2011050207 - Desk Item 15881 Linda Avenue and 15950 Stephenie LaneS gpS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: May 2, 2011
MEETING DATE: 05/2/2011
ITEM NO:
DESK ITEM
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL Q _'
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER �✓
SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD -08 -004; AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT EIR- 09 -01. PROJECT LOCATION: 15881 LINDA
AVENUE & 15950 STEPHENIE LANE. PROPERTY
OWNER/APPLICANT: MISSION WAY PARTNERS
A. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AND RECERTIFY
THE FEIR (EIR -09 -001) IN CONNECTION WITH THE LINDA
COURT PROJECT (PD -08 -004, S -08 -014 TO S -08 -020),
PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2010; AND
B. CONSIDER RATIFYING AND REAFFIRMING THE PRIOR
APPROVAL OF THE LINDA COURT PROJECT CONSISTING OF
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD -08 -004 AND
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S -08 -014
THROUGH S -08 -020, ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2010, TO CHANGE
THE ZONE FROM R -1:8 TO R- 1:8:PD, FOR A SEVEN -LOT
SUBDIVISION, FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN
TWO PARCELS ZONED R -1:8 TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE -
FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND TO CONSTRUCT SEVEN SINGLE -
FAMILY RESIDENCES. APNS 523 -25 -052 (FORMERLY 020)
AND 051 (FORMERLY 036).
REMARKS
The project was previously approved by the Town Council in September 2010 and this Item does
not re -open the project for approval. Staff has been made aware of concern by an individual
pertaining to a number of items which have been previously reviewed, discussed and analyzed in
the staff reports, Draft EIR and Final EIR. They include: (1) street conformity, (2) project
PREPARED BY : tendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney
Clerk Administrator Finance ommunity Development
N: \DEV\TC REPORTS\20I 1 \15881 Linda Avenue Desk Item 5 -2 -1 Ldoc.docx Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE /FILE #PD -08 -004, EIR -09 -01
May 2, 2011
compliance with Town tree regulations, (3) project compliance with General Plan requirements,
(4) project compliance with Town Code regulations for density and floor area ratios, (5)
compliance with Town floodplain management regulations, (6) conformity with State
Subdivision Map Act regarding access to navigable streams regulations, (7) environmental
impacts of Maintenance Access, (8) public access to open space, (9) conformity with the
Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams, and (10) compliance with height and
story pole requirements. In response to those concerns, the following response is provided.
1. Street Conformity The commenter questioned whether the project's street width, sidewalks,
right of way and cul -de -sac design, is in conformance with Town Subdivision Code.
The project is a Planned Development application which proposes a Planned Development
overlay zone to allow alternative regulations and requirements from the underlying zoning in
order to provide an optimum quantity and use of open space. The subject project is not a
Subdivision application. The Planned Development Ordinance for this project establishes the
development standards including the private street width. There are no minimum street width
standards beyond those stated in the Santa Clara County Fire Standard Details (Attachment 3)
Specifications for accessibility requirements for private streets that require a minimum clear
width of 20 feet. Additionally, Town Engineering Standards provide separate specifications for
Special Design Streets and Private Roads`. Further, the California State Subdivision Map Act
does not contain street standards. Street design standards are delegated to the local agency.
The Planning Commission report for this project dated 8 -11 -10 addressed the street width in the
following excerpt:
"Additionally, the applicant is requesting an exception under the PD application
to reduce the standard residential public street width of 36 feet to a private street
width of 22 feet. During prior review, the consensus of the Commission was that
the narrower street was the best solution to reduce the amount of impervious
coverage. In addition, there is no alternative but to have a narrower street width
at the entrance to the subdivision due to the amount of Linda Avenue lot frontage
that is available."
The Zoning Ordinance, which includes Planned Development overlay zoning (Chapter 29 of the
Town Code) and the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 24 of the Town Code) work in conjunction
together. Both the Town Code and the Planned Development Ordinance 2193 approved for this
particular project support that the Town Codes apply to the project application (including
Subdivision Ordinance), except where the Development Plan (PD overlay zoning) specifically
sets forth a standard.
The question that is really being posed is what standards under state law and Town Codes apply
to an application for a Planned Development. Town Code (Sections 29.80.120 and 29.80.125)
require that the Planned Development overlay zoning establish the Development
Plan/Development Standards for the project. Town Code (Sections 29.80.080, 29.80.085,
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE /FILE #PD -08 -004, EIR -09 -01
May 2, 2011
2980.090, and 29.80.095) describe the relationship of Planned Development procedures to other
ordinances. The Town Code basically provides that even if an applicant obtains approval for
Planned Development overlay zoning, the applicant still is required to follow the Subdivision
Ordinance to process the subdivision and maps, and the subdivision must be inconformity with
the regulations of the applicable zoning.
If one were to adopt the position that is proposed by Mr. Crites (that the Town violated its own
Code with respect to the Subdivision Ordinance), then the Town would never have the authority
to approve a Planned Development zoning (which sets forth specific development standards) or a
variance, or any other exception to development standards. That simply is not consistent with
state law or Town Codes.
2. Project Compliance with Town Tree Regulations The commenter questioned whether project
proposed tree removals are consistent with Town tree regulations.
The project is in compliance with tree regulations of the Town Code. The code section cited by
the commenter applies to subdivisions where no other applications are proposed. The project is
not a subdivision application, but a Planned Development with detailed architecture and site
plans which identify trees to be removed that conflict with project construction.
All trees approved for removal will be mitigated in accordance with Town Code. Further, this
issue was raised in the Final FIR Comments and was adequately addressed in Response 8 -37.
The following excerpt is taken from Planning Commission staff report of 8 -11 -10 for this
proj ect:
"The project development will result in the removal of 45 trees. Four of these
trees are within the riparian habitat and are non - native. These trees consist of
eight oaks, one redwood, one eucalyptus and 35 non - native horticultural and /or
fruit trees. Pursuant to Town Code, 26 of the trees to be removed are required to
be mitigated."
3. Project Density The commenter questioned whether the proposed project density is consistent
with the Town Code and General Plan.
