Desk ItemOw tl F
f
tos s�� s
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 05105115
ITEM NO: 9
DESK ITEM
DATE: MAY 5, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MANAGE
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S -14 -072 PROJECT
LOCATION: 15343 SANTELLA COURT. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT•
DAVIDON HOMES. APPELLANT: DAVE WEISSMAN.
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVING AN
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR- 2 %z:PD. APN
527 -09 -016
REVISED RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council open the public hearing and immediately consider a
motion for continuance to May 19, 2015 with all written submittals to staff by close of business
on May 11, 2015.
REMARKS:
Attachment 14 contains responses from the applicant regarding the appellant's letter (Attachment
6 in April 29, 2015 staff report). Given the late arrival of this material, staff is recommending
that the public hearing be opened and immediately continued to May 19, 2015 with a deadline
for any additional written material of May 11, 2015.
In addition, staff would also like to inform the Town Council that since the Planning
Commission meeting of March 11, 2015, staff has been working with the applicant and the
Town's Consulting Arborist on a program to provide additional tree inspections within the
Highlands development during construction. The applicant has agreed to the additional
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTI / / lY I
Assistant Town Manager/ irector Af Community Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager W71'own Attorney N/A Finance
N: \DEV \TC REPORTS\2015\Santella 15343 - appeal- ADDENDUM.docx Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15343 Santella Court/5 -14 -072
May 5, 2015
inspections and monitoring throughout the construction period at their expense. The monitoring
requirement is included in condition 11 of the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit A
of Attachment 11 of the April 29, 2015 Town Council staff report).
Attachments (Previously received with April 29, 2015 staff report):
1. March 11, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (including Exhibits 1 — 12)
2. Materials submitted to the Planning Commission at the meeting of March 11, 2015
3. March 11, 2015 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
4. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received March 16, 2015
5. Letter from Applicant
6. Letter from Appellant
7. August 27, 2003 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
8. February 2, 2004 Town Council Action Minutes
9. Required Findings and Considerations
10. Color averaging exhibit
11. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and approve the project with Exhibit A
12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
13. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and deny the project
Attachment received with this addendum:
14. Response letter and exhibits from applicant
Distribution
Steve Abbs, Davidon Homes, 1600 S. Main Street, Suite 150, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dave Weissman, 15431 Francis Oaks Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
I�AVIDON ImIOMES
April 30, 2015
Marni Moseley
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Re: A &S Application # 5 -14 -072
Response to Appellant Letter Dated April 12, 2015
Dear Ms. Moseley,
NOISIAM ONINNVId
S01V J Go -0O NMOI
SIC�t I XvtN
(33A13038
This letter is in response to statements made in the Appellant's letter dated April 12, 2015.
The appellant questions the methodology of the Visual Analysis.
Bassenian Lagoni Architects has provided a letter, see Attachment "A ", that describes how the
visual analysis is performed. As stated, Bassenian Lagoni uses specialized software using 2 & 3
dimensional modeling for these analyses based on a photograph taken with a 300 mm zoom
lens. The models are precisely calibrated to story poles that have been certified by a licensed
surveyor. The areas are accurately measured by the software and by simply dividing the total
visible area by the total area of the established elevation derives the Percentage Visible. This
methodology complies with the HDS &G, Page 13 Section B.I.
Accusation of providing a manipulated and disingenuous Visual Analysis.
A Visual Analysis was submitted to staff on March 3, 2015 prior to the Planning Commission
hearing on March 11, 2015. The photo was taken, as required per the HDS &G, from Viewing
Platform #1, at the SW corner of Blossom Hill and Los Gatos Blvd. At the time the photo was
taken, it was determined that the vantage point was a good representation of what story poles
can be seen by the naked eye. The visual analysis was performed and the visibility of the
building was calculated at 21.9 %.
