Documents previously submitted to CouncilTOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:August 13,2008
ITEM NO.:3
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO.:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
COl TACT PERSON:
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Suzanne Davis,Associate Planner
S-08-55
Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road (north side of Kennedy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
Rob DeSantis
Acorn Trust
Rob DeSantis:408-348-1202
Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
2Y,:PD.APN 537-29-007 &008.
DEEMED COMPLETE:August 7,2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:February 7,2009
Approval,subject to conditions.
PROJECT DATA:General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Applicable Plans &Standards:
Parcel Size:
Surrounding Area:
Low Density Residential
HR-2Y,:PD
PO Ordinance 2162
Hillside Development
Standards &Guidelines
Hillside Specific Plan
13.7 acres
Existing Land Use I General Plan Zoning
North Single Family Low Density HR-2Y,
East Single Family Low Density HR-2'h
South Single Family Low Density HR-2'h
West I Single Family Low Density HR-I
ATTACHMENT 6
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
Kennedy Road@ Forrester Road/S-08-55
August 13,2008
CEQA:
FINDINGS:
A Mitigated egative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
were prepared for the Planned Development and were adopted by the
Town Council on May 5,2008.0 further environmental analysis is
required.
•That the project is consistent with the Hillside Development
Standards &Guidelines.
•That the project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan
•That the project is consistent with Planned Development
Ordinance 2162
CONSIDERATIONS:As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture
and Site applications.
ACTION:The decision of the Planning Commission is fmal unless appealed
within ten days.
EXHIBITS:
BACKGROUND:
1.Location map (one page)
2.Planned Development Ordinance 2162 (18 pages inclusive of
Exhibit A)
3.Council Resolution 2008-56
4.Required findings and ronsiderations (three pages)
5.Recommended conditions of approval (five pages)
6.Applicant's letter (one page),received August 4,2008
7.Project data sheet (one page)
8.Exterior colors and materials (one page),received July 30,2008
9.Development Plans (22 sheets),received August 7,2008
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 of
that action,Council approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Plan and introduced the PD Ordinance.The ordinance was adopted by Council on May 19,2008
(see Exhibit 2).
In approving the PD,the Council approved the following four exceptions to the Hillside
Development Standards &Guidelines (HDS&G):
•Main residence exceeds the allowable floor area
•Main residence and art studio exceed allowable height limits
•Development is allowed outside the LRDA
•Cuts and fills exceed allowable depths
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3
Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road/S-08-55
August 13,2008
The Town Council resolution documenting the findings for approval of the PO,inclusive of the
exceptions to the HDS&G,is attached for the Commission's information (see Exhibit 3).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A.Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The 13.71 acre property is surrounded by large hillside lots developed with single family
homes and ancillary uses.With the exception of 200 Forrester Road,none of the homes
on abutting parcels have a direct line of sight to any of the building locations.Farther
outlying homes have partial views into the site,primarily those on upper Teresita Way
and Wooded View and Hilltop Drives.
B.Architectural and Site Approval
Architecture and Site approval is required for construction of the new residence and
accessory buildings.The PO Ordinance stipulates that the Planning Commission shall be
the deciding body for the application.Considerations for the review of architecture and
site applications are included in Exhibit 4.
C.Zoning Compliance
The proposed residence,garage,guest quarters and accessory structures are within the
allowable floor area for the property (15,700 square feet)and are compliant with
setbacks,size and heights included in the PO Ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
A.Architecture &Site
The PO allows for an 8,650 square foot primary residence and a total floor area of 14,700
square feet.Staff and the Consulting Architect reviewed the plans for consistency with
the PO Ordinance and conceptual development plans.The proposed project complies
with the approved PD Ordinance and Official Development Plans.The Consulting
Architect recommended that the column/jamb elements 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 changes
and a condition has been included requiring the design detail to be refined when the
construction plans are prepared.General project data is provided in Exhibit 6.Exterior
materials and colors are presented in Exhibit 7.
Story poles were not installed since the size,location and building heights have been
established through approval of the PD.The Town Council determined that story poles
were not required during the PO process.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4
Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road/S-08-55
August 13,2008
B.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.
C.Green BuildinglSustainability
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 of the 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 of 280 points.
D.Open Space Easement
As required by the PD,an open space easement will be granted over approximately 10
acres of the property.The easement grant must be completed before an occupancy
permit is issued for the main residence.
E.Driveway
The applicant is working with staff and 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.A condition has been included requiring 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.
F.Landscape Plan
A preliminary landscape plan has been provided (see sheets 3 and 4 of the development
plans).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
final planting plan will be reviewed with the construction plans to ensure compliance
with HDS&G requirements.A condition has been included requiring evaluation of the
area south of the pool and cabana to determine if additional planting is needed for
screening of the rear yard and back of the main residence.The evaluation will be done
once these improvements have been constructed,prior to final inspection and issuance of
an occupancy permit.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5
Kennedy Road @ Forrester RoadlS-08-55
August 13,2008
G.Fencing
There is existing fencing along the north,east and west property lines.ew wildlife
permeable fencing 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 into the vegetation.
The perimeter fencing was approved as part of the PD.The only additional fencing that
is proposed is a wrought iron fence around the pool area.
H.CEOA Determination
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Planned Development and was
approved by the Town Council on May 5,2008.No further environmental analysis is
required.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Staff has not had any contact with neighbors.Public hearing notices were sent to 55 surrounding
property owners and residents.House occupants are noticed in addition to the property owner
where the owner does not reside on the property.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
A.Conclusion
The project is in compliance with the PO Ordinance,the Hillside Specific Plan and the
Hillside Development Standards &Guidelines other than the previously approved
exceptions.Staff recommends that the application be approved as outlined in the
recommendation section below.
B.Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to approve
the Architecture and Site application:
1.Find that the project is consistent with the HDS&G and Hillside Specific Plan
(Exhibit 4);
2.Find that the project is consistent with the PO Ordinance 2162;
3.Find that the project is consistent with the considerations for approval of
Architecture and Site applications;and
4.Approve Architecture and Site application S-08-55 subject the conditions in
Exhibit 5.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6
Kennedy Road @ Forrester RoadlS-08-55
August 13,2008
&<2 QfJI7!L{jQAI1',C
Prepared by:
Suzanne Davis
Associate Planner
BNL:SD
A~1,~'-"I"l6-'....,...------
Bud N.Lortz,AICP
Director of Community Development
cc:Rob &Ranae DeSantis,200 Forrester Road,Los Gatos,CA 95032
Eric Morley,The Morley Brothers,506 N.Santa Cruz Avenue,Los Gatos,CA 95030
Richard Landry,Landry Design Group,11333 Iowa Avenue,Los Angeles,CA 90025
N:\DEV\R£PORTS\2008\KmnedyAcorn-A&S.doc
Acorn Meadows PD
Exhibit 1
,
ORDINANCE 2162
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHAJ"IGE
FROM HR-2'h TO HR-2'h:PD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON KENNEDY ROAD,
JUST EAST OF FORRESTER ROAD (APNs 537-29-007 &008)
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAfN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning on
property at Kennedy Road,east of Forrester Road (Santa Clara COlmty Assessor Parcel Numbers
537-29-007 &008)as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A,and is palt of this Ordinance,
from HR-2'h (Hillside Residential,2'12-10 Acres per Dwelling Unit)to HR-2'h:PD (Hillside
Residential,2'12-1 0 Acres per Dwelling Unit,Planned Development).
SECTION IT
The PD (Planned Development Overlay)zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the
following construction and use of improvements:
I.Construction of a new single-family dwelling,guest qualters and attached garage.
2.Accessory structures inclusive of art studio,pool cabana,termis pavil ion and gatehouse.
3.Driveway,pool,termis court,and landscaping as shown and required on the Official
Development Plan.
4.Water well for irrigation,subject to issuance of a permit from Santa Clara Valley Water
District.
5.Uses permitted are those specified in the HR (Hillside Residential)zone by Sections
29.40.235 (permitted Uscs)and 29.20.185 (Conditional Uses)of the Zoning Ordinance,as
those sections exist at the time of the adoption oftbis Ordinance,or as they may be amended
in the future.However,no use listed in Section 29.20.\85 is allowed unless specifically
authorized by this Ordinance,or by a Conditional Use Permit.
Page I of 17
Exhibit 2
SECTION III
COMPLIANCE W1TH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All provisions of the Town Code apply,except when the Official Development Plan
specifically shows otherwise.
SECTION IV
A recorded parcel merger and Architecture and Site Approval are required before
construction work for tbe dwelling units is performed,whether or not a permit is required for the
work and before any permit for construction is issued.Construction permits shall only be in a
manner complying witb Section 29.80.130 oftbe Town Code.
SECTION V
The attached Exhibit A (Map),and Exhibit B (Official Development Plans),are part of the
Official Development Plan.The following conditions must be complied with before issuance of any
grading,or construction permits:
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
I.ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED.A separate Architecture and Site
application and approval is required for the new single family home and accessory structures.
The Plmming Commission shall be the deciding body for the Architecture and Site
application provided it is in compliance with the Official Development Plans and the
provisions of this Planned Development Ordinance.
2.OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS.The Official Development Plans provided are
conceptual in nature.Final building footprints and building designs shall be determined
during the architecture and site approval process.
3.GREEN BUILDING.The house shall be designed to achieve compliance with GreenPoint
Rated Standards for green building certification.The GreenPoint checklist shall be
completed by a Certified Green Building Professional.
Page 2 of 17
4.PROJECT FLOOR AREA.The house size shall not exceed 8,650 square feet and the total
floor area for the overall project shall not exceed 14,700 square feet.The Director of
Community Development may approve an additional accessory structure not exceeding 600
square feet for storage and maintenance equipment.No other enclosed structures other than
those shown on the Official Development Plans shall be added to the site.Adjustments may
be made to the size of structures through the Architecture &Site process,provided that the
total allowable floor area is not exceeded.
5.ORNAMENTAL LA DSCAPfNG.All formal landscaping shall be confined to within 30
feet of the perimeter of the area formed by tbe main house,pool and cabana,and within 30
feet of other structures on the property,inclusive of the water feature.Any planting bcyond
these areas sball be native vegetation that is drought and fire resistant,and planted in natural
clusters.
6.LANDSCAPE PLAN.A landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved with the
Architecture &Site application.The landscape plan shall be reviewed to evaluate the need
for additional landscape screening south of the pool and cabana to minimize long-term
changes in views from existing residences to the south.
7.fENCING.Fence locations shall be reviewed and approved during the Architecture &Site
review.Fencing shall be restticted to open design,as provided for in the Hillside
Development Standards &Guidelines,except as necessary to provide security or enclose
ornamental landscaped areas as described in condition 5 to prevent wildlife grazing.This
condition does not apply to fencing along the common property line with 200 Forrester Rd.
8.MAIN RESIDENCE HEIGHT.The height of the main residence may exceed 25 feet in the
limited locations shown on the elevations included with the Official Development Plans.
9.ACCESSOR Y STRUCTURE HEIGHT.The height of the art studio shall not exceed 21 feet
(excluding the 2'9"cupola).All other accessory structures shall not exceed 15 feet.
10.SETBACKS.The minimum building setbacks are those specified by the I-IR zoning district.
11.HORSES.Horses are allowed on the property in compliance with Town Code provisions for
horses.The art studio building may be used as an animal barn.
Page 3 of 17
12.EXTERIOR LIGHTING.All exterior lighting shall be reviewed and approved as part of the
Architecture &Site review(s)and shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards &
Guidelines.Shielded lighting shall be shielded down directed and shall not reflect or
encroach onto neighboring propelties.Shielded flood lights on motion detectors may be
installed only ifit can be demonstrated that they are clearly needed for safety.
13.COLOR REFLECTIVITY 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 states that all exterior paint colors shall not exceed a light reflectivity
value of30,shall blend with the natural color of the vegetation that surrounds the site,and
shall be maintained in conformance with the Town's Hillside Development Standards as may
be amended by the Town.
14.TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for the removal of
any oroinance protected tree prior to the issuance of a Building,Grading or Encroachment
Permit.
15.TREE PROTECTION.Tree protection fencing shall be placed at the dripline of existing
trees to be saved in the area of construction.Fencing shall be four feet high chain link
attached to steel poles driven two feet into the ground when at the dripline of the tree.If the
fence has to be within eight feet of the trunk of the tree a fence base may be used,as in a
typical chain link fence that is rented.The fencing must be inspected and approved by the
Parks Superintendent and must be installed prior to issuance of a grading and/or building
permit.
16.TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES.Tree preservation measures shall be shown on the
construction management plan.
17.**BlOLOGlCAL RESOURCE MITIGATIO MEASURE-\.The project applicant shall
implement all recommendations made by the Town's consulting ar·borist,Arbor Resources,in
reports dated February 10 and July 27,2006 and October 3,2007,as well as any updates.
18.**BIOLOGlCAL RESOURCES MTTIGATIONMEASURE-2.Replacement trees shall be
planted for trees that are removed at a three to one ratio.The applicant shall submit a Tree
Replacement and Enhancement Plan prepared by a qualified restoration ecologist.The plan
Page 4 of 17
shall be peer reviewed by a restoration ecologist selected by the Town and shall be
implemented by the applicant prior to final inspection for the main residence.Replacement
plantings shall include a range of tree sizes,appropriate uTigation and periodic monitoring to
ensure successful re-vegetation.Speciflc guidelines for replanting locations and percent tree
cover shall be provided by the plan.Candidate locations shall include graded portions of the
project site to provide long term slope stabilization as well as habitat replacement.
19.OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION EASEMENT.An open space/conservation easement
shall be dedicated over the property The easement may allow uses approved under the
Planned Development,including all improvements shown on the Official Development
Plans,native pathways and landscaping,trails to satisfy Hillside Specific Plan requirements,
and any other improvement determined to be appropriate by the Director of Community
Development.The specific uses and improvements that will be allowed shall be detelmined
through the development of the easement document which shall be recorded prior to issuance
of an occupancy permit.
Building Division
20.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building permit shall be required for the construction of the new
single family residence,accessory structures,site retaining walls,tennis court,pond and pool.
21.CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL:The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on
the cover sheet of the construction plans.
22.ADDRESSIHOUSE NUMBER:Submit requests for new addresslhouse number to the
Building Division prior to the building permit application process.
23.SOILS REPORT:A soils report,prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
contaioing retaining wall and pad foundation design recommendations,shall be submitted
with the building permit application.This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineer specializing in soils mechanics.ALTERNATE:Design the foundation for an
allowable soils 1,000 psf design pressure (Unifolln Building Code Volume 2-Section 1805).
Pa~e 5 of 17
24.FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS:A pad certificate prepared by a licensed ci viI engineer or
land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection.
This certiftcate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils
repmi;and,the on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to
approved plans.Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certifted by a licensed
sW'veyor or registered civil engineer for the following items:
a.On-site retaining wall location
b.Finish floor elevation
c.Foundation corner locations
25.RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS.The residences shall be designed
with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61.
a.Wooden backing (no smaller than 2-inches by eight-inches)shall be provided in all
bathroom walls at water closets,showers and bathtub,located at 34-inches from the
floor to the center of the backing,suitable for installation of grab bars.
b.All passage doors shall have at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor.
c.Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a five foot by five foot
level landing no more than one-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor
level,with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge.
d.Door buzzer,bell or chime shall be hard wired.
26.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:When a special inspection is required by UBC Section 1701,the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to
the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.The Town Special
Inspection form must be completely filled-out,signed by all requested patiies and be
blue-lined on the construction plans.Special Inspection forms are available from the
Building Division Service Counter or online at www./osgarosca.gov.
27.SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES.The following features shall be
incorporated into the project:
a.A minimum of25%of the hmdscape shall be of pervious material(s).
b.Title 24 shall be exceeded by at least 30%.
Page 6 of 17
c.Solar power generation shall be included.
d.Irrigation shall be provided by an on-site well.
e.The possibility of geothermal climate control shall be explored.
28.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE.California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CR-IR
and MF-IR shall be printed on the construction plans.
29.HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE.This project requires Class A roofing assembly.
30.TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS.New fireplaces shall be EPA Phase II approved
appliances per Town Ordinance 1905.Tree limbs within 10 feet of chimneys shall be cut.
31.PLAJ'lS:The consh'uction plans shall be prepared under the di.rect supervision ofa licensed
architect or engineer.(Business and Professionals Code Section 5538).
32.NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS.The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan
submittal.The specification sheet is available at the Building Division service counter.
