Attachment 111
Ms. Jocelyn Shoopman 3-25-19
Associate planner
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Proposed PD Zoning for APN 527-12-002
8 Lot Subdivision
Ms. Shoopman,
This letter will provides a project description, historic background, and technical information for the
proposed 8 lot subdivision. In addition this document will show how the project complies with the
General Plan Land Use Element, Community Design and Housing Elements, the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines, and the Hillside Specific Plan along with other discussions.
Documentation being provided with this submittal and to the town from consultants:
§Civil engineering plans that show all proposed lots, open spaces, roads, driveways, rights of way,
grading for the road system, easements, stormwater compliance, and utilities.
§Conceptual house footprints, elevations and sections and preliminary landscape plans for each
of the proposed eight lots.
§A full visibility study for each lot using the conceptual house designs
§A full EIR assessing impacts of the proposed project and mitigations
§An arborist report addressing the trees impacted by the conceptual development
§A geotechnical report that assesses and makes recommendations on existing geologic conditions
1.Existing Conditions and Background
General property information:
§36.1 Acre undeveloped parcel
§Existing graded roads
§Existing water and electricity
§San Jose Water storage tank serving the Highlands subdivision and surrounding properties
§Access from Santella Drive
§Zoned HR2.5
§General plan land use designation: Low Density Residential
§Development density is 0-1 dwelling unit per acre, average 1 dwelling unit per 4.5 acres. Which
is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
The proposed project sits on a 36.01 acre parcel that was first submitted for subdivision in the 1970's.
That subdivision was never completed and the land remains one parcel. It was during this first
development that the current road system was graded into the site. In various locations throughout the
site remnants of that previous effort can still be found in the form of the aforementioned roads, wood
and concrete retaining walls, many of which have failed, and an abandoned sewer system.
The newest additions to the site were installed along with the development of the adjacent Highlands
subdivision when a 200,000 gallon water tank and the attendant utilities were installed in 2008. There
are currently no buildings on the property.
ATTACHMENT 11
2
2. Project Description and Design Criteria
The proposed project consists of subdividing the 36.01 acres into 8 individual lots with 4.5 acres of
dedicated open space. The slope density calculations show a possible yield of nine lots as illustrated in
the civil engineering set. After mapping the LRDA for the site various lot configurations were considered
by the design team. It was determined that an 8 lot subdivision with dedicated open space was the best
use of the parcel and most closely aligned the project with the goals of the HDS&G. Seven of the lots
would be accessed from Santella Drive and one lot would be accessed from Greenridge Terrace.
The lots would range in size as follows:
Lot number Gross area (ac.) Net Area (ac.)
Lot 1 7.77 6.93
Lot 2 5.16 5.16
Lot 3 3.55 3.06
Lot 4 4.51 2.50
Lot 5 3.36 3.03
Lot 6 3.38 2.75
Lot 7 3.77 2.88
Lot 8 4.22 3.05
Water tank site 0.29 0.29
The HDS&G was the basis for establishing criteria that was used to produce the final lot configuration.
§ No development outside of the LRDA with the exception of driveways connections to roads
§ Minimize grading by using previously disturbed areas
§ Use the existing roads for circulation
§ Minimize visibility of the future dwellings by placing the building pads off of the highest portions
of the site while still remaining within the LRDA
§ Using the existing utilities to the extent possible to lessen site disturbance
§ Preserve the majority of the existing tree canopy
§ Compliance with NPDES storm water regulations
The above list led to the creation of eight lots that meet each of the outlined points. A brief discussion
of each of the design criteria and how it was applied follows.
LRDA and Developed Area
The site was mapped to show areas with slopes less than 30%. Lots 3 thru 8 have been clustered in a
band that runs from south to north across the parcel. The pads for lots 1,2, and 8 have an LRDA area
that was created during the grading of the existing roads. As can be seen on the conceptual house
plans, all of the proposed building pads are within the LRDA and each of the pads also provide outdoor
space for each of the future homes.
The LRDA for the 8 proposed lots leaves the majority of the acreage open and free from development.
The building pads, the roadway system, and the driveways total 4.69 acres or 13% of the 36.01 acre site.
This leaves 87% of the parcel or 31.32 acres free of development. The majority of the building pads are
on previously disturbed areas of the site further preserving the undisturbed land.
3
Grading
To minimize the amount of grading the lots were placed whenever possible in areas where the land had
been previously disturbed either by earlier earth moving or the grading of the existing roads. The
building pads on lots 1,2,4 and 8 sit in areas that were part of the grading for the existing road system.
