Loading...
2010050306 - Exhibit 6 - Mitigation Monitoring PlanZ _® ® ~ _ N O e® ~ ~ G ~ d O ®_ .®; f~ ~°° ~ ~ L~ ~ f'° ~°" O G ® ~. O .,_, w-~ ~ ~~ C U O ~'~'. ., ~- ~ .~ .N ~. N ~ p' C O ~ _C CA ~ C V •~- ~ «~~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ' ~ C ® ~ ~ `;j4 . ~ .Q • - O .~ N L O _ ~, c O L ~, c N C ~ ~ E N ~ ~ O C ~ O C U O _ O ~ ~ .L' O ~' ® E O N 1... CE 0 0 C N .L ~ Up O U® (jam ~, c 0. V ' Q cq p ~ ~ `+- cn o (0 4- ~ o a> ~ o > ~ -a o > m -o o > °s ~ ~ ~°c o_ ~ ~ Q '~ ~ o" . ,,5= , a~ ~ m ~ o co n . ~ o ca c ' ~ ~ cr " s Y w c c o rOn o n. ~ aoi Q7 'o O C C c ~ o a~ a~ ca ~ o >, o :~ :,_, U ..e cts U (II +_' O C N (B CT Y >L L "6 (n O "O L (6 .~. L U p CA • U ~- "'' p C O C N ~ C 'Q 'L7 L .~, n tt9 ,.,,. L '++ N (0 O Q a-. ~ L CAC "O Q 't3 O N O -~.+ "O -~ N O O N C L N O '+.. ~ ~ ` U ~ ~ . L ~ ~.~ ~ V Q ~ ~ N N C ~ ~ C "O C ~ N (U C N (6 N ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~-- U ~ N . ~ N ~ _ U L .;.Q~:.. i "O N N (B O O E U ~ C O C ~ fq C Q L O~~ C C p Q- ~ ~ ~ C~ X O ~ L N ~ ~ O , C .~ O C~ . N~ N a'C.+ O O .~ O "O "Q '.-' C N fA U O O ~ _~. ~ ~ U C C .C N N ~ . N Q U ~ N O~ Cl~ N U > O N N~ C Y y ~+ X 0 0 v1 .O O~ O~ C N t~ ~ N d -O U ~ ~ ~ O ~ ' ~ ~ fl.. ~ ~ N ~ O N N ~ N O N ~ ~ (S - ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ :~. N . j C ~ >, vi N 'O O -~-' C ~ C C O ~ ~ (CS O Q. ~ ~ C~~ L fn 'C .C C p p C `' .o-L+ N (U RS +~ O O .p 0 0 fn O ~ V I O L "C3 "O .~ (t5 N L N 'O .~ ~ (~ C O ~ U ~ ~ ~ U N ~ U t6 (ff > O N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~- ~ N ~ 3 y U "O ~ C N L ~ O O (n C C ~ .e_. C N ~ ~ U O ~ L ~ >L C , -'O-+ ~ -Q "O - ~ ~ C , N Op N p L N Q t~ ~ S ®- ~ ~ (0 fn C ~ C ~ C i _ ~ .~ . (B O U ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ '~ ~ C C N a-+ ~ p O _ .{.-~ U ~ ~ N ~ '~ O O ([S ~ i U ~ ~ U -O ~ •~ Q. C .~ ~ C ~ CA O C ~ ~ N CO C 'p) > rO~ U O ~ 4 _ ~ C O O N N O ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N N ~ ~ O •~ ~ ~ ` ~ N ~ ~ '+C ` ~ O ` C O C C CA E ~ . "O Q ~ N •~ N "~ .Q p p N ~ U ~ O . - _ ) "' O `. C ~- U U O_ ^ Q. tq ^ (0 U .~ Q_ O ~ (0 V' .~ ~ 'O ti9 U_. _C O. ~ _L_. - U +-. (0 t0 d V U ~ N U ` • ~ ~ O s. O O ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ (Ya ti L6 L Y (~ O L N U Q C f6 Q C O +~ (17 +_~ .~ Z W Z Q 5 W z p r F~.IBTT 6 e~ ~ Z ®c Z N N ® M ~ Z ~ O U _® ,d ~ f •- ~ A. E~®.. FW- C O G ® Q. O o o C m ;~, C ~ O '+~ C ~ ~ +~ C ~ ^ ^ ^ O O O U U U _ .~ C +~ ~, C .,-~ C 'C S O N E O N E O O ^ ^ ^ ^ bra ~ p ~ ^ O ~ p ~ O ~~ ro ~ ro H•- ~ 4- U fn O C fn O fn O '` ~ 'O p 0 ~ ,O ~ ~ ~ O {w ` ~ o o s o ° ro' o ° '_;;~ ,> o t ~ U c o ~ U c o ~ U C O N O ro O C N L N ~~ "C ~ N '~ O .O O O O Q O C ~ O C ro '+- C- N +. . .C ro L U 0 0 ^ C ~ ro ~ ~ ~ v U ~ +~ - ~ C O. O -o ~ N O O Vi ~ _ C N O Q ' U fA ~ N N ' O Q ±.. N C i. E O -C (~ O , •+- C T C ~ C O 1+=- ~ ~ O N Q 0 3 m ~ D C "O ro O O ,F; Q O o 0 C s 0> N O ro N V~ .C Q ~ 'a N O O N V O C C N Q N O p fA p O V (Cf U .~ ~~ ,~ '`'' p~ ~ N ~^ O C .C ro C ' ` ~ tOn ~ U ro U 'c O ~ U .C c~ ~ CO ~ ~ U N C ~ ~ _ O O` +~ E N ~ ~ C N N _ U N •~ ~ ( V O O C ro N ~ O U~~ O~ U C cn N ~~ _C C- L C O C p- O~ ~ , ro ~ `~ ro N ro U 'B . ~ L ~ Q.. to ro ~ v- U ~ fA Q- ~ N .Q Q . V~~, O ~ _ _ ..-~ ro ~ Q ~- U ro 'O C 0 ^ C L ~- L ,+,.0 O ~ ~ ~ (~ O C ro O N ~jj ep (( .,~ - ~ ~ L C O ro ro~ ~ Q ro E C O ro C - c N U C ~ ..O . C ~ c . w ~ ;g c 3 ro C~~~ E N N~ :'~ ~ p 'O V O L O E C ce •C ~ , ~ z ~ a~ a~ ro ~ a ro ~ 'ro _ o ~ ~ ro ,~ ro ,~, u o 0 ~ `a U° O ~. C ,cn_ N ~. L C D U- ro C O 4 O O ~= rc "= ~ - ~ Q 4 - -a L . ro o ro roZ._.n a4.- ro d ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 V V ~ u, L 0 U ro fl C (~ Q C O (~ :,_, .y~ L W ^ Z rQr^ V! 5 W ^ Z ch O _~. ®_ ~_ ~_ tw! ti Z N CPJ d LLJ F- .~ v V V .~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ C a1 , O O O O :«~ ~`'' i O O~~ O ~ ~ ~ O Q ` ~ ~ U L N Oe .~ ° U .O C ~ ~ .~ O C ~ 'p w F ~- ~~ ~ ~ c o m p ai N O Y ~ , .