33.AFPROV ALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following agencies approval before
issuing a building pennit:
a.Community Development: Suzanne Davis at 354-6875
b.Engineering Department:Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
c.Santa Clara County Fire Department:(408)378-40 I0
d.West Valley Sanitation District:(408)378-2407
e.Local School District:Contact the Building Service Counter for the appropriate
school district and to obtain the school fOlm.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS &PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
34 ""GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE-I.The project design shall
incorporate all applicable recommendations in UPP Oeotechnology,Inc.'s geotechnical
investigation (March 17,2006 and March 13,2008)for the proposed project in order to
minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and soil engineering
constraints.
Page 7 of 17
35.LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.The limits of ground surface disturbance,including
disturbance required for site grading,utility construction,retaining wall construction,or
construction of structures shall be restricted to the areas shown on the PD plans.
36.GRADING PERMIT.A grading permit is required for site grading and drainage.The
grading pennit application (with grading plans)shall be made to the Engineering Division of
the Parks &Public Works Department located at41 Miles Avenue.The grading plans shall
include final grading,drainage,retaining wall location,driveway,utilities and interim
erosion control.Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and
proposed impervious areas.The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s).
A separate building permit,issued by the Building Depa11ment on E.Main Street is needed
for grading within the building footprint.
37.PI-lASED GRADING.Two grading phases will be allowed.A separate grading permit is
required for each phase.The initial grading permit shall consist of rough grading and may be
issued prior to issuance of a building permit.The rough grade permit shall identify finished
grades in landscape areas and shall identify pad grades within three-feet of finished grades
where structures are proposed.The rough pad grades shall be lower than finished grades in
areas of fill,and higher than finished grades in areas of cut.The finished grade grading plan
shall identify final grades in all locations.The intent of the phased grading is to allow
grading to begin prior to issuance of a building permit,yet to not over-fill or over-excavates
in areas where structures are to be placed.The phasing plan shall be approved by both the
Director of Parks and Public Works and the Director of Community Development.
38.UTILITY SERVICES.The new home shall be connected to the West Valley Sanitation
District sanitary sewer system and to a public water system prior to issuance ofa ce11ificate
of occupancy.Proof of annexation to WVSD boundaries shall be provided prior to submittal
of a building penn it application.
39.PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING.Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement
of any site work,the general contractor shall:
Page 8 of 17
a.Along with the project applicant,attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town
Staff Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval,working hours,site
maintenance and other construction matters;
b.Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of
approval,and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and
understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project conditions
of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction.
40.RETAINING WALLS.A building permit,issued by the Building Department at 110 E.
Main Sh'eet,may be required for site retaining walls.Walls are not reviewed or approved by
the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review
process.
41.ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTING.Additional laboratory tests shall be performed by UGl for
site soils and rock,including plasticity limits,swell potential,and shear sh·ength.The results
of such tests shall be incorporated into fOlmdation design recommendations.
42.SOILS REPORT.One copy of the soils report shall be submitted with the grading permit
application.The soils rep0l1 shall include specific criteria and standards governing site
grading,drainage,pavement design,retaining wall design and erosion control.The reports
shall be signed and "wet stamped"by the engineer or geologist,in confOlmance with Section
6735 of the California Business and Professions Code.
43.SOILS REVIEW.Prior to issuance of any penn it,the applicant's soils engineer shall review
the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations,retaining walls,
site grading,and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer
review comments.The applicant'~soils engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the
Town either by letter or by signing the plans.
44.SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION-!.During construction,all
excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to
placement of concrete and/or baclcfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report,and recommend appropriate changes in
the recommendations contained in the report,if necessary.The results of the construction
Page 9 of 17
observation and testing should be doctllnented in an "as-built"letter/report prepared by the
applicant's soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy
permit is granted.
45.SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION 2.A representative of the
geotechnical engineer nf record shall be present on site at all times during placement of fill.
46.TRAFFIC L\ll.PACT MITIGATION FEE.The property owner shall pay a proportional the
project's share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development
within the Town of Los Gatos.The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council
resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued.The fee shall be paid before
issuance of a building permit.The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project using the
ClUTent fee schedule is $5,742.The final fee shall be calculated form the final plans using the
rate schedule in effect at the time the building pelmit is issued.
47.GENERAL.All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications.All work shall conform to the
applicable Town ordinances.The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job
related dirt and debris at the end of the day.Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm
drainage facilities.The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalkand/or the street will
not be allowed unless a special permit is issued.The developer's representative in charge
shall be at the job site during all working hours.Failure to maintain the public light-of-way
according to this condition may result in the Town perfOlming the required maintenance at
the developer's expense.
48.TREE REMOVAL.Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
49.ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.All work in thc public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit.All work over $5,000 will require construction security.
50.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.The developer or his representative shall notify the
Engineering lnspcctor at least forty-eight (48)hours before stalting any work pertaining to
on-site drainage facilities,grading or paving,and all work in the Town's right-of-way.
Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection.
Page LO of L7
51.SURVEYING CO TROLS.Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a
licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying,for the
fo llowing items:
a.Retaining wall-top of wall elevations and locations
b.Toe and top of cut and fill slopes
52.EROSION CONTROL.Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and
submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks &Public Works Depanmenl.A Notice
ofintent (N0l)and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)shall be submitted to
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more
than one acre.A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and
slabilizingfbuilding on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season.Interim erosion
control measures,to be carried out during construction and before installation of the fmal
landscaping shaH be included.Interim erosion control mcthod shall include,but are not
limitcd to:silt fences,fiber rolls (with locations and details),erosion conn-ol blankets,Town
standard seeding specification,filter berms,check dams,retention basins,etc.Provide
erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter
months.Tbe grading,drainage,erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance
with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of Order No.
R2-2005-0035 of the amended Santa Clara County NPDES PenTIilo
53.DUST CONTROL.Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that
paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading,and
by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible.Fwiher,water trucks shall be present and
in use at the construction site.All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be
watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town,or a minimum of three times daily,or
apply (non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas,and staging
areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of
the project.Watering on public streets shall not occur.Streets will be cleaned by street
sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer,or at least once a
day.Watering associated with on-sire construction activity shall take place between the
Page II of 17
hours of 8 a.m.and 5 p.m.and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize
the effects of blowing dust.All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction
activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of
the Town.Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds
(instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 MPH.All trucks hauling soil,sand,or other loose debris
shall be covered.
54.DUST CONTROL (SITES>4 ACRES).The following measures should be implemented at
consh·uction sites greater than four acres in area:
a.Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
b.Enclose,covcr,water twice daily or apply (non-toxic)soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt,sand,etc.)
c.Limit tTaffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
d.Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt nLnoff to public
roadways.
e.Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
55.CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN.The Applicant shall submit a construction
management plan that shall inCOIlJOrate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan,Traffic
Control Plan,Project Schedule,site security fencing,empLoyee parking,construction staging
area,construction trailer,and proposed outhouse locations.All staging shall be performed
within the LRDA.
56.STORM WATER MANAGEiVffiNT PLAN.A storm water management shall be included
with the grading permit application for all Group I and Group 2 projects as defined in the
amended provisions C.J.d.of Order No.R2-2005-00J5 of the amended Santa Clara County
NPDES Permit No.CAS029718.The plan shall delineate source control measures and
BMP's together with the sizing calculations.The pial shall be certified by a professional
pre-qualified by the Town.In the event thaI Slorm water measures proposed on the Planning
approval differ significantly from those certified on the Building/Grading Permit,the Town
Page 12 of 17
may require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of the Building Pennit.
The applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility.
57.AGREEMENT FOR STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMEI T PRACTICES
fNSPECTION AND MAlNTE.ANCE OBLIGATIONS.The property owner shall enter
into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices
required to be illStalled on this project by Town's Stormwater Discharge Permit No.
CAS0297 18 and modified by Order No.R.2-2005·0035.The agreement will specify that
certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the propelty owner and will specify device
maintenance reporting requirements.The agreement will also specify routine inspection
requirements,permits and payment offees.The agreement shall be recorded prior to release
of any occupancy permits.
58.SILT AND tvruD fN PUBLIC RlGHT·OF·WAY It is ti,e responsibility of contractor and
home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a
daily basis.Mud,silt,concrete and other construction debris shall not be washed into tile
Town's storm drains.
59.UTILITIES.The developer shall install all utility services,including telephone,electric
power and all other commwucations lines undergrolmd,as required by Town Code
§27.50.0 15(b).All new utility services shall be placed underground.Underground conduit
shall be provided for cable television service.
60.PRECONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit,the
project applicant shall complete a pavement condition survey documenting the extent of
existing pavement defects using a 35-mm or digital video camera.The SlU'Vey shall extend
along the full haul route within Town Limits (Kennedy Road between project site and Los
Gatos Boulevard,Los Gatos Blvd.from Kennedy Road to Highway 9,and Highway 9 from
Los Gatos Blvd.to Highway 17).In addition,a pavement deflection analysis confonning to
the same limits as the photographic survey shall be performed to determine pavement
strength.The results shall be documented in a report and submitted to the Town for review.
61.POSTCONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY.The project Applicant will complete a
post conslruction pavement condition survey and pavement deflection analysis to detemline
Page 13 of 17
whether road damage occwTed as a result of project construction and whether there were
changes in pavement strength.The rehabilitation improvements required to restore the
pavement to pre-construction condition and strength shall be determined using State of
California procedures for deflection analysis.The results shall be documented in a report
and submitted to the Town for review and approval.The Applicant shall be responsible for
completing any required road repairs prior to release of the faithful performance bond.
62.RESTORAnON OF PUBLICIMPROVEME TS.The developer shall repair or replace all
existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of
developer's operations.Improvements such as,but not limited to:curbs,gutters,sidewalks,
driveways,signs,pavements,raised pavement markers,thermoplastic pavement markings,
etc.shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original
condition.Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the
Engineering Construction Inspector,and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access
provisions.Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction
Inspector before the stalt of construction to verify existing conditions.
63.AS-BUILT PLANS.An AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built"plans shall be provided to
the Town prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.The AutoCAD file shall include
only the following information and shall conform to the layer naming convention:(a)
Building Outline,Layer:BLDG-OUTLINE;(b)Driveway,Layer:DRIVEWAY;(c)
Retaining Wall,Layer:RETAINING WALL;(d)Swimming Pool,Layer:SWIMMING-
POOL;(e)Tennis Court,Layer:TENNIS-COURT;(f)Property Line,Layer:PROPERTY-
LINE;(g)Contours,Layer:NEWCONTOUR.All as-built digital files must be on the same
coordinate basis as the Town's swoyey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD
version 2000 or h.igher.
64.CONSTRUCTION NOISE.Between the hours of8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,weekdays and 9:00
a.m.to 7:00 p.m.weekends and holidays, construction,alteration or repair activities shall be
allowed.0 individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five
(85)dBA at twenty-five (25)feet.If the device is located with.in a structure on the property,
the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25)feet from the device
Page 14 of 17
as possible.The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed
eighty-five (85)dBA.
65.HAULING OF SOIL.Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m.and 9:00 a.m.and between 4:00 p.m.and 6:00
p.m.).Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall work with the Town
Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan
to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project
site.This may include,but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place
construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling
activities,or providing additional traffic control.Cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and
other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.The haul
route for soil exp011 shall be Kennedy Road from the project site to Los Gatos Boulevard,
Los Gatos Boulevard from Kennedy Road to Highway 9 to Highway 17.
66.ENGINEERING INSPECTOR.In-lieu of the standard grading inspection fee,the applicant
shall fund a full time Engineering inspector for the duration of the rough grading and soil
export operations,and inspections as required during the remainder of the site work.The
applicant will be charged on a time and materials basis.A deposit for the full amount,to be
estimated by the Town based on the Contractor's approved schedule,shall be paid prior to
issuance of any permit.
TO THE SATISFACTION Of THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTIvlENT:
67.AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED.The new home and accessory
structures shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system,
hydraulically designed per ational Fire Protection Association (NFPA)Standard #13d.
68.TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY INSTALLAT10NS.Installations of required
fire service(s)and fire hydrants(s)shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Depa11ment,prior
to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials.Building pennit issuance
may be withheld until required installations are completed,tested,and accepted.
Page 15 of 17
69.FIRE APPARATUS(ENGINE)ACCESS ROADS.Provide access roadways with a paved
all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of20 feet,vertical clearance of 13
feet 6 inches,minimum circulating turning radius of36 feet outside and 23 feet inside,and a
maximum slope of 15%.Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details
and Specifications A-I.
70.FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)TURN-AROUND.Provide an approved fire department
engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside.
Installations shall conform with Fire Depaltment Standard Details and Specifications A-I.
Cul-de-sac diameters shall be no less than 72 feet.
71.TIMING OF REQUIRED ROADWA Y INSTALLATIONS.Required driveways and/or
access roads up through first lift of asphalt shall be inspected and accepted by the Fire
Department prior to the start of construction.Bulk combustible materials shall not be
delivered to the site Imtil installations are complete.During construction emergency access
roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded.Note that building permit issuance may be
withheld until installations are completed.
72.REQUIRED ACCESS TO BUILDINGS.Provide access to all portions of the residence and
all accessory structures within 150 feet travel distance from fire apparatus access points.
73.PREMISE IDENTIFICATION.Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from Kennedy Road.
Numbers shall contrast with their background.
Page 16 of 17
SECTION VI
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofLos
Gatos on May 5,2008,and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos
at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on May \9,2008 and becomes effective
30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Steve Glickman,Diane McNutt,and Joe Pirzynski
Mike Wasserman,and Mayor Barbara Spector
/........---·~ED:
/.
,.?""~()..v\bC1~-~~"'"
MAYOR OF THE TO OF LOS GATOS
LOS ATOS,CALIFORNIA
AnEST:d~
CL:a THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALlFORt'flA
Page I7 of I7
HR-l:
1/
KENNEDY ROAD
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
To:HR-2 1/2 POFrom:HR-2 1/2
Application No.PD-06-04.A.P.N.#537-29-007 &537 -29-008
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
(gI Zone ChangeoPrezonin
Planning Commission Action
Approved by Town Council
Clerk Administrator
Date:Sept.13,2006
Date:5/19/2008 Ord:2162
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION 2008-056
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS MAKING
FINDINGS REGARDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO APPROVE A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE,POOL,TENNIS COURT AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2 Y,
APNS:537-29-007 &008
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-06-03
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-07-04
PROPERTY LOCATION:KENNEDY ROAD AT FORRESTER ROAD
PROPERTY OWNER:ACORN TRUST
APPLICANT:ROB DESAJ'ITIS
WHEREAS:
A.This matter came before the Town Council for public hearings on February 5,2007,
April 2,2007,and May 5,2008,and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.
B.Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the applicant and all
interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents.Council considered all testimony and
matcrials submitted,including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of
material contained in the Council Agenda Reports,Addenda and Desk Items prepared for the
Council hearings on this application.
C.The applicant seeks approval for a Planned Development (PO)for a large hillside
property.The development includes a new residence with attached garage and guest qum1ers,
cabana,art studio,pool,tennis court,pavilion and entry gatehouse.The total floor area of the house
is 8,650 square feet and the attached garage is approximately 1,778 square feet.A 6,287 square foot
cellar is also proposed and is exempt from floor area calculations.The cellar element will be
completely below grade and will not appear as part of the above ground bulk and mass of the main
residence.The majority of the site (approximately 75%)will be maintained in a natW'al state tlu'ough
a required open space and conservation easement.
Exhibit 3
D.The project is subject to the Town's Hillside Development Standards &Guidelines
("HDS&G"),from which the applicant seeks the following four exceptions:
l.An exception to exceed the 25 foot maximum height restriction to allow a 25
foot long segment of the highest roof ridge,the highest portion of which would reach 30 feet,and
two projecting elements on the rear elevation,one reaching 26 feet 10 inches,and the other reaching
25 feet 10 inches;
2.An exception from the requirement that development occur within the Least
Restrictive Development Area ("LRDA")to allow pOltions of the telmis court,motor COUlt,pool and
cabana,which extend onto slopes greater than 30%;
3.An exception to exceed the maximum allowable floor area of 6,000 square
feet;and
4.An exception to exceed the maximum cut depth for the driveway,house and
real'yard area,and the maximum fill depth for the tennis court lower fill area,the motor court and
the upper knoll.
