the
application.All those in favor,say aye.All those opposed?
The motion succeeds 4-3.Do you need names?Commissioner
exception of the copper,I prefer one 9,000 square foot home
over two 6,000 square foot homes,which was an option he had
to do,and that's why I feel that this thing could go
forward or be continued to cover the elements that are being
10
discussed tonight.
11
CHAIR KANE:Thank you.Further discussion?
12
COMMISSIONER O'DO~~LL:I have a question of
13 Staff.Mr.Lortz,I diQ~'t understand you to say to continue
7
10
11
12
13
Bourgeois,Commissioner Talesfore,commissioner Sayoc,
Commissioner Kane vote for the motion.Commissioner Jensen,
Commissioner Micciche,commissioner O'Donnell vote against
the motion.Mr.Korb,are there appeal rights?
ORRY KORB:Yes,there are.Anyone dissatisfied
with the decision of the Planning Commission may appeal the
decision to the Town Council.An appeal must be filed with
ten days.It must be filed upstairs in the Clerk Department.
14 the matter,I understood you to say that if the motion is 14 There are fees for filing an appeal.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concerned about the matters cited,those matters could be
kept open and the balance of the project would be approved,
so the only thing that would come back would be those
essentially attention to detail on the plans and on the
plant specifications.So if the maker of the motion
otherwise feels constrained to approve the balance of the
project,that was your suggestion,wasn't it?
DIRECTOR LORTZ:Yes,it was,and that's
consistent with the way the Commission has handled other
projects where they wanted to go ahead and take action but
have certain items brought back to them.We did that on
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KAI:\fE:Thank you all for coming.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
73
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/27/2008
Item #2,Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
74
The Honorable Barbara Spector Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
110 E.Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95032
Dear Mayor Spector and Council Members,
Septem ber 15,2008
This letter summarizes my thoughts to you regarding my recent Architecture and Site (A&S)
application submittal.I am before you as my project was denied 4-3 at the August 27'h commission
meeting.The basis for the appeal is as follows:
1)The Planning Commission seemed to be challenged with numerous policy issues regarding this
project and therefore erred or abused its discretion.The Planning Commission denied the A&S
based on matters that have already been approved by the Council as part of the PD,instead
substituting its own views.It also wanted to impose arbitrary and capricious requirements based
on personal preferences of some of the Commissioners,not on Town codes or policies.
2)The Planning Commission has no discretion to modify policy set by Council.The Planning
Commission did not act within the scope of the Council's PD approval.Four members disagreed
with the Council approval,and took this action based on that disagreement instead of adhering to
the Council approval as having set the zoning for this property.
3)I think an important point to note is that from our understanding working with the Town,we have
submitted an A&S package that is one of the most detailed (if not the most detailed)that the
Town has seen.This is partly because the PD was so detailed and we have maintained the
consistency of the PD as confirmed by the Town's Consulting Architect.
The Planning Commission overstepped its authority or failed to follow council direction when
denying the project for the following reasons:
1.Landscape lighting not complete enough.Our plan is consistent with the PD and as we
understand has much more detail then is required for A&S approval.Any further detail would
be impractical at this stage of the project and would virtually be construction level plans.
2.Ornamental landscaping is another policy issue where specifying ornamental plants that will
be used is not an A&S requirement.It is premature to define a final plant palette until all field
conditions such as shade,soil,water are finalized
3.Fencing!wildlife movement.All fencing that is proposed is allowed in PD including security
fencing.From a policy perspective the Commission should not have denied the A&S because
there was security fencing.The fencing plan allows wildlife movement and access throughout
much of the property.
4.Copper roof on an accessory structure.Again,there is no policy,guideline or other
documentation in the Town including the hillside standards stating that copper may not be
used. Also,there are studies on both sides of the question around copper and in light of your
recent decision and the fact that the architecture attached to the PD had copper,this is both
an error and policy issue.
5.Concerns around Hydrology and water consumption.This is not an A&S requirement and
there is no policy on this.Further,a well was discussed and approved in the PD.
6.House and site does not meet the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G)
as per the PD recently approved on my property.This is a policy issue that was already
resolved by the Council and not adhered to by the Commission.
