08 Staff Report - Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road~1 WN O MEETING DATE: 4/02/07
ITEM NO.
j ~y a «.r 1
I COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 30, 2007
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER rvw~
SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 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 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 for further refinement; or
c. Deny the PD application.
If the Council decides to approve the project, the following actions are recommended:
1. Make the Negative Declaration (motion required);
2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment 13) (motion required);
3. Make the required findings (Attachment 14) and approve subject to the conditions
included in the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 15) (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. Lortz, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager 4-- Town Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: 3/30/07 3:42 PM
Reformatted: 5/30/02
I I=
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: KENNEDY ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04.
March 30, 2007
BACKGROUND
On February 5, 2007, the Town Council considered the subject applications. Following public
testimony and discussion the Council continued the matter to this agenda and provided direction to
the applicant for plan revisions as discussed below. Staff and the applicant have evolved the
proposed project to address the issues raised in the Council motion as described below.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has submitted revised plans in response to the Council's direction. The Council
requested that the applicant review and make plan revisions for the following (staff comments are in
italics):
Reduce the house size to less than 10,000 square feet.
The house size has been reduced to 9,965 square feet. The applicant has provided floor
plans to demonstrate compliance with this directive (see Attachment I8). The footprint of the
house has been reduced by 7%.
2. Reduce the encroachment outside the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA).
The plan reviewed by the Town Council on February 2, 2007 had 17, 000 square feet of
development outside the LRDA. As a result of shifting the house and modifying the grading
plan, the development that extends onto slopes greater than 30% has been reduced to 15,500
square feet This represents a 9% reduction in the development that is beyond the LRDA.
Reduce the amount of export to 8,000 cubic yards or less.
The grading plan has been revised to reduce the amount of export to 7,900 cubic yards. The
export has been decreased by reducing the cut for the main house and by increasing the
amount offill being placed on the site. The fill areas are around and below the tennis court,
between the pond and the house, on the upper knoll above the art studio and an area behind
the house.
The revised grading plan raises two concerns from staff. First, the plan would impact
additional trees in the lower fill area south of the tennis court and in the fill area between the
house and art studio that were not identified in through the environmental review process.
Second, the grading design for the lower fill area should be revised to achieve a more
natural appearance.
Staff believes the plan can be revised to address staff's issues and achieve the Council's
three objectives through the Architecture and Site (A&S) approval process. The above
I -g Ir-
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: KENNEDY ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04.
March 30, 2007
parameters established by the Council have been incorporated into the PD Ordinance (see
Conditions 44, 19 and 36) and, therefore, would become part of the zoning for the site.
Should the applicant be unable to revise the plan within the established parameters, the
project would be returned to the Council.
Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines
As discussed in the previous Town Council report, in order to approve the PD, the Council must
grant the following four exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G).
The HDS&G contains the following criteria for granting an exception:
"Exceptions from the standards in this document may only be granted after carefully
considering the constraints of the site. Any deviation from the standards contained in this
document shall include the rationale and evidence to support the deviation. The burden of
proof shall be on the applicant to show that there are compelling reasons for granting the
requested deviation."
Discussion of each exceptions follows.
The height of the main residence exceeds 25 feet:
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. Development outside the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA):
Portions of the tennis court, motor court, pool and cabana are extending onto slopes greater
than 30%. In reviewing the previous site plan, staff estimated that the amount of
development outside the LRDA is about 2% of the project. The applicant reduced the total
encroachment by 9% from 17, 000 to 15,500 square feet through shifting of the house, motor
court and turnaround and reduction of the house footprint. The garage, turnaround and
motor court have been moved backfrom the steep slope and the grading has been reduced on
the north side of these improvements. Retaining wall heights were not increased by the
shifting of the development.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: KENNEDY ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04.
March 30, 2007
3. Exceeding the allowable floor area:
In addition to the general criteria contained above, the HDS&G contains additional criteria
for allowing an exception to the maximum allowed floor area (pages 29 and 30 of the
HDS&G. The criteria are being met as follows:
a. The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms.
b. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement
corridors as established by the environmental review (a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is recommended). As the project is refined during the A&Sprocess, any
modifications will be required to be consistent with the adopted MND.
C. Grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowable
floor area will be minimized. Export of soil has been reduced from 16, 000 cubic
yards to 7,900 cubic yards. The grading plan will be further refined through the
A&S process and will be held to the parameters established through conditions of
approval included in the PD Ordinance.
d. All standards and applicable guidelines are being met other than the requested four
exceptions discussed above.