E.The application was considered by the Planning Commission on September 13,2006,
which recommended denial of the project
F.Council finds as follows:
I.The zone change is internally consistent with the General Plan and its
elements and the Hillside Specific Plan.The agenda reports for the Town Council and Planning
Commission hearings,the Initial Study and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration do not
identify any conflicts with the General Plan and its elements 01'the Hillside Specific Plan.In a
memorandum to Suzanne Davis dated May 2,2008 (May 2,2008 Addendum to Agenda RepOlt,
Attachment 38),Geier &Geier Consulting,the Town's environmental consultant,state at pages 4
and 16 of the memorandum that Town Staff evaluated the project's consistency with these policies
and determined that the project is consistent with said policies.The adoption of the HDS&G
implements policies contained in the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan.While the project
applicant seeks exceptions to four standards and guidelines of the HDS&G,such exceptions are
contemplated in the HDS&G and are permitted under certain circumstances.Such circumstances are
present in this application,including the environmentally sensitive design of the project,the layout
and design of the project in relation to the existing topography,the substantial lack of visibility of the
project from the valley floor (including the official "viewing platforms"designated in the HDS&G),
and the potential subdivision potential of the site.
2.Based upon substantial evidence in the record as a whole,the Initial Study
and the April 7,2008 Proposed Mitigated egative Declaration ("MND")are sufficient with regard
to the potential environmental impacts associated with the project.There is no substantial evidence
in thc record suppoliing a·fair argument that the project may have a significant unmitigated effect on
the environment.The May 2,2008 Geier &Geier memorandum (Attachment 38) provides a detailed
response to public commcnts rcgarding the sufficiency of the environmental analysis,specifically
with regard to completeness of the Environmental Checklist,the Project Description in the Initial
Study,the Land Use Planning analysis,aesthetics,biological resources,grading,hydrology,and
drainage,fire hazards and fire protection,transportation and h·affic,air quality,cultural resources,
and cumulative impacts.
3.Pursuant to the HDS&G,Council incorporates by reference as though set out
in full herein,the findings for exceptions to the HDS&G regarding building height,development
outside the LRDA,exceeding the allowable floor area,and exceeding maximum allowable cuts and
till depths contained on pages 3 and 4 of the Council Agenda Report dated April 29,2008.Council
also notes in this regard the project justifications provided by the applicant (April 29,2008 Council
Agenda Report,Attachment 30).The applicant has met his burden of proof to show compelling
reasons to grant the requested exceptions.The exceptions actually improve the project in relation to
the hillside environment.For example,one reason for additional cut and fill is to lower the house
into the hillside to reduce visibility,The project,as approved,is designed to be sensitive to the
hillside environment and is consistent with the overall purpose of hillside preservation embodied in
the HDS&G,
RESOLVED:
That this resolution be incorporated into the record of Council's determination of this
application as the statement of findings regarding the matters contained herein,
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,State of California,
on the 19th day of May,2008 by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTA1N:
Steve Glickman,Diane McNutt,Joe Pirzynski
Mike Wasserman,and Mayor Barbara Spector
SIGNED:
MAYOR THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
~(')\.:,'",
\~:
CL ';,OF ~HE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LO .TOS,CALIFORNIA
PLAJ'lNING COMMISSION -AUGUST 13,2008
REQUIRED FINDINGS &CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
Kennedv Road @ Forrester Road
Architecture &Site Application S-08-56
Requesting approval of a grading plan for an approved Planned Development on property zoned
HR-2Y,:PD AP S 537-29-007 &008.
PROPERTY OWNER:Acorn Trust
APPLICANT:Rob DeSantis
FINDL'lGS:
Required compliance with Hillside Development Standards &Guidelines:
•That other than the exceptions granted by the Town Council (house size,building height,
grading cut and fill depths and encroachment outside the LRDA)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.
CONSlDERAnONS:
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 pedestrian 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:
1.The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate
existing traffic;
2.Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied;and
Exhibit 4
3.Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one
(1)year after occupancy.
b.The deciding body shall review the application for traffic roadway/intersection
capacity and make one (1)of the following determinations:
I.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 (I )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 of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation
of traffic 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 of walls,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 of Parks,Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special
criteria,including climatic conditions,maintenance,year-round versus seasonal color change
(blossom,summer foliage,autumn 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 of the 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 of the site development plan on the adequacy
of storm and surface water drainage.
(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 of the 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 of title 24 of the 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 of use 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 maybe focused through the initial
study process.
N:'DEVlFlNDINGS\200S\KENNEDYACOR.'>:-"\&S.DOC
PLAJ'lNING COMMISSION -AUGUST 13,2008
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Kennedv Road @ Forrester Road
Architecture &Site Application S-08-56
Requesting approval of a grading plan for an approved Planned Development on property zoned
HR-2Y,:PD.APNS 537-29-007 &008.
PROPERTY OWNER:Acorn Trust
APPLICANT:Rob DeSantis
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T:
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 13,2008 and noted as received by the Town on August 7,2008.
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 of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation.
6.DEED RESTRICTIO .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 confOnTIa...·1ce 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
Exhibit 5
9.FINAL 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.The final landscape plan
shall be included with the construction plans and will be reviewed for compliance during
the building plan check process.
Building Division
10.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.
II.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans shall be provided with the building
permits submittal (maximum size 24"x 36").
12.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.
13.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).
14.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.
15.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
16.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 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
17.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.
18.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.
Page 2 0/5
19.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.
20.ONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTIOI 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.
21.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 SATFISFATIOI OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS &PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
22.DRNEWAY 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.
23.DRIVEWAY APPROACH.The developer shall install a Town standard residential
approach.The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Details.
24.SITE DRAINAGE.Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks.No through
curb drains will be allowed.
25.NPDES.On-site drainage systems shall include a filtration device such as a bio-swale or
permeable pavement.
26.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 backflow 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
6.50.0 I0 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.
27.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.
Page 3 0/5
28,UTILITY SETBACKS,House foundations shall be set back a sufficient distance from
utility lines to allow excavation without undennining the foundation.The Town
Engineer shall detennine the appropriate setbacks based on the depth of the utility line,
input from the solids engineer and the type of foundation,
29,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).
30,GOOD HOUSEKEEPING,Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction,Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
perfonned 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
pennit is issued by the Engineering Division,
3 I,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 IS MPH,
32,NEW TREES,All newly planted trees are required to be double staked to Town
Standards,
33,GENERAL.All existing trees being retained and replacement trees are specific subjects
of approval of this plan and must remain on the site,
34,PERMIT ISSUANCE,Pennits for each phase (reclamation,grading and landscaping)
shall be issued simultaneously.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
35,REQUIRED FIRE FLOW,Required fire flow is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi,residual pressure,
36,WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE,A State of California licensed (C-16)Fire
Protection contractor shall submit plans,calculations,a completed pennit application and
appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning work,
37,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 #130
and local ordinances,The fire sprinkler system supply valving shall be installed per Fire
Department Standard Detail &Specifications W -I/SP-6,
38,PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S)REQUIRED,Provide pubic fire hydrant(s)at location(s)
to be detennined 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 pennit submittal.
Page 4 0/5
39.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.
40.FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED.An access
driveway with a paved all weather surface,minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet,
vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches.Installations shall conform to Fire Department
Standard Details and Specifications sheet 0-1.
41.FIRE APPARATUS (E GrNE)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 0-1.
42.EMERGENCY GATE/ACCESS REQUIREMEI TS.Gate installations shall conform to
Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and shall not obstruct 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
43.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:DEVlCONDIT':'lS\2008\KcnDcdyAcom.A&$.doe
Page 5 0/5
Los Gatos -Project Description
TO:
PROJECT:
DATE:
Town of Los Gatos
Acorn Meadows·DeSantis Residence
APN#537-29-007 &537-29-008
Lot 16,Tract #6514
Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
August 4"',2008
The proposed single-family home is set into a spectacular 13.7 acre property in the hills of Los Gatos.All materials
used in the project are appropriate to the rural character of the landscape.Approaching the property the only
visible structure will be a stone and wood gacehouse.Ascending the driveway,one will pass through several of the
600 trees on the properi:y.driving past a tennis court that is partially sunken into the ground.The court also has a
small toilet room and a trellised seating area.At various points along the road there are terraced scone-clad
retaining walls that allow the slope of the driveway co be accessible by emergency vehicles as required.Arriving at a
knoll mid-level on the property,the house sits back from the edge behind the motor-court.The house is sited in
such a way that it does nOt front the major views coward the cityscapes,but rather primarily faces out coward the
less populated hills &valleys.As with all the structures on the property,the 2-story house plus cellar is composed
primarily stone and wood.Stepped antiqued flat-clay tile roofs and varied massing give the house a scale that is fitting
for a rural hillside setting.In the rear,there is a swimming pool and a small I-story cabana attached via a trellis to
the main-house.Walking to the upper knoll on the property one will find a small I-story Art Studio on the side of an
existing field.Designed with a copper standing-seam roof,it evokes the imagery of an old farming building.Here one
can view the taller hills that surround the property or at night look back toward the city lights.
The property has previously been quite disturbed;there has been much grading over the last century and an access
road with berms cut through the center.As a way to restore the property to more of it's original character,the
owner,architects &Town staff have worked extensively with the civil engineer using some of the soil slated for
export to re-contour the property to a more natural state.They have also worked with Arborists to retain as many
of the trees as possible,and developed a plan to add many additional trees.
Sustatnabilicy and green architecture will be incorporated in many ways.The proposed siting of the house is oriented
to take advantage of passive solar principles.Active solar will be utilized through radiant heating and photovoltaic
panels.Green materials and methods including renewable and recycled resources will also be specified.An on-site
well will supply water for irrigation and water features.
The DeSantis family is very excited about the project and look forward to a home that supports their growing family.
As the architects,we feel this not only satisfies their family goals but also is consistent with the town's vision
statement and objectives as described in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines,and a suitable
development for a unique property.
.,.
Page I of I
-
11))310WAAVENUE
LOS ANGELES,CA 90025
T 310.444.1404
F 310.444.1405
W %I
www.lafldrydellgngroup.eom
ore h it ee t@lofld"'tde$fgfl.flet
Exhibit 6
,,.':;~:."~lj );:)~w;!ACORN·Ir.-,f:ADOW~",PRO~ECt,DATA .'....
I"~EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIREDI
CONDITIONS PROJECT PERMITTED
Zoning district HR-2Y,same -
Land use undeveloped single family residence -
General Plan Designation low density residential same -
Lot size -
•square feet 596,772 same 40,000 sq.ft.minimum
•acres 13.71 same .92 acres minimum
Exterior materials:.',
•siding -stone -
•trim -stained wood -
•windows -stained wood -
•roofing -terra cotta tile -
Building floor area:,..,',',
•first floor 5,802 -
•second floor 2,848 -
•cellar 5,802
•garage 1,778 400 sq.ft.exempt
•guest unit 1,148
•cabana 840 -
•art studio 600
•pavilion 120
•gatehouse 140
•total (excluding cellar)13,276 14,700 sq.ft.maximum
House Setbacks (ft.):":-.-c,,,-
,
•front 272'30 feet minimum
•rear 158'25 feet minimum
•side 367'20 feet minimum
•side 458'20 feet minimum
Maximum height (ft.)30'30 feet maximum
Average slope (%)39.3 -
Building coverage (%).0155 no maximum
Parking c •''"
.'-
garage spaces 5 six spaces minimum
uncovered spaces 3
Sewer or septic sewer -
Exhibit 7
EAVES AND
EXPOSED BEAMS
STAIN GRADE
DOUGLAS FIR T&G
AND RAFTER TAILS
FINISHED WITH SEMi-
TRANSPARENT
BROWN STAIN,SUCH
AS DUNN-EDWARDS
DE-499 "EVENING"
GUTTERS,VENTS,AND FLASHINGS
COPPER OR COPPER COLORED METAL
GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS
COPPER ROOF
(ART STUDIO)
STANDING SEAM
EXTERIOR COLUMNS,
TRIM &ACCENTS
NATURAL "LIMESTONE"OR
SIMILAR EARTH TONE COLOR
OF PRE·CAST CONCRETE
-+--ALL WINDOWS,DOORS &SHUTTERS
TRANSPARENT BROWN STAIN,SUCH AS
DUNN-EDWARDS DE-499 "EVENING"
DRIVEWAY COLORS
NATURAL STONE AND
STONE PAVERS,
EXPOSED-AGGREGATE
CONCRETE
iii~e--+--HOUSE EXTERIOR AND
RETAINING WALL FINISH
AGED LIMESTONE,SUCH AS DALLE DE
BOURGOGNE,OR SIMILAR LOCALLY
QUARRIED STONE
WOOD SIDING
(ART STUDIO)
LIGHT BROWN STAIN ---ji:':-htl
ROOF
ANTIQUE RECLAIMED FLAT
CLAY TILE WI STANDARD
GREY MORTAR
(NOTE:ALL GLASS TO BE NON-GLARE)
I.LANDRY DESIGN GROUP
11333 IOWA AVENUE
LOS ANGELES,CA 90025
T 310.444.1404
•F 310.444.140S
JOB NAME
ACORN MEADOWS
DR"WING
EXTERIOR FINISH EXHIBIT
lOB"
SCAt(
0406.00
NONE
DIITE
7.25.08
EXHIBiT 8
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:August 13,2008
ITEM NO.:
DESK ITEM
3
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO.:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT PERSON:
APPLICAnON
SlJMJ\1AR Y:
EXHIBITS:
DISCUSSION:
Suzanne Davis,Associate Planner
S-08-55
Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road (north side of Kennedy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
Rob DeSantis
Acorn Trust
Rob DeSantis:408-348-1202
Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
2Y2:PD.APN 537-2t-007 &008.
~
DEEMED COMPLETE:August 7,2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:February 7,2009
1.-9 Previously received
10.Letter from Andrew L.Faber (two pages with nine page
attachment)
Exhibit 10 is a letter that was received from the applicant's attorney today.
&ruvVliLcBaA/j,c
Prepared by:
Suzanne Davis
Associate Planner
BNL:SD
N:\DEV\REPORTS\200~\KcnncdyAcorn-A&S.doc
Bud N.Lortz,AICP
Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENT 7
BERLINER COHEN
A.TTQRNSYS AT LAW
SAf'lFOlD /Ii Bai.INu·
ANDUW L.l'A.IID.
P.AUlf 1.SWAmON
'EOOY l.$,JlINOQAY
JOSePH!.DWOl.AK
SAMlJ!L L.I'AlII
AlA.'f J.ro."'NU.
FJW{J;.J.t18RAIo.,
lno'DA A CALLQN
JAMaS r.C\S1i.'1A."I
S~J.~
N.uteV L IO~O!-l
liROLD A I.ECTO'S
....'IOr..tIanIl CCl'JIllBUooII
U"l1P.BD
!WoCUBl.J.COUIIN
Jl,OUJl"l''''.Ht.""HUYS
,,{)SElf I,..CHOP.TEX
~nlAN D.WOLl
l.'nn...RQN l.S'1P1..JI.
IQ:VIl'lf.XSLUY
N,\ilX w.xI!wtCZ
llJaDoTAS,I1II.YA3HJ
Jflo nIiY S.XAtJ'71olAN'
JOT &HOVSTOl'l
81U,,)01 L..!tm'T1H
.I011li'.OO~u...nVA LO,nz
Ou.~.u VI.YOU';'
Mlf:HA!L VlOI.A.'fTI
1\~...I.T'N!lSltlP IHCLUDII'IO
rIl,Ol't~:nONAL C:OUOIl"TIONS
rnN ALMADEN BOULEY ARD
ELEVIDlTIl FLOOR
SA."l lOS!.CALIFORNIA 95113·2233
TELEPHONE'(40&)'B6-~&OO
r:AOltMILE:(4OB)99~-jJ88
www.bertine:r.CC1m
I!II ...SSOCtATIO~WtTH
MCGll.ANt GItEE:-fpnLD LLI'
UN JOS!•'AN PtlANCUCO
August 13,2008
THOM,J.$,·~
H ANNUAOn
VlCTOlll\.?A.!'fA1.AJlDO
MlLES J.OOLn'GU.
CKl.1S'TlAN 8.'lCO:-''''
THOMAS D.MORJli.l.
!kADLUYO.11B8D.'T
SeTH J COHF.N
0lllrrntI K.LDWO
lltOMAS ~QltlSOUl
LWlA 'A1.AZZOLO
SIUNNON'N COGAN
AAJ.ON M..VAl.!NTl
lAl..A L D1XIDJ
~DMW J.Ol:OkG1,4N'Nl
MAl"Tl'tEW A.TAno..
HEATlIiIt.it MUHOt
FOUJiST w.HANSEN
hCiUND ...t.I.U.XD.
t\l.Al"D.Nl~!1.