The pads for lots 6 and 7 were placed on a secondary road that had been previously graded and lot 7
uses another existing secondary road for the main access drive. By placing the pads in these areas the
amount of grading needed to build the future homes will be lessened overall. On the Conceptual
Grading plans for the proposed lots areas where an exception may be needed have been delineated.
Circulation
To minimize new disturbance to the site the existing road system will be used for circulation within the
project. The existing main road is an extension of Santella Drive and serves lots 3 thru 6 with a new cul-
de-sac at lot 3. Lot 1 will be served by an existing road that leads to Greenridge Terrace. Lots 2, 7, and 8
are reached by private drives that follow existing roads. As previously stated, only lot 1 will have access
to Greenridge Terrace. All other lots will be accessed from Santella Drive. By using this road system the
project will be able to serve all of the proposed lots without having to create any additional primary
access other than the driveways that will eventually serve the future homes.
These roads, as they exist today, will require a minimum of additional work to bring them into
compliance with Town standards and Fire Dept. regulations. In areas of the roadway where retaining
walls already exist and are in need of repair, walls will be rebuilt in place.
Visibility
A comprehensive visibility study has been done for each of the proposed lots with plans, photos and
analysis based on a conceptual home. In general, the lots were laid out so that the pads would be below
the highest portions of the site to limit visibility as much as possible and still stay within the LRDA.
Visibility was reduced to the extent possible by the use of tree canopy preservation and by limiting some
of the conceptual home designs to 18 feet in height.
Utilities
The installation of the water storage tank as part of the Highlands development brought electricity and
water to the parcel. These services were installed under the existing roads. The other utilities required
for the project will also utilize the road system to the extent possible to minimize disturbance of the site.
Preservation of Trees
In placing the majority of the building pads in areas that were previously disturbed and are currently
either part of the road system or in areas that have been graded, removal of trees on those lots will be
minimumized. The site is populated with thousands of trees, most of which are oaks. The arborist
report evaluated trees that were within the developed areas of the conceptual house and landscape
designs. If the future homes reflect the conceptual designs the total tree loss for the entire project will
be 100 trees. The overwhelming majority of the trees on the site will be preserved and left undisturbed.
Storm water regulations (C.3 Stormwater Handbook compliance)
As part of the submitted civil engineering plans a storm water management system has been designed
for the runoff created by the project using the conceptual site designs. This design treats the storm
water runoff through the use of a bioretention pond system that meets the State of California C.3
regulations and is in conformance with the infiltration rates of the existing soils.
4
3. CDAC Discussion
This project was seen by the CDAC at its meeting of August 10, 2016.
The following comments were made at the meeting:
• A lot of the previous concerns were addressed in the new proposal
• Work with neighbors throughout the planning process
o The owners have started to reach out to the neighbors on an individual basis and will
continue to do so.
• The proposed project meets the LRDA
• The loop trail is a good idea
o The trail as proposed meets the trail element of the Town and Santa Clara County
• Tree impacts will be a concern
o A full arborist report has been done for the road improvements and the conceptual
home designs
• Visibility from viewing platforms and other areas will need to be addressed
o A full visibility study for the conceptual homes has been completed
4. General Plan Community Design Element Discussion
The project falls under various policies and goals from the Community Design Element. Below is a
discussion of the relevant sections and how the proposed development addresses those sections.
Policy LU-1.3 and Goal CD-4
This policy deals with the preservation of the natural character of the site. To reiterate from the section
on LRDA and Developed Area, of the total 36.01 acres the building pads and roadway system including
the driveways total 4.69 acres or 13%. This leaves 87% of the parcel or 31.32 acres free of development.
As previously stated the majority of the building pads are on previously disturbed areas of the site
further preserving the existing undeveloped land.
Policy CD-2.3
Total floor area for the subdivision. As stated in the policy this maximum total floor area will be set as
part of the approval process.
Goal LU-4
This goal deals with well planned and careful growth that reflects the Town's character. The parcels
have been designed to use the existing features of the site to lessen the overall impact. There are 8 lots
proposed instead of the 9 allowed by the slope density formula. And since no dwelling units are being
built as part of this proposal the Town will have the opportunity to review and comment on all future
houses as part of the A&S approval process.
Policy LU-4.2
This policy deals with adequate infrastructure. The site has a road system and either the utilities it
needs are already in place (water and electrical). Or has ready access (sewer and communications).
There are schools nearby and the project would be constructed to ensure adequate public safety under
existing codes and regulations.