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 applicant has revised the grading plan to reduce the amount of export to 7900 cubic
yards. Key changes include raising the house by one to two feet and increasing the amount
of fill below the tennis court (up to 10 feet) and on the upper knoll (up to eight feet).
The maximum cut depths established by the HDS&G are exceeded in some areas of the
driveway, house and rear yard area. The cuts are a result of lowering the house into the site
to reduce its profile and limit its visibility to neighbors. 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.
Fill depths are exceeded for the tennis court and the fall area below it, the motor court and
upper knoll. The fall areas around the tennis court will better blend it into the site and
lowers the height of retaining walls on the south side. The fall areas on the upper knoll and
around the house will further reduce the amount of export from the site. The following chart
-3 f
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: KENNEDY ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04.
March 30, 2007
summarizes the worst-case cut and fill depths that are proposed for various project
components. The grading summary chart in the February 5 Council report shows cut and
fill depths associated with the previous plans (see page 5 of Attachment 19).
Grading Summary
Cut De
th feet
Fill De th feet
Area
Allowed
Proposed
Allowed
Proposed
House
8*
21**
3
2
Driveway
4
12
3
0
Motor court
4
5
3
8
Tennis court
4
4
3
16
Cabana
4
12
3
4
Pool
4
6
3
5
*Exclusive of cellar
"Exclusive of cellar
CONCLUSION:
The Town Code establishes a two-step process for PD projects-PD approval and a subsequent A&S
approval. PD applications are required to provide conceptual development plans only. Detailed
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, a detailed
A&S application will be required for the project.
The applicant has submitted revised plans that meet Council's directions from the prior meeting.
Staff has several concerns with the grading plans; however, staff believes the plan can be refined
through the A&S process. To ensure Council's direction is implemented, staff has included
Council's parameters in the PD Ordinance which establishes the zoning requirements for the site.
This approach is consistent with Council's past practice. If Council approves the PD application,
the plans would continue to be refined through the A&S process and the project would be held to the
floor area, LRDA and grading parameters being established by PD Ordinance.
If the Council desires to see the plans further refined at the PD stage, Council should remand the
project to staff, continue the application to a date certain, and direct the applicant and staff to make
further changes to the project.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Bloom=
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: KENNEDY ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04.
March 30, 2007
Attachments:
L-12. Previously received
13. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (one page)
14. Required Findings (one page)
15. Planned Development Ordinance (16 pages), Rezoning Exhibit and Conceptual Development
Plans (18 sheets)
16. Applicant's letter (two pages), received March 27, 2007
17. Revised floor plans (three sheets), received March 12, 2007
18. Revised grading plan (one sheet), received March 27, 2007
19. February 5, 2007 Report o the Town Council
20. Previous floor plans and grading plan (four sheets)
21. Letter from Christine Currie (two pages), received March 28, 2007
22 Letter from Lee Quintana (one page with two page attachment), received March 28, 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 TC\KENNEDYACORN\KENNEDYACORN-4-2-07.DOC
1 H;
The following attachments
are available for review in the
Clerk Department:
#1-12
Exhibit A & B (to attachment 15)
#17
#18
#20
I M
O
-d U
~ „ O
C4 U v
N
U c-t U
U
J
Q U Q
Q ~
v
c
O cc3
O ct
~ rte= ~
~ S~,
2:1
'
U )
-rl
v
•
~O 4
~ O
Zjp
U
I N
>
r-
_
c
N~~
~ U
O O
u
G) cz
,
U
u
•
o
Ls
U
v
P cn
~
v
W
Z
-
Q
c3 :5
a4 U
O
W
v
O
)
N
^v
U
n
~
1
N
C
cn
Z
v
U y
~
Ua~
r
O N
J
a
- ,-C
C7t
c_
U U r
y
~.n
~
o
~
¢
Ca
O
U C) O
O (-q
J
~
cn
r U O
C~5 C)
W
UO O
tj)
Q
b
H C2 N
E- on z), V1
U
ATTACHMENT 13
I
I f
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING -APRIL 2, 2007
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
Kennedy Road Cad, 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, temlis court and
accessory structures on property zoned HR-21/2. 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 is 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.