'l\.'mlA a.,u¢Lvm...
"",,"CO K CAMPAGN....
DlC J.IlU.QU1S'T
lm181a V RAJ.
WAllY ItATlIAJJNI WD.SON
NlOIDLAS IABY
STDn..u.1llD.W1IlSR
OPCOUNm.
mJOB L.lSOlA
ST!VDl L HALUi'-JMSON
WCWONQ
LlNDAJ.UlZOln
tMllD GOLDi>'l
NA."CCY 1.DlAf'('Dl'
VIA FACSIMILE (408)354-8431
Chainnan Mit.:bael D.Kane
Members of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town Hall
110 E.Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95030
Re:Planning Commission Agenda August 13,2008
Item 3 Architecture and Site Application 5-08-55 (Rob DeSantis)
Our File No.:17237·002
Dear Chainnan Kane and Members of the Commission:
As you know,the approval of this Project by the Town Counsel is currently in litigation.
The Town has been sued by a group calling themselves "Friends of the Hillsides",an
Unincorporated Association."The Complaint alleges that members of Friends of the Hillsides
are "residents,taxpayers andlor property owners residing within the town of Los Gatos,or in
unincorporated areas within Santa Clara County located in close proximity to the site of the
proposed Project."(Petition Par.4).It also states that U[t]be claims asserted herein and the relief
sought by this action are intended for the beneficial interest of the members of Friends of the
Hillsides others similarly situated"(par.6)
This Mii.ee represents the interests of the applicant,Rob DeSantis.It has come to our
attention that there is a possibility that one or more members of the Planning Commission may
have attended a meeting of Friendli of the Hillsides and/or its supporters,andlor be a member of
Friends of the Hillsides andlor have met or discussed opposition to this project with one or more
members of Friends of the Hillsides (the "Conflict Activities'').
RECEIVED
'ALFlnIl662.1
0!1J08-17237002 AUG U Z003
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISiON
EXHIBIT 10
Chainnan Michael D.Kane
August 13,Z008
Page -2-
The proceeding in front of the Planning Commission tonight·is a quasi-judicial
proceeding.The Planning Commissioners are required to essentially have the impartiality of
judges (who ~Ire expected to recuse themselves when there is even an appearance of impartiality).
They are not to make policy with respect to this Project,nor to second guess or question the
decision of the Town in approving the Project.They are to apply the Town's site and
architectural regulations to the Project consistent with the approval already granted by the
Council.
As such,Planning Commissioners should be held to the same standard of impartiality as
judges.We hereby request that any commissioner who has engaged in one or more of the
Conflict Activities as identified above,or any other conduct that would indicate any previous
position or bias against the Project or the applicant should recuse himself from the hearing
tonight and not participate in any way in the matter,including voting.
Attached to this letter is a copy of the California Court of Appeal Decision in the case of
Nasha v.City ofLos Angeles (2004),125 Cal.App.41h 470.In that case,a planning commission
denial of a hillside project based on environmental issues was overturned because one member of
the commissio.n was biased against the project and had engaged in activities similar to the
Conflict Activities.The court found that the participation of this biased commissioner in a quasi-
judicial proce~ding (such as the one at issue tonight in Los Gatos)deprived the applicant of a fair
hearing.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER COHEN
~\L_
ANDREW L.FABER
E-Mail'aod<ew.faber@berliller.coro
ALF:cb
Cc:Orry Korb,Town Attorney (w/attach.)
Bud Lortz,Planning Director (w/attach.)
Rob D<;Santis (w/attach.)
Marilyn Cosden (w/attach.)
1AL'\769582.I
011306017237002
Page 1
LEXSEE 125 CAL.APP.4TH 470
NASHA L.L.C.,PI.intiff and Appellan~v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES <t al,Defen-
d.nts and Respondenls.
D167071
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA,SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT,DI-
VISION THREE
115 Cal App,4th 470;Zl Cal Rplr.3d 772;2004 Cal App.LEXIS 2247;1004 Cal
Dally Op.S.,viu 11410;1004 Daily Journal DAR 15369;J5 ELR 10007
December 29,2004,Filed
SUBSEQUENT mSTORY:Request denied by Nasha
L.L.c.v.City of 1.0'Angeles,2005 Cal LEXIS J /344
(Cal.,Oc~12,1005)
PRIOR HISTORY:['''II Superior Court ofLo,
Angeles County.No.BC258585,David P.Yaffe,Judge.
DISPOSITION:Reversed with direction,.
SUMMARY:
CALIFORNIA OPI:1CIAL REPORTS SUMMARY
The trial court denied a company's petition for writ
of mandaI<:undel Code Ctv.Pmc ..§/094.5,flied
against a city,its planning c:onunission,and a commis-
sion member,wh~':1'ein the company sought to overturn
an advene decisiun by the plannine,commission.The
company had a projeCT to develop land.The cornmission
member Buthored a critical article concerning lhe com-
pany',project,theu participated in an appeal to the plan-
ning conunission Ihat resulted ultimately in the candia
tlonal approval of the project being overturned.The lrial
court found that a particular plan was applicable irre-
apeetive of whether the project was visible from a certain
road,and substanti:tl evidence supported the administra-
tive decision that the large homes that the company in·
tended to construct were out of character with the sur-
roundin~neighborhood.The flial court o\,o found thot
the eompany was precluded from raisin&the Issue of the
commission membl'f's bias for the first time at the.supe-
rior eourt level.(Superior Court of Los Anieles County,
No,BC258585,David P.Yaffe,Judge.)
The Court of Appeal reversed with directions that a
writ of mandAte be issued vacatina;the planning commis-
sion's decision and the planning commission be directed
to eonduct a new hearing.The proceeding before the
planning commission WQS quasi-judicial in nature be-
eause the malter involved the deteminallon and applica.
tlon of facts peculiar to an individual CllSe.Thus 1 proce-
dural due process principles were applicable.The COm-
pany showed there was an unacceptable probability of
octual bias on the part of the commission,based on the
eommission member's authorship of the article anocking
the project in question.The authorship of the letter was
sufficient to preclude the commission member from se",-
ing as a reasonably impanial,noninvolved reviewer.His
participation in the appeal to the planning commission
required that decision to be vacated.The mal court's
finding of waiver was erroneous.The record established
that the company did raise the issue of bias at ,he admin-
istrative level.Becau,e it was only in the coutse of the
ttlal coun action that the company had the oppo""nity to
take the commission membcr,depo,ition to J"4711
fully develop the issue of bias,under Code Civ.Proe"§
/094.5.subd.(0),such evidence properly was before the
trial court in the mandamus proceeding and was entitled
to due consideration.(Opinion hy Klein,P.J.,with
Croskey and Kitehing,JJ.,concurring.)
HEADNOTES
CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES
Clas,ified to California Digest of Official Reports
(I)Administrative Law §113-Judicial Review-
Scope and Extent·..Procedural Fairness-De Novo
Revlew.··A challenge to the procedural Cairness oC the
administrative hearing Is reviewed de novo on appeal
because the ultimate determination of procedural fairncss
amounts to a question of law,
Pagc 2
125 Cal.App.4th 470.';22 Cal.Rptr.3d 772,";
2004 Cal.App.LEXlS 2247,'00;2004 Cal.Daily Op.Servke 11410
(2)Administrati....c Law §38-Adminiltntive Actions-
-Adjudlcatlon-ebaracter of Procecdings--Due Proc-
ess Principl"-A~pllcabUlty.-ln considerin~the appli·
cability of due process principles,the court must distin-
guish between actions that ore le:islative in character
and actions that ,Ire adjudicatory.In the case of an ad·
ministrative agellcy,the terms quasi·legislative and
quasi·judicial arc "'ed to denote these differing type'of
action.Quasi-legislative acls involve the adoption of
rules of \:eneral applicalion on the basis of broad public
policy.While quasi-judicial acLs involve the dctcrmina·
tion and application of facts peculiar to an individual
case.Quasi·legisl:.ttive acts are not subject to procedural
due process requirements whtle those requirements apply
to quasi·judicial IIcls regardless of the guise they may
take.
(3)Administrative Law §56-Administrative Actions-
.Adjudication-Hearing-Constitutlonai and Statu-
tory Requirements-Procedural Due Proeess.--
Procedural due process in the administrative settin\:re-
quires that the he ...in~be conducted before a reasonably
impartial,noninvolved reviewer.The broad applicability
of administr1ltive hearings to the various ril:/lts and re-
:spon,ibilities of ciliuns and businesses,and the undeni.
able public intereS!in fair hearings in the administnltive
adjudication arena,militate in favor of assuring that such
hearings are fair.
(4)Admlnistratlv.Law §56-Administrative Actions-
-Adjudication-Hearlng-Constltutlona'and Statu-
tory Rcquiremell ls-Standard or Impartiality.-The
standard of Impartiality required at an administrative
hearing is len exacting than that required in jUdicial pro-
ceedin:s.It is rc'oa:nized that administrative decision
makers are drawn 1T0m the [*4721 community allargc.
Especially in a small town setting they are likely to have
knowledge of and contact or dealings with partie,to the
proceedinl:.Holdhtg them to the ,ame ,tandard as
Judges,without a showing of actual bias or the probabil-
ity of actual bi"".may discoura~e persons willing to
serve and may deprive the administrative process of ca-
pable decision mak~rs.
(5)Admlnistnltlvr Law §56--Administrative Actlons-
-Adjudication-Hoaring-Constltutlona'and Statu-
tory Requirement:J-Fair Hcaring-Claim or Bia,.-m
order to prevail on a claim of bias violating fair hearing
requirements,one Inust establish an unacceptable prob-
ability of actual bias on the part of those who have actual
dccisionmakinl:power over their claims,A PartY seeking
to show bias or prejudice on the pan of an administrative
decision maker is required to prove the same with con-
crete facts:bias and prejudice are never implied and must
be established by ch:ar averments.
(6)Admlnbtrative Law §61-AdmlnlstraUvo ACllon,-
-Adjudication-Hearing-DisquaUncatlon of Hcarlng
Officers-Blas-Erfcct on Agency Declslon.--A plan'
ning commission member's authorship of a newsletter
article critieal of a compnuy's l;onslruetion project s:;ave
rise to an unacceptable probability of actual bi'"and was
sufficient to preclude the member from serving as a reli-
sonably impartial,noninvolved reviewer of the project.
The member clearly should have rccu,ed himself from
hearing the matter.His participation In the appeal to the
planning commission required the commission's decision
be vacated.
[7 Witkin,Summary of Cal.L<lw (9th cd.1938)
Constitutional!.aw,§527;9 Witkin,C.1.Procedure (4th
ed,1991)Administr1llive Proceedings.§3;8 Witkin,
Cal.Procedure (4th ed.1997)Extraordinary Writs,§
324.]
(1)Administrative Law §I 12-Judieial Revlew-
Administrative Mondamu,••Ne ..or Improperly Ex-
cluded Evidence-Procedural Faimess.-Where the
issue on administrative mandamus is whether the admin·
i_live heorin&was procedurally rair.the trial court
may consider evidence not presented at the administra·
tive hearin~if the evidence addresses dIe petitioner's
claim that he or she was'denied due process or a fair
hearing at that hearing.Code Civ.Pro,-,§1094.5.subd.
{e},enables the trial court to admit relevant evidence
that,in the exercise of reasonable diligence,could not
have been produced at the administrative hellring.(·473)
COUNSEL:Luna &Glushon and Robert L.Glushon for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rockard J,DelgadJllo,City Attorney,leri L.Bur~e.As-
sistant City Attorney,and SteVen N.BIBu,Deputy City
Attorney,for Defendants and Respondents.
JUDGES:Klein.P.1.•with Croskey and Kitching,JJ .•
concurring.
OPINION BY:Klein
OPINION
[**7731 KLEIN,1'.J.-Plaintiff and appellaut
N""ha 1.1.C.(Nasha)appeals a judgment denying ilS
petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ.Proc"§1094.J),
I wherein Nasha sought to overturn an adverse decision
by the South Valley Area Planning Commission (Plan-
ning Commission).1
Pagc 3
125 Cal.App.4th 470.*;22 Cal.Rptr.3d 772.u;
2004 Cal.App.LEXTS 2247,''';2004 Cal.Daily Op.Service 11410
J All I'unher statutory references arc lO the
Code of Civil Prol;cdure,unless otherwise indi~
cated.
2 In addition to the Planning Commission,
Nasha named as defendants the Cit}'of UlS An-
geles (the City)and Tony Lucente (I,ucente),in
his capacity as a member of the Planning Com·
mission.The Planning Commission,the City and
Lucente arC'the'respondents in lhis appeal.
['''2J The ..sential issue presented is whethcr the
Planning Commi.,ion's decision should be set aside due
to an unacceptable probability of actual bias on the part
of one of the decision makers.
While this mlltter was pending before the Plannin~
Commission,one uf its rnembers authored an ankle at-
tacking the proje~t under considention.Accordingly,
Nasha's claim of Ilias is well founded.The jud~ellt is
reversed with ciirecrion$.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Nasha owns five legal lots on Multivlew Drive,
north of Mulholland Hishway and east of Laurel Can-
yon.The 10lS,which are surrounded by single-family
residences,range in size from 22,675 square feet to
46.244 square feet.Nasha seeks to develop the property
with five new throe-stot}'sinltle-family homes,with a
moximum height of 36 feet and square footage rangini
ll'om 5.173 .quare feet to 6,648 .quare feet,including
garages,decks and baleonies.Each home al.o would
have an outdoor pool.
The site of the project is located within an area sub-
ject to the Mulholland ScenIc parkway Specifie Plan
(Mulholland Plan).The stated purposes of the Mulhol·
land Plan include preservation of lbe area's .cenlc fea-
tures as well as pn:servalion [···3]of the existing eta..
logical balance and biologic feature •.
1"4741 ("774)Although it Is asserted the site of
the proposed project is not visible from Mulholland
Highway,due to its geographic location within the
boundaries of the M.ulholland Plan,Nasha was required
to me an application to determine the proposed devel·
opment's complian"e with the Mulholland Plan.
1.Admjnistrartu~prOC~tld(l1gS.
8.The miligated 114'gol;\I,de~laration (MND).1
j I''Mil i~ated negative declaration'means a
negative declaration prepared for a project when
the initial study has identified potenrially 'ignifi-
cant effects on the environment,but (I)revisions
in the projoct plans or proposals made by,or
agreed to by,the applicant before the proposed
negative declaration and initial study are released
for public review would avoid the effects or miti-
gate the effects;to a point where clearly no 51g.
nltkant effect on the environment would occur,
and (2)there is no substantial evidence in light of
the whole record before the public agency that
the project,as revised,may ha"e a significant ef-
fect on the environment.II (Plib.Resou,.ces Codlt,
§21064.5.)
""41 In No"ember 2000,in accordance with the
Califarnia Environ"..nral Quality Act (CEQA)(Pub.
ResolUc~Code.§21000 "..g.),the Cit)'Planning De-
partment issued a proposed MND for the project.The
Planning Depllr1ment proposed an MND be adopted on
the 1U0und the mitigation measures which it outlined
would reduce any poteutlal signil'icanl adverse effects to
a level of insignificance.
Thereafter.the Santa Monica Mountains Conser·
vancy (Conservancy)submitted written comments.The
Coruervanc)'argued the proposed MND was deficient
for inadequately addresslne potential impacts to the wild-
life movement corridor which connects Griffith Park to
Fryman Canyon.
Various neighbors.including one Mark HelUlessy
(Hennessy),also submitted comments.Hennessy like.
wise contended the MND was deficient and complained
the project would .ubstantialiy interfere with deer and
wildlife habitat,and would degrade wildlife migration.
In December 2000,based on comments submitted
pertaining to the wildlife corridor,the Planning Depan.
ment amended the proposed MND to include the follow-
ing mitigation measure:"Provision of escape routes or
wildlife corridors to allow resident wildlife access to
uninhabited l···51 areas where they dwell,and monitor-
ing of animal use of these escapes or corridors;(t!Con-
sultation with the Department of Animal Regulation,
Wlidlife Specialist or Supervisor,regarding animal relo-
cation,desi~standards and management guidelines for
escape routes or wildlife corridon;[1]Mapping of these
escape routes or 1"4751 ...ildlifc corridors with regards
to their location.lopoifilllhy,and vegetation;and r'J
Postoo<:onstruction landscape treatment to insure preserva a
rion of habitat for wildlife.Where habit.t has been pre-
served,use o(nalive plant materials is required."
b.The Mulhollond Design Review Board (DRB)recom-
mends disapproval.