Attachment 15
Background information:
As you know,we began developing our long term family home over 4%years ago working
collaboratively with the Town and neighbors.In May,with unprecedented detail,controls and forfeiture of
future development rights,the Town Council approved the PO for my project.The architectural design for
the PO was very detailed and the Town's Consulting Architect said the project was well designed.
I am now seeking approval for my A&S application.The application is designed in a manner
specifically and explicitly consistent with the PD.The site layout,architectural style and design has not
changed from the approved PD.The house size has been revised to specifically conform to the size in
the PD.Staff and the Town's Consulting Architect have reviewed the application and found the design
consistent.
Besides being environmentally sensitive to the site,we have also designed the home to be a
national model for sustainability and green building.We have committed to exceeding title 24
requirements and the new "Green Point Rating System that has been recently adopted by the Santa
Clara county cities for "Build it Green"for sustainable construction.We hope when all is done that this
home is one of the most green,sustainable and model homes in the country and something the town can
be very proud of.
Of the six policy issues mentioned above,I have some additional explanation that I think might be
helpful on four of these issues,as follows:
1.Landscape -we have submitted the landscape plan which is consistent with what was submitted
with the PD.The areas with ornamental landscape,grass,transitional landscape and non
landscaped areas are all shown on the plan.The transitional landscape is based on materials
recommended in the HDS&G.This is an associated condition in the A&S application.The grass
type and ornamental landscaping will need to be defined at the appropriate time based on field
conditions such as shade,drainage,soil,etc.
2.Fencing/wildlife movement -In looking further into the fencing and security of the property,it
became obvious that a security fence was needed.Based on the topography and developed area
of the land,the security fencing was fairly obvious to design.Taking security,visual impact and
wildlife movement into account into consideration we designed the fence location to allow open
space for wildlife on over half the property.Animals will have the ability to move north,south,east
and west across the property.It should also be noted that the properties to the north,west and
some of the east are already fenced so there are no "migration"paths to these yards.
3.Copper -The use of copper was another item of concern.The current design calls for a copper
roof on one accessory structure -the "art studio"which looks like a barn.Copper may also be
used for gutters,down spouts,flashing,etc.,as is typical for high end construction.The use of
copper has not to-date been considered an environmentally unfriendly item.We believe the
concern was around being environmentally sensitive to rain run off the copper roof.With the
drainage system and water collection systems being installed,the small size of the roof and the
opportunity to coat the copper if needed,we believe this is a non-issue.That said,we are
exploring the use of other materials and can assure the Town that we will complete the design in
an environmentally sensitive way.
4.Irrigation /Hydrology - I was also asked about water usage so we studied and considered ways in
which to do that.Two things qUickly became obvious:
1.There was no way at this stage to do a precise hydrological water balance calculation
2.There is a good way to share our plan and that is what I will now do:
The first thing is to understand the water sources available for consideration.They are:rain water
collection,an on-site well (which was approved in the PO and will be permitted through the Santa
Clara Valley Water District),and municipal water.In looking at annual rainfall,collection potential
and local well flow rates we were able to understand approximate water resources.The second
item was to then break the site up into the different areas of landscape,non-landscape,and
structure.Then,based on irrigation needs we can estimate water requirements.
Here are the findings:
Of the 13.71 acres,only 10-15%will be landscaped.Of that,over half will be native and low water
transitional plants.With this data we then looked at water requirements and this is what we found:
1.Rain collection potential could handle 150%of the annual irrigation needs
2.Well water at the minimum flow rate of 10glm (range is 10-200glm In local area)would produce
120-180 times the annual irrigation needs
3.San Jose Water could be used if needed,but as it stands we would consume much less
municipal water than most landscapes in Town on SJW
With this water strategy,we feel we have the ability to achieve a balanced water design based on the
variables we will uncover during the project on flow rates,storage costs,etc ...The irrigation system
will also be designed In such a way to use low amount of water to avoid waste.Such techniques can
be accomplished by using drip irrigation and other methods.
All of the submittals have been done to be consistent with the PD plans as approved,and with the
conditions of approval,so that they are also fully consistent with the HDS&G as approved by the Council.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or need additional information.I can be
reached at 348-1202.I thank you for your kind consideration of our home plans.
Sincerely,
Rob DeSantis