5
Policy CD-4.3
Tree protection is the focus of this policy. As mentioned elsewhere in this document the site is
populated with thousands of trees and if the future homes follow the course of the conceptual houses
included in this submittal the total tree loss would be 100 trees project wide for the 8 homes and any
site improvements.
Policy CD-6.4
This policy addresses privacy, livability and protection of plants, wildlife habitat and migration corridors.
Also solar access and wind conditions. The proposed project leaves 87% of the site undeveloped and
adheres strictly to the LRDA for all housing sites. Part of this proposal includes conceptual houses so
that the potential visual impact of future homes approximated.
Policy LU-6.5
This policy deals with neighborhood compatibility. The proposed subdivision will have equal or larger
lot sizes and will allow housing types that will match the adjacent Highlands subdivision and the recently
approved 5 lot subdivision on the Sahadi property. Both of these subdivisions border the proposed
project.
Policy LU-6.7 and LU-6.8
Like Policy LU-6.5 this policy encourages a variety of house types and sizes, a balance throughout the
Town, and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Any future houses that are built on the
lots of the proposed project will be reviewed by the Town as part of the approval process to ensure
compliance with this policy.
Policy CD-4.1
In addition to the discussion provided for policy LU-1.3 this policy adds traffic congestion and
degradation of the urban landscape. The proposed road for the project will not be a through street and
will not add to the general traffic load of the Town. As stated above the total development area is 13%
of the 36.1 acres thereby persevering the majority of the environment of the parcel.
Policies CD-4.3 to 4.6 and CD-4.8
These policies cover the preservation of existing trees, planting of street trees, visual continuity, and the
mixture of new plantings. There are thousands of oak trees on this property as mentioned in the
arborist report. If the future houses follow the general layout of the conceptual home designs the total
tree removal for the entire project would be 100 trees, with the vast, vast majority of the canopy being
preserved. There is a street tree planting plan as part of the submittal showing a variety of tree species
and ancillary plantings. And as mentioned in several places the Town will review all future house
submittals and have the ability to make a further assessment of the tree impacts and be able as well as
landscape plans for each of the proposed new homes.
Policy CD-7.1
In terms of maximizing the usable open space with which the policy concerns itself the project includes
an extension of the trail system that was part of the Highlands subdivision.
Policy CD-7.3
Including private open space should be a priority with all developments and this policy directs the design
of these spaces to be included in the project. A review of the conceptual house designs that were
provided as part of this submittal will show that each conceptual house includes adequate area for an
outdoor living space.
6
Policy CD-14.1
This policy concerns minimizing development and preserving a rural atmosphere. The project will cover,
at a maximum, 13% of the total available land in the parcel. And that is if each building pad were
covered side to side. In practice the future homes and the attendant outdoor spaces will not take up
the entire LRDA on each lot and will further reduce the percentage of the parcel that is developed.
Policy CD-14.3
This policy deals with the visual mass of any proposed structures. A review of the conceptual house
designs show that new homes can be constructed that follow the slopes of the lots, are no more than
two stories and limit the mass and heights of wall planes.
Policy CD-14.4 and Policy CD-15.1, CD-15.2
Two policies concerning the protection of ridgelines. In terms of projection of the homes above the
ridge view protection line, the submittal includes a full visibility study for each of the conceptual home
designs. Every opportunity to place these concept homes away from the highest portions of the site has
been taken resulting in homes that are as low as possible on the site and still located within the LRDA.
Policy CD-14.5
In the interest of providing as much environmental information as possible on the project a full EIR was
proposed rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This document will provide assessment of all
environmental impacts and any mitigation measures.
Policy CD-15.3
Minimization of mass grading. Throughout this document is has been mentioned that 6 of the 8 house
pads are on previously graded areas of the parcel. These areas allow the building of houses that will fit
well within the grading policies of the Town. For the two lots that are not in previously graded areas,
the conceptual house plans show homes that have been set into the site and follow the HDS&G grading
policies. If the future homes on these lots follow a similar design program each of the lots will comply
with this policy.
Policy CD-15.4
This policy talks about hillside landscaping and its placement. Though no homes are being proposed for
the subdivision the submittal includes preliminary landscape plans for the conceptual house designs.
Each of the landscape plans keeps any proposed development close to the home, follows the natural
grades, minimizes grading, and preserves the majority of the trees on the lot. As said above in 15.3, if
the future homes on these lots follow a similar design program each of the lots will comply with this
policy.