Nasha's application also was considered by the
ORB,which is an advbory body.On December 14,
2000.the DRB recommended disapproval on the
ground!that the size and maning were incompatible
with the Mulholland Parkway envirottment,the flat roofs
were incompatible,the retaining walls were too tall and
Page 4
125 Cal.App.4th 470,*;22 Cal.Rptr.3d 772,00;
2004 Cal.App.LEXIS 2247,."';2004 Cal.Daily Op.Service 11410
IOF1iJ a.nd the development did no(conform to the ,Itc.
The ORB also rcl,;.(lrnmended that an environmental im-
pact report (ElR)be prepared for the project.
c.The CiTy Dire",,,of Planning (Director)approves Ihe
project
On March 2l.2001.the ""61 Director,as dIe de-
cision makcT,conditionally approved Nasha's ,++775J
application and certified the MND.The Director deter-
mined tbat as eCIOditioned,there were "no significant
adverse impacts which have not been mitigated to a level
of insignificance.II
d.The appeal 10 Il>e Planning Commission.
In April 200 I,the Conservancy and Hennessy,for
himself and other neichborhood residents,appealed the
Director's dccisioll to the Planning Commission.
The Conservancy eonlended the project would result
in significant unavoidable adverse impacts to wildlife
movement in the eastern Santa Monlca Mountains and
habitat resources,lhe rvrN'D was inadequate,an EIR was
required,and the proposed buildings were incompatible
with the terrain.
Similarly. Henne..y asserted,Inter alia,the Direc-
tor's decision "crelltes a disastrous effect not only to the
property itself,inc.:luding the numerous wildlife species
within this wildlif<corridor canyon contained within this
property,but also 10 the properties immediately adjacent
•
The public he.lring on the appeal was scheduled for
Jun.28,2001.
1'476'e.Shortly {'eforeth.Planning Commission heQ}'-
iHg on Ihe appeal.Commissioner Lucet1Je authon"an
['''71 arricle hOSlife to Ih.project.
In advance of the Planning Commission hearing,the
June 200 I issue of me Studio City Residents Association
n.wsl.tter contain<'d the follOWing news update:
"M1JL TMEW DRIVE PROJECT THREAT TO
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR (1)A proposed project taking
five le1al lots totaling 3.8 acres for five proposed large
hom.s with swimming pools served by a common
driveway off Multi view Drive is winding its way throu~h
the Planning proc<'!s.The Mulholland Design Review
Board denied it unanimously.However,the Deputy LA
City Planning Dir«tor overrode that denial.The Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy lind ,h.neighbor>both
appealed it to the South Valley Alea Planning Commi,-
,ion.Th.Appeal hearing i,,et for June 28m after 4:30
pm in Van Nuys.(please see HearlngslMeetings,Page
Two.)(f.1 After wildlife leaves Briar Summit headIng
eastward they mUST either head south towards Mt.Olym-
pu"or north to the slopes above Universal City.The Mul·
liview Drive s;r~lJ an QNolutely c:rucial habitat corri-
dor.Please contact Paul Edelman with the Conservancy
at 3101 ...or Mark Hennessy who lives adjacent to the
project at 3231 ...if you have any que.tions.['''Sl "
(Italics added.)
The newslener artiel.was unsigned.Lucente later
admitted in deposition he was the author.
f.Whil,th.appeal to rhe Planning Commission was
pending.Lucente introduced Hennessy to speak agaiflSf
the pro}"r or 0 neighborhood assoclarlon meetIng.
In addition to se.rving on the Planning Commission,
Lucente also was president of the Studio City Residents
Association.In June 2001,during the pendency of the
appe.1 to the PI.nning Commission,Lucente introduced
Hennc!I!Y at the association's monthly meeting.At that
meeting,H.nnessy proceeded to speak against the pro-
ject and in suppott of his appeal.•
4 Accordin1to Lucente,h.left lh.room for the
durntion of Hennessy's remarks.
1*4771
'**7761 g.The JUJ1e 28.200/hearing befor<the Plan-
ning Commission;no disclosure by Lucente of hit au-
·thorship ofthe article or afhis contact wilh Hennessy.
On June 28,200 I,the matter carne on for hearinG
before the Plannin&Commission.At the outset,Lucente
made the following statement:liT did [·...·9]want to
state that In another capacity,as president of thc Studio
City Residents Association,we have included informa-
tion on this matter in our monthly newsletter at the re·
quest of one or our member!!!.which is a routine thing
mat we do.And I have not,however,had any direct con-
tact with the appellants,nor have I discussed this project
in any substantive way with anyone involved in this.So,
therefore,I feel I can make a fair and Impartial decision
regarding this matter."
An unidentified speaker then stoted:"It doesn't im-
p.ct you financially in any wAY."
Lucente rC3ponded:lIAnd there is no financial im-
pact in any way.Therefore,I will be hearing this matter.
Thank you."
Thus,in Lucente's opening remarks.he did not dis-
dose he in fact had authored the article which appeared
in the association's June 2001 newsletter.Also,contrary
to Lucente's characterization thereof,the newsletter arti-
cle was not merely infom.tional.The article advocated a
position against the project,which it characterized as a
"thr.at to wildlife corridor,"and sought (0 rally residents
to support the appeal to the PIBMini Commission.
Page 5
125 Cal.App.4th 470 .•;22 Cal.RpU.3d 772,••;
2004 Cal.App.LEXIS 2247,...;2004 Cal.Daily Op.Service 11410
Lucente's assertion he had not "had any direct ~n
tact"with ["0101 any of the appellant>likewise was
inaccurate.As nClted,earlier tna.t month.Lucente had
introduced Henne\sy at an association meeting to speak
against the project.
h.At the r:unc!uJ'ron o/the hearing,Lucente!brings a
motion to grant chi'Q/Jpeal,
At the bearin~,<he Planning Commission heard from
various speakers,including representatives of Nash a,the
ConservancYI and 'Various area residents,includin:
Hennessy.Nasha <ook the position <hat the MND ade-
quately addr....d the issue of the wildlite corridor,a
position which th<Con,ervancy and nei&hboring home-
owners disputed.
At the conclusion of the hearing.Lucente made iii
motion "to grant Ille appeal and find Ihat the Director of
Planning erTed in the delermination [·4781 regarding
this project and tlmt the findings could not be made to ...
deny the appeal ba;ed on the tcstimony that we had bere
tonight."
The motion WilS ctuTicd by a three-lo-one vote,
i.Nasha'J unsuccr:SJ!u/requests for fl.considltrutjun.
On July 5,2001,one week after the hearing,Nasha
riled a req\.lest for reconslderation based on new facts
relating to bias by Lucente.First,contrary to Lucente's
statement at the June 28,2001 Plannin:Commission
[oo·HI hearing,I.ucente did have ex parte contact with·
Henne::ssy,one::of [he::appellants,whom Lucente had in~
troduced at a June 12,2001 moeling of the Studio Cily
Residents Association.Funher,at the Planning Commis~
sion he.ring,Lut<nte had failed 10 disclose his rok in
the newsletter article opposing the project.
On July 12,2001,Nasha reiterated itl request for reo
consideration in another letter to the Plan nine:Commis-
sion.stating;"In order to protect even the perception of
bias and GOcfliet.the Commission should vote for reeon·
sideration of this "lSe,either for the purpose of allowing
Commissioner Luc.;tHe to recuse himself or to request an
[0'777]opinion trom the City AttOrney pursuanr to
Charter Section 22'2.·'
The Planning Commission did not reconsider its de-
cision.
j.The Planning Commission'sjiJ1dings.
Four months after the hearing,the Planning Com·
mission issued finn ings setting forth rhe basis for its de-
cision ovenuming 'he Director's conditional approval of
the project.The Planning Commission's decislon indie
cated:
"1.The Commi$sion arrived at its determination
based upon its review of available reeorcU and evidence
contained in the subject and related files and upon
"00111 testimony and evidence provided at the Com-
mission hearing on the !ubject matter.
....Based on a review of the building plan"land-
scape pl.ns,and color palette,the five proposed build-
ings and associated landscaping arc not compatible with
the sUrTounding buildings and parkway environment for
the following reasons:The Specific Plan states,per Sec-
riOH 11.1.Z.e.,Ulat the building or stnlcture should con·
form to the surrounding buildings and parkway enviroll-
ment.In this case,the proposed houses are 'box like'with
little aniculation or stepping back.FurtherTnore,Ihe vis-
ual massing ilnd appearance resulting &om the eumula~
<lve size of the homes and their ["4791 retaining wall
structures would not be compatible with the appeanncc
of existing houses in this neighborhood.
"b.On Dccember 14,2000,the City Planning Dc-
partment Environmental Staff Advisory Committee is-
sued a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaralion (MND)
No.2000·3622·DRB (Article V-City CEQA Guidelines)
and determined that by lmpo,ing conditions,the poten-
tial impacts rosulling from the project would not have a
significant impact on the environment At the June 28 1
2001,South Vaney Area Planning Commission appeal
hearing ["-131 for this case,the Santa Monica Moun-
tains Conservancy presented evidence that potentially
Significant impacts to the wildlife corridor would rc!ult
from project implementation and lhat the proposed miti-
gation measures identified in the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration No.2000-3622-DRB were insuffi-
cient to reduce impacts to less than signiticant levels.
The project,as proposcd,would not preserve the natural
vegetation.existing eeological balance and environ men·
tany sensitive areas and the blologio features in confor-
mance with Section 2.K.I1Jld L..of the Specific Plan.The
potential impacts to the wildlife and the corridors were
not adequately analyzed by the proposed Mitiga.tl!d
Negative Declaration No.2000-3622-DRB and therefore
it was determined 10 be inadequate.
lie.Project Pennit Compliance Finding.The pro-
posed project does not comply with the regulations,stan-
dards,and provisions of the Mulholland Scenic Parkway
Specific PI.n."
2.r,.ial court proceedings,
is.Pleading.r.
On October 25,2001,Nasha filed a first amended
verified petition for writ of mandate to overturn the
Planning Commission's decision (§1094.5),joined with
causes of action for 1---141 declaratory relief and tem-
Poge 6
125 Cal,App.4th 470,';22 Cal.Rptr.3d 772,";
2004 Cal.App.L.EXIS 2247.''';2004 Cal.Daily Op.Service 11410
porary tAking without just l;ompcnsi\tion.j Nasha named
as dc:fcndanb the City,the Planning Commission,and
Lucente [**778)In his cap"cil)!as "planning commis-
sioner,
5 Nasha later filed a request fnr dismissal with-
out prejudice of its de<laralory relief and taking
claims.
Nash.olleged,inter ali ..that the PlalUling Commis-
sion's reversal of the Director's approval of the project
was arbitrary,capricious,an a.buse of diKTction,a denial
of Nasha's fundamental right to a fair and Imp3l1ial deci-
sion,and unsupported by substantial evidence.
With respect 10 Lucente's conduct.,Nasha alleged his
role In Illtroduclll.g Hennessy as a speaker against the
project at a neiihborhood association [*4801 meet!n&,
and his role in ill lowing publication of the newsletter
article anacking d'e project while the motter was pending
before the Plannini Commission,reflected,at a mini-
mum,a rcasonabk appearance of bias which required his
recusal ITom hearini the matter.Further,to ensure that
quasi-judicial dccisionma.king (".151 is not tainted by
even the reasonable appearance of bias and unfairness,
Lucente's vot~and the Planning Commission's decision
should be set aside
Additionally.Nashl!!.alle;ed the Planning Commis-
sion failed to act ,n the manner required by la",In vari-
ous respects,including falling to make certain necessary
findings and in milinterpreting the MulholillOd Plan;and
the PlllOnlng Commission's decision was not supponed
by substantial evidence,In that,inter alia,the MND was
adequate to prot""wildlife access.
b.Lucen.te's deposition
On January 18,2002,during the pendency of the
mandamus proce('dings,Nasha took L\lcente's deposi-
tion.In the deposition,L.ucente admitted he authored the
newsletter article,that he had spoken to Hennessy before
rhe association meeting and that he IntToduced Hennessy
at that meeting .•
6 The deposition transcript Includes dIe follow-
ing colloquy:
"Q AJld yOU didn't know what [Hennessy]
was going 10 say?
,.A I knew that he was going to speak about
this projeci
l'Q And you told Mr.Henncs:'lY thal yuu
would introduce him lo speak?
"A Ye:,.
"Q And did you introduce Mr.Hennessy to
speak?
"A Yes,I did,"
Lucente then added that he left the room and
did not listen 10 Hennessy's remarks.
["''''16]c.The City'.r nl'pn.ririnn.
The City filed opposition papen,1U3crting substlln·
tial evidence supported the Plannine Commlssion's find-
ings,the d&Cision was principled Uld followed Il clear
analytical path,the Planning Commission duly relied On
applicable provisions of the Mulholland Plan,and the
attack on Lucente was spurious.
The Cil)!emphasized Lucente had no tjnanciallnter-
est,he was not the sole decision maker,and the standard
for disqualification was not an appearance of bias but a
probability of aClual bias,a standard that was not met
here.
d.Trial court/.r rulings an.djudgment.
On July 26,2002,the matter came on for hearing.
The lritll court rejected NaCiha'~claim 0 r bias arising out
of Lucente's prehearlng involvement 1*481)attacking
the projec~stating:"1 am going to reject [Nasha's 1argu-
ment ....I think thar [Nasha]either knew or had reason
to believe at the administrative level that this guy had
something to do with that,with the writing of that article,
and therefore shouldnhas not shown :sufficiently lhlt this
argument could not have been made in the exercise of
due diligence at the administrative level and therefore is
precluded from 1***171 urgin:disqualification for the
first time here In court [**779J on the basis that he
wrote that.And I don'c think therl 'J'enough to show that
he must b.disqualified if he did not writ./I.So I'm not
going to permIt any further briefing or argument with
respect to thaI."(Italics added.)'
7 As indicated,Lucente admitted he wrote the
article.Therefore,the trial court's comment "I
don't think there's enough to show that he must be
disqualified if he did not writ.it"did not speak to
the issue.Further,the trial coul1 faulted Nasha for
raisIng the Issue of L.ucente's bias for the n"t
time at the superior court level.However,as set
forth above,the record reflecu Nllsha did raise
the iS5ue of bias at the administrative level--
Nash.promptly requested reconsideration on that
basis before the Planning Commission,twice,to
no avail.
The trial coun then continued the ma.ttcr to allow
supplemental briefing On the sole issue of whether the
Page 7
12~Cal.App.4th 470,';22 Cal.Rptr.3d 772,";
2004 Cal.App.LEXIS 2247,"';2004 Cal.Daily Op.Service 11410
Mulholland Plan i1pplies to development projects that are
no'visible 1'''181 from Mulholland Drive.
On September 26,2002,the trial court denied
Nasha's peeltion for writ of mandate,ruling that the Mul·
holland Plan Is applicable irrespective of whether a pro-
ject Is visible from Mulholhmd Drive.and that subs tin-
tial evidence supported the admini:strative decision llthat
e1,C large homes that INasha]intended to COnstruct upon
the S lots were out of 3cale and character with,and in·
compatible with,the surrounding neighborbood."
On April II,2003,the lIia'court en,ered judgment
in favor of the City,the Planning Commission and Lu-
cente.
Nasha filed a timely appeal from the judgment deny-
ing Its petition for writ of mandate.
CONTENTIONS
Nasha contenrls:the Planning Commission's dec:i.
sian should be set .\Side because Commissioner L'uccnte's
prehnring action~attacking the project conslilutcd IIC-
tual bias;the Planning Commission's decision is not sup-
ported by substan,ial evidence;the Plannine Commission
failed to make an)'of the required findings to support its
decision:the stated purpose for a design review process
In the Mulholland I'lan is '0 review projects that are visi-
ble from Mulholl,nd Drive;and the Planning Commis-
sion's decision revnsing [··*19}the Directors approval
of the MND was unsupponed by substantial evidence.
[*482J DISCUSSION
I.Srandnrd 01 r",,;''W.
The petition for superior court re ....iew of the final
administrative deci-:ion by the Plannini Commission was
brought pursuant to secrjan 1094.5."The inquiry in such
a case shall extend to the questions whether the respon·
dent has proceede~without,or in excess of jurisdiction:
'Wherh~T cherf.was If fair trialj and whether there was any
prejUdIcial abuse of di,cretion."(J 1094.5,subd.(h),
italics added,)
(I)A challen~."to the procedural faimess of the ad.
ministrative hearing is reviewed de novo on appeal be-
cause the ultimate determination of procedural faimess
amounts to a question of law.(CI(Jl'k v.City of Hermosa
Beach (1996)48 Cal.App.4tl1 lin 1169-lIiO [56 Cal.