ATTACM ENT 14
1600 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 150, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 -5394
TELEPHONE (925) 945 -8000 • FACSIMILE (925) 256 -0140
At the SW corner of Blossom Hill & Los Gatos Blvd., Davidon has recently performed a study of
the various positions and angles that one can stand on this corner. Please refer to Attachment
"B ". The study includes 7 photos, Views A through G, each taken with a 300 mm lens, one step
( +/ -2') apart. As can be seen:
View A, taken at the top center of the handicap ramp, has no visibility of story poles.
View B, 1 step to the North, has no visibility of story poles.
View C, another step to the North, has a significant visibility of story poles.
View D, another step to the North, has more visibility of story poles.
View E, another step to the North, has less visibility of story poles.
View F, another step to the North, has zero to little visibility of story poles.
View G, another step to the North, has no visibility of story poles.
On Sheets 1 & 2 of Attachment "B ", a line has been traced, labeled "Limits of Visibility ",
showing where the story poles on Lot 7 can be seen within the entire SW corner. This line was
traced with sidewalk chalk while being viewed with a 300 mm lens. The zone measures from 4'
to 8'in width. The photo taken for the previously submitted Visual Analysis was located at View
C. The photo provided by the Appellant was from View D. These points are +/ -2' apart and as
the Appellant stated, by "simply leaning ", the visibility completely changes.
The HDS &G do not specifically state where on the corner the photo is to be taken. It can easily
be interpreted that the center of the handicap ramp is the Viewing Platform. If the visual
analysis photo was taken anywhere on the corner outside the "Limits of Visibility" as shown on
Attachment "B ", there would be 0% visibility. As previously stated, the Visual Analysis
performed & submitted was based on a photo with story poles visible by the naked eye at the
time. Despite the Appellants' accusation, there was no intent of manipulation and we believe a
valid Visual Analysis was provided.
Appellant request that trees scheduled for removal or potentially harmed during construction
should be eliminated from the Visual Analysis.
The Visual Analysis already takes this request into consideration. The only trees on the Visual
Analysis where the canopy is used as screening are Trees #606, #607 and #626 and those trees
that exist below the project, within the property boundary, outside the LRDA. None of these
are proposed for removal or are deemed to be impacted by construction, per Debbie'Ellis. All
trees planned for removal or are have been identified as being "severely" or
"moderate /severely" impacted by construction, are located to the sides or beyond /uphill of the
established building elevation used in the Visual Analysis and are not used for screening any
portion of the elevation.
Appellant questions validity of the Alternative analysis.
The deficiencies that the Appellant claims exist in the four Alternatives studied and submitted
March 3, 2015, are mostly clarified in the above section regarding methodology of the visual
analysis. The visibility is calculated by dividing the area visible by the total area of the elevation.
In this case, as the Appellant concurs, the building envelopes are less linear, due to the purpose
of trying to preserve Tree #'s #608 -610. As can be seen on each of the Alternative's Visual
Analysis, the Chevron canopy does not screen any of the structure. Again, the Visual Analyses
provided are an accurate representation of the visibility of these Alternatives.
Additional Visual Analysis
From the Viewing Platform
A new Visual Analysis has been prepared from the SW corner of Blossom Hill / Los Gatos Blvd.
This analysis, dated 4/30/15, performs a visibility study for the photo location and angle,
submitted by the Appellant, which includes full sight of the story poles to the southern end of
the structure. Please refer to Attachment "C ". As can be seen, the visibility of Lot 7 from this
platform calculates at 24.4 %. As defined by the HDS &G, this does not qualify as a visible home.
From 150' South of the SW Corner
An additional analysis has been prepared from the location the Appellant has declared as the
"common sense" location, located 150 feet south of the SW corner of Blossom Hill and Los
Gatos Blvd. Please refer to Attachment "D ". The Visual Analysis from this point on Los Gatos
Blvd. results in a 25.08% visibility. This exceeds the 25% maximum by only 14.3 square feet.