Policy CD-15.5
Review of grading and landscaping for disruption to existing native plants and wildlife habitat. Because
the proposed project does not include any homes the main grading activities are confined to the existing
road system and bringing it up to town and fire standards. When new homes are submitted the town
will have the opportunity to do a full review.
Policy CD-15.6 and CD-15.7
Review of development plans and fences. When there are actual submittals for homes the Town will be
able to review the plans for compliance with this policy.
7
5. Hillside Specific Plan Discussion
This section will discuss the relevant policies of the Hillside Specific Plan that apply to the proposed
project.
1.3 Policies
2. The project will provide lots that will allow the building of detached single family houses. This is a
preferred use under this policy.
4B. A full visibility study have been provided to show the homes in relation to any natural ridgelines
when viewed from the valley floor.
4D. There are no homes proposed for this project. Conceptual designs are provided as part of the
submittal and none of the conceptual homes show multi-story designs at any ridgelines that are part of
the property. The Town can further analyze this when future homes are submitted for review and
approval.
6A. The project is in Sub-Area 1 - Blossom Hill Rd. The stated desire for this area is 'the ultimate density
for Sub-area 1 shall be from 2.5 to 10 acres per dwelling with a minimum lot size of one acre' This
project meets that criteria with lots that range in gross lot area, including open space easements, from
2.5 to 6.19 acres.
2.3 Policies
This policy concerns itself with allowing development only where necessary services exist. The following
list shows the necessary services outlined in the policy and the providers of that service for the
proposed project.
A. Sewage Disposal Services - West Valley Sanitation District. See 'Will Serve' letter.
B. Domestic Water Supply - San Jose Water. See 'Will Serve' letter
C. Garbage Disposal Services - West Valley Collection and Recycling
D. Electrical and Phone Services - PG&E and Verizon
E. Lighting - There is no proposed road lighting for this project
F. Signing - All future homes will have address signage that meets this policy and Fire Dept. standards
G. Storm Drainage - The civil engineering drawings include a C.3 compliant storm water plan
H. Sanitary Sewer Pipe - The route of the sewer line is shown on the civil engineering drawings
3.3 Policies
1. Hillside roadways. By using the existing road system a minimum amount of earth movement will be
necessary. All roads have been designed to meet all regulations for curves, gradients, widths. This is
illustrated on the civil engineering plans as part of the this submittal. Wherever possible the sides of the
road have been left in their natural state and slope easements, if necessary, have been provided.
6. Two means of access. The project provides primary access from Santella Drive.
8. Cul-de-sacs. The cul-de-sac on the proposed project uses the existing road system and is greater than
the 800' in length. The existing road has not been extended to create the cul-de-sac.
9. Road Widths. The project complies with the right of ways and paved way widths for local roads. This
information can be found on the civil engineering drawing that are part of this submittal.
11. Parking/Turnouts on roadways. These have been provided as required and are shown on the civil
engineering plans.
8
13. Paving. The roads will be paved in asphaltic concrete.
15. On-site parking and turnarounds. In the conceptual house and site plans it is shown that all
emergency vehicle turnarounds can be accommodated where required by driveway length and that four
on-site parking spaces can be provided that do not use the emergency vehicle access where that feature
is required.
4.3 Policies
1. Open space easements. Two open space parcels have been proposed as part of this project. The two
parcels total 4.5 acres.
4.4 Policies
1. Open space easements. As discussed in the 4.3 policies above open space parcels have been
provided. In addition, by limiting the development to the LRDA most of the site is preserved in its
current condition and will not be developed.
4a. Tree removal. As previously outlined in this document the total tree removal required if the future
houses are similar to the conceptual houses and sites would total 100 trees out of the thousands of
trees on the parcel. The Town will have the opportunity to review actual tree removals when the future
houses are submitted for review.
6. Trails. A trail easement has been proposed as part of this submittal. It is shown on the civil
engineering drawings and is an extension of the trail that was part of the Highlands subdivision.
5.3 Policies
1. Geologic Hazards review. A geotechnical report has been included in the documents submitted for
this project. The recommendations made in that report will be implemented as part of the
infrastructure and lot creation for the subdivision. When the individual homes are submitted to the
Town this report and subsequent reports can be used in the approval process for those homes.
2. Fire protection. To provide the highest degree of fire prevention possible, new fire hydrants will be
included as part of this project. The locations of the hydrants can be found on the civil engineering
drawings. These hydrants will have an adequate water supply for fire suppression from the three San
Jose Water storage tanks located in the immediate area.