The project density is 3.98 units per acre once all dedications and the full riparian corridor are
excluded. The General Plan allows for up to 5 units per acre on this parcel. Further, this issue
was raised in the Final EIR Comments and was adequately addressed in Responses 8 -13 and 8-
24 and 8 -44. This issue was also discussed on page 3 -6 and 4.1 -10 of the Draft EIR
The following excerpt is taken from the Town Council Report dated 9 -7 -10 for this project:
"Planned Development projects are intended to allow variation from strict zoning
ordinance standards in order to gain an optimum quantity and use of open space
and create developments that take advantage of unique site characteristics, that
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE /FILE #PD -08 -004, EIR -09 -01
May 2, 2011
otherwise may not occur in a standard development. Therefore, floor area ratios
are not directly applicable, but are provided to show how the project compares to
the neighborhood. Staff had made a determination that the site was unique due to
its size and location at the end of the street, its gently sloping topography and its
relatively undisturbed riparian habitat. In order to provide complete protection of
the riparian habitat, the proposed development has been clustered on the southern
portion of the property. This results in 33,527 square feet of the site being set
aside in one form or another for protection of the riparian corridor, which is
equivalent to one third of the project site.
Pursuant to the General Plan, the allowed density for the subject parcels is zero to
five units per acre. The proposed density is 3.66 units per acre, excluding the
riparian dedications to the Town and SCVWD, and 3.98 units per acre when
further excluding the entire riparian corridor (the full extent of the riparian
vegetation dripline)."
4. Floor Area Ratios (FARs) The cormnenter questioned whether FARs are consistent with Town
Code and the neighborhood homes.
The project FARs were measured for compatibility purposes against those in the neighborhood
and found to be compatible. The Planned Development provisions of the Town Code allow
variation of FAR standards to vary from the underlying zone. This issue was raised in the Final
FIR comments and was adequately addressed in Responses 8 -13and 8 -24, and to a lesser extent
in Responses 8 -12 and 8 -17. This issue was also discussed on pages 3 -6 and 4.1 -10 of the Draft
EIR.
The following excerpfis taken from the Town Council Report dated 9 -7 -10 for this project:
"It is important to note when comparing the project to lots in the neighborhood
that Ross Creek is not deducted from the parcel sizes for the neighboring
properties north of the project site in the Loma Vista/Longwood Drive /Linda
Avenue extension neighborhood. Therefore, when comparing home sizes it is not
possible to know how much land area might otherwise be deducted for
riparian/creek dedication and potential Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) easements if those parcels were to be developed under current
requirements that are imposed on the subject property.
While the floor area ratios for the proposed homes are generally higher than those
in the existing neighborhood, it is important to note that an additional 12,770
square feet of site area is dedicated as a SCVWD easement and a common open
space area between Lots 3 and 4. If this area were not dedicated in commonly
held open space it would contribute additional land area and would potentially
reduce the FAR approximately four to six percent bringing the range from .21 to
PAGES
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE /FILE #PD -08 -004, EIR -09 -01
May 2, 2011
.28. (still accounting for a deduction of the area within Ross Creek dedicated to
the Town)."
5. Compliance with Town floodplain management regulations The commenter questioned whether
the project is consistent with the Town's floodplain management regulations that prohibit
construction of structures in flood hazard zones. A hydraulic analysis prepared for the project
and reviewed in the EIR in addition to FEMA maps set the defined area for the floodplain. None
of the structures are located in the snapped 100 -year floodplain. The issue was discussed in the
Final EIR Response to Comments: 6 -4, 6 -21 through 6 -25, 6 -27 through 6 -43, and 8 -14.
6. Conformity with State Subdivision Map Act access to navigable streams regulations The
commenter questioned whether the project is consistent with State regulations for access to
navigable streams. The project CC &R's are required to contain language to reserve access in
compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act. The Final EIR provided a response to this item
in Response to Comment 8 -25. Further, the following Performance Standard is included in the
PD Ordinance:
CC &R's — ACCESS. The CC &R's shall include language to require easements and deed
restrictions over the private street which will guarantee access rights in perpetuity.
7. Environmental impacts of Maintenance Access The commenter questioned environmental
impacts of the Maintenance Access (PD standard 111). This is a standard general condition for
sites that will have Public Utility Easements (PUE) and in areas that Town crews will have to
access. This covers both the PUE's and the creek parcel being dedicated to the Town. This was
also a condition of the original approval in January of 2008.
For this project, the SCVWD will be doing the bulk of the maintenance for the creek parcel and
the Town will only need access to clean up litter, debris etc. No change in the proposed surfaces
will be required or allowed as any Town maintenance will be done on foot and on an as needed
basis only.
The additional purpose of this condition as identified in the final sentence is to ensure that final
improvements associated with utilities, final architecture, landscaping improvements, etc. do not
impact the ability to repair /replace /access public improvements — storm drain etc. The standard
condition reads as follows:
MAINTENANCE ACCESS. The applicant shall propose maintenance access improvements for
the Town Engineer to review, comment on, and approve. The Engineering Division shall
approve the surface materials over each public easement.
8. Public access to open space The commenter questioned whether the project is consistent with
General Plan requirements for public access to open space.
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE /FILE #PD -08 -004, FIR -09 -01
May 2, 2011
The issue of public access to Ross Creek was discussed and rejected during the Planning
Commission process. No trails exist upstream or downstream of the project site. The issue is
discussed in the Final FIR Response to Comment number 8 -25. The following excerpt is taken
from the Planning Commission Report of 8 -11 -10
During review of the prior PD application for this site, the Planning Corrunission
expressed concern over providing a public trail and open space on the property. However
the project plan allows for access to the natural common open space between Lots 3 and
4 of the subdivision which connects to the private street. In addition, the subdivision will
provide dedications to the Santa Clara Water District which will further enhance
enjoyment of the stream corridor. Conditions have been included to require easements
and deed restrictions over the private street as part of the CC &R's which will guarantee
these access rights in perpetuity, subject to the control of the regulatory agencies.
9. Conformity with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams The commenter
questioned whether the project is consistent with Santa Clara County Guidelines and Standards
for Land Uses Near Streams.