Though this Visual Analysis location slightly exceeds the 25% threshold by 0.08% or 14.3 sf, it
can be argued that this is the most visible location of the proposed house within the entire
Valley Floor. This being a mid -block location where the public will unlikely be congregating and
looking to the hills, it seems like an unreasonable location to deem as a Viewing Platform.
Conclusion
The story poles of the proposed application can only be seen from a few points from the entire
Valley Floor. The rest of the Valley floor there is zero visibility. The Viewing Platform #1, as
identified and adopted by Town Council as part of the HDS &G, happens to be one of those very
few visible locations. I believe this legitimizes the effectiveness of this preselected Viewing
Platform for this particular project and does not warrant additional Viewing Platforms as
requested by the Appellant.
The previously submitted Visual Analysis and the new Visual Analysis performed at the Viewing
Platform #1, both concluded that the proposed home does not qualify as a visible home as
defined by the HDS &G.
As evidenced by the information provided, Davidon believes that the project application is in
full compliance with the HDS &G with zero exceptions. Davidon requests that Town Council
deny the appeal and approve A &S Application 5 -14 -072.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
4_D YONIS
Vice President, Site Development
Cc: Dennis Razzari, Jeff Thayer
ATTACHMENT A
Bassenian I Lagoni
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
April 30, 2015
To: Steve Abbs
Re: Visual Analysis Process
Dear Mr. Abbs,
The method used for the Visual Analysis performed by Bassenian Lagoni Architects for
the Highlands of Los Gatos project uses the 3D modeling computer program, SketchUp.
This program has a wide range of applications that include architectural and
engineering, which allows us to create a digital representation of projects from specific
view angles (viewing platforms). In combination with the story poles and photographs,
we have followed the established Town procedures called out in the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines. The following is a step by step description of
the how each Visual Analysis is performed:
Modeling of Terrain & House
• A full 3D model of the project site terrain is created in SketchUp using actual
survey topography provided by the civil engineer. This is used to help locate
the viewing platform in relationship to the project site.
• A 3D massing model of the home is created in SketchUp.
• The 3D massing model in then placed into the terrain model in SketchUp.
• Using Google Earth imagery for reference points, the camera view angle is
positioned at the approximate real world coordinates, horizontally &
vertically.
• The camera position from the viewing platform is used to aim the view
towards the Lot to be studied.
Taking Photos & Placement of Model
• Photos are taken at 50 mm. This is representative of visibility of the naked
eye.
• Photos are taken at 300 mm to provide a close up to identify the visible story
poles and existing trees.
• Using the selected 300 mm photo, the identified story poles are matched to
points on the house and highlighted as points 'A' and 'B'.
• The Camera Focal Length is set to match that of the selected photo.
• Using SketchUp, the massing model is then placed and aligned on the photo
to match the previously highlighted story pole locations and the focal length
of the photo.
Architecture, Pleming, Interiors, 2031 Orchard Dc, Ste 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 -0753 949 -553 -9100, FAX 949 -553 -0548
Bassenian I Lagoni
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
• Once aligned vertically and horizontally, the building elevation is established
and the line work of the massing model and tree line is exported into a 21)
AutoCAD file.
Polyline Creation & Calculations
• Using the 2D AutoCAD file, a polyline is traced around the outline of the
established building elevation and along the identifiable canopy of trees that
screen the building.
• AutoCAD then calculates the total area of the Building and Tree Line.using
their respective polylines:
• The Visible Area of the house is calculated by subtracting the Tree Line
polygon area from the Building polygon area.
• Total Percent Visible is then calculated by dividing the Visible Area of the
house by the total area of the established elevation, defined by the Building
Polyline.
Kind Regards,
aj� �-
Teressa Oehrlein
Associate
Architecture, Planning Interiors, 2031 Orchard Dr., Ste 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 - 0753 949 -553 -9100, FAX 949- 553 -0548
ATTACHMENT B
+ /- Proposed Home
u