6. Housing Element Discussion
This section will show the ways that the proposed project complies with the Housing Element. This
project will provide new housing units and help the Town to meet RHNA numbers. The Town needs 174
above moderate units and as of 2015 49 units had been approved. This project will eventually provide 8
above moderate homes when all lots have been built out.
Policy ENV-17.5 and 17.6
GreenPoint Rated Building Guidelines. The buyers of the lots will be encouraged to follow the Town's
adopted guidelines for GreenPoint and provide incentives for LEED silver or comparable GreenPoint
rating.
Policy ENV-16.1 and 16.5
Energy Conservation. The buyers of the lots will be encouraged to examine the feasibly of incorporating
energy conservation designs and the use of solar panels through provisions in the CC&R's.
Goal ENV-17 and 17.2
9
Green building and energy efficiency. Through the use of the CC&Rs and subdivision conditions the
buyers of the lots will be guided to have the eventual houses certified as green and to have higher levels
of energy efficiency as the house size increases.
Policy HOU-2.4
Public services. All of the future residences will be sufficiently served by public services and facilities as
part of the improvements of the proposed subdivision
Policy HOU-2.5
Compatible character. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the immediate surrounding
neighborhood. The Highlands subdivision has houses of similar size to the units that will likely be built
on the lots of the proposed project. The houses along Francis Oaks are also of a size and character that
will likely be seen as the lots are bought and developed. Since the town will be reviewing each proposed
new house it will be able to guide the applicants in the direction of this policy.
Goal HOU-7 and Policy 7.1
The buyers of the lots, through the CC&Rs of the subdivision, will be encouraged to use green building
practices and to promote sustainable housing development by using the voluntary green building
program and requiring all projects to complete the BIG GreenPoint Rated checklist as part of the
application process. This would include Title 24 compliance.
Policy HOU-8.1
Consistency with Housing Element. In the above discussion it has been shown that the proposed project
complies with the relevant portions of the town Housing Element. This should allow the Planning
Commission to make the finding of that the project is consistent with the Housing Element and
addresses the town's housing needs.
Goal HOU-9.1
Jobs housing balance. The project will provide eight above moderate units that can be used to reduce
the commute patterns of the eventual owners who work locally.
7. Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines Discussion
This section will discuss the relevant policies of the Hillside Specific Plan that apply to the proposed
project.
II. Constraints Analysis and Site Selection
A. Constraints Analysis
The LRDA has been mapped, a program of neighbor outreach has been implemented by the owners of
the property and meetings with the Town staff and a CDAC meeting has taken place in compliance with
this section.
B. View Analysis
A visibility analysis has been done for each lot based on the conceptual house designs and the ridgelines
have been noted by reference to the Blossom Hill Open Space Study and the Hillside Area Map included
in the HDS&G in compliance with this section
C. Selecting a Building Site
10
In compliance with this section, the conceptual buildings have been located in the LRDA. Those
conceptual buildings that could not be sited below a significant ridgeline has been restricted to 18 feet
in the visibility study. The preservation of natural features has been retained to the extent possible by
use of the existing road system and by placing the conceptual buildings in previously disturbed areas
where possible. None of the conceptual houses sit on hazardous building sites, none are in a riparian
corridor and with 87% of the site left free of development wildlife should be impacted to the least
extent possible.
III. Site Grading
A. Grading
In compliance with this section the conceptual homes have been designed to adhere to the Maximum
Graded Cuts and Fills indicated in Table 1. On the site plans L1.1 to L8.1 areas where a grading
exception could be needed are indicated on the plan with a heavy dashed line. These exceptions would
mainly occur on the driveways to accommodate the required fire truck turnarounds. To minimize
grading the home sites have been kept to previously graded areas of the property when possible to limit
overall site disturbance.
Exceptions noted on plans
Lot 1 - A 22sf area in the NE corner of the driveway would require 1' of fill in excess of the standard. This
is due to having to maintain a 5% maximum slope for the fire truck turnaround.
Lot 2 - A 47sf area in the NE corner of the driveway would require 1.5' of fill in excess of the standard.
This is due to having to maintain a 5% maximum slope for the fire truck turnaround.
Lot 5 - To create an entry for the house the terraced walls would need an extra cut of 1' or 2' above the
standard depending on the location along the wall. This effects a 25' length of wall right at the entry.