~ L O ... ~ ~ C O -~ ` Q ~ G _ N cc C ~ ,` lA- ~ ~ ~O ~ ~ Q ~ ,O t0 (0 U : a a- ~° ~ 4' ~O -~o> ~o> ~~. o ~~ o °.~L- ~ Q ° ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ o cu °o ~~~ ` ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ a~ rn ~ v ~~ ~° ' ~ ~ ~ . i a ma~i~~~ ~ ~•~;~'o C a~ cLo .~ E ~~ c N a~ o i cu k!. cLo a. ova -~ a~ o a~ ~ cu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o Q' C E O ~? - r ~ CIf ~ C ~ c N > .C O = ~ N , ~ U 'a ~ (0 c L ~~ ,~ ~ O .. ~ ~ ~ ° m ~ N 00 ;~ N s ~ .c ~ O ~ U ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ fn fn c c ~.. N ~ O C L. ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ,O ~ +~ ~ N ~ O N ~ ~ C ~ O N ~ ~ ~ C ~ N ~ O E N O ~ :~ -~ 'p w- p (Lf C ~ , -p -Q U ~ Y ~ ~ N c c . ~ 'L3 !n 0 . ~ ~ ~ (U 'C ~ ~ N O ~ U Q C O V (0 Q- ' ~ U ~ O ~ N C Q O t0 O U - ~ . C N ++ '~ (~ Z7 c d N ~ ~ "' ~~ E O C ' N F L P°"~ c U N U O ` ~ •~ ~ -p ~~ s U C ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ .~ 'O ~ "~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ N N to U O •~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ _ N ~ N ~ ~ ..c .. .C ` c _ . C "p E N ~O ~ •N •N ~ ,_ O O O .c ._, ._ F- C7 I- rn c~ ~ e 0 ,_ a- a ~ c is c ~. ~ cv ~ .® ~ ~ ~ >Q ~ ' ~ ® ~ O O f, Y (0 O N U ([S Q. C (Cf C O V..~ Z Q 5 W D z O RF,QUIRED FII~DI1~tGS FOR Placer Oaks Load General Plan Amendment GP-07-001 Planned Development PD-07-142 1~Tegative Declaration I~1D-07-143 Requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from 1VIedium Density Residential to Love Density Residential and approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from R1VI:5-12:PD to R-1:8: PD to construct nine single family houses. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a 1VIitigated 1Vegative Declaration is recommended. APIm1S 529-16-073, 529-14-012 and 067. PROPERTY OW1~1ER/APPLICAI~iT: Cupertino Development Corporation FIIo1DI1vGS All General Plan Amendments must be found to be internally consistent with the General Plan. Since the access to the development is now in a low density single family residential neighborhood, the General Plan amendment back to its original "low density" land use designation will be consistent with the General Plan in that the existing character of the neighborhood, in terms of its type and intensity of land use, will be maintained. That the zone change is consistent with the General Plan. See above. As required by the Town's Tr°affic Policy for a community benefit. Projects that generate additional t~°affic of five or more peak hour trips may only be recommended for approval if the project's benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections of the General Plan andlor any Specific Plan. If a project generates additional traffic of five or more peak hour trips the burden is on the applicant to cite economic or housing benefits to the Town and/or specifzc sections of the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan that demonstrate the project's benefit to the Community which outweighs the traffic impact. The deciding body must make specific findings which demonstrate that the benefit(s) of the project outweigh the impact in order to approve the project. The main community benefit with this proposal is that the change in the land use designation from medium to low density residential will reduce the traffic impacts to the residential neighborhood when developed. As ~°equired by the Town's Infill Policy for a community benefit: 1. In-fzll projects should contribute to the further development. of the sup°rounding neighborhood (i. e. improve circulation, contribute to or provide neighborhood unity, eliminate a blighted area, not detract from the existing quality of life). 