Ni-.DE V\FIND1NGS`,KemedyAcom-TC.u pd
ATTACHMENT 1q-
MINIMUM:
0-
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE
FROM HR-2'/Z TO HR-2!/2: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-21/2 (Hillside Residential, 2'/z-10 Acres
per Dwelling Unit) to HR-2'/z:PD (Hillside Residential, 2'/z-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.
A TTA CHMENT 15
Page 1 of 17
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% in. X 11 in.) shall be submitted to the Engineering
Division of the Parks & Public Works Department for review and approval. The
Page 2 of 17
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 15,500 square feet, and the size of the house shall not exceed 10,000
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.
Page 3 of 17
MR "-1
10. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT. The height of the art studio shall not
exceed 21 feet (excluding the 29" cupola). All other accessory structures shall
not exceed 15 feet.
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.
Page 4 of 17
I sx, l
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, and any other improvement detennined to be
appropriate by the Director of Community Development. The specific uses and
improvements that will be allowed shall be detennined 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.
19. LEAST RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT AREA (LRDA). The amount of
development that encroaches beyond the LRDA limits shall not exceed
15,500 square feet.
Building Division
20. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the construction
of the new single family residence, accessory structures, site retaining walls,
tennis court, pond and pool.
21. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined
in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans.
22. ADDRESS/HOUSE NUMBER: Submit requests for new address/house number
to the Building Division prior to the building permit application process.
23. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building
Official, 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.
Page 5of17
ALTERNATE: Design the foundation for an allowable soils 1,000 psf design
pressure (Uniform Building Code Volume 2 - Section 1805).
24. 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:
a. On-site retaining wall location
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
25. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS. The residences shall
be designed with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town
Resolution 1994-61.
a. Wooden backing (no smaller than 2-inches by eight-inches) shall be
provided in all bathroom walls at water closets, showers and bathtub,
located at 34-inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable
for installation of grab bars.
b. All passage doors shall have at least 32-inches wide on the accessible
floor.
C. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a five foot by
five foot level landing no more than one-inch out of plane with the
immediate interior floor level, with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike
edge.
d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired.
26. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by UBC
Section 1701, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection
program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to
issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be
completely filled-out, signed by all requested parties and be blue-lined on the
Page 6of17
construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov.
27. 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.
28. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE. California Title 24 Energy Compliance
forms CR- IR and MF-IR shall be printed on the construction plans.
29. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE. This project requires Class A roofing assembly.
30. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS. New fireplaces shall be EPA Phase II
approved appliances per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs within 10 feet of
chimneys shall be cut.
31. PLANS: The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of
a licensed architect or engineer (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538).
32. NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS. The Town standard Santa
Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet
shall be part of plan submittal. The specification sheet is available at the Building
Division service counter.
33. 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.
Page 7of17
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
34. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE-l. 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.
35. 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.
36. GRADING PLAN. The amount of export from the site shall not exceed 8,000
cubic yards. The grading plan shall be revised to reduce the amount of
export as much as practicable while not triggering any additional significant
environmental impacts not covered by the adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
37. 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 footprint.
Page 8of17
1 R.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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 wails, 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.
Page 9of17
U
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. TREE REMOVAL. Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be
provided prior to issuance of a grading permit.
46. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest
adopted Town Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All
work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-
of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day.
Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of
goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a
special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the
job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way
according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required
maintenance at the developer's expense.
Page 10 of 17
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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
50. 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 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.
Page 11 of 17
7 ff<,a 1
51. 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.
52. 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 12 of 17
I Uhl', I
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
Page 13 of 17
57. 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.
58. 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.
60. 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
Page 14 of 17
IFI,:1 ;
possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not
exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
61. HAULING OF SOIL. Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the
morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between
4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer
shall work with the Town Building and Engineering Department Engineering
Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow
under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but
is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place construction
notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities,
or providing additional traffic control. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and
other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
62. ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. In lieu of the stadard grading inspection fee, the
applicant shall fund a full time Engineering inspector for the duration of the rough
grading and soil export operations. The applicant will be charged on a time and
materials basis. A deposit for the full amount, to be estimated by the Town based
on the Contractor's approved schedule, shall be paid prior to issuance of any
permit.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
63. 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.
64. 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.
Page 15 of 17
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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 16 of 17
SECTION VI
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos on April 2, 2007, 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
, 2007 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:\DE V\ORDS\Kennedy-AcomM eadows. wpd
Page 17 of 17
h
HR- ITO
i H 1/2
O~i~ i
i
I- _
LL -E
KENNEDY RD
1 1l ~
` _ I 1 KENNEDY ROAD
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Application No. PD-06-04. A.P.N. # 537-29-007 & 537-29-008
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
® Zone Change From: HR- 2 1/2 To: HR- 2 1/2 PD
❑ Prezonin
Planning Commission Action
Approved by Town Council
Clerk Administrator
March 30, 2007
The Honorable Joe Pirzynski, Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Dear Mayor Pirzynski and Council Members,
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our family home on February 5, 2007. Over the
past 7 weeks we have worked extensively with Town staff and our design team to address the
very clear direction on the three outstanding items you requested that we address. In direct
response to feedback from the Town Council's clear direction below please find a summary of the
three items and our response to each.
1. House Size.
Council Direction: Ensure home size is less than 10,000 Square Feet.
Response: The house size has been modified to be below 10,000 sq. ft. and reviewed
with the Planning Department. The current house size is 9,965 square feet and the
footprint has been reduced roughly 7%. This is considerably less than the theoretical
12,000 maximum. This house would also have the 5th lowest FAR in town.
2. LRDA.
Council Direction: Provide same or better than 98% compliance
Response: LRDA - With much effort, we reduced the LRDA encroachment by 9% from
2% to 1.8%. We are now 98.2% compliant.
3. Grading
Council Direction: Export less than 8,000 CY without causing environmental impact.
Response: Export reduction with no negative impact to environment - We have worked
closely with the Planning and Engineering departments on multiple iterations and have
confirmed the reduction of export to less than 8,000 CY without creating any negative
environmental impact. The current conservative plan shows export at 7,900 CY. As it is
in everyone's best interest, as the work on my home unfolds, we will continue to work
hard with the Town's professional staff to reduce these numbers even more through the
Architecture & Site process. See Grading point number 4 below for more detail.
In addition, I have provided a short recap of the unique characteristics of the property and home
that make this a worthwhile home for the town, the neighbors and our family.
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.
ATTACHMENT L Co
3. Project size - Our proposed home has less square footage than could be built if the
property was developed as two separate lots. We have also met the specific direction
given to us at the February 5`h Council meeting.
4. Grading - By restoring some on the natural land contours to the property, we have been
able to reduce grading to less than 8,000 CY while also reducing the number and size of
retaining walls. For example, most walls by the tennis court have now been eliminated
and the court is nestled on the property more naturally.
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.
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 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
3. 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 do not 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
r- -T -i
H aF MEETING DATE: 2/05/07
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 29, 2007
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
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-
2'/z. 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. Lortz, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager
Community Development
Reformatted: 5/30/02
Town Attorney Clerk Finance
Revised: 3/29/07 3:02 PM
ATTACHMENT
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 maxiinum 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 provide
land use closure. A PD allows a site specific approval that can be tailored to a particular property
and would not allow further development or expansion without modification of the approved PD. In
addition, areas that are not being developed can be preserved through dedication of an open space
and conservation easement.
A PD does not change the way a project is reviewed. Hillside projects are evaluated against the
HDS&G regardless of the application type. Approval of a PD would establish a site-specific zoning
for the property and would lock approval of the development into the zoning for the site rather than
relying on HR zoning. 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 would be required
as opposed to an Architecture and Site (A&S) approval. A PD is a legislative act and as such,
findings are not required for denial. An A&S application would not limit future development or
provide land use closure.
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
ff-
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04.
January 22, 2007
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
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.
I KIN,, €1
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: KENNED7 ROAD @ FORRESTER ROAD; FILE #PD-06-03, ND-07-04.
January 22, 2007
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
approximately 161/ 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 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.
The criteria for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area (pages 29 and 30 of
the HDS&G) is being met as follows:
a. The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms.
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.
C. 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 nextpage 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
Grading Summary
cut de
th (feet)
fill dept
h (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
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 it can be raised is limited by the location of
the driveway. Of the proj ect components, the driveway requires the most grading (5,200 cubic yards
total) followed by the tennis court (2,400 cubic yards) and pond (2,200 cubic yards).
Grading quantities for the project are summarized in the table below.
Grading Quantities cubic yards)
area
cut
fill total ~I
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
20,400
4,350
24,750
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 amount 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 fill as it occurs primarily on the ridge.
Under concept EX-2, the depth of the fill would be up to II feet, and will extend into the
surrounding tree canopy. Placement offill within the dripline ofoak 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 fill 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 ofgradingproposed 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.
Aboutfour 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 is supportive of the concept of balancing the grading on the property, staff will need to
do further analysis of drainage and tree impacts, as well as revising the environmental documents.
Council also has the option to direct staff to work with the applicant to reduce export to the
maximum extend possible without creating environmental impacts not contemplated under the
current Mitigated Negative Declaration. A condition of approval could be added to this affect.
Flnnr 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 ofstructures 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
arborist, Douglas Anderson, and was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Arborist, Arbor Resources.
I VFT
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 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 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 TC~KENNEDYACORNdCENNEDYACORN-2-5-07.DOC
From: Christine Currie cchristine@onourboat.corm
Subject: Re: Desantils Agenda Item for Monday
Date: March 28, 200711:47:18 AM PDT
To: jrose@Iosgatosca.gov
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Christine Currie wrote:
Hi Jackie,
I would like to see this information included for consideration of Town Council.
Thank You in advance,
Christine Currie
408.884.3717
onourboat.com
DESANTIS PROJECT
~1IE
ZR ~
TOWN CF " CS GAT
CLERX f PART
After carefully looking at the file for the project on Forrester and Kennedy Rd the following might help explain just a few of the
many items of concern to neighbors and community members.
Also, as of this morning the file is still incomplete for this project. Missing civil drawings, revised grading plans and all of the
issues brought up from past planning commission meetings
have yet to be addressed or included as updates. The neighbors and community should have the opportunity to review the entire
plan, updates and outline before being rushed to the
Town Council meeting for a possible vote on April 2nd.
On December 15th 2004, The Planning Commission held a study session for the Desantis project. Please refer to the log notes
from that session. On page 4 of 5, The direct quote:
Rob Desantis states that "We wanted to gain input before we made too much investment. We will recheck numbers and go back
and challenge family needs. We will go back and take
the points of the Commission and neighbors. It is a community of neighbors and important to take their comments into
consideration."
September 13th 2006, The Planning Commission meeting included the following key points:
The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines are not being met on a number of issues.
The overall project is 2.7 times the maximum allowable area outlined in the HDS&G.
The project has a very large LRDA. Significant portions of the area proposed to be built are outside of the LRDA with a greater
slope than 30%..
Please see page 57 and 48 of the HDS&G. These pages outline the specific conditions concerning LRDA and compliance to the
HDS&G.
None of these issues have been addressed and the project does not meet any of the guidelines set forth.
Grading and Off haul
The project exceeds eight of the Maximum Cut and Fill guidelines. Please see page 17, section 1 of the HDS&G.
The project is Non Compliant. A precedent set by allowing this developer to play by a different set of rules. A complete disregard
for the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan.
A PD is a re zoning. The fact that re zoning is a legislative act and therefore "Referendable."
We ask as members of our concerned community to send this project back to the drawing board and allow the Town Planning
ATTACHMENT z 11
UMENOLI -1- .1J
Commission to do it's work.
In keeping with community standards, following the guidelines set forth without violating the rights of those who want to build
their dream home.
Diligent town planners with excellent foresight developed the Hillside Design Standards & Guidelines for projects just like this
one. The rules need
to be applied for the sake of our Hillsides. Your Stewardship as Town Council Members is required. Protect and Preserve Los
Gatos.
Christine Currie
117 Broadway
LG 408.884.3717
christine@onourboat.com
Christine Currie
408.884.3717
onourboat.com
Mayor Joe Pirzynski
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, California
Dear Mayor Pirzynski and Council Members,
Re:- Kennedy @ Forrester Road
PD-06-03
ND-07-04
The focused on the Council's discussion should be on the project consistency with the Town's existing goals and
policies contained in the General Plan (GP), the Hillside Specific Plan (HSP), the Zoning Code and the Hillside
Development Standards Guidelines (HDSG), and minimizing the projects impacts to the hillsides.
Instead, based on the discussion at the 2/5/07 Public Hearing, the Council focused on how to balance proposed cut
and fill in a manner that would not require revision to the environment document (i.e., would not delay the
,project).
