Loading...
10 Staff Report - Kennedy Road @ ForrestertowN ~F MEETING DATE: 2/05/07 ITEM NO. T Nl tr. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT tos,oS. G A DATE: February 2, 2007 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGER -y~~-- SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE, POOL, TENNIS COURT AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY ZONED HR- 21/2. NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED. APNS 537-29- 007 & 008. PROPERTY LOCATION: KENNEDY ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD. PROPERTY OWNER: ACORN TRUST. APPLICANT: ROB DESANTIS. FILE #PD-06-03 & ND-07-04. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Council may take any of the following actions: a. Approve the PD application as proposed or with modified conditions; b. Remand the application to staff or the Planning Commission with direction for desired plan changes; or c. Deny the PD application. If the Council decides to approve the project, the following actions are recommended: 1. Make the Negative Declaration (Attachment 4) (motion required); 2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment 2) (motion required); 3. Make the required findings (Attachment 1) and approve subject to the conditions included in the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 3) (motion required); 4. Direct the Clerk Administrator to read the title of the ordinance (no motion required); 5. Move to waive the reading of the ordinance (motion required); 6. Introduce the ordinance to effectuate Planned Development PD-04-3 (motion required). PREPARED BY: Bud N. Liz, Director of Community Development Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager ALTown Attorney Clerk Finance Community Development Revised: 2i2/07 1:45 PM Reformatted: 5/30/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04. January 22, 2007 BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the north side of Kennedy Road, just east of Forrester Road (see Exhibit A of Attachment 9). The 13.7 acre property is one of a small number of large undeveloped parcels in the area. On December 15, 2004 the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss development of the property. The applicant provided general parameters for the project, including a maximum floor area of 16,800 square feet, 22 tree removals and a total grading volume of approximately 31,400 cubic yards. Based on the Commission's input the project was refined and submitted as a Planned Development (PD). The applicant has reduced the house size by 20%, reduced the total earthwork by 21% and reduced the export by 37% from the plans initially reviewed by the Commission. The applicant initially filed an Architecture and Site application for the project. Following the Planning Commission study session staff suggested that the applicant consider filing for a PD for the property. This concept was suggested because of the uniqueness and complexity of the project, and based on Commission concerns including the size of the home, the volume of grading and the overall scope of the project. This approach would also address the Commission's strong desire to obtain assurances that new further development would occur on the site in the future. A PD creates a site specific zoning that can be tailored to a particular property and would not allow further development or expansion without modification of the PD zoning approval. A PD does not change the way a project is reviewed. Hillside projects are evaluated against the HDS&G regardless of the application type. A PD is a legislative act that would lock approval of the development into the zoning for the site rather than relying on HR zoning code. If the applicant or a subsequent property owner proposed modifications to the site that were not expressly allowed under the approval, an amendment to the PD zoning would be required as opposed to an Architecture and Site (A&S) approval. An A&S application would not limit future development. On September 13, 2006 the Planning Commission considered the Planned Development application. The Commissioners made individual comments and voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the application. Because the Commission recommended denial of the project, the Town Code stipulates the application is not automatically forwarded to the Town Council. As provided for in Section 29.20.580 of the Town Code, the applicant filed a request for a Council hearing. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing a Planned Development (PD) for a large hillside property. The development includes a new residence with attached garage, guest quarters, cabana, art studio, pool, tennis court, pavilion and entry gatehouse. The total floor area of the house is 11,775 square feet and the attached garage is 1,778 square feet. The overall floor area for the project inclusive of the guest quarters, and accessory structures is 16,401 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 PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04. January 22, 2007 will not impact the above ground bulk and mass of the main residence. The majority of the site (approximately 83%) will be maintained in a natural state through a required open space and conservation easement. The limits of grading are shown on sheet C-1 of the development plans (attached as exhibit B to the PD Ordinance, Attachment 3). The applicant is requesting several exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G) as discussed in the next section of this report. It is the applicant's intent to make the house as sustainable as possible. For example, Title 24 Energy Efficiency standards will be exceeded by more than 30%, and solar energy will be used for power. The applicant intends to hire a consultant to assist with the integration of green building design elements. The project complies with all applicable zoning regulations. Relevant General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan sections are provided as Attachment 10. A PD is required to include only conceptual development plans. Detailed architectural plans are not required as part of the PD process, although the applicant has presented well developed plans to demonstrate the quality of the project being proposed. If the PD is approved, an Architecture & Site application will be required for the project, and the two lots will be merged into a single parcel. The Town's Consulting Architect reviewed the plans and did not have any recommendations for changes to the design (see Exhibit G of Attachment 9). The architect notes that the project is well designed and will have minimal visual impacts on the surrounding area. DISCUSSION: Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines The project includes several components that require exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G). Staff comments follow each item noted below: The height of the main residence exceeds 25 feet: The applicant is requesting to exceed the 25 foot sectional height limit established by the HDS&G. On the front elevation, an approximately 25 foot long segment of the highest roof ridge would exceed 25 feet, the highest peak being 30 feet. On the rear elevation two projecting elements exceed 25 feet, one is at 26 feet 10 inches and the other is 25 feet nine and a half inches. The areas that exceed 25 feet are indicated on the elevations. The reason for the requested height exceptions is to achieve a balanced design and architectural consistency. 2. Portions of the development are proposed outside the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA): Portions of the tennis court, motor court and pool and cabana are extending onto slopes greater than 30%. The area of the site that will be disturbed by the proposed development is PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04. January 22, 2007 approximately W'2%. Of that, approximately 2% will encroach outside the LRDA. If the Council decides that a specific element of the project is too great an impact to the site, it can be excluded from an approval or modified through a condition of approval. The proposed total floor area exceeds the allowable floor area: The total proposed floor area for the project is 15,989 square feet exclusive of a below grade cellar that is exemptfrom FAR. The applicant reduced the total floor area to be less than the potential total floor area that could be developed on the two separate lots (17,800 square feet), and believes that the overall impact to the site will be less with a single development as opposed to development of two separate lots. The criteria for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area (pages 29 and 30 of the HDS&G) are being met as follows: a. The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platf(.;~ms. b. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement corridors. C. Grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR will be minimized d. All standards and applicable guidelines are being met. e. The margin for compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards will exceed 10.0 (estimated to be 30.0). f. The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic (PV) installation. g. A minimum of 25% of hardscape material will be permeable. h. A significant cellar element is included in the design. i. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties. 4. Cuts and fills exceed maximum allowed depths: The driveway leading up to the motor court is designed to minimize grading impacts. The grading associated with the installation of the driveway is necessary to gain access to the main building site. The applicant is transitioning the slope below the driveway to the tennis court and pond to avoid the use of retaining walls and provide a better visual appearance. The house is being lowered into the site to reduce the profile and limit its visibility to neighbors. The table on the next page shows the cut and fill depths allowed by the HDS&G and the worst case cut and fill depths that are proposed for various project components. PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04. January 22, 2007 Gr~id~tu' ;,Summa , - , . cut de th feet fill dept h feet I area allowed proposed allowed proposed house 8* 26** 3 0 driveway 4 12 3 - motor court 4 8 3 8 tennis court 4 4 3 16 cabana 4 12 3 4 pool 4 14 3 0 *exclusive of cellar, approximately 10 feet of the cut can be attributed to the cellar 16 feet exclusive of cellar Grading The burden of proof is on the applicant to provide evidence and rationale to support the requested exceptions to the HDS&G. In working with the applicant to develop the plans, an effort was made to minimize the grading needed to design a driveway to the building site. Most of the grading for the house itself is being done for the cellar and to lower the home into the site to reduce its visibility. The house is also being lowered to provide the transition from the driveway to the house. The driveway and house need to function together. If the house is raised in an effort to reduce grading, it will become more visible to nearby homes. The amount the home can be raised is limited by the elevation of the driveway. Of the proposed 24,750 cubic yards of grading, roughly 13,550 are associated with the home (including garage and guest quarters) and the yard areas. Grading quantities for the project are summarized in the table below. "raatktg-,Q4an mEcubicyaras~ area cut ill total house 1,700 35 1,735 garage 2,300 0 2,300 guest quarters 1,000 0 1,000 cabana 400 35 435 sub-total 5,400 70 5,470 driveway 3,800 1,400 5,200 tennis court 200 2,600 2,800 pool 600 0 600 and 2,200 0 2,200 and areas 8,200 280 8,480 sub-total 15,000 4,280 19,280 total 20,400 4,350 24,750 IT, PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04. January 22, 2007 At the September 13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting the Commission expressed concerns with the proposed volume of grading and the 16,000 cubic yards of off-haul that will be necessary if the project is approved as proposed. The applicant submitted two alternate grading concepts that greatly reduce and/or completely eliminate off-haul by distributing excavated material on the property. These concepts are shown on sheets EX-2 and EX-3 of the development plans. Concept EX-2 would result in about 4,300 cubic yards of off-haul. Concept EX-3 involves no off-haul. There are four main areas where earthwork would be redistributed, as follows: Fill Area 1: around the upper pad where the art studio is located. There are not any anticipated safety problems with this f ll as it occurs primarily on the ridge. Under concept EX-2, the depth of the fill would be up to 11 feet, and will extend into the surrounding tree canopy. Placement of fill within the dripline of oak trees is not desirable as it would likely cause the trees to decline and/or die. Less fill is proposed under concept EX-3, but it would still impact the surrounding tree canopy. Fill Area 2: below the motor court. Both grading concepts for this area would result in significant changes to the existing topography. This concept would f ll a swale that is northeast of the motor court and would require two terraced retaining walls that would be six and seven feet high under concept EX-2. Concept EX-3 incorporates two benches into the slope and the fill shifts to the east and wraps around the garage. The volume of grading proposed is not desirable, particularly in an area where the slopes are all greater than 30%. In addition, drainage was not studied in this area with the original submittal as no disturbance was proposed below the motor court. Staff would need to analyze possible drainage impacts if the Council is supportive of the fill being placed as proposed by the applicant. Fill Area 3: adjacent to the driveway near the west end of the house. About four feet offill will be spread throughout this area and will increase the yard area. The increase in grading would not be perceptible from off the site. The fill area would be more wide spread under concept EX-3, and could impact more trees. Fill Area 4: below the tennis court. Significant grading is already proposed in the area around the tennis court and pond. The additional material could be added without impacting any additional trees and would eliminate several of the terraced retaining walls. Concept EX-2 has more fill below the tennis court. PAGE 7 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04. January 22, 2007 If the Council would like to specifically approve one of the alternative grading plans with the PD, staff will need to do further analysis of visual, drainage and tree impacts, as well as revise the environmental documents. Council also has the option to direct staff to work with the applicant during the A&S approval to reduce export to the maximum extent possible without creating environmental impacts not contemplated under the current Mitigated Negative Declaration. A condition of approval could be added to this affect. Floor Area Attachment 10 is a home size comparison submitted by the applicant. Only homes that are in the Town have been included. There are some large hillside homes on properties that are in the vicinity of the project site but are located in Santa Clara County. The data has been sorted by square foot and by floor area ratio (FAR). Home size facts supported by this data are as follows: • The average FAR of homes larger than 7,000 SQ FT is 0.123 • The proposed home FAR is 0.017 (86% below the average FAR) • The proposed home has the fifth lowest FAR of the homes included in the survey • Nine homes in the town are larger than 10,000 square feet • Five of the top 10 home sizes are on Kennedy or Forrester Roads • There are 91 homes in Los Gatos larger than 6,000 square feet • Two of the 10 largest homes are on properties of 10 acres or more In response to concerns raised at the December 13, 2006 Planning Commission hearing, the applicant and project design team reevaluated the plans for the house in an effort to reduce the size and overall impact of the proposed development. The applicant has advised staff that the total floor area for the house can be reduced to 9,965 square feet. A smaller main house would consequently lower the overall floor area for the project by about 1,000 square feet. If the Council would like to limit the size of the house as offered by the applicant, condition #4 in the PD Ordinance should be replaced with the following revised condition: PROJECT FLOOR AREA. The house shall not exceed 10,000 square feet and the total floor area for the overall project shall not exceed 15,500 square feet, as shown on the Official Development Plans. The Director of Community Development may approve an additional accessory structure for storage purposes. 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. Tree Impacts A tree survey and assessment of these resources on the project site was prepared by a qualified aborist, Douglas Anderson, and was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Arborist, Arbor Resources. 63 PAGE 8 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04. January 22, 2007 There are over 600 trees on the site, the majority being located on the lower portion of the property in the vicinity of Kennedy Road. The tree inventory was limited to those parts of the project site that would be affected by development proposed as part of the project. The tree inventory identified 143 trees occurring on the upper elevations of the site where development is proposed. A total of 28 ordinance-size trees would be in direct conflict with the proposed project. Of these, two arc recommended as viable specimens for relocation rather than removal, which reduce the number of trees to be removed to 26. All of the trees being removed are oaks, the predominant tree type on the site. Although shown on the plan as being retained, there are an additional seven oak trees that would be severely affected by the proposed project and could be subject to premature decline and/or instability. To minimize potential impacts on the seven oaks, the Consulting Arborist recommends that the grading design be modified by constructing one or more retaining walls to protect four specimen trees. Major design changes would be required to retain the three remaining trees, and the Consulting Arborist recommends relocation of these trees if they cannot be retained and adequately protected. The Consulting Arborist provided 28 tree protection measures that will be required to be implemented through conditions of approval. Neighborhood Impact/Visibility The majority of the trees within the development area will be retained and will screen the proposed residence from lower elevations, including adjacent homes to the north and west, and public open spaces on Kennedy and Forrester roads. Project development would alter existing views of the site from properties on hillsides to the south, east and north. Homes on distant or nearby ridges that overlook the property would also view the proposed home and accessory buildings. The applicant contacted neighbors both in the immediate vicinity and surrounding areas to share the development plans and receive input. The applicant will present an exhibit showing neighbors who were contacted and who indicated support for the project. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On September 13, 2006 the Planning Commission considered the PD application. The Commissioners made individual comments and voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the application. Due to a technical problem with the FTR recording system at the meeting staff was unable to transcribe verbatim minutes for the Town Council. Planning Commissioners submitted written comments for the Council's consideration (see Attachment 5) and staff has included the log notes from the meeting (see Attachment 6). House size and grading volumes were identified as the primary concern by the Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project (see Attachment 4). These documents were previously forwarded to the Council under separate cover. The environmental review was completed by the Town's Environmental Consultant, Geier & Geier. Two potentially significant impacts PAGE 9 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04. January 22, 2007 resulted in the inclusion of mitigation measures, one requiring implementation of geotechncial recommendations and one requiring implementation of all tree preservation measures. These mitigation measures have been included in the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 3) as conditions of approval. In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared (Attachment 2) to designate the responsible department and timing of each mitigation measure. CONCLUSION: The Council should consider the information and evidence submitted by the application in determining whether to grant the requested exceptions to the HDS&G through approval of a PD. The Council should also provide direction on the placement of additional fill to reduce the amount of off-haul from the property. If the Council decides that a specific element of the project is too great an impact to the site, it can be excluded from an approval or modified through a condition of approval. If the Council is supportive of either the reduced or zero off-haul grading alternatives, the application should be continued for further staff analysis and environmental review. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Required Findings (one page) 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (one page) 3. Planned Development Ordinance (16 pages), Rezoning Exhibit and Conceptual Development Plans (18 sheets), received August 30, 2006 4. Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration 5. Planning Commission comments for September 13, 2006 meeting 6. Planning Commission log notes for September 13, 2006 meeting 7. Planning Commission log notes for December 15, 2005 study session 8. September 13, 2006 Planning Commission Desk Item with Exhibit H 9. September 13, 2006 Planning Commission report with Exhibits A-G 10. House size comparison (two pages), received January 26, 2007 11. Applicant's letter (three pages) and presentation (13 pages), received January 26, 2007 Distribution: Rob & Ranae DeSantis, 200 Forrester Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Richard Landry, Landry Design Group, 11333 Iowa Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025 BNL:SD N:\DEV\SUZANNE\COUNCIL,REPORTS`FWD. TO TCKENNEDYACOR.N\KENNEDYACORN-2-5-07.DOC 1 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY S, 2007 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: Kennedy Road g Forrester Road Planned Development Application PD-06-03 Negative Declaration ND-07-04 Requesting approval of a Planned Development to construct a new residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures on property zoned HR-2t/2. No significant environmental impacts have been identified and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNS 537-29-007 & 008. PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis Required consistency with the Town's General Plan: That the proposed Zone Change are internally consistent with the General Plan and its Elements. Consistency with the Hillside Specific Plan: That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan. N:•DEV\FINDINGSKe edyAcom-Wmpd ATTACHMENT 1 cn s• O U A ~ U b .I ~ 64 p G. b U Ga U ~ .o ~ 0 0 v t~ p 0 U ~ y O U QUG~ Qa 0 v U O ct3 y 0 cd ~ O A c) v, U rn a3 ' ~ O O O b0 ~ 4-i C) C) 0 N C) N U ~ N 00 U m Q O p a 0 ~ a v' 4 W ~ 2 c't7o ~ ~ 30 ~ ~ ~ ~ U O GO C r 64 O U V UCr3 E" o b O p o ts. c~ ' F O Q O 6b ~ a H EN V an$M.L40 ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM HR-21/ TO HR-2%z: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 ORDAIN 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 County Assessor Parcel Numbers 537-29-007 & 008) as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is part of this Ordinance, from HR-2V2 (Hillside Residential, 2'/z-10 Acres per Dwelling Unit) to HR-2%z:PD (Hillside Residential, 2'/2-10 Acres per Dwelling Unit, Planned Development). SECTION II The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements: 1. Construction of a new single-family dwelling, guest quarters and attached garage. 2. Accessory structures inclusive of art studio, pool cabana, tennis pavilion and gatehouse. 3. Driveway, pool, tennis 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 Uses) and 29.20.185 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, as those sections exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future. However, no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this Ordinance, or by a Conditional Use Permit. ATTACHMENT 3 SECTION III COMPLIANCE WITH 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 the 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 with Section 29.80.130 of the 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 1. 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 Development Review Committee maybe 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. CERTIFICATE OF LOT MERGER. A Certificate of Lot Merger shall be recorded. Two copies of the legal description for exterior boundary of the merged parcel and a plat map (8'/z in. X 11 in.) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Page 2 of 16 Department for review and approval. The submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports less than 90 days old and the appropriate fee. The certificate shall be recorded before any permits may be issued. 4. PROJECT FLOOR AREA. The total floor area for the overall project shall not exceed 16,,52f 15,500 square feet, as shown on the Official Development Plans. The Director of Community Development may approve an additional accessory structure for storage purposes. 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 LANDSCAPING. All formal landscaping shall be confined to 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, inclusive of the water feature. Any planting beyond these areas shall 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 restricted 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 Road. 8. SETBACKS. The minimum setbacks are those specified by the HR zoning district. 9. 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. 10. ACCESSORY 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. Page 3 of 16 11. 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 properties. Shielded flood lights on motion detectors may be installed only if it can be demonstrated that they are clearly needed for safety. 12. 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 of 30, 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. 13. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for the removal of any ordinance protected tree prior to the issuance of a Building, Grading or Encroachment Permit. 14. REPLACEMENT TREES. Replacement trees shall be planted for trees that are removed. The number and size of new trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table in the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. All required new trees shall be planted prior to final inspection for the main residence. 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. 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, Page 4 of 16 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 determined through the development of the easement document which shall be recorded prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 17. TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES. Tree preservation measures shall be shown on the construction management plan. 18. "BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE-1. The project applicant shall implement the 28 recommendations made by the Town's consulting arborist, Arbor Resources, in reports dated February 10, 2006 and July 27, 2006. Building Division 19. 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. 20. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. 21. ADDRESS/HOUSE NUMBER: Submit requests for new address/house number to the Building Division prior to the building permit application process. 22. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing 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 psfdesignpressure (Uniform Building Code Volume 2 - Section 1805). 23. 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 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: Page 5of16 9 z ~ J a. On-site retaining wall location b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations 24. 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. 25. 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 parties and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosea.gov. 26. SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES. The following features shall be incorporated into the project: a. A minimum of 25% of the hardscape shall be of pervious material(s) b. Title 24 shall be exceeded by at least 32.8%. 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. 27. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE. California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CR- IR and MF-IR shall be printed on the construction plans. Page 6of16 28. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE. This project requires Class A roofing assembly. 29. 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. 30. PLANS: The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or engineer. (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538). 31. 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. 32. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development: Suzanne Davis at 354-6875 b. Engineering 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: Contact the Building Service Counter for the appropriate school district and to obtain the school form. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 33. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE-1. The project design shall incorporate all applicable recommendations in UPP Geotechnology, Inc.'s geotechnical investigation (March 17, 2006) for the proposed project (included as Attachment 2 of the Initial Study) in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and soil engineering constraints. 34. 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 of a certificate of occupancy. Proof of annexation to WVSD boundaries shall be provided prior to submittal of a building permit application. Page 7of16 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 permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department located at 41 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. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footpririt. 37. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall: a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town 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. 38. RETAINING WALLS. A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, 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. 39. ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTING. Additional laboratory tests shall be performed by UGI for site soils and rock, including plasticity limits, swell potential, and shear strength. The results of such tests shall be incorporated into foundation design recommendations. Page 8of16 40. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils report shall be submitted with the grading permit application. The soils report 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 conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 41. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance of any permit, 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's soils engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 42. 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 backfill 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 observation and testing should be documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the applicants soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 43. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE. The developer 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 current 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 permit is issued. 44. TREE REMOVAL. Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to issuance of a grading permit. 45. 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 Page 9of16 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 sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall beat the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 46. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. 47. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting 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. 48. SURVEYING CONTROLS. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes 49. EROSION CONTROL. Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) 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 stabilizing/building 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 final landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control 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 Page 10 of 16 months. The 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 Permit. 50. 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. Further, 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-site construction activity shall take place between the 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. 51. DUST CONTROL (SITES > 4 ACRES). The following measures should be implemented at construction 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, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) C. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. d. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. e. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Page 11 of 16 52. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate 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. 53. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. A storm water management shall be included with the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as defined in the amended provisions C.3.d. of Order No. R2-2005-0035 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 plan shall be certified by a professional pre-qualified by the Town. In the event that storm water measures proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those certified on the Building/Grading Permit, the Town may require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of the Building Permit. The applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility. 54. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project by Town's Stormwater Discharge Permit No. CAS029718 and modified by Order No. R2-2005-0035. The agreement will specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and will specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement will also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded prior to release of any occupancy permits. 55. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the 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 the Town's storm drains. 56. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. Page 12 of 16 57. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 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 start of construction to verify existing conditions. 58. 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 survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher. 59. CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 8:00 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. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 60. 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 Page 13 of 16 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. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 61. 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 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13d. 62. TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY INSTALLATIONS. Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrants(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. 63. FIRE APPARATUS(ENGINE) ACCESS ROADS. Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1. 64. 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 Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1. Cul-de-sac diameters shall be no less than 72 feet. 65. TIMING OF REQUIRED ROADWAY 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 until 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. Page 14 of 16 66. 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. 67. 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 the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. Page 15 of 16 SECTION VI This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , 2006, 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 2006 and becomes effective 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:~DEV\ORDS,K-edy-AcomMe dows.wpd Page 16 of 16 Recommended by Planning Commission Date: Approved by Town Council Date: Ord: Clerk Administrator Mayor EXHIBIT A ~ i RECENED INITIAL STUDY AUG 2 4 2006 I UT lq or t-0 - PLANNING DIVISION DESANTIS RESIDENCE (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 537-29-007 & 008) KENNEDY ROAD AT FORRESTER ROAD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-06-03 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-07-04 PREPARED FOR TowN OF Los GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 110 E. MAIN STREET Los GATOS, CA 95030 AUGUST 2006 PREPARED BY GEIER & GEIER CONSULTING, INC. P.O. Box 5054 BERKELEY, CA 94705-5054 510/644-2535 ATTACHMENT 4 TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: I)eSantis Residence (Assessor's APN 537-29-007 & 008) r,ennedy Road at Forrester Road Planned Development Application PD-06-03 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Gatos Planning Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Suzanne Davis, 408/354-6875 4. Project Location: Kennedy Road at Forrester Road (Figure 1) 5. Project Applicant's Name and Address: Rob DeSantis, 105 Kennedy Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032 6. Project Owner's Name and Address: Acorn Trust, 200 Forrester Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032 7. General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential, 0 to 1 units per acre Zoning: HR-2 1/2, Hillside Residential Zone (2 1/2 to 10 acres per dwelling with a minimum lot size of one acre) 9. Description of Project: The 13.71-acre project site is currently undeveloped. The property generally consists of western sloping hillsides that extend eastward to form a small ridge in the northern and central portions of the site. The project site's hillside grasslands are interspersed with oak woodland areas throughout the property. The project applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development application that would allow construction of a new residence, pool, art studio, and accessory structures. The project would entail development of a residence, swimming pool, pool house (cabana), and art studio on the upper portion of the ridge in the center of the project site, as well as a tennis court, pavilion, and landscaped area on the lower slopes of the site. The tennis court would be located approximately 180 feet west of the house. The proposed home would be a two-story structure situated on an excavated pad encompassing 11,363 square feet (s.f.) of livable space. An attached five-car garage and cellar area would provide 1,778 s.f. of building area, while an attached guest house over the garage would add 1,148 s.f. of living area. The art studio, cabana, tennis pavilion, and gate structure would contribute 1,700 s.f. of development to the project site. Total structural development on the site would be 15,989 s.f. August, 2006 RF PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE I aklan San'FraRCisco ' 88 ose 6 KENNEDY ROAD AT FORRESTER ROAD NO SCALE N Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road In addition to the proposed home, a new driveway would be developed from the site's Kennedy Road frontage to the proposed residence. A proposed gate and gatehouse would be located at the driveway intersection with Kennedy Road. The driveway would be a 20-foot wide paved access drive approximately 950 feet in length, connecting to a turnaround and motor court area adjoining the proposed residence. A pool and 840 square-foot detached cabana (with porch and walkways) would be developed on the south side of the house. A tennis court, pavilion, and associated landscaped area would be sited below the house and adjoining the proposed access driveway. The landscape plans for the tennis facilities area include a cascading water feature, pond, and bridge for the access drive. The proposed residential project will include an automatic fire sprinkler system that covers the main residence, the pool cabana, and the art studio. Also, a private on-site fire hydrant would be installed as required by the Fire Department. The location of the fire hydrant would be determined in consultation with the Fire Department and would have minimum flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. Sanitary sewer, gas, and storm drain lines would be extended to the proposed home via a utility corridor that is proposed to extend in a straight alignment up the hill from near the project dri veway/Kennedy Road intersection to the proposed residence. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is comprised of a 13.71-acre property and is surrounded by other rural residential properties. Kennedy Road borders the project site on the south. Residential properties on Forrester Road bound the project site on the west and north; these properties range from approximately one to 2.5 aces in area. Large rural residential sites accessed from Kennedy Road bound the site to the south and east; residential lots on the south and east vary from approximately 3.6 to 36.3 acres in size. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreements): West Valley Sanitation District (annexation and sewer connection permit). ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality X Biological Resources Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance August, 2006 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road DETERMINATION: (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or ' ated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions mitig ion measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development ~V,~ - Date August, 2006 4 Initial Studv - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ISSUES: Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact 1. Aesthetics - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Views of the project site are available from lower elevations, principally from Kennedy Road along the southern perimeter of the project site and from the Forrester Road neighborhood adjoining the northern portion of the site. However, these views are mostly screened by existing oak trees located on the slopes below the proposed location for the residential building on the property. The project site is also visible from the nearby homes located on nearby ridges to the north, south and southeast (accessed from Kennedy Road), and possibly homes to the east along the project ridge. Views of the project site primarily consist of an oak-covered hillside, with views of the potential home site from adjacent and nearby homes mostly screened by the site's existing tree cover. Since the majority of the 143 oak trees surrounding the proposed home would be retained, existing tree cover would screen the proposed home from lower elevations (including 11 adjacent homes to the north and west as well as the views from public spaces on Kennedy and Forrester roads). However, project development would alter existing views of the site from properties on hillsides to the south, east and north. Homes on these distant or nearby ridges that overlook the property would view the proposed home and other proposed facilities. However, these views would not significantly change with the project since there are numerous existing homes in the surrounding area that are currently visible from these homes. The greatest change in views would occur at a few homes to the south where a row of oak trees on the project's southern ridge would be removed and replaced by a pool and cabana. Since there are no existing trees south of the trees to be removed, no screening would be provided by trees to be retained on the lower part of this slope. Although this could be a significant change in views from these homes, this change would not be considered a significant impact based on the CEQA criteria outlined above. It should be noted these views already include views of development on nearby ridges and hillsides. The project would incrementally increase the extent of development contained in these views. To minimize the change in views, the following measure is recommended for consideration by the Town during Architecture and Site review: , 1. During Architecture and Site review, the Town shall review 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. August, 2006 IF, Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road The proposed home would be sited on a small knoll at the lower end of a ridge that rises eastward from northern central portion of the project site. The building pad for the proposed house and attached facilities would require extensive grading with approximate reductions in elevations of up to 25 feet. The establishment of a lowered building pad elevation in conjunction with the retention of screening oak woodland would minimize the visibility of the proposed residential development. Project plans submitted for the project include a site section diagram with cross-sections depicting the extent of screening that would result from planned grading and oak woodland preservation. Since views of the proposed home from surrounding areas would be mostly screened, the project is not expected to significantly alter any existing scenic vistas available in this area. Outdoor lighting would be provided on the exterior of the home. Project exterior lighting would not be expected to adversely affect nighttime views in the area due to screening provided by the existing tree cover and distance between the project and surrounding residences. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance (Section 29.10.09035) would prohibit the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlights) onto any area outside the project boundary. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Inco orated Impact impact H. Agriculture Resources - Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps X prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract9 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The project site consists of undeveloped hillsides and a ridge generally covered with oak woodlands, and zoned for residential use. The project site's sloping topography limits its agricultural potential. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural resources at the site. Since the site is not in agricultural use, the project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. III. Air Quality - Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? August, 2006 6 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road Potential ly Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? The project would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan (CAP). The most recent CAP was completed in 2000. The consistency of the proposed project with the CAP is determined by comparing the project's consistency with the Los Gatos General Plan. Since the CAP is based on the Town's General Plan land use designations and population projections of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that were in effect at the time the CAP was approved, consistency with the General Plan would indicate consistency with the CAP. The project would be consistent with the use and density allowed on the project site by the Los Gatos General Plan, and therefore, the project would be consistent with the CAP. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the BAAQMD as non-attainment for ozone and inhalable particulates (PMto). According to the Town Planning Department, the proposed project would result in a net traffic increase of 10 daily trips, with 1 AM peak hour trip and 1 PM peak hour trip. Air emissions increases associated with the proposed project would not be considered significant since the size of the proposed project would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential significance.' The BAAQMD threshold level for potential significance is 375 single-family units. At or above this size, traffic generated by the project would have the potential to generate significant local and regional air quality impacts, and an air quality impact assessment would need to be prepared and submitted to the BAAQMD for review. Adjacent residential uses are considered to be sensitive receptors. Proposed grading activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. The project parcel is 13.71 acres, and project construction would result in surface disturbance of more than one acre; surface disturbance is not expected to exceed three acres. The BAAQMD does not require quantification of construction emissions, but considers any project's construction-related impacts to be less than significant if required dust-control measures are implemented. The Town's standard dust control conditions require implementation of the BAAQMD's standard dust control measures (required on sites of three acres or less), which would mitigate the project's construction-related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. IV. Biological Resources - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through X habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? August, 2006 7 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road Potennaltr Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Mitigation Inco orated Significant Impact No Im act c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, ~ or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The majority of the project site can be characterized as oak woodland with grassland areas interspersed among the stands of oaks. The oak woodland includes primarily coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), along with valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), and black oak (Quercus kelloggi); these oaks constitute 97 percent of the 143 trees listed in the arborist's inventory. The potentially affected oak woodland occurs primarily on the western portion of the project site. The central portion of the project site consists of a small east-west trending knoll covered with non-native annual grasses; the proposed residence, auxiliary structures, and access driveway have been planned for development primarily in the grassland areas to avoid the loss of oak woodland and preserve Non-native annual grasses common to this habitat include slender wild oats (Avena barbata), cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), barnyard barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum) and Italian wild rye (Lolium multiflorum); while common non-native forbs include bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), yellow star thistle (Centauria solstitialis), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). The grassland areas on the project site are disced annually for fire prevention purposes, as required by the Town. Policy O.P.3.3 of the Open Space Element of the Los Gatos General Plan emphasizes preservation of public and private landscaping along Town streets. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3-1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy - Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements range from two to six 24-inch box size trees or two 36-inch and/or 48-inch box size trees, depending on the canopy size of the tree to be removed. A tree survey and assessment of these resources on the project site was prepared by a qualified arborist, Douglas Anderson in November 2005,2 and reviewed by the Town's arborist, Arbor Resources, in February 2006.3 The Anderson report indicates that the project site supports over 600 trees, with the majority of these occurring on the lower portion of the property in the vicinity of Kennedy Road. The tree inventory was limited to those parts of the project site that would be affected by development proposed as August, 2006 Initial Studv - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road part of the project. Consequently, Anderson's tree inventory identifies 143 trees occurring on the upper elevations of the site where proposed project facilities would be located. Arbor Resources completed its review of Anderson's 2005 report in February and Anderson's 2006 report in July 20064 and report findings and recommendations from both Arbor Resources reports are included as Appendix A. Anderson's 2006 report responded to Arbor Resources recommendations; Anderson indicates that grading plans were revised so that six trees would be retained (Trees #861, 864, 893, 927, and 931), 29 trees would be removed (Trees #846-848, 850-860, 894-898, 928, 930, 958, 959, 981-983, and 989-991) and 46 trees could be affected by construction. Arbor Resources determined that 28 ordinance-size trees would be in direct conflict with the proposed project (alt of the same trees except #928, a multi-stem black walnut). Of these, Trees #855 and 859 are recommended as viable specimens for relocation rather than removal, hence reducing the number of trees to be removed to 26. Although shown on the plan as being retained, there are an additional seven trees that would be severely affected by the proposed project and could be subject to premature decline and/or instability. They include Trees #861, 863, 893, 927, 931, 960 and 961. To minimize potential impacts on these seven trees, Arbor Resources recommends that the grading design be modified (by constructing one or more retaining walls) to protect four of these trees (Trees #861, 863, 931 and 960). Major design chances would be required to retain the three remaining trees (Trees #893, 927 and 961), and therefore, Arbor Resources recommends relocation of these trees if they cannot be retained and adequately protected. To minimize potential damage to trees to be retained, the following measures will be required by the Town and these measures will reduce potential biological impacts to a less-than-significant level: The project applicant shall be required to implement the 28 recommendations made by the Town's consulting arborist, Arbor Resources, in reports dated February 10, 2006 and July 27, 2006. These recommendations are included in Attachment 1. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Igo Impact V. Cultural Resources - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? The project site is currently undeveloped. In general, the proposed residence, pool facilities, and art studio would be located on the,upper elevations of the site while the driveway and tennis court are planned on the relatively steep hillsides in the western part of the property. The potential for encountering cultural resources during project construction would be low due to the site's relatively steep topography, its elevated location away from nearby Ross Creek, and on-going site disturbance for fire control August, 2006 9 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road purposes. There is typically a higher potential for encountering archaeological resources in areas adjacent to or near a river or creek. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Im act VI. Geology and Soils - Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including j the risk of loss, injury, or death involving; a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other i substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Landslides? X e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of X the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? A review of the Town's hazards maps5 indicates that the project site has high potential for fault rupture, low potential for seismic'shaking, high shrink-swell potential, no or very low potential for liquefaction, low to high potential for slope stability hazards, and moderate to very high erosion hazard. Debris flow hazards were identified for the area along Kennedy Road (near the southern boundary) and the northern slope of the easternmost knoll, just north of where the art studio is proposed. The Town's Fault Map indicates that the southern boundary of the site (along Kennedy Road) is traversed by a fault trace, but location is uncertain.6 A detailed geotechnical and geological investigation was prepared by UPP Geotechnology, Inc. in March 2006.' A copy of this study and other studies referenced in this section are on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. This study involved review of available geologic maps and aerial photographs, drilling 13 exploration pits and six test borings. This investigation concluded that development of the site as proposed is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, provided recommendations in the UPP report are followed. A peer review of this investigation was completed by the Town's geotechnical consultant, Geomatrix, and UPP responded to Geomatrix comments on April 28, 2006. Geomatrix completed a second peer review on May 22, 2006$ and determined that subsurface August, 2006 10 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road exploration was adequate for the proposed project and all concerns identified in the first peer review had been clarified or resolved.9 The following discussion is based on information presented by UPP and Geomatrix. The site lies within the seismically active Bay Area, but is not within any of the "Earthquake Fault Zones" established by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972. Geomatrix indicates the project site is located between two traces of the potentially active Berrocal fault zone, one trace is located essentially along Kennedy Road along the southern project boundary, while the other trace is located between 4,400 and 600 feet north of the northern project boundary. The active San Andreas fault zone is located about 3.6 miles southwest of the property. The potential for primary fault ground rupture or coseismic ground deformation is considered to be low. However, the subject property will be subjected to very strong to violent ground shaking during a future large earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault zone, or on one of the other major active faults zones in the region. It should be noted that most of the Bay Area as well as surrounding residences are subject to groundshaking hazards. UPP specifies criteria and standards in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, erosion control, and foundation design. Compliance with applicable UBC requirements would be adequate to address regional seismic safety concerns such as groundshaking. No landslides are mapped on the property although a previous investigation identified areas of "older or ancient landslide deposits" on the north-facing slope of the property. The north-facing slopes of the property are included within a zone of potential earthquake-induced landslides of the California Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Los Gatos 7.5' Quadrangle. According to Geomatrix, the proposed driveway circle, motor court, northeast end of the residence, and associated grading and retaining walls may partially be within this zone. A screening level slope stability analysis of the property was performed in addition to a static and pseudo-static stability analysis. These analyses indicate minimally acceptable factors of safety for earthquake loading, and therefore, no additional mitigation was specified by Geomatrix. The 13.71-acre project site is comprised of an irregular east-west trending ridgeline, with steep slopes north this ridge and moderate to steep slopes on the south side of this ridge (both slopes are greater than 30 percent). The proposed access driveway (with bridge) would traverse the large Swale located in the western portion of this site, then generally follow the main ridgeline to the center of the property. The tennis court, pavilion, and landscaped water feature would be located on the south-facing slope of the large swale. The proposed home, cabana, and pool area would be located on the ridge, while the art studio would be located on the upper portion of this same ridge. Project construction would entail extensive excavation (10,400 cubic yards (cy) of excavation and 280 cy of fill, or a net excavation of 10,120 cy). Retaining walls also would be constructed at specific locations along the project access driveway, tennis court, homes, and walkways behind the home. In some places, retaining walls would have two or three tiers, and pressures of the upper tiers would likely bear on lower tiers. The type of wall proposed also would affect the amount of overexcavation (thus, land disturbance) that would occur as part of wall construction. The Town will require as a condition of project approval that surface disturbance will be limited to the areas reflected on the proposed Planned Development plans. Given the site's sloping topography, there would be a potential for erosion hazards if soils are subject to concentrated flows. Town requirements (conditions of project approval) will include provision of a complete erosion control plan (including interim erosion control measures and drainage controls such as energy dissipators). Such conditions would reduce potential erosion hazards to a less-than-significant level. Soil engineering conditions were not evaluated as part of UPP's geotechnical investigation. As a condition of project approval, the Town will require completion of a soils report to address soil engineering constraints such as expansivity. August, 2006 11 i Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road The following measures shall be required to reduce identified potentially significant seismic, landslide, erosion, and compressible soil hazards to less-than-significant levels: 3. The project design shall incorporate all applicable recommendations in UPP Geotechnology, Inc.'s geotechnical investigation (March 17, 2006) for the proposed project (included as Attachment 2) in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and soil engineering constraints. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant !m pact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact f VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List.10 Since the site is undeveloped, the potential for encountering hazardous materials during project construction would be low. Therefore, potential public health risks would be less than significant. August. 2006 12 Initial Studv - DeSantis Residence. Kennedy Road at Forrester Road According to the Los Gatos General Plan, the project site is located in a fire hazard area. General Plan Policy S.P.2.3 encourages design and siting of new development in fire hazard areas to minimize hazards to life and property, such as fire preventive site design, access, landscaping and building materials, and use of fire suppression techniques. In addition, the project will be required to comply with the following standards contained in the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (January 2004) to minimize fire hazards: ■ Building locations shall minimize exposure to wildfires. • A landscape plan shall be provided and will be reviewed by the Town staff for consistency with the Fire Department's recommended plant list. The landscape plan shall create defensible space around the home, and if there is afire ladder on the property, it shall be eliminated in an environmentally sensitive manner. ■ Development shall have adequate fire access. • A dependable and adequate water supply for fire protection and suppression purposes, as required by tya2 Santa Cbwa Cowi)y Fiyp Depuyiment, Shull be pyovidled Jwr All pyOpeyties. • Water for fire suppression shall be available and labeled before any framing may begin. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines also provide the following recommendations or guidelines for reducing fire hazards: ■ Development should avoid areas subject to severe fire danger. In order to achieve this, development should be set back from the crest of a hill, not be located on or adjacent to slopes greater than 30 percent, and not be located within densely wooded areas. If this is not possible, measures designed to assure the highest degree of fire prevention and fast effective means of evacuation and fire suppression shall be provided. ■ The fuel load within a defensible space should be minimized by use of selective pruning, thinning and clearing as follows: removal of flammable species and debris, removal of dead, dying or hazardous trees, mow dead grasses, removal of dead wood from trees and shrubs, and thin tree crowns (maximum of 25 percent). • Discontinuous fuel sources should be created and maintained within a defensible space through use of the following techniques: thin vegetation to form discontinuous groupings of trees or shrubs, limb trees up from the ground, and establish a separation between the lowest branches of a tree and any understory shrubs. • Landscaping within a defensible space should be designed with fire safety in mind. Landscaping in defensible space should be: fire resistant and drought tolerant, predominantly low-growing shrubs and groundcovers (limit shrubs to 30 percent coverage), limited near foundations (height and density). Project Consistency: With respect to building location, the proposed home is located on a ridge that traverses the site: but the driveway, home, art studio, and pool would be located on slopes that are generally less than 30 percent. However, the tennis court, pavilion, and landscaped area appears to be located on slopes over 30 percent. No landscape plan has been prepared to date, but proposed landscaping will be reviewed for consistency with Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines by the Town's landscape consultant (with input from the Fire Department) during Architecture and Site review. To minimize fire hazards, the Santa Clara County Fire Department will require an automatic fire sprinkler system in the proposed home. The Fire Department has determined that required adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrants, and therefore, above ground water tanks will not be August, 2006 13 Initial Studv - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road required. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan and will require: installation of an approved fire sprinkler system in the residence, art studio, and cabana, an on-site fire hydrant, and improvement of the existing access road and driveway to meet Fire Department standards. The Fire Department will also require that access road and driveway improvements be completed prior to the start of proposed home construction. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact X. Impact VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ranted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Elevations on the site range from a high of about 750 feet on the eastern perimeter of the property to a low of about 520 feet at the western end of the property. The site generally consists of an east-west trending ridge along the center of the property, with a small knoll in the center of the site. The southern August, 2006 14 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road half of the property consists of steep south-facing hillside slopes; two minor drainage swales occur in the northern central part of the site and drain to the north, with no incised drainage channel in either Swale. Sheet flow on the rest of the site drains to the west and south. No free groundwater was encountered in any of the excavations performed as part of the geotechnical investigation by UPP Geotechnology, Inc. The surface drainage on the undeveloped site is characterized as uncontrolled sheet flow cross the property from the central upper elevations and site knoll to the south, west, and north. The site is undeveloped with storm flows percolating on the project site. Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces in the project vicinity flow into the Town of Los Gatos storm drain system on Kennedy Road, discharging into Ross Creek, ultimately draining northward into San Francisco Bay. Storm Drainage. With site development, the project would construct 46,300 square feet (s.f.) of impervious surface area on the 13.71-acre property, or cover approximately 8 percent of the site. The project proposes a pervious concrete driveway to reduce the extent of storm drainage runoff along the 1,050-foot long hillside access drive. Project plans specify a driveway design that directs storm flows to the edge of the pavement and into a landscaped perimeter to disperse sheet flows leaving the driveway. This would ensure that storm flows remain on-site for local infiltration. The drainage plans for the proposed residence and associated structures indicate that downspouts would discharge to finished surfaces with splash blocks to be used to disperse storm flows. Additionally, subdrains around the residence and along retaining walls would collect drainage and convey accumulated flows to rip-rap pads that would disperse drainage flows for on-site infiltration in areas immediately below the graded building pad. Project plans indicate storm drain pipes to be used for drainage control; however, plans do not indicate the locations of catch basins and inlets. These improvements will be defined as part of the Storm Water Management Plan, which will be required by the Town as a condition of project approval. Flood Hazards. The Santa Clara Valley Water District's (SCVWD) flood zone maps and the Town of Los Gatos Safety Element Flood Hazards Map both indicate that the project site is not located within the 100- year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the project area. Water Quality. New, more stringent water quality regulations of the Clean Water Act have recently been tri ggered because the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit program has failed to protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's creeks and the South San Francisco Bay. Evidence includes violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of toxic substances, and fish consumption health advisories. These new regulations require that all discharges shall comply with Provision C.3, New and Redevelopment Performance Standards of Order No. 01-024 of the NPDES permit program. The project site is located within the Ross Creek watershed; runoff from the site eventually discharges to piped systems that discharge into this creek and eventually into the Bay. As a condition of project approval, the Town will require preparation and submittal of interim and final erosion control plans to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department as well as submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, since the area of disturbance (including the driveway and underground utilities) exceeds one acre. Although the project includes A single-family home (which is exempt from C.3 Group 1 and 2 requirements), the home is part of a larger, planned development. Since the project would develop more than one acre of impervious surfaces, the Town will require preparation of a Storm Water Management Plan, which shall delineate source control measures and BMPs (Best Management Practices) in addition to sizing calculations per C.3 requirements. As a project condition, the Town will also require that the August, 2006 15 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road property owner enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of proposed stormwater filtration devices." Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Mitigation Inco orated Significant Impact Ko Impact IX. Land Use and Planning - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? The Los Gatos General Plan designates the project site for "Hillside Residential" and this designation allows for residential uses at densities of zero to one unit per acre. Since the site is 13.71 acres, the General Plan could allow up to 13 single-family residences without slope considerations. Even with slope considerations, as implemented under the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed single-family residence would be within allowable densities. The Zoning Ordinance designates the project site as "Hillside Residential," which allows 2.5 to 10 acres per dwelling with a minimum lot size of one acre. Since the proposed single-family residence would be located on a 13.71-acre site, it would be consistent with densities allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The project site is surrounded by existing residential uses. Access would be from Kennedy Road and a private driveway. The proposed residential use would be similar to surrounding residential uses and therefore, would not pose land use compatibility problems. It should be noted that the proposed residence includes a tennis court, pavilion landscaped area with water features, pool, cabana, and art studio, which are more extensive than occurs on some adjacent lots. However, there are a number of homes in the Kennedy Road area that include tennis courts and pools, and therefore, these proposed facilities are not unique to this area. The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that apply to the project site. X. Mineral Resources - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery,site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally-important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity. August, 2006 16 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact X1. Noise - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in X the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise Qeneration to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. With controls, construction noise levels could be made to comply with the Town Noise Ordinance. Residential uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. There are single-family residences located on properties surrounding the project site. Existing residences to the north are separated from the nearest development by approximately 200 feet or more, while the closest residences to the southwest (across Kennedy Road) are located 350 feet from the tennis court area and 600 feet from the proposed residence. The closest home to the south (across Kennedy Road) is approximately 500 feet from the proposed pool. The closest home to the east (along the same ridge) is located approximately 600 to 700 feet from the proposed art studio. At 200 feet (the closest distance), the ordinance noise limit (85 dBA at 25 feet) would result in maximum noise levels of 67 dBA at the closest residences to the north. Construction noise levels would be less at residences to the southwest, south, and east since they are located from proposed facilities. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds 45 to 60 dBA.12 To maintain such interior noise levels, exterior noise levels at the closest residences (with windows closed) should not exceed 70 to August, 2006 17 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road 80 dBA and this exterior noise level is used as a significance threshold or criterion. Maximum construction noise levels would not exceed this criterion. Therefore, enforcement of time restrictions and noise level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance would maintain construction noise levels at acceptable levels and speech interference effects would not be expected when heavy equipment is operated on the project site. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Mitigation Inco orated Significant Impact No Impact XII. Population and Housing - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would develop one single-family residence and, therefore, would not result in intensification of residential uses or significantly increase local or regional population. Since the project site is surrounded by existing residential uses, new roadways or utilities would only serve the proposed project site. Access roads and utilities are currently available to residential uses immediately adjoining the subject property. Consequently, the project would not induce new growth. XIII. Public Services - a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Services are currently provided to the residential development around the project site. The Los Gatos Police Department and the Santa Clara County Fire Department provide emergency and public safety services in the project area. The project would not significantly increase demand for public services since this is an in-fill development and services are already provided to the surrounding area. August, 2006 18 Initial Study - Mantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan and will require: installation of an approved fire sprinkler system (since required fire flow is not available) in the residence, art studio. and cabana; a private, on-site fire hydrant with a minimum acceptable flow of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure; and improvement of the existing access road and driveway to meet Department fire apparatus access and driveway turnaround standards. The Fire Department will also require that access road and driveway improvements be completed prior to the start of proposed home construction, the driveway and turnaround (nearest the house) shall not be allowed to double as guest parking, and bridges shall be designed in accordance with accepted standards as identified in Article 90 of the Fire Code. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. Recreation - a) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed addition of one residential unit would incrementally add new population to the area, and thereby increase the demand for recreational services. This incremental increase would be less than significant given the small size of the project. Also, the proposed project includes the development of on- site recreational facilities, including tennis court, swimming pool, and studio, and extensive open space area, further minimizing the potential for increased demand on recreational facilities. XV. Transportation/Traffic - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation X to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X August, 2006 19 f` id Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Imp act Incorporated 7m pact Impact g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) specifies that a project with a traffic impact of 19 or less additional AM or PM peak hour trips could be approved without a comprehensive traffic report if it is determined that the benefits of the project to the Town would outweigh the impact of increased traffic. However, the project would be subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee. The proposed single-family residence would result in a net increase of 10 trips per day, with 1 trip occurring during the AM peak hour and 1 trip occurring during the PM peak hour. According to the Town's traffic determination, traffic generated by the proposed project would represent a minor impact and no additional traffic studies would be required. The proposed driveway would be approximately 950 feet long, 20 feet wide, and the preliminary driveway profile indicates that the driveway's maximum grade would be 16 percent. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan, and the Department will require improvement of the existing access road and driveway to meet Department fire apparatus access and driveway turnaround standards. The Department will also require that the driveway and turnaround (nearest the house) shall not be allowed to double as guest parking, and bridges shall be designed in accordance with accepted standards as identified in Article 90 of the Fire Code. The proposed driveway would terminate at the proposed residence. There is currently a dirt path that extends to the upper knoll where the art studio is proposed. A stairway is proposed behind (east of) the proposed home and it would connect the home with this dirt path. No vehicle or emergency access is proposed to be extended to the proposed art studio or cabana. The lack of emergency access is not considered a significant impact because the Fire Department is requiring that the home, cabana, and art studio be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems and both the cabana and art studio are not living units. The proposed driveway would intersect Kennedy Road approximately 200 feet east of the Kennedy Road/Forrester Road intersection. It would be located in a relatively straight section of Kennedy Road with sight distances of approximately 100 feet to the east and 200 feet to the west. Such sight distances would be adequate for expected travel speeds on this section of Kennedy Road. Therefore, no safety problems associated with sight distance would be anticipated. The Town's Zoning Ordinance would require provision of two parking spaces for the proposed single- family residence. The Hillside Specific Plan requires four additional spaces when no on-street parking is allowed. The project would meet the parking requirements by provision of a five-car garage and additional parking spaces in the motor court area. Construction Impacts. Project construction would entail extensive excavation (10,400 cubic yards (cy) of excavation and 280 cy of fill, br a net excavation of 10,120 cy). Export of 10,120 cy of material off-site could generate up to 850 truckloads. Assuming 12 cy per haul truck, the project could generate a total of 1,700 one-way truck trips. Since the Town will prohibit haul truck operations on local roads between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. as well as 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., trucks operations would occur 6.5 hours per day. Assuming approximately 9 trucks could be filled per hour, a total of 18 truck trips per hour or 117 truck trips per day August, 2006 20 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road would be generated for approximately 15 work days or three weeks. If hourly truck volumes were lower, then duration of haul truck operations on Kennedy Road would be longer. The Town will require the applicant to work with the Town Parks and Public Works 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 would include, but would not be 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. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris will be required to be covered or at least two feet of freeboard must be maintained. This requirement will reduce potential traffic safety hazards to a less-than-significant level. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact XVI. Utilities and Service Systems - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Utilities and services are currently provided to residential uses on properties surrounding the project site. Water and electricity service is available to the project site from facilities that are located near the proposed access driveway at Kennedy Road. Sewer and gas lines would also need to be extended from the end of Kennedy Road to the proposed home. The proposed project would also need to be annexed to the West Valley Sanitation Districi for sewer service. Utility lines would be located in a utility corridor that is proposed to extend upslope along a corridor from near the project driveway/Kennedy Road intersection to the proposed residence. This trench would appear to avoid slopes over 30 percent. However, project plans do not indicate how utilities would be extended to August, 2006 21 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road the art studio, located above the residence. As a condition of project approval, the Town will require that the Planned Development delineate a utility corridor from the home to the art studio and that it be located within areas of disturbance currently identified on the grading plan. Proposed excavation of a utilities trench on steep slopes would pose erosion hazards on affected slopes. The Town's requirement of an erosion control plan (including interim erosion control measures) would reduce potential erosion hazards to a less-than-significant level. However, the interim erosion control plan will need to include specific provisions to minimize erosion hazards associated with the utility trench that is proposed to extend from Kennedy Road to the proposed residence. Proposed storm drainage facilities would be extended from the proposed home to Kennedy Road, and will include three segments of infiltration trench to allow runoff collected upstream to infiltrate into the soil. See Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more discussion. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Impact Nfi igation Incorporated Significant Impact No Impact XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance - a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? August, 2006 22 Initial Study - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road at Forrester Road LIST OF SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES (Indicated as endnotes under specific issues of Initial Study) Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Qualih, Impacts of Projects and Plans. December. ' Anderon's Tree Care, 2005. APN: 537-29-007, 008. November 17. Arbor Resources, 2006. DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road, Los Gatos. February 10. Arbor Resources, 2006. DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road, Los Gatos. July 27. Nolan Associates, 1999. Draft Erosion Potential Map, Shrink-Swell Potential of Soils, Slope Stability Hazard Map, Debris Flow Hazard Map, Liquefaction Hazard Zones Map, Seismic Shaking Hazards Map, Geologic Map, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones Map for the Town of Los Gatos General Plan Update. January 17. 6 Nolan Associates, 1999. Draft Fault, Lineament & Coseismic Deformation Map for the Town of Los Gatos General Plan Update. January 17. UPP Geotechnology, Inc., 2006. Geotechnical Investigation, Lands of DeSantis, Los Gatos, California. Project No. 3013.1 R I. March 17. s Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., 2006. Second Supplemental Peer Review, Plans and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Lands of Desantis, Single-Family Residential Development, Lot 6, Tract No. 6514, Kennedy Road, Los Gatos, California. Project 8449.032.0. May 22. 'Town of Los Gatos Parks & Public Works Department, 2006. Letter from Fletcher Parsons, Associate Engineer, Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department, to Suzanne Davis, Los Gatos Community Development Department, regarding Kennedy at Forrester (DeSantis), APNs 537-29-007 & 008, PD- 06-03, Geology Peer Review 3. ° Town of Los Gatos Development Application Supplement, Hazardous Wastes and Substances Statement for Kennedy Road at Forrester, Los Gatos, September 27, 2005. Email communications from Fletcher Parsons on August 9 and August 10, 2006 regarding project consistency with NPDES Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and C.3 Non-Point Source Pollution Prevention requirements. I'` In indoor noise environments, the highest noise level that permits relaxed conversation with 100 percent intelligibility throughout the room is 45 dBA. Speech interference is considered to become intolerable when normal conversation is precluded at 3 feet, which occurs when background noise levels exceed 60 dBA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (Condensed Version, 1974). August, 2006 23 1 S ~ ~._~''l ATTACHMENT 1 A. TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT KENNEDY ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 109 2006 AND FOLLOW-UP LETTER JULY 27, 2006 BY ARBOR RESOURCES 7 11 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT KENNEDY ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis APNs: 537-29-007 & 008 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-06-003 Submitted to: Suzanne Davis Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared .by: David L. Babby, RCA ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-4001A February 10, 2006 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 0 Fax: 650.240.0777 0 Licensed Contractor #796763 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 10, 2006 INTRODUCTION I have been asked by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department to review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed development of a single- family residence, tennis court, and accessory structure on a vacant property at the northeast comer of Kennedy Road and Forrester Road, Los Gatos. I visited the site on 9/26/05, 10/19/05 and 1/4/06 and this report presents my findings and recommendations. Documents reviewed for this report are as follows: [1] Sheet C-1 (Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan) by Richard Irish Engineering, dated 12/05; [2] Partial Site/Landscape Plans by Landry Design Group, dated 12/15/05; and [3] an arborist report by Douglas Anderson (the project arborist on record for this development) of Anderson's Tree Care, dated 11/17/05. The Ordinance-size trees are sequentially numbered from 827-832, 834-927, 929-969 and 981-983. Round, metallic tags within engraved numbers corresponding to these trees were found attached to each accessible trunk. FINDINGS The report by Mr. Anderson presents 147 trees are located in close proximity to the proposed development. Of these, 144 are considered regulated by the Town Ordinance (#826, 833 and 928 are exempt per Section 29.10.0965 of the Ordinance). Of the 144, 31 trees will require removal to accommodate the proposed project. They include #846-848, 850-861, 863, 864, 893-898, 927, 930, 931, 958, 959 and 981-983. There is also one additional tree, #899, indicated within Mr. Anderson's report for removal. However, this tree's trunk is situated one-foot from tree #900 and not as shown on the plans. Presuming tree #900's location on the plans is correct, tree #899 could seemingly remain as it would be about 18 feet from the proposed grading. The locations of trees #981 thru 983 differ between the plans and their actual location on site. Additionally, there are two Coast live oaks within this same area that are not shown on the plans but are situated downhill and slightly northeast of tree #859. These discrepancies should be resolved and shown accurately on the plans as the trees are anticipated to be impacted during development. Trees #850-859 and 981-983 comprise a sizeable and seemingly healthy grove of oaks, prominently dominated by Quercus agrifolia. Of these, trees #855 and 859 appear to be viable candidates for relocation given their size, condition and location. There are five additional Ordinance-size oaks that are not shown on the plans but will either be removed or impacted during construction of the driveway entrance. These trees are located along Kennedy Road and include two Coast live oaks and three Valley oaks. DeSantis Property, Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road, Los Gatos Page 1 of 5 Town ofLos Gatos Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 10, 2006 One of the Valley oaks is situated adjacent to the power pole at the southwest property comer, while the other oaks are located in the southeast direction from this one (the last two are situated slightly beyond the next power pole). The proposed grading design for the driveway will jeopardize trees #960 and 961. To achieve a reasonable degree of assurance that these trees will survive, the specifications presented on page 7 of Mr. Anderson's report must be incorporated into the design. Tree #927 requires removal to accommodate the grading design proposed for constructing the driveway. This tree is an excellent specimen that is situated outside the driveway and can seemingly be protected by revising the design. In doing so, I recommend a minimum eight-foot setback from its trunk for any grading. Tree #931 is proposed for removal to accommodate the proposed grading design for the home. This tree is highly worthy of retention and can seemingly be retained by establishing the fill or soil cut for a retaining wall at least 10 feet from its trunk. The grading design for the proposed terrace would require the removal of trees #861, 863, 864 and 893. These trees are situated beyond the terrace and are worthy of retention. If they were to be protected in their current location, it appears several retaining walls would be required to achieve a minimum grading setback of eight to ten feet from their trunks. If these setbacks cannot be feasibly achieved, their relocation should be considered. RECONEMENDATIONS The measures presented within this section are intended to be used in conjunction with those specified within the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance and the following sections of Mr. Anderson's report: in the last two paragraphs of page four, and each recommendation on page five. 1. Trees of Ordinance-size situated along Kennedy Road and in proximity to the future driveway should. be inventoried by the project arborist and their locations and canopy dimensions added to the plans. 2. The locations of trees #899 and 981-983 should be field-verified and shown accurately on the plans. In addition, the two oaks situated downhill from tree #859 should also be shown. 3. The grading design should be revised to achieve setbacks specified for trees #960 and 961 within page 7 of Mr. Anderson's report, as well as a minimum eight-foot setback from tree #927's trunk. Please note these setbacks are intended to include all soil fill and excavation activities, including for a curb and overcut for retaining walls. 4. The future footpath, including any edging, should be established at least five feet from the trees' trunk and installed entirely on top of existing soil grade (i.e. a no-dig design). DeSantis Property, Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road, Los Gatos Page 2 of 5 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department I David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 10, 2006 5. The location of all underground utilities and services should be situated outside from beneath the trees' canopies. Where this is not feasible, the project arborist should be consulted and provide alternative measures to minimize the impacts. The proposed drainage design shall not discharge water beneath the canopies or towards the trunks of retained trees. 7. For compliance with Section 29.10.1000(C2) of the Ordinance, this letter and Mr. Anderson's entire report must be included in the building permit set of plans and printed on a sheet title Tree Preservation Instructions (Sheet T-1). Sheet T-1 shall be referred to on all site related sheets. Mitigation for the loss of trees approved for removal should conform to Section 29.10.0985 of the Town's Ordinance and their sizes and species shown on the landscape plan. They should be planned and installed at least 15 to 20 feet apart from another and beyond the canopies of retained trees. Please note due to the amount of trees requiring installation, the trees should be ordered from a nursery or nurseries before or at the onset of development. 9. Trees being relocated must be performed under the direction of the project arborist. All recommendations by the arborist for promoting their survival throughout the transplanting process, to include procedures that will be employed during the digging, boxing, storing and installation phases, shall be followed in their entirety. 10. The following additional guidelines should be incorporated into the future landscape: a. Plant material installed beneath the oak canopies must be drought-tolerant and compatible with oaks. I further recommend that plant material and any stones comprise no more than 15- to 20-percent of the area beneath a tree's canopy. b. Irrigation should not spray beneath the trees' canopies, including those newly installed. Any irrigation used to water plants beneath the Oak canopies must be of a drip-type system. c. Any trenching for irrigation, lighting or drainage should be designed beyond the trees' canopies. If irrigation lines or electrical lines for lighting are designed inside this distance, the trenches should be in a radial direction to the trunks and established no closer than five times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this is not possible, the lines can be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. d. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from the trunks of retained trees and not be in contact with the trunks of new trees. e. Tilling beneath the canopies should cease and be avoided in the future, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade. DeSantis Property, Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road, Los Gatos Page 3 of 5 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department i David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arbonst February 10, 2006 Tree Protection Measures before and during Development 11. A pre-construction meeting should be held between the project arborist and general contractor prior to development activities commencing in order to discuss the location of protective fencing, routes of access, grading limits, staging areas, watering, root zone buffer, tree pruning and removals, placement of wood chips, root pruning procedures, and other factors that may affect the trees. 12. The limits of grading shall be staked prior to the meeting and verified for compliance by the project arborist. 13. Protective fencing shall be installed as specified on page 4 of Mr. Anderson's report prior to grading commencing or the arrival of heavy equipment to the site. Its precise location shall be delineated by the project arborist on the final set of plans and identified with the general contractor in the field. Where near any approved grading beneath the canopies of retained trees, it should be established no further than two feet away. Where proposed near the homes' foundation beneath the canopies, it should be established no further than five feet away. 14. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) as well as outside from beneath canopies of Ordinance-sized trees not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, surface scraping, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 15. The following shall be displayed on 8.5- by I1-inch signs (minimum) and attached to the fencing every 50 feet on the side facing construction activities: "Warning - Tree Protection Zone - this fence shall not be removed. Violators are subject to a penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." 16. The location of protective fencing should be supported, in the form of a letter submitted to the Community Development Department, by the project arborist prior to development permits being issued. 17. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed according to the project arborist's recommendations. Roots encountered during trenching should remain intact and be tunneled beneath. 18. Soil must not be displaced downhill beneath the trees' canopies. If accidentally spilled, it should be shoveled away to expose natural grade. To help avoid this from occurring, temporary silt fencing should be installed on the uphill side of the protective fencing and remain in place throughout construction. 19. Each recommendation presented in the `Design Guidelines' that applies to the construction aspect of this project shall be followed. DeSantis Property, Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road, Los Gatos Page 4 of 5 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department i I David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 10, 2006 20. The removal of existing plants, shrubs or groundcover beneath the canopies must be manually performed and great care taken to avoid excavating soil during the process. Trees and large shrubs being removed beneath or near the canopies should be first cut to grade and their stumps ground rather than being pulled up using an excavator. 21. The pruning and removal of trees must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA Standards. 22. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. In addition, fuel should not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 100 feet of the trees' trunks. 23. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies. Where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. DeSantis Property, Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road, Los Gatos Page 5 of 5 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care July 27, 2006 Suzanne Davis Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: DeSantis Residence; Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road, Los Gatos Dear Suzanne: I have received and reviewed the following documents prepared in connection with the future development of the above-referenced site: [1] Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan (Sheet C-1) by Richard Irish Engineering, dated April 2006; [2] the report by Mr. Douglas Anderson of Anderson's Tree Care, dated 2%28/06; and [3] an email by Mr. Anderson, dated 3/1/06. This letter presents my comments; all recommendations provided herein should be used in conjunction with my original report dated 2/10/06. 1. The revised design identifies that 28 trees of Ordinance-size are in direct conflict with the proposed design. They include #846-848, 850-860, 894-898, 930, 958, 959, 981- 983 and 989-991. Of these, #855 and 859 are recommended as viable specimens for relocation rather than removal, hence, reducing the number of removals to 26. 