The FIR consultant fully evaluated the project for consistency with the Guidelines and Standards
and found the project to be in conformance with all applicable regulations. The Draft EIR
contains a complete consistency review in Appendix F. The project is evaluated in the context of
the Guidelines and Standards throughout the Biological Resources and Hydrology and Water
Quality sections of the Draft EIR. Additionally, the Final EIR provides responses to these issues
in Response to Comments: 6 -2, 6 -16, 8 -3 through 8 -8, and 8 -43.
10. Compliance with hei ht and story pole requirements The commenter questioned whether the
project complied with Town policy for height and story pole installation.
Story poles were in place for prior public hearings on the project in 2008. The Community
Development Director has authority to allow alternatives from the Height and Story
Requirements under exceptional circumstances. Although the applicant was encouraged to install
story poles, the footprint staking in lieu of story poles was allowed because the proposed
residences were generally in the same location where story poles were initially erected prior to
the public hearing, the majority of the Planning Commissioners were on the Commission at the
time of the previous hearing and according to Metroscan records there was only one new
neighbor inunediately adjacent to the property.
Attachments
1 - 2. Previously submitted
3. Santa Clara Fire Department Standard Detail & Specification (5 pages)
4. Emails from David Crites dated April 30, 2011 (9 pages)
5. Letter from Andrew L. Faber dated May 2, 2011 (5 pages)
WRR:HB:SB:cgt
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE /FILE #PD -08 -004, EIR -09 -01
May 2, 2011
2.3 Other Roads
DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION 2 STREET DESIGN STANDARDS
A. Special Design Streets
Special design streets shall be allowed wherever warranted by unique land use,
circulation conditions, or environmental conditions. These streets can either be arterial
streets, collectors, existing local hillside streets or scenic residential streets. Their
design will take into consideration the following features:
1. Retention of existing physical amenities.
2. Protection of existing trees within existing right -of -way.
3. Special treatment of transition sections when conforming to standard street sections.
B. Private Roads
Road safety, function and reliability are best served if the road is owned and maintained
by the Town. However, recognizing that private roads may be occasionally allowed in
Planned Residential Developments, provision is made for them in these standards.
Private roads, defined as those roads serving more than 20 Average Daily Traffic
(ADT), shall meet the following conditions:
1. Permanently established by tract or easement providing legal access to each
affected lot, dwelling unit, or business and sufficient to accommodate required 2 -3
improvements, and to include future use by adjacent property owners when
applicable.
2. Designed to serve up to the maximum potential of dwelling units based on the ADT
thresholds when the entire length of the private road system to the nearest public
road is considered. The maximum potential is the number of dwelling units that can
possibly be served by the road when physical barriers, . zoning or other legal
constraints are considered.
3. Accessible at all times for emergency and public service vehicle use.
4. Located so that land locking of present or future parcels will not occur.
5. Maintained by capable and legally responsible owner or homeowners association or
other legal entity made up of all benefited property owners.
6. Covenants shall be required for maintenance of the private road binding each lot
owner and all subsequent lot owners, such that by acceptance of a deed or other
conveyance, is deemed to covenant and agree that if at any time the Town of Los
Gatos concludes that maintenance of the roadway included in the common property
is necessary and has not been done by the Association, the Town of Los Gatos
may perform such maintenance as agent for the Association, and the Town of Los
Gatos will charge the Association for the cost of any such maintenance, which
charge shall be an obligation of the Association. Such reimbursement shall be a
cost subject to assessment, and there shall be a lien on the property, which may be
placed on the tax bill and collected as ordinary taxes by the Town.
7. Clearly described on the face of the plat, short plat, or other development
authorization and clearly signed as a private road.
GLAR,t C
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA. 95032 -1818
(408) 378 -4010 • (408) 378 -9342 (fax) • vnvw.sccfd.org
In-anummily Acaedi[ed
Agency
STANDARD DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS Spec No A -1
Rev. Date 06/01/09
SUBJECT: Fire Department Apparatus Access Eff. Date 01/23/97
Approved By
Page 1 of 5
SCOPE
Applicable to Fire Department apparatus access roadways serving commercial
buildings and three or more single- family dwellings. Note that the specifications
contained in this Standard apply only to properties located within the service area of
the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
DEFINITIONS
Roadway: A vehicular access roadway greater than or equal to 20 feet in width
Driveway: A vehicular access roadway less than 20 feet in width and serving no more
than two, single- family dwellings.
Temporary Access Roadway A temporary vehicular access road or driveway that is
provided until such time that the permanent road or driveway is installed.
REQUIREMENTS
ROAD DESIGN
1. Minimum clear width: The minimum clear width of fire department access roads
shall be 20 feet. Modifications to the design or width of a fire access road, or
additional access road(s) may be required when the fire code official determines that
access to the site or a portion thereof may become compromised due to emergency
operations or nearby naiural or manmade hazards (flood prone areas, railway
crossings, bridge failures, hazardous material- related incidents, etc.)
The width of secondary access roads may be reduced to less than 20 feet provided
turnouts are installed adjacent to the roadway every 500 feet with a minimum
dimension of 10 feet wide and 40 feet long or as otherwise determined by the fire
code official.
2. Access and loading: Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter
constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved
fire apparatus access road (including bridges and culverts) with an asphalt, concrete
or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire
apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg) or as otherwise determined by
the fire code official.
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Qrperiino, Las Altos,
- Los 6 1 1 ns Nills. Las Gatos. Monte Serene. Morgan 1-11g,, and Saratoga
ATTACMIE:NT 3
3. Minimum clear height: Vertical clearance over required vehicular access roads and
driveways shall be 13'6 ".
4. Grade: Maximum grade shall not exceed 15% (6.75 degrees).
5. Turn Radius (circulating): The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for
required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the
Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required. Circulating refers
to travel along a roadway without dead ends.
6. Turning Radius (Cul-de-sacs): The minimum outside turning radius is 36 feet. Use
of cul -de -sacs is not acceptable where it is determined by the Fire Department that
Ladder Truck access is required, unless greater turning radius is provided.