Rprr.]d 223];An."rv Ins.Service",Inc.v.Kelso (2000)
83 Cal.App.4tl1 19:'205 [99 Cal.Rplr.2d 357].)
2.Nasna has shov.-'n QI1 unacceptable probability of ac-
tual bias.
8...Procedural duo process p1"incipl!,f apply to quasj~
judicial decisionmaking.
(2)As explained in Beck Developmenr Co.v.
Sau/hern Pacific Transportation {"7801 Co.(1996)44
Cal.App.4/h 1/60.1/88 [52 Cal.Rplr.2d 5IS],"In con-
sidering (""*20)the applicability of due prOCESS princi-
ples,we must distinguish between .clions dl~t are legis.
lative in character and actions.th~t are adjudicatory,In
the case of an .dministratlve agency,the tenns 'quasi.
legislative 'and 'quasi-judicial'are used to denote these
differing type,of 'CtiOD.Quasi-legislative acts involve
the adoption of rules of general applic'lion on the basis
of broad public polley,wbile quasi-judicial acts involve
dIe determination .nd application of facts peculiar to an
individual C8.>o.[Citation'.J Quasi-legislative acts ate no,
SUbject to procedural due process requirements while
those:requirements apply to quasi.judicial acts regardless
of the ~Iise they may take.ICitations.]"
Here,the proceeding before the Plannine Commis·
sion was quasj.judicial in nature,rather than quasi-
legislative,because the matter involved the determina-
tion and application of facts peculiar to an individual
case.rather than the adoption of ruks of general applica-
tion on the basis of broad public policy.(B.ck Develup-
ment Cu.,supra,44 Cal.App.4tl1 at p.1/88.)Accord·
ingly,procedural due process principles are applicable.
(Ibid.)
1*4831 b.Pra"dural 1"'21)due process "quir...a
rewonably impartial,noniHvolv~d deciJion maker.
(3)Procedural due process in the administrative set·
ting requires that the hearing be conducted l'.t'before a
reasonably Imparrial,nanlnvalved reviewer.".•(Oaj v.
City ofS<lma (1998)68 Cal.App.4th 213,219 [79 Cal.
Rprr.2d 910),italics added,)As tbis eaurt observed in
Nightlife Partners,Ltd.v.City of Bevorly Hills (2003)
108 Cal.App.4rh 81 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 234],"the broad
applicability of administrative hearings to the various
rights and responsibilitie!i of citi7,.ens and businesses,and
the undeniable public intcre,t in f.ir hearings in the ad-
ministra.tive.adjudication arena,mlUtatc in favor of ll.:t ..
suring that such hearings are fair."([d.,01 p.90.)
c.The nor"re of the required showing:an unacceprable
probability ofaClual bias.
(4)The "standard of impartiality required at an ad·
ministrative hearina is less exacting than that required in
...judicial proceeding[s]"(Oai v.City ofSelma,supra,
68 Cal.App.4th ar p.219.)It is reeogni..d that "adminis-
trative decision makers are drawn from the community at
large.Especially in a small town settin~Ihey are likely to
have ['''22J knowledge of and contact or dealings with
parties to the proceeding,Holding them to the same
Page 8
125 Cal.App.4th 470.';22 Cal.Rptr.3d 772,to;
2004 Cal.App.LEXIS 2247,"';2004 Cal.Daily Op.Service 11410
standard as jud:e!>.without a showing of aCNal bias Or
the probability or actllal bias,may discoura~e persons
willing to 'erve and may deprive the administrative
proce"of capable decision makers."(ld,alp.233.)
(5)Therefore,in order to prevail on a claim of bi ..
violating fair hearing requirements,Nasha must establish
II 'an unacceptable probability of actual bias on the pan
of those who ha,e actual deci!ionmakine power Over
their Cillims.'" (BreakZOM Billiards v.Clry of Torrance
(2000)81 Cal.App.4lh 1205,1236 (97 Cal.Rptr.2d
467j.)A party seeking to show bi ..or prejudice all the
part of an administrative decision maker is required to
prove the same "with concrete facts:'"[bliss llnd preju.
dice are never Implied and must be e>tablished by clear
averments."I II (111,Qt p.12J7;accord,HonKsatJ!ovij v.
Queen of Angd.,·elc.Medical Center (1998)62
Cal.App.4lh Ill3.1142 f73 Cal.Rptr.ldfi95j.)
1'*7811 d.Nasha has .hawn an unacceprable probabil.
ity of actual bias based on Lucente'.aUlhor.,hip of the
n</W9lerrer article ,maclcing rhe pro;«r.
The newsletter [**'231 article by Lucente,attacking
the project as a "thre.t to wildlife corridor,"gives rise to
!(l unacceptable ptobability of actual bias.
'*4841 We roiterate portions of the offending arti·
cle for emphasis:"MULTIVIEW DRIVE PROJECT
THREAT TO WILDLIFE CORRIDOR [1]A pro-
posed project taking five legal'lots totaling 3.8 acres for
five proposed lar~.bomes with swimming pools served
by a commOn driveway off Multiview Drive is winding
its way through th"Planning process ....['1 After wild-
1i(~lc=avcs Briar Summit heading cllSlwartl they must
either head south roward,Mt.Olympus or north to the
slopes above Univ"rsal City,The Mulliviow Drive .ire i.
an absolutely cru~~tal habItat corrtdor.PleaSe contact
Paul Edelman with the Conservancy",3I 01 ...Or Mark
Hennessy who liv..adjacent to the project at 3231 ...if
you have any questions."(Italics added.)
Contrary lo thl.:position taken by Lucente,the news..
letter anicle was lIat merely informational.The article
ele3rly advocated 3 position aiainst the project:,which it
characterized as a "threat to wildlife conidar."
(6)Lucente's authorship of the newsletter article
iave rise to an W1acceptable probability of actual bias
and wu ["'241 sufficient to preclude Lucente from
serving 8S a ...tt rl!8sonably impartial.non involved re-
viewer."'"(Gut ".City ofSelma,supra,68 Cal.App.4th
at p.219.)Lucent.clearly should h:lve recused himself
from hearing this matter.His participation in the appeal
to Ihe Plannini Commission requires the Commission's
decision be vacated."I
g Respondents have emphasized that Lucente
was not the sale decision maker,However,any
attempt to characterize Lucente':!participation as
somehow harmless is meritless.Lucente!s vote
Wi\S decisive.The Plannini Commission's vole
Wa.ili three to one in favor of overturning dIe Di-
rector's approval of the project,with Lucente vot-
ing with the majority.Had Lucente duly recu,ed
himself,there would have been only two Yotes to
ovenom the DiRclor's decision.Because the
votes of three commissioners were required to
overturn the Director's decision (L.A,City Char-
ter,§503(c»,absent Lucente,the adminls\l'ative
appeal would have failed.Therefore,Lucente's
involvcment clearly affected the outcome of the
administrative appeal.
9 Be ••u.se Lucente's authorship of the new,lct-
ter anicle~standing alone,is sufficient to give rise
to an unacceptable probability of actual bi ..,it is
unnecessary to address Nasha's ara,ult\ents relat-
ing to Lucente l
,undisclosed ex parte contact with
Hennessy.
1***15)e,There was no WQ;vcr by NQ3ha.
In an atl£mpt to salvage the Plannine Commission's
decision,respondents contend Nasha waived the issue of
Lucente's bias by failini to raise the Issue at the adminis-
trative level.(NBS Imaging Syslems,Inc.v.Stale Bd of
Control (1997)60 Cal.App.fth j28,337 [70 Cal.Rprr.
2d 237)[superior court erred in granting relief b..ed on
legal theory not presented during administrative proceed-
ings ].)The trilll court was persuaded by fhis position,
findini Nasha was precluded fram raisini the issue of
Lucente's bias for the first time at the superior coun
level.The trial courtls find in;of waiver is erroneous.
both faclually and legally.
(I)Nasha initially challenged Lucenle'.bias aC the
adminisrrarive level.
1*4851 The record establi,hes that Nasha in fact did
raise the issue of bias at the administrative level.As indi-
cated,on ]uly S,200 I,one week after the Plannin~
Commission bearing,Nasha med a request for 1'"7811
reconsideration based on new facts relating to bias by
Lucente,specifically,Lucente's undisclosed ex pane
contact with HeMessy.and Lucente's undisclosed au·
thorship af the new,letter article attacking the project.
Thereafter,""161 on July 12,2001,Nasha reiter-
ated its request for reconsideration in anofhcr letteT to the
PI3nning Commi$sion,stating;"In order to proteet even
the perception of bias and conflict,the Commission
should vote for recon'ideration of this case,either for the
purpose of allowing Commissioner Lucente lo recuse
Page 9
125 Cal.App.4th 470,';22 Cal.Rptr.3d 772,..;
2004 Cnl.App.LEXIS 2247,"';2004 Cal.Daily Op.Service 11410
himself or '0 requ"-S,an opinion from the City Attorney
pursuant to Charter Section 222."
In view of the above,the trial court's ruling that
Nasha raised the i«ue of Lucente's bias for the fllSt time
at the superior court level is contrary to the record.
(2)Superinr COUrI may consider evidence hoI presenled
af administratjve 1...."Vel r~Jarjng to proc~duralfairness.
(1)Where th~Issue on administraciV'e mandamus i~
wbether the administrative hearioi was procedurally fair,
tithe trial court m:1.Y consider evidence not presented at
the administrative hearin;if the evidence addresses lbe
petitioners claim that he or she was denied due process
or a f.ir hearing or that hearing.[Citations.]"(Nightlif.
Parm"."Lrd.v.City of 8"".rly Hil/",upra,108
Cul.App.4Ih at pp 89.90.)Sectlnn 1094.5,subdivision
(e)!enables the trial court to admit relevant evidence
["*17J tha..in lbe exercise of reasonable diligence,
could not have bel-'n produced at the administrative hear.
ing.Here,it was only in the course of the superior court
action lbal Nasha had the opportunity 'a take Lucente's
deposition to fully develop the issue of bios.Therefore,
such evidence properly was before the trial court in the
mandamus proceeding and is entitled to due considera..
tion.
3.Remaining iuues not reached
Because the Planning Commission's decision was
tainted by bias and must be vacated,it is 'Unnecessary to
address Nasha·s other contentions.
[*4861 DISPOSITION
The Judgment is reversed with directions to issue.
writ of m:mdate vacating the Planning Commission'S
decision and directing the Planning Commission to con-
duct a new hearin2 on the appeal from the Virector's de-
cision,before an impartial panel.Nasha shall recanr iU
costs on appeal.
Croskey,1.,and Kitching,J.,concurred.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:August 27,2008
ITEM NO.:2
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO.:
LOCATION:
APPLICA T:
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT PERSON:
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
Suzanne Davis,Associate Planner
S-08-55
Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road (north side of Kennedy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
Rob DeSantis
Acorn Trust
Rob DeSantis:408-348-1202
Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
2Y2:PD.APN 537-29-007 &008.
DEEMED COMPLETE:August 7,2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:February 7,2009
EXHffiITS:
BACKGROUND:
1.-9.
10.
II.
12.
13.
14.
Previously received
Required findings and considerations (three pages)
Recommended conditions of approval (five pages)
Fencing details (one page),received August 19,2008
Proposed light fixtures (four pages),received August 19,
2008
Revised Landscape and Fencing plan (one sheet),received
August 19,2008
The Planning Commission continued the subject application from August 13,2008 to this agenda
to allow the applicant to provide details of proposed fencing,lighting and landscaping.The
Commission also requested that irrigation and hydraulic calculations be provided and indicated
that public testimony and discussion at the August 27 meeting would be limited to landscaping,
fencing and lighting.The applicant has submitted supplemental information as discussed below.
ATTACHMENT 9
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
Kennedy Road @ Forrester RoadlS-08-55
August 27,2008
ANALYSIS:
Landscape Plan
The landscape plan included with the plans attached to the August 13 staff report shows
proposed planting and the location of outdoor lighting.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 landscape plan is consistent with the Planned Development
Ordinance.As required by the Hillside Development Standards &Guidelines,final plant
selections will be reviewed for compliance when the construction plans are submitted for
building plan check.A minimum of 99 24-inch box trees will be planted on the site as
mitigation for the trees being removed.This represents a three to one replacement ratio.
Irrigation and hydraulic calculations were not provided.The applicant will address this at the
meeting.
Fencing
A plan that shows locations of outdoor lighting and fencing has been provided (see Exhibit 14).
Exhibit 12 shows the style of proposed fencing,inclusive of the perimeter fencing along
Kennedy Road and interior pool and security fencing.There is existing fencing located on the
north,west and east property lines.Where it will be visible,new security fencing will be
wrought iron.In areas where it cannot be seen,vinyl coated chain link will be used.Fencing
around the pool area will be decorative wrought iron.The wildlife permeable fencing along
Kennedy Road is a split rail design.
Lighting
Exhibit 13 shows the proposed light fixtures.All light fixtures will be down directed including
the lights to be attached to trees.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 safety and security.An arborist will review and approve the method
of attaching the lights to trees.
The approved Planned Development (PO)allows a well on the property subject to issuance of a
permit by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3
Kelmedy Road @ Forrester Road/S-08-SS
August 27,2008
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEND ATIO
A.Conclusion
The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside
Development Standards &Guidelines as determined by the Town Council in approving
the PD.The Architecture and Site plans are in compliance with the PO Ordinance and it
is recommended that the application be approved as outlined in the recommendation
section below.
B.Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to approve
the Architecture and Site application:
1.Find that the project is consistent with the HDS&G and Hillside Specific Plan
(Exhibit 10);
2.Find that the project is consistent with the PD Ordinance 2162;
3.Find that the project is consistent with the considerations for approval of
Architecture and Site applications;and
4.Approve Architecture and Site application S-08-5S subject the conditions in
Exhibit 11.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Davis
Associate Planner
B LSD
D\dJh~k~
Approved by:~
Bud N.Lortz,AICP
Director of Community Development
cc:Rob &Ranae DeSantis,200 Forrester Road,Los Gatos,CA 95032
Eric Morley,The Morley Brothers,506 N.Santa Cruz Avenue,Los Gatos,CA 95030
Richard Landry,Landry Design Group,11333 Iowa Avenue,Los Angeles,CA 90025
N:\DEVlREPORTS\200I\KailledyAcom-A&S-012701.doc
PLAl"INING COMMISSION -AUGUST 27,2008
REQUIRED FINDINGS &CONSlDERA TlONS FOR:
Kennedv 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
FINDlt~GS:
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:
(I)Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion.The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets;the layout of the site with respect
to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian 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
(I)year after occupancy.
Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10
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 (l )b.l.may proceed.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)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 of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation
of traffic 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 of walls,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 of Parks,Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose ofmeeting special
criteria,including climatic conditions,maintenance,year-round versus seasonal color change
(blossom,summer foliage,autumn 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 of the 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 of the site development plan on the adequacy
of storm and surface water drainage.
Page 2 0[2
(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 of the 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 of title 24 of the 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 of use 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\flNDfNGS\200I\KDI'NEDYACOR..'1-A&S.DOC
Page 3 of3
PLANNING COMMISSION -AUGUST 27,2008
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-2Y,:PD.APNS 537-29-007 &008.
PROPERTY OWNER:Acorn Trust
APPLICANT:Rob DeSantis
TO THE SATISFACTIOI OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
I.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.EXPlRATION 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 pennit 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 of30 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 fmal 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 of5
Exhibit 11
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 compliance during the
building plan check process.
Building Division
10.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.
11.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans shall be provided with the building
permits submittal (maximum size 24"x 36").
12.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.
13.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).
14.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.
IS.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 corner locations
d.Retaining Walls
16.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 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
17.WILDLAND URBA INTERFACE.This project is in a Wildlife Urban Interface Fire
Area and must comply with Chapter 7A of the 2007 California Building Code.
18.DEFENSIBLE SPACE.A Defensible SpacelFire 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.
Page 2 of5
19.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
Govemment Code Section 51182,prior to final inspection.
20.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.
21.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 fOIWard the papeIWork 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
22.DRNEWAY 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.
23.DRNEWAY APPROACH.The developer shall install a Town standard residential
approach.The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Details.
24.SITE DRAINAGE.Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks.No through
curb drains will be allowed.
25.NPDES.On-site drainage systems shall include a filtration device such as a bio-swale or
permeable pavement.
26.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 backflow 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.
27.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.
