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