Lot 6 - The driveway is outside of the LRDA because there is no point at which the LRDA for the lot
touches the main road. The drive was placed at the location on the main road nearest to the FF
elevation of the house to minimize the grading needed to build the driveway. There are two locations
on the drive that would require fill in excess of the standard. The extra fill needed is 1' at the 757.7
location and 8" at the 753.7 location. The additional fill in both locations would be for an 11' run of wall.
Lot 7 - On the SW side of the garage a double wall system would have to be built to allow for a fire truck
turnaround. The upper wall conforms. The lower wall would need a 2' cut and a 1.5' wall height
exception in the NE corner and a 2' cut and 2' wall height exception in the SW corner. The rest of the
driveway is in compliance with the grading standards.
It should be noted that the preceding exceptions pertain to these conceptual houses only and that a
different house design, house size, or location on the lot could result in no exceptions needed.
B. Drainage
This section is beyond the scope of the conceptual houses in the proposal. The future homes will need
to be in compliance with this section.
C. Driveways and Parking
Driveway widths have been designed at 12 feet wide and slopes kept to 15% and under where possible
on the conceptual homes. The majority of the driveways are less than 300 feet in length and meet fire
department standards when a turnaround is required to comply with this section. Three of the
driveways exceed 300 feet in length, and in each case, turnouts have been added to the satisfaction of
the fire department review.
11
D. Safety
A full geologic survey has been done and is on file with the Town. When the future homes are
submitted the standards and guidelines regarding fire hazard can be implemented in the final landscape
plans to be in compliance with this section.
IV. Development Intensity
A. Maximum Allowable Development
To be in compliance with this section the conceptual homes have been sized to within the Maximum
Allowable Gross Floor Area from Table 2.
B. Exclusions
The conceptual homes do not include any exclusions beyond those listed in this section.
C. Exceptions to Maximum Floor Area
No exceptions are being sought in the conceptual designs presented in the project.
V. Architectural Design
A. Design Objectives
All of the design objectives listed in this section were considered in the design of the conceptual homes.
B. Design to be Neighbor Friendly
The conceptual homes are over 100 feet apart on average and mostly at different elevations. This
layout should limit privacy concerns if the future houses follow the conceptual designs. The future
homes can be evaluated per the standards and guidelines of this sections upon application.
C. Design for Sustainability
This section is beyond the scope of the conceptual houses in the proposal. To be in compliance, the
future homes will be subject to the standards and guidelines of this section.
D. Design for Fire Safety
This section is beyond the scope of the conceptual houses in the proposal. To be in compliance, the
future homes will be subject to the standards and guidelines of this section.
E. Building Height Standards
In compliance with this section none of the conceptual homes are shown at a height greater than 25
feet and no elevation exceeds 35 feet in height. Where there is visibility the conceptual house does not
exceed 18 feet in height. There are no three story elevations.
F. Minimize Bulk and Mass, G. Roofs and H. Architectural Elements
The conceptual homes in the proposed project used the standards and guidelines in these sections as
the basis for design. With an emphasis on simplicity of form, attention to roof design, thought given to
architectural detailing.
I. Materials and Colors
This section is beyond the scope of the conceptual houses in the proposal. To be in compliance, the
future homes will be subject to the standards and guidelines of this section.
VI. Site Elements
This section is beyond the scope of the conceptual houses in the proposal. To be in compliance, the
future homes will be subject to the standards and guidelines of this section.
12
VII. Landscape Design
The conceptual homes in the proposed project include preliminary designs for outdoor space. This was
done to show that such space can be included in a home on the proposed lots. Otherwise this section is
beyond the scope of conceptual site designs. To be in compliance, the future homes will be subject to
the standards and guidelines of this section.
VIII. Subdivision and Planned Development Projects
C and D. Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDA) and Exceptions
The project is within the Hillside Specific Plan Sub-Area 1. The LRDA has been mapped on the site and all
of the conceptual development is within the shown LRDA except for the portions of driveways the
connect to the roads. The conceptual designs are presented without need for exception though any
future homes will have to be reviewed for exceptions to this section.
E. Development Standards and Guidelines
1. Site preparation
Grading in the conceptual site designs has been kept to the minimum extent possible by using previously
graded areas of the site and siting the conceptual houses in the least sloped part of the lot.
2. Drainage
As part of the submitted civil engineering plans a storm water management system has been designed
for the runoff created by the project using the conceptual site designs and meets the California C.3
regulations. At the lot level this section is beyond the scope of the individual conceptual houses in the
proposal. To be in compliance, the future homes will be subject to the standards and guidelines of this
section.