Page 3 0/5
28.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.
29.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 (§IS .40.070).
30.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.
31.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 IS MPH.
32.NEW TREES.All newly planted trees are required to be double staked to Town
Standards.
33.GENERAL.All existing trees being retained and replacement trees are specific subjects
of approval of this plan and must remain on the site.
34.PERMIT ISSUANCE.Permits for each phase (reclamation, grading and landscaping)
shall be issued simultaneously.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
35.REQUIRED FIRE FLOW.Required fire flow is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi.residual pressure.
36.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.
37.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-l/SP-6.
38.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.
Page 40f5
39.FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION IDEI TIFIER.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.
40.FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED.An access
driveway with a paved all weather surface,minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet,
vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches.Installations shall conform to Fire Department
Standard Details and Specifications sheet 0-1.
41.FIRE APPARATUS (E GINE)DRIVEWAY TUR.i\lAROUND 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 0-1.
42.EMERGENCY GATE/ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.Gate installations shall conform to
Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-I and shall not obstruct 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
43.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:\DEVlCONDITNSUOO8I.Kml1cdyAtcl"ll-A&S.doc
Page 5 0/5
DECORATIVE IRON
POOL FENCE
DECORATIVE IRON
SECURITY FENCE
WILDLIFE PERMEABLE
FENCE
ALL NON-VISIBLE FENCE TO BE
VINYL COATED CHAIN LINKED
EXHIBIT 1 2
Custom Frabricated Rustic Bell Wall Sconce
Lamp:1x100 watt
Size:14"Hx11"x11"D
Finish:Custom Bronze Finish
EXHIBIT 1 3
PATH LIGHT:22"TALL
Tree Mount
Cat.No.SSPIT m
HUNZ~
The Tree Mount Kit enables a HUNZA'"NPS Spot to be mounted
onto a tree to create moon lighting effects.A cable connection
can be made at the rear of the dome.The Kit consists of a
mounting dome and three 316 stainless steel bolts.The bolts
initially fix the dome 40mm (1 ',1,")out from the tree's surface,
which allows the tree to grow without causing any harm.
(Accessories ordered separately)
Material I Accessories I
Black Polycarbonate CJK150 -Cable Joint Kit
CJK150 -Cable Joint Kit ---J
Ordering Example:TMK-Tree Mount Kit in Black
Ordering Information
ILuminaire Typel
TMK -Tree Mount Kit
34
1%"
4%"
106
Patent Pending
8.7
Construction Features
Dome:
Molded from UV stable
polycarbonate with snap in W'NPS
female adaptor.
Fixings supplied:
3 x 95mm (3%")316 stainless steel
bolts.
3 x 3mm (1/8")316 stainless steel
screws.
Mounting
The Tree Mount dome is secured to
the tree with 3 x 95mm (3%")316
stainless steel bolts.The HUNZA"
NPS spot is screwed into the W'nps
adaptor.
Dome:
The Dome is fixed 40mm (1 W')out
from the trees surface by three bolts
allowing cabling to be run in behind
the dome for connection to the
luminaire.
Size:
W'NPS
Polycarbonate:
UV stable polycarbonate,suitable
for use with aluminium,copper and
316 stainless steel luminaires.
MR16 ESX GU5,3 6-MR16 BAB GU5,3 LJ.MR16 GU5,3 6
12 '0'01120 wan 100
I 12 vall 20 wan 3ft I 12 volt 20 wan 600
.lomom
(3')(31
4000Lux@l2!200mm (8").J.700 Lux @ l2!650mm (26")I 4SOLux@l2!1l5<lmm (45·)
2m -'m 'm
(~')(6)(~')
1000 Lux@l2!400n1m (161 175Lux@ l2!1300rnm(51")I 112lux@l2!2308mm(91")
3m 3m 3m
-~~?~)(9')
444Lux@l2!6OOmm(241 78 Lux@ l2!1950 (76")50 lUK@l2!3462mm (136")---l
MR16 FRB GU5,3 6 MR16 FMW GU5,3 6 MR16 GU5,3 6
12 vall 35 wan 10"12 volt 35 watt 38"12 volt 35 watt 60"
I Iomom
(3)(3')
8OOOLw:@l2!200n1m (8").J.1500LuK@ l2!65Omm{26")I 800 LUK@l2!115<1mm (451
2m -'m 'm
(~')(6)(6')
2OOOLux@l2!400rnm{16")375luK@ l2!1300rnm(51"1 (200 LUK@ l2!230llmm (911 ,
3m 3m 3m
~')~)(9')
680 Lux@l2!60Qnvn (24·)167LuK@ l2!195O(76·)9Olux@l2!3462mm(136")---l
MR16 EXT GU5.3 6 MR16 EXN GU5.3 6 MR16 FNV GU5.3 6
12 vall 50 wan 10"12 vall 50 watt 38"12 volt 50 watt 600
I Iomom
(3')(3')
10000 lUll@Zl 200mm (S·).J.2000 LuK@ l2!650mm (26·1 I 1050 Lux@Zl 115<1mm{45")
'm -'m 'm
(~')(6)(~'l
2500 LUll @l2!400mm (16")5OOluK@ l2!1300mm(511 (262Lux@l2!23Ollmm(911
3m 3m 3m
~')~l (9')
1000 LUll@l2!600mm (24")222LuK@ l2!195O(761 116lux@l2!3462mm(1361 ---l
8,7
~~(tJs G·"'~"
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:August 27,2008
ITEM NO.:
ADDENDUM
2
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION 0.:
LOCATION:
APPLICAi"\lT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT PERSON:
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
Suzanne Davis,Associate Planner
S-08-55
Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road (north side of Kennedy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
Rob DeSantis
Acorn Trust
Rob DeSantis:408-348-1202
Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
2Y2:PD.APN 537-29-007 &008.
DEEMED COMPLETE:August 7,2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:February 7,2009
EXHffiITS:
DISCUSSION:
1.-14.
15.
16.
Previously received
Gate and wall details (one sheet)
Full size landscape plan (one sheet)
A full size fencing and lighting plan was provided with the staff report.A full size planting plan
that also shows the fencing and lighting locations is attached as Exhibit 16.
In approving the Planned Development,the Town Council determined that the project is
consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside Development Standards &Guidelines
(HDS&G)with specific exceptions being granted.
The Planning Commission's purview in reviewing the A&S application is the architecture of the
approved structures,landscape,outdoor lighting and fencing.At the August 13,2008 meeting
the scope of the review was narrowed to the landscape,fencing and lighting plans.
Fencing is not a required element of the plan except for the fence around the pool area.The
HDS&G includes criteria for fencing (Chapter VI,pages 42 and 43).Proposed fencing is all
open style designs,and most of it is located in areas where it will not be viewed from off the site.
An exhibit showing the gate house structure and decorative front gate will be displayed at the
meeting.A reduced copy is attached at Exhibit 15.
A'ITACHMENT 10
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
Kennedy Road @ Forrester RoadlS-08-55
August 13,2008
The landscape plan is inclusive of hardscape elements such as pathways and terraces,and a deck
at the tennis pavilion (all shown on Exhibit 15).The railing for the tennis pavilion deck is
wrought iron.All retaining and decorative walls will be faced with stone.
Required findings for the approval of the Architecture and Site application are as follows:
a.That the project is consistent with the approved PD
b.That the A&S application is consistent with the HSP and HDS&G
c.That the project is consistent with the considerations for the review of A&S applications
~2.aI)!)f R <80M's--
ie;ared by:
Suzanne Davis
Associate Planner
BNL:SD
N:\DEV\REPORTSUOO8\KClUIedyAcorn-A&S.doc
Approved by:
Bud N.Lortz,AICP
Director of Community Development
aoor "(I l.Sfl?nV -••'.·~~""~;~~:?::'''''--------------CS3i;nl:~"~v:>s~tO~l~'~O~Nhlli:iNi3------------;;nOii9N;;;;~~INllOJn'Q"'OJ.,(!)SOl S3'tJ01:JmUS UV9 AlUN3 dn01l9 N91S30 J.'dONVl
3:JN3alS3'tl SIINVS30
----'
t:
"'i'xw
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:August 27,2008
ITEM NO.:
DESK ITEM
2
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO.:
LOCATION:
APPLICA T:
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT PERSO
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
EXHIBITS:
DISCUSSION:
Sandy L.Baily,Associate Planner
S-08-55
Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road (north side of Kennedy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
Rob DeSantis
Acorn Trust
Rob DeSantis:408-348-1202
Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
2Y,:PD.APN 537-29-007 &008.
DEEMED COMPLETE:August 7,2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:February 7,2009
1.-15 Previousl y recei ved
16.CEQA excerpts from Christine Currie (two pages)received
August 27,2008.
17.Letter from Christine Currie (seven pages)received August 27,
2008.
18.Comments from Lee Quintana (two pages)received August 27,
2008.
19.Email,tree removal permit and letter from Lee Quintana (three
pages)received August 27,2008.
Attached are Exhibits 16 through 19 that were received today.
repared by:
San y .Baily,CP
Associate Planner
BNL:SLB:mdc
N:\DEVIREPORTSI2008IKeIUledyAcorn-dsk.l.doc
~v'W--==~==-:------
Bud N.Lortz,AICP
Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENT 11
Title 14
(I)Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential,significant environmental
effects of proposed activities.
(2)ldentify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
(3)Prevent significant,avoidable damage to the environment by requiring cbanges in projects through
the use of .Iternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be
feasible.
(4)Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner
the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved
(b)Governmental Action.CEQA applies to governmental action.This action may involve:
--.
n by a governmental agency,
or in part by a governmental agency.or
lire approval from a governmental agency.
n is not subject to CEQA unless the action involves governmental
'Oval.
(d)Project.A "project"is an activity subject to CEQA.The term "project"bas been interpreted to
mean far more than the ordirtary dictionary definition of the term.(See:Section 15378.)
(e)Time for Compliance.A governmental agency is required to comply with CEQA procedures wben
the agency proposes to carry out or approve the activity.(See:Section 15004.)
(f)Environmentallmpact Reports and Negative Declarations.An Environmentallmpact Report (ElR)
is the public document used by the governmental agency to analyze the significant environmental
effects of a proposed project,to identify alternatives,and to disclose possible ways to reduce or avoid
the possible environmental damage.
(I)An ElR is prepared when the public agency finds substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant
effect on the environment.(See:Section 15064(a)(I).)
(2)Wben the agency finds that there is no substantial evidence that a project may have a significant
environmental effect,the agency will prepare a "Negative Declaration"instead of an ElR.(See:
Section 15070.)
(g)Significant Effect on the Environment.A significant effect on the environment is defined as a
substantial adverse cbange in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed
project.(See:Section 15382.)Further,when an ElR identifies a significant effect,the government
agency approving the project must make findings on wbether the ac!verse environmental effects bave
been substantially reduced or if not,why not.(See:Section 15091.)
(b)Methods for Protecting the Environment.CEQA requires more than merely preparing
environmental documents.The ElR by itself does not control the way in whicb a project can be built
or carried out.Rather,when an EIR.shows that a project would cause substantial adverse changes in
the environment,the governmental agency must respond to the information by one or more of the REC r:I'.j E 0
followlOg methods:....-
(l)Changing a proposed project AUG 2 7 2008
(2)Imposing conditions on the approval of the project;TOWN OF LOS Gi'.TOS~.
PLA INII',IG DIVISION
(3)Adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of projects to avoid the adverse cbanges;
EXHIBIT 16
http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env law/ceqa/guidelines/art I.html 11104/2005
L LtlC L"1'
in the statute.In
way of a croSS-rE
nr other entitlem
15378.Proj
f»J.()tfU d-
ilatute sets up special requirements that apply by
he issuance of a lease,license,certificate,permit,
ltiOns to refer to private projects.
(a)"Projec('means the whole of an action,whicb has a potential for resulting in either a direct
physical change in the environment,or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment,and that is any of the following:
(1)An activity directly undertaken hy any public agency including but not limited to public works
construction and related activities clearing or grading of land,improvements to existing public
structures,enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances,and the adoption and amendment oflocal
General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700.
(2)An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency
contracts,grants,subsidies,loans,or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
(3)An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease,permit,license,certificate,or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
(b)Project does not include:
(I)Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature;
(2)Continuing administrative or maintenance activities,such as purchases for supplies,persoooel-
related actions,general policy and procedure making (except as they are applied to specific instances
covered above);
(3)The submittal oforooosals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community that
)
sponsored initiative.(Stein v.City of Santa Mooica (1980)110/537({c..-I Madre v.City of Sierra Madre (2001)25 Cal.4th 165);
lD.ding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities
ment to any specific project which may result in a
tpact on the environment
ve .activities of governments that will not result in direct or
lvironment
(c)The term "project"tefers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to
several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies.The term "project"does not mean each
separate governmental approval..
(d)Where the Lead Agency could describe the project as either the adoption of a particular regulation
under subsection (a)(I)or as a development proposal which will be subject to several governmental
approvals under subsections (a)(2)or (a)(3),the Lead Agency shall describe the project as the
development proposal for the purpose of environmental analysis.This approach will implement the
Lead Agency principle as described in Article 4.
Authority cited:Sections 21083 and 21087,Public Resources Code.Reference:Section 21065,Public
Resources Code;Kaufman and Broad-South Bay,Inc.v.Margan Hill Unified Schaal District (1992)9
Cal.App.4th 464;Fullerton Joint Union High School District v.State Board ofEducation (1982)32
Cal.3d 779;Simi Valley Recreation and Park District v.Local Agency Formation Commission of
Ventura UJunty (1975)51 CaI.App.3d 648;and Communitiesfora Better Environment v.California
Resources Agency (2002)103 Cal.App.4th 98.
15379.Public Agency
http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/envlaw/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html 11/04/2005
---_.
RECEiVED
AUG 2 7 Z008
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNlf,G DIVISION
Chair D.Michael Kane,Vice Chair Thomas O'Donnell,Commissioner Phillip
Micciche,Marico Sayoc,Joanne Talesfore,Marcia Jensen.
Desk Item for the Planning Commission
8/27/08
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am requesting a clarification as to what has or has not been "approved."It
would appear by a reading of the Minutes that the Commission is not clear on
this topic,and it would seem that agreement would not be possible because the
commission did not have enough information.CEQA is all about providing
sufficient information so the decision makers can make an informed decision.
The following objections are for the public record.Consistency with the
town's development standards and guidelines for hillside development
must be followed in this precedent setting development.The Planning
Commission is the decision making body for projects that have the greatest
potential impact.
The next six pages outline the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines and how the Desantis/Acorn Trust Property
Development does not follow our town standards and general plan.
Ms.Jensen If you could address:The conflicts with land ordnance 2162 and
the conditions of A &S approval.My concern is the language seems to change
from what was approved.(Please see page 3 of 17,under ornamental
landscaping.)
The first sentence of Chapter III states:
The intent of the site planning section is to insure that new development fits into
the topography with minimal impact to the site physically and visually.
The proposed project does not meet this intent and is not consistent with
Standards and applicable Guidelines for grading (A),Drainage (8),Driveways
2.Drainage.(Pg.58.)Commissioner Bourgeois please address:
Not clear if project meets this standard.MND states that run off stays on site (no
data to support)but it also indicates that the natural drainage patterns will be
changed and will require the construction of both above and below grade
drainage facilities.
Guidelines 1 and 3.These guidelines may be applicable but there is insufficient
detail on drainage design to determine if the project is consistent with them.
EXHIBIT 17 1
Guidelines:
a.Where terrace drains are required,they should follow a landform slope
configuration.
Down drains should be placed in the least conspicuous locations.
Standard 2a.Upslope development shall not negatively impact downslope
drainage.
-The extent of the roofline exceeding 25 feet (30 ft.)Makes 70%of the linear
length at or above the limit set by HSDS.This also effects water displacement.
-Because no Hydrology report was offered we do not know the potential impacts.
b.Natural drainage courses shall be preserved.Drainage features should be
Incorporated as an integral part of the project design in order to enhance the
overall aesthetic and natural quality of the development.
Standard 4.There is insufficient information to determine how man made
drainage channels will be treated.
Geologic Hazards Standards The geotechnical report suggests that the project is
only "minimally acceptable".
-To address this standard the 14,000 cubic yards of infill to help form a flat pad
for the tennis pavilion would be considered an impact under CEQA.CEQA
measures impacts of a project from the base line of the existing physical setting
of the property.
Standard 4 &5 the project is not consistent since grading extends far beyond the
areas and the site will not be restored to its original (existing)topography.
