Documents previously submitted to CouncilaOw NOF
: ;.,,O TO~~~iV OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING CON IMISSION STAFF REPORT
fi s Meetincy Date: August 13, 2008
OS C4t0 b ~
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO.:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER
CONTACT PERSON-.
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
REC01vIMENDATI0N
PROJECT DATA
Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
S-OS-55
ITEM NO.: 3
Kennedy Road r Forrester Road (north side of Kciuwdy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
Rob DeSantis
Acorn Trust
Rob DeSantis: 408-348-1202
Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
2'/2:PD. APN 537-29-007 & 008.
DEEMED COMPLETE: August 7, 2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: February 7, 2009
Approval, subject to conditions.
General Plan Designation
Zoning Designation:
Applicable Plans & Standards
Low Density Residential
HR-2'/ :PD
PD Ordinance 2162
Hillside Development
Standards Guidelines
Hillside Specific Plan
Parcel Size:
Surrounding Area:
13.7 acres
Existing Land Use General Plan
Zoning
North
Single Family
Low Densitv
HR-2'/-
East
SingleFamily
Low Density
HR-2'/',
_
South
Single Family
Low Density-
; HR-21
West
Single Familv
Lori- Densitv
HR- i
ATTACHMF;NT 6
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
Kennedv Road (a- Forrester Road, S-08-55
August 13, 2008
CEQA: A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
were prepared for the Planned Development and were adopted by the
Town Council on May 5, 2008. No further environmental analysis is
required.
FINDI\GS: ■ That the project is consistent with the Hillside Development
Standards & Guidelines.
■ That the project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan
■ That the project is consistent with Planned Development
Ordinance 2162
CONSIDERATIONS: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture
and Site applications.
ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed
within ten days.
EXHIBITS: 1. Location map (one page)
2. Planned Development Ordinance 2162 (18 pages inclusive of
Exhibit A)
3. Council Resolution 2008-56
4. Required findings and considerations (three pages)
5. Recommended conditions of approval (five pages)
6. Applicant's letter (one page), received August 4, 2008
7. Project data sheet (one page)
8. Exterior colors and materials (one page), received July 30, 2008
9. Development Plans (22 sheets), received August 7, 2008
BACKGROUND:
On May 5, 2008 the Town Council approved a Planned Development (PD) application for a new
residence, accessory buildings, pool, tennis court and pond on a 13.71 acre property. As part of
that action. Council approved the 4fiti-ated Negative Declaration and Nfitigation Monitoring
Plan and introduced the PD Ordinance. The ordinance was adopted by Council on May 19, 2008
(see Exhibit 2).
In approving the PD, the Council approved the following four exceptions to the Hillside
Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G):
• Main residence exceeds the allowable floor area
• Main residence and art studio exceed allowable height limits
• Development is allowed outside the LRDA
• Cuts and fills exceed allowable depths
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3
Kennedv Road (a- Forrester Road. S-08-55
August 13. 2008
The Town Council resolution documenting the findings for approval of the PD, inclusive of the
exceptions to the HDS&G, is attached for the Commission's information (see Exhibit 3).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surroundinu Neiuhborhood
The 13.71 acre property is surrounded by large hillside lots developed with single family
homes and ancillary uses. With the exception of 200 Forrester Road, none of the homes
on abutting parcels have a direct line of sight to any of the building locations. Farther
homes have partial views into the site, pri mari ly those on upper Teresita Way
outlyina
Zil
and Wooded View and Hilltop Drives.
B. Architectural and Site Approval
Architecture and Site approval is required for construction of the new residence and
accessory buildings. The PD Ordinance stipulates that the Planning Commission shall be
the deciding body for the application. Considerations for the review of architecture and
site applications are included in Exhibit 4.
C. Zoning Com liance
The proposed residence, garage, guest quarters and accessory structures are within the
allowable floor area for the property (16,700 square feet) and are compliant with
setbacks, size and heights included in the PD Ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
A. Architecture 8- Site
The PD allows for an 8,660 square foot primary residence and a total floor area of 14,700
square feet. Staff and the Consulting Architect reviewed the plans for consistency with
the PD Ordinance and conceptual development plans. The proposed project complies
with the approved PD Ordinance and Official Development Plans. The Consulting
Architect recommended that the column jamb elements separating the windows in the
circular form on the rear elevation be the same as the building wall base material or
treated as decorative half-round column elements. The applicant agrees with this changes
and a condition has been included requiring the design detail to be refined when the
construction plans are prepared. General project data is provided in Exhibit 6. Exterior
materials and colors are presented in Exhibit 7.
Story poles were not installed since the size. location and building heights have been
established through approval of the PD. The Town Council determined that story poles
were not required during the PD process.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4
Kennedv Road r Forrester Road, 5-08-55
August 13, 2008
B. Neighborhood Compatibility
The main residence and accessorv buildings are set apart from development on
surrounding properties. The development will not relate directly to other residences in
the area due to large setbacks and topographic barriers. Homes sizes in the immediate
area vary from 3,589 to 8,905 square feet and lot sizes from .88 to 10 acres.
C. Green Building-'Sustainability
The applicant has committed to building a green project. Staff used the Build It Green
standards (adopted by Town Council on June 2, 2008) to determine that the project can
meet certification requirements. Condition #3 of the PD Ordinance requires the project to
be certified as green through evaluation using the GreenPoint checklist. The checklist
must be completed by a Certified Green Building Professional. The applicant completed
a preliminary checklist and far exceeded the minimum number of points (50) needed to
achieve certification with a score of 280 points.
D. Open Space Easement
As required by the PD, an open space easement will be granted over approximately 10
acres of the property. The easement grant must be completed before an occupancy
permit is issued for the main residence.
E. Drivewav
The applicant is working with staff and the Fire Department to narrow the driveway
width in locations that will not compromise sight lines or emergency vehicle access in an
effort to reduce grading. the height and length of retaining walls and the amount of
imperious coverage on the site. A condition has been included requiring the refinement
of the driveway width to be completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and
Director of Community Development, prior to acceptance of construction plans for
building plan check. The driveway will be surfaced with permeable concrete.
F. Landscape Plan
A preliminary landscape plan has been provided (see sheets 3 and 4 of the development
plans). Ornamental planting is proposed in the immediate vicinity of the developed
areas. with native and low water plantings transitioning to the natural hillside areas. The
final planting plan will be reviewed with the construction plans to ensure compliance
with HDS&G requirements. A condition has been included requiring evaluation of the
area south of the pool and cabana to determine if additional planting is needed for
screening of the rear yard and back of the main residence. The evaluation will be done
once these improvements have been constructed, prior to final inspection and issuance of
an occupancy permit.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5
Kennedv Road ~2_L Forrester Road. S-08-55
August 13, 2008
G. Fencing
There is existing fencing along the north. east and Nest property lines. Ne« wildlife
permeable fencing will be installed along the south property line, following Kennedy
Road. The fence will be set back 30 feet from the road and will blend into the vegetation.
The perimeter fencing was approved as part of the PD. The only additional fencing that
is proposed is a wrought iron fence around the pool area.
H. CEQA Determination
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Planned Development and was
approved by the Town Council on May 5, 2008. No further environmental analysis is
required.
PUBLIC COM"IENTS:
Staff has not had any contact with neighbors. Public hearing notices were sent to 55 surrounding
property owners and residents. House occupants are noticed in addition to the property owner
where the owner does not reside on the property.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMNJENDATION:
A. Conclusion
The project is in compliance with the PD Ordinance, the Hillside Specific Plan and the
Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines other than the previously approved
exceptions. Staff recommends that the application be approved as outlined in the
recommendation section below.
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to approve
the Axchitecture and Site application:
1. Find that the project is consistent with the HDS&G and Hillside Specific Plan
(Exhibit 4);
2. Find that the project is consistent with the PD Ordinance 21162.-
I Find that the project is consistent with the considerations for approval of
Architecture and Site applications: and
4. Approve Architecture and Site application S-08-55 subject the conditions in
Exhibit 5.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6
Kennedy Road C Forrester Road/S-08-55
August 13, 2008
Prepared by:
Suzanne Davis
Associate Planner
Appzoved by:
Bud N. Lortz, AICP
Director of Community Development
BNL:SD
cc: Rob & Ranae DeSantis, 200 Forrester Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Eric Morley, The Morley Brothers, 506 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Richard Landry, Landry Design Group, 11333 Iowa Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025
DEV REPORTS 1009 Ke CdYACCM-A&S,do
Acorn Meadows PD
J
C1 h T ~ `
Exhibit 1
ORDINANCE 210?
OR-DI\_1NCE OF TIII TOW- i OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING TI1F:'I O WN CODE EFFECTING A ZONF: CH_1NGL-
FROII IIR-21/2 TO I-1R-21/ :PD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON KENNEDY ROAD,
JUST LAST OF FORRESTI R ROAD (AIIN's 537-29-007 & 008)
THE `LO%V\1 CO~:\,C:L. Of T--[-!-' TO%VN OF LOS DCAS OR-DAI~+ AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
7hc To,- :1 Code o 1110: Town of Lcs CatoS ]ti _1 C4^'= 21F:iend~:: to cliarge tl:c zon-ing on
property at Kei-mcdy RoaL, eas: o Forrester Road (Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Numbers
537-29-0(',7 & 0()S) as stlos~ n C,
the L' aC:lched llc:ete as l IA, ar.d is part Ordinance,
n j)
(rlil';side
from. I:llsidc Res'h crt_a:, 2'ia-l U :-lees pe: D1.veI`n, U;.i') to FIR-')1/2-PD
Reti:~enti ll 21b-I 0 Acres per Dwellinp- Unit, Planncd Development).
S"CTION 11
11w PD (]'l"ar.necl 'rev lopment O,ferlayj zore establ:sl_cd by this Ordina-rcc lu-horiz s the
follcwin" construction all,': else uj,provcmunts
2. Accessory sti,uctures inclusive Of art stt:clio, pool cabana, tennis pavilion and
ateh~ use.
3. Driveway, pool, limn s court, and landscapir-+g, as shown and reguircd on the Official
Development Play.
4. Water well for irri,atior, su eject to issuance of a permit from. Santa Clara Valley aler
District.
5. U.Scs pe-r::litt::d ate t.I('- iiicc i _ ?he I lR L[i lsidc Residential) zer_e b Scc:.or,s
29.40.235 (Permitt,,a I.Iscs) ar.,,.'29.2~.?.185 ;C,l:citional 'Gses) oCthe Zoning Ordinance, as
hose sections cxist a_ the ti..,c of ;}lc awcptic!n of this Ord.na.lre, eras they r_•:ay be amended
authOr]lC:: by this l11'd: li. 1C~ %r J; CQI: I:i:On 1 1 ~5% Pc-Vn;T.
Exhibit 2
SECTION III
COMPLIANCE WITH' OTEER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Of cial Development Plan
specl 1cally shows olherwise.
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:
YO THE SA'1ISFACTiON OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
i . ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. A separate Architecture and Sitc
application and approval is required for the new single family home and accessory structures.
ThG Planning Commission shall be the deciding body for the Architecture and Site
application provided it is in compliance with the 011`-Fncial Development Plans and the
provisions of this Planners Development Ordinance.
2. OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The Official Development Plans provided are
conceptual in nature. Final building footprints and building designs shall be determined
during the architecture and site approval process.
3. GREEN BUILDING The ]louse shall be desigr~zd to achieve connpliance with GreenAoint
Rated Standards for green building certification.. The GreenPoint checklist shall be
completed by a Certified Grcei: Building Professional.
Page 2 of l7
4. PROJECT FLOOR AREA. The house sire shall net exceed $.650 squ :re feet and the total
flour area for '.he evera!1 protect steal: noL c~ :ee 141,700 square fee:. The Director Of
Commumit,, Develo pmer_i -may approve ar. additiona, accessL,%ri str_ur.:re not exceeding 6130
sclmue feet for storage and rr.aintecance equipment. No other er:closed structures ether than
:hose she n an :hc Of:ic~af De,,elop1--ent Pl;rns sha:: be added torc sate. Adj-.stnenis ma,:
.be muds: Tu :he S:Z'_ Of S::'t:Ct_Ir 5 CiirJ'_I _ The :~rC171l~Ct_l:'C Si1c prcct-,-, Provid-ld ,tat the
total allowable floor area is nut exceeded.
5 (.11:\:-1f NTai. ! llS~~':'~l'I\0..711 i• :'r_a_ I::::~1 c hii: sh,r:l be cvnffr -d
fec of the i mn:eter of :he. area formed by the mair_ licust, ^ool, and cabana. a:-td vvithfn 30
Peet Of other structures on the property, inclusive Of the water feature. Any planting heyond
those areas shall be ves.:a`ou::i. at :s diet:<,-t ara f:r~- -esis:art, and nlar.tC;= in ni atura'
clusters.
6. LANDSC:A E PLAN. A landscape plan shall be reviewed and approvecl wits, t1.c
Archilc:ctur-- & Side app'ication. The landscacc- phin shall --e re: i eve to eva'uate the need
rctr a&fitiimal huldscape scn,,en:ng sotrh of the pool ar.w cabana to min_rr.iye long-:e-:::
changes in views frorn existing residences to the south.
1' F.NCT G. Fence locations shall be reviewed and approved dur'ng the Architectrr- & Sire
review. fencing small be rest_-icted to open design, as pravidec for in tine Hillsic:e
Development Stautdards & Guidelines, except as necessary to provide security or enclose
orm:tment,rl landscaped areas its described in condition 5 to prevcat wildlife vr?.Ang. This
Co dititm Joey noc :t `p:~ to fLncirw along :he ccmmon proneriy line with 2100 Forrester Rd.
8. y1AfN RFSIDFNCE H EIGI YL The height of -he mair. residence may exceed 25 feet in tl_c
limitCd locatk)lls _:-s v'E. oil C:C`-ation5 ir.cituh.' witl: tl.e 0'.3-icial Development: PI-Ans.
C). ACCESSORY STRUC - 1JR1: E1, f GI IT. 1 he hm,:it o", c ttrt studio sha'.l not exceed 21 feet
(excluding the 2'9' cupola). All other accessory structures shall not exceed 15 feet.
10. Sl 'l`13:11.'KS. `I lie rpinimum bt.i!Aing su- backs are those seecifi-,d by the HR pj district.
i 1 . HORSf:S. Horses a:c a1:ewt d on Lne pi-opeu'`y in cerrtal'_ar_c: wi-,h To,,vrt Cole p°evisic ns
horses. 'the art studio building may be tusc.. as ar: animal barn.
12. EXTERIOR LIGHTING. All exterior lighting shall be reviewed and approves] as part of the
Archi =ecnrrc & S to rcviGwi sj and sha[l comply with the Hillside Dcvelopr ;ent Standards &
Guj l nes. Shieldcc'. liahnno .,hail W s°_ k ded W,n directed ar. sh<.?1 n(;t rc or
encroach onto nel`hbor:ng ^roper ks SNelded Hood h5ghs on nl` 1on detester; 1''. l be
installer: only if is can be demonstrated Umt ;hey are c ea:-ly needed fir safely.
13. COLOR REFLECTIV"TY DEED RESTRICTION. Prio_- to tl=e issuance of a bu-'lding
permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with tk:e Santa Cla:•a Cour_ty
Recorder's Of{lce that states that al; eMeHor paint colors shall rot exceed a light reflectivity
value of 3Q shall bind with the natural color of the vegetation, tat sur-ounds the site, and
shall be maintined in con%nance Wh be Town's W side Development Standards as may
be amended by 4jc . c~ gyn.
14. TREE REMOVAL. PERMIT.: 'Ace Removal Pe,,'---nit shall be obtained for the removal of
any ordnance protected tier; prior to the issuance of a Building, Grading or Encroachment
Permit.
15, TWEE PROTECTION. Tree protection fencing shall be placed at the dripline of existing
now to be saved in the area of construction. Fencing shall be focu- feet high chain link
attached to steel poles driven two feet into the ground when at the clripline ol'the tree. if the
Fence has to be within eight feet of the trunk of the tree a We 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 anchor building
permit.
16 TREE PRESERVATION .~]I .~S~"_Z.L:S `I roc t~reser'.anon measures shaki be sk:0~vn on :l_e
construction :>>ana~e::ter;t Hiatt.
17 *`BIOLOGICAL. RES(WeRC! S M f'G_ YDN `'lEA1l_:R.U. The prom applicant: WE
impOr?2i. l A: rec{oraniendatkris made by the fo`Ks constlting Warlst, Arbor Resources, In
rccports dat.'.C1 l` )IlliL'"'~ 10 itnci .1U:'e' 27, 2UO6 and OCtJ er 3, 206'I, as w,_l as any'inches.
I .S. "BIOLOGICAL RESUJRCI.a V..- i IGATION 1JEASURE RL-placement trees i:ia!1 'ne
p':an:ed Tr trees taa: :c. al a th: to one rat:c The applicant shell sub!r.it a Tree
Replacement and :Jli:r. ^,,-:1?iacd by a i.11f:C' 3 resteratlon cc,,:ogist. -:11C !-fall
Page of 17
shall be peer revieNved by a, restoration ecolDgist selected by the Twmn and shall be
in.~Ienmited b;, ._e app:ica_n, t•.) f.nal il:spectl,)n _or .ne main residence Replacement
idantings all :[ijude a range of new Qet ap 7rop'Imy i; : g thn and peKodi rn ]P'tJAng to
ensure KwcnsNI rewegetation. SneaRc guide.tnes for replcrting locations and perceI:t tree
corer J'i.all he pro'; i ed by the p:~C L andrLlate loc'16:'I7s SI' 1 I_rc.L:'fie graded ;);)rt;ons o is i-
pruject site pro' i:.ie tong tc2r:-. jkpc mah lzation as yell as ha: itat ;cplaccmer_t.
19. OPEN SPACk':ICONSFRVATION LASF. M17NT" 1-- open space/conservation easement
sha'1 be t. dig rt .._,ve, --he r; T_.` c_zsernent rna;. ._ll~ uses apwrn'.cti ulidCl t .!e
Planned Dc,relupmcn:, .:IC;u0mg ail impro ernants s own on the Official ]Developmem.
Plans, native p9hways and landscaping, trails to satisfv I Lllslde Specific Plan requirements,
and any od-ter improvement det.2_-mir_ec to be appropriat:; by t)e Director of Commlm,.ty
Development. The specific rises and irnprovemerts -hat will be allowad Shall be determirteci
through the devclopmcm of the casement document which WE be recorded prior to issuance
of ar. eccupancy permit
Buildmg lhvision
20 PI?1Z111 fS REQUIRED: A building per lilt shad be re.l'.t veal for the construction of tFe nmv
Ano farmI residence, accessory sir..cturas, site rct'aking `Falls; tea As court, pond and poo'-
21. COND1"I IONS U; APPPOVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on
the cover s'neet of the const. action plans.
2"2. ADDRL•SS/HUI.S~ tiliN,!B1-.R: S.:heal reL,uests for t.ew- aedres lheuse nur_Zber to Cne
Building Division prior to tihe building permit application process.
23_ SOUS f`EPORT" A soils repot, prepared to the sadsAct on of lie Wilding Ofiviul.
conWiNng retaining wail and pad bundmien design recotnmerdations, snail be sabtni-te.i
with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineer spebaijig in soi':s rr.ecl'.anics ALTERNATE: Design the foundation for ,an
ullov,,ab'x so:_s 170OU ps: detgn sressurc ~JrJ fohr. BLl:ldl:ig Code V ALIMe 2-~2et:i rl 1
~ ~»j
l4go 5 of 17
2=!. FOUNDATION NSPECT?ONS: 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 vial] locations and elevations are prepared according to
approved plans. Horizor_tal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licenscd
surveyor or registered civil en-'ricer for the following items:
a. On-site retaining wall location
b. Finish floor elevation
G. Foundation corner locations
25. RESIDENTIALTOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS. The residences shall be designed
with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61.
a. Woollen backing (no smaller than 2-inches by eight-inches) shall be provided in all
bathroom %val is 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, belt or chime shall be hard wired..
26. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: 'W'hen a special inspection is required by UBC Section 1701, the
arcPjtect or engineer of-ecord shall prepare an inspection program. that shall be submitted to
the Building Off dial 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 he
blue-lincd on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the
Building- Division Service Counter or online at vvw,,i,.1osgatosca. gov.
27, SPECIAL 1=NVllZONNIENTAL DE, IGN 1'EATURES. The following features shall be
incorporated into the jm~oject:
a A minimum of 25% of the hardscape shall be of pc rvi;)us materials}.
b. TItle 24 shall be excceded by at least 30%.
Page 6 of 17
C Solar power ge e' .t:or. sh_01 be it: lode
d. 11'rig.ation saa!l be providcd 'py an on-site l !'I LE 4 F,N IZ(1Y CU~~Ik'LI_~~}CE. C.:I:: C`o~:}p1i<:nc Cc-,mms CR-
and NIF-IR shall be printed on the construction pl.r.-s.
29. H.•--\Z.kRDQUS DIKE ZONE. This project rtquines Class roe"i g- assembty
±t?. TOGN`ti I iP.EPLACL- STANDARDS 'N e•.v lre-.laces sll l: be EPA Phase I: a:~,,ro.eLl
appliances per Town Ordinance 19t Tree limbs within 10 feet of cl^ir_lneys shall be c•.it.
31. PLANS: The construction.plans shall be prepared under the dii'ect stlpe]'vision Of a. llcelsed
arch'tect ur tngirwc,'. rBus:rizss and Prcfessionals Co'c Section 5533).
3?. i\C}ti-l'U1N"1' S0. RCL POLL! "1:0'\ STAND.AP`DS. 1h: T,xv s stare:ard Sal-.:a Cla: a
Valley Non-point Source Pclluumi Control Program specltication sheet shall be part ofp11n
submittal. The specific,:tion sheet is a%:• ilable at the B-_iiidir.g Division service coaster.
3 i APPROVALS Rk.;QL[RE:_): 1",e p:' ec. reclr.ires t_:e to:lcl~tiin a enti s ap^ro,.-a: hefor.
~
:ss.l-- a Idil.` perlr.it
a Cclmal~unity Develol )ment: Su•rm tie Davis at 354-OS75
h. k•:ngir_e.;t'ir_>> Deivar'me:lt: Fle-chu at 39-5-2-1460
c Santa CIZU-a Count, Fire (408) 378-401D
Lt. West Valley Sanitation Disti•ic_: (403) 378-2407
C. Local School District: Contact the Building Selrrice Counter for the appropriate
sc'nool district arul to o'ctain tl;e sci-col for-In.
I'0 TI [I-" SA-flSF.,%CT1UN OF HIE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC \VORKS:
Filgine-'ring Diviston
`{GECL(-)GY AND St)!..S ~IITIGA ]C)\ ~t1.~SUiZ1: 1. The project design shall
mcor-orate all applicat,e recom:-:-er-datians ii: UP? Geoiecllr_eloa-, Ir.;.'s geofcchnical
investigation (,Ma ch 1?, 2006 and March 13, 2008) for the proposed project in order to
111l:_1.711Ze the pi!ten':a'. 1 1 sClsl'1:c 8c:i%`ty a n l x011 - npineerin ,
Consualllts
Pa~-,C l of F
35, LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. The limits o ground surface disturbance, including
disturbance required for site g]ac'.ir.g utilirv corstructicr., retaining wall construction, or
corstruciion ofstruc-.ores shall be :esi::Lted to the cu--,as shovvr on the PD plans.
;t . GR-1DI-NG PERMIT. 1 u ::ir4 p ;it is rec_li:c~ fer site. c:ti..ini3 a.,d drain i?e. Tl e
2rsldln perlTilt 3 11:C3`.:v'r {`,~'fai 7C. a1 "Iz1~) Shall ce mar is tc the Eriglile~-°ing D!VlSlpr.
tt_c Parks P'a~ui ^,'cr:~s ~e~a::n:er. located at 41 Miles P.v°nue. The grading plans steal'.
incl'-:de final -)rad::lg, drainage, re;aming t a'.l location, e7i%'-Way; r.ti'.ities and intcr_m
erosion control. GraLIng plans sherd list e~_-thwork quantities ar_d e. ta'ale of cxisting and
proposed impervious areas. Ti-.c grading )er:r:it is for xork outside file building feotjrint's;.
A separate building permit, issued by the B-aiiding Depa:-*rnent on E. Main Street is needed
for grading within the building footprint.
37. PHASED GRADING. Two grading phases will be allowed. A separate gradulg pcrrr>=t is
required for each phase. The initial grading permit shal l consist of rough grading and maybe
issued prior to issuance of a building permit. The rough grade permit shall identify finished
grades in landscape areas aid shall identify pad grades within tlu-ee-feet of finished grades
where structures arc proposed. The rough pad grades shall be. lower than finished grades in
areas of fill, and higher than finished grades in areas of cut. The finished grade grading plan
shall identify final grades in all locations. The intent of the phased grading is to allow
gl'ad]n'L to begltl prior tG lS4Uance 01'a hUild]!1~~ per"Mit, yet to ?lot over-lil I or over-excavates
in areas wher-, struct_lres are to ~'e placed. "Be phasing plall shall be a,:hroVeLl by both the
I Yr;mor oi, PL-ks cull] P.I'FL 1`ie Director of Coniniunity
Yl 1LITY SFRVICrS. allc nc,, 11.7:.c ,call be connec.ec' to the Wcst Valley Sanitation
District sanltal,;' server system ind ti) a p:il 1: w.ter SvSiv 1 I`l'101-t0 ISSUZ111CC oI a c:rtl:lcatc
of occtl-7ancy Prcof oI an:lexa::o11 to `V% ~;D ^L~l~lic l]L$ 5h :11 be wroEfkdcd prior to SUbin:ttal
of a building perllit application.
}'}Zl CCUNS l "RU C'_l(?Nll_l_ : ]\'Ci Prior to iss.l:lr e of any ptrrlli' ortLc cc~tnl:lcrccl zcnt
of any ~'Ie 7,vorl;. C. e gene:-' Lontl._ctol shall:
?age 8 of 17
a. Along with the Troject app iica.:t, attend a pre-constr.rction meeting v~ith the Town
Staff Engine°r• to discuss t_1e project conJitions of' approval, working hours, site
ri_ tenrlnce and
other ensru t:cr nners;
b. A\:l o%v'~c' ke in ',vriting the _ That. ,,"ia'v,-rent! and U:l'.'.ersiand tl. p:0~tct c( nta _:r `n> C r
approval, and will make certain. that all project sub-contractors have road and
understand them l r to act' that a cups C?: tl;e pro: ect co nd:tior:s
of approval "Al he poa=' on _I-o at all tr:r:es wring: cor.strtrC_'.or..
401 RETAINING 1UAII"S. A buildinw. issued by the Buil.iir.g Depannant at 11C W
N/lain Street, may be recltrired for site r tang Wk. `Valts -ire net reviewed cr appr,.rved by
the En =incer"in,, Division of Parrs ar-'d 1't: is WAS rer-n:t Plan .eviz %V
proLeys.
1. ADDI`fIO~;AI. SOtl.1 E;ST C~1G. Additional laboratory teats shall he performed by UGI far
site soils and rock, inchnlinp plasticity limits, S-Well pote:ztial, and shear strength. T'hc results
of such tests seal! "~xe incorporate.! into faun=elation design recur -iendaG.-)ns.
4?. SOILS I' EPO1:T. One copy of the so=ts report shall be subn-:tted with the grading pen-nit
applicraion. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site
grading, drannage, pavement design, retaining NWI design and erosion con(-ol. The repol"ts
shall be signed L:nd''wct starn,,Nd' by the c gineer or geologist, in confon narce sect;en
6735 ofthe Califorria Business and Professions Code
43. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's soils engineershail review
the final gradi.-,g and drainage plans to enmae that des_.ens for foundations, retatrnir_E wails,
At grading, and s_te dr3irage are 1 accordance with -heir recornnwad_rtions and the peer
review comments. Ile applicants sails engineer's approval shall then be corveycd to the
Town either by leror or by signing the plans.
SOILS [_1C:tNI-.ER C ONSTM L:_I.N QBS1.'ZV:? l lUti-1.
excava_ions a:-IiI grad:_ip shol he inspected by the agmcant's seals C'nEtnew prior to
placement of concrete and/or baclcnll so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated ir.:he design-level gcotechnical report; and recurrLr~end aprtropriatc changes ill
tht recotrmerd_Lt:ons ccr",aimed in =he rcpoµ, if neces-sar_ Tht resal-s of tie col.st-.-action
page9oflf
observation and testing shoo be docurnented in an "as-built" letter/report pr"pared by
applic^n`'s soils engineer and su:,mitred to the Town 'before final release of _lnv occupancy
permit is granted.
45 SOILS ENGNEER CONSTR'L CTI N OBSERVATION A :-cpn ser.tati,: p e` :l-+e
geotechnical engineer" ofrec;.i:"d shall be present on site at all titres (:Cuing place-men: offil'.
46. ` FR k FIC PAPACT ti`1-1-1GAT1(N F---,E. T"e;arorer~f owner shall p,-.y a proportional the
project's share of transponation improvemerts nee,aed to serve curnulative developmer-t
within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee a-nou .t will be based upon: U-e Town Council
reso-Lltion in effect a the tine the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before
issuance of a build n+i perlr.:t. `l'he traffic impact mitibation fee for this project us:ng the
cLU•rent fee schedr:le is $5,742. -1 he 5-ia`: fee shalt be ca'cv.lated forth `^c final plays using the
rate schedule in effect at the ti ny the bulkiing pe-nlit is issued.
''l7. GENERAL. All public i:n?roveMen:s shrill be made according to the latest adopted Tewn
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Spec if cations. 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 oNhe day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm
drainage facilities. The storing; o)goods and rnaterials 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 rght-of-way
according to this condition may result in the "Down perforn.ing the recluired maintenance at
a,c developer's expense.
L1S "i RJ. REN-1OV.3L. Copies of all necessary Ixee reLnoval permi'-s s:la?l be provided prior to
issuanc;, ot' gradil_~ pc--nit.
htiCI:0:\C1~:1 -:T 1) ;l`'v'_ : 111 Ott,::: :r. r`_. Public r ght-ef .v:; roc ;;ire a
Const'irctlon E.%c -oaciunent i~ rr 1E.. AL wor< vc,- 55,`)')O vr111 roq,-,ire C.?I:St2"L1 dill: s: Cur ity.
~t? P11MLIC V,70RKS NSPFC-1IONS- The ev-uloTDer o.. his rvnresentatj,e s'1all n+,Lfr the
I~n- in vrin<~ lns^ector at ;e 1 t :trrty-eiu:lt f4S lieL;rs before st :ti1; any work pc-tainin to
r-51t dr:I_naVC fa,--llllc;s, and a:_ l~L`I'lC in 'ilc: l ov n
l':ll"rre to dC so `.vI-i rz.,sidt !11 rcjcct:vn of ':VQ:'k ;lira `;cr- J^ r,vlihoul I;1sr t101:.
Pa g:; 10 o` 1 r'
OURVL;YI G CON :-RD'L.S 1-i :izcrta. and venica: cant:'ais shall b set and certified .y
licensed surveyoi- or re.yis~red civil cnghwer quahticd to prlt f_ee hind surveying, ter the
Bllo4vQ A ns:
RdAnin, v.al.-°._n c-" vva 11 --it ins and
b Foe and top of cz and til: Qpcs
52 ER(-) U)N AN ROL lateral} :na erosion omml piars shall be prepa_-ea ak
submi'.ted to Me Enginexhig Division ofthe Pa:-k> sec Public Wcres Depa runnel. A Node
of Won: (151 i and Storm W_ta. Al.u'ain Pwvonno:_ (S%VPPP s a'1 be su : rifted
the Sal Fmnclzo 13.1`- Regi:`na. NV Aim Qual:t j` _3,,ar.l .J° nrcjeciS 1sI'ir :nu :Yrore
tan one aue. A maAawn: Oi two "neks is allmved hct',vter_ ::Ieartng of a r. area W
staNhAngludding on an area II grc.Wg is aLowed during the Any season. Interim erosion
con`rol measures. to be cw ied out during construction and before instailadan of the AN
i_Lndscaping, shill be incl'_rdA Interim cros_on control method shall include, Ina are not
ht i.ed co: ,silt fencL:s, fiber rolls (%.v.th AS= and dewily erosion control L:ankets, TO=
standard seeing s:Jecinnaion, Ohm berms, Aeck darns, re`ention bas: 15, c:::. Pr'Jvide
erosion contro! mcasures as needed to protect downstream water quahty during vvlnicr
LI7onths. f 111 cros:on cC l:ti'ol plans and `;`11PPP shall 'Ce in compl'mw
wi_h appli:able ineaswis curWir.ed in the amended provisions C3 anJ C.14 of Order W.
R2-200-0035 of be arnemkd Santa Cl::ra Cour_ty NPDES Pe}-mit.
51 DLST CONTROI.. Blowin dust shall oe reduced by tithing construction activities so that
paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion orgrading, and
by lardscapOg d:. urbe:l soi_s as soon as posmble Further, aler ti°acl<s sk a`:l be present avid
in use at the consauction site Ail poroms OF the site suhiect to b:m.v_cg d--is. steal! be
watered as often as deemed nccossaiy 1;y the •l own, or a minirit_im, of taree time daily, or
apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at amsem6on sites it order to insure proper control cf blo Ag dust for the duration of
[he prq c: Wt hng on i ubnc swan sna_l no occur. St-e-.ts wi i be cieanecl b;' stree'.
snTepers or by hand as a lt:;t' as deemed necesur, by tl_e 1 wmr E.ng_neer, or at leas= once a
day V'itwhng amoda`ed 1~rT-, ~sIl-~ilC cor_sn'v.;-.:cn ac,ivity' shall Ske place between tre
Pont 11 of 17
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.. a:id shall ir_cludc at least one Late-alte=oon watering to minimize
the effects of blowing dt:st. All p;lbLc streets soiled or littered due to this construction
activity sha 1 be cleaned and s, p'. c:' a daily basis wring the viort~veek to 'he satisfaction. of
the Town Dernol'tion o:- eanhwork activities sl.a:l be haled when Gvind speeds
(Ins`',Qn,L niellns gust) i excee.l 25 MPI I All tru=cks '1aulin? sol sat=e=, or other loose '-ebrls
shall be covered.
5 DUST CONTROL (SITES % 4 AC1ZS). The fo'lo :ring measures should be :1r.^lcmented at
construction sites ;rea.er Char four ac=es in area:
a Nydreseed or apply (r.on-toxic) soi`. stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously g.k'.cd areas inactive for ten days or more).
b. Enclose. cover, water twl(cc daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpi'_as (di_'t, sand, eta.)
C. Lilr_it t7'PJ'-ac speeds on unpaved roads to 15 n:ph.
d Install sandbags or other erosion control treasures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
e. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
55, CONS'T'RUCTION MANAGENIL'•NT PLAIN. The Applicant shall submit a construction
manage. plan that shall incnl13lrate at a ]ninimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic
Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging
area, cansrr•action trailer-, and pl•oposcd outhouse locations. All staling shall be pe:formzd
within the LRDA,
5(i S1 ORI I ~,VA I FR NL-~NA( -~N[FN I' stor ;vatzr ma tai merit sl:al1 be i::clt ed
wlt:i :lie gra~li_ s pe_-r l1 1u:- all co I and Gro'_]p : pro ::t:s as de--med in the
21Z7e.:d 7r0VIti:Cr ~'._?.Cl. o; Or.!~!r Nc. l1=-2t1'.}5-M 5 C` t:-e ~Ill~1:C1G!. 1;1;1;1 cl3-'a ccun`.;w
~fl'U1;S Perrnit Ne CASO i y I'^e clan shal l delineate source co nt_'ol rneas-.xcs -,:md
13MP's together with the sizinI cc:i l:la'ie„~. .-le PI-11 sl7a:! be certifiiL;d '7v a r. of ss_cnal
pre-c~_]a'ili.d 'a,r tl:.. `fo Ia t11e e'. era ti_~a ?o_-m ~~ate_ rteasures pronoseti tlnc 1'lannin`~
approval ;fi fen significar 1,, - m `hose ccrtif ec on Lz;, Bailding,'Gra ding Perln~ t, the To wr
Pztac 12 of 17
T
it:av rG~ILI:I'C:1u: t--',C l'idnFlll: ',~]OrGV::I prior to leledse U1tl:C Bullt~ rL; i~C.'ni-E
The appll,::mt rna:, elect to the Planr:.n ,',;ba:ittal 4e1:: led t(, avold tit's
po=si' lilt
AGR-EL11ENT FOR STC?Rti1`:~; I EI: 37~ `;1 \NAGEMENT PRA.C. Tll_PS
INSLI EC'I 10\N' AND V-A'X- ALA\CL OK-10-1 110NS The propQrt-- o veer sh::l: t Ater
into an agreemem w_tl,. the Town for l..ainwnanc;: of .lie sior,rlwatel- filtration devices
required to ce illsta:.ec 01- tl::s prole:. b, TC].vl:'s Si:)r:nwi-c. Discliarge Permit No.
CAS029718 and rued :ed Or ter NO. F2-? C) -0t),3 !Fhe aEr'-C ent ,v' V speci=e tna:
certain routine ma:r.tenanCC' shal l Le performed by the Y-oPert y o~ahzr ant 'gill speci ly dcvicc
maintenance reporting rcclulrerl]cnts. Tile agreement will also specify routine inspection
r~;l'.lll'c 1t1Cla), pcl"".1t and 1`:':11C11t o- tee,, 1 lle :iLr;:cmCr:i,,i]a7ll e; records&-' prior to r,'tfnse
o': am ocuupancy p;:-I:11:s.
5x SILT AND N-IUD IN PU 31_lC R11-1T-OF-WAY. It is tic responsibility of contractor and
l]ome owner to ma'k,- sw- 'hat all dirt n'ackcd into -,hc public right-of-way 1s Cleaned L11)01' a
daily balsas. Mud, silt, Ci;['.C'ete and o_her c onstvucul )n debris shall ilea be wFasi_ed into the
Isx.•n] drains.
59. U'TILI'l It"S. Talc developer shall install all utility services, including telephone, electric
JU\k'C'.' and all oNiel' c r1:I11U:11Ca:ICI's .1:]ti € rider's:_kr.' , as !'C,l€l:roil In TJ) n C3,1-
?7SU :7';{b). All Ile~~' atl:i,: se~,. CCs sh.a: be '.aces unac:i2iv :nil L:nae:' :'o~_Ir]~~ car lai'
shall be provided for cable _elevisien service.
60. l'iLCCONS'I Rt)c,rTON PAVEiV1liN"t' SI)ftVEY. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the
arojeet applicant s'nai'l complete umvelner_t cor.dition survey documenting the extent c
existing pa.vemeni defects using a'5,m l] or digital video came a. The survey shall exteni?
along the full I•aul rotate within Town Lit-nits (Kennedy Road l etween pro}ect site ar.3 Las
(;altos Boulevard, Los G,.tos -Blvd .`'rot:: Kerredy Road to I fijhway 9, and Highway 9 from
I os (i.:o~ Bl', d to a ^,aive:L'eI iT'etie `.:CI1 anal: s: Cor_Icr:rll v t;)
1110 sane lin""t as the p.]c'tog: _,h_„ Sl... y saa.l b: pcrtome.. to L;cten:]:re lxaven:cn`.
s.rength. The res€.ts shall be documented in a report and submitted to the'l"own for review.
l'OSTC()titi T RI iCTIO` i'A 1:.tilEN _ S''JRV' Y The l~rniec:.? pp'ical)t will comnl°te a
h+1st ti0'],,?r:1C:1 :G 1'. n7 :]t CQlit 1;1U:. ~'.I: `i V 3r C] '::v:n][ r : C1ellCCtlOIl an l'.'S]s :'J dtteml:ne
Pa:.'° I of ; 7
whether road damage occurred as a rest:lt of project cor_st-uut on and whether there were
changes ir. paverrent strenctll. Tl,e rel,abi:itation irr_pro,,-ernents required to restore the
paveme::t t`4 pre-cc^str_.ct_on condicn and st:-ength shall be deter.rincd usi-1 State Of
California procel&res for def ,e ,ie.r. analysis. The resu't . shall ~e document.d n a re7ort
and subm=':ed to ' e I ov,r. I0- revie',v ar a:~pruval. The Applicant shall be -.:sponsl C for
completing anN requires road rep-:irs prior to re:e se c= the `a= Al' performance Wend.
6 ltk'STORATION OF PUKIC INIPIWVEiv1ENT`. The dovetoper stall repair or replace all
existing improvements net des:r: a'ed for re:rlov'al t11a: are damage: or rer:tclved because of
developer's operaors. Improvements s lch as, brit r.ot lira:tad te: cuI'bs, g.:t:e°s, s:dzwalks,
driveways, signs, naven.ents, raised pavement n-arkers, thermoplastic pavement markings,
etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a col:r'.itior, equal to or better than the or:ginal
condition. Existing ilnprcvement to be repair-,; or replaced shall be at the direction of the
ngineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply wii}: all Title 24 Disabled Access
provisions. Developer shrill rerltirest a walk-tlu•ough with the Fngineering Construction
Inspector before the start tf ccnstrmction to verify existing conditions.
63. A5-BU1L I'PLANS. An AutoC AD disk of the approved "as-built" plans shall be provided to
the Town prior to issuance of a Certificate of Oceupalcy. The AutoCAD file shall inclltde
oilly the fa lowing information alld shall conform to the laver nalning convention: (a)
Building Outlinc. Layer: BLDG-OU"1.1.INE;( b) Driveway, Layer: DRIVIEWAY; (c)
Retaining Wall, Layer: tZFTAENIN(j WALL; (dj Swirmnir:g Pool, I_aryer: SW1MMING-
11001 ; (e) Tcm-ls COxrrt. (r) ?rclle-ty Llr::, f.avLnr I'll'OPER'i Y-
I UNT; (gi ContoSars, Laver. Nf: ~?`C;C)~i"l 0UR All as built d: 'a_ lilts must be on the sane
coorlllr':(lte bas's as .:1e to, t1'S SU':V~2 :Un:: '?1 reI"rJr a~l~ 5:1~t11 be sCh_il!:t. d ill AUtaCAD
VLIY~11ln ~,-i( Cr 1:1 r:
04 CONSTRUCTION BOISE. l3ev.zveer. tnc hours of 5:010 a.m. to SM p.m,, weekdays and 9:04
a.rn. to 7:00 p.m. xceker..cs a_nd 1-olidav:;, construe cn, altera.t on Cr repair activities 3111a11 be
al'owcd. tU individual ricce Oi L:'.I??nl~:rt sr.all procuce r:oISe level exceed;ni z e'ghty-flee
' al{,~ ct tWe:lt tct:l. Ift! :S IiJrat C~ Wit'.:'.rl a Rt''L:: tiff.', file 7rOne,,`v,
til4' Ills a5':r 'n:C:lt Sfl` 11 JC ...aCl l1'. d s_~.ncc-; t;5 Cl se t0 t`.':`er '-tl ' (25'? feca frxr, L)e -,..viii:
Page 14 of 17
as possible. The roi5e level at an ! point of-side of tnc propeaty plane sna':l r~o' ex3ce
ci `'h,fivc (85) BA.
b_`• H:\ULING OF S(-)-L 'Aa'::Qg of sod on of utt-sl_e iI'd! no oct;r,:" .:rin-a the [r_CSin
evening peak periods ('between 7-00 a.m and 9 I;0 a.rr:. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00
p.m. i. P:ior :o the issuance a: a 'cu ldi Y ;,crm_t, the dz ve!oper shall work v,ith t],e To,xn
Building and En,cinttrinJDepartmcn- Engineers ig Inspectcrs to revise a tratli ;;on.rol plar-
to ensure S" and ef"icicnt tra .ic flow under periods whet. soil is hauled on or OffCI:e project
in Thk ntay inc:t le, bu' in net ...___ted tc pm isitn~ t _ t_he _'.esc!jpe: o%v:_e_ tc place
const;rl on nou1.cnAn signs t:.. ing t:.. crates and ta':e -)I* constrirciic!l and
ac?ivitics, er providing additional Wf c control. Cove: all trucks hauling soi1, sand, and
Mher loose debris or requir:::1'.l tMAS [o main:ain at ie_15_ L%vo tire[ of Croeboard. The haul
route for soil e.xpar: shall be Kenwdy Roar :rorl tf:e prcjeet si', :o Los Ga..os Boulevard,
Los Gatos Boulcvard From Kennedy Road to Highway 9 to Highway 17.
W E.NGI NFERAG INSPECTOR. Inlieu W Ke standard -raring inspection fue, the . pp':izant
shall fund a tilt:; ?:':noncering inspector for Be dh',ratlon of the rc-sigh graC ir.E and sod
expor, operations, and inspections as required during the remainder of the site work. The
applicani w:11 be charged en a. time and mateVals basis. ;l :.eprash for t-le fulEl anlo.lr.t, .o be
es.imated by th "1 atE:l based on the Con.raUCYS a; Proved SCI' cCdt:."e, shad] be paid pr.cr to
issuancc; of any permit.
TO THE SATISFACT10'.', OF THE. SAN' 1':\ CLA-..'\ CO"--i TY FIRI'. DEP 1R iVIL-N1 T
6T AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSI'hM RHQLaRED. The new home and accessory
sumcaaes shAl be protecmd t_. myhun by an. approvcd wr.amatic fire sprinkler SYSIM.
hvdrau':_ca.!y designed per N.in anal FAc Man on :~ss;~clatlt~n (NI'PA) Smadwd 4Ad
OK THAM; OF RIJ))t lRf-.D ,VATER SUPPI=Y I``+STAI-f.A FIONS Iustallatiors of r:;ct;ircd
lire set t i~ ~s) anc' lire n ra:l:s ) WA A be '..W _Ind acccptcd by the Fire Depa_-tnhc_h:. prior
to i:,e start ZC ;ra%1;n{ Cel;v'e ' CI 'M COl:lM;l} i! m-t!e a: s Bu lding pl ii-- iss-jance
inay be withlheld until required installadons aye completed, tested, and accepted.
P:: .5 of 17
69. FIRE. APPAL ATUS(ENGINE) ACC; SS ROADS. Provide access roadways with it paved
all weather sur`ac:c and a rninlmu-n unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 1-
t<et 6 inches, minin:ura circula:i:-G turtling radius of 36 fee` outside anE 23 ft:- inside, and a
It:aY1r]uI]] S:ope of ! 5~, 11istit.1 it!O:tS 5':1;1''1 Fire Devartln : t San-4 and ❑et3lls
and Spccifcations A-I.
7U. FIRE APP: RATLJS (ENGfN-) "1TRN-AROG-ND. Provide an auprovet. Tire der~a ~n-er.t
engine roaC ay vurnaround a min:r urt radius o'36 feet outside and 23 fe:: insi?e.
Installations shall con"orm w;t : F.re Department Standard Det_u_s and Specifications A-1.
Cul-de-sac diameters shall be no less tIian 72 feet.
71. TIMING OF REQUIRED ROADWAY INSTALLATIONS. Rewired driveways and/or
access roads tip thi-cugi first I ;f, of asphalt shall be inspected and accepted by the Dire
Department prior to the start o.' construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be
delivered to the site until inst ►lrations are complete. During construction emergency access
roads sna'.I be maintained clear anC'. urtimpucicd. Note that building permit issuance ]nay be
wittrheld until installations are completed.
72. 1ZEQUIRED ACCESS TO BUILDINGS. Provide access to all portions of the residence and
all accessory structures within 150 feet travel distance from fire apparatus access points.
73), PREMISE IDENTIFICATION Approved numbers or addresses shall he placed on all new
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible a-rid legible From Kennedy Road.
Numl_iers shall cont:-ast with their b icknround.
11aj'c 1 6 of 17
SLCI,10N VI
T hIs Or:.-nar_c.- v.` s I1' a re'l-lll Coimc:l ~ftL_ rcv n(--- _es
, oi:, a:! an l~l': 31i2i:~~ ~ 1 vSi'll 0= ~ Gat+_S
at a n:ee.ing of the TOW P, Coui'cil eftl'. Tove~ o= Loy Gatos or; Mai- 19, 2008 and tbecom.es efl.ctiv,
f} days after is adopted.
CODUCII, MLi\IBERS:
-1YL.S S:,--,,c Glicl<slia__. D::me NLN-,.tt, and J. e Pirz,:nsk-'
b,AYS: )alike Wasscrrnan, and, Nla:yor Barbara Spector
AM VAIN.
~i SI6IpD:
M, YOR OF THE TO b~ OF LOS GATOS
LOS AI'US, CALIFORNIA
C--- ILI,
Cf L ID 'TOWN, OF LOS GATOS
LUS GATOS, CALlF0i~NIA
P~~,~~ l- of 1
Approved by Town Council Date: 5/19/2008 Ord: 2162
Clerk Administrator Mayor
EXHIBIT A
Planning Commission Action Date: Sept. 13, 2006
RESOLUTION 2008-056
RESOLU'T'ION OF TIII TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS -MAK-T`NG
FINDINGS REGARDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO APPRO'V'E A PLANNED
DEVELOP NMENT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE, POOL, TENNIS COURT AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2'/
APNS: 537-29-007 & 008
PLANNED DEIVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-06-03
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-07-04
PROPERTY LOCATION: KENNEDY ROAD AT FORRESTER ROAD
PROPERTY OWNER ACORN TRUST
APPLICANT: ROB DESA.N`TIS
WHEREAS:
A. This mater carne before the Town C01.11161 for public hearings on February 5, 2007,
April 2, 2007, and May 5, 2008, and was regu?arly noticed in conformance with State and Town la v.,.
B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the applicant and all
interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony wid
materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commissior proceedings and the packet ei
material contained in the Council Agenda Reports, Addenda and Desk Items prepared for the
Council hearings on this application.
C. The applicant seeks approval for a Planned Development (PD) for a large hillside
property. The development includes a new residence with attached garage and guest quarters,
cabana, art studio, pool, tennis court, pavilion anc entry gatehouse. The total floor area of t 'le Louse
is 8,650 square feet and the attached garage is approximately !,778 square feet. A 6,287 square foot
cellar is also proposed and is exempt from floor area calcuIatior.s. The cellar ele:nen. wi:l be
completely below grade and will not appear as part of the above ground bulk and mass of the main
res:der.ce. Tl.e majority of the sate (approximatcl,v 73'/o) will be ma:ntair ed in a rat-n-al state through
a required open space and conservation easement.
Exhibit 3
D. The project is subject to the Town's Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines
("HDS&G"), from which the applicant seeks the following four exceptions:
An exception to exceed the 25 foot maximum height restriction to allow a 25
foot long segment of the highest roof ridge, the highest portion of which would reach 30 feet, and
two projecting elements on the rear elevation, one reaching 26 feet 10 inches, and the other reaching
25 feet 10 inches;
2. An exception from the requirement that development occur within the Least
Restrictive Development Area ("LRDA") to allow portions of the tennis court, motor court, pool and
cabana, which extend onto slopes greater than 30%;
An exception to exceed the maximum allowable floor area of 6,000 square
feet; and
An exception to exceed the maximum cut depth for the driveway, house and
rear yard area, and the maximum fill depth for the tennis court lower fill area, the motor court and
the upper knoll.
E. The application was considered by the Planning Commission on September 13, 2006,
which recommended denial of the project
F. Council finds as follows:
The zone change is internally consistent with the General Plan and its
elements and the Hillside Specific Plan. The agenda reports for the Town Council and Planning
Commission hearings, the Initial Study and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration do not
identify any conflicts with the General Plan and its elements or the Hillside Specific Plan. In a
memorandum to Suzanne Davis dated May 2, 2008 (May 2, 2008 Addendum to Agenda Report,
Attachment 38), Geier & Geier Consulting, the Town's environmental consultant, state at pages 4
and 16 of the memorandum that Town Staff evaluated the project's consistency with these policies
and dcterm?ned that the project is consistent with said policies. The adoption of the HDS&G
implements policies containec' in'Ee General Plan and Hil:side Specific Plan. While the project
applicant seeks exceptions to four standards and guidelines of the ]IDS&G, such exceptions pre
contemplated in the HDS&G and are permitted under certain circumstances. Such circumstances are
present in this application, including the Lnvironmentally sensitive design of the p:-c. ect, tla; lavo::t
and design of the project in relatior. to the existing topog°aphy, t: e substantial lack of of the
project froin the valley floor (Including the offic: I "viewing platforms" designated in the NDS&G),
and the potential, subdivision potential of the site.
2. Based upon substantial evidence in the record as a whole, the Initial Study
and the April 7, 2008 Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaratian ("NiND") are sufficient with rega`d
to the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. ]'here is no substantial evidence
in the record supporting a fair argument that the project may have a signi:icar:t unmitigated effect on
the environment. The May 2, 2008 Ge;cr & Geier memorandum (Attachment 38) provides a detailed
response to public comments regarding the sufficiency of the environmental analysis, spec! i,.cally
with regard to completeness of the Environmental Checklist, the Project Description in the Initial
Study, the Land Use Planning analysis, aesthetics, biological resources, grading, hydrology, and
drainage, fire hazards and fire protection, transportst:on and traffic, air quality, cultural resources,
and cumulative impacts,
Pursuant to the HDS&G, Council incorporates by reference as though set out
in frill herein, the findings for exceptions to the JDS&G regarding building height, development
outside the LRDA, exceeding the allowable floor area, and exceeding maximum allowable cuts and
till depths contained on pages 3 and 4 of the Council Agenda Report dated April 29, 2008. Council
also notes in this regard the projectjustitications provided by the applicant (April 29, 2008 Council
Agenda Report, Attachmen` 30). The applicant has met his burden c` proof to s!,cw compelling
reasons to grant the requested exceptions. The exceptions actually improve the project in relation to
the hillside environment. For example, one reason for additional cut and fill is to lower the house
into the hillside to reduce visibility. The project, as approved, is designed to be sensitive to the
hillside environment and is consistent with the overall purpose of hillside preservation embodied in
the HDS&G.
RESOLVED:
That this resolution be incorporated into the record of Council's determination of this
application as the statement of findings regarding the matters contained herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, State of California,
on the 19th day of May, 2008 by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steve Glickman, Diane McNutt, Joe Pirzynski
NAYS: Mike Wasserman, and Mayor Barbara Spector
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
b-eA
MAYOR THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CL e'OF HE T OWN OF LOS GATOS
LO , CALIFORNIA
PLANNING COMMISSION- AUGUST 13, 2008
REQUIRED FL`-DIN-GS & COASIDEP,4TIONS FOR:
Ken-nedv Road t Forrester Road
Architecture & Site Application S-08-56
Requesting approval of a grading plan for an approved Planned Development on property zoned
HR-2!/::PD. APNS 537-29-007 & 008.
PROPERTY OWV\ER: Acorn Trust
APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis
FINDINGS:
Required compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines:
■ That other than the exceptions granted by the Town Council (house size, building height,
grading cut and fill depths and encroachment outside the LRDA) the project is in compliance
with the Hillside Dc,.-elopment Standards & Guidelines.
Required compliance with Hillside Specific Plan:
■ That the project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 29.20.150, Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the lavout of the site with respect
to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and
walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion: the
location, arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the
circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development, and the surfacing, lighting and
handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities.
a. Any project or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical intersections
shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the followin~-7 matters:
The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate
existing traffic;
I. Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied: and
Exhibit 4
3. Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one
(1) year after occupancy.
b. The deciding body shall review the application for traffic roadway/intersection
capacity and make one (1) of the following determinations:
1. The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing the
roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2. The project will impact a roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) causing the
roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) to exceed their available capacities.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.1. may proceed.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.2. must be
modified or denied if the deciding body determines that the impact is
unacceptable. In determining the acceptability of a traffic impact, the
deciding body shall consider if the project's benefits to the community
override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections from the
general plan and any applicable specific plan.
(2) Considerations relating to outdoor advertising. The number, location, color, size, height,
lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation
of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. Specialized
lighting and sign systems maybe used to distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as
the downtown area and Los Gatos Boulevard.
(3) Considerations relating to landscaping. The location, height, and materials of walls, fences,
hedges and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal
storage areas, utility installations, parking lots or unsightly development; the planting of
ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the unnecessary destruction
of existing healthy trees. Emphasize the use of planter boxes with seasonal flowers to add
color and atmosphere to the central business district. Trees and plants shall be approved by
the Director of Parks, Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special
criteria, including climatic conditions, maintenance, year-round versus seasonal color change
(blossom, summer foliage, autumn color), special branching effects and other considerations.
(4) Considerations relating to site layout. The orientation and location of buildings and open
spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of the
neighborhood; and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development.
Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g. downtown, Los
Gatos Boulevard, etc.), Buildings should maximize preservation of solar access. In the
downtown, mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new
parking facilities shall be encouraged, and shall include such crime prevention elements as
good sight lines and lighting systems.
Co;isiderations relatiig to d, ainag~ The effect of the site de\ clopment plan on the adequac%
of storm and surface water draina,e.
(6) Considerations relating to the exteriorarchitectural design of buildings and structures. The
effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design of buildings and
structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the nei{ohborhood and
purposes of the zone in which the,,, are situated, and the purposes of architecture and site
approval. Consistency and compatibility shall be cncoura(-,cd in scale, massing, materials.
color, texture, reflectivity, openings and other details. Y
{ I) Considerations relating to lighting and street filr)iiture. Streets, walkways, and budding
lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of the Town. Street
furniture and equipment, such as lamp standards, traffic signals, fire hydrants, street signs,
telephones, mail boxes, refuse receptacles, bus shelters, drinking fountains, planters, kiosks,
flan poles and other elements of the street environment should be designated and selected so
as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image.
(S) Considerations relating to access /or phl-sically disabled persons. The adequacy of the site
development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically disabled persons.
Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total valuation of alterations,
structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value established by resolution of the
Town Council, shall require the building to be modified to meet the accessibility
requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility.
In addition to retail, personal services and health care services are not allowable uses on non-
accessible floors in new nonresidential buildings. Any change of use to retail, health care or
personal service on a non-accessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that floor
to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility requirements of
title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify the building for
unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those requirements. This provision
does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment of this chapter. All new
residential developments shall comply with the Town's adaptability and accessibility
requirements for physically disabled persons established by resolution.
(9) Considerations relating to the location of a hazardous waste nianagentent facilit]-. A
hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public or private
school primarily educating persons under the a4ae of eighteen (18). An application for such a
facility will require an environmental impact report, which may be focused through the initial
study process.
UP.' FI` DEN'GS 3N KF\'S'EDYACOR.`-A .5IN;C
PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 13, 2008
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Kennedv Road c : Forrester Road
Architecture & Site Application S-08-56
Requesting approval of a grading plan for an approved Planned Development on property zoned
HR-2'':PD. APNS 5'7-"9-007 & 008.
PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust
APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF CO'\[ML-NITY DEVELOP.IE`T:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the
conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans
approved on August 13, 2008 and noted as received by the Town on August 7. 2008.
Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community
Development Director or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the
change(s).
2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two
years from the date of the approval pursuant to Section 29.20.335 of the Town Code,
unless the approval is used prior to expiration.
3. TOWN INDEMNITY. Applicants are notified that Town Code Section l .10.115 requires
that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the pen-nit or entitlement- This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval.
4. PLANED DEVELOPMENT. All conditions included in Planned Development
Ordinance 2162 shall be complied with unless modified by the conditions contained
herein.
5. EXTERIOR COLOR. The exterior color of the house shall not exceed a light reflectivity
value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation.
6. DEED RESTRICTION. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction
shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that
requires all exterior paint colors to b: maintained itl the -1 's
Hillside Development Standards.
ARCHITECTURE. The final detailing for the windows on the circular element on the
rear elevation shall be reviewed and approved by staff with input from the Consulting
Architect, prior to issuance of a building permit.
S. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. House exterior and landscape lighting shall be kept to a
minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto
adjacent properties. The outdoor lighting plan can be reviewed during, building plan
check. Any changes to the lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior
to installation.
Page I of 5
Exhibit 5
9. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. Any non-native species and/or ornamental planting shall
be located within 30 feet of the perimeter of the area formed by the main house, pool and
cabana, and within 30 feet of other structures on the property. The final landscape plan
shall be included with the construction plans and will be reviewed for compliance during
the building plan check process.
Building Division
10. APPLICABLE CODES. The project shall conform to the 2007 California Building, Fire,
Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes. The CC's are based on model codes; 2006
International Building Code and Fire Code and 2006 Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical
Codes and the 2005 National Electrical Code.
11. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans shall be provided with the building
permits submittal (maximum size 24" x 36").
12. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full
on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A compliance memorandum shall be
prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions
of Approval (inclusive of the PD Ordinance) will be addressed.
13. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted
with the building permit application. The report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineer specializing in soils mechanics (California Building Chapter Is).
14. SHORING. Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations that
exceed four (4) feet in depth or that remove lateral support from any existing building,
adjacent property or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be
prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall conform to Cal/OSHA regulations.
15. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer
or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation
inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as
specified in the soils report; and, the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall
locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and
vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil
engineer for the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining Walls
16. BACKWATER VALVE. The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide
information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the
installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District
(WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood
level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
17. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE. This project is in a Wildlife Urban Interface Fire
Area and must comply with Chapter 7A of the 2007 California Building Code.
18. DEFENSIBLE SPACE. A Defensible Space/Fire Break Landscape plan prepared by a
California licensed architect shall be provided, The plan shall be in conformance with
the California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section
51182.
Page 2 of 5
19. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION. A letter shall be provided from a California licensed
architect certifying that landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been
completed in compliance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California
Government Code Section 511821. prior to final inspection.
20 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as
the second page, The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service
Counter for a fee of S2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
21. APPROVALS REQL IRFD: The project requires the following departments and
agencies approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development - Planning Division: Suzanne Davis at 354-6875
b. EngineeringiParks Public Works Department: Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
C. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate
school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to
permit issuance.
TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS &PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
22. DRIVEWAY WIDTH. The applicant shall reduce the driveway width to the satisfaction
of the Town Engineer and the Director of Community Development prior to submittal of
plans for building plan check. Width reductions shall be made strategically to reduce
retaining wall height and length. tree impacts; grading volumes and impervious area
while still satisfying Engineering and Santa Clara County Fire Department standards.
23. DRIVEWAY APPROACH. The developer shall install a Town standard residential
approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Details.
24. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed.
25. NPDES. On-site drainage systems shall include a filtration device such as a bio-swale or
permeable pavement.
26. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE. Drainage piping serving fixtures which
have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the
nest upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer svstem
serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflovw• of sewage by installing an
approved type back,,eater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through
the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec. 6.50.025). The
Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer
overflow where the propertv owner or other person has failed to install a backwater
valve, as defined section 103(e) of the uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section
6.50.010 of the Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition.
Evidence of West Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is
needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
27. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley
Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
reused. Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line.
Page 3 of 5
28. UTILITY SETBACKS. House foundations shall be set back a sufficient distance from
utility lines to allow excavation without undermining the foundation. The Town
Engineer shall determine the appropriate setbacks based on the depth of the utility line,
input from the solids engineer and the type of foundation.
29. COSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from
the Town Engineer 15.40.070).
30. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours.
The storing of goods and/or materials on the street will not be allowed unless a special
permit is issued by the Engineering Division.
31. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. The project sponsor shall work with the Engineering
Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and coordinate with the Police
Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department, School District(s), and any public
transportation agencies that share the same route(s) as construction traffic for the project
to develop a Traffic Control Plan. The Plan shall be incorporated into the bid documents
(specifications) and shall include, but is not limited to, the following measures:
a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize
traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses and special events. The
schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with coordination of
the trucking operation.
b. All construction traffic shall not exceed a speed of 15 MPH.
32. NEW TREES. All newly planted trees are required to be double staked to Town
Standards.
33. GENERAL. All existing trees being retained and replacement trees are specific subjects
of approval of this plan and must remain on the site.
34. PERMIT ISSUANCE. Permits for each phase (reclamation, grading and landscaping)
shall be issued simultaneously.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
35. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. Required fire flow is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure.
36. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire
Protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and
appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning work.
37. AUTONIATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire
sprinkler system is required for the new residence, guest quarters, garage, and all
accessory structures 500 square feet or greater. The sprinkler system shall be
hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard n13D
and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valving shall be installed per Fire
Department Standard Detail & Specifications W-I/SP-6.
38. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED. Provide pubic fire hydrant(s) at location(s)
to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company.
Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of
1,500 GPM at 20 psi residual. If area fire hydrants exist, reflect their location on the civil
drawings included with the building permit submittal.
Page 4 of 5
39 FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION IDENTIFIER. Prier to final inspection the general
contractor shall ensure that an approved "Blue Dot" fire hydrant location identifier has
been placed in the roadway as directed by the Fire Department.
10. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED. An access
driveway with a pared all weather surface, minimum unobstructed %idth of L2 feet.
vertical clearance of 13 feet sir inches. Installations shall conform to Fire Department
Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-l.
41. FIRE APPAR.-~TUS (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED. Provide
an approved Fire Department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36
feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall confonn to Fire Department Standard
Details and Specifications D-1.
41 EMERGENCY GATE; ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. Gate installations shall conform to
Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and shall not obstruct and
portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways when open.
Locks, if provided, shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation
43. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION. Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings
so they are clearly visible and legible from Kennedy Road. Numbers shall be a minimum
of four inches high and shall contrast with their background.
Page 5 of 5
Los Gatos - Project Description
TO: Town of Los Gatos
PROJECT: Acorn Meadows- DeSantis Residence
APNrt 537-29-007 & 537-29-008
Lot 16, Tract = 6514
Kennedy Road at Forrester Road
L A N D R Y
D E S I G N
DATE: August 4", 2008 G R O U P
The proposed single-family home is set into a spectacular 13.7 acre property in the hills of Los Gatos. All materials
used in the project are appropriate to the rural character of the landscape. Approaching the property the only
visible structure will be a stone and wood gatehouse. Ascending the driveway, one will pass through several of the
600 trees on the property, driving past a tennis court that is partially sunken into the ground. The court also has a
small toilet room and a trellised seating area. At various points along the road there are terraced stone-clad
retaining walls that allow the slope of the driveway to be accessible by emergency vehicles as required. Arriving at a
knoll mid-level on the property, the house sits back from the edge behind the motor-court The house is sited in
such a way that it does not front the major views toward the cityscapes, but rather primarily faces out toward the
less populated hills & valleys. As with all the structures on the property, the 2-story house plus cellar is composed
primarily stone and wood. Stepped antiqued flat-clay the roofs and varied massing give the house a scale that is fitting
for a rural hillside setting. In the rear, there is a swimming pool and a small I -story cabana attached via a trellis to
the main-house. Walking to the upper knoll on the property one will find a small I -story Art Studio on the side of an
existing field. Designed with a copper standing-seam roof, it evokes the imagery of an old farming building. Here one
can view the taller hills that surround the property or at night look back toward the city lights.
The property has previously been quite disturbed: there has been much grading over the last century and an access
road with berms cut through the center. As a way to restore the property to more of it's original character, the
owner, architects & Town staff have worked extensively with the civil engineer using some of the soil slated for
export to re-contour the property to a more natural state. They have also worked with Arborists to retain as many
of the trees as possible, and developed a plan to add many additional trees.
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 will supply water for irrigation and water features.
The DeSantis family is very excited about the project and look forward to a home that supports their growing family.
As the architects, we feel this not only satisfies their family goals but also is consistent with the town's vision
statement and objectives as described in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, and a suitable
development for a unique property.
I 1 333 IOWA AVENUE
LOSANGELES. GA 90023
T 3 1 0.444. 1 404
F 3 1 0.444. 1 40 5
wVlW. cndrvdesigngro Vp.Com
architect & land ry destgn.nel
Page I of I Exhibit 6
.
.ACORN MEADOWS PROJECT DATA
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
PROPOSED
PROJECT
REQUIRED/
PERMITTED
Zoning district
HR-2'/2
same
-
Land use
undeveloped
single family residence
-
General Plan Designation
low density residential
same
Lot size
• square feet
596.772
same
40,000 sq. ft. m;nimum
• acres
13.71
same
.92 acres minimum
Exterior materials:
• siding
-
stone
-
• trim
-
stained wood
-
• windows
-
stained wood
-
• roofing
-
terra cotta the
-
Building floor area:
• first floor
5,802
-
• second floor
2,848
-
• cellar
5,802
• garage
1,778
400 sq. ft. exempt
• guest unit
1,148
• cabana
840
-
• art studio
600
• pavilion
120
+ gatehouse
140
• total (excluding cellar)
13,276
14,700 sq. ft. maximum
House Setbacks (ft.):
• front
272'
30 feet minimum
• rear
158'
25 feet minimum
• side
367'
20 feet minimum
• side
458'
20 feet minimum
Maximum height (ft.)
30'
30 feet maximum
Average slope
39.3
-
Building coverage
.0155
no maximum
Parking
garage spaces
5
six spaces minimum
uncovered spaces
3
Sewer or septic
sewer
-
Exhibit 7
GUTTERS, VENTS, AND FLASHINGS
COPPER OR COPPER COLORED METAL
GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS
_
ANTIQUE RECLAIMED FLAT
CLAY TILE W! STANDARD
GREY MORTAR
HOUSE EXTERIOR AND
RETAINING WALL FINISH
AGED LIMESTONE, SUCH AS DALLE DE
BOURGOGNE, OR SIMILAR LOCALLY
QUARRIED STONE
EXTERIOR COLUMNS,
TRIM & ACCENTS
NATURAL "LIMESTONE" OR
SIMILAR EARTHTONE COLOR
OF PRE-CAST CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY COLORS
NATURAL STONE AND
STONE PAVERS:
EXPOSED-AGGREGATE
CONCRETE
ALL WINDOWS, DOORS & SHUTTERS
TRANSPARENT BROWN STAIN, SUCH AS
DUNN-EDWARDS DE-499 "EVENING"
COPPER ROOF
(ART STUDIO)
STANDING SEAM
WOOD SIDING
(ART STUDIO)
LIGHT BROWN STAIN
EAVES AND
EXPOSED BEAMS
STAIN GRADE
DOUGLAS FIR T&G
AND RAFTER TAILS
FINISHED WITH SEMI-
TRANSPARENT
BROWN STAIN, SUCH
AS DUNN-EDWARDS
DE-499 "EVENING"
[ t •
(NOTE: ALL GLASS TO BE NON-GLARE)
LANDRY DESIGN GROUP °B"A"E IIAT~ SY.`E`
11333 IOWA AVENUE ACORN MEADOWS 0406.00 7.25.08
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 DRAWING SCALE
T 310.444.1404 EXTERIOR FINISH EXHIBIT NONE
- F 310.444.1405
TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM \O.:
ATE;,.,. 4 PLANNING CONINIISSION' STAFF REPORT DESK ITEM
jos s Meeting Date: August 13, 2008
PREPARED BY: Suzanne Davis. Associate Planner
APPLICATION NO.: S-08-55
LOCATION: Kennedy Road [ Forrester Road (north side of Kennedy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis
PROPERTY O%t~N ER: Acorn Trust
CONTACT PERSON: Rob DeSantis: 408-348-1202
APPLICATION
SUMMAR"t': Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
2`/ :PD. APi~i 537-21-007 & 008.
5
DEEMED COMPLETE: August 7, 2008
Fitt AL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: February 7, 2009
EXHIBITS: L-9 Previously received
10. Letter from Andrew L. Faber (tw-a pages with nine page
attachment)
DISCUSSION:
Exhibit 10 is a letter that was received from the applicant's attorney today.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Davis
Associate Planner
Approved by.
Bud Lortz. AICP
Director of Community Development
BNL:SD
N1 OED` REPORTS '-CU] RvncdYRC,,M-.a.S&_5 J.c
3
ATTACHMENT 7
BERLINER COHEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SANFORDA BEKLINU,
Ri'BERTLCHORTFSC
TNWhWP ML%P1TV
AN DPAWJ.G1oRGiANM
ANDREW I. FABER
10YATHA.ND.WOLF
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING
HANNLIAO"
MATTHE'+'A. TAYLOK
RALPH 7.SWAYSON
IUT71LRQNrSMLR
tROFE5510NAL CORPORATIONS
VICTOR e,TAP►A1.AADO
HEAT'IIERKMUNOS
PEGGY L SPRIMIOAY
Rr'flN F, KSUzy
M=7 DOLIWGRR
F093MT W HANSEN
IWPPH L OWOILAK
N,WL 4AXMWU:Z
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
CkMLSTIAN H. PICONE
MkLINDA 1. DARKER
SAMUEL L FARM
RUDERTA J RAYA514
F,LFVEN114 FLOOR
THOSLAS 6. M0RALL
ALAN M MEbLL
ALAN I. PL IM
71.1 TREY S. YALTMAN
SAN JOSE
CAL1FORNLA 95 i ! 3
221
H0.ADLGY G. IMBERT
SANDRA G. 3ULT,YWA
FRAM R UBRACS
101 a HOUSTON
.
.
3
SETH) COHFN
MARCO M. CAbQAGNA
LIN'DAA CALL0K
HRML STIS'r=
CURL-MK LANG
EPIC J.URQ=
1A-~W CA51)K&1;
X I W F. DO5w4otz
TELEPIIOKE' (408) 296-5840
TNOws T. EarxSOLJ:
M192 Y ME
STHViD: J. CA-AD
H.it.!<Y A LOP13Z
FACNTMILE: (409) 991-1388
LALILA PALAZZOLO
MARY PLATHA M WILSON
NANCY L JORtroON
C:a ACt-.5 W. Your
SHANNON H COGAN
'aCHOLAS RABY
IUCLD A REITON
MI'WEL %".OLA.,T[T
u xw
'xrHna
com
AARON M. VALENTI
STIOTLLKTB D. WBRSFL
.
.
CAAA L U=DI
•A Frofwanl COWCAmn
OPOOUNSEL
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
RETIRED
HUM I,. ISOL,
S41fU9L).001Ii4
MCGRANE GREEYFIELD LLP
STLVEPILHALVi"M.fSON
ItO1IRXT W. HL'M}HRF'!S
SAN JOSE • SAN FRANCISCO
ERIC WONG
LINDA J. LEZOT TS
PM11 GOLDEN
NANCY I-
6><AFrDT
I)TW4 office - Xmed CA
August 13, 2008
VIA FACSIMILE (408) 354-8431
Chairman Michael D. Kane
Members of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town Hall
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Planning Commission Agenda August 13, 2008
Item 3 Architecture and Site Application S-08-55 (Rob DeSantis)
Our File No.: 17237.002
Dear Chairman Kane and Members of the Commission:
As you know, the approval of this Project by the Town Counsel is currently in litigation.
The Town has been sued by a group calling themselves "Friends of the Hillsides", an
Unincorporatod Association." The Complaint alleges that members of Friends of the Hillsides
are 'Yesidents, taxpayers and/or property owners residing within the town of Los Gatos, or in
unincorporated areas within Santa Clara County located in close proximity to the site of the
proposed Project." (Petition Par. 4). It also states that "(t)he claims asserted herein and the relief
sought by this action are intended for the beneficial interest of the members of Friends of the
Hillsides others similarly situated" (Par. 6)
This office represents the interests of the applicant, Rob DeSantis. It has come to our
attention that there is a possibility that one or more members of the Planning Commission may
have attended a meeting of Friends of the Hillsides and/or its supporters, and/or be a member of
Friends of the Hillsides and/or have met or discussed opposition to this project with one or mare
members of Friends of the Hillsides (the "Conflict Activities'.
F IVED
'ALFI-Mg521
0013M-17237402
FXHIBIT 10
Chairman Michael D. Kane
August 13, 2()08
Page -2-
The proceeding in front of the Planning Commission tonight is a quasi-judicial
proceeding. The Planning Commissioners are required to essentially have the impartiality of
judges (who are expected to recuse themselves when there is even an appearance of impartiality).
They are not to make policy with respect to this Project, nor to second guess or question the
decision of the Town in approving the Project. They are to apply the Town's site and
architectural regulations to the Project consistent with the approval already granted by the
Council.
As such, Planning Commissioners should be held to the same standard of impartiality as
judges. We hereby request that any commissioner who has engaged in one or more of the
Conflict Acti-6ties as identified above, or any other conduct that would indicate any previous
position or bias against the Project or the applicant should recuse himself from the hearing
tonight and not participate in any way in the matter, including voting.
Attachad to this letter is a copy of the Califomia Court of Appeal Decision in the case of
Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004), 125 Cal.App_4`s 470. In that case, a planning commission
denial of a hillside project based on environmental issues was ovemtmed because one member of
the commission was biased against the project and had engaged in activities similar to the
Conflict Activities. The court found that the participation of this biased commissioner in a quasi-
judicial proceeding (such as the one at issue tonight in Los Gatos) deprived the applicant of a fair
hearing.
Thank you very much for your corisideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER COHEN
ANDREW L. FABER
E-Mail: andrew.faberQaberliner_com
ALF:cb
Cc Orry Korb, Town Attorney (w/attach)
Bud Lortz, Planning Director (w/attach.)
Rob DuSantis (w/attach.)
Marilyn Cosden (w/attach.)
%iF~769581t
OB4306.17237002
Pane I
LEXSEE 125 CAL.APP.4TH 470
N.XSHA L.L.C., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.. Defen-
dants and Respondents.
8167071
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DI-
VISION THREE
125 CaL App, 41h 470; 22 CaL Rptr. 3d 772; 1004 Cat App. L.EXIS 2247; 2004 Cat
Dally Op. Service 11410; 2004 Daily Journal DAR 15369; 35 E7_R 20007
December 29, 2004, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Request denied b} Vasha
L.L.C. v. City of !os ,Ingales, 1005 Cal LEXIS 1134-1
(Cal., Oct. 12, 2000
PRIOR HISTORY: ("*11 Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, N.)_ RC258585, David P. Yaffe, Judge.
DISPOSITION: Reversed with directions.
SUMMARY:
CALMORINIA OFF 1CIAL REPORTS SUNINIARY
The trial court denied a company's petition for writ
of mandate undcs Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, filed
against a city, its planning commission, and a commis-
sion member, whevein the company sought to overturn
an adverse decision by the planning commission- The
company had a project to develop land. The commission
member authored a critical article concerning the com-
pany's project, then participated in an appeal to the plan-
ning commission that resulted ultimately in the condi-
tional approval of the project being overturned. The trial
court found that a particular plan was applicable irre-
spective of whether the project was visible from a certain
road, and substanti:s] evidence supported the administra-
tive decision that the large homes that the company in-
tended to construes were out of character with the sur-
rounding neighborhood. The trial court also found that
the company was precluded from raising the issue of the
commission member's bias for the first time at the supe-
rior court level. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
No. BC258585, David P. Yaffe, Judge.)
The Court of Appeal reversed with directions that a
writ of mandate be Issued vacatinS the planning commis-
sion's decision and the planning commission be directed
to conduct a new hearing. The proceeding before the
planning commission wus quasi-judicial in nature be-
cause the matter involved the determination and applica-
tion of facts peculiar to an individual case. Thus, proce-
dural due process principles were applicable. The com-
pany showed there was an unacceptable probability of
actual bias on the part of the commission, based on the
commission member's authorship of the article anacking
the project in question. The authorship of the letter was
sufficient to preclude the commission member from serv-
ing as a reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer. His
participation in the appeal to the planning commission
required that decision to be vacated, The trial court's
finding of waiver was erroneous. The record established
that the company did raise the issue of bias at the admin-
istrative level. Because it was only in the course of the
trial court action that the company had the opportunity to
take the commission member's deposition to 1"4711
fully develop the issue of bias, under Code Civ. Proc.. §
1094.5, subd, such evidence properly was before the
trial court in the mandamus proceeding and was entitled
to due consideration. (Opinion by Klein, P J , with
Croskey and Kitching, JJ., concurring.)
HEADNOTES
CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES
Classified to California Digest of Official Reports
(1) Administrative Law § 113--Judicial Review..
Scope and Extent-.Procedurai Fairness-De Novo
Review --A challenge to the procedural fairnass of the
administrative heating is reviewed de nova on appeal
because the ultimate determination of procedural fairness
amounts to a question of law.
125 Cal. App, 4th 470, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 772,
2004 Cal. App. LEXTS 2247,'**; 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Service 11410
(2) Administrative Law § 38-Administrative Actions-
-Adjudication--Character of Proteedings--Due Proc-
ess Principles-Applicability.--In considering the appli-
cability of due process principles, the court must distin-
guish between anions that are legislative in character
and actions that are adjudicatory. In the case of an ad-
ministrative agency, the terms quasi-legislative and
quasi-judicial are iised to denote these differing types of
action. Quasi-legislative acts involve the adoption of
rules of general application on the basis of broad public
policy, while quasi-judicial acts involve the detcrmina-
tion and application of facts peculiar to an individual
case. Quasi-legislative acts are not subject to procedural
due process requirements while those requirements apply
to quasi-judicial acts regardless of the guise they may
take.
(3) Administrative Law § 56--Administrative Actions-
-Adjudication-Hearing-Constitutional and Statu-
tory Requirements-Proeedural Due Process.—
Procedural due process in the administrative setting re-
quires that the hea;-ing be conducted before a reasonably
impartial, noninvolved reviewer. The broad applicability
of administrative hearings to the various rights and re-
sponsibilities of cirizens and businesses, and the undeni-
able public interesr in fair hearings in the administrative
adjudication arena, militate in favor of assuring that such
hearings are fair.
(4) Administrative Law § 56-Administrative Actions-
-Adjudication--Hearing-Constitutional and Statu-
tory Requirements-Standard of Impartiality.--The
standard of impar:iality required at an administrative
hearing is less exacting than that required Ln judicial pro-
ceedings. It is recognized that administrative decision
makers are drawn ;Tom the 1*4721 community at large.
Especially in a smail town setting they are likely to have
knowledge of and ,;ontact or dealings with parties to the
proceeding. Holdhfig them to the same standard as
judges, without a showing of actual bias or the probabil-
ity of actual bias. may discourame persons willing to
serve and may deprive the administrative process of ca-
pable decision makers.
(5) AdminlstTative Law § 56--Administrative Actions-
-Adjudication-Heating-Constitutional and Statu-
tory Requirement.;-Fair Hearing--Claim of Bias.--In
order to prevail on a claim of bias violating fair hearing
requirements, one must establish an unacceptable prob-
ability of actual bia, on the part of those who have actual
decisionmaking power over their claims. A party seeking
to show bias or prejudice on the part of an administrative
decision maker is tcquired to prove the saute with con-
crete facts; bias and prejudice are never implied and must
be established by char averments.
Pagc 2
(6) Administrative Law § 61-Administrative Actions-
-Adjudication-Hearing-Disqualirication of Hearing
Officers-Bias-Effect on Agency Decision.--A plan-
ning commission member's authorship of a newsletter
article critical of a company's construction project gave
rise to an unacceptable probability of actual bias and was
sufficient to preclude the member from serving as a rea-
sonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer of the project.
The member clearly should have rccused himself from
hearing the matter. His participation in the appeal to the
planning commission required the commission's decision
be vacated.
[7 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th cd. 1988)
Constitutional Law, § 527; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th
ed. 1997) Administrative Proceedings, § 3; 8 WAin,
Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Extraordinary Writs, §
324.1
(7) Administrative Law § 112--Judicial Review--
Administrative Mandamus--New or Improperly Ex-
cluded Evidence--Procedural Fairness.--Where the
issue on administrative mandamus is whether the admin-
istrative hearing was procedurally fair. the trial court
may consider evidence not presented at the administra-
tive hearing if the evidence addresses the petitioner's
claim that he or she was denied due process or a fair
hearing at that hearing. Code Civ. Proc„ § 1094,3, subd.
(e), enables the trial court to admit relevant evidence
that. In the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not
have been produced at the administrative hearing. [*4731
COUNSEL: Luna & Glushon and Robert L. Glushon for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Jeri L. Burge, As-
sistant City Attorney, and Steven N. Blau, Deputy City
Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.
JUDGES: Klein, P. J., with Croskey and Kuching, JJ.,
concurring.
OPINION BY,. Klein
OPINION
1**7731 KLEIN, P. J.-Plaintiff and appellant
Nasha L.L.C. (Nasha) appeals a judgment denying its
petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., J 1094.5),
wherein Nasha sought to overturn an adverse decision
by the South Va11ey Area Planning Commission (Plan-
ning Commission).'
125 Cal. App. Stn 470, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 772
2004 Cal. App. LEXTS 2247,'""'"; 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Service 11410
I All J rther statutory references are to the
Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise indi•
cated.
2 In addition to the Planning Commission,
Nasha named as defendants the City of Los An-
geles (the City) and Tony Lucente (Lucente), irr
his capacity as a member of the Planning Corn.
mission. The Planning Commission, the City and
Lucente arc the respondents in this appeal.
1`21 The essential issue presented is whether the
Planning Commission's decision should be set aside due
to an unacceptabfe probability of actual bias on the part
of one of the deci~[on makers.
While this muter was pending before the Planning
Commission, one of its members authored an article at-
tacking the project under consideration. Accordingly,
Nasha's claim of bias is well founded. The judgment is
reversed with directions.
FACTUAL AIND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Nasha owns 5ve legal lots on Multiview Drive,
north of Mulholland Highway and east of Laurel Can-
yon. The lots, which are surrounded by single-family
residences, range in size from 22,675 square feet to
46,244 square feet Nasha seeks to develop the property
with five new Or,;e-story single-family homes, with a
maximum height of 36 feet and square footage ranging
from 5,173 square feet to 6,648 square feet, including
garages, decks and balconies. Each home also would
have an outdoor pool.
The site of the project is located within an area sub-
ject to the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan
(Mulholland Plan) The stated purposes of the hfulhol-
land Plan include preservation of the area's scenic fea-
tures as well as preservation 1`31 of the existing eco-
logical balance and biologic features.
["'4741 1•"7741 Although it is asserted the site of
the proposed prat2ct is not visible from Mulholland
Highway, due to its geographic location within the
boundaries of the Mulholland Plan, Nasha was required
to file an application to determine the proposed devel-
opment's compliance with the Mulholland Plan.
1 _ Admini_rlrarive proceedings.
a. The mitigated mv.,,utivr declaration (,tiND).'
3 " 'Mi~4ated negative declaration' means a
negative declaration prepared for a project when
the initial study has identified potentially signiE-
cant effects on the envirorunont, but (1) revisions
in the projecr plans or proposals made by, or
agreed to hy, the applicant before the proposed
Pape 3
negative declaration and initial study are released
for public rcvicw would avoid the effects or miti-
gate the effects to a point where clearly no sig-
nificant effect on the environment would occur,
and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of
the whole record before the public agency that
the project, as revised, may have a sigriificant ef-
fect on the environment." (Pub Resources Code.
21064.5.)
1`41 In November 2000, iii accordance with the
California Ermi-orimenral (Quality r4ce (CEQA) (Pub.
Resources Codc, § 21000 et seq.), the City Planning De-
partment issued a proposed MND for the project. The
Planning Department proposed an MND be adopted on
the ground the mitigation measures which it outlined
would reduce any poteutial significant adverse effects to
a level of insignificance.
Thereafter, the Santa Monica Mountains Conser-
vancy (Conservancy) submitted written comments. The
Conservancy argued the proposed MND was deficient
for inadequately addressing potential impacts to the wild-
life movement corridor which connects Grifrith Park to
Fryman Canyon.
Various neighbors, including one Mark Hennessy
(Hennessy), also submitted comments. Hennessy like-
wise contended the MND was deficient and complained
the project would substantially interfere with deer and
wildlife habitat, and would degrade wildlife migration.
In December 2000, based on comments submitted
pertaining to the wildlife corridor, the Planning Depart-
ment amended the proposed IMND to include the follow-
ing mitigation measure: "Provision of escape routes or
wildlife corridors to allow resident wildlife access to
uninhabited 1""51 areas where they dwell, and monitor-
ing of animal use of these escapes or corridors; (T] Con-
sultation with the Department of Animal Regulation,
Wildlife Specialist or Supervisor, regarding animal relo-
cation, design standards and management guidelines for
cscapc routes or wildlife corridors; (y] Mapping of these
escape routes or ("4751 wildlife corridors with rtgards
to their location, topography, and vegetation; and (Sl
Post-construction landscape treatment to insure preserva-
tion of habitat for wildlife. Where habitat has been pre-
served, use of native plant materials is required."
b. The Mulholland Design Review Board fDRB) recom-
mends disapproval.
Nasha's application also was considered by the
DRB, which is an advisory body- On December 14,
2000, the DRB recommended disapproval on the
¢rounds that the size and massing were incompatible
with the Mulholland Parkway environment, the fiat roofs
were incompatible, the retaining walls were too tall and
125 Cal. App 4th 470, 22 Cal Rptr. 3d 772,
2004 Cal. App, LEXIS 2247, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Service 11410
long, and the davalopment did not eonfatm to the site.
The DRS also rewrnmended that an environrncntal im-
pact report (ETR) he prepared for the project.
c. The City Direct.r of Planning (Director) approves the
project.
On March 23. 2001, the 1***61 Director, as die de-
cision maker, conditionally approved Kasha's (`'`775)
application and certified the MND. The Director deter-
mined that as conditioned, there were "no significant
adverse impacts which have not been mitigated to a level
of insignificance,"
d. The appeal to tl,e Planning Commission.
In April 2001, the Conservancy and Hennessy, for
himself and other neighborhood residents, appealed the
Director's decision to the Planning Cornrrti33ion.
The Conservancy contended the project would result
in significant unavoidable adverse impacts to wildlifc
movement in the eastern Santa Monica Mountains and
habitat resources, the MND was inadequate, an EIR was
required, and the proposed buildings were incompatible
with the terrain.
Similarly, Hennessy asserted, Inter alia, the Direc-
tor's decision "creates a disastrous effect not only to the
property itself, including the numerous wildlife species
within this wiidlif: corridor canyon contained within this
property, but also to the properties immediately adjacent
The public hearing on the appeal was scheduled for
June 28, 2001,
1*4761 e. Shortly ?,efore the Planning Commission hear-
ing on the appeal, Commissioner Lucente authors an
(***7) article hostile to the project.
In advance of the Planning Commission hearing, the
June 2001 issue of the Studio City Residents Association
newsletter contained the following news update:
"MULTMEW DRIVE PROJECT THREAT TO
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR [11 A proposed project taking
five legal lots tota;ing 3.8 acres for five proposed large
homes with swimming pools served by a common
driveway off Multiview Drive is winding its way through
the Planning procL-ss. The Mulholland Design Review
Board denied it unanimously. However, the Deputy LA
City Planning Director overrode that denial. The Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy and the neighbors both
appealed it to the South Valley Area Planning Commis-
sion. The Appeal hearing is set for June 28th after 4:30
pm in van Nuys. (Please see Hearings/Meetings, Page
Two.) (!f] After wildlife leaves Briar Summit heading
eastward they must either head south towards Mt. Oivm-
Page 4
pus or north to the slopes above Universal City. The;Llul-
tiview Drive site is an absolutely crucial habitat corri-
dor. Please contact Paul Edelman with the Conservancy
at 3101 or Marie Hennessy who lives adjacent to the
project at 3231 if you have any questions. (***81 "
(Italics added.)
The newsletter article was unsigned. Luccnte later
admitted in deposition he was the author.
f. While the appeal to the Planning Commission wa.r
pending, Lucente introduced Hennesry• to speak against
the project at a neighborhood association meeting.
In addition to serving on the Planning Commission,
Lucente also was president of the Studio City Residents
Association. In June 2001, during the pendency of the
appeal to the Planning Commission, Lucente introduced
Hennessy at the association's monthly meeting. At that
meeting, Hennessy proceeded to speak against the pro-
ject and in support of his appeal. '
4 According to Lucente, he left the room for the
duration of Hennessy's remarks.
[-4-771
1**7761 Z. The June 28, 2001 hearing before the Plan-
ning Commission; no disclosure by Lucente of his au-
thorship of the article or of his contact with Hennessy.
On June 28, 2001, the matter came on for hearing
before the Planning Commission. At the outset, Lucente
made the following statement: "T did [*4*9) want to
state that in another capacity, as president of the Studio
City Residents Association, we have included informa-
tion on this matter in our monthly newsletter at the re-
quest of one of our members, which is a routine thing
that we do. And I have not, however, had any direct con-
tact with the appellants, nor have I discussed this project
in any substantive way with anyone involved in this- So,
therefore, I feel I can make a fair and Impartial decision
regarding this matter."
An unidentified speaker then stated: "It doesn't im-
pact you financially in any way."
Lucente responded: "And there is no financial im-
pact in any way. Therefore, I will be hearing this matter
Thank you."
Thus, in Lucente's opening remarks, he did not dis-
close he in fact had authored the article which appeared
in the association's June 2001 newsletter. Also, contrary
to Lucente's characterization thereof, the newsletter arti-
cle was not merely informational. The article advocated a
position against the project, which it characterized as a
"threat to wildlife corridor," and sought to rally residents
to support the appeal to the Planning Commission.
125 Cal. App- 4th 470. 22' Cal. Rptr. 3d 772, "
2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2247, 20(14 Cal. Daily Op. Service 11410
Lucente's asscrt'on he had not "had any direct con-
tact" with [**'*101 any of the appellants likewise was
inaccurate. As noted, earlier that mont't, Lucente had
introduced Hennessy at an association meeting to speak
against the project.
h At the :unclu. •on of the hearing, Lucente bring= a
motion to grant rh appeal.
At the hearing, the Planning Commission heard from
various speakers, including representatives ofNasha, the
Conservancy, am. various area residents, includinb
Hennessy. Nasha :ook the position that the MNI D ade-
quately addressed the issue of the wildlife corridor, a
position which thv Conservancy and neighboring home-
owners disputed.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Lucentc made a
motion "to grant iltie appeal and find that the Director of
Planning erred in the determination [+4781 regarding
this project and th;:t the findings could not be made to
deny the appeal based on the testimony that we had here
tonight."
The motion w<<s carried by a three-to-one vote
i. Nasha's unsucce sful requests for reconsideration
On July 5, 20(.i1, one week after the hearing, Nasha
filed a request foi• reconsideration based on new facts
relating to bias b) Lucente. First, contrary to Lucente's
statement at the June 28, 2001 Planning Commission
1*4*111 hearing, Lucente did have ex pane contact with.
Hennessy, one of he appellants, whom Lucente had in-
troduced at a June 12, 2001 meeting of the Studio City
Residents Associar;on. Further, at the Planning Commis-
sion hearing, Luccate had failed to disclose his role in
the newsletter artic'e opposing the project.
On July 12, 2001. Nasha reiterated its request for re.
consideration in another letter to the Planning Commis-
sion, stating: "In order to protect even the perception of
bias and conflict, the Commission should vote for recon-
sideration of this case, either for the purpose of allowing
Commissioner Lucente to recuse himself or to request an
[1•7771 opinion from the City Attorney pursuant to
Charter Section 22_."
The Planning lommission did not reconsider its de-
cision.
j. The Planning Commission's frndings-
Four months after the hearing, the Planning Com-
mission issued findings setting forth the basis for its de-
cision overturning ;he Director's conditional approval of
the project. The Panning Commission's decision indi-
cated:
Page 5
"1. The Commission arrived at its determination
based upon its review of available records and evidence
contained in the subject and related files and upon
[***121 testimony and evidence provided at the Com-
mission hearing an the subject marcr
"a. Based on a review of the building plans. land-
scape plans, and color palette, the five proposed build-
ings and associated landscaping are not compatible with
the surrounding buildings and parkway environment for
the followine reasons: The Specific Plan states, per See-
rian 1112.e., that the building or struem n should con.
form to the surrounding buildings and parkway environ-
ment. In this case, the proposed houses are 'box like' with
little articulation or stepping back. Furthermore, the vis-
ual massing and appearance resulting From the cumula-
tive size of the homes and their [*4791 retaining wall
strictures would not be compatible with the appearance
of existing houses in this neighborhood.
"b. On December 14, 2000, the City Planning !De-
partment Environmental Staff Advisory Committee is-
sued a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (NIND)
No. 2000.3622-DRB (Article V-City CEQA Guidelines)
and determined that by imposing conditions, the poten-
tial impacts msulting from the project would not have a
sigatificant impact on the environment. At the June 28,
2001, South Valley Area Planting Commission appeal
hearing 1'"131 for this case, the Santa Monica Moun-
tains Conservancy presented evidence that potentially
significant impacts to the wildlife corridor would result
from project implementation and that the proposed miti-
gation measures identified in the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration No, 2000-3622-17178 were insuffi-
cient to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
The project, as proposed, would not preserve the natural
vegetation existing ecological balance and cnvironmcn-
tally sensitive areas and the biologic features in confor-
mance with Section 2.K. and L. of the Specific Plan. The
potential impacts to the wildlife and the corridors were
not adequately analyzed by the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration No. 2000-3622-DRB and therefore
it was determined to be inadequate.
Project Permit Compliance Finding. The pro-
posed project does not comply with the regulations. stan-
dards, and provisions of the Mulholland Scenic Parkwa}
Specific Plan."
2. Trial court proceedings
a. Pleadings
On October 25, 2001, Nasha filed a rust amended
verified petition for writ of mandate to overturn the
Planning Commission's decision (i 1094.5), joined with
causes of action for 111-141 declaratory relief and tem-
125 Cal. App. 4th 470, 22 Cal. Rptr, 3d 772,
2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2247, 2004 Cal, Daily Op. Service 11410
porary taking without just compensation.' Nasha named
as defcndants the City, the Planning Commission, and
Lucente I**7781 in his capacity as a planning commis-
sioner.
5 Nasha later filed a request for dismissal with-
out prejudice of its dalaratory relief and taking
claims.
Nash2 alleged, inter alia, that the Planning Commis-
sion's reversal of the Director's approval of the project
was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, a denial
of Nasha's fundamental right to a fair and impartial deci-
sion, and unsupported by substantial evidence.
With respect to I-ucente's conduct, Nasha alleged his
role in introducing Hennessy as a speaker against the
project at a neighborhood association [*4801 meeting,
and his role in allowing publication of the newsletter
article attacking the project while the matter was pending
before the Planning Commission, reflected, at a mini-
mum, a reasonable appearance of bias which required his
recusal from hearing the matter, Further, to ensure that
quasi-judicial dccisionmaking [***151 is not tainted by
even the reasonable appearance of bias and unfairness,
Lucerne's vote and the Planning Commission's decision
should be set aside.
Additionally, Nasha alleged the Planning Commis-
sion failed to act in the manner required by law in vari-
ous respects, including failing to make certain necessary
findings and in misinterpreting the Mulholland Plan; and
the Planning Commission's decision was not supported
by substantial evidence, in that, inter alia, the MND was
adequate to protect wildlife access.
b. Lueente's deposition.
On January 18, 2002, during the pendency of the
mandamus proceedings, Nasha took Lucente's deposi-
tion. In the deposition, Lucente admitted he authored the
newsletter article, that he had spoken to Hennessy before
the association meeting and that he introduced Hennessy
at that meeting, 4
6 The deposition transcript includes the follow-
ing colloquy:
"Q At}d you didn't know what [Hennessy]
was going +o say?
"A I knew that he was going to speak about
this project
"Q And you told Mr. Hennessy that yuu
would introduce him to speak?
"A Ye:,.
Page 6
"Q And did you invoduce Mr. Hcnnessy to
speak?
"A Yes, I did."
Lucente then added that he left the room and
did not listen to Hennessy's remarks.
[***161 c. The C'ity'.r apposirinn
The City filed opposition papers, asscrtmg substan-
tial evidence supported the Planning Commission's find-
ings, the decision was principled and followed a clear
analytical path, the Planning Commission duly relied on
applicable provisions of the Mulholland Plan, and the
attack an Lucente was spurious.
The City emphasized Lucente had no financial inter-
est, he was not the sole decision maker, and the standard
for disqualification was not an appearance of bias but a
probability of actual bias, a standard that was not met
here.
d. Trial courr',s rulings and judgment.
On July 26, 2002, the matter came on for hearing,
The trial court rejected Nasha's claim of bias arising out
of Lucente's prehearing involvement [*4811 attacking
the project, stating: 9 am going to reject [Kasha%l argu-
ment I think that [Kasha] either knew or had reason
to believe at the administrative level that this guy had
something to do with that, with the writing of that article,
and therefore should--has not shown sufficiently that this
argument could not have been made in the exercise of
due diligence at the administrative level and therefore is
precluded from [***171 urging disqualification for the
first time here in court [**7791 on the basis that he
wrote that. And I don't think there's enough to show that
he must be d0qual f ed if he did not write If. So I'm not
going to permit any further briefing or argument with
respect to that." (Italics added.) '
7 As indicated, Lucente admitted he wrote the
article. Therefore, the trial court's comment "I
don't think there's enough to show that he must be
disqualified if he did not write it" did not speak to
the issue- Further, the trial coup faulted Nasha for
raising the issue of Lucente's bias ror the first
time at the superior coup level. However, as set
forth above, the record reflects Nasha did raise
the issue of bias at the administrative level--
Nasha promptly requested reconsideration on that
basis before the Planning Commission, twice, to
no avail.
The trial court then continued the matter to allow
supplemental briefing on the sole issue of whether the
125 Cal. App. 4th 470 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 772, •R,
2044 Cal. App. LEXIS 2247, 2004 Cal. Daily Op, Service 11410
Mulholland Plan applies to development projects that are
not visible 1-1-181 from Mulholland Drive.
On September 26, 2002, the uial tour, denied
Nasha's petition fc,r writ of mandate, ruling that the 'vtul-
hollard Plant is applicable irrespective of whether a pro-
ject is visible froi:t Mulholland Drive, and that substan-
tial evidence supported the adrniniatrative decision "that
the large homes teat [Nasha] intended to construct upon
the 5 lots were out of scale and character with, and in-
compatible with, die surrounding neighborhood."
On April 11, 2003, the trial court entered judgment
in favor of the City, the Planning Commission and Lu-
cente.
Nasho filed a timely appeal froth the judgment deny-
Ing its petition for Nrit of mandate.
CONTENTIONS
Nasha contends: the Planning Commission's deci-
sion should be set.rside because Commissioner Lucente's
prchearing actions attaching the project constituted ac-
tual bias; the Planning Commission's decision is not sup-
ported by substantial evidence; the Planning Commission
failed to make any of the required findings to support its
decision; the stated purpose for a design review process
in the Mulholland Man is to review projects that arc visi-
ble from Mulholland Drive; and the Planning Commis-
sion's decision reversing 1***191 the Director's approval
of the MND was unsupported by substantial evidence.
1.4821 DISCUSSION
1, Standard of review.
The petition for superior court review of the final
administrative decision by the Planning Commission was
brought pursuant to section 1094.5. "The inquiry in such
a case shall extend to the questions whether the respon-
dent has proceedei: without, or in excess of jurisdiction,
wherher there was a fair trial; and whether there was any
prejudicial abuse of discretion." 1094,5, subd (b),
italics added.)
(1) A challenek- to the procedural fairness of the ad-
ministrative hearin;; is reviewed de novo on appeal be-
cause the ultimate determination of procedural fairness
amounts to a question of law. ( Clark v. Ciry of Hermosa
Beach (1996) 46 C'al.App.4th 1152, 1169-1170 (56 Cal.
Rprr. 2d223); Amcrv Ins. Services, Inc. V. Kelso (2000)
83 Cal.App.4th 19;' 205 (99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 357].)
2. Nasha has shop i an unacceptable probability of ac-
rual bias.
Page 7
a_ Procedural due process principles apply to quasi-
judicial decisionmaking.
(2) As explained in Beck Development Co. v
Southern Paclfrc Transportation 1**71801 Co (1996) 44
Cal.App.41h 1160, 1188 (52 Cal. Rpir. 2d 51$], "In con-
sidering 11"201 the applicability of duc process princi-
ples, we must distinguish between actions drat are legis-
lative in character and actions chat are adjudicatory, In
the case of an administrative agency, the terms 'quasi_
legislative' and 'quasi-judicial' are used to denote these
differing types of action. Quasi-legislative acts involve
the adoption of rules of general application on the basis
of broad public policy, while quasi-judicial acts involve
die determination and application of facts peculiar to an
individual case. [Citations.] Quasi-legislative acts are not
subject to procedural due process requirements while
those requirements apply to quasi-judicial acts regardless
of the guise they may take. [Citations.]"
Here, die proceeding before the Planning Commis-
sion was quasi-judicial in nature, rather than quasi-
Icgisiative, because the matter involved the determina-
tion and application of facts peculiar to an Individual
case, rather than the adoption of rules of general applica-
tion on the basis of broad public policy. ( Beck Develop-
ment Cu, supra, 44 CaL.dpp.4th at p. 1188.) Accord-
ingly, procedural due process principles are applicable.
(Ibid.)
[*4631 b. Procedural (***211 due process requires a
reasonably impartial, noninvolved decision maker.
(3) Procedural due process in the administrative set-
ting requires that the boating be conducted " ' "before a
reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer." * " ( Gai v.
City of Selma (1998) 68 Ca1.App_4rh 213, 219 [79 Cal.
Rprr. 2d 910], italics added.) As this court observed in
Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. Ciry of Beverly Hills (1003]
108 Cal.App.4th 81 (133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1341, "the broad
applicability of administrative hearings to the various
rights and responsibilities of citimns and businesses, and
the undcniablc public interest in fair hearings in the ad-
ministrative adjudication arena, militate in favor of w-
surine that such hearings are fair." ( Id, at p. 90.)
c, The nature of the required showing: an unacceptable
probability of actual bias
(4) The "standard of impartiality required at an ad-
ministrative hearing is less exacting than that required in
judicial proceeding[s]." ( Gai v City of Selma, supra,
68 Cal.App.4rh at p 219.) It is recognized that "adminis-
trative decision makers are drawn from the community at
large. Especially in a small town setting they are likely to
have [***221 knowledge of and contact or dealings with
parties to the proceeding. Holding them to the same
125 Cal. APP. 4th 470,'; 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 772,
2004 Cal. App. LEXiS 2247, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Service 11410
standard as judges, without a showing of actual bias or
the probability of actual bias, may discourage persons
willing to serve and may deprive the administrative
process of capable decision makers." ( Id, at p. 131)
(5) Therefore. In order to prevail on a claim of bias
violating fair hearing requirements, Nasha must establish
" 'an unacceptable probability of actual bias on the pan
of those who hay a actual decisionrnaking power over
their claims.' " ( BreakZohe Billiards Y. City of Torrance
(2000) 81 Ca[Apa.4th 1105, 1136 r97 Cal. Rprr. 2d
457].) A par; seeking to show bias or prejudice on the
part of an administrative decision maker is required to
prove the same ith concrete facts: ' "[b]ias and preju-
dice are never implied and must be established by clear
averments." ' " ( hi, alp. 1237; accord, HonWarhavij v,
Queen of Angeb etc. Medical Center (1998) 62
Cat App. 4th 1113, 1141 f73 Cat Rptr. ld 695].)
['*7811 d. Nasho has shown an unacceptable probabil-
ity of actual bias based on Lucenle's authorship of the
newsletrer article attacking the project,
The newsletter [***231 article by Lucentc, attacking
the project as a "threat to wildlife corridor," gives rise to
an unacceptable pt ubability of actual bias.
1*4841 We reiterate portions of the offending arti-
cle for emphasis: "MULTMEW DRIVE PROJECT
THREAT TO WILDLIFE CORRIDOR [11 A pro-
posed project takutg five legal lots totaling 18 acres for
five proposed large homes with swimming pools served
by a common driveway off Multiview Drive is winding
its way through tho Planning process.... [11 After wild-
life leaves Briar Summit heading eastward they must
either head south cowards Mt. Olympus or north to the
slopes above UnivQrsal City. The Multiview Drive site is
an absolutely crv. sal habitat corridor. Please contact
Paul Edelman with the Conservanev at 3101 or Mark
Hennessy who lives adjacent to the project at 323' if
you have any questions." (italics added.)
Contrary to the position taken by Lucente, the news.
letter article was ,,ot merely informational. The article
clearly advocated a position against the project, which it
characterized as a "threat to wildlife corridor."
(6) Lucente's authorship of the newsletter article
gave rise to an unacceptable probability of actual bias
and was [***241 sufficient to preclude Lucente from
serving as a " ' "reasonably impartial, noninvolved re-
viewer." ' " ( Gai City of Selma, supra, 68 Cal. App. 4(h
at p. 219.) Lucente clearly should have recused himself
from hearing this matter. His participation in the appeal
to the Planning Commission requires the Commission's
decision be vacated '
Pagc 8
8 Respondents have emphasized that Lucentc
was not the sole decision maker. However, any
attempt to characterize Lucente's participation as
somehow harmless is meritless. Lucente's vote
was decisive. The Planning Cominisslon's vote
wm three to one in favor of overturning the Di-
rector`s approval of the project, with Lucente vot-
ing with the majority. Had Lucente duly recused
himself, there would have been only two votes to
overturn the Director's decision. Because the
votes of three commissioners were required to
overturn the Direc or's decision (L.A_ City Char-
ter, § 503(c)), absent Lucente, the administrative
appeal would have failed. Therefore, Lucente's
involvement clearly affected the outcome of the
administrative appeal.
9 Because Lucente's authorship of the newslct-
ter article, standing alone, is sufficient to give rise
to an unacceptable probability of actual bias, it is
unnecessary to address Nasha's arguments relat-
ing to Lucente's undisclosed ex parse contact with
Hennessy.
[***25l e. There was ho waiver by Nasha
In an attempt to salvage the Planning Commission's
decision, respondents contend Nasha waived the issue of
Lucente's bias by failing to raise the issue at the adminis-
trative level. ( NBS Imaging Systems, Inc. v. State 8d of
Control (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 328, 337 [70 Cal. Rptr.
2d 237] [superior court erred in granting relief based on
legal theory not presented during administrative proceed-
ings).) The trial court was persuaded by this position,
finding Nasha was precluded from raising the issue of
Lucente's bias for the first time at the superior court
level. The trial court's finding of waiver is erroneous,
both factually and legally.
(1) Narha initially challenged Lucente's bias a1 1he
administrative levee
[*4851 The record establishes that Nasha in fact did
raise the issue of bias at the administrative level. As indi-
cated, on July 5, 2001, one week after the planning
Commission hearing, Nasha filed a request for 1-7821
reconsideration based on new facts relating to bias by
Lucente, specifically, Lucente's undisclosed ex pane
contact with Hennessy, and Lucente's undisclosed au-
thorship of the newsletter article attacking the project.
Thereafter, [***26[ on July 12, 2001, Nasha reiler-
ated its request for reconsideration in another letter to the
Planning Commission, stating: "In order to protect even
the perception of bias and conflict, the Commission
should vote for reconsideration of this case, either for the
purpose of allowing Commissioner Lucentc to rccusc
125 Cal. App. 4th 470, 22 Cal. R.ptr. 3d 772,
2004 Cal. App- LEXIS 2247. 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Service 11410
himself or to regU,st an opinion froth the City Attomc)
pursuant to Charts- Section 222."
In view of tie above, the trial court's rulin- that
Nasha raised the issue of Lucente's bias for the First time
at the superior court level is contrary to the record.
(2) .Superwr cnur, may consider evidence hot presented
ul administrative 1.rvel relaying to procedural fairnp-s,t
(7) Where the Issue on administrative mandamus is
whether the administrative hearing was procedurally fair,
"the trial court rn::y consider evidence not presented at
the administrative hearing if the evidence addresses the
petidonet's claim that he or she was denied due process
or a fair hearing ar that hearing. [Citations-]" ( Nightlife
Partners, Ltd v City of Beverly Hills, supra, 108
Cul.App.4th ut pr, 89-90.) Se~:tinn 1094.5, suhdNuton
(ef, enables the trial court to admit relevant evidence
(***271 that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,
could not have begin produced at the administrative hear-
ing. Here, it was only in the course of the superior court
Page 9
dcti4n shut Nasha had the opportunity to take Lucente's
deposition to fully develop the issue of bias. Therefore,
such evidence properly was before the trial court in the
mandamus proceeding and is entitled to due considera-
tion,
3 Remaining issues nor reached
Because the Planting Commission's decision was
tainted by bias and must be vacated, it is unnecessary to
address Nashas other contentions.
1.4861 DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed with directions to issue a
writ of mandate vacating the Planning Commission's
decision and directing the Planning Commission to con-
duct a new hearing on the appeal from the Director's de-
cision, before an impartial panel. Nasha shall recover its
costs on appeal.
Croskey, 1., and Kitching, 7., concurred.
°v Hr%F TOW OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO.:
PLANNING C0:11MISSI0N STAFF REPORT
~lQ Nleeting Date: August 27, 2008
S CAS
PREPARED BY: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
APPLICATION NO.: S-08-55
LOCATION: Kennedy Road @ Forrester Road (north side of Kennedy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis
PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust
CONTACT PERSON: Rob DeSantis: 408-348-1202
APPLICATION
SUMMARY: Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
21/2:PD. APN 537-29-007 & 008.
DEEMED COMPLETE: August 7, 2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: February 7, 2009
EXHIBITS: 1.- 9. Previously received
10. Required findings and considerations (three pages)
11. Recommended conditions of approval (five pages)
12. Fencing details (one page), received August 19, 2008
13. Proposed light fixtures {four pages}, received August 19,
2008
14. Revised Landscape and Fencing plan (one sheet), received
August 19, 2008
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission continued the subject application from August 13, 2008 to this agenda
to allow the applicant to provide details of proposed fencing, lighting and landscaping. The
Commission also requested that irrigation and hydraulic calculations be provided and indicated
that public testimony and discussion at the August 27 meeting would be limited to landscaping,
fencing and lighting. The applicant has submitted supplemental information as discussed below.
ATTACHMENT 9
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
Kennedv Road (cis Forrester Road's-08-55
August 27, 2008
ANALYSIS:
Landscape Plan
The landscape plan included with the plans attached to the August 13 staff report shows
proposed planting and the location of outdoor lighting. Ornamental planting is proposed in the
immediate vicinity of the developed areas, with native and low water plantings transitioning to
the natural hillside areas. The landscape plan is consistent with the Planned Development
Ordinance. As required by the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines, final plant
selections will be reviewed for compliance when the construction plans are submitted for
building plan check. A minimum of 99 24-inch box trees will be planted on the site as
mitigation for the trees being removed. This represents a three to one replacement ratio.
Irrigation and hydraulic calculations were not provided. The applicant will address this at the
meeting.
Fencing
A plan that shows locations of outdoor lighting and fencing has been provided (see Exhibit 14).
Exhibit 12 shows the style of proposed fencing, inclusive of the perimeter fencing along
Kennedy Road and interior pool and security fencing. There is existing fencing located on the
north, west and east property lines. Where it will be visible, new security fencing will be
wrought iron. In areas where it cannot be seen, vinyl coated chain link will be used. Fencing
around the pool area will be decorative wrought iron. The wildlife permeable fencing along
Kennedy Road is a split rail design.
Lighting
Exhibit 13 shows the proposed light fixtures. All light fixtures will be down directed including
the ho its to be attached to trees. The tree mounted lights are not intended to light up vegetation.
These fixtures will provide soft lighting along the driveway and pathways. Lighting has been
located to provide adequate safety and security. An arborist will review and approve the method
of attaching the lights to trees.
Well
The approved Planned Development (PD) allmvs a well on the property subject to issuance of a
permit by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3
_Ken- iedv Road 0 Forrester Road! 5-08-55
August 27, 2008
CONCLUSION AND RECO'IMENDATION:
A. Conclusion
The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside
Development Standards & Guidelines as determined by the Town Council in approving
the PD. The Architecture and Site plans are in compliance with the PD Ordinance and it
is recommended that the application be approved as outlined in the recommendation
section below.
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to approve
the Architecture and Site application:
1. Find that the project is consistent with the HDS&G and Hillside Specific Plan
(Exhibit 10);
2. Find that the project is consistent with the PD Ordinance 2162;
3. Find that the project is consistent with the considerations for approval of
Architecture and Site applications; and
4. Approve Architecture and Site application 5-08-55 subject the conditions in
Exhibit 11.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Davis
Associate Planner
Approved by:
Bud Ni. Lortz, AICP
Director of Community Development
BtiL:SD
cc: Rob & Ranae DeSantis, 200 Forrester Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Eric Morley, The Morley Brothers, 506 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Richard Landry, Landry Design Group. 11333 Iowa Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025
DF.-?E: CGkT5
PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 27, 2008
REQUIRED FI. D1VGS & CO.N SIDER-A TIO.I S FOR:
Kennedv Road r. Forrester Road
Architecture & Site Application S-08-56
Requesting approval of a grading plan for an approved Planned Development on property zoned
HR-2`,! :PD. APNS 537-29-007 & 008.
PROPERTY" OWNER: Acorn Trust
APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis
FINDINGS:
Required compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines:
■ That the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines.
Required compliance with Hillside Specific Plan:
That the project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan,
CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 29.20.150, Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion. The effect of the site
development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets; the layout of the site with respect
to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, and
walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion; the
location, arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the
circulation pattern within the boundaries of the development, and the surfacing, lighting and
handicapped accessibility of off-street parking facilities.
Any proj ect or development that will add traffic to roadways and critical intersections
shall be analyzed, and a determination made on the following matters:
The ability of critical roadways and major intersections to accommodate
existing traffic;
Increased traffic estimated for approved developments not yet occupied; and
Regional traffic growth and traffic anticipated for the proposed project one
(1) year after occupancy.
Page I of I
EXHIBIT 10
b. The deciding body shall review the application for traffic roadway/intersection
capacity and make one (1) of the following determinations:
The project will not impact any roadways and/or intersections causing the
roadways and/or intersections to exceed their available capacities.
2. The project will impact a roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) causing the
roadway(s) and/or intersection(s) to exceed their available capacities.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.l . may proceed.
Any project receiving Town determination subsection (1)b.2. must be
modified or denied if the deciding body determines that the impact is
unacceptable. In determining the acceptability of a traffic impact, the
deciding body shall consider if the project's benefits to the community
override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections from the
general plan and any applicable specific plan.
(2) Considerations relating to outdoor advertising. The number, location, color, size, height,
lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation
of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. Specialized
lighting and sign systems may be used to distinguish special areas or neighborhoods such as
the downtown area and Los Gatos Boulevard.
(3) Considerations relating to landscaping. The location, height, and materials of walls, fences,
hedges and screen plantings to insure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal
storage areas, utility installations, parking lots or unsightly development; the planting of
ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the unnecessary destruction
of existing healthy trees. Emphasize the use of planter boxes with seasonal flowers to add
color and atmosphere to the central business district. Trees and plants shall be approved by
the Director of Parks, Forestry and Maintenance Services for the purpose of meeting special
criteria, including climatic conditions, maintenance, year-round versus seasonal color change
(blossom, summer foliage, autumn color), special branching effects and other considerations.
(4) Considerations relating to site layout. The orientation and location of buildings and open
spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site and the character of the
neighborhood; and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development.
Buildings should strengthen the form and image of the neighborhood (e.g. downtown, Los
Gatos Boulevard, etc.). Buildings should maximize preservation of solar access. In the
downtown, mid-block pedestrian arcades linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new
parking facilities shall be encouraged, and shall include such crime prevention elements as
good sight lines and lighting systems.
(5) Considerations relating to drainage. The effect of the site development plan on the adequacy
of storm and surface water drainage.
Page 2 of 2
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and structures. The
effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design of buildings and
structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the neighborhood and
purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the purposes of architecture and site
approval. Consistency and compatibility shall be encouraged in scale, massing, materials,
color, texture, reflectivity, openings and other details.
(7) Considerations relating to lighting and street furniture. Streets, walkways, and building
lighting should be designed so as to strengthen and reinforce the image of the Town. Street
furniture and equipment, such as lamp standards, traffic signals, fire hydrants, street signs,
telephones, mail boxes, refuse receptacles, bus shelters, drinking fountains, planters, kiosks,
flag poles and other elements of the street environment should be designated and selected so
as to strengthen and reinforce the Town image.
(8) Considerations relating to access for physically disabled persons. The adequacy of the site
development plan for providing accessibility and adaptability for physically disabled persons.
Any improvements to a nonresidential building where the total valuation of alterations,
structural repairs or additions exceeds a threshold value established by resolution of the
Town Council, shall require the building to be modified to meet the accessibility
requirements of title 24 of the California Administrative Code adaptability and accessibility.
to addition to retail, personal services and health care services are not allowable uses on non-
accessible floors in new nonresidential buildings. Any change of use to retail, health care, or
personal service on a non-accessible floor in a nonresidential building shall require that floor
to be accessible to physically disabled persons pursuant to the accessibility requirements of
title 24 of the California Administrative Code and shall not qualify the building for
unreasonable hardship exemption from meeting any of those requirements. This provision
does not effect lawful uses in existence prior to the enactment of this chapter. All new
residential developments shall comply with the Town's adaptability and accessibility
requirements for physically disabled persons established by resolution.
(9) Considerations relating to the location of a ha-zardotus waste management facility. A
hazardous waste facility shall not be located closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
residentially zoned or used property or any property then being used as a public or private
school primarily educating persons under the age of eighteen (18). An application for such a
facility will require an environmental impact report, which may be focused through the initial
study process.
N DES: Fftioncs KENNEDYACax.N-Aa] xr
Page 3 of 3
PLANNING CO` -MISSION -AUGC:ST 27, 2008
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Kennedv Road (a-! Forrester Road
Architecture & Site Application S-08-56
Requesting approval of a grading plan for an approved Planned Development on property zone6
HR-21/2:PD. APNS 537-29-007 & 008.
PROPERTY O`k ER: Acorn Trust
APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY" DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the
conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans
approved on August 27, 2008 and noted as received by the Town on August 7 & 19,
2008. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the
Community Development Director or the Planning Commission depending on the scope
of the change(s).
2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two
years from the date of the approval pursuant to Section 29.20.335 of the Town Code,
unless the approval is used prior to expiration.
3. TOWN INDEMNITY. Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.11 5 requires
that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval.
4. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. All conditions included in Planned Development
Ordinance 2162 shall be complied with unless modified by the conditions contained
herein.
5. EXTERIOR COLOR. The exterior color of the house shall not exceed a light reflectivity
value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation. 4
6. DEED RESTRICTION. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction
shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that
requires all exterior paint colors to be maintained in confonr►ance with the Town's
Hillside Development Standards.
7. ARCHITECTURE. The final detailing for the windows on the circular element on the
rear elevation shall be reviewed and approved by staff with input from the Consulting
Architect, prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. House exterior and landscape lighting shall be kept to a
minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto
adjacent properties. The outdoor lighting plan can be reviewed during building plan
check. Any changes to the lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior
to installation.
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit 11
9. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Any non-native species and/or ornamental planting shall be
located within 30 feet of the perimeter of the area formed by the main house, pool and
cabana, and within 30 feet of other structures on the property. A planting plan shall be
included with the construction plans and shall be reviewed for compliance during the
building plan check process.
Building Division
10. APPLICABLE CODES. The project shall conform to the 2007 California Building, Fire,
Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes. The CC's are based on model codes; 2006
International Building Code and Fire Code and 2006 Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical
Codes and the 2005 National Electrical Code.
11. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans shall be provided with the building
permits submittal (maximum size 24" x 36").
12. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full
on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A compliance memorandum shall be
prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions
of Approval (inclusive of the PD Ordinance) will be addressed.
13. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted
with the building permit application. The report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineer specializing in soils mechanics (California Building Chapter 18).
14. SHORING. Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations that
exceed four (4) feet in depth or that remove lateral support from any existing building,
adjacent property or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be
prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall conform to Cal/OSHA regulations.
15. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer
or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation
inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as
specified in the soils report; and, the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall
locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and
vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil
engineer for the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining Walls
16. BACKWATER VALVE. The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide
information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the
installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District
(WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood
level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
17. `VILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE. This project is in a Wildlife Urban Interface Fire
Area and must comply with Chapter 7A of the 2007 Califomia Building Code.
18. DEFENSIBLE SPACE. A Defensible Space/Fire Break Landscape plan prepared by a
California licensed architect shall be provided. The plan shall be in conformance with
the California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section
51182.
Page 2 of 5
19, LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION. A letter shall be provided from a California licensed
architect certifying that landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been
completed in compliance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California
Government Code Section 51182, prior to final inspection.
20. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as
the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service
Counter for a fee of S2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
21. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and
agencies approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development - Planning Division: Suzanne Davis at 354-6875
b. Engineering.Parks & Public Works Department: Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
C. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 3 78-40 10
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate
school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to
pen-nit issuance.
TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS &PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
22. DRIVEWAY WIDTH. The applicant shall reduce the driveway width to the satisfaction
of the Town Engineer and the Director of Community Development prior to submittal of
plans for building plan check. Width reductions shall be made strategically to reduce
retaining wall height and length, tree impacts, grading volumes and impervious area
while still satisfying Engineering and Santa Clara County Fire Department standards.
23. DRIVEWAY APPROACH. The developer shall install a Town standard residential
approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Details.
24. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed.
25. NPDES. On-site drainage systems shall include a filtration device such as a bio-swale or
permeable pavement.
26. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE. Drainage piping serving fixtures which
have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the
next upstream manhole and1or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system
serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an
approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through
the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec. 6.50.025). The
Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer
overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater
valve, as defined section 103(e) of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section
6.50.010 of the Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition.
Evidence of West Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is
needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
27. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley
Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
reused. Install. a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line.
Page 3 of 5
28. UTILITY SETBACKS. House foundations shall be set back a sufficient distance from
utility lines to allow excavation without undermining the foundation. The Town
Engineer shall determine the appropriate setbacks based on the depth of the utility line,
input from the solids engineer and the type of foundation.
29. COSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from
the Town Engineer 15.40.070).
30. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours.
The storing of goods and/or materials on the street will not be allowed unless a special
permit is issued by the Engineering Division.
31. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. The project sponsor shall work with the Engineering
Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and coordinate with the Police
Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department, School District(s), and any public
transportation agencies that share the same route(s) as construction traffic for the project
to develop a Traffic Control Plan. The Plan shall be incorporated into the bid documents
(specifications) and shall include, but is not limited to, the following measures:
a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize
traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses and special events. The
schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with coordination of
the trucking operation.
b. All construction traffic shall not exceed a speed of 15 MPH.
32. NEW TREES. All newly planted trees are required to be double staked to Town
Standards.
33. GENERAL. All existing trees being retained and replacement trees are specific subjects
of approval of this plan and must remain on the site.
34. PER-Mi IT ISSUANCE. Permits for each phase (reclamation, grading and landscaping)
shall be issued simultaneously.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
35. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. Required fire flow is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure.
36. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE, A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire
Protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and
appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to beginning work.
37. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire
sprinkler system is required for the new residence, guest quarters, garage, and all
accessory structures 500 square feet or greater. The sprinkler system shall be
hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D
and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valving shall be installed per Fire
Department Standard Detail & Specifications W-1/SP-6.
38. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED. Provide pubic fire hydrant(s) at location(s)
to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company.
Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of
1,500 GPM at 20 psi residual. If area fire hydrants exist, reflect their location on the civil
drawings included with the building permit submittal.
Page 4 of 5
39. FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION IDENTIFIER. Prior to final inspection the general
contractor shall ensure that an approved "Blue Dot" fire hydrant location identifier has
been placed in the roadway as directed by the Fire Department.
40. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED. An access
driveway with a paved all weather surface, minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet,
vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches. Installations shall conform to Fire Department
Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-l.
41. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURNAROL`ND REQUIRED. Provide
an approved Fire Department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36
feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard
Details and Specifications D-l.
42. EMERGENCY GATE/ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. Gate installations shall conform to
Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and shall not obstruct and
portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways when open.
Locks, if provided, shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation
43. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION. Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings
so they are clearly visible and legible from Kennedy Road. Numbers shall be a minimum
of four inches high and shall contrast with their background.
DE`.- CO` DFrINS ,3 ~-c_
Page 5 of 5
DECORATIVE IRON
POOLFENCE
DECORATIVE IRON
SECURITY FENCE
WILDLIFE PERMEABLE
FENCE
ALL NON-VISIBLE FENCE TO BE
VINYL COATED CHAIN LINKED
EXHIBIT 1 2
Custom Frabricated Rustic Bell Wall Sconce
Lamp: 1x100 watt
Size: 14°Hx11" x11 "D
Finish: Custom Bronze Finish
PATH LIGHT: 22" TALL
Al-,
i1
1 i
Tree Mount
Cat. No. SSP/T
4W
106 i
34
15/s„
TAX
HUNZA
The Tree Mount Kit enables a HUNZA`' NIPS Spot to be mounted
onto a tree to create moon lighting effects. A cable connection
can be made at the rear of the dome. The Kit consists of a
mounting dome and three 316 stainless steel bolts. The bolts
initially fix the dome 40mm (11/2") out from the tree's surface,
which allows the tree to grow without causing any harm.
Ordering Information
Luminaire Type Material
TMK - Tree Mount Kit Black Polycarbonate
Ordering Example: TMK- Tree Mount Kit i
CJK150 - Cable Joint Kit
(Accessories ordered separately)
I Accessories
CJK150 - Cable Joint Kit
Patent Pending
Construction
Dome:
Molded from UV stable
polycarbonate with snap in 1/2" NIPS
female adaptor.
Fixings supplied:
3 x 95mm (33/4") 316 stainless steel
bolts.
3 x 3mm (118") 316 stainless steel
screws.
Mounting
The Tree Mount dome is secured to
the tree with 3 x 95mm (33/4") 316
stainless steel bolts. The HUNZA'
NIPS spot is screwed into the 1/z' nps
adaptor.
MR16 ESX GU5.3
12 volt 20 watt 10`
Im
S3)
4000 Lux d- 0 200mm (8-) f
2m
(6)
1000 Lux @ 0 400mm (16')
-
3m
(9'I
444 Lux C. 0 600mm (24-J -
MR16 FRB GU5.3
12 volt 35 watt 10°
lm
t3')
8000 Lux c¢ 0 200mm (8-1 I
2m
K)
2000 Lux @ 0 400mm (16-Y -
3m
19'Y
880 Lux 0 600mm (24-I -
MR16 EXT GU5.3
12 volt 50 watt 10°
tm
(3')
10000 Luz W 206mm (8 )
2m
561
2500 Lux 0 400mm (16') -
3m
f9l
1000 Lux ra 0 600mm (24')
Features
Dome:
The Dome is fixed 40mm (1 %2") out
from the trees surface by three bolts
allowing cabling to be run in behind
the dome for connection to the
luminaire.
Size:
Y2" NIPS
Polycarbonate:
UV stable polycarbonate, suitable
for use with aluminium, copper and
316 stainless steel luminaires.
MR16 BAB GU5.3 ZS
12 volt 20 watt 38`
tm
13)
700 Lux , v 0 650mm (26-) 12m
(6)
175 Lux !a, 0 1300mm f51-1 - I
3m
(9
78 Lux C., A 1950 176-I
MR16 FMW GU5.3
12 volt 35 watt 38
tm
(3')
1500 Lux 0 650mm (26-) I
~2m
(6 }
375 Lux!_ 0 1300mm 151-} - I
3m
9l
167 Lux C 0 1950 176-)
MR 16 EXN GU5.3 A
12 volt 50 watt 38°
tm
(3 )
2000 Lux v 0 650mm (26-1
I
2-
500 Lux r~ 0 1300mm {51-1 - ' - 3
3m
19 )
222 Lux C 0 1950l76-)
8.7
MR16 GU5.3 Q
12 volt 20 watt 60
1m
13 1
450 Lux @ 0 1154mm (45 )
2m
l6Y
lt2 Lux [y 0 2308-191"} -
3m
50 Lux to 0 3462mm (1361 1
MR16 GU5.3
12 volt 35 watt 60`
im
3
800 Lux -~j)o 1154mm (45' ) 2m
200 Lux [H) 0 2308mm (91-1
3m
19'1
90 Lux (f 0 3462mm 1136 ) i
MR 16 FNV GU5.3
12 volt 50 watt 60`
Im
(3')
1050 Lux @.'0 1154mm (45-> - - I
2m
S6')
262 Lux ~.D 0 2308mm (91-j _
3m
(9'1
116 Lox @ 0 3462mm 1136-) 1
A4"%° T0'V N OF LOS G ATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
~os5 ;fleeting Date: August 27, 2008
G 0'4 PREPARED BY: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
APPLICATION NO.: S-08-55
ITEM NO.: 2
ADDENDUM
LOCATION: Kennedy Road C Forrester Road (north side of Kennedy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis
PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust
CONTACT PERSON: Rob DeSantis: 408-348-1202
APPLICATION
SUNINiARY: Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
21/,:PD. APN 537-29-007 & 008.
DEEMED COMPLETE: August 7, 2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: February 7, 2009
EXHIBITS: 1.-14. Previously received
15. Gate and wall details (one sheet)
16. Full size landscape plan (one sheet)
DISCUSSION:
A full size fencing and lighting plan was provided with the staff report. A full size planting plan
that also shows the fencing and lighting locations is attached as Exhibit 16.
In approving the Planned Development, the Town Council determined that the project is
consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines
(HDS&G) with specific exceptions being granted.
The Planning Commission's purview in reviewing the A&S application is the architecture of the
approved structures, landscape, outdoor lighting and fencing. At the August 13, 2008 meeting
the scope of the review was narrowed to the landscape, fencing and lighting plans.
Fencing is not a required element of the plan except for the fence around the pool area. The
HDS&G includes criteria for fencing (Chapter VI, pages 42 and 43). Proposed fencing is all
open style designs, and most of it is located in areas where it will not be viewed from off the site.
An exhibit showing the gate house structure and decorative front gate will be displayed at the
meeting. A reduced copy is attached at Exhibit 13.
ATTACHMENT 10
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
Kennedy Road Forrester Road/S-08-55
August 13, 2008
The landscape plan is inclusive of hardscape elements such as pathways and terraces, and a deck
at the tennis pavilion (all shown on Exhibit 15). The railing for the tennis pavilion deck is
wrought iron. All retaining and decorative walls will be faced with stone.
Required findings for the approval of the Architecture and Site application are as follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the approved PD
b. That the A&S application is consistent with the HSP and HDS&G
c. That the project is consistent with the considerations for the review of A&S applications
prepared by:
Suzanne Davis
Associate Planner
Approved by:
Bud N. Lortz, AICP
Director of Community Development
BNL: SD
N:IDEVREPO&7S%.0G8'Ke edyAcam-A&S.doc
3JN30153b SIINVS3O S3bniD IBIS 31VO 1.U1N3 dnOa9 NO1S3O A2fONV-l
- - m
` a ;rl, s l}1 w
-ALI
5.. g, ~I}'• ~ .i~ a d' h( f f r ~ F'. 'I ' -S~4 ~
•'r ' r X1;-1
-DLO {
v-.~ rte, Slf _ r ~i _ t.• -
y~ - Zhu J`.-~3. 1•t s
k r
-o vs
'ZI
33 t
- Z£5 ~YZ j
a j 1 530
S< F _ - 1 h J 1
U U 0
~awg of
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
a o5 Meeting Date: august 27, 2008
Ohl PREPARED BY: Sande L. Baily. Associate Planner
APPLICATION NO.: S-OSQ
ITEM ISO.: 2
DESK ITEM
LOCATION: Kennedv Road a Forrester Road (north side of'Kermedy Road
just east of Forrester Road)
APPLICANT: Rob DeSantis
PROPERTY OWNER: Acorn Trust
CONTACT PERSON: Rob Mantis: 408-348-1102
APPLICATION
SU%IMAR'Y': Requestim, approval to construct a new single farnily residence
within an approved Planned Development on property zoned HR-
2%:PD. APL 537-29-007 & 008.
DEEMED COtiIPLETE: August 7, 2008
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: February 7, 2009
EXHIBITS: 1.- 15 Previously received
16. CEQA excerpts from Christine Currie (two pa~~es) received
August 27, 2008.
17. Letter from Christine Currie (seven pages) received August 27.
2008.
1 S. Comments from Lee Quintana (two pages) received August 27
2008.
19. Email, tree removal permit and letter from Lee Quintana (t)-iree
pages) received August 27, 2005.
DISCUSSION:
Attached are Exhibits 16 through 19 that were received today.
repared by: Approv by:
Sanc v . Bailv.. CP Bud N. Lortz. AICP
Associate Planner Director of Community Development
BNL:SLB:mdc
N: DEV' I SPORTS 2008`Keiu;edyAcoin-Jsk. l .doc
ATTACHMENT 11
Title 1 4 (1) Inform governmental decision-ma'n-en and the public about the potential, significant environmental
effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.
(3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through
the use of altematives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be
feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner
the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.
(b) Governmental Action.
I Pr
CEQA applies to governmental action. This action may involve:
n by a governmental agency,
or in part by a governmental agency, or
are approval from a governmental agency.
n is not subject to CEQA unless the action involves governmental
oval.
(d) Project. A "project" is an activity subject to CEQA. The term "project" has been interpreted to
paean far more than the ordinary dictionary definition of the term. (See: Section 15378.)
(e) Time for Compliance. A governmental agency is required to comply with CEQA procedures when
the agency proposes to carry out or approve the activity. (See: Section 15004.)
(f) Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
is the public document used by the governmental agency to analyze the significant environmental
effects of a proposed project, to identify alternatives, and to disclose possible ways to reduce or avoid
the possible environmental damage.
(1) An EIR is prepared when the public agency finds substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant
effect on the environment. (See: Section 15064(a)(1).)
(2) When the agency finds that there is no substantial evidence that a project may have a significant
environmental effect, the agency will prepare a "Negative Declaration" instead of an EIR. (See:
Section 15070.)
(g) Significant Effect on the Environment. A significant effect on the environment is defined as a
substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed
project. (See: Section 15382.) Further, when an EIR identifies a significant effect, the government
agency approving the project must make findings on whether the adverse environmental effects have
been substantially reduced or if not, why not. (See: Section 15091.)
(h) 'Methods for Protecting the Environment. CEQA requires more than merely preparing
environmental documents. The EIR by itself does not control the way in which a project can be built
or carried out. Rather, when an EIR shows that a project would cause substantial adverse changes in
the environment, the governmental agency must respond to the information by one or more of the D
1
following methods: R E C r> a >;1r a
(1) Changing a proposed project r ? j
(2) imposing conditions on the approval of the project; _
(3) Adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of projects to avoid the adverse changes.
EXHIBIT 16
http://ceres.ca.aov/topic/env lawicega/,.Puidelines/artl.htmi 11/04/2005
L L'.4 '.It; L 't
in the statute. In cc tatute sets up specLal requirements that apply by
way of a crass-re he issuance of a lease, license, certificate, permit,
or other entitlem itions to refer to private projects.
'
1378. Pro~
(a) "Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct
physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment, and that is any of the following:
(1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works
construction and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public
structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local
General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65 1 00-65 700.
(2) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency
contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies.
(3) An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other
entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
(b) Project does not include:
(1) Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature;
(2) Continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies, personnel-
related actions, general policy and procedure making (except as they are applied to specific instances
covered above);
(3) The submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community that
sponsored initiative. (Stein v. City of Santa Monica (1980) 110
f.~37, Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal-4th 165);
coding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities
ment to any specific project which may result in a
pact on the environment.
ve activities of governments that will not result in direct or
ivironment
(c) The term "project" refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to
several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term "project" does not mean each
separate governmental approval.
(d) Where the Lead Agency could describe the project as either the adoption of a particular regulation
under subsection (a)(1) or as a development proposal which will be subject to several governmental
approvals under subsections (a)(2) or (a)(3), the Lead Agency shall describe the project as the
development proposal for the purpose of environmental analysis. This approach will implement the
Lead Agency principle as described in Article 4.
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21065, Public
Resources Code; Kaufman and Broad-South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (1992) 9
Cal.AppAth 464; Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Education (1982) 32
Cal.3d 779; Simi Valley Recreation and Park District v. Local Agency Formation Commission of
Ventura Countv (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 648; and Communities for a Better Environment v. California
Resources Agency: (2002) 103 Ca1.App.4th 98.
15379. Public Agency
http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env law/cega/auidelines/art20.htm1 11/04/2005
Desk Item for the Planning Commission
8127108
Chair D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair Thomas O'Donnell, Commissioner Phillip
Micciche: Marico Sayoc, Joanne Talesfore, Marcia Jensen.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am requesting a clarification as to what has or has not been "approved." It
would appear by a reading of the Minutes that the Commission is not clear on
this topic, and it would seem that agreement would not be possible because the
commission did not have enough information. CEQA is all about providing
sufficient information so the decision makers can make an informed decision.
The following objections are for the public record. Consistency with the
town's development standards and guidelines for hillside development
must be followed in this precedent setting development. The Planning
Commission is the decision making body for projects that have the greatest
potential impact.
The next six pages outline the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines and how the Desantis/Acorn Trust Property
Development does not follow our town standards and general plan.
Ms. Jensen If you could address: The conflicts with land ordnance 2162 and
the conditions of A & S approval. My concern is the language seems to change
from what was approved. (Please see page 3 of 17, under ornamental
landscaping.)
The first sentence of Chapter III states:
The intent of the site planning section is to insure that new development fits into
the topography with minimal impact to the site physically and visually.
The proposed project does not meet this intent and is not consistent with
Standards and applicable Guidelines for grading (A), Drainage (B), Driveways
2. Drainage. (Pg.58.) Commissioner Bourgeois please address:
Not clear if project meets this standard. MND states that run off stays on site (no
data to support) but it also indicates that the natural drainage patterns will be
changed and will require the construction of both above and below grade
drainage facilities.
Guidelines 1 and 3. These guidelines may be applicable but there is insufficient
detail on drainage design to determine if the project is consistent with them.
EXHIBIT 17
Guidelines:
a. Where terrace drains are required, they should follow a landform slope
configuration.
Down drains should be placed in the least conspicuous locations.
Standard 2a. Upslope development shall not negatively impact downslope
drainage.
-The extent of the roofline exceeding 25 feet (30 ft.) Males 70% of the linear
length at or above the limit set by HSDS. This also effects water displacement.
-Because no Hydrology report was offered we do not know the potential impacts.
b. Natural drainage courses shall be preserved. Drainage features should be
Incorporated as an integral part of the project design in order to enhance the
overall aesthetic and natural quality of the development.
Standard 4. There is insufficient information to determine how man made
drainage channels will be treated.
Geologic Hazards Standards The geotechnical report suggests that the project is
only "minimally acceptable".
-To address this standard the 14,000 cubic yards of infill to help form a flat pad
for the tennis pavilion would be considered an impact under CEQA. CEQA
measures impacts of a project from the base line of the existing physical setting
of the property.
Standard 4 & 5 the project is not consistent since grading extends far beyond the
areas and the site will not be restored to its original (existing) topography.
Question: The rough" grading area has been expanded to accommodate getting
trucks up and down the hillsides? This would offer even greater scope to the
grading to take place. No plans have been made available for the public to study
this.
Commissioners: Do you have expanded grading plans within your packet
to explain the extent?
- Standard 3: The project is not consistent with this standard because a portion of
the pool and a large portion of the tennis court are built on slopes over 30%
V11. Landscape Design (page 50.)
A. Landscape design concepts:
Standard 1. Project is not consistent. From plans and partial landscape plans the
landscaping design does not maintain the natural appearance of the hillsides.
2
Standard 3, 4, and 7. The project is not consistent.
B. Plant Materials:
-Landscaping plans are not detailed enough to determine conformance.
The parameters are not met per ordnance 2162 as approved within the PD.
Please address.
4. Street layout and driveways.
Standards:
a. Hillside street and drainage standards shall reflect a rural rather than
urban character and shall allow for special designs where natural
features such as rocks, slopes, and trees require special treatment.
- The wide straight alignment of the tennis pavilion accompanied with the over
excavation and infill of 14,000 cu yards would be considered a major alteration to
the landscape.
Chair Kane; Please address this issue.
-The central portion of the ridge will be lowered 23' to maintain the required
maximum 15% grade for the driveway.
Standard 5 is not currently met. However, Exhibit 6, the revised grading and
drainage plan indicate that the driveway slope is 16%. The question arises on
how a landscape plan can be finalized without addressing these questions of
grade?
Has this been finalized on exhibit B? Are the plans in compliance with Ordnance
2162? (pg 3)
d. Road lighting should be limited to intersections, dangerous curves, dead ends,
and multi-use parking areas, and shall be installed to Acut-off @ standards.
-Is there a way to check if this was followed? It is not found within the plans.
Visual analysis: (See Section 11.6.1.) No materials or technical demonstration is
provided in the review documents of the project that supports the contention that
the project will not be visible from the viewing platforms. In addition, current
CEQA documentation finds no significant impact on views from neighboring
properties, but again there are no visual analyses to support this conclusion.
Based on our analysis, we believe there will be significant impact on views from
at least properties on the hillside to the southwest and, with the fill for
development of a part of the house, there may also be impacts on views from
hillside properties to the north. The views to the driveway, tennis court, pool and
pool house and +1400 linear feet of retaining wall may be very significant, but
this can only be properly judged with story poles in place and a clear
understanding of impacts on trees and other site vegetation which might be
3
removed.
In addition, the amount and height of fencing and the area of ornamental
landscaping allowed may have additional visual impacts from on and off site.
Neither of these conditions was considered in determining consistency with the
HDSG or in the CEQA analysis.
Planning staff has advised that the only view impacts of importance
are in terms of the viewing platforms and that due to topography the
subject site is not visible from any of these platforms. While this may
be the case, the HDSG expressly call for a project to fit the hillside
conditions of the property and the illustrations in the HDSG clearly
show how this is to be achieved. These also demonstrate that the
visual and topographic changes are to be limited.
- Not only does the CEQA analysis downplay the potential for any visual impacts,
the peer review architectural analysis completed for the Town in October of 2005
makes no mention of the proposed project's conformity to the HDSG standards
and applicable guidelines for choosing the building site, planning or architectural
design site.
Neither the Initial Study or architect's review comment on the projects conformity
with basic provisions and policies in the Town's General Plan nor does it address
the changes to site topography or site character (physical changes), viewed from
on site and off-site. While changes in the topography of the site may or may not
result in potential impact to Geology and Soils the physical changes proposed by
the project are not consistent with several objectives of the HDSG or with several
of its Standards and applicable Guidelines. In order to permit a full architectural,
visual and CEQA analysis story poles, staking and outlining of proposed
development areas at the site are typically standard procedures in many hillside
communities like Los Gatos.
This is essential for a full analysis of visual impacts and is necessary to support
findings for-the proposed exceptions to the HDSG and to support the findings for
a Negative Declaration.
V1. SITE ELEMENTS
Standards:
1, The use of fences and walls shall be minimized and located so that natural
landforms appear to flow together and are not disconnected. The primary
emphasis shall be on maintaining open views, protecting wildlife corridors, and
maintaining the rural, open, and natural character of the hillsides.
2. Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of six feet measured from the
highest side of the fence or wall and should be limited to those areas where
fences and walls of this height are necessary for protection of ornamental
4
landscaping, security, or play areas.
3. Solid fencing materials shall not be used unless needed for privacy.
4. Deer fencing up to a maximum height of eight feet shall be limited to areas
around ornamental landscaping. Larger areas shall not be enclosed unless
specific reasons for keeping deer out have been demonstrated to the satisfaction
of the decision making body.
5. Fences shall not be allowed in areas that would impede the movement of
wildlife as determined by the decision making body,
-No studies of wildlife corridors prepared. This proposed project has retaining
walls and fences.
6. Temporary construction fencing shall be limited to the building envelope or
shall be elevated to allow for movement of small animals.
-this has not been shown on the plans.
Standards:
-Standard 5: Given the proposed building site, in order for the driveway to
meet the County of Santa Clara Fire Department requirements requires the
ridge to be lowered 26' to enable the main structure to meet the grade of the
proposed driveway. This is not consistent with Standard 5.
1. Entryways shall be designed to blend with the natural environment and to
maintain the rural character of the hillsides.
- While of natural materials the proposed entry way with two gate houses and
what appears to be a solid gate is not consistent with the Don't do illustration the
Do this illustration.
Guidelines: Is not consistent with either guideline.
3. Lighting fixtures at entryways shall direct light downwards and shall be
designed so that no part of the light source is visible from the street.
-No plans submitted?
RETAINING WALLS
1. Retaining walls shall not be used to create large, flat yard areas. The
limited use of retaining walls may be allowed when it can be demonstrated
that their use will substantially reduce the amount of grading.
5
- The project is not consistent because it does use retaining walls to create large,
flat yard areas.
2. Retaining walls that are visible from a public street shall have a veneer of
natural stone, stained concrete, or textured surface to help blend the wall
with the natural hillside environment and to promote a rural character.
- However, approximately 700 feet of retaining wall are between 4 and 5 feet and
there are 11 retaining walls totaling over 1600 linear feet do not embrace the
rural character of the hillsides and would be visible.
An application for architecture and site approval or subdivision shall be
accompanied by a written letter of justification that describes how the proposed
project complies with the General Plan, Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines.
- This letter does not exist because of the inability of the project to comply with
our Hillside Specific Plan and the Hillside Development standards and guidelines.
B. Project Approval Authority
Grading:
The proposed project is not consistent with Standard 1 and 3, or applicable
Guideline 1.
Standard 1. The proposed project is not consistent with Standard 1. Standard 1
states:
`The following cut and fill criteria are intended to ensure that new construction
retains the existing landform of the site and follows the natural contours. Cuts
and fill in excess of the following levels are considered excessive and contrary to
the objectives of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines. It then follows
that a project that does not meet this standards is not consistent with the General
Plan.
The x-1600 linear feet of retaining wall, and the creation of large flat pad
proposed by the project also supports the conclusion that the proposed project
does not retain the existing landforms or contours of the site.
Standard 3. The project is not consistent with Standard 3. It is not located in a
manner that minimizes the need for grading (tennis court, spread over 3.46
acres, reduces ridge up to 21'. In addition there have been no site-specific
wildlife surveys done, however, a mountain lion and coyotes and numerous deer
have been observed on the site. Also see selecting a Building Site, Standard 5.
Not only does the CEQA analysis downplay the potential for any visual impacts,
the peer review architectural analysis completed for the Town in October of 2005
makes no mention of the proposed project's conformity to the HDSG standards
and applicable guidelines for choosing the building site, site planning or
6
architectural design.
Neither the Initial Study or architect's review comment on the projects conformity
with basic provisions and policies in the Town's General Plan nor does it address
the changes to site topography or site character (physical changes), viewed from
on site and off-site. While changes in the topography of the site may or may not
result in potential impact to Geology and Soils the physical changes proposed by
the project are not consistent with several objectives of the HDSG or with several
of its Standards and applicable Guidelines.
In order to permit a full architectural, visual and CEQA analysis story poles,
staking and outlining of proposed development areas at the site are typically
standard procedures in many hillside communities like Los Gatos.
This is essential for a full analysis of visual impacts and is necessary to support
findings for-the proposed exceptions to the HDSG and to support the findings for
a Negative Declaration.
As a member of the concerned community, it is my hope that the Planning
Commission be given enough information to help with making an informed
decision in this important and precedent setting development. The Hillside
Standards are a community value that show no boundaries. We are all neighbors
when it comes to the enjoyment and enhancement of the surrounding hillsides.
Christine Currie
117 Broadway
Los Gatos, Ca 95030
7
....ACORN MEADOWS -PROJECT DATA
EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED/
CONDITIONS PROJECT PERMITTED
Zoning district HP-21A same
Land use ;e -
General Plan Designation -
Lot size
$ square feet f4C,CCC sq. ft. m.ir:;mum
$ acres
--K- 92 ages mirimur^
~ GAS ~ r
Exterior materials:
$ siding
$ trim
$ windows
$ roofing
Building floor area:
$
first floor
$
second floor
$
cellar
$
garage
$
guest unit
$
cabana
$
art studio
$
pavilion
$
gatehouse
$
total (excluding cellar)
V ~.5 av1
S8 °Z
ZS~K$
SS~Z
INS
sio Fav
L
o a 5 T `
IV)
LW S I S +1c-1/1-r
13 Z7(. 5t"
1"15,7CC sq. ft. maximum
eet minimum
N
`
eet minimum
eet minimum
eet minimum
- ---met maximum
l t7, ~ no maximum.
102 -Z ~r IF E D
2 7
EXHIBIT 1$
C/~~ T /G'
f J- -t)3
-
. - - -
_ r
Z ' ~ is S I'Go 1~...__~i~l!I~1~5_ c~YL-~'_ G~l ~J -
D_ Or~iv~ r r~
_ -L:-- ~v~~~~o~o Ins a ~
- - ~ - G -
i
- - - -
- ~ - - _ _
- -
r--- - -
i
- - - -
_ _ - -
✓W,i/ l1 LAr7 1 ✓
From: Suzanne Davis <SDavis@1osgatosca.gcv7
To: IeeandpaulCJr earthlink.net
Subject: DeSantis PD
Date: Aug 25, 2008 6' 19 PHt
~ L !
Lee,
You'll need to ask Engineering for the status on the grading permit. Trang and Fletcher and handling it. I believe the grading
plans are complete and that they are working on the Construction Management Plan.
The Tree Removal Permit can be issued any time, it is not tied to the grading permit. I believe the applicant has applied
for a permit with PPW. Tim Boyer, Parks Superintendent is usually who would sign that off.
Suzanne
EXHIBIT 19
e
rra►i
Tree-Removal Application
an Permit
Finance:
Pymt Received:
Receipt Check: 600
TREER -M:
Tog -
Important Information;
Please review Tree Ordinance and other Tree Removal Information documents for important information.
Proce. : Staff will review each application and notify applicant of approval or denial within two (2) weeks of receipt.
You must receive and post the written tree removal permit in advance on the property before removing tree(s).
* * APPLICATION -SECTION
Please PRLNT the following information:
Property Owner Name: Contact person ' n 1.111 En,
Site Street Address: Zip Code-7-5-03;1- _Phone#: +01-344 -t;~or;t
Mailing Address (if different) L4~ It , 1`11+-x6 5-1+ NearestCrossStreet: kr Fruc~>'~t
I request to remove the following tree(s) because: ~rsxtgs~ e,6 mere- -PoS
t 'P - - - 6bo 7x434 s j r_ 5,,n 745-o - -
I'~ ~ S't~ N 7 7 0 o a-
Owner's Signature_~yz - - - _ _Date Submitted: S fi'
do D e) F,6766
Fees: $~er application for one tree, plus S~~for each additional tree on same application.
'nee Type: Trunk Diameter-(measured 3 feet from ground): Fee Amount; Tree Size Verified:
T '-%I number of Tress requesting to be removed: S5 Total Fees:
r~
~A photo of tree~s~ & a to tndicatin~ their location on_the_propcq is rued (and Arbarist Report, if applicably-
Attach payn►ent money order or check). -Payments are accepted Mondays-Fridays, at the following locations:
SAM-3PM at 41 Miles Avenue ndd SAM to GPM at 110 East Main Street, )downstairs-Finance), Los Gatoe.
Cali 1408) 399-5770 for more information. Thank you.
+++++++t++++++++++++.++. +*+++++..+f+++.+. +++++++++.+++f++++t+t++++.+++
Staff Use Only
* * P_ ERINU S ON
Application Received Date: 7/2-' 0 Inspection Date---d/4 o S Inspection Conducted By.
Pursuant to Section 29.10.0990 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos Code, the removal of tree(s) is:
APPROVED DENIED
Summary of Inspection; ,
Replacement Tree Requirement: _
NOTE. Replacement Trees are requir to be anted within 40 days of tree removal. Verification and photos
of replacement tree(s) will be requested approximately 2-3 months after the tree removal pw mit is approved.
A copy of this permit must be available on the premises for inspection at the time the trees are removed. This permit
will expire two years from the date of approval pursuant to section 29.20.320 of the Los Gatos Tow Code.
f a `e 50% A 'ca ' n r
,I ens d, a pplt tto Refund Amount will be Due: Amount of Refund $ mFlom
dal Notification date: Appeal Deadline Date:
If permit is denied, you may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission in writing to: P.O. Box 949, Los Gatos CA 95031.
The appeal letter must be received within 10 days after the date of inspection, (listed above), with a private arborist's report attached
to the letter of appeal. The private arborist is retained at the cost of the appellant/applicant.
Once reviewed and processed, form distribudon. Planning Dept, PPW, Applicant (received after Town Arborisr processes This application).
r
I~
i
I~
I
4~-
Town of Los Gatos
I'ILLNG FEES
Office of the Town Clerk
$272.04 Residential _ 51089.00 per Commercial,'Nlulti- 110 E. Main 5t., Los Gatos C a 95'0 30
family- or Tentative Ma ~ eal
p - pp -
-PPE-AL OF PL_ -.4-N G CO-NBII5SI0 DECISION
NIN'Ni
i, thz and _~iy ed, do he.eby arpea_' a ~ ec:sion cf e ?:ann,r- Cc --Lzsi-,a as :cL'cut (PLP-ASE i Y rE OR?RLN-T '-4`_EATLYi
DA, E OF Pl.,%-N-.NL`+G CONCYI:SSION DFGSION:
PROIECT ; AP?L!CATION NO
ADDRESS LGCA_TION:
?-_rsuart :a the Te-.,v Code, the Tcw~ Council mw.. Dr ly tra nt an arpe of a P'.a*.nir:g Co=issim decision ir most ire:s S _he
Ccuac:l Lids ,±a: one of t -..e (31 reaso: ex st for gramg the aepca: ' a v ,.te of at .east three (3) Cetir~ci-nercbe-s The °fcre,
please sveci_^i hew one of hose :ea_sons ex;.st s: :he alpeai: ~ - -
1. T"ae Plan-m Com=ss:cn ,..-red x abt:sed its discretion because I r~ i - /1 •r fit; ° t: i
T-h
;OR
1 These is new :nformatioc that was act reasonably available at the ~e of the Planning Commission decision, which is
(please attach the newinfor--a--cn if possible): OR
3. The Planning Commission did not have discretion to medi y cr address the follow-i g policy or issue that is vested in the Town
CotCztsc~i]: L) b , "rc i'~~C. ':7711n1 Ts-?C- ,~~~.`C
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS.
DIPORTANT:
1. Appedant is responsible for fees for Tmscziption of mi-antes.
2. Appeal must be filed with ten (101 calendar days o- Planning Commission Decision accompazded by the required SLng fee.
Deadline is 5:00 pm on ±e 10'y day following the decision. If the 10' day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the 10t° day, usually a Monday.
3. The Town Cleric will set ±e laearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No.
1967)
4. An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision trap only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Cede, as applicable, which is differeat from other appeals.
5, Once died, to appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
6. if the reason for granting an appeal s :he receipt of new information, the appication aril usually be -erwrned to the Planning
Commission for -econsieeraticn.
PRLN7 *A%11-: S1GNA!, -
ADDRESS: _ c $ 't
PHONE +
OFFICLkL, LSE ONLY
DATE OF PUBLIC HEAR-'N& CGitiFI2~LkTION I PTTE r S~+ i : !"isle:
Pending Plamung Department Confirmation C Ay"LiC?.~: & PPPEZ' ati: B
TO S {D . --B1_7CA:,C`i- DA T CF PL:B' A O\:
ATTACHMENT 13
General comments for appeal
Appeal Reasons:
1) _erred or abused its discretion because. ''it denied the A&S based on
matters that had already been approved by the Council as past of the PD.
instead substituting its own views. It also wanted to impose arbitrary and
capricious requirements based on personal preferences of some of the
Commissioners, not on Town codes or policies."
3) ...no discretion to modify policy set by Council: "The PC did not act
within the scope of the Council's PD approval. Four members disagreed
with the Council approval, and took this action based on that disagreement
with the Council, instead of adhering to the Council approval as having set
the zoning for this project."
oLL'Lij
ED co
2-
u>>
iCL
w
LL O J
CO
Z
to
up
G
LU a
LL
LL
L
2
u
C
t
u
L
u
z
lF1
f r1
Q
D
L11
U-
J
J
Z
Q
o
O
W
U
o
z
w
W
Z
U-
z
W
Y
z
Z
O
Z m O
w
u . rc
~ LL d m
z r o v
z 3
1
ATTACHMENT 1. df