2. An in-fill project should be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, provide comparable lot sizes and open space, consider garage placement, setbacks, density, provide adequate circulation and on-street parking. In-fill development should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area. ffiIBIT 7 3, Cor^r°idor lots may be considered if it decr°eases the amount of public street and r.'s consistent with objects #1 and #2. It must be demonstrated that a benefit to surr°ounding proper°ties is being provided. 4, The Planned Development process should only be used to accomplish objects #I and #2. The applicant shall demonstr°ate the benefit of a Planned Development through excellence in design, 5. Appr°oval of an in-fill project shall demonstrate a strong community benefit and findings of benefit shall be part of the record. As stated above, the main community benefit with this proposal is that the change in the land use designation from medium to low density residential will reduce the traffic impacts to the residential neighborhood when developed. The proposed development respects the low density residential character in the existing neighborhood and has been designed as a detached single family development. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\placeroaks.doc ~ ~. i ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBA[y DESIGN May 27, 2008 tYis. Sandy Baily Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos ! 110 E. Main Street a P.O. Box 949 ~QY Los Gatos, Ct1 95031 ~ ZaQg RE; Placer Oaks Road Subdivision TOwN OF ~O~ ., Dear Sandy: PL~NIVIIVC' D1V~S~jp~~ I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. l~ty comments and recommendations are as follows: Rleighborhood Context The site is rather isolated from the surrounding community, located as it is some forty feet or more below the adjacent homes to the north and east and shielded from view by dense stands of trees on all sides. The west side of the site is bounded by Highway 17. Photographs of the site and area around the site axe shown below ~IBIT ~ TEL: 415.331.3795 FAX: 415.331.3797 EMAIL: cdgplan@pac6ell.net 180 HARBORDRIVE SUITE 219 SAUSALITO . CA 94965 I Placer Road Oaks Subdivision Design Review Comments ivfay 27, 2008 Page 2 , The Site Concerns and Recommendations Since the site is so self-contained, I have only a few comments as follow: Site Plan Portions of this retaining wall appear to ba vary high Provide additfonal lnformaf/on on appearance of ~"' masonry welt and approaches to softeni»g' the wall's appearance d ~ __._---• - _.. L.1w-:.._ _~..._ _- ~::.M...-.-~ ar err raw w .a rr raw ~ ®„~... t provide mare info On .-..-. ~, materials and design ~ ~~. curb an las -- ~.-._---~---~__.___.___ / 9 - `'~ ` ~ _ :.. cf these stairs 1 °~'~ _.__ ~,,, ~ ve shallaw °~ Pedestrian path !P _rr,...; $1~1 ~ "~ terminus at parked "r ~~ ..~+Im'~'J"`...~... - cars net desirable ~. ~ "°~,~J .: .- ~- l _ ,. . , _- . , ",, (~' c ~~ t ,, fly -~ ~~ ~" w _. s ' 1 _ ~... ..r..~a . Sidewalks end at Awkward pedestrian guest parking spaces circulation CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE .SUITE 219 . SAUSAUTO . CA 94965 Entry Drive at top of the site. View down to site from entry drive Typical house in neighborhood at tap of entry drive l Placer Road Oaks Subdivision Design Review Comments ivfay 27, 2008 Page 3 1. The retaining walls, especially on the east side of the driveway, appear to be quite tall in some locations, The civil ~: drawings call for an 8-inch masonry wall, but no further information is provided. Likewise, inadequate information is available regarding the materials and design of the long pedestrian stairway connecting the site to Placer Oaks Road above. Recommendation: The applicant should provide additional information to allow staff to better understand the likely visual appearance of the walls, any landscaping mitigation that is proposed, and the materials and design of the pedestrian stairway. 2. The stairway to the site from Placer Oaks Road terminates at two quest parking spaces, providing a less than ideal visual termination. Recommendation: Revise the site plan to provide a better terminus at the bottom of the stairs. 3. Several of the sidewalks connecting house-to-house have breaks resulting in walks in the street to complete a journey between units. Recommendation: Provide better sidewalk cozznection,r. 4. The angled curb lines for parallel guest parking spaces probably conform to some engineering standard, but are at a shallower angle than is necessary to accommodate the movements. The photo below shows a similar situation at Rivermark in Santa Clara that has sharper angles and. seems to work. Recommendation: Restudy the curb angles atguest parking spaces to see if more landscaped area and less paved area razz he provided. Elevations The front elevation of Plan t~-r1 has a very large window in the garage facing the street. While some articulation of the garage wall on the street front is desirable, this seems to be overstated. Recommendation: Revise the etreet faczng window in the garage -perhaps lzzore in the scale of that :rhozvn ozi Plan A-B. r~ i ~„ CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE .SUITE 219 . SAUSALITO . CA 94965 Seems overstated f®r ~ garage window ~'~ ~ Placer Road Oahs Subdivision Design Review Comments May 27, 2008 Page 4 , 2. The right side elevations of Plan A-A and A-B have rather tall, large and' relatively unarticulated walls. Recommendation: Revise the design to provide belly bands, as shown on the Plan B aanits, and preferable also some popout elements to add visual articzalation to the facades. 3. The second floor window heads seem uncomfortably close to the roof eave line. This might be acceptable if the eave soffits axe open, but probably not if the soffits are closed in. Recommendation: Restudy the relationship between secored story windows and the top of the wall.. Wall surface over windows probably OK if open soffit but not if closed soffit :_:. a ..- - - -__._....__....--._...~--- __. _ __..-- 6 1 Y ,~ A ~ 0 Plan l1 welts are rather tall, large and relatively unarticulated 4. iVtany of the wood columns seem too slender on the drawings submitted. And, there is a marked difference in how the column to second floor deck beam is treated in the Plan B-B front elevation. Recommendation: Restardy the cola<mn side andprovide atniformity in the design of column-to-beam detailf Provide soma consistency of detailing at the deck beams ~hit~rney ~eents toa narrow Slmllar /ssue on other houses 5. LVlany of the chimneys appear too narrow for their height and the architectural style of the houses, In some cases, other elements, as in the entry below, also seem too narrow Recommendation: Restudy the proportions of all chimneys and entries. 'roportions seem tuite narrow CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE .SUITE 219 . SAUSALITO . CA 94965 ..®. Columns appear two small f®r their height S/mllar Issue on other houses Chimneys seem top heavy ._ ' Placer Road Gals Subdivision Desinn Review Comments May 27, 2008 Page 5 Sandy, please let me know if you have any questions, ox if there axe specific issues of concern that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry Cannon AICP President CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE .SUITE 219 . SAUSALITO . CA 94965 ._,) Aii~o~ ICES®u~~ES ~. .,.;~. :;_~ professional consulting arborists and tree care Subanatted t®: Sandy Baily, AICP Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared bya David L. Babby ASCA Registered Consiclting Arborist #399 -Board :Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001 B __ _. June 9, 2008 p.o, box 25295, san mateo, California 94402 ~ email: arborresources@comcast.net phone: 550.654.3351 ® fax: 650.240.0777 ~ licensed contractor #795763 EXHIBIT 9 David L, Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 ' TABLE. ®F C®NTENTS SECTIOI~1 TITLE PAGE 1.0 IlviT120DUCTI01~ .....................>... .... . 1 ... . .<....................... 2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION .....< ............................ 2 3.0 SUITABILITY FOR PRESERVATION .....<..>...........<........... 3 4.0 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ..............<...<............. 4 5.0 RECOMMENDATTOl®TS .................. <....... <.................... <... 7 5.1 Design Guidelines ....................................................... 7 5.2 Protection Measures Before and During Construction ......... , .. 9 EXHIBITS EX~IIBIT TITLE A TREE INVENTORY TABLE (eight pages) B SITE MAP (one page} i David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 1.0 Il~TI20I)UCTIOl~ I have been retained by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department to review the tree-related impacts associated with implementing the revised plans, stamp dated 5/16/08, to develop nine single-family residences on a vacant 3.06-acre site located southwest of the junction of Placer Oaks Road and Frank Avenue, Los Gatos. This report serves as a revision/update to my April 18, 2008 report. Tasks performed for this .review are as follows: Identify "protected trees"t located in close proximity to the proposed grading, drainage and construction, including those located on the subject site, as well as those overhanging the site from neighboring properties. Trees that have fallen or been removed are not included. ® Measure or estimate their trunk diameters at approximately 54 inches above grade or where appropriate to obtain the most representative sample of trunk size. ® Estimate tree height and canopy spreads. ® Ascertain tree health and structural integrity. ® Determine the trees' suitability for preservation {e.g. high, moderate or low). ® Review the set of plans stamp dated May 16, 2008 by the Town. ® Utilize numbers presented on most all site-related plans; a copy of Sheet L1.1 (Tree Inventory Plan by Reed Associates, dated 5/13/08) is presented in Exhibit B to show the assigned tree numbers and approximate trunk locations. ® Review the 8/13/98 report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates for the purpose of becoming informed of the trees' conditions nearly 10 years ago. ® Prepare a written report containing the aforementioned information, and provide design guidelines for avoiding or mitigating impacts to trees being retained or removed: ~ Pursuant to Section 29.10.0960 of the Town's Municipal Code, a "protected tree" has a trunk diameter of four inches and greater measured at three feet above grade. Fruit- or nut-bearing trees with trunks less than 18 inches in diameter are exempt (Section 29.10.0970). Placer Oalrs Road, Los Gatos Page 1 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Davtd L. Babby, Registered Consz~lting Arborist Jacne 9, 2008 , 2.0 T1~EE C®iJl~iT AloiD C®1VIP'®SITI®l~d 1Vinety-five (95) trees of eight various species were inventoried for this report and are sequentially numbered as follows: #2-5, 8-10, 12, 14-29, 72, 73, 75-92, 101-103 and 111- 152.2 The table below identifies the trees' species, amounts, assigned numbers and percentages. Specific information regarding each tree is presented within the Tree Inventory Table in Exhibit A. ~, ~; ; s:::;,:1 Blue Elderberry 27, 111, 124, 126 4 4% California Bay Tree 12 1 1 California Black Walnut 72 1 1 Cluster of six coast live oaks 147 7 7% and one holly-leaf cherry 2-5, 8, 9, 16-18, 20, 24, 23, 26, 28, Coast Live Oak 29, 73, 75-84, 88-90, 92, 102, 103, 62 65% 112-11.5, 119, 124-123, 125, 128- 132, 134-146, 148, 150, 152 Cypress 133 1 1 Holly-Leaf Cherry 87 1 1 Valley Oak 10, 14, 15, 19, 22, 24, 25, 91, 101, ' 15 16% 116-11 8, 120, 149, 151 Willow 85, 86, 127 3 3% T'®tal 95 100°/® As illustrated in the above table, the site is populated predominantly by native oaks (coast live oaks and valley oaks) at over 87% of the total inventoried trees. Three (3) of the trees are situated on the neighboring southern property; they include. #72, 73 and 145. Their trunks are situated along or within a few feet of the property boundary, and their canopies overhang the subject site. z Note that tree #147 represents seven individual trees, six oaks and one cherry, which are located within a cluster and. are of similar size and condition. Placer Daks Road, Los Gatos Page 2 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 There are many additional trees scattered throughout the subject site. biowever, they were not inventoried as they are relatively small, fruit- or nut-bearing with trunk diameters less than 18 inches (and therefore exempt per Section 29.10.0970 of the Town Code). 3°0 SUITABILITY FOl2 T1~EE P1~ESEIZVATI®N Each tree has been assigned either a "high," "moderate" or "low" suitability for preservation rating as a means to cumulatively measure their physiological health, structural integrity, anticipated life span, location, size and specie type. A description of these ratings with the assigned tree numbers are presented below; note that the "high" category comprises 57 trees (or 60-percent), the "moderate" category 17 trees (or 18- percent), and the "low" category 21 trees (or 22-percent). IFIieh: These trees appear in overall good health, seem structurally stable, and have a high potential of providing long-term contribution to the site. They are the most suitable for retention and protection. ® Applies to #2, 3, 8, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 73, 75, 76, 78-81, 83, 84, 87-92, 101-103, 113-115, 118, 121, 128,129, 131, 133-138., 141-1473 & 149-152. 1~'Ioderate: These trees require frequent care throughout their remaining life span, and provide less .significance to the site than those assigned a high suitability. They may be worthy of retention, but not at the expense of significant design revisions. ® Applies to #4,10,15,16, 22, 24, 26, 72, 77,111,112,119,120, 125,130,139 ~ 140. 1J®~r: These trees-are predisposed to irreparable health and structural problems expected to worsen regardless of measures employed. They are the most suitable for removal. ® Applies to #5, 9, 12, 14, 17-19, 23, 27, 82, 85, 86, 116, 117, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 132 & 148. s As previously noted, tree #147 is comprised of seven individual trees. Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 3 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consiclting Arborist June 9, 2008 4.0 REVIEdV ®F P®TENTIAL IMPACTS The proposed plans identify the following 48 trees. (or 50% of the total) will be removed to accommodate the proposed design: #4, 8, 12, 14, 19, 27-29, 76-86, 115, 116, 121-123, 127-143 and 147. The plans also specify the relocation of the following 7 trees: #113, 114, 117, 118, 125, 144 and 146. Of these, each appears suitable excebt for #117 and 125, which should also be regarded as removals. Tree #117, a valley oak assigned, is comprised of two leaders that have split partially apart as evidenced by the crack between them. Tree #125, a coast live oak situated beneath tree #90, has a highly asymmetrical canopy due to its growth towards the edge of tree #90's canopy. I also recommend flee 6 oaks that. comprise tree #147 are also considered for relocation. Each appears healthy and stable, has a relatively balanced canopy, and seems sufficiently spaced apart to warrant their relocation rather than removal. Though identified for retention, the following 15 trees (or 16% of. the total} would be severely impacted, and their longevity and stability jeopardized by implementation of the proposed design: #2, 15, 16, 22, 25, 72, 73, 75, 91,.124, 145, 146 and 149-151. For the 48 trees currently being proposed for removal and the 15 trees anticipated to be severely impacted, their assigned suitability for preservations ratings are. as follows: ® 1FIi~h (