Question:The "rough"grading area has been expanded to accommodate getting
trucks up and down the hillsides?This would offer even greater scope to the
grading to take place.No plans have been made available for the public to study
this.
Commissioners:Do you have expanded grading plans within your packet
to explain the extent?
-Standard 3:The project is not consistent with this standard because a portion of
the pool and a large portion of the tennis court are built on slopes over 30%
V11.Landscape Design (page 50.)
A.Landscape design concepts:
Standard 1.Project is not consistent.From plans and partial landscape plans the
landscaping design does not maintain the natural appearance of the hillsides.
2
Standard 3,4,and 7.The project is not consistent.
B.Plant Materials:
-Landscaping plans are not detailed enough to determine conformance.
The parameters are not met per ordnance 2162 as approved within the PD.
Please address.
4.Street layout and driveways.
Standards:
a.Hillside street and drainage standards shall reflect a rural rather than
urban character and shall allow for special designs where natural
features such as rocks,slopes,and trees require special treatment.
-The wide straight alignment of the tennis pavilion accompanied with the over
excavation and infill of 14,000 cu yards would be considered a major alteration to
the landscape.
Chair Kane:Please address this issue.
-The central portion of the ridge will be lowered 23'to maintain the required
maximum 15%grade for the driveway.
Standard 5 is not currently met.However,Exhibit 6,the revised grading and
drainage plan indicate that the driveway slope is 16%.The question arises on
how a landscape plan can be finalized without addressing these questions of
grade?
Has this been finalized on exhibit B?Are the plans in compliance with Ordnance
2162?(pg 3)
d.Road lighting should be limited to intersections,dangerous curves,dead ends,
and multi-use parking areas,and shall be installed to Acut-off@ standards.
-Is there a way to check if this was followed?It is not found within the plans.
Visual analysis:(See Section II.B.1.)No materials or technical demonstration is
provided in the review documents of the project that supports the contention that
the project will not be visible from the viewing platforms.In addition,current
CEQA documentation finds no significant impact on views from neighboring
properties,but again there are no visual analyses to support this conclusion.
Based on our analysis,we believe there will be significant impact on views from
at least properties on the hillside to the southwest and,with the fill for
development of a part of the house,there may also be impacts on views from
hillside properties to the north.The views to the driveway,tennis court,pool and
pool house and +1400 linear feet of retaining wall may be very significant,but
this can only be properly judged with story poles in place and a clear
understanding of impacts on trees and other site vegetation which might be
3
removed.
In addition,the amount and height of fencing and the area of ornamental
landscaping allowed may have additional visual impacts from on and off site.
Neither of these conditions was considered in determining consistency with the
HDSG or in the CEQA analysis.
Planning staff has advised that the only view impacts of importance
are In terms of the viewing platforms and that due to topography the
subject site Is not visible from any of these platforms.While this may
be the case,the HDSG expressly call for a project to fit the hillside
conditions of the property and the Illustrations In the HDSG clearly
show how this is to be achieved.These also demonstrate that the
visual and topographic changes are to be limited.
-Not only does the CEQA analysis downplay the potential for any visual impacts,
the peer review architectural analysis completed for the Town in October of 2005
makes no mention of the proposed project's conformity to the HDSG standards
and applicable guidelines for choosing the bUilding site,planning or architectural
design site.
Neither the Initial Study or architect's review comment on the projects conformity
with basic provisions and policies in the Town's General Plan nor does it address
the changes to site topography or site character (physical changes),viewed from
on site and off-site.While changes in the topography of the site mayor may not
result in potential impact to Geology and Soils the physical changes proposed by
the project are not consistent with several objectives of the HDSG or with several
of its Standards and applicable Guidelines.In order to permit a full architectural,
visual and CEQA analysis story poles,staking and outlining of proposed
development areas at the site are typically standard procedures in many hillside
communities like Los Gatos.
This is essential for a full analysis of visual impacts and is necessary to support
findings forJhe proposed exceptions to the HDSG and to support the findings for
a Negative Declaration.
VI.SITE ELEMENTS
Standards:
1.The use of fences 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 of the hillsides.
2.Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of six feet measured from the
highest side of the fence or wall and should be limited to those areas where
fences and walls of this height are necessary for protection of ornamental
4
landscaping,security,or play areas.
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
of the 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,
-No studies of wildlife corridors prepared.This proposed project has retaining
walls and fences.
6.Temporary construction fencing shall be limited to the building envelope or
shall be elevated to allow for movement of small animals.
-this has not been shown on the plans.
Standards:
-Standard 5:Given the proposed building site,in order for the driveway to
meet the County of Santa Clara Fire Department requirements requires the
ridge to be lowered 26'to enable the main structure to meet the grade of the
proposed driveway,This is not consistent with Standard 5.
1.Entryways shall be designed to blend with the natural environment and to
maintain the rural character of the hillsides.
-While of natural materials the proposed entry way with two gate houses and
what appears to be a solid gate is not consistent with the Don't do illustration the
Do this illustration.
Guidelines:Is not consistent with either guideline.
3,Lighting fixtures at entryways shall direct light downwards and shall be
designed so that no part of the light source is visible from the street.
-No plans submitted?
RETAINING WALLS
1.Retaining walls shall not be used to create large,flat yard areas,The
limited use of retaining walls may be allowed when it can be demonstrated
that their use will substantially reduce the amount of grading.
5
-The project is not consistent because it does use retaining walls to create large,
flat yard areas.
2.Retaining walls that are visible from a public street shall have a veneer of
natural stone,stained concrete,or textured surface to help blend the wall
with the natural hillside environment and to promote a rural character.
-However,approximately 700 feet of retaining wall are between 4 and 5 feet and
there are 11 retaining walls totaling over 1600 linear feet do not embrace the
rural character of the hillsides and would be visible.
An application for architecture and site approval or subdivision shall be
accompanied by a written letter of justification that describes how the proposed
project complies with the General Plan,Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines.
-This letter does not exist because of the inability of the project to comply with
our Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside Development standards and guidelines.
B.Project Approval Authority
Grading:
The proposed project is not consistent with Standard 1 and 3,or applicable
Guideline 1.
Standard 1.The proposed project is not consistent with Standard 1.Standard 1
states:
''The following cut and fill criteria are intended to ensure that new construction
retains the existing landform of the site and follows the natural contours.Cuts
and fill in excess of the following levels are considered excessive and contrary to
the objectives of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines.It then follows
that a project that does not meet this standards is not consistent with the General
Plan.
The +1600 linear feet of retaining wall,and the creation of large flat pad
proposed by the project also supports the conclusion that the proposed project
does not retain the existing landforms or contours of the site.
Standard 3.The project is not consistent with Standard 3.It is not located in a
manner that minimizes the need for grading (tennis court,spread over 3.46
acres,reduces ridge up to 21 '.In addition there have been no site-specific
wildlife surveys done,however,a mountain lion and coyotes and numerous deer
have been observed on the site.Also see selecting a Building Site,Standard 5.
Not only does the CEQA analysis downplay the potential for any visual impacts,
the peer review architectural analysis completed for the Town in October of 2005
makes no mention of the proposed project's conformity to the HDSG standards
and applicable guidelines for choosing the building site,site planning or
6
architectural design.
Neither the Initial Study or architect's review comment on the projects conformity
with basic provisions and policies in the Town's General Plan nor does it address
the changes to site topography or site character (physical changes),viewed from
on site and off-site.While changes in the topography of the site mayor may not
result in potential impact to Geology and Soils the physical changes proposed by
the project are not consistent with several objectives of the HDSG or with several
of its Standards and applicable Guidelines.
In order to permit a full architectural,visual and CEQA analysis story poles,
staking and outlining of proposed development areas at the site are typically
standard procedures in many hillside communities like Los Gatos.
This is essential for a full analysis of visual impacts and is necessary to support
findings forJhe proposed exceptions to the HDSG and to support the findings for
a Negative Declaration.
As a member of the concerned community,it is my hope that the Planning
Commission be given enough information to help with making an informed
decision in this important and precedent setting development.The Hillside
Standards are a community value that show no boundaries.We are all neighbors
when it comes to the enjoyment and enhancement of the surrounding hillsides.
Christine Currie
117 Broadway
Los Gatos,Ca 95030
7
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
PROPOSED
PROJECT
. u t::lJ)
REQUIREDI
PERMITIED
Zoning district HR·7V,same
Land use ··e·~G.:..e:.:..n.:.:.er.:.:.al_pla_n_D_es-=ig:...-n_at_io_n~ApS~~/llGr~2n~~/??L/'j~V7a.-~:.:.-+----.----1
'v/-/~'"JLL..).CEt-lLotsize _
S windows (sU);d/V 15£i1YZ
S roofing ~I,'J
1---------,,_~L!::.~.a..~.-1------1
Building floor area:,
S first floor S-g 01-
~----:-::,----------'f-------+-_"':""-__"-s second floor l.fi><{8
s cellar '5'&01.f"\
s garage 111 to -----.z;r
s guestunit IlLl£>~~J2 (2V'VLl_~J1ce;~
I-s-ca""'ba-n-a-----+------l--f..l.!gl.:!.~~O-·--'·I as \005 mlJ<':!Wtl-"--"'-_-----+_~$--=a.::..::.rts=tu::.-diO----1------+~~~-(".J.;oo'---rr.1 Ll<1..u~~.tl.'-'-T-it'~(~~%1Sq -P
:!:etminimum ~
eet minimum I~
-~"-'--.
(15.700 sq It ma~i;;:;~m-.~
"'--.'--'-'~---.._--",..-.....
:":i'
"-~et minimum '"
~
1'10
s total (excluding cellar)
~s_p....,av....,ili_on +--+_......:...I..=-tl_--tl_p ?J
s gatehouse
EXHIBIT 18
,.
~'g /:/-1-!OY--
___IIbL-_LL.L.==---.J~f-JLJL-L-pavee--{h rf11-~--A---IT"""'V-f-'--
I///#.JJ .5 ,
____~~--'__L/_,,~~..Ltn:'::._#LY.Y1cS iolq Y1 Luc-£I----
-----'---+1--------------------
_..._.........~I _
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Lee,
Suzanne Davis <SDavis@losgatosca.gov>
leeandpaul@earthlink.net
DeSantis PO
Aug 25.20086:19 PM
You'll need to ask Engineering for the status on the grading permit.Trang and Fletcher and handling it.I believe the grading
plans are complete and that they are working on the Construction Management Plan.
The Tree Removal Permit can be issued any time,it is not tied to the grading permit.I believe the applicant has applied
for a permit with PPW.Tim Boyer,Parks Superintendent is usually who would sign that off.
Suzanne
RECf=IVED
AUG 2 7 2008
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNII~G DIVISION
EXHIBIT 19
Tree Removal Application
and Permit
Finance:
Pymt Received:
Receipt #:_Ch'-ec-:-\c#-'--;t).J(J-C:-:-
TREEREM:_
TOg -('It.
Important Information:
Please review Tree Ordinance and other Tree Removal Infonnation documents for impOrlant information.
Process:Staffwill review each application and notify applicant ofapproval or denial within two (2)weeks ofreceipt.
YOII mllst receive and post the written tree removal permit in advance on the property before removing tree(s).
**APPLICATION SECTION **
Please PRINT the following information:
PlOpertyOwnerName:~.~Contact Person J?,>J:?!;s-....A1!i"SiteStreetAddress:~J0i8W?Zip Code 7n;p..Phone#:f'Y-34-)-Oo;t
Mailing Address (if different)....,,,}.....,-6 "1-NearestCrossStrcet:,,~~~""'-
I request to remove the following tree(s)because:L:.Al:D1-"'i"IJFi~~",U~~,--~c.l=~"'=L.:s7'~c.c--.!..P,:.!:O:.,lS,;-:::~__-:::;-:=~_
d¥Jt-.-Pp:too ~s srSv '1\""7+50
Mus.t'/-(•IX /']00;)...
Owner's Signature :;;:if b s;:S Date Submined:_<i,~,0"-t~/L'",-Q ...li'_--,,,..,...,.--:::-=......-
T .~I number of Trees requesting to be removed::;;5 Total Fees:
Replacement Tree Requircment:,""O'.:.;:>-..,,~l..4;~..,~"'7'~~~~;--_'7':..,...,,-:--:=_:-;-_---:---:--:_
NOTE:Replacement Trees are requlr to be anted within days of tree removat.Verification and photos
of replacement tree(s)wilf be requested approIimatety 2-3 months after the tree removal pennit Is approved.
It copy ofthis permit must be available on the premises for inspection at the time the trees are removed.This permit
will expire two yearsfrom the date ofapproval pursuant to section 19.20.320 ofthe Los Gaton~e.
".If "enied,a 500/.Application Refund Amount will b;e Due:Amount of Refund $~UPaIJ."a
'~al Notification date:Appeal Deadline Date:
Ifpmnit is denied,you may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission in writi:C'n-g--:to---',P::".::::O-.Bo::-"x-;;-947:9:".";'Lo-.::Ga:--:-tos CA 95031.
The a-ppealletter must be receiv<:d within 10 days after the dale of inspection,(listed above).with a private amorist's report attached
to the letter of appeal.The private amorist is retained at the cost oC the appellant/applicant .
.On""r""iewtd ond processed,form distribution:Pla"ning Dcpt;PPW;Applicant (rv:ti..,.d afier Town ,(rborist procc.sse.s tAis opplicatio n),
-----~---_t+_----4--
C/[/!}--/
----------------~~------
-----------
FILING FEES
$272.00 Residential
$1089.00 per Commercial,Multi-
family or Tentative Map Appeal~
ih========:dI
_____________________________~;OR
2.There is new information that was not reasonably available at .the time of the Planning Commission decision,which is
,
-:-1,,'
3.
_______________________(please attach the new information ifpossible):OR
The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town
Council:......11Z \"c >:>'1)rJ"A-c..'(.{/,-r7h~{~SGlr>ff-OS-Tl-lF""""
GvrC'L'~Pb.S~.k>.....,I\-t.~I',.:\
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED,PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS.
DI1'ORTANT:
ADDRESS:
SIGNATURE:----'~=___0_~-_-_~--:..__
Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes.
Appeal must be filed within ten (10)calendar days ofP\anoiog CoIIllIlission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee.
Deadline is 5:00 p.rn.on !he 10·day following the decision.lithe 10~day is a Saturday,Sunday,or Town holiday,then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the 10"day,usually a Monday.
The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Plaoning Comm.ission Decision (Town Ordinance No.
1967)
An appeal regarding a Change or Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code,as applicable,which is different from other appeals.
Once filed,the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information,the application will usually be returned to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration.
,~K'"€,.VC;;S A-J 17 ':>PRlNj NA.'v",:
S/;;IS/M?DATE:
PHONE:
S.
6.
4.
3.
1.
2.
***OFFICIAL USE ONLY'"
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:q I"<):;(C01'<l'IRMATION LETrER SENT Date:----
Pending Planning Department Confirmation TO APPLICANj &APPEU.A.';j BY:
?-.::;:..
DAE TO SEND PUBLICATION:."').";2,:::'o?;;DATE OF PUBUCATIO.':~.j ._J
.1 N:\DEV\.FOR."1S\P1UlDing\P~g Cmmnission Appeal'N'~:1 -July 1,2005
1
ATTACHMENT 13
')General comments for appeal
/Appeal Reasons
1)...erred or abused its discretion because:"it denied the A&S based on
matters that had already been approved by the Council as part of the PO,
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."
3)...no discretion to modify policy set by Council:"The PC did not act
within the scope of the Council's PO approval.Four members disagreed
with the Council approval,and took this action based on that disagreement
with the Council,instead of adhering to the Council approval as having set
the zoning for this project."
~;}'.
~EXISTING FENCE
./../....-..__-----RECElVED ",
WILDLIFE PERMEABLE "
FENCE SEP 0 4 2008
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
..-
•
•
..
'-.:,~~a-'
-----------,..=
.~.o-
\
.=.'
10 {,.........
.........JI
•
~
!I I/. \r EXISTING FENCE 1\r ..',.."""I·
.'C ....c!i.•.._.....~"'"
~.=r
........."""'.""
""""~
'"
"""'''."
.'-:.:........../-L~EN~:'~:RO:-·---'/
FENCE TO BE LOCATED
DOWN SLOPE WHERE
LESS VISIBLE
I ,.
FENCE AND WILDLIFE DIAGRAM__FENCE TO BE REMOVED
__wlLOUFE PERMEABLE FENCE
_NEW SECURITY fENCE
_EXISTING FENCE~n
:I:s::mz
-f..
\