2. Though shown on the plan as being retained, an additional seven trees would be severely impacted and subjected to premature decline and/or instability. They include #861, 863, 893, 927, 931, 960 and 961. The retention and adequate protection of these trees at their present location is preferred and will require adherence to the minimum setbacks specified within my original report, as well as documents by Mr. Anderson. Based on Sheet C-l, it appears the grading design could potentially be modified (through using one or more retaining walls) for protecting trees #861, 863, 931 and 960. As for #893, 927 and 961, unless the setbacks from the trees can be achieved (which does not appear likely without significant design revisions), I suggest their relocation. P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763 1 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consultin,; & Tree Care July 27, 2006 DeSantis Residence page 2 of 2 The Partial Site/Landscape Plan attached to Mr. Anderson's 2/28/06 report includes trees that were missing from the original design and presents a more accurate representation of the trees' locations (in accordance with recommendations #1 and 2, page 2, of my original report). However, Sheet C-1 does not contain the changes and should be modified accordingly. 4. On Sheet C-1, the dashed line delineating the limits of grading should be modified. 5. I recommend the future location of each tree that will be transplanted is identified on the final set of landscape plans. Sincerely, David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763 I^ j W F II I ! te ~ r - j I ; I ~ - s s' f % i^ / ~ ~ X03 <c - ~C 11 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR LANDS OF DESANTIS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 69 TRACT 6514 KENNEDY ROAD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA MARCH 17, 2006 BY UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 19 of 40 improvements. During such an earthquake, it is our opinion that the danger from fault offset through the site is negligible. RECOMMENDATIONS Because the proposed project is still in a relatively early phase of development, it is conceivable that changes and additions will be made to the proposed development concept following the submission of this report. We recommend that as various changes and additions are made we be consulted to evaluate the geotechnical aspects of these modifications. As currently planned, the bedrock ridge in the central portion of the property will be lowered by up to approximately 25 feet to construct the proposed main building pad. The residence will be located on the main building pad at Elevation 637 in the central portion of the subject property. A swimming pool and pool cabana will be located south of the residence at approximately the same elevation. An art studio is planned on the existing level pad at approximately Elevation 691, northeast of the main residence. A motor court and attached garage will be located at approximate Elevation 641 along the northeast side of the residence. The proposed driveway will follow the ridge along the north side of the property and connect to Kennedy Road in the southwest corner of the property. A water feature is planned below the driveway in the northwest portion of the property. A bridge is planned to support the driveway across a portion of the proposed water feature. A tennis pavilion is planned at Elevation 592, southwest of the driveway and water feature. Site retaining walls will be required for the driveway construction and for landscaping purposes. Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. - sf r ' - r- I DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 20 of 40 The following recommendations must be incorporated into all aspects of future development: Location of Proposed Improvements The proposed improvements must be confined to the approximate building area shown on Figure 4. Construction of improvements outside of this generalized area is not recommended without written approval from this firm. In addition, if other structures are planned in the future, we should be contacted to evaluate their location and to provide appropriate geotechnical engineering design criteria. Seismic Design Criteria We recommend that the project structural design engineer provide appropriate seismic design _ criteria for proposed foundations and associated improvements. The following information is intended to aid the project structural design engineer to this end and is based on criteria set forth in Chapter 16 of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) (International Conference of Building Officials, 2002). - The subject property is located within Seismic Zone 4, as depicted in Figure 16A-2 of the 2001 CBC. Based on Table 16A-J and the definitions presented in Section 1636A of the 2001 CBC, in our opinion, Soil Profile Type Sc must be used for structural analyses. Appendix A of the report - entitled "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California" (CDMG and USGS, 1996), and Table 16A-U of the 2001 CBC, shows that the San Andreas and Berrocal faults are Copyright - Upp Geotechnolog+, Inc. ■Mww ~.u~w~l~u~~w■ wwv ■&R♦ DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 21 of 40 classified as a Seismic Source Type A and B, respectively. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 6 km from the subject site. The nearest trace of the Berrocal fault zone is located approximately 60 m from the central portion of the subject property. Experience has shown that earthquake-related distress to structures can be substantially mitigated by quality construction. We recommend that a qualified and reputable contractor and skilled craftsmen build the residence and associated improvements. We also recommend that the construction be monitored by the project structural design engineer and project architect to make sure that their designs and recommendations are properly interpreted and constructed. Earthwork We anticipate that an extensive amount of grading will be required to construct building pads, water feature, swimming pool, tennis court, and the driveway. In addition, because a significant amount of soil will be off hauled from the site, we recommend that the material to be used for engineered fill be derived from excavations into the bedrock rather than the colluvium. Any proposed earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations provided below: 1. Clearing and Site Preuaration Any areas to be graded must initially be cleared of all obstructions, including brush, trees not designated to remain, and debris. Holes or depressions resulting from the removal of underground Copyright- Upp Geotechnology, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. v DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 22 of 40 obstructions below proposed finished subgrade levels must be cleared, and backfilled with suitable material compacted to the requirements for engineered fill given below. After clearing, the site must be stripped to a sufficient depth to remove all surface vegetation and organic-laden topsoil. At the time of our field investigation, we estimated that a stripping depth of approximately 3 inches would be required on natural slope areas. This material must not be used as engineered fill; however, it may be used for landscaping purposes. 2. FBI Material In general, on-site materials having an organic content of less than 3% by volume can be used as engineered fill. Material used for fill must not contain rocks or lumps greater than 6 inches in diameter, and no more than 15% of the fill material must be larger than 2%i inches in diameter. Based on our investigation, it is our opinion that the on-site material encountered in the exploration pits should be suitable for use as fill. However, in areas of the tennis court or where structures are planned, we recommend that select fill derived from the bedrock excavations be used. Select fill should have between 7 and 20 percent fine material (passing No. 200 sieve). We recommend that non-supportive colluvial soil be off-hauled or used for landscaping. Any required imported fill must have a Plasticity Index of 15% or less. Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. Blinn /!lA71~l~PU~/A~ w/_"V slur DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation - March 17, 2006 Page 23 of 40 3. Keyways and Benches Unless retained by a wall, fill placed on slopes in excess of 5:1 must be keyed and benched into the underlying supportive material to provide a firm, stable surface for support of the fill. A keyway, located at the toe of proposed fill, must be excavated a minimum of 3 feet into the supportive material, as measured on the downhill side of the keyway. As a minimum, the keyway must be 10 feet wide at its base. Benches generally must be a minimum of 10 feet wide and must be excavated entirely into the supportive material. Based on our investigation, temporary back slopes may be vertically excavated provided they are constructed in the dry season and meet Cal OSHA requirements. Both the keyway and any required benches must be provided with a 2% downslope in the uphill direction to provide resistance to lateral movement and to facilitate proper subdrainage (see Figure 41, Schematic Engineered Fill Diagram). The geotechnical engineer must evaluate the actual location, size, and depth of the required keyway and benches at the time of construction. 4. Subdrains The need for subdrains must be determined by the geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. In general, fill exceeding 5 feet in depth should be provided with a subdrain. Subdrains must consist of a 4-inch diameter rigid heavy-duty perforated pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 17 or equivalent), approved by the soil engineer, embedded in drainrock (crushed rock or gravel). Flexible corrugated pipe should not be used. The pipe must be placed with the perforations down on a 2- to 3-inch bed Copyright- Upp Geotechnology, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. $1 E I DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 24 of 40 of drainrock. The drainrock must be separated from the fill and the native material by a geotextile filter fabric, approved by the soil engineer (see Figure 41). Subdrain pipes must be provided with clean-out risers at their up-gradient ends and at all sharp _ changes in direction. Changes in pipe direction must be made with "sweep" elbows to facilitate future inspection and cleanout. Subdrain systems must be provided with a minimum 2% gradient and must discharge onto an energy dissipater at an appropriate downhill location approved by the soil engineer. 5. Compaction Procedures Prior to fill placement, the surface to receive the fill must be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to approximately the materials' optimum moisture content and then compacted as engineered fill. Fill material must be moisture conditioned to approximately the materials' optimum moisture content and then spread and compacted in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. In general, fill should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction by the Modified Proctor Test method, in general accordance with the ASTM Test Designation D1557 (latest - revision). Under the tennis court and other sensitive structures, fill must be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. uon GCATif "Uni nr.v sue_ DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 25 of 40 6. Permanent Slopes Any proposed cut slopes in the bedrock and any required fill slopes must have gradients no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Any proposed cuts in the bedrock may be steeper than 2:1, _ depending on the nature of the bedrock material. If cuts steeper than 2:1 in the bedrock are planned, we must evaluate the stability of these cuts during construction. If, based on our evaluation, these bedrock cuts cannot support gradients in excess of 2:1, then retaining walls may be required. All graded surfaces or areas of disturbed ground must be revegetated prior to the onset of the rainy season following construction to prevent soil erosion. If vegetation is not established, other erosion control provisions must be employed. Ground cover vegetation, once established, must be properly maintained to provide long-term erosion control. 7. Trench Backfill All utility trenches must be backfilled with compacted engineered fill. If on-site soil is used, the material must be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness, and must be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction by mechanical means only. Imported sand may also be used for backfilling trenches, if it is compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Water jetting - to obtain the minimum degree of compaction in imported sand backfill is not permitted. In all pavement areas, the upper 6 inches of all trench backfill must be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. 7 DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 26 of 40 Foundations The proposed residence and several other structures will be constructed in pads excavated into bedrock. These structures may be supported on conventional shallow spread footing foundations. Structures built over the slopes in areas subject to soil creep must be supported on drilled, straight- shaft friction piers. Although we provide recommendations for both spread footings and drilled piers, it is generally agreed that a drilled pier foundation will perform better during a strong earthquake. 1. Drilled Piers and Grade Beams We recommend that drilled piers have a minimum diameter of 14 inches and be embedded a minimum of 6 feet into the underlying bedrock or the depth of over burden, whichever is greater. Total pier depth will vary across the building site depending on the depth of the non-supportive soil - and the extent of prior grading. - The portion of the piers in the bedrock may be designed using a skin friction value of 450 psf for dead plus live loads, with a 113 increase for transient loads, including wind and seismic. Any portion of the piers in the fill and non-supportive colluvial soil and any point-bearing resistance must be neglected for support. Active loads on the upper portion of the piers in the fill and non-supportive colluvial soil must be figured on the basis of an equivalent fluid weight of 45 pcf taken over 2 pier diameters. The depth of Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 27 of 40 the active loads will vary across the building site depending on the depth of the non-supportive material. Where the surficial soil is removed by grading, active loads will be negligible. However, where proposed structures are built at existing grades, active loads may extend to depths of approximately 8 feet. To facilitate construction, it may be appropriate for the structural engineer to prepare a table that provides pier depths and design based on an active zone that could vary from 0 to 8 feet plus the depth of any proposed fill. Lateral loads can be resisted by the supportive colluvium using a passive pressure equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pcf to a maximum of 2,500 psf. Lateral loads can be resisted by the bedrock using a passive pressure equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 450 pcf to a maximum of 3,500 psf. Passive pressure may be taken over 1'/2 pier diameters for the length of the piers, below the plane at which there is a minimum of 5 feet horizontal separation between the downhill face of the pier and the surface of the supportive colluvium and bedrock (see Figure 42, Schematic Pier Pressure Diagram). The bottoms of the pier excavations must be free of all loose cuttings and soil fall-in prior to the installation of the reinforcing steel and the placement of the concrete. Any accumulated water in the excavations should also be removed prior to the placement of the steel and concrete. The concrete must not be allowed to free-fall from the ground surface, but should be placed from the bottom up. The bedrock at the site has variable consistency and locally can be very hard. We recommend that a high-powered well-maintained drill rig equipped with rock teeth be used to drill the holes. If drilling Copyright - Upp Geotechnolog, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. I ~I s E { DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 28 of 40 refusal is met above the `design depth, UGI and the structural design engineer must be contacted to revise the design recommendations. Hard cobbles or even small boulders may be encountered during drilling. The contractor must plan for this condition in choosing the appropriate means and methods of drilling. As a minimum, piers should be reinforced with a cage of four No. 5 steel reinforcing bars, provided full length. The actual number, size, location, depth, spacing, and reinforcement of the piers must be determined by the structural design engineer based on the anticipated building loads and the soil engineering design parameters provided above. To verify that the piers are founded in material of sufficient supporting capacity, are of sufficient depth, and have been properly prepared, it is essential that we observe the criers as they are being drilled. Grade beams must be reinforced with top and bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit the spanning of local irregularities. In addition, good structural continuity must be provided between the grade beam and the piers. The structural design engineer must determine the actual size and reinforcement of the grade beams. Copyright - Upp GeotechnoloV, Inc. UPP GEOTE[MNOLOGY_ 1N[. DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 29 of 40 2. Spread Footing Spread footings must be embedded a minimum depth of 12 inches into the underlying supportive material. We must observe the footing excavations prior to placing reinforcing steel to evaluate depth into supportive material. Spread footings supported in the bedrock must be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 psf for dead plus live loads, with a 1/3 increase for transient loads, including wind and seismic. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the foundation bottoms , and the supporting subgrade using a friction coefficient of 0.35. As an alternative, a passive pressure equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 450 pcf may be used for footings poured neat in excavations into the bedrock. Spread footings founded in the supportive colluvium must be designed for aft allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf for dead plus live loads, with a 1/3 increase for transient loads, including wind and seismic. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting subgrade using a friction coefficient of 0.35. As an alternative, a passive pressure equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pcf may be used for footings poured neat in excavations into the supportive colluvium. Footings must be located below the plane at which there is a minimum of 5 feet horizontal separation between the downhill face of the footing and the surface of the bedrock or supportive colluvium. Copyright- Upp GeotechnoloV, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. i , DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 30 of 40 All footings adjacent to utility trenches must have their bearing surface below an imaginary plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the trench at a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. Concrete reinforcing must be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the structural _ design engineer; but, as a minimum, all continuous footings must be provided with at least two No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, one placed at the top and one placed at the bottom of the footing, to provide structural continuity and to permit the spanning of any local irregularities. 3. Retainine Walls Site retaining walls should be supported on foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations given above for the support of the proposed residence and associated structures. We recommend that retaining walls be designed to resist both lateral earth pressures and any additional lateral loads caused by surcharge loads on the adjoining ground surface. Where tiered retaining walls are planned, the bearing surface of the foundation for the upper wall must be below a line projected upward at an angle of 45 degrees from the bottom of the lower wall to minimize surcharge on the lower wall. - We recommend that unrestrained walls be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf (see Figure 43, Schematic Retaining Wall Pressure Diagram). Restrained walls must be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pcf plus an additional uniform lateral pressure of 8 H psf, where H = height in feet of backfill above the top of the wall footing. Wherever the walls will be subjected to surcharge loads, they must be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal Copyright- Upp Geotechnology, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 31 of 40 to 1/2 or 1/3 the anticipated surcharge load for restrained or unrestrained walls, respectively. In addition, walls with sloping backfill must be designed for an additional 1 pcf, for each 3 degrees of slope inclination. The preceding pressures assume that sufficient drainage is provided behind the walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures from surface or subsurface water infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by means of a backdrain system consisting of an approximately 1-foot thick curtain of drainrock (crushed rock or gravel) placed behind the wall. The drainrock must be separated from the backfill by a geotextile filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140 or an alternate, approved by the soil engineer. A 4-inch diameter heavy-duty rigid perforated subdrain pipe (Schedule 40, SDR 21 or equivalent), approved by the soil engineer, must be placed with the perforations down on a 2- to 3- inch layer of drainrock at the base of the drain. Where subdrain pipes will be buried at depths greater than 10 feet, Schedule 80 or equivalent pipe should be used. Flexible corrugated pine must not be used. As an alternative, back drainage may consist of an approved drainage mat placed directly against the wall. The bottom of the drainage mat must be in contact with the rigid 4-inch perforated drainpipe embedded in gravel. The mats filter fabric must be placed around the drainpipe and between the pipe and the soil. Details of backdrain options are presented on Figure 44, Schematic Retaining Wall Backdrain Detail. Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 32 of 40 Perforated retaining wall subdrain pipes must be dedicated pipes and must not connect to the surface drain system. The subdrain pipes should be installed with a positive gradient of at least I% and must _ be provided with clean-out risers at their up-gradient ends and at all sharp changes in direction. Changes in pipe direction must be made with "sweep" elbows to facilitate future inspection and cleanout. The perforated pipes must be connected to buried solid pipes to convey collected runoff to discharge onto an energy dissipater at an appropriate downhill location, approved by the geotechnical engineer. Backfill placed behind the walls must be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction, using light compaction equipment, in accordance with the compaction procedures given above. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be appropriately temporarily braced, as the situation requires. If backfill consists entirely of drainrock, it should be placed in approximately 2-foot lifts and must be compacted with several passes of a vibratory plate compactor. We recommend that annual maintenance of retaining wall backdrain systems be performed. This maintenance must include inspection and flushing to make sure that subdrain pipes are free of debris and are in good working order; and inspection of subdrain outfall locations to verify that introduced water flows freely through the discharge pipes and that no excessive erosion has occurred. If erosion is detected, we must be contacted to evaluate its extent and to provide mitigation recommendations, if needed. Copyright - Upp GeotechnoloV, Inc. Elan f.1CATCtr UNn1 nAV Ewe DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 33 of 40 4. Concrete Slabs It is anticipated that concrete slabs-on-grade may be used for the garage, basement, patios, and walkways. We recommend that slabs-on-grade be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of non- expansive fill compacted to 90% relative compaction to provide a uniform surface for slab support. Prior to placement of the non-expansive fill, the subgrade must be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and compacted to 90% relative compaction. Prior to placement of reinforcing steel, the surface of the non-expansive fill should be proof-rolled to provide a smooth firm surface for slab support. In areas where floor wetness is undesirable, 4 inches of free-draining gravel must be placed beneath the floor slab to serve as a capillary barrier between the subgrade soil and the slab. In order to minimize vapor transmission, a heavy-duty, impermeable membrane must be placed over the gravel. - The membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to protect it during construction. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to the placement of the concrete. The gravel, moisture barrier and sand may be used in lieu of the upper 6 inches of recommended non-expansive fill. The preceding recommendations reflect the current standard of practice for geotechnical engineers. There is no guarantee that these measures will prevent all future moisture intrusion. If necessary, a qualified waterproofing consultant should provide waterproofing design. Slab reinforcement must be provided in accordance with anticipated use and loading; but, at a minimum, slabs must be reinforced with No. 3 rebar on 18-inch centers each way, placed mid- Copyright - Upp Geotechnolov, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 34 of 40 height in the slab. We recommend that the reinforcing be supported from below on concrete blocks (or similar) during concrete pouring to make sure that it remains mid-height in the slab. To help control cracking, concrete slabs should be grooved at 10-foot intervals or in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. 5. Driveway and Access Road We understand that asphalt pavement is planned for the cut-fill access road that leads up to the building site from Kennedy Road. Using a traffic index of 4 and an R-value of 34 obtained from laboratory testing on the bedrock material placed as fill, we calculated a pavement design of 1'/2 - inches of AC (asphalt) over 6 inches of AB (baserock). The AB should be compacted to 90% relative compaction. In areas overlying a utility trench, the upper 6-inches of trench backfill should be compacted to 95% relative compaction. In areas underlain by shallow bedrock, the upper 6 inches of the bedrock must be scarified and - compacted to 90% relative compaction in accordance with the recommendations given above. In areas underlain by colluvial soil, we recommend that at least 12 inches of the colluvial soil be removed and replaced with engineered fill derived from the bedrock. As an alternative, 12 inches of AB may be utilized. Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. 119D AQAirlFrU NAI nrav_ INC. DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 35 of 40 6. Tennis Pavilion We understand that a tennis pavilion is planned on the slope south of the water feature and driveway. At this time, the proposed tennis court will be situated at an Elevation of 592. We anticipate that the tennis pavilion will be constructed on a fill pad. The downhill edge of the proposed fill pad will be up to approximately 15 feet above the existing grade. A portion of the pad will be underlain by colluvium. In general, tennis courts are highly sensitive structures that can tolerate only minor differential movement. - We recommend that the proposed building pad be over excavated and underlain by a uniform thickness of fill. Based on the proposed elevations, we recommend that the building pad be supported on a minimum of 20 feet of uniform engineered fill. The fill thickness under the proposed tennis court must not vary by more than 2 percent. A keyway must be located at the toe of the proposed fill and down slope of the proposed tennis court location. The keyway must be excavated a minimum of 3 feet into the supportive material, as measured on the downhill side of the keyway. As a minimum, the keyway must be 10 feet wide at its base (see Figure 45, Schematic Tennis Pavilion Fill Diagram). Only select fill derived from the volcanic rock may be used. All engineered fill must be compacted to 95% relative compaction. Fill must be placed and drainage must be provided in accordance with the recommendations provided in the section headed "Earthwork". Copyright - Upp Geotechnology. Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 36 of 40 7. Swimmine Pool Shell At the time of our investigation, the final swimming pool configuration had not been determined. We recommend that the new swimming pool be entirely supported in the underlying bedrock. In _ general, we recommend that any upper portions of the pool shell in soil or fill be designed as a free- standing structure capable of resisting an internal pressure equivalent to a fluid weight of 65 pcf. Portions of the pool supported in the bedrock may be designed as a conventional soil-supported - shell. We recommend that the pool shell be designed with a pressure relief valve or, alternatively, a gravity subdrain system. Drainage Control of surface drainage is critical to the successful development of the proposed improvements. The results of improperly controlled runoff may include foundation heave and/or settlement, - erosion, gullying, ponding, and potential slope instability. Surface water must be prevented from ponding in pavement areas and adjacent to the foundation of the proposed structures. Pavement - areas must be constructed for proper drainage by sloping them away from proposed structures and by providing area drains. To mitigate ponding water adjacent to the proposed structures, we recommend that the ground surface around the structures be provided with . a positive gradient of at least 5% sloping away from the structures for a minimum distance of 5 feet or, as an alternative, area drains could be installed to collect surface runoff. We recommend that the proposed structures be provided with roof gutters and downspouts. Water collected in the gutters must not be allowed to Copyright - Upp Geotechnotogy, Inc. Bona !4lA FIVAPUvflb ~-v ■YA' DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 37 of 40 discharge freely onto the ground surface adjacent to the foundation and must be conveyed away from the residence via buried closed conduits or lined surfaces. Where downspouts are connected to buried pipes, they must be provided with slip joint connectors or cleanouts (see Figure 46, Schematic Downspout Cleanout Detail) to facilitate maintenance. While control of surface drainage should prevent water from ponding in the crawlspace areas beneath structures, we also recommend that crawlspace areas be graded to slope to one or more low areas. These low areas must be provided with area drains to collect any water that may accumulate in the crawlspaces. Concentrated surface runoff must not be allowed to flow over the top of any artificial slope. If necessary, the ground surface at the top of the slope should be graded to slope away from the slope, or a berm or lined drainage ditch must be provided at the top of the slope. In addition, surface runoff must not be allowed to pond adjacent to retaining walls. Lined drainage ditches must be provided at the tops of retaining walls located at the base of descending slopes. All collected water must be conveyed away from the residence via buried closed conduit or hard surfaced drainage way and discharged onto an energy dissipater at an appropriate downslope location approved by the soil engineer-. Energy dissipaters may consist of an approximately 6-foot long "T" fitting of perforated rigid pipe placed in a shallow trench and covered with a mound of cobbles (see Figure 47, Schematic Energy Dissipater Detail). Discharge must not be located on or adjacent to steep, potentially unstable terrain. Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 38 of 40 We recommend that annual maintenance of the surface drainage systems be performed. This maintenance must include inspection and testing to make sure that roof gutters and downspouts are in good working order and do not leak; inspection and flushing of area drains to make sure that they are free of debris and are in good working order; and inspection of surface drainage outfall locations to verify that introduced water flows freely through the discharge pipes and that no excessive erosion has occurred. If erosion is detected, this office must be contacted to evaluate its extent and to provide mitigation recommendations, if needed. PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING We must be retained to review the final grading, foundation, and drainage control plans in order to verify that our recommendations have been properly incorporated into the proposed project. WE MUST BE GIVEN AT LEAST ONE WEEK TO REVIEW THE PLANS AND PREPARE A PLAN REVIEW LETTER We also must be retained to observe the grading and the installation of foundations and drainage systems in order to: • Verify that the actual soil conditions are similar to those encountered in our investigation • Provide us with the opportunity to modify the foundation design, if variations in conditions are encountered • Observe whether the recommendations of our report are followed during construction Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. NEED GffffYCrYi/AI nr.v INC DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 39 of 40 Sufficient notification prior to the start of construction is essential in order to allow for the scheduling of personnel to insure proper monitoring. WE MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE ANTICIPATED START-UP DATE. IN ADDITION. WE MUST BE GIVEN AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS NOTICE PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY ASPECTS OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE MUST OBSERVE. The phases of construction to be observed by this firm must include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. EARTHWORK: During construction to observe keyway and bench excavations, evaluate the need for subdrainage, and to test compaction of engineered fill 2. DRILLED PIER EXCAVATION: During drilling to evaluate depth to supportive material and final pier depths 3. FOOTING EXCAVATION: Prior to placement of reinforcing steel to evaluate depth to supportive material _ 4. RETAINING WALL BACKDRAIN: During installation, if retaining walls are planned 5. RETAINING WALL BACKFILL: During backfill to observe and test compaction, if retaining walls are planned 6. SLABS-ON-GRADE: Prior to and during placement of non-expansive fill to observe the subgrade preparation and to test compaction of non-expansive fill 7. SURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS: Near completion to evaluate installation and discharge locations 8. SUBSURFACE INTERCEPT DRAIN: During construction to observe the depth, gradient, and backfill. 