If the Council approves the proposed Planned Development Zoning and makes the Negative Declaration it will
1) Make an inadequate and incomplete Initial Study/Negative Declaration
2) Establish, in effect, a new policy allowing "estate homes" on "large" hillside parcels. The proposed project
does not meet numerous standards and guidelines of the HDSG, nor does it meet the conditions to grant an
exception to maximum floor area; therefore, approval of this project will have the same effect as amending the
HDSG without adopting a Resolution as required.
3) Approve a project based on numerous assumptions that are not supported in the record.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 354-7808.
Sincerely,
Lee Quintana
A TT,q Ci /MENT 22.
_r 1 z
f
N
0
BAR 2 8 2007
KENNEDY FORRESTER ROAD TOWN Ci= LOS GATOS
CLERK DEPARTMENT
The Mr DeSantis has stated his belief that family needs should not be questioned when evaluating a proposed
project. I agree with him, but I'm sure for different reasons. Hillside projects evaluated for how well they adhere
to the standards, guidelines and intent, goals and objectives of the HDSG.
At the 2/5/07 Town Council hearing on the proposed Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road Planned Development Mr.
DeSantis stated he understood the intent of the HDSG to be to allow smaller houses on smaller lots and larger
houses on bigger lots. I couldn't disagree more. Nowhere in the Vision Statement (p.6), the Goal (p.6), or the
Objectives (p.9) does the HDSG mention the size of lots or the size of development in the hillsides. Clearly the
HDSG intent is to preserve the natural environment, foster sustainable development and ensure high quality
design.
Exceptions to the maximum floor area of 6000 square feet MAY be granted (but are not guaranteed) if a project
meets 9 conditions (p.29). This project does not meet conditions 3, 6 and most importantly condition 4. Mr.
DeSantis has stated that the proposed project meets all the conditions for granting an exception to maximum floor
area because it meets his interpretation of the intent of the HDSG.
ADD PC AND STAFF LIST OF STANDARDS NOT MET ANT ADDITIONAL ONES
It has been stated by both the applicant and staff that the project has evolved over time. However, all the plans
are remarkably similar with respect to the site layout, building locations and design program. As stated by the
applicant, "We have in an attempt to fit the project into the topography. Apparently at no time did the
applicant consider another site plan, building locations or house design that was consistent or at least substantial
more consistent with the HDSG. The only major change to the plan has been to substantially increase the amount
of fill retained on site resulting in an increase of total earthwork from to . While the amount of dirt hauled off
the site has been reduced from to less than 8000. However, as the Negative Declaration anticipated this amount
to be approximately 10,000 cy this does not result in a substantial reduction as far a CEQA is concerned.
LRDA based entirely on one criteria: the area with less than 30% slope.
LRDA excluding the groves of trees in the middle to upper parts of the site (graphic).
Keep major part of development in the lower, least visible portion of the LRDA
Reduce grading needed for driveway
Reduction in total earthwork
Reduces off site visibility of structures and driveway
Reduce length of driveway (eliminating need for turnaround
Reduces area of site disturbance
Reduces area outside LRDA
Increases area of contiguous open space
All of which would result in a more environmentally friendly project
May not accommodate a Tennis Court and may place the swimming pool further from the mail structure.
ff;'11~f' IJ
Unique vs constraints
All hillside parcels are unique
Existing concentration of larger homes
When built
HDSG developed in part as reaction to larger homes
ND Issues:
Off Haul
Haul route
Traffic
Timing conflicts with Valley Christian Church
Visibility
Surrounding land uses - mid-penn.
Biology
Wildlife
Woodlands
Watershed
Significant Questions Raised by This Application:
As evidenced by this proposal larger homes with their associated structures are likely to have increased impacts on
the environment with respect to changes to the existing topography and vegetation, especially if located of parcels
that are heavely wooded and have steep terrain. What would be the coummulative impacts of estate homes?
What is the definition of an estate home
How large must a parcel be to accommodate and estate home?
How many of these large estates are possible in Los Gatos
Undeveloped
Underdeveloped
Potential for merging lots either undeveloped or underdeveloped?
What is their distribution throughout Los Gatos
Given the size of the lots and homes is it realistic to assume that they generate N
HDSG allows for exceptions to Standards and Guidelines as well an exception to the maximum floor area, but how
many and how much? And how do you factor in the type of exception, the degree of non-conformance and the
number of time a project does not meet the same standard or guideline (example: number of places on site grading
cut or fill depths are exceeded)?
Planning Commission Comments and Concerns
5 un ]