3. Lot Configurations and Building Locations
The lots of the proposed project are in concert with the form of the land in both shape and size. The
conceptual houses do vary in setback from one another and have different shapes and forms to avoid
repetitive designs.
4. Street Layouts and Driveways
The proposed project uses the existing road system, there are no new roads proposed. Where possible
existing drives to the conceptual homes have been preserved and used. Lots 7 and 8 share a drive.
5.Trails
The proposed trail is in accordance with the Town General Plan and the Santa Clara County General
Plan.
IX. Project Review and Approval Process
The proposed project includes conceptual home designs, no actual homes are being proposed. When
future homes are proposed, they will be subject to all provisions of this section.
8. Blossom Comprehensive Hill Open Space Study (BHOSS) Discussion
The Blossom Hill Open Space Study is a document that was prepared for the Town in January of 1990.
For clarity in the discussion below italicized text denotes language taken directly from the BHOSS or
other Town documents.
On page 5 in the abstract paragraph 2 describes "The study amounts to a refinement of the HSP (Hillside
Specific Plan) and fills in some of the missing information gaps allowing greater focus on the heart of the
13
Blossom Hill area" The study goes about this with various maps, discussions, methods and proposals. In
the context of this proposal this letter will look at the sections that apply.
The study is not mentioned in the 2020 General Plan under the background information of Section H,
Hillside Development. Parts of the study are referred to in the Hillside Development Standards &
Guidelines in reference to LRDA and Selecting a Building Site, but no mention in the HDS&G could be
found of the information contained in chapters 3, 4 and 5 which comprise the majority of pages in the
study.
Basic Landform and Character
The property is in Zone B. Described as one of the most visible area of the study site, has a clearly
wooded character and states that most of the slopes are visible from Blossom Hill Road. On page 9 in a
further discussion of Zone B the study indicates that "more detailed analysis and mapping are needed"
On page 12 it is noted that the most highly visible and therefore environmentally sensitive ridgelines
occur in Zone A. None of the property is located in Zone A. In contrast to the study the Town of Los
Gatos Hillside Area Map from the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines shows only the rear
third of the property to be in the Blossom Hill Ridge Line Area. That area would include portions of
proposed lots 2 and 3 only.
Topographic Information Sources
The study bases the location of ridges, environmentally sensitive areas, open space categories and least
restrictive development areas on the topographic information available at the time. And states in two
different places the lack of accurate information the study had to work with. On page 8 when talking
about views and visibility the study says, "In the absence of detailed topography the analysis of ridges
and slopes of highest visibility was based primarily on site visits and photography aided by cross sections
(drawn to scale) of the various land forms".
The Appendix at the end of the study also addresses the lack of accurate topographic information upon
which the study is based pointing out that using USGS maps and enlarging them makes for potential
inaccuracies in the vertical scale. This has proven to be the case as mentioned in the Environmental
Sensitivity discussion below.
In contrast the development proposal uses three sources of topography information. Aerial survey,
County of Santa Clara LiDAR data contours (1 foot), and survey work done by ground crews on the
conceptual home sites. The accuracy of this information allowed the detailed determination of the
LRDA for the location of the conceptual home sites following the policies outlined in the HDS&G. The
topographic information used in the development proposal shows a far more accurate and current
picture of the existing conditions of the property then that included in the study.
Environmental Sensitivity
This section of the study attempts to identify sensitive areas using Area Wide Variables and Corridor
Overly Zones as described on page 10. The resulting map has textures that result in seven zones of
"theoretical environmental sensitivity" as stated in section 2.2
To produce the patterns the study used a series of overlays on a light table and the higher the 'stack' of
values the higher the sensitivity a zone would be. It also states that "As can be seen from the plan, the
pattern is highly variable and as such is impractical as a plan of open space categories. This indication
are for general planning purposes only and further on-site studies may be needed to confirm or correct
such information".
If the map is overlaid on the actual site both lots 1 and 8 appear to be in category 6 which the study
indicates "only 30% slopes and steeper are included because of their angle". These conceptual home
14
sites are two of the least sloped in the entire project with lot 1 at 19.6% and lot 8 at 8.6% measured
within the LRDA. Lots 2, 5 and 6 are also within category 6 and all three of the conceptual home sites
are on slopes of less than 30% in accordance with the LRDA guidelines of the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines. Lot 2 is also one of the less sloped sites in the project with an average slope
of 12.6% within the LRDA. The study also states for category 6 "zones which are below elevation 720
and which are exposed to Blossom Hill Road". The finish floor elevation of the conceptual house on lot 2
is 758, lot 5 finish floor is 777, and lot 6 finish floor is 748 pointing out the vertical inaccuracies
mentioned it the topographic discussion above.