7. Turnarounds: Turnarounds are required for all dead end roadways-with a length in
excess of 150 feet. The turnaround details shown in this document are intended to
provide a general design concept only. Modifications or variations of these designs
may be approved by the Fire Department on a case -by -case basis. All turnaround
designs submitted for Fire Department review shall meet all previously stated
requirements. These details are applicable when a 36 -foot minimum turning radius
for dead ends is specified. These details are not applicable where turning radius
greater than 36 feet is specified or when a circulating radius is specified.
8. Dead ends: Dead -end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45720 mm)
shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions as determined by the fire
code official.
9. Parking: When parking is permitted on streets, in both residential/ commercial
applications, it shall conform to the following:
• parking is permitted both sides of the street with street widths of 36 feet or more
• parking is permitted on one side of the street with street widths of 28 — 35 feet
• no parking is permitted when street widths are less than 28 feet
NOTE: Rolled curbs can be part of the curb /sidewalk and used to increase the
roadway width with approval from the fire code official. Additional requirements
may apply for buildings 30 feet in height or greater. See requirements under
AERIAL FIRE APPARTUS ACCESS ROADS.
10. Access to a hydrant: Fire hydrants located on a public or private street, or on -site,
shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet (15 feet either side of
hydrant), in accordance with California vehicle code 22514. Marking shall be per
California vehicle code 22500.1
11. Traffic calming: Traffic calming devices and the design thereof shall be approved by
the fire code official prior to installation.
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District 2
Serving Santa Clara County and the cornmanities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Alta Hills, Los Galos, j route Sereno. Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
12. Alternate paving material: Alternative paving materials such as 'Grass Crete', turf
block or similar type material may be used for emergency vehicle access (EVA)
under certain conditions. The submittal shall include the design criteria based upon
the imposed load of fire apparatus as identified in item 2, Access and Loading The
EVA shall:
• Be marked. The lane at the curb delineated with lights, bollards, paint,
contrasting material, etc.
• Be structurally sound to preclude movement or disbanding with soil movement.
• Be field tested by the contractor in the presence of the fire code official Testing
may include driving the EVA by a weight verified vehicle. Prior to final
approval, the engineer of record (civil or soils engineer) shall certify the
installation.
FIRE APPARATUS ROADWAY SIGNS
Where required by the Fire Code Official, fire apparatus access roads shall be
designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California
Vehicle Code. The designation shall be indicated (1) by a sign posted immediately
adjacent to, and visible from, the designated place clearly stating in letters not less
than one inch in height that the place is a fire lane, (2) by outlining or painting the
place in red and, in contrasting color, marking the place with the words "FIRE
LANE ", which are clearly visible from a vehicle, or (3) by a red curb or red paint on
the edge of the roadway upon which is clearly marked the words "FIRE LANE'.
NUMBER OF ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED
Commercial and Industrial Developments
1. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities
exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two
means of fire apparatus access for each structure.
2. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a
gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided
with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.
Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet
(11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all
buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems.
Multi- Family Residential Developments (R -1 & R -2 occupancies)
1. Multi - family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be
equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access
roads.
anized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District 3
Serving ssrta Claw County and the corm. th. of Calrot)PJ). Cunariivn I Atr..,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos. )Worte Set mo. Mozgan Hlll, and
One -or -Two Family Residential Developments
1. Developments of one or two family dwellings where the number of dwelling
units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire
apparatus access roads and shall meet the requirements listed under; separation
of access roads
Exception: When approved by the fire code official, where there are more than
30 dwellings units on a single public or private fire apparatus road and all
dwellings units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with California Fire Code Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or
903.3.1.3, access from two directions shall not be required.
The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be
increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development;
as determined by the fire code official.
REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY ACCESS ROADS
1. Separation of access roads. Where two access roads are required, they shall be
placed a distance apart equal'to not less than one half of the length of the
maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served,
measured in a straight line between accesses (from centerline to centerline).
2. Connection to other roads: Where a secondary access roadway connects to a
public or private street there shall be either; no curb, a rolled curb or a driveway
cut as approved by the fire code official.
3. Easements: Only lands owned or in control of the property owner, held in
common with adjacent properties or publicly owned maybe used for 'secondary:
access. Secondary access roadways shall not be located in easements through
private property unless specifically approved by the fire code official. When
easements are required for secondary access roadways, they shall be recorded as
Emergency Vehicle Ingress Egress Easements (E.V.I.E.E) granted to the Fire
Department.
4. Marking and Identification: When necessary, signs or other approved notices
shall be posted at secondary access roadways to prevent obstruction by parked
vehicles. Such signs or notices shall be in accordance with Fire Department
Standards.
5. Maintenance: Secondary access roadways shall be maintained at all times by the
property owner. The roadway surface gates /locks and vertical and horizontal
clearances shall be maintained in serviceable condition. Maintenance of
secondary access roadways on commonly held lands shall be clearly stated in the
Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R) or Landscape Maintenance
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District 4
Ser✓ing Santa Clara Counly and the comrnunihes o! Campbell, Cupertino, Las Altos,
Los Alto, Hills, Los Catoq Monte Sereno. Morgan HIV, and Saratoga
agreements of the development project. The CC &Rs shall mandate that the
owners association shall retain professional management to oversee maintenance
responsibilities.
AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
1. Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet
(9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall
be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of
accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power
lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway.
2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width
of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building
more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height.
3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this
condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of
30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire
side of the building, as approved by the fire code official.
TEMPORARY ACCESS ROADS
1. When approved by the Chief, a temporary access road may be installed for fire
department access to buildings under construction until such time that the
permanent road or driveway is in place. A written request along with detailed
plans for the temporary access road shall be submitted to the fire department for
review and approval prior to installation. The plan submittal shall also include
timelines for use of the temporary roadway and acknowledgment that the
integrity of the roadway will be maintained at all times.
2. The width and turn radius dimensions of a temporary access road shall be the
same as for the required permanent roadway. As a minimum, the roadway shall
consist of a compacted sub base and six (6) inches of road base material (Class 2
aggregate base rock) both compacted to a minimum 95 %. The perimeter edges of
the roadway shall be contained and delineated by curb and gutter or other
approved method. The use of geotextile reinforcing fabric underlayment or soils
lime- treatment may be required if so determined by the project civil engineer.
Provisions for surface drainage shall also be provided where necessary.
3. Engineering certification of the temporary roadway construction shall be
documented and submitted to the Fire Department prior to or at the time of the
acceptance inspection of the roadway.
standard Details & specifications A -1 /DM: dh/ 12.02.09
as the Santa Clara C ounty Central Fire Protection District 5
Serving Santa Clara Countv and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino. Los ARos,
Las Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Serene. Morgan Hlll, and .Saratoga
T.° "'PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Heather Bradley
From: David Crites <davidcrites @frontier.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 20118:56 AM
To: Heather Bradley
Subject: For May 2 Council Meeting
Attachments: Letter to Town Council re Street Width.pdf
Importance: High
Hi Heather — The attached letter is for Council's consideration at the May 2, 2011 Council meeting under the 15881 Linda
Av agenda item.
Thank you,
Dave Crites
ATTACffiMENT 4
David Crites
Ross Creek Neighbors
15900 Rochin Terrace
Los Gatos, CA 95032
May 2, 2011
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Council Members
Town staff is asking you to approve a project that includes an "exception" to the Town's codified,
mandatory subdivision ordinance which sets a minimum width for subdivision streets. What they
are asking you to do is better known as "breaking the law ". Staff's position is that planned
developments can violate codified law — presumably because they area legislative act or have
mythical qualities under California law. The reality is that Los Gatos PDs have only the power
that is granted them in the Los Gatos town code. In Orinda Homeowners Committee v. Board of
Supervisors, the appellate court upheld a PD rezoning but only insofar as it conformed with the
zoning law that was spelled out in their city code. In Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v.
City of Millbrae, the appellate court upheld a PD rezoning but only insofar as it conformed with
the zoning law that was spelled out in their city code.
Los Gatos Town Code Chapter 29, Article 8 sets out exactly what zoning regulations apply and
don't apply to planned developments. It says that since PDs are a rezoning they don't have to
conform to the zoning rules of the underlying zone. So, in this case, they don't have to conform to
the residential zoning rules in Chapter 29, Article 4. But the PD zoning regulations specifically
sM that the subdivision regulations do apply to PDs Note too that the subdivision regulations
themselves say that they apply to all subdivisions which means PDs too. And finally, note that
PD zoning is a zoning tool, so it only removes the applicability of zonin regulations. It clearly
does not remove the applicability of subdivision regulations That would be like trying to say that
PDs don't have to conform to Los Gatos building regulations, or Los Gatos garbage collection
regulations, or Los Gatos transfer tax regulations. That would be breaking the law just like town
staff is asking you to break the law.
And don't think that Judge Nichol's ruling in our court case absolves you from having to follow
the law. He did not review the Los Gatos law. He simply said that the town council is the best
body to understand and enforce the Town code. If he had reviewed the Town code he would have
enforced its plain meaning ... just as you must. I urge you to enforce the Town code and reject the
project as proposed.
Regards,
David Crites
Ross Creek Neighbors
pl
Heather Bradley
From: David Crites <davidcrites @frontier.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 20117:48 PM
To: Heather Bradley
Subject: One more item for the administrative record for 15881 Linda Ave
Attachments: Petition 2 Order3- 9- 11.pdf
Importance: High
Hi Heather- Here is one more document for the council's consideration on Monday evening. It is the decision document
from Superior Court regarding the 15881 Linda project. This document demonstrates that Judge Nichols did not
interpret Los Gatos law. As a result the burden remains on the Town Council to understand and follow the law regarding
the minimum street width and other mandatory regulations.
Please include the attached decision document and this email in the administrative record.
Thank you,
David Crites
03/08/2011 05:50 FAX 408 8822183 DEPT 7 SUPERIOR COURT [A 002/012
0
1
PA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIF OWA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
R05S CRFEKNEIGHBORS, an unincorporated
association,
Case No, 1- 10- CV- 189381
ORDER RE: WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Petitioner,
VS.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS, its TOWN COUNCIL,
and DOES I to 10,
'a
Respondent,
I LINDA COURT PARTNERS LLC, et al.,
Real Parties in Interest.
25 This mandamus matter was heard, argued, and submitted for decision at 9:00 a.m. on
26 February 10, 2011 in Dept. 16. In advance of the hearing, the Court carefully reviewed the e
27 administrative record and all briefs and pleadings in the matter. The Court -pow orders as
28 follows:
Order re: Writ of Mandamus I
03/08/2011 05.50 FAX 408 8822193 DEPT 7 SUPERIOR COURT
1) All requests for judicial notice are GRANTED.
2) In this action Petitioner challenges the adoption of Planned Development Zoning
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U 003/012
Ordinance no. 2193 ("PD Ordinance ") by the Town of Los Gatos ("Town ") which was adopted
to rezone the subject property from R:1 -8 zoning to R:1.8 PD zoning. Petitioner asserts that the
approval violated sections of the Town of Los Gatos Ordinance Code ("Town Code ") pertaining
to tree removal, street width, right -of -way width, sidewalk construction, density and minimum
lot size. The Writ Petition and Complaint states a single cause of action for violations of local
code provisions. Despite sharing an administrative record with and involving the same real
property as case no. 1- 08- CV- 106461, also before this Court, this is not a CEQA action,
As an initial matter the Court notes that the parties disagree as to the applicable standard
of review, Petitioner essentially argues that review here is under CCP § 1094,5 (administrative
mandamus) while Respondent asserts that review is under CCP § 1085 (traditional mandamus)
arguing that the challenged action was legislative not administrative.
There is some basis for both positions, but Respondent's is better established by
precedent. See Citizens far Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo (2009) 176 Cal
App 4" 357, 367 ( "In the land use context, legislative acts are distinguished from administrative
or adjudicative acts on a categorical basis. InArnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa
(1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 523 -525 [169 Cal. Rptr. 904,620 P.2d 565], our Supreme Court said:
'[P]ast California Iand -use cases have established generic classifications, viewing zoning
ordinances as legislative and other decisions, such as variances and subdivision map approvals,
as adjudicative.... [T]he current California rule that rezoning is a legislative act is well settled
by precedent .... We therefore adhere to the Wile that a zoning ordinance is a legislative act and,
as such, may be enacted by initiative. ") The chango here from existing zoning to PD zoning
could possibly be considered a variance and therefore adjudicative, but ultimately the standard of
review question does not control the outcome of this matter because even if it is assumed that
CCP § 1094.5 applies the Town's adoption of the PD Ordinance still survives because its action
is presumed correct and Petitioner does not meet its burden to show that the zoning decision was
unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.
Order re: Wrh of Mandamus
03/08 /'2011 05:'a1 FAX 408 ea2218J IIFPI ! SUPEXiOR I;UIIRI
10004/012
I In a review controlled by CCP § 1094.5(b); "The inquiry in such a case shall extend to
2 the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether
3 there was a fair trial; and whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of
4 discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the
5 order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the
6 evidence." CCP § 1094.5(c) then states that: "Where it is claimed that the findings are not
7 supported by the evidence, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its
8 independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines
9 that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. In all other cases, abuse of
10 discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial
I 1 evidence In the light of the whole record." Court's emphasis.
12 This non-CEQA area is not one where the Court is authorized to exercise its own
13 independent judgment. "Flee courts have rarely upheld the application of the independent
14 judgment test to land use decisions." Abbott, et al„ Cal. Administrative Mandamus (3rd Ed.,
15 2007 Update) §6.148, p. 282, citing Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal App 4" 74, 111
16 and §6.154, p.288 (citing the same). See also Stolman v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal
17 App 4 916, 922 (substantial evidence review applies to denial of zoning variance).
18 Accordingly, an abuse of discretion should only be found if the Court determines that the
19 findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, Substantial
20 evidence in this context means evidence of "ponderable legal significance" which is "reasonable
21 in nature, credible, and of solid value." Abbott, et al., supra, at §6.141, p. 274, citing Mohilef v.
22 Janovici (1996) 51 Cal App 0'267, 305 n. 28 and Newman v. State Personnel Board (1992) 10
23 Cal App 4 41, 47, among others,
24 Petitioner has the burden of proof. "At the trial court level, the petitioner in an
25 administrative mandamus proceeding has the burden of proving that the agency's decision was
26 invalid and should be set aside, because it. is presumed that the agency regularly performed its
27 official duty, When the standard of review is the substantial evidence test, as it is here, it is
28
Order re; Writ ofMandamua 3
03/09/2011 05:51 FAX 408 9822193 DEPT 7 SUPERIOR COURT U 005/012
Y
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
presumed that the findings and actions of the administrative agency were supported by
substantial evidence." Desmond v, County of Contra Costa (1993) 21 Cal App 4 330, 335.
Petitioner has not met its burden here to defeat this presumption. The record viewed as a
whole contains sufficient evidence that the Town correctly applied its local codes, in particular
its PD zoning provisions, as interpreted by the Town and found them consistent With its General
Plan. The Court must give substantial deference to the Town's interpretation of it own codes an
ordinances, particularly where there is evidence that the interpretation of the relevant language
has been consistent over time, See Mason v, Rerlrement Bd. of San Francisco (2003) 111 Cat
App 4 1221, 1228 (City agency's interpretation of its own charter provisions entitled to great
weight); Calderon Y. Anderson (1996) 45 Cal App e 607, 613 (agency Interpretation of its own
regulations deferred to unless clearly erroneous or inconsistent with text); Declaration of Bud
Lortz in support of opposition to Petitioner's Writ (offering evidence of Town's past use and
application of PD zoning). The fact that reasonable minds could differ on the interpretation of
any particular language in a local code or ordinance is not a ground for finding an abuse of
discretion.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENMD,
Dated: L 2 D I /
Order re: Writ of Mandamus
, ja� V Yte
Leslie C, Nichols
.fudge of the Superior Court
9
Heather Bradley
From: David Crites <davidcrites @frontier.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 201110:38 PM
To: Heather Bradley
Subject: For the administrative record for 15881 Linda Ave
Hi Heather - Ross Creek Neighbors continue to assert that the project proposal at 15881
Linda Avenue does not comply with local and state regulations and is inconsistent with
the Town's general and specific plans. I have documented the reasons in prior documents
and comments and I incorporate those documents and comments here by reference.
For the record here are some of our ongoing objections to the project:
• The project does not comply with the Town's subdivision ordinance with respect to
street width, right -of -way width, sidewalk width, lot area, cul -de -sac design, and
others.
• The project does not comply with zoning regulations with respect to tree conservation,
CDWR and FEMA consultation for floodplain management, definition of lot area, density,
neighborhood consistency, the legislative intent of the PD zone, and others.
• The project does not comply with the Subdivision Map Act with respect to access to
navigable streams, compliance with local subdivision regulations, and others.
• The project does not comply with CEQA as enumerated elsewhere, including Condition 111
(Maintenance Access). The location, materials, and impacts of this public easement
should be assessed and the EIR amended prior to certification.
• The project does not comply with the General Plan with respect to density, appropriate
intensity for flood prone property, public access to open space, and others.
• The project does not comply with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
with respect to, among other things, the top of bank delineation, the width of the
riparian buffer, the riparian zone delineation, and others.
• The project has not complied with the Height & Story Pole and Netting Requirements.
Thank you,
Dave Crites
Ross Creek Neighbors
1
Council Questions for Town Staff
Regarding 15881 Linda Avenue
1. The subdivision code (24.10.015, 24.50.015, and 29.80.095) requires ALL
subdivisions to have a street of conforming width. What section in the code gives
council the authority to approve an "exception" for a PD? What section in the
code excludes PDs from the requirements of the subdivision code?
2. The tree conservation ordinance [Sec. 29.10.0990(5)] states: "[i]n connection with
a proposed subdivision of land into two (2) or more parcels, no protected tree
shall be removed unless removal is unavoidable due to restricted access to the
property or deemed necessary to repair a geologic hazard (landslide, repairs, etc.)
The tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards in section
29.10.0985 of this Code. Tree preservation and protection measures for any lot
that is created by a proposed subdivision of land shall comply with the regulations
of this Code." What section in the code excludes PDs from the requirements of
this provision? Sec. 29.10.050 in the code specifically states that the tree
conservation provisions "apply to all zones ".
3. Town code (29.10.020) defines the area of a lot as "the total horizontal area
included within lot lines, q xcept as otherwise provided in the chapter, and
excluding land required fo public dedication and any land determined to be
riparian habitat." The gross parcel size listed on the project plans is NOT adjusted
for slope, is that correct? So the gross parcel size used in the density calculation is
NOT adjusted for slope, is that correct? And the dedicated street and sidewalk is
NOT subtracted from the density calculation, is that correct? So what is the
density of the project if the full riparian habitat is excluded, the street and
sidewalk are excluded, and the gross parcel size is adjusted for slope? The general
plan and PD ordinance allow up to 5 units per acre after exclusions and slope
adjustment.
4. The planning conunission expressed concern that the project FARs are not
consistent with the neighborhood. The residential design guidelines and the Town
Code (29.10.020) require FARs to be calculated using slope adjusted lot sizes.
But the published FARs for the project are NOT slope adjust, is that correct? The
Town engineer calculated an average 16% slope for the project site, is that
correct? What are the slope- adjusted FARs for the project? The neighborhood
homes used for comparison are generally flat, is that correct?
1 1
t�
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFTBLANK
3ERLINER 'CC
DRNEYS AT:'LAVV,
SANFORD A. BERLINER
KATHLEEN K SIPLE
THOMAS P. MURPHY
ANDREW L. FABER
KEVIN F. KELLEY
MILES J. DOLMGER
FORREST W. HANSEN
MLPH L SWANSON
MARK MAKIEWICZ
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
CHRISTIAN E. PICONE
KATHLEEN F. SHERMAN
R
SAUFMAI
ELEVENTH FLOOR
THOMAS D. MORELL
ALAN D. NIEBEL
SANDRA G. SEPULVEDA
JOSEPH E. D
SEPHE.IVORAK
SAMUEL L. FARE
JEFFREY S.
FFREYKAUFMAN
lOL1EI10USTON
SAN LOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 -2233
SETH I. COHEN
MARCO CAMPAGNA
ALA
BRIAN L R
LAURAPALAZZOLO
KAM L. G
DEBBIE Y. Y. BAE
LINDA A A CA CALL
F. JOHN O. OMIN
( 408)28 8
J. J. IORGI
MARY XA WILSON
JAMES P
HARRY A. LOPEZ ETELEPHONE:
FACSIMILE: (408)998 -5-5388 8
MATTHEW
HEATHER Y. TAYLOR TAYLOR
J
RBCJ(
STEVENJ.
CHARLES W. IV. VOLPE O
HEATHER H. MUNOZ
TYLER A,
TYLER0.5HEWEY
JOHNSON
NANCY J. JOHNSON
MICHAEL
MLNTI
Gnnv.berlineLCOm
JEROLD A
CHRISTINE N E LONG
ROBERT L. K
CHORT
AARON M. VALENTI
JONATHAN D. WOLF
D. WOLF
RETIRED
SAMUEL I. COHLN
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT W. HMQHREYS
HUGH L. ISO"
'
TERRY , ALLEN
STEVEN L HALLGRIMSON
Branch ORice —Me.M, CA
FRANK R UBIIAUS
ERIC WONG
PHILIP GOLDEN
NANCY L. BRANDT
May 2, 2011
Mayor Joe Pirzynski and Members of the
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Re: May 2, 2011, Agenda Items 7 -8, Linda Court Project
Our File No.: 17938 -001
Dear Mayor Pirzynski and Members of the Council:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to materials that have been presented to the Town
by David Crites in opposition to the requested action tonight. This office represents both the
applicant for the project as well as (in the two lawsuits filed against the project) the Town itself.
Tonight's Agenda Item
It is important to note that the issue in front of the Council tonight is narrow. After very
extensive litigation, the only defect found by Judge Nichols in the EIR that was done for the
project and in the zoning approval itself was one response to a comment by the DTSC. The
Court found that that response was not adequate.. The item in front of the Town tonight is
recertification of the FEIR based upon the addendum - amendment to the FEIR prepared by
Strelow Consulting, which amplifies the response to the comment in compliance with the Court
decision, rendered on March 8, 2011. Because the Court determined that it was not necessary for
the Town to vacate the prior approval of the project, the staff recommendation is to recertify the
FEIR and to ratify and reaffirm the former project approvals.
wLF1847690.1
050211 - 17938001
ATTACtDMKNT 5
Mayor Joe Pirzynski and Members of the Town Council
May 2, 2011
Please note that there has been no change to the project, no change to the circumstances
under which the project is being undertaken, and no change in the relevant law or the
circumstances of the project. The only document change is the addendum - amendment to the
FEIR incorporating the revised response to the DTSC's comment.
The Issues Raised by Mr. Crites Are Not New
The issues raised by Mr. Crites in his various correspondence have all been raised and
answered in one or more of four manners: (1) In the FEIR itself by responses to comments; (2)
in discussion in front of the Town Council at public hearings for the approval of the project
pursuant to the FEIR; (3) in the original CEQA lawsuit in which on behalf of the Town we
presented the final EIR approved in September 2011 to the Court, and as previously noted, the
Court accepted everything in the FEIR as being adequate and in compliance with CEQA, with
the sole exception of the response to the one DTSC letter; and (4) finally, in the opponents'
second lawsuit, Ross Creek Neighbors v. Town of Los Gatos, et al. filed in December 2010. In
the second lawsuit, Mr. Crites challenged the PD zoning and compliance with Town ordinances,
including the Town's subdivision code. All of the various arguments that he now raises
regarding alleged inconsistency with the PD zoning with the subdivision code were raised in that
lawsuit and rejected by the Court. Judge Nichols stated in his order dated March 7, 2011: "The
record viewed as a whole contains sufficient evidence that the Town correctly applied its local
codes, in particular its PD zoning provisions, as interpreted by the Town and found them
consistent with its General Plan. The fact that reasonable minds can differ on the interpretation
of any particular language in a local code or ordinance is not a ground for finding an abuse of
discretion."
The Court also relied on a declaration that was submitted on behalf of the Town, signed
by Bud Lortz. In that declaration, Mr. Lortz noted that the Town had consistently interpreted its
PD ordinance and subdivision code in the past to allow such variations, including reduced street
widths, sidewalks, and lot sizes, in such subdivisions as the Villa Filice subdivision, the
Highlands of Los Gatos subdivision, the Roberts Road subdivision, and the Rinconada Hills
development.
Specific Issues
1. Crites's letter of May 2, 2011
In this letter, Mr. Crites alleges that the PD zoning approved by the Town is inconsistent
with the Town's subdivision ordinance. He cites two cases, both of which in fact stand for the
proposition that planned development zoning is legal and in compliance with state law.
Mr. Crites raised this issue (in part) in his March 25, 2010 comment letter in the EIR
proceedings. (Comment 8 -12; ARD0491.) The FEIR response stated: "With a PD overlay in
conjunction with the provision of open space, FARs, setbacks, street width, lot coverage and lots
sizes do not need to conform to the underlying zone district regulations." (ARD0514)
KFN7898.1 -2-
050211- 17938001
Mayor Joe Pirzynski and Members of the Town Council
May 2, 2011
This exact issue was raised by Petitioners and fully litigated in the Zoning Lawsuit. The
court rejected Petitioners' arguments and agreed with the Town's, which were essentially these:
a) PD ordinances contain a general development plan which takes precedence over any
fixed requirement of another code with which it is inconsistent (e.g., street widths in the
subdivision code). (Town Code §§ 29.80.080, 29.80.085);
b) the street is a private road that was approved by the Los Gatos Fire Department, and
thus, the street raises no public safety concerns; and
c) the Town interprets its PD Ordinance to allow PDs with variations from standard
development standards.
Once again, Judge Nichols squarely rejected the arguments made by the opponents in the
zoning lawsuit to the effect that the PD zoning violated other Town codes, including the
subdivision ordinance. There is no question that the development must obtain a tentative
subdivision map (as it has) because it is indeed a subdivision of property. However, the
development plan approved by the Council as part of the PD ordinance is the standard by which
the subdivision is to be measured, and that is consistently how the Town has interpreted these
codes.
2. Alleged Non - Compliance with Various Town Codes (Crites Email — April 30 2011)
• The project does not comply with the Town's subdivision ordinance with respect to street
width, right -of -way width, sidewalk width, lot area, cul -de -sac design, and others.
• The project does not comply with zoning regulations with respect to tree conservation,
CDWR and FEMA consultation for jloodplain management, definition of lot area, density,
neighborhood consistency, the legislative intent of the PD zone, and others.
• The project does not comply with the Subdivision Map Act with respect to access to
navigable streams, compliance with local subdivision regulations, and others.
These are mostly answered by the above discussion. In addition, flood plain management
was responded to in the Final EIR. Access to navigable streams was an issue discussed at the
September hearing and decided in front of the Town Council.
With respect to trees, these issues were raised in Mr. Crites's email of April 30, 2011.
Mr. Crites raised this issue in his March 25, 2010 comment letter in the EIR proceedings.
(Comment 8 -37; ARD0499.) The FEIR response stated, in pertinent part, that
the proposed tree removal was found to be in compliance with the
Town's regulations except for specified trees that were later
retained on revised project plans....
KF1847890.1 -3-
050211- 17998001
Mayor Joe Pirzynski and Members of the Town Council
May 2, 2011
¶ Further, this is a Planned Development application rather than a
Subdivision application. It has been the interpretation and past
practice of the Community Development Department, supported
by the Town Council that the referenced ordinance section does
not apply to projects of this nature [i.e., PD projects]. (ARD0523.)
This exact issue was also raised by Petitioners and fully litigated in the Zoning Lawsuit.
The court rejected Petitioners' arguments and agreed with the Town's, which were essentially
these:
a) PD ordinances are not required to comply with the Town's other ordinances (Town
Code §§ 29.80.080, 29.80.085); and
b) The Town's tree ordinances do not apply to subdivisions created by PD zoning.
3. Alleged Non - Compliance with CEQA (Crites email April 30, 2011
The project does not comply with CEQA as enumerated elsewhere, including Condition
111 (Maintenance Access). The location, materials, and impacts of this public easement should
be assessed and the EIR amended prior to certification.
CEQA compliance was decided adversely to Crites by Judge Nichols at the hearing on
the Return to the Writ. In Judge Nichols's Order of March 7, 2011, he rejected all challenges
raised to the Final EIR with the sole exception of the response to the DTSC comment.
4. General Plan Argument (Crites email, April 30, 2011)
The project does not comply with the General Plan with respect to density, appropriate
intensity for flood prone property, public access to open space, and others.
These issues again were raised in the zoning lawsuit, and Judge Nichols concluded that
the Town properly found the project to be consistent with the General Plan.
5. Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams (Crites email, April 30, 20111
The project does not comply with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams with respect to, among other things, the top of bank delineation, the width of the
riparian buffer, the riparian zone delineation, and others.
Issues regarding compliance with streamside guidelines, delineation of top of bank, etc.,
were extensively raised in comments on the FEIR. The Town's consultants responded at length.
The adequacy of the responses was challenged in the CEQA litigation, and Judge Nichols
rejected all such challenges.
XR847896.1 -4-
050211- 17938001
Mayor Joe Pirzynski and Members of the Town Council
May 2, 2011
6. Height and Story Pole Requirements (Crites email April 30 2011)
These issues were raised in front of the City Council, as well as in the final EIR.
In summary, Crites raises no new arguments and none that are responsive to the very
narrow issue in front of the City Council at this hearing.
Very truly yours,
ALF:cem
cc: Town Clerk
Sandy Bailey
Judith Propp, Esq.
Wendie Rooney
BERLINER
ANDREW L. FABER
E -Mail: andrew.faber @berliner.com
IALR847898.1 _5_
050211- 17938001
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLYLEFT BLANK