9. SWEM IING POOL EXCAVATION: Prior to placing subdrain Copyright - Upp Geotechnology, Inc. YPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. I a DeSantis - Geotechnical Investigation March 17, 2006 Page 40 of 40 10. SWUMNU vG POOL SUBDRAIN: Prior to placing steel A Bibliography, a List of Aerial Photographs, and the following Figures and Table are attached and complete this report: SITE LOCATION MAP REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP REGIONAL SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP SITE PLAN AND ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC MAP GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A-A' THROUGH F-F......................... KEY TO LOGS SUMMARY OF FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES _ LOGS OF BORINGS 1 THROUGH 6 LOGS OF EXPLORATION PITS 1 THROUGH 13 PLASTICITY CHART TRIAXIAL TEST RESULTS SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS (STATIC) NO. 1-3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS (PSEUDO-STATIC) NO. 1-3.......... SCHEMATIC ENGINEERED FILL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC PIER PRESSURE DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC RETAINING WALL PRESSURE DIAGRAM - SCHEMATIC RETAINING WALL BACKDRAIN DETAIL SCHEMATIC TENNIS PAVILION FILL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC DOWNSPOUT CLEANOUT DETAIL SCHEMATIC ENERGY DISSIPATER DETAIL MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITIES Copyright - Upp Geotechnotogy, Inc. FIGURE NO. 1 2 3 4 5-10 11 12 13-19 20-32 33 34 35-37 38-40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 TABLE NO. I UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. NOTICE Town of Los Gatos Environmental Impact Review Mitigated Negative Declaration Lead Agency: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos. CA 95031 RECEIVED A« 2 vu ub _u Project Title and Location: DeSantis Residence (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 537-29-007 & 008) Kennedy Road at Forrester Road Planned Development Application PD-06-03 Negative Declaration ND-07-04 Project Description: The 13.71-acre project site is currently undeveloped. The property generally consists of western sloping hillsides that extend eastward to form a small ridge in the northern and central portions of the site. The project site's hillside grasslands are interspersed with oak woodland areas throughout the property. The project applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Development application that would allo%% construction of a new residence, pool, art studio, and accessory' structures. The project would entail development of a residence, swimming pool, pool house (cabana), and art studio on the upper portion of the ridge in the center of the project site, as well as a tennis court, pavilion, and landscaped area on the lower slopes of the site. The tennis court would be located approximately 180 feet west of the house. The proposed home would be a two-story structure situated on an excavated pad encompassing 11,363 square feet (s.f.) of livable space. An attached five-car garage and cellar area would provide 1,778 s.f. of building area, while an attached guest house over the garage would add 1,148 s.f. of living area. The art studio, cabana, tennis pavilion, and gate structure would contribute 1,700 s.f. of development to the project site. Total structural development on the site would be 15,989 s.f. In addition to the proposed home, a new driveway would be developed from the site's Kennedy Road frontage to the proposed residence. A proposed gate and gatehouse would be located at the driveway intersection with Kennedy Road. The driveway would be a 20-foot wide paved access drive approximately 950 feet in length, connecting to a turnaround and motor court area adjoining the proposed residence. A pool and 840 square-foot detached cabana (with porch and walkways) would be developed on the south side of the house. A tennis court, pavilion, and associated landscaped area would be sited below the house and adjoining the proposed access driveway. The landscape plans for the tennis facilities area include a cascading water feature, pond, and bridge for the access drive. The proposed residential project will include an automatic fire sprinkler system that covers the main residence, the pool cabana, and the art studio. Also, a private on-site fire hydrant would be installed as required by the Fire Department. The location of the fire hydrant would be determined in consultation with the Fire Department and would have minimum flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. Sanitary sewer. gas, and storm drain lines would be extended to the proposed home via a utility corridor that is proposed August. 2006 11iti~oted %'egative Declaration - DeSantis Residence. Kettnedv Road at Forrester Rt)mI to extend in a straight alignment up the hill from near the project drivey%av Kennedy Road inter,,ecuon to the proposed residence. Determination: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures listed belo%, have been added to the project, mitigating potential impacts to Report will not be required, less -than -significant level. An Environmental Impact Statement of Reasons to Support Finding: 1. Aesthetics: Views of the project site are available from lower elevations, principally from Kennedy Road along the southern perimeter of the project site and from the Forrester Road neighborhood adjoining the northern portion of the site. However, these views are mostly screened by existing oak trees located on the slopes below the proposed location for the residential building on the property. The project site is also visible from the nearby homes located on nearby ridges to the north. south and southeast taccessed from Kennedy Road), and possibly homes to the east along the project ridge. Views of the project site primarily consist of an oak-covered hillside, with views of the potential home site from adjacent and nearby homes mostly screened by the site's existing tree cover. Since the majority of the 143 oak trees surrounding the proposed home would be retained, existing tree cover would screen the proposed home from lower elevations (including 11 adjacent homes to the north and west as well as the views from public spaces on Kennedy and Forrester roads). However. project development would alter existing views of the site from properties on hillsides to the south. east and north. Homes on these distant or nearby ridges that overlook the property would view the proposed home and other proposed facilities. However, these views would not significantly change with the project since there are numerous existing homes in the surrounding area that are currently visible from these homes. The Greatest change in views would occur at a few homes to the south where a row of oak trees on the project's southern ridge would be removed and replaced by a pool and cabana. Since there are no existing trees south of the trees to be removed, no screening would be provided by trees to be retained on the lower part of this slope. Although this could be a significant change in views from these homes. this change would not be considered a significant impact based on the CEQA criteria outlined above. It should be noted these views already include views of development on nearby ridges and hillsides. The project would incrementally increase the extent of development contained in these views. To minimize the change in views, the following measure is recommended for consideration by the Town during Architecture and Site review: RECOMMENDATION: During Architecture and Site review, the Town shall review 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. The proposed home would be sited on a small knoll at the lower end of a ridge that rises eastward from northern central portion of the project site. The building pad for the proposed house and attached facilities would require extensive grading with approximate reductions in elevations of up to 25 feet. The establishment of a louvered building pad elevation in conjunction with the retention of screening oak woodland would minimize the visibility of the proposed residential development. Project plans submitted for the project include a sife'section diagram with cross-sections depicting the extent of screening that would result from planned grading and oak woodland preservation. Since views of the proposed home from surrounding areas would be mostly screened, the project is not expected to significantly alter any existing scenic vistas available in this area. August. 2006 Viti=ated .Ac~ative Declaration - DeSantis Residence, k'enned~ Road at Forrester Road Outdoor lighting would be provided on the exterior of the home. Project exterior lighting «ould not be expected to adversely affect nighttime views in the area due to screening provided by the existing tree coyer and distance between the project and surrounding residences. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance i Section 29.10.09030 %vould prohibit the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlights) onto any area outside the project boundary. 2. Agriculture Resources: The project site consists of undeveloped hillsides and a ridge generally covered with oak woodlands. and zoned for residential use. The project site's sloping topography limits its agricultural potential. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural resources at the site. Since the site is not in agricultural use. the project would not adversely affect am existing agricultural operations. 3. Air Quality: The project would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan (CAP). The most recent CAP was completed in 2000. The consistency of the proposed project with the CAP is determined by comparing the project's consistency with the Los Gatos General Plan. Since the CAP is based on the Town's General Plan land use designations and population projections of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that were in effect at the time the CAP was approved, consistency with the General Plan would indicate consistency with the CAP. The project would be consistent with the use and density allowed on the project site by the Los Gatos General Plan, and therefore, the project would be consistent with the CAP. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the BAAQMD as non-attainment for ozone and inhalable particulates (PM,o). According to the Town Planning Department, the proposed project would result in a net traffic increase of 10 daily trips, with 1 AM peak hour trip and 1 PM peak hour trip. Air emissions increases associated with the proposed project would not be considered significant since the size of the proposed project would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential significance. The BAAQMD threshold level for potential significance is 375 single-family units. At or above this size, traffic generated by the project would have the potential to generate significant local and regional air quality impacts, and an air quality impact assessment would need to be prepared and submitted to the BAAQMD for review. Adjacent residential uses are considered to be sensitive receptors. Proposed grading activities would Generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. The project parcel is 13.71 acres, and project construction would result in surface disturbance of more than one acre: surface disturbance is not expected to exceed three acres. The BAAQMD does not require quantification of construction emissions, but considers any project's construction-related impacts to be less than significant if required dust-control measures are implemented. The Town's standard dust control conditions require implementation of the.BAAQMD's standard dust control measures (required on sites of three acres or less), which would mitigate the project's construction-related air quality impacts to a less-than -significant level. 4. Biological Resources: The majority of the project site can be characterized as oak woodland with grassland areas interspersed among the stands of oaks. The oak woodland includes primarily coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), along with valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), and black oak (Quercus kelloggi); these oaks constitute 97 percent of the 143 trees listed in the arborist's inventory. The potentially affected oak woodland occurs primarily on the western portion of the project site. The central portion of the project site consists of a small east-west trending knoll covered with non-native annual grasses; the proposed residence, auxiliary structures, and access driveway have been planned for development primarily in the grassland areas to avoid the loss of oak woodland and preserve Non-native annual grasses common to this habitat include slender wild oats (Avena barbata), cheat grass (Bromus August, 2006 3 ~ a i fl 9 11iti~rrted Segatire Declaration - DeSantis Residence. Kennedy Road at Forrester Road teetorum). barmard barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporintun) and Italian %%Ild rye (Lolium multill'>runn. while common non-native forbs include bristly ox-tongue (Picris ecliioides), vello« star tlu~tlc (Centouria ~olstitialis). Italian thistle (Carduus plcnocephalus). and milk thistle (Silvbwn marianuui)_ The grassland areas on the project site are disced annually for fire prevention purposes, as required by the To« n. Policy O.P.3.3 of the Open Space Element of the Los Gatos General Plan emphasizes preservation of public and private landscaping along Town streets. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3-1 of the Ordinance. Tree Canopy - Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements rangy*e from two to six 24-inch box size trees or two 36-inch andlor 48-inch box size trees. depending on the canopy size of the tree to be removed. A tree survey and assessment of these resources on the project site was prepared by a qualified arborist. Douglas Anderson in November 2005, and reviewed by the Towns arborist, Arbor Resources. in February 2006. The Anderson report indicates that the project site supports over 600 trees. with the majority of these occurring on the lower portion of the property in the vicinity of Kennedy Road. The tree inventory was limited to those parts of the project site that would be affected by development proposed as part of the project. Consequently, Anderson's tree inventory identifies 143 trees occurring on the upper elevations of the site where proposed project facilities would be located. Arbor Resources completed its review of Anderson's 2005 report in February and Anderson's 2006 report in July 2006 and report findings and recommendations from both Arbor Resources reports are included as Appendix A. Anderson's 2006 report responded to Arbor Resources recommendations: Anderon indicates that grading plans were revised so that six trees would be retained (Trees #861. 864. 893. 927. and 931), 29 trees would be removed (Trees #846-848, 850-860, 894-898. 928. 930. 958. 959. 981-983. and 989-991) and 46 trees could be affected by construction. Arbor Resources determined that 28 ordinance-size trees would be in direct conflict with the proposed project (all of the same trees except #928, a multi-stem black walnut). Of these. Trees #855 and 859 are recommended as viable specimens for relocation rather than removal, hence reducing the number of trees to be removed to 26. Although shown on the plan as being retained, there are an additional seven trees that would be severely affected by the proposed project and could be subject to premature decline and or instability. They include Trees #861, 863, 893, 927, 931, 960 and 961. To minimize potential impacts on these seven trees, Arbor Resources recommends that the grading design be modified (by constructing one or more retaining walls) to protect four of these trees (Trees #861, 863, 931 and 960). Major design changes would be required to retain the three remaining trees (Trees #893, 927 and 961), and therefore. Arbor Resources recommends relocation of these trees if they cannot be retained and adequateIN protected. To minimize potential damage to trees to be retained, the following measures will be required by the Town and these measures will reduce potential biological impacts to a less-than-significant level: MITIGATION: The project applicant shall be required to implement the 28 recommendations made by the Town's consulting arborist, Arbor Resources, in reports dated February 10, 2006 and Jul-, 27. 2006. These recommendations are included in Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will be responsible for ensuring that all recommendations made by the arborist are reflected in final August, 2006 4 iliti,uted .~egutire Declaration - DeSantis Residence, Kennedy Roud at Fori-c~wr Road project plans. The Parks Division of the Parks and Public Works Department tivill be responsible for ensuring that all tree protection measures are properly implemented during construction. Cultural Resources: The project site is currently undeveloped. In general. the proposed residence. pool facilities, and art studio would be located on the upper elevations of the site while the driveway and tennis court are planned on the relatively steep hillsides in the western part of the property. The potential for encountering cultural resources during project construction would be low due to the sites relatively steep topography, its elevated location away from nearby Ross Creek, and on-going site disturbance for fire control purposes. There is typically a higher potential for encountering archaeological resources in areas adjacent to or near a river or creek. 6. Geology and Soils: A review of the Towns hazards maps indicates that the project site has high potential for fault rupture, low potential for seismic shaking, high shrink-swell potential, no or eery low potential for liquefaction, low to high potential for slope stability hazards, and moderate to eery high erosion hazard. Debris flow hazards were identified for the area along Kennedy Road (near the southern boundary) and the northern slope of the easternmost knoll, just north of where the art studio is proposed. The Town's Fault Map indicates that the southern boundary of the site (along Kennedy Road) is trakersed by a faulrtrace. but location is uncertain. A detailed geotechnical and geological investigation was prepared by UPP Geotechnology, Inc. in March 2006. A copy of this study and other studies referenced in this section are on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. This study involved review of available geologic maps and aerial photographs, drilling 13 exploration pits and six test borings. This investigation concluded that development of the site as proposed is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, provided recommendations in the UPP report are followed. A peer review of this investigation was completed by the Town's geotechnical consultant. Geomatrix, and UPP responded to Geomatrix comments on April 28. 2006. Geomatrix completed a second peer review on May 22. 2006 and determined that subsurface exploration was adequate for the proposed project and all concerns identified in the first peer review had been clarified or resolved. The following discussion is based on information presented by UPP and Geomatrix. The site lies within the seismically active Bay Area, but is not within any of the --Earthquake Fault Zones" established by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972. Geomatrix indicates the project site is located between two traces of the potentially active Berrocal fault zone, one trace is located essentially along Kennedy Road along the southern project boundary, while the other trace is located between 4,400 and 600 feet north of the northern project boundary. The active San Andreas fault zone is located about 3.6 miles southwest of the property. The potential for primary fault ground rupture or coseismic ground deformation is considered to be low. However, the subject property will be subjected to very strong to violent ground shaking during a future large earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault zone, or on one of the other major active faults zones in the region. It should be noted that most of the Bay Area as well as surrounding residences are subject to groundshaking hazards. UPP specifies criteria and standards in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, erosion control, and foundation design. Compliance with applicable UBC requirements would be adequate to address regional seismic safety concerns such as groundshaking. No landslides are mapped on the property although a previous investigation identified areas of "older or ancient landslide deposits" on the north-facing slope of the property. The north-facing slopes of the property are included within a zone of potential earthquake-induced landslides of the California Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Los Gatos 7.5' Quadrangle. According to Geomatrix, the proposed driveway circle, motor court, northeast end of the residence, and associated grading and retaining walls may partially be within this zone. A screening level slope stability analysis of the property was performed in August, 2006 N khtigated Ne~ath e Declaration - DeSantis Residence. Kennedy Road at Forrester Road addition to a static and pseudo-static stability analysis. These analyses indicate minimally acceptahle factors of safety for earthquake loading, and therefore, no additional mitigation was specified h% Geomatnx. The 13.71-acre project site is comprised of an irregular east-west trending ridgeline, with steep slopes north this ridge and moderate to steep slopes on the south side of this edge (both slopes are greater than 30 percent). The proposed access driveway (with bridge) would traverse the large swale located in the western portion of this site. then generally follow the main ridgeline to the center of the proper-t}. The tennis court. pavilion. and landscaped water feature would be located on the south-facing slope of the large swvale. The proposed home, cabana, and pool area would be located on the ridge, while the art studio would be located on the upper portion of this same ridge. Project construction would entail extensive excavation (10.400 cubic yards (cy) of excavation and 280 cy of fill, or a net excavation of 10.120 cs Retaining, wails also would be constructed at specific locations along the project access dnve%%ay. tennis court, homes, and walkways behind the home. In some places, retaining walls would have two or three tiers, and pressures of the upper tiers would likely bear on lower tiers. The type of wall proposed also would affect the amount of overexcavation (thus, land disturbance) that would occur as part of wall construction. The Town will require as a condition of project approval that surface disturbance will be limited to the areas reflected on the proposed Planned Development plans. Given the site's sloping topography. there would be a potential for erosion hazards if soils are subject to concentrated flows. Town requirements (conditions of project approval) will include provision of a complete erosion control plan (including interim erosion control measures and drainage controls such as energy dissipators). Such conditions would reduce potential erosion hazards to a less-than-significant level. Soil engineering conditions were not evaluated as part of UPP's geotechnical investigation. As a condition of project approval, the Town will require completion of a soils report to address soil engineering constraints such as expansivity. The following measures shall be required to reduce identified potentially significant seismic, landslide. erosion, and compressible soil hazards to less-than-significant levels: The following measure shall be required to reduce identified potentially significant seismic and slope stability hazards to less-than-significant levels: MITIGATION: The project design shall incorporate all applicable recommendations in UPP Geotechnology, Inc.'s geotechnical investigation (March 17, 2006) for the proposed project (included as Attachment 2 of the Initial Study) in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and soil engineering constraints. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Building Division of the Community Development and Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that all recommendations are incorporated into the project design and properly implemented during construction. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List. Since the site is undeveloped, the potential for encountering hazardous materials during project construction ,would be low. Therefore, potential public health risks would be less than si anificant. According to the Los Gatos General Plan, the project site is located in a fire hazard area. General Plan Policy S.P.2.3 encourages design and siting of new development in fire hazard areas to minimize hazards to life and property, such as fire preventive site design, access, landscaping and building materials. and August. 2006 6 Mitigated.Aegath e Declaration - DeSantis Residence. Kennedy Road at Forrester Road use of fire suppression techniques. In addition, the project will be required to comply ~kltlt the folloNNin2 standards contained in the Town's Hillside Development Standardsand Guidelines (Januars 2004) to minimize fire hazards: Building locations shall nrinirnil-e exposure to wildfires. • A landscape plan shall be provided and rill be reviewed by the Town staff for eonsistencv vti ith the Fire Deparnnent's recommended plant list. The landscape plan shall create defensible space around the home, and if there is a fire ladder on the propern, it shall be eliminated in an environnrentally sensitive manner. Development shall have adequate fire access. • A dependable and adequate water supple for fire protection and suppression purposes, as required b the Santa Clara Counn, Fire Department, shall be provided for all properties. ■ IV'ater for fire suppression shall be available and labeled before anv framing nrav begirt. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines also provide the following recommendations or guidelines for reducing fire hazards: • Development should avoid areas subject to severe fire danger. In order to achieve this, development should be set back from the crest of a hill, not be located on or adjacent to slopes greater than 30"1, and not be located within densely wooded areas. If this is not possible, measures designed to assure the highest degree of fire prevention and fast effective means of evacuation acrd fire suppression shall be provided. • The fuel load within a defensible space should be minimized by use of selective pruning, thinning and clearing as follows: removal of flammable species and debris, removal of dead, dying or hazardous trees, mow dead grasses, removal of dead wood from trees and shrubs, and thin tree croitins (maximum of 25 percent). • Discontinuous fuel sources should be created and maintained within a defensible space through use of the following techniques: thin vegetation to form discontinuous groupings of trees or shrubs, limb trees tip from the ground, and establish a separation between the lowest branches of a tree and anti understorv shrubs. ■ Landscaping within a defensible space should be designed with fire safety in mind. Landscaping in defensible space should be: fire resistant and drought tolerant, predominantly low-growing shrubs and groundeovers (limit shrubs to 30 percent coverage), limited near foundations (height and densirv). Project Consistency: With respect to building location, the proposed home is located on a ridge that traverses the site: but the driveway, home, art studio, and pool would be located on slopes that are generally less than 30 percent. However, the tennis court, pavilion, and landscaped area appears to be located on slopes over 30 percent. No landscape plan has been prepared to date, but proposed landscaping will be reviewed for consistency with Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines by the Town's landscape consultant (with input from the Fire Department) during Architecture and Site review. To minimize fire hazards, the Santa Clara County Fire Department will require an automatic fire sprinkler system in the proposed home. ' The Fire Department has determined that required adjusted fire flow' is available from area water mains and fire hydrants, and therefore, above ground water tanks will not be required. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan and will require: installation of an approved fire sprinkler system in the residence, art studio, and cabana, an on-site fire hydrant, and improvement of the existing access road and driveway to meet Fire Department standards. August, 2006 7 f a ff 11 81 is _ E - J Vitiated Ve~atire Declaration - DeSantis Residence. Kemieds Road at Forrester Road The Fire Department will also require that access road and driveway improvements be completed prior to the start of proposed home construction. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality: Elevations on the site range from a high of about 750 feet on the eastern perimeter of the property to a lock of about 520 feet at the western end of the property. The site generally consists of an east-west trending ridge along the center of the property. with a small knoll in the center of the site. The southern half of the property consists of steep south-facing hillside slopes: two minor drainage swales occur in the northern central part of the site and drain to the north. with no incised drainage channel in either s%vale. Sheet flow on the rest of the site drains to the ~kest and south. No free groundwater was encountered in any of the excavations performed as part of tile geotechnical investigation by UPP Geotechnolow, Inc. The surface drainage on the undeveloped site is characterized as uncontrolled sheet flo« cross the property from the central upper elevations and site knoll to the south, west. and north. The site is undeveloped with storm flows percolating on the project site. Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces in the project vicinity flow into the Town of Los Gatos storm drain system on Kennedv Road, discharging into Ross Creek, ultimately draining northward into San Francisco Bay. Storm Drainage. With site development, the project would construct 46,300 square feet (s.f.) of impervious surface area on the 13.71-acre property, or cover approximately 8 percent of the site. The project proposes a pervious concrete driveway to reduce the extent of storm drainage runoff along the 1.050-foot long hillside access drive. Project plans specify a driveway design that directs storm flows to the edge of the pavement and into a landscaped perimeter to disperse sheet flows leaving the dri veway This would ensure that storm flows remain on-site for local infiltration. The drainage plans for the proposed residence and associated structures indicate that downspouts would discharge to finished surfaces with splash blocks to be used to disperse storm flows. Additionally, subdrains around the residence and along retaining walls would collect drainage and convey accumulated flows to rip-rap pads that would disperse drainage flows for on-site infiltration in areas immediately below the graded building pad. Project plans indicate storm drain pipes to be used for drainage control: however, plans do not indicate the locations of catch basins and inlets. These improvements will be defined as part of the Storm Water Management Plan. which will be required by the Town as a condition of project approval. Flood Hazards. The Santa Clara Valley Water District's (SCVWD) flood zone maps and the Town of Los Gatos Safety Element Flood Hazards Map both indicate that the project site is not located within the 100- year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the project area. Water (duality. New, more stringent water quality regulations of the Clean Water Act have recently been triggered because the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit program has failed to protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's creeks and the South San Francisco Ba\. Evidence includes violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of toxic substances. and fish consumption health advisories. These new regulations require that all discharges shall comply with Provision C.3. New and Redevelopment Performance Standards of Order No. 01-024 of the NPDES permit program. The project site is located within the Ross Creek watershed: runoff from the site eventually discharges to piped systems that discharge into this creek and eventually into the Bay. As a condition of project approval, the Town will require preparation and submittal of interim and final erosion control plans to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department as well as submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. August, 2006 8 tliti;ated %egarh e Declaration - DeSarttis Residence. KenliedN Road at Forrester Road since the area of disturbance (including the driyeway and underground utilities) exceeds one acre. Although the project includes a single-family home o%hicli is exempt from C:3 Group I and requirements). the home is part of a larger, planned development. Since the project would develop ;]lure than one acre of impervious surfaces. the Town will require preparation of a Storm water Management Plan, whicli shall delineate source control measures and BMPs (Best Management Practices) in addition to sizing calculations per C.3 requirements. As a project condition, the To~%n Fill also require that the property o%Nner enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of proposed stormwater filtration devices. 9. Land Use and Planning: The Los Gatos General Plan designates the project site for "Hillside Residential" and this designation allows for residential uses at densities of zero to one unit per acre. Since the site is 13.71 acres, the General Plan could allow up to 13 single-family residences ~Nithout slope considerations. Even with slope considerations, as implemented under the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed single-family residence would be within allowable densities. The Zoning Ordinance designates the project site as "Hillside Residential," which allows 25 to 10 acres per dwelling with a minimum lot size of one acre. Since the proposed single-family residence would be located on a 13.71-acre site. it would be consistent with densities allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The project site is surrounded by existing residential uses. Access would be from Kennedy Road and a private driveway. The proposed residential use would be similar to surrounding residential uses and therefore, would not pose land use compatibility problems. It should be noted that the proposed residence includes a tennis court, pavilion landscaped area with water features, pool, cabana, and art studio. «hich are more extensive than occurs on some adjacent lots. However, there are a number of homes in the Kennedy Road area that include tennis courts and pools, and therefore, these proposed facilities are not unique to this area. 10. Mineral Resources: The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally - important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity. 11. Noise: The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heave equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. With controls, construction noise levels could be made to comply with the Town Noise Ordinance. Residential uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive. uses or sensitive receptors. There are single-family residences located on properties surrounding the project site. Existing residences to the north are separated from the nearest development by approximately 200 feet or more, while the closest residences to the southwest (across Kennedy Road) are located 350 feet from the tennis court area and 600 feet from the proposed residence. The closest home to the south (across Kennedy Road) is approximately 500 feet from the proposed pool. The closest home to the east (along the same ridge) is located approximately 600 to 700 feet from the proposed art studio. At 200 feet (the closest distance), the ordinance noise limit (85 dBA at 25 feet) would result in maximum noise levels of 67 dBA at the closest residences to the north. Construction noise levels would be less at residences to the southwest, south. and east since they are located from proposed facilities. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds 45 to 60 dBA. To maintain such interior noise levels, exterior noise levels at the closest residences (with windows closed) should not exceed 70 to 80 ugust. 2006 9 N tlitigated Vegative Declaration - DeSantis Residence, Kennedt Road at Forrester Road dBA and this exterior noise level is used as a significance threshold or criterion. MaximUfll construction noise levels would not exceed this criterion. Therefore. enforcement of time restrictions and noise level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance could maintain construction noise levels at acceptable levels and speech interference effects would not be expected when heat y equipment is operated on the project site. 12. Population and Housing: The proposed project would develop one single-family residence and, therefore. would not result in intensification of residential uses or significantly increase local or regional population. Since the project site is surrounded by existing residential uses. ne~c roadwacs or utilitie" would only serve the proposed project site. Access roads and utilities are currently available to residential uses immediately adjoining the subject property. Consequently, the project would not induce new gro%\ th. 13. Public Services: Services are currently provided to the residential development around the project site. The Los Gatos Police Department and the Santa Clara County Fire Department provide emergenc% and public safety services in the project area. The project would not significantly increase demand for public services since this is an in-fill development and services are already provided to the surrounding area. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan and will require: installation of an approved fire sprinkler system (since required fire flow is not available) in the residence. art studio. and cabana: a private, on-site fire hydrant with a minimum acceptable flow of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure: and improvement of the existing access road and driveway to meet Department fire apparatus access and driveway turnaround standards. The Fire Department will also require that access road and driveway improvements be completed prior to the start of proposed home construction. the driveway and turnaround (nearest the house) shall not be allowed to double as Quest parking, and bridges shall be designed in accordance with accepted standards as identified in Article 90 of the Fire Code. 14. Recreation: The proposed addition of one residential unit would incrementally add new population to the area, and thereby increase the demand for recreational services. This incremental increase would be less than significant given the small size of the project. Also, the proposed project includes the development of on-site recreational facilities, including tennis court, swimming pool, and studio, and extensive open space area, further minimizing the potential for increased demand on recreational facilities. 15. Transportation and Traffic: The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) specifies that a project with a traffic impact of 19 or less additional AM or PM peak hour trips could be approved without a comprehensive traffic report if it is determined that the benefits of the project to the Town would outweigh the impact of increased traffic. However, the project would be subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee. The proposed single-family residence would result in a net increase of 10 trips per day, with 1 trip occurring during the AM peak hour and 1 trip occurring during the PM peak hour. According to the Town's traffic determination, traffic generated by the proposed project would represent a minor impact and no additional traffic studies would be required. The proposed driveway would be approximately 950 feet long, 20 feet wide, and the preliminary driveway profile indicates that the driveway's maximum grade would be 16 percent. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan, and the Department will require improvement of the existing access road and driveway to meet Department fire apparatus access and driveway turnaround standards. The Fire Department will also require that the driveway and turnaround (nearest the house) shall not be allowed to double as guest parking, and bridges shall be designed in accordance with accepted standards as identified in Article 90 of the Fire Code. August, 2006 10 iliti ated Negath e Declaration - Mantis Residence. Kenned, Rocad tit Forrester Road The proposed driveway would terminate at the proposed residence. There is currently a dirt path that extends to the upper knoll yvhere`the art studio is proposed. A stairwa,, is proposed behind (east oft the proposed home and it would connect the home with this dirt path. No vehicle or emergency access is proposed to be extended to the proposed art studio or cabana. The lack of emergency access is not considered a significant impact because the Fire Department is requiring that the home, cabana, and art studio be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems and both the cabana and art studio are not living units. The proposed driveway would intersect Kennedy Road approximately 200 feet east of the Kennedy Road,,Forrester Road intersection. It would be located in a relatively straight section of Kennedy Road with sight distances of approximately 100 feet to the east and 200 feet to the west. Such sight distances would be adequate for expected travel speeds on this section of Kennedy Road. Therefore. no safety problems associated with sight distance would be anticipated. The Town's Zoning Ordinance would require provision of two parking spaces for the proposed single- family residence. The Hillside Specific Plan requires four additional spaces when no on-street parking is allowed. The project would meet the parking requirements by provision of a five-car garage and additional parking spaces in the motor court area. Construction Impacts. Project construction would entail extensive excavation (10.400 cubic yards (cy) of excavation and 280 cy of fill, or a net excavation of 10,120 cy). Export of 10.120 cy of material off-site could generate up to 850 truckloads. Assuming 12 cy per haul truck, the project could generate a total of 1.700 one-way truck trips. Since the Town will prohibit haul truck operations on local roads between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. as well as 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., trucks operations would occur 6.5 hours per day. Assuming approximately 9 trucks could be filled per hour, a total of 18 truck trips per hour or 117 truck trips per day would be generated for approximately 15 work days or three weeks. If hourly truck volumes were lower, then duration of haul truck operations on Kennedy Road would be longer. The Town will require the applicant to work with the Town Parks and Public Works 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 would include, but would not be 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. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris will be required to be covered or at least two feet of freeboard must be maintained. This requirement will reduce potential traffic safety hazards to a less-than-significant level. Utilities and Service Systems: Utilities and services are currently provided to residential uses on properties surrounding the project site. Water and electricity service is available to the project site from facilities that are located near the proposed access driveway at Kennedy Road. Sewer and gas lines would also need to be extended from the end of Kennedy Road to the proposed home. The proposed project would also need to be annexed to the West Valley Sanitation District for sewer service. Utility lines would be located in a utility corridor that is proposed to extend upslope along a corridor from near the project driveway/Kennedy Road intersection to the proposed residence. This trench would appear to avoid slopes over 30 percent. However, project plans do not indicate how utilities would be extended to the art studio, located above the residence. As a condition of project approval, the Town will require that the Planned Development delineate a utility corridor from the home to the art studio and that it be located within areas of disturbance currently identified on the grading plan. Proposed excavation of a utilities trench on steep slopes would pose erosion hazards on affected slopes. The Town's requirement of an erosion control plan (including interim erosion control measures) would reduce potential erosion hazards to a less-than -significant level. However, the interim erosion control plan will need to include specific .August. 2006 11 III _ ! Witigated VeQative Declaration - Mantis Re_cidenee, Kennedv Road at Forrester Road provisions to minimize erosion hazards associated ~%ith the utilits trench that is proposed to extend from Kennedy Road to the proposed residence. Copies of the Initial Study used to make the above recommendation are on file and available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town Community Development Department. 110 East Main Street. Los Gatos. California. Date Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development August. 2006 12 September 27, 2006 John Bourgeois 420 Alberto Way, #37 Los Gatos, California, 95032 Los Gatos Town Council c/o Director of Community Development Town of Los Gatos Re: Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road (PD-06-03, ND-07-04) Dear Council Members, Due to the problems encountered with the FTR system during the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2006, the Director of Community Development has requested that we prepare written comments summarizing our closing remarks on the above referenced project. I am not opposed to the general concept of allowing larger homes in the hillside in exchange for preserving large expanses of open space and I applaud the applicant's pursuit of LEED certification. However, I am strongly opposed to this application. The overall floor area for the project including accessory structures is 16,401 square feet (exclusive of the 6,287 square foot cellar); this is 2.7 times the maximum allowable floor area as outlined in the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G, page 28). Exceptions to the maximum floor area are allowed under the HDS&G when all of the conditions on pages 29 and 30 are met. It is my conclusion that the application does not meet exceptions 3 and 4 in that the project does not minimize grading and is significantly out of compliance with the HDS&G. Below are the specifics that I addressed in my closing remarks: LRDA: The project site has a very large LRDA. However, significant portions of the project are located outside of the LRDA (see the "Partial Site / Landscape Plan" sheet from Landry Design Group), including the pool and tennis pavilion which is explicitly prohibited on slopes greater than 30% (HDS&G, page 48). Development outside of the LRDA is allowed under the HDS&G only when all four of the conditions on page 57 are met; I do not think the project meets even one of those conditions. Excessive Grading: A total of 24,750 cubic yards of grading are being proposed, with approximately 16,000 cubic yards of material proposed for off-haul. Please note that these quantities do not include grading required for the 6,287 square foot cellar, which will substantially increase the grading quantities. This is counter to the general intent of the HDS&G to minimize grading in the hillside. The proposed project also exceeds eight (8) of the Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills as outlined in Table 1 of the HDS&G (page 17). I also have coxicerns that the environmental review (ND-07-04, page 20-21) does not accurately reflect the actual quantity of material being off-hauled, and I feel that the impacts to traffic and air quality during construction should be re-visited. ATTACHMENT 5 Architectural Design: Despite the large LRDA, the project elected to level an existing knoll to create a large flat building area (see Site Sections 1 and 2 of the "Site Section Diagram" from Landry Design Group). This goes against the design objectives in Chapter V of the HDS&G (page 31) in that the building does not reflect the hillside form and is not in harmony with the natural environment. The building foundation should step with the natural slope, and the use of grading to create a large flat building area is discouraged in the HDS&G. I have additional concerns about this proposal, but I will end here since we were asked to limit our written comments to those we expressed during our closing statements on the evening of September 13, 2006. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 314-8859. Regard Jo ourgeois Tanning Commissioner September 27, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING KENNEDY RD (d) FORRESTER Road/PD-06-03, ND-07-04 FROM: D. MICHAEL KANE, COMMISSIONER Per Mr. Lortz's request, below are my continents, questions and discussion - that is to say, my "statements that were made during summary comments about the project that occurred at the end of the Commission's discussion of the project on September 13, 2006. These are those statements as best I can recall: The intent of a Planned Development is not to simply bypass or nullify the Hillside Guidelines (neither the Hillside Specific Plan or the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines). To do so would set a terrible precedent. 2. Moreover, I could find no evidence that a Planned Development was ever used for a "single family residence" in the hillsides. 3. Argument that "original" plans have been reduced by 27-30% are not pursuasive when the reduced result is still significantly in conflict with standards. 4. Keep in mind that this project first appeared in a December 15, 2004 study session (at which time I was in the audience). Few, if any of the Commission's concerns regarding limitations or intent seem to have been complied with. The applicant argued that two combined lots should allow a "double-limit" house; i.e., the 6,400 limit should allow a 12,800 house on two lots. I stated there was no such provision or precedent and moreover the applicant was requesting a 16,000 sq. ft. house (total). 6. Regarding "grading standards", I stated that the plans before us exceeded many times over the standards as provided in III Site Planing A Grading, Page 17 of the HDS&G. Total cubic yards graded is almost 25,000 cu. yds and, as Commissioner Quintana noted, this does not include deep cut for the cellar which covers the full foot print of the 11,775 sq ft house. I stated this degree of grading was referred to by a former Commissioner who helped write this language as "obscene." 7. The project exceeds or violates the HDS&G as concerns: 1. Introduction and Vision (pp. 6,9, 10) II. Constraints as it exceeds the LDRA and minimization of grading - "required" grading vs "elective" grading (p. 16) III. Site Planning - maximum cuts (p. 17) IV. Development - maximum F.A.R. (p. 27) V. Architectural Design - (p. 31) - project "cuts off' the tops of 2 knolls to make 9 platform. E. The project exceeds height standards, (p. 35). F. Bulk and Mass VI. Site Elements B. Driveway entries - 2 "guard shacks" are proposed (p. 43) E. Accessory Buildings - "pools and sport courts are prohibited on slopes greater than 30%". (p. 48) Both the pool and tennis court (plus "pavilion") of the proposed are cut into 30% slopes. VII. Planned Development - see first 2 paragraphs (p. 56). Note: Opinion not stated in "summary". The proposed home is extraordinary ...as I stated, "anyone's dream home", but it cannot be placed in any hillside area because it is in substantial conflict with the Hillside Specific Plan as well as the subordinate Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. At some point during the discussions, the term "estate property" or "hillside estate" was mentioned. If the Town and/or the Town Council wishes to have "estates" properly situated in the hillsides, then "hillside estate" language should perhaps be considered. To allow an "estate property" to be placed in our hillsides without specific guidelines and standards may endanger the work of scores of citizens over the past decades to preserve, protect and enhance our Town. MEMORANDUM TO THE TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: KENNEDY ROAD AT FORRESTER ROAD PLANND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-06-03 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-07-04 FROM: Lee Quintana, Planning Commissioner I have reconstructed, from memory and notes, comments I made during the commission's discussion of this application. To the best of my knowledge they are a fair representation of my comments. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT: • The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G), The Hillside Specific Plan, and The General Plan all share a common goal: To preserve and protect the natural environment and topography of our hillsides. The proposed project does not support this goal. Nor does it support the town's vision for its hillsides (GP and HDS&G), met the objectives of the HDS&G (p.6 & p. 9 #'s 2,4,7,9,10) or met numerous standards and applicable guidelines of the HDS&G. • Statements made by the applicant indicate the project was driven by the family's design plan rather than the site's constraints and characteristics. The home and its associated structure are beautiful. However, the number of exceptions to HDS&G this project requires indicates it is not in harmony with its site and is not generally consistent with the HDS&G. • The project will require excessive grading, removing the top of the knoll, creating large flat areas, disturbing 2.6 acres, extending development into areas with existing slopes over 30%, constructing more than 500' of retaining walls, and requires numerous exceptions to the HDS&G, a number of which represent significant deviations from the standards and applicable guidelines. • Exceptions to grading, development outside the LRDA, building heights and the allowable floor area can be quantified. Exceptions to standards and applicable guidelines that are qualitative also apply. • The development results in major deviations from the HSD&G in three areas: o Grading o Least Restrictive Development Area o Maximum Floor Area GRADING EXCEPTION Eight exceptions to the cut and fill depth standards. o Seven of the exceptions to cut and fill depths are two and five times the maximum standard (Refer to Table I, page 17 of the HSD&G and to page 4 of the September 7, 2006 staff report) The total grading quantities are excessive. EYE," 7 24,000 cubic yards (p.4 staff report), excluding grading for the cellar (per applicants statement during public testimony). This is more than the grading totals for either the Shannon Valley Ranch or the Shady Lane o Over half of the 24,000 cubic feet 14,000 cubic yards) can be attributed to the pond, tennis court, pool and yard areas, o Over 8,400 cubic yards, or a third of the total grading, is for creation of' flat yard areas. Based on the maximum cut fill depths and the total grading the project will also require exception to grading Standards 3, 5, 6 (p.18). EXCEPTIONS TO THE LRDA The followings portion of the development are located outside the LRDA: o All of the pool o Almost 100% of the pool cabana o 2/3rds of the guesthouse and garage area below the guest house o Approximately '/z of the tennis court o All of the motor court area adjacent to the garages o The area of the motor court NE of the entry foyer • Development that is proposed outside the LRDA would require exceptions to the following standards of the HDS&G. o Building Site Standard 1. Page 15 - Structures are located buildings outside the LRDA. o Accessory building, pools and sports court Standard 3, page 48. Pools and sports courts are prohibited in areas above 30% slope. o PD - Least restrictive development area. Standard 1, 2, 3, page 57- Development is located outside the LRDA EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA • The project does not meet all the conditions for granting exception to the Maximum Allowable (p.29 HDS&G), or there is insufficient information to determine whether the conditions have been met. • #I and 49. Story poles have not been erected, therefore, it is not possible to say with certainty that the development will not be visible from the valley floor neighboring properties or from adjacent hillsides. • #2. No data wildlife habitat, wildlife that use habitat, or movement corridors. • #3. See comments on grading above. • 44. The project is requesting a number of other exceptions to standards • #3 and #8. Not analyzed. ADDITIONAL HDS&G STANDARDS NOT MET BY THE PROJECT • V. Architectural Design: p. 36. Maximum Height (E) and Mass and Bulk (F) Standards 1 & 2 • VI. Site Elements: p. 42. (A). Fences and walls Standard I.; (B). Driveway Entrances Standard I., (C). Retaining Walls, Standard I; (E) Accessory buildings, pools and sports courts. • VIII. Subdivisions and Planned Developments: p.56. (C). LRDA Standards 1,2,3, (E.1.) Site Preparation Standards a,b,c;( E.3).Standards a,d. Also see Purpose and Intent (A) Applicability of Standards (B) p.56. • This may not be a definitive list of Standards are not and does not include any applicable guidelines. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS I ASKED THE APPLICANT • Changes made to the project since the Study Session include lowering the house further into the knoll, reducing square footage by 4000 by sq ft, rotating the house slightly to better fit the site's topography, reducing tree the number of trees removed. There was not a redesign of the site plan or substantial changes to the design of main house. The footprint of the house is approximately the same. The cellar footprint has increased. • The large flat pad adjacent to the house was created to accommodate the yard, pool and cabana. • Current grading totals do not include grading for the cellar. The applicant estimated the additional grading amounts for the cellar. My notes are not clear whether the estimate was 6000 sq. ft or 6000 cubic yards. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS I ASKED STAFF: Restraints Map and the Partial Site/Landscaping Plan of Exhibit B are accurate. A rough estimate of the area disturbed by the proposed project is 2.6 acres. Note: This is approximately the same as the one house scheme presented at the study session. R Los Gatos Town Council c/o Director of Community Development Town of Los Gatos Comments from Commissioner Stephen M. Rice sent in an email i 9/27/06. Kennedy Rd * Forrester Rd (PD-06-03, ND-07-04) First, I do not feel that a PD is the right methodology for pursuit of this type of application. Either the project should stand on its own, or it should not, without needing to use a PD. My main problem with the project was/is the amount of dirt to be moved. In essence, the applicant is proposing to cut off the top of a hill, in order to site the house. I thought the house could have been built without moving that much dirt. In addition, the applicant proposes moving a large amount of dirt for the landscaping, pool, tennis court, etc. Our Hillside Design Standards state that minimal disturbance should be made outside of the building footprint, for the sake of landscaping. I do not think the applicant adequately addressed this issue. I, personally, do not think the project was doomed from the start. I do not have a problem with the size of the house, given the extraordinary size of the site, the lack of visibility from the various viewing platforms, etc. I would have preferred to send the project back to address the above issues, but the applicant chose to request an outright denial. I would like it noted that I was not on the Planning Commission when this project came up as a study session item. If I had been, these are the main points I would have asked the applicant to address. I think one thing I would like to hear from the Town Council is whether or not they view the 6,000 square foot limit as "cast in stone," or not. N:\DEV\MINUTES\Kennedy@ForresterRdCommentsTC.wpd Los Gatos Town Council c/o Director of Community Development Town of Los Gatos Comments from Planning Commission Chair Phil Miceiche sent in an email on 11/29/06. Kennedy Rd @ Forrester Rd (PD-06-03, ND-07-04) With reference to the subject hearing, I voted against denial for the following reason: If I could have made a motion, I would have preferred to send it back to the Planning Department with directions to reduce the size of the main structure to a maximum of 1.5 times the allowed FAR for one lot or approx 9,000 square feet. My logic being that rather than having 2 homes at 6,000 sq ft. each I preferred a single structure of 9,000 sq. ft. I would have also given directions to reduce the mass and size of the secondary structures. N:\DEV\MINUTES\Kennedy@ForresterRdCommentsTC.PM.wpd Planning Commission - September 13, 2006 Council Chambers Time Speaker Note 9:36:56 PM :Commissioner :Motion to deny appli on. Cannot find that the applicant has :Rice et the burden roof that an exception to the HDS&G is :warranted. onded by Commissioner Kane. Motion passed 5- 1 with C ssioner Micciche dissenting. 9:38.52 PM Charles Hackett sked Commissioners visit the site. 9:46:20 PM :Chair Micciche Item #4 - Kennedy Road A Forrester Road - Planned Development Application PD-06-03 Negative Declaration ND-07-04 - Requesting approval of a Planned Development to construct a new residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures on property zoned HR-2'/2. No ;significant environmental impacts have been identified as a :result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has :been recommended. APNS 537-29-007 & 008. :PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust :APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis 9:47:10 PM :Rob DeSantis Three goals: meet family's needs, work with environment and :respect Town's goals and neighbors. Have worked on project :for a long time. Exceptional site, over 600 trees. Will see larger ;grading numbers than is typical with a single family home, but have reduced the grading significantly. Another important aspect is the visibility, not visible from any viewing platform, ;project is well concealed by the tree line. Prior to going to Planning Commission, contacted neighbors. 9:50:36 PM :Richard Landry Presented design with emphasis on Hillside Standards. Clients program calls for the design of one home as opposed to a two home scheme. Development area encroaches slightly beyond :the LRDA, but will have the least impact to the site. Second floor 'covers 55% of first floor providing varied roof lines. Some areas of the roof exceed the 25 foot height limit, needed for :architectural consistency. Have worked for the past 18 months tc :reduce the site disturbance. Modified house location, stepped :house, moved pool closer to house, raised elevation of rear yard land removed 1,000 linear feet of retaining walls. Only 26 trees :will be removed and two will be relocated. Over 100 new trees :will be planted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:58:28 PM :Rob DeSantis :Believe that this is truly an exceptional property. The PD will :bring land use closure. This will be the total development on the site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:59:45 PM :Chair Micciche :Opened public hearing. 10:00:32 PM:: Henry Hancock, :Most affected neighbor. Have spent a lot of time talking to Rob :and enthusiastically supports the project. Have only one :concern... that traffic control plan be put in place while excavation :is being removed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:02:35 PMJohn Farone :Neighbor directly to the south. Supports development of estate 'homes in the area and supports the project. 9/13/2006 ATTACHMENT 6 8 of 11 Planning Commission - September 13, 2006 Council Chambers Ray Davis Public interest comments. Am a little chagrined at the size of the 'structure. Was unable to access the property. How can you :comment on the height, bulk and mass when you can't get on :the property? Three story elevation, flat land style house. Totally :incompatible with the neighborhood. If you approve that you may as well all go home. 10:07:03 PMRob DeSantis :Open it for questions. ................e........................................................... 10:07:22 PV -*C' :Slide 3: looks relatively flat, but taking out a substantial amount O'Donnell of dirt. Rob DeSantis said they are nestling the home into the site rather than grading up. Commissioner O'Donnell summarized the cut and fill quantities. _ 10:11:36 PM:Bud Lortz Grading can be done in phases, working closely with neighbors. 10:13:42 PMCommissioner :Richard Landry answered questions about stepping the house. Bourgeois :Randy Tsuda directed the Commission to site sections. . 10:15:26 PM:Chair Micciche :The HDS&G allows the Commission and Council to make an :exception to height. Richard Landry said the idea is to step the rooflines more, the justification is an aesthetic one. _ . 10:16:53 PM: Commissioner :Site section diagram shows the top of a knoll is being cut off to Kane create a pad. He doesn't see how this supports the Hillside 'Specific Plan or the HDS&G. Combined floor area is greater :than 12,000 sq. ft. that could be allowed for two homes. 10:22:04 PM:Richard :Answered questions relative to grading volumes. Landry/Rob DeSantis 10:27:10 PM Commissioner . . :Percentage reductions are not part of the guidelines. The :Kane :reduction could be significant, but can still be exceeding the ;guidelines. Rob DeSantis said this is a very exceptional property and the lack of visibility and sensitivity of the design will allow a ;large amount of the property to remain undisturbed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:28:32 PM ':Commissioner :I'm hearing you don't want to go back and make changes. Mr. Bourgeois : DeSantis said it has been a team effort and will take every comment and consider it against family needs and neighbors, :but confirmed this is the project he wants to move forward with. _ PM :Commissioner :Asked about well for irrigation and where it will be located. Rob :Quintana :DeSantis said they want to make the site self sufficient. Have :had testing done and based on that agreed to look at putting in a well, but have not identified a location for it. PM: Commissioner :How large an array will be required for solar panels? Rob ;Bourgeois DeSantis said there will be parapets to hide the panels and they are striving to have it be 100% coverage. Located on the roof :and not visible. 9/13/2006 9 of 11 Planning Commission - September 13, 2006 Council Chambers 10:33:08 PM'Chair Micciche ;Commissioners to provide a recommendation and make comments. 10:33:40 PM:Commissioner LRDA clarification. Fletcher Parsons said a piece of the pool, Quintana cabana, tennis court are outside the LRDA, generally as `indicatedby Commissioner Quintana. Also asked how large an area will be disturbed. Fletcher Parsons said it is approximately 2.6 acres. 10:36:38 PM'Commissioner ;Regarding height, other than the highest point, what is the height Rice of the area that is over 25 feet (26-27 feet). Not on the :Commission at the time of the study session. Don't have a problen conceptually with the idea of combining the lots and building a larger home. Concerned about the amount of :earthwork. Recognize that you need to do more grading with a project of this size, but it could be reduced. If things are 'tightened up, would reduce the grading. Also have a problem with shearing the top off the knoll. . 10:39:49 PM Commissioner :The language of the Hillside Standards does not support this. :O'Donnell :Think people should be able to build a larger home on a lot of :this size, very well designed and environmentally sensitive. Our :ordinances don't allow it. The amount of roof over 25 feet is not :a big deal and think it does improve the elevations. 10:44:03 PM Commissioner ; Not adverse to the idea of locking up some land that could be :Bourgeois :subdivided. The amount of earth moving not including a 6,000 sq. ft. basement is a lot of grading. The intent was to step into the existing topography. Going to recommend denial. 10:45:44 PM Commissioner Also going to recommend denial. There are a huge amount of !Quintana :issues here. Designed the house and are trying to make it fit the :site. Doesn't meet the HDS&G. In one sense it fosters :Sustainability, but also using a lot of resources. Not a complete :constraints analysis, don't have topography for the complete site. Not within the LRDA. No wildlife study done. Perimeter fencing :around entire site not consistent with the HDS&G. Exceptions to :height for the house and art studio. Exception to maximum floor :area: not all applicable standards are being met. Excavating way ;beyond the actual footprint of the house. What should be built is :what fits the topography and the house is too big for the site. :Five exceptions to cut and three exceptions to fill. Grading :quantities exclusive of house and driveway is one-half of the :project total, and that is very excessive. 10:52:23 PM Commissioner :Will not be supporting the application. You have a very fine Kane :house, but it is not a hillside house. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:54:57 PMChair Micciche :Hillside specs say you can go over 6,000 if you meet the criteria, :and I think you have done that. The amount of off-haul is a :concern. My recommendation is that if the Council sees merit, Ithe project be approved. 9/13/2006 10 of 11 1.:, <,; Planning Commission - September 13, 2006 Council Chambers 10:55:15 PM Commissioner ',Would be an awful precedent to allow a PD to get around the Kane hillside standards. 10:57:50 PVC ommissioner Do we have to vote? Orry Korb said the Commission should :O'Donnell :either recommend or not recommend. Suggested based on what he has heard so far, the recommendation be for denial. 10:59:17 PMCommissioner Can we send it back for further work. Orry Korb said you can if Rice you want to. 10:59:43 PM?Commissioner Motion to recommend that the Town Council deny the :Kane ;application. Seconded by Chair Micciche. Motion passed 4-2 {Micciche and O'Donnell no) and Commissioner Talesfore excused. 11:02:10 PM;Chair Micci Commission matters. mmissioner Kane passed out for review Com ' ' ners a suggested procedure for presenting sub- i ee#s_ Meeting adjourned. 9/13/2006 11 of 11 Log of Council Chambers on 12/15/2004 Page I of 5 Description Planning Commission Study Session - December 15, 2005 [ Date 12/15/2004 1Location Council Chambers Time Speaker Note 6:03:02 PM Commented on Planning Commission Study Session. Ray Davis Applicants should prove they are in compliance with the law. 6:__06_30 PM Chair Drexel Item 1, Kennedy Road _6;07:_01 11 _PM Introduced the item explaining that staff has met several times with the applicant to explain the goals of the Town and the various documents that would apply to the project including the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Specific Plan and Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. Recognized that this application is not typical and Bud Lortz wanted to involve the Planning Commission and neighbors early in the process so that they could be involved in the evolution of the project. Over the past month the applicant and design team has developed a presentation to provide an overview of the project. The Commission is being asked to provide general guidance and input and ask any questions. Following Commission input the applicant will decide how they want to proceed. 6_ 13:24 PM Owner of the property. Has been a Los Gatan for a dozen _ years. About two years ago purchased a home on Forrester & Kennedy. Decided that they could not do the expansion they wanted and approached an adjacent neighbor to try and acquire additional land. Ultimately purchased the entire 13.7 Rob DeSantis acre site abutting theirs. Set goals for development (meet family needs, green building and environmentally friendly) and selected Landry Design Group as architect. Have been meeting with neighbors and sharing plans. Have contacted 62 surrounding neighbors and met with 37 of them. We are not the big pink house you saw in the Mercury News a week ago. 6:20:34 PM Thanked the Commi n for h si vi a st i d Fi t on. s o a ng u y sess rs thing they did was to get a copy of the HDS&G. It is a good document. The site will not be visible from any viewing platforms. The lower building pad is nestled between oak trees (the saddle). The upper pad is flat and the saddle is flat and rolling. Showed slope map. Have two legal lots. Compared two lot development versus single lot project. Potential square footage of 16,800 with two lot approach. Proposing 19,820 square feet. Volume comparison was done and both approaches are similar. Much greater setbacks are being proposed than the minimums required. Approximately 1,000 square foot radius used for neighbor contact. Portions of the house are one-story and portions are two-stories. A 1 1cellar element has been included. House is very well file://F:\FTR Log Sheets\PlanningCommission (Draft)' ATTACHMENT 7 01/24/2007 Log of Council Chambers on 12/15/2004 Page ? of 5 articulated. Using natural materials; house is clad in stone. i Caretaker's unit above garage. Stepping rooflines. Small areas of the roofline would exceed 25 feet (about 5%). Over 600 trees on property, most of them are oaks. Option A would result in removal of 52 trees, option B would impact 22 trees. Nestled home in the ground to disturb as little of the site as possible. Option A would disturb 3.4 acres or about 25% of the site. Option B would disturb 2.6 acres or 19% of the site. Richard Approx. 30,000 cubic yards of grading. Did lawn irrigation Landry study and discovered that enough rain water can be collected to water the lawn areas. Plan to install a well on the property even though water is available from San Jose Water Company. Solar power can supply 100% of electricity needed. The house is self sufficient in that sense. Incorporating green building techniques and can achieve a LEED gold standard. One home concept will result in less i environmental impact, will be more energy efficient, will meet the owner's needs and will not be visible from any viewing platforms. 6:41:03 PM Vice Chair Clarified floor area. Micciche 6:41:45 PM Commissioner Are any of the accessory structures barns (no). Clarified that Burke the caretaker's unit is included in the floor area. 6:42:49 PM Wonderful presentation and some of the concepts are good, but 6,000 square feet is not guaranteed. Council in adopting Commissioner the HDS&G, set the maximum at 6,000 sq. ft. 13,000 sq. ft. O'Donnell house to satisfy the needs of a family is certainly open for debate. Making some very good arguments, but sharing some of the concerns that may arise with the Council and Commission. 6:45:10 PM Commissioner Clarified that there will be one lot. Talesfore 6:45:31 PM Grading: 3,100 cubic yards for a tennis court is more than Commissioner most houses that can be put in the hilsides. Asked about size Burke of water tank that would be needed to store rainwater for lawn. The amount of water needed for.8 acre seems incredibly low. Minimal lawns in hillsides. 6:48:59 PM Commissioner Clarified location of two home sites. How large an area is Quintana being graded for pool, lawn and rear yard area (7,000 sq. ft.). 6:53:18 PM Interested in the footprint and the massing of the house Commissioner Trevithick (about 60% of the first floor is covered by the second floor; , . trying to reduce massing and provide stepping elements). 6:55:08 PM Commissioner Clarification on building height. Bud explained. Burke 6:55:58 PM 11Asked for location of natural grade on elevations (architect file://F:\FTR Log Sheets\PlanningCommission (Draftff inal\PC meeting 12-15-2004.htm 01/24/2007 Log of Council Chambers on 12/15%2004 Page 7 of 5 indicated on elevations). Asked for general locations where Commissioner trees would be removed (architect showed on site plan). Quintana Asked for location of property lines (architect showed on site plan). , 6:58:5.6 P_M Asked if it is understood that not a lot of grading is allowed. Commissioner Clarified that barns are allowed because they are rural and Drexel other types of accessory structures are more like a house. Don't allow tennis courts is they require a lot of grading. 7:_00:11_PM Commissioner O'Donnell Asked about access for two lots. 7.00_46 PM Chair Drexel Opened for public discussion. 7:01:23 PM 15900 Kennedy Road. Look right down on the property. In Scott Cooley favor of a single house. If its not viewable from the valley, it ' isn t impacting anyone. Asked that trees be added for screening. 7:0.3:37 PM 102 Leotar Court. She and her husband are in favor, and support the single house approach. Believe there should be Susan Flach rules and regulations, but thinks its wrong to be limited on what we can do. Some people need more space to provide for their families. 7:05:22 PM Asked if she would be able to see one or two homes from her Commissioner Trevithick house (not sure she would be able to see any of the structures). 7;06:21 PM On the issue of maximum house size, do try to be respectful Bud Lortz of people's needs. Read an excerpt from the HDS&G on exceptions. To some extent very careful about granting exceptions 7:08:03 PM Commissioner Sugggested that applicant make a final statement and the Burke Commission can then provide comments. 7:08:38 PM Excited about the project. Will try and be very thoughtful about the comments made today. Endorse the intent of the guidelines the Town has put forth. His understanding is that the intent is to stop large homes from being built on small lots, and that larger parcels will have the opportunity to have Rob DeSantis a larger home. The bar is higher, and they have made the decision to invest in the environmental issue. Will be making every attemp to move some of the trees rather than removing them, and may even relocate some to other properties. Think we have a very unique lot here and have used a thoughtful process. 7:12:26 PM Vice Chair Allowable square footage of 9,000 square feet would be Micciche reasonable. Think the home design is beautiful. 7:13:44 PM One lot 6,000 sq. ft. Combining the two lots into one would Commissioner still allow 6,000 sq. ft. Love the idea of a green house, but am file:HF:\FTR Log Sheets\PlanningCommission (Draft)1Final\PC meeting 12-15-2004.htm 01/24/2007 t, 1 I : Log of Council Chambers on 12/15/2004 Page 4 of 5 Talesfore i sure it could be smaller. As a Commission, respect the work that went into the HDS&G. 7:15:21PM Respect the intention to have a green house. Feel you could Commissioner Trevithick maximize your property better to have two homes. May be concentrating too much on the narrow saddle. 7:16:01 PM Have lived in the hillsides of Los Gatos for the past 40 years. The number 1 goal of the Hillside Specific Plan is to preserve the hillsides. The grading for the tennis court conflicts greatly with the first document on hillside development. Have Commissioner concerns about the size of the house. It affects the amount of Burke dirt to be moved, and is more impactful. Two lots would not necessarily support two 6,000 sq. ft. houses. Barns are allowed because they are supportive of agricultural type uses. A large house requires more water for fire suppression. Questioned the calculations on the amount of water needed for lawn. Don't PM 7:20:09 We take the ordinances of the Town seriously. I argued against the size restriction for large lots, but it was passed and now has to be accepted. Its really a question of what's reasonable. Am willing to consider an exception, but 13,000 sq. ft. for a house is a tough thing. You have pushed beyond Commissioner the envelope of what the Town has decided is a reasonable O'Donnell size. What you are doing is admirable and what you are doing is good, but having massive cuts for things like a tennis court and a swimming pool will not be warmly received. Concentrate your effort on what you are trying to accomplish. Am not convinced that two house will not be more environmentally friendly than what you are proposing. 13,000 square feet may not be approved. 7_23.57_ PM The guidelines were written to encourage people to look at Commissioner site constraints before designing. What you have presented Quintana does not appear to meet all of the standards and guidelines in realtion to trees, grading, landscaping. Need to go back to square one. The house is well design but doesn't fit the site. 7:26:02 PM Don't see justification for an exception. Don't allow a lot of trees to be taken out to develop a site. Don't allow a lot of Chair Drexel grading for things like tennis courts and swimming pools. Have to echo all of my fellow Commissioners in the statement that you are trying to overdevelop. 7.28:10 PM This meeting was clearly an opportunity for the applicant to Bud Lortz hear from the Commission. Will now go and consider it and do some soul searching. 7:28:41 PM Thanked Commission for taking the time for this during this Rob DeSantis holiday season. Wanted to gain input before we made too much investment. Will recheck the numbers and will go back and challenge our family needs. Will go back and take the file:HF:\FTR Log Sheets\PlanningCommission (Draft)\Final\PC meeting 12-15-2004.htm 01/24/2007 Log of Council Chambers on 12/15/2004 Page 5 of 5 points of the Commission and neighbors. It is a community of neighbors and important to take their comments into consideration. 7:32 061 _ PM Chair Drexel Thanked Mr. DeSantis for making such a clear presentation. 7:32.26_PM Commissioner Brilliant architecture. Encouraged to come up with a win-win Burke solution. 7:33:22_ PM Have not seen a proposal with this much land not covered Commissioner with trees and encourged to stay within those areas. Quintana Reducing resource use also relates to house size. Commend you for using sustainable design. 7;34:45 PM Thank you for that. Question on agriculture: if I was putting in Rob DeSantis agriculture such as grape vines or apricot trees, would that fall under this category or does it have to be animals. T-3-5:42 PM, Planting would be considered agriculture. Vineyards larger Bud Lortz than 5,000 sq. ft. are required to go through the use permit process. 7:36:55 PM Chair Drexel Adjourned study session. 5 minute break. 7;48:_15 PM Chair Drexel Reconvened meeting. Other business; election of Chair and Vice-Chair. 7.48:22 PM Commissioner Burke Nominated Phil Micciche for Chair. Seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell and passed 6-1 (Quintana dissenting). 7: _43 PM 48 Commissioner Nominated Mike Burke for Vice-Chair. Seconded by _ _ Talesfore Commissioner and passed unanimously. 7:50.00 PM Commissioner Short farewell speech Drexel 7.50:44 PM Bud Lortz Presented gift to Jeanne Drexel. 7_51:19 PM~ ~l Meeting Adjourned Produced by FTR Log NotesTM www.ftrgold.com file://FAFTR Log Sheets\PlanningCommission (Draftffinal\PC meeting 12-15-2004.htm 01/24/2007 f~~-<-~-.: ~ Date: September 13. 2006 For Agenda Of September 13, 2006 Agenda Item: 4 DESK ITEM REPORT TO: The Planning Commission FROM: Director of Community Development LOCATION: Kennedy Road g Forrester Road Planned Development Application PD-06-03 Negative Declaration ND-07-04 Requesting approval of a Planned Development to construct a new residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures on property zoned HR-2'/z. No significant environmental impacts have been identified and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNS 537-29-007 & 008. PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis DEEMED COMPLETE: August 24, 2006 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: Re-zoning applications are legislative acts and are therefore not governed by the Permit Streamlining Act. EXHIBITS: A.-G. Previously distributed H. Powerpoint presentation (20 pages), received September 13, 2006 REMARKS: The applicant and project architect will be making a Powerpoint presentation, a copy of which is attached. Prepared by: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner BNL: SD N:\DE V \SUZANN E\PC\REPORTS\Kennedy-AcomPD\Kennedy-AcomP D-dsk.wpd 7 Approved by. Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development A TTA CHHENT 8 Date:_ September 7, 2006 For Agenda Of: September 13, 2006 Agenda Item: 4 REPORT TO: The Plamning Commission FROM: Director of Community Development LOCATION: Kennedy Road a Forrester Road Planned Development Application PD-06-03 Negative Declaration ND-07-04 Requesting approval of a Planned Development to construct a new residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures on property zoned HR-2%Z. No significant environmental impacts have been identified and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNS 537-29-007 & 008. PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis DEEMED COMPLETE: August 24, 2006 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: Re-zoning applications are legislative acts and are therefore not governed by the Permit Streamlining Act. FINDINGS: ■ The Planning Commission must find that the zone change is consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan if the recommendation is for approval. ACTION: Recommendation to Town Council. ENVIRONMENTAL It has been determined that the project could have significant impacts on ASSESSMENT: the environment. However, if all mitigation measures listed in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are implemented, the project impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Consequently, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. EXHIBITS: A. Location map (one page) B. Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously received under separate cover) C. Mitigation Monitoring Program (one page) D. Required Findings & Considerations (one page) E. Planned Development Ordinance (16 pages), rezoning exhibit & conceptual development plans (18 sheets), received August 30, 2006 F. Applicant's letters (six pages total), received September 7, 2006 and October 10, 2005 G. Consulting Architect's report (one page), received October 24, 2005 ATTACHMENT 9 The Planning Commission - Page 2 Kennedy Road (a) Forrester Road/PD-06-3, ND-07-04 September 13, 2006 A. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the north side of Kennedy Road, just east of Forrester Road (see Exhibit A). The 13.7 acre property is comprised of two parcels that will be merged into a single lot, consolidating the development on the site as a single estate project and preserving more open space than would result if the two lots were developed independently. On December 15, 2004 the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss development of the property. The applicant provided general parameters for the project, including a maximum floor area of 16,800 square feet, 22 tree removals and a total grading volume of approximately 31,400 cubic yards. Based on the Commission's input the project was refined and submitted as a Planned Development (PD). The applicant has reduced the house size by 20%, reduced the total earthwork by 21 % and reduced the export by 37% from the plans initially reviewed by the Commission. Staff suggested that the applicant file for a PD for the property due to the uniqueness and complexity of the project, and based on Planning Commission comments at the study session. A PD allows a site specific approval that can be tailored to this particular property and would not allow further development or expansion without modification of the approved PD. B. REMARKS: Project Summary The applicant is proposing a Planned Development (PD) for an estate property. The development includes a new residence with attached garage, guest quarters, cabana, art studio, pool, tennis court, pavilion and entry gatehouse. The total floor area of the house is 11,775 square feet and the attached garage is 1,778 square feet. The overall floor area for the project inclusive of the guest quarters, and accessory structures is 16,401 square feet. A 6,287 square foot cellar is exempt from floor area calculations. The cellar element will be completely below grade and will not impact the above ground bulk and mass of the main residence. The two lots comprising the site will be merged into a single parcel, and the majority of the site will be maintained in a natural state through a required open space and conservation easement. The limits of grading are shown on sheet C-1 of the development plans (attached as exhibit B to the PD Ordinance, Exhibit E). The applicant is requesting several exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G) as discussed below. It is the applicants intent to make the house as sustainable as possible. For example, Title 24 compliance will be exceeded by more than 30%, and solar energy will be used for power. The applicant intends to hire a consultant to assist with the integration of green building design elements. A PD is required to include only conceptual development plans. Detailed architectural plans are not being reviewed as part of the PD process, although the applicant has presented well developed plans to demonstrate excellence in architecture and the quality of the project being proposed. If the PD is approved, an Architecture & Site application will be required for the project, and the two lots will The Planning Commission - Page 3 Kennedy Road (a Forrester Road/PD-06-3, ND-07-04 September 13, 2006 be merged into a single parcel. The Town's Consulting Architect reviewed the plans and did not have any recommendations for changes to the design (see Exhibit H). The architect notes that the project is well designed and will have minimal visual impacts on the surrounding area. Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines The project includes several components that require exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G). Staff comments follow each item noted below: The height of the main residence exceeds 25 feet: The applicant is requesting to exceed the 25 foot sectional height limit established by the HDS&G. On the front elevation, an approximately 25 foot long segment of the highest roof ridge would exceed 25 feet, the highest peak being 30 feet. On the rear elevation two projecting elements exceed 25 feet, one is at 26 feet 10 inches and the other is 25 feet nine and a half inches. The areas that exceed 25 feet are indicated on the elevations. The reason for the requested height exceptions is to achieve a balanced design and architectural consistency. The project architect will address this request in more detail at the meeting. 2. Portions of the development are proposed outside the LRDA: Portions of the tennis court, motor court and pool and cabana are extending onto slopes greater than 30%. 3. The proposed total floor area exceeds the allowable floor area: The allowable floor area for each of the two lots is 6,400 square feet, for a total of 12,800 square feet. In addition, barns of up to 2,500 square feet could be allowed on each lot. The total proposed floor area for the project is 15,989 square feet exclusive of a below grade cellar that is exempt from FAR. The applicant reduced the total floor area to be less than the potential total floor area that could be developed on the two separate lots (17,800 square feet), and believes that the overall impact to the site will be less with a single development as opposed to development of two separate lots. 4. Cuts and fills exceeding grading criteria: The driveway design up to the motor court is well designed and the grading associated with the installation of the driveway is necessary to gain access to the main building site. The applicant is transitioning the slope below the driveway to the tennis court and pond to avoid the use of retaining walls and provide a better visual appearance. The house is being lowered into the site to reduce the profile and limit it's visibility to neighbors. The table on the following page shows the cut and fill depths allowed by the HDS&G and the worst case cut and fill depths that are proposed for various project components. II The Planning Commission - Page 4 Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road/PD-06-3, ND-07-04 September 13, 2006 -`Grading Summary cut depth (feet) fill depth (feet) area allowed proposed allowed proposed house 8** 26 3 0 driveway 4 12 3 - motor court 4 8 3 8 tennis court 4 4 3 16 cabana 4 12 3 4 pool 4 14 3 0 **exclusive of cellar, approximately 10 feet of the cut can be attributed to the cellar Gradin Grading quantities for the project are summarized in the table below. - .`Grading Qusttttttes~cul~i~yari}s)~` ~r " area cut fill total house 1,700 35 1,735 garage 2,300 0 2,300 guest quarters 1,000 0 1,000 cabana 400 35 435 sub-total 5,400 70 5,470 driveway 3,800 1,400 5,200 tennis court 200 2,600 2,800 pool 600 0 600 pond 2,200 0 2,200 yard areas 8,200 280 8,480 sub-total 15,000 4,280 19,280 total 11 20,400 4,350 24,750 Tree Impacts A tree survey and assessment of these resources on the project site was prepared by a qualified arborist, Douglas Anderson, and was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Arborist, Arbor Resources. The Planning Commission - Page 5 Kennedy Road A Forrester Road/PD-06-3, ND-07-04 September 13, 2006 There are over 600 trees on the site, the majority being located on the lower portion of the property in the vicinity of Kennedy Road. The tree inventory was limited to those parts of the project site that would be affected by development proposed as part of the project. The tree inventory identified 143 trees occurring on the upper elevations of the site where the proposed development would occur. A total of 28 ordinance-size trees would be in direct conflict with the proposed project. Of these, two are recommended as viable specimens for relocation rather than removal, which reduces the number of trees to be removed to 26. All of the trees being removed are oaks, the predominant tree type on the site. Although shown on the plan as being retained, there are an additional seven oak trees that would be severely affected by the proposed project and could be subject to premature decline and/or instability, To minimize potential impacts on the seven oaks, the Consulting Arborist recommends that the grading design be modified by constructing one or more retaining walls to protect four specimen trees. Major design changes would be required to retain the three remaining trees, and the Consulting Arborist recommends relocation of these trees if they cannot be retained and adequately protected. The Consulting Arborist provided 28 tree protection measures that will be required to be implemented through conditions of approval. Neighborhood Impact/Visibility The majority of the trees within the development area will be retained and will screen the proposed residence from lower elevations, including adjacent homes to the north and west, and public open spaces on Kennedy and Forrester roads. Project development would alter existing views of the site from properties on hillsides to the south, east and north. Homes on distant or nearby ridges that overlook the property would view the proposed home and accessory buildings, however, these views would not significantly change since there are numerous homes in the surrounding area that are currently visible. The applicant contacted neighbors both in the immediate vicinity and surrounding areas to share the development plans and receive input. The applicant will present an exhibit showing neighbors who were contacted and who indicated support for the project. Environmental Review As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the project. These documents were previously distributed forwarded to the Commission under separate cover. The environmental review was completed by the Town's Environmental Consultant, Geier & Geier. Two potentially significant impacts resulted in the inclusion of mitigation measures, one requiring implementation of geotechncial recommendations and one requiring implementation of all tree preservation measures. These mitigation measures have been included in the Planned Development Ordinance as conditions of approval (Exhibit E). In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared (Exhibit C) to designate the responsible department and timing of each mitigation measure I ~ A The Planning Commission - Page 6 Kennedy Road a, Forrester Road/PD-06-3, ND-07-04 September 13, 2006 C. CONCLUSION: Since the Planning Commission Study Session the applicant has worked extensively with staff and the project design team to make significant reductions in the house size, grading volumes and off- haul. The project has been refined to a point where the applicant is requesting that the Commission forward comments to the Town Council for final action. The Commission should formulate a recommendation to the Council, inclusive of the following: 1. Making the Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2. Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit C); 3. Making the required findings (Exhibit D); 4. Adoption of the Planned Development Ordinance (Exhibit E) Prepare y: Approved by: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development BNL: SD cc: Richard Landry, Landry Design Group, 11333 Iowa Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025 Rob & Ranae DeSantis, 200 Forrester Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032 N \DEV~SUZANNE\PCULEPORTSUKennedy-AcomPDUCennedy-AcomPD-PC Final.wpd Kennedy Road - APNs 537-29-007 & 008 Exhibit A 4 ? I a r o o O U ~ ~ U ~ C U C CL "O OU W U ~ "q cl C a- cn ono 03 C~ U ~ U CaUL1 Lla CA o o ~Q a O U 'j-- t - tz O Q ,.d U. s.. Q ct cl O.O°N Ld ONN 'I? rf N c O ~ ~ C"r ~ O O O U U U U RS ~j p U U w Qr u a o U U O U cad Q O O U O b0 Q ~ o cz U fy ~ O N y a.-1 G q O ~ ~ Qy rC' cd ~ ~ V U .b cV ~ O ~ bA Z ~4 U U U U 'd C O ¢ U ~ D a W E-' ~ C! N V F-' % byA c~ Cn ~ ~ Exhibit C PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: Kennedy Road & Forrester Road Planned Development Application PD-06-03 Negative Declaration ND-07-04 Requesting approval of a Planned Development to construct a new residence, pool, tennis court and accessory structures on property zoned HR-2'/z. No significant environmental impacts have been identified and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNS 537-29-007 & 008. PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis Required consistency with the Town's General Plan: That the proposed Zone Change are internally consistent with the General Plan and its Elements. Consistency with the Hillside Specific Plan: • That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan. NODE V\FINDINGS\K=edyAcom. wpd Exhibit D ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM HR-2%2 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 ORDAIN 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 County Assessor Parcel Numbers 537-29-007 & 008) as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is part of this Ordinance, from HR-2'h (Hillside Residential, 2'/2 Acres per Dwelling Unit) to HR-2'/2:PD (Hillside Residential, 21/2 Acres per Dwelling Unit, Planned Development). SECTION II The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements: 1. Construction of a new single-family dwelling, guest quarters and attached garage. 2. Accessory structures inclusive of art studio, pool cabana, tennis pavilion and gatehouse. 3. Driveway, pool, tennis 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 Uses) and 29.20.185 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, as those sections exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future. However, no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this Ordinance, or by a Conditional Use Permit. Exhibit E SECTION III COMPLIANCE WITH 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 the 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 with Section 29.80.130 of the 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 1. 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 Development Review Committee may 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. CERTIFICATE OF LOT MERGER. A Certificate of Lot Merger shall be recorded. Two copies of the legal description for exterior boundary of the merged parcel and a plat map (8'/2 in. X 11 in.) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Page 2 of 16 Department for review and approval. The submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports less than 90 days old and the appropriate fee. The certificate shall be recorded before any permits may be issued. 4. PROJECT FLOOR AREA. The total floor area for the overall project shall not exceed 16,521 square feet, as shown on the Official Development Plans. Planning may approve an additional accessory structure for storage purposes. 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 LANDSCAPING. All formal landscaping shall be confined to 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, inclusive of the water feature. Any planting beyond these areas shall 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 restricted 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 Road. 8. SETBACKS. The minimum setbacks are those specified by the HR zoning district. 9. 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. 10. ACCESSORY 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. Page 3 of 16 11. 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 properties. Shielded flood lights on motion detectors may be installed only if it can be demonstrated that they are clearly needed for safety. 12. 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 of 30, 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. 13. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for the removal of any ordinance protected tree prior to the issuance of a Building, Grading or Encroachment Permit. 14. REPLACEMENT TREES. Replacement trees shall be planted for trees that are removed. The number and size of new trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table in the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. All required new trees shall be planted prior to final inspection for the main residence. 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. 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, Page 4of16 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 determined through the development of the easement document which shall be recorded prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. 17. TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES. Tree preservation measures shall be shown on the construction management plan. 18. "BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE-1. The project applicant shall implement the 28 recommendations made by the Town's consulting arborist, Arbor Resources, in reports dated February 10, 2006 and July 27, 2006. Building Division 19. 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. 20. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. 21. ADDRESS/HOUSE NUMBER: Submit requests for new addressihouse number to the Building Division prior to the building permit application process. 22. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing 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 (Uniform Building Code Volume 2 - Section 1805). 23. 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 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: Page 5of16 a. On-site retaining wall location b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations 24. 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. 25. 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 parties and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov. 26. SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES. The following features shall be incorporated into the project: a. A minimum of 25% of the hardscape shall be of pervious material(s) b. Title 24 shall be exceeded by at least 32.8%. 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. 27. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE. California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CR- IR and MF-IR shall be printed on the construction plans. Page 6 of 16 28. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE. This project requires Class A roofing assembly. 29. 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. 30. PLANS: The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or engineer. (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538). 31. 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. 32. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development: Suzanne Davis at 354-6875 b. Engineering 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: Contact the Building Service Counter for the appropriate school district and to obtain the school form. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 33. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE-1. The project design shall incorporate all applicable recommendations in UPP Geotechnology, Inc.'s geotechnical investigation (March 17, 2006) for the proposed project (included as Attachment 2 of the Initial Study) in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and soil engineering constraints. 34. 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 of a certificate of occupancy. Proof of annexation to WV SD boundaries shall be provided prior to submittal of a building permit application. Page 7 of 16 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 permit application (wits grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department located at 41 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. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. 37. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall: a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town 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. 38. RETAINING WALLS. A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, 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. 39. ADDITIONAL SOIL TESTING. Additional laboratory tests shall be performed by UGI for site soils and rock, including plasticity limits, swell potential, and shear strength. The results of such tests shall be incorporated into foundation design recommendations. Page 8 of 16 40. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils report shall be submitted with the grading permit application. The soils report 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 conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 41. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance of any permit, 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's soils engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 42. 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 backfill 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 observation and testing should be documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the applicants soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 43. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE. The developer 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 current 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 permit is issued. 44. TREE REMOVAL. Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to issuance of a grading permit. 45. 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 Page 9 of 16 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 sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge ,hall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 46. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. 47. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting 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. 48. SURVEYING CONTROLS. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes 49. EROSION CONTROL. Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) 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 stabilizing/building 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 final landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control 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 Page 10 of 16 months. The 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 Permit. 50. 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. Further, 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-site construction activity shall take place between the 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. 51. DUST CONTROL (SITES > 4 ACRES). The following measures should be implemented at construction 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, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) C. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. d. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. e. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Page 11 of 16 52. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate 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. 53. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. A storm water management shall be included with the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as defined in the amended provisions C.3.d. of Order No. R2-2005-0035 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 plan shall be certified by a professional pre-qualified by the Town. In the event that storm water measures proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those certified on the Building/Grading Permit, the Town may require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of the Building Permit. The applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility. 54. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS. The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project by Town's Stormwater Discharge Permit No. CAS029718 and modified by Order No. R2-2005-0035. The agreement will specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and will specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement will also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded prior to release of any occupancy permits. 55. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the 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 the Town's storm drains. 56. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. Page 12 of 16 57. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 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 start of construction to verify existing conditions. 58. 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 survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher. 59. CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 8:00 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. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 60. 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 Page 13 of 16 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. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 61. 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 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13d. 62. TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY INSTALLATIONS. Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrants(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. 63. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS ROADS. Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-l. 64. 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 Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1. Cul-de-sac diameters shall be no less than 72 feet. 65. TIMING OF REQUIRED ROADWAY 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 until 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. Page 14 of 16 66. 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. 67. 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 the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. Page 15 of 16 SECTION VI This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , 2006, 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 2006 and becomes effective 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:ODE V IORDSUCennedy-AcomMeadows. wpd Page 16 of 16 L-77, Application No. PD-06-04. A.P.N. Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance. ® Zone Change From: HR- 2 1/2 To: HR- 2 1/2 PD ❑ Prezonina Recommended by Planning Commission Date: Approved by Town Council Date: Ord: Clerk Administrator Mayor Exhibit A Letter of Introduction - update... September 13`h 2006 Dear Planning Commission, This cover letter gives a brief overview and update on the new family home project my wife and I began over 2 Yz years ago. The first thing we did was create the following project goals: 1. Meet our family's objectives 2. Create an environmentally respectful/green plan 3. Respect the neighbors and partner with the town It has taken a bit longer than we expected, but I am happy to say it has truly been an enjoyable, well thought out process. We have taken a team approach with all constituencies ranging from the town to the neighbors. After a very productive study session with the planning commission almost two years ago we made further refinements. At no small cost, we worked with the team to study various possibilities such as raising, lowering and rotating the house to understand view and grading impacts. Fortunately, this property and project has some unique characteristics which have allowed the team to come up with a plan that we feel works for everyone. These characteristics are: 1. Visibilitv - The site is not visible from anywhere in town (except a few neighbors) and has over 600 existing trees to screen the few impacted neighbors. 2. Land Use Closure - With 13.71 acres, two build-able lots, we are proposing a PD that would control the whole site and bring "Land Use Closure" to the site. 3. Proiect size - Our project calls for less square footage than could be built as two separate lots. 4. Grading - Roughly 16-17% of the site will be disturbed leaving about 11 acres undisturbed 5. Neighborhood signed support - There are 13 adjacent properties to the site. 100% have signed there support for our project. We contacted an additional 30+ neighbors not required but that had some view of part of the property and 100% of all neighbors met with signed their support or were indifferent. Today we have 55 signed signatures supporting our project. 6. Green Design -Environmentally sensitive design with current plans showing 100% solar energy support 7. Hillside Guidelines - Intent met with only 3 exceptions that the team seemed reasonable for this exceptional property. In direct response to feedback from the Planning Commission, the Town's staff and the Town's consulting architect, we have made numerous modifications to the plan. The plan has evolved substantially including: 1. Reduced house size 2. Reduced grading 3. Reduced tree removal 4. Reduced FAR Please see `Item IV" in the September 28th , 2005 document attached I have included as back up to this letter the following: 1. A bullet style document dated September 28th, 2005 that covers many project details 2. My initial cover letter from the design study session which talks a little more about our approach to this project dated December 2004. In summary, we want to: Exhibit F 1. Merge 2 lots into 1 (through a PD) and build 1 home This would: 1. Reduce the amount of structure built 2. Reduce Grading 3. Reduce Visibility 4. Reduce the number of trees removed 5. Bring Land Use Closure to the site 6. Increase our cost 7. Be agreement with the neighbors In Closing, we are requesting a recommendation of approval as revised to the Town Council. Please forward any comments to the Town Council for consideration. Sincerely, Rob & Ranae DeSantis Rob & Ranae DeSantis 105 Kennedy Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 December 9, 2004 Los Gatos - Letter of Introduction To: Town of Los Gatos This is our story. I am originally from Rhode Island and my wife Ranae is from the Sacramento suburbs. I have lived in CA for the past 20 years and moved to Los Gatos 14 years ago in 1992. Ranae and I married in Los Gatos in 1992. Today we have a 14 month old daughter Rachelle and another child on the way. We expect to have additional children possibly through adoption and have gone through the adoption certification process. We very much enjoy the neighborhood where we live currently but realized several years ago as our family grew and other personal factors; we would need a different home to raise our family. Our plan was to find a home that would allow us to raise our children and care for our aging parents. Our extended family is very important to us. Both sets of our parents do not live locally and visit their grandchildren for extended periods of time. As our parents age, we anticipate that we will become their primary caretakers and as a result desire a home that will sustain their needs. Four years ago we began the search for the right home and in 2003 purchased 200 Forrester Road. As beautiful as the house was, it did not meet our family needs, but we thought the land behind the property offered us the potential for achieving our goals. In late 2003 we met the owners of the 13.7 acres of land and after some discussions, bought the land in early 2004 and decided to build our home. We are currently planning to move to 200 Forrester in February and will sell it when our project is finished. Once we decided to build, we put together the following project goals and set out to hire an architect that we felt could meet or beat the below goals: 1. Meet Family Needs 2. Environmentally sensitive with a green strategy 3. Be a project that respects our neighbors and the town can be proud of In early 2004 we selected Richard Landry and Landry Design Group to be our architect. Once hired, the first thing they did was visit the town and learn about the zoning regulations & guidelines. After meeting with the Town, they then met with us to discuss family needs and then set out to develop a home that met the above goals. As LDG developed the initial concept we realized that we could better meet the needs of the Town, the neighbors, the environment and of course us, if we centralized the major elements of the design as opposed to having two structures on separate lots. By late summer, we were pursuing 2 options: Option "A" proposes two separate residences. This option does not meet our project goals or support our family goals. By developing two residences, we would essentially be separating the grandparents and guests from our family activities. It would also require much more disturbance of the site, and place the upper-house in a more visible location. Option "B" proposes one larger single family residence. By combining the allowable square footage for smaller lots, we could potentially meet our family goals. We would reduce the environmental impact as there would be less grading and site disturbance, less hardscape and fewer building structures. Option "B" not only satisfies our family goals but we believe is also more consistent with the town's vision statement and objectives as described in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. One home would maintain a more open, wooded and rural character. One home would also have less impact on the native landscape, preserving trees and wildlife habitats. And although the site is not in any established view corridor, one home would also not be as visible from adjacent properties. Sustainability 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 can supply water for irrigation and water features. A licensed arborist has been working with us to insure tree care and health. Before deciding to move forward with option 2, we decided it made best sense to again talk to the Town and see if conceptually it would be possible. With some initial thoughts and several discussions with the Community Development Department's professional staff, we decided to invest in their comments and prepare some data that could be used in a study session with the Planning commission. The big concerns we have looked at are site layout, grading, square footage, view corridors to the Town and neighbors, trees, environmental impact, energy consumption/reduction (a green strategy), architectural style, height restrictions, hillside guidelines and neighborhood reaction. Neighborhood response has been very supportive. The town provided us with a list of 37 residences to contact (most of which were out of the 300 ft requirement but together felt might have an opinion). To date, we have met with 32 of the 37 and 100% have signed their support for our one larger home option. We have made several attempts with the remaining residences but have not yet been able to set up a meeting. We will continue to conduct outreach as the process continues and are pleased with the positive reaction to date. We are excited about the project and look forward to meeting with the planning commission to discuss our home. I appreciate in advance your thoughtful consideration. Feel free to contact me at 408-348-1202 or at Rob n,rdrmail.com should you like to walk the property. Yours truly, Rob & Ranae DeSantis 1 JUSTIFICATION RECEIVED PROJECT: DeSantis Residence O C T 10 2005 APN# 537-29-007 & 537-29-008 TOWN OF LOS GATOS Lot 16, Tract # 6514 PLANNING DIVISION Kennedy Road at Forrester Road DATE September 28`x, 2005 1. Introduction (See Introduction Letter) A. Family Goals: 1. Family 2. Kids 3. Parents B. Project Goals: 1. Home functions 2. Environmentally aware Green Architecture 3. Build a Home that the town & community can be proud of H. Proposed Request. A. Site supports two properties LANDRY D E S I G N G R O U P 1. The existing property is 2 legal lots 2. Property is 13.71 acres total. 3. Average Slope Densities: 39.3% for Site, 29.2% for developed area including House, 32.2% for developed area of Tennis Court 4. Adjusted net area is 5.48 acres (maximum allowable development) 5. Zoned HR 2.5 (2.5 acres minimum per lot) B. Maximum allowable Square Footage 1. Each lot is theoretically allowed a 6,000 Sq Ft residence 2. Therefore the property has a theoretical maximum of 12,000 Sq. Ft. residence 3. Proposed Residence is - 11,363 Sq. FL III. Consistent with town's Vision Statement & Objectives A. Maintain the existing open, wooded, rural character 1. Minimum impact to site a. Area of site disturbance for proposed project is 2.25 acres b. Greatly exceeds setback requirements c. Floor Area Ratio is only 2.6% B. Harmony with the natural setting 1. Minimal impact on existing trees (see Arborist Report and Tree Impact Comparison). 2. Design follows rural character in massing & materials C. Conserve landforms and other features of the natural landscape I. Site has been previously graded. Structures take advantage of existing natural and previously graded areas (see Slope Analyses). 2. Structures are located in the least restrictive areas, weighing factors such as views to the site, landforms, existing trees and accessibility (see Photos). 3. House ig nestled into the Hillside to reduce any neighboring visibility. 1 1333 IOWAAVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 T 3 10.444.1404 F 3 1 0.444. 140 5 www.landrydesigngroup.com architect®landrydesign.n et Page I of 3 D. Preserve wildlife habitat and movement corridors I . The design maintains undisturbed natural corridors that run the entire length of the property. E. Create Land Use Closure 1. Subdivision deed restriction or; 2. Open space easement F. Protect and preserve view sheds and the ridgelines of mountains I . Site & project are not visible from any established View Platforms 2. Not widely visible from surrounding properties 3. Site is not a ridgeline site (see Photos) 4. Project is nestled into hillside to take advantage of site & create more open space G. Ensure High quality projects and Promote sustainability 1. Structures proposed maintain the high quality of residential projects of this caliber. 2. Sustainability & green architecture principles are goals of the project: a. Active & Passive solar b. Green materials & methods with renewable & recycled resources c. On-site water supply for irrigation and water features d. Watershed reduction & minimal impact on utilities e. Preserve & Increase native planting IV. Planning Commission Study Session Results A. Revisions and reductions as a result of our study session with the Planning Commission: m Proposed 12104 Revised _ % Chance House size 13,300 Sq.Ft. 1 1,363 Sq. Ft. (2/05) -15% Total Including all Accessory Structures 19,820 Sq. Ft. 15,989 Sq. Ft. (2/05) -20% Open Space / Subdivision Deed Restrictio n none yes (2/05) yes Grading 20% 16% (2/05) -20% Grading Volumes 31,400 Cu. Yd. 24,750 Cu. Yd. (6/05) -21% Net Export 25,600 Cu. Yd. 16,050 Cu. Yd. (6/05) -37% Trees (over 600) 22 removed 18 removed, --4 moved -18% FAR 3.2% 2.6% (2/05) -0.6% B. Revisions and reductions as a result of our 3/16/05 Town Planning Submittal: I . Grading has been revised significantly to reduce earthwork, remove retaining walls and achieve a more balanced site. 2. The house has been raised, the Motor-court lowered, the rear yard reduced, the area East of the house redesigned, grading along the driveway modified and a new area of fill located to help offset export 3. The amount of export has been reduced by an additional 20% and the amount of overall earthwork by an additional 7% (not including the new area of fill). 4. The new area of fill by the Tennis Court retains 500 Cu. Yds. and requires one additional tree to be moved. 5. Six retaining walls have been eliminated. 1133310WAAVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 T 3 10.444. 1404 F 3 10.444, 1405 www.landrydesigngroup.com architect Gla ndry deslgn.net Page 2 of 3 V. Summary & Project Support A. Owner is invested citizen in community B. Project is supported by neighbors (see Neighbor Hood Support Map and Project Notification list) C. The development is not visible from any established viewing platforms and the development is not visible from "The Dome" D. There is no significant impact on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement corridors. The development utilizes only 16.8% of the site in order to maintain the open, wooded and rural character and allow for the natural wildlife habitats and movement By placing the house on previously graded areas, we are able to minimize tree and native landscaping impact - less than 4% of the significant trees are impacted. We are working with a local arborist and will bring back native trees and plants to the site. E. Majority of grading is for access and the house pad. The house is designed to work with the hillside and step in profile with the landscape. The project has taken into consideration all of the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. I. Grading cut/fill maximums are exceeded in some cases. This is done to reduce visibility and nestle the house into the hillside, as well as to help provide the required fire-truck turn-around. 2. The 25' Height from adjacent grade to the highest Roof point is exceeded by -2' for a small section of the roof ridge to accommodate for better proportions in the design. There is also a 5' Architectural Projection for a tower roof on the front side of the house. Overall,, the house falls well within the 35' height differential from lowest point of grade to highest ridge, as dictated by the HDS&G. 3. We believe we comply with all other items, and have followed the intent of the HDS&G given our exceptional property. F. Green architecture and environmental sensitivity are also a primary concerns (see IH/G above) I . Utilizing high-performance systems & materials, our proposed project exceeds Title 24 requirements by 32.8% 2. All irrigation water will be collected on-site 3. All power will be solar generated, not just pre-wired 4. More than 25% of the Hnrdscape will be pervious G. Full cellar is designed H. All neighborhood neighbors have been contacted; the project has 100% support from adjacent neighbors and has not received any objections. 11333IOWAAVENUE LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 T 3 10.444. 1 404 F 310.444.1405 www.landrydetigngroup.com arc hit ectelandrydesign.n et Page 3 of 3 CDG CANNON DESIGN GROUP October 24, 2005 Ms. Suzanne Davis Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: Desantis Residence Dear Suzanne: E. "I 111IIi,II 111 I'IANAIv,, 1 H f i N " ICE•II,% I reviewed the drawings, visited the neighborhood, and met with staff and the project's architect to discuss the proposed residence. The project is large in terms of total floor area, but it is on a very large site, is varied in terms of heights and floor plan articulation, utilizes high quality materials, and has many detail elements which will add a great deal of visual interest. In my judgement, the project is well designed, and will have minimal visual impacts on the surrounding area. I have no recommendations for change other than to request the architect to look carefully at each of the window head elements to ensure that their depth is consistent with the architectural style and substantial stone wall material. Suzanne, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon AIA AICP President TEL: 15.331.3795 FAX: 415.331.3797 180 HARBOR URfvF.. sum 219. SAG Exhibit G January 31, 2007 The Honorable Joe Pirzynski, Mayor Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 Dear Mayor Pirzynski and Council Members, This cover letter provides a brief overview on the new home my family began planning over 2 '/2 years ago. The first thing we did was to create the following project goals: 1. Meet our family's and Town's objectives 2. Create an environmentally respectful/green plan 3. Respect our neighbors and partner with the Town Although it has taken longer than we expected, I am happy to report that it has truly been an enjoyable and well thought out process. Our plans have evolved significantly in response to the Town staff, Town Consulting architect, Planning Commission and other interested parties. We have worked with the Town every step of the way and believe that we have developed the best solution for this property, the Town, our neighbors, and our family. Fortunately, this property and our proposed home offer some unique characteristics which constitute an all around "win". These characteristics are: 1. Visibility - The site is not visible from anywhere in Town (except from a few neighboring properties) and has over 600 existing trees to screen the proposed home from our neighbors. 2. Land Use Closure - With 13.71 acres, and the potential for two buildable lots, at the direction of the professional Town staff, we are proposing a PD that would control the whole site, lock in any approvals, and bring "Land Use Closure" to the site. 3. Proiect size - Our proposed home has less square footage than could be built if the property was developed as two separate lots. We have also made additional modifications since our September 2006 meeting with the Planning Commission to further reduce the home size and minimize grading. 4. Grading - Export was a key concern at the September 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Since then, additional grading studies have created an option that eliminates export. 5. Neighborhood signed support - There are 13 properties adjacent to our site. 100% of these property owners have signed their support for our project. We contacted an additional 30+ neighbors that had partial view of our property and 100% of all neighbors who responded signed their support or stated they were indifferent. To date we have 55 signatures from the neighborhood, all supporting our project and no one in our neighborhood has expressed opposition to our plans. 6. Green Design - We are proposing an environmentally sensitive design with current plans targeting 100% solar energy support and other leading green building principles. ATTACHMENT 11 7. Hillside Guidelines - We conform to the intent of the Town's hillside guidelines and standards. All requirements to allow consideration of additional floor area on this exceptional property are met and shown below: a. Not visible from viewing platforms b. No significant impact to protected trees and wildlife c. Grading minimized d. Standards and guidelines met e. Title 24 compliance f. Pre-wired for photovoltaic g. 25% permeable hardscape incorporated h. Significant cellar included i. No significant visual impact to neighbors Equally important, we conform to all Town Zoning Codes and Regulations and are not requesting any variances or deviations from the Town Code. 8. Town/ Neighborhood compatibility: There are 91 homes in Los Gatos greater than 6000 sq ft. Also, 5 of the largest 10 homes in Los Gatos are on Kennedy or Forrester. Our proposed home would have the 5th lowest FAR in the entire Town and would be smaller than 9 homes currently existing in Los Gatos. In direct response to feedback from the Planning Commission, the Town's staff and the Town's consulting architect, Larry Cannon, we have made numerous modifications to the proposed project, including : 1. Reduced house size 2. Reduced grading & export 3. Reduced tree removal 4. Reduced FAR With the above said, the main two items we worked on since the September 2006 Planning Commission review were home size and grading. Size: Although the house was under the theoretical maximum of 12,000 square feet for two standard properties, some felt our proposed 11,300 sq. ft. was still too large. After much heart-felt discussion, my family has reduced the proposed size of the house to 9,965 sq. ft. We won't know the long term impact of this decision on our family for some time but we do feel it is the right compromise, since we have considered all viewpoints on the issue. Export: In September 2006, we showed dramatic reductions in grading, impacting several aspects of our project. We had optimized the grading work to minimize site disturbance and protect the trees. Based on that solution, we were proposing 16,000 CY of export and 16.6% of site disturbance. Armed with the Commission's feedback from September 2006, we restudied the site and came to the realization that this site had already been significantly graded and disturbed many years ago by previous property owners. With this information in mind, we studied the property to further reduce or eliminate export and restore some of the original contours, while protecting the site's environment and trees. In performing this latest study we established a way to either reduce export to 4,000 CY or eliminate it entirely. To eliminate export, we would: move the house slightly closer to the property "saddle" and away from the "ridge" like area; restore some of the original land contours, and remove between 3-7 non-dpecimen, oak trees from 4 different tree areas totaling 15-20 trees. Reducing export to 4000 CY would impact 3 areas and total roughly 11 trees. Trees would be replaced in a greater than 4 to 1 ratio. Since we have over 600 trees on the property, we believe the impact of no export outweighs the impact of a few trees. In closing, we are requesting the approval of this PD for the following reasons: 1. This is a large exception property at 13.71 2. There is no visual impact 1 There is less structure being built than if this property had two homes on it 4. This is an environmentally sensitive home that incorporates green architecture 5. The PD ensures land use closure 6. We have collaborated with the Town and have neighborhood support Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions or need additional information. I can be reached at 348-1202. 1 thank you for your kind consideration of our home plans. Sincerely, Rob DeSantis