Lots 3 and 4 appear to be in zone 2 which states "all of the slopes are greater than 30%". Again the
conceptual home sites are within the LRDA of the site and on slopes less than 30%. Lastly, lot 7 appears
to be in category 1, which it describes as "broad valley bottoms" or "ridgetops" neither of which applies
to the home site on lot 7.
High Visibility Slopes and Ridges
Included in the study is a map of the above title. If the study map is overlaid on the property lots 1, 2,
3,4 and 5 are indicated on high visibility slopes and lots 6,7 and 8 are indicated on high visibility ridges.
Lot 1 is not visible from any viewing platform or any other area. Rather than get into a discussion on the
accuracy of the study and how this proposal complies, the visibility of all of the proposed lots and
conceptual homes can be assessed by reviewing the Visibility Study that is part of the project submittal.
Residential Development in Open Space Areas
This section discusses the residential development in the study area and offers additional criteria for
such. On page 24 the study mentions that the HSP "does not offer guidance regarding the siting,
massing, color and surface treatment of buildings, grading, erosion control, and other design criteria
normally associated with the development of environmentally sensitive areas".
And while true at the time of the study, all of these criteria are addressed in the HDS&G and that
document goes well beyond the study with additional criteria such as view analysis, maximum allowable
development, building height, bulk and mass, LRDA, architecture and site approval, etc.
The policies outlined in items 5.2 have generally been adopted by the Town and this project adheres to
the policies, goals, standards and guidelines of the HSP, the current General Plan and the HDS&G.
The proposed development uses the above three documents and follows current Town standards. For
example: the site plans of the conceptual houses adhere to the HDS&G grading policies and notate
where any exceptions might occur. The visibility study shows where the conceptual houses would be
subject to the height restrictions outlined in the HDS&G Section V which states in subsection E3:
Ridgeline and visible homes shall not extend more than 18 feet above the existing grade, and so on.
Where the study and current Town policy differ is in the designation, use, and management of
designated open space. The Town has not chosen to adopt the Open Space Matrix Framework
delineated in the study. The Matrix was designed to expand the HSP. Most of section 5.4 on
implementation has not been currently adopted by the Town although some minor parts do show up in
other documents. The study also outlines in several sections and in comments following the study the
need for public funding of trails and open space maintenance. This has currently not been adopted by
the town.
Limitations of the Study
In the Appendix the study addresses the relative lack of information is several areas that would be
crucial to an undertaking of this type. The accuracy of topographic information has been discussed
above. In addition the Appendix goes on to point out that the study area is not included in the USGS
15
urban geology study done in the 1970's, that there is no adequate map of the trees in the study area,
and that no appropriate information was readily available for wildlife. There was also not enough
information available to determine 'Blue line' streams and their attendant riparian corridors.
Comments on the Study and Conclusion
There are several letters and review documents included at the end of the study. Those documents
point out redundancies, lack of data, and inaccuracies found in the study.
Mr. David Weissman points out the lack of wildlife data. Several comments by John Iaquinto, Terrance
Szewczyk of Nowack & Assoc., Jitka Cymbal of Westfall Engineers, Central Fire, and others point out that
either portions of the study are already addressed by town policies, such as tree and landscape
guidelines, or areas where the study lacks accuracy or is not detailed enough in its analysis. Tito Patri,
the author, addresses these comments and his answers should be reviewed paying attention to where
he states the real limitations of the study and the conceptual nature of the document.
Determining whether this proposal complies with the whole of the study would have required the Town
adopting all of the suggestions of the study and the implementation of its suggested policies. This did
not happen. Instead the Town updated the General Plan and created the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines (which includes references to parts of the study). Along with the Hillside
Specific Plan the three documents include and codify most of the policies suggested by the study and go
well beyond the study in many cases providing much more clear direction to those developing in the
hillsides than the study could have given its data limitations.
Because the study information and recommendations have been either adopted or superseded by
subsequent documents and because of the much more accurate data now available to applicants,
developers and the Town, compliance with the study's objectives is achieved through adhering to
current adopted policies, guidelines and goals.
We appreciate your consideration of the project proposal. Please let us know if you have any questions
or need additional information.
Regards,
Gary Kohlsaat - Project Architect
Amanda Musy-Verdel - Project Civil Engineer
David Fox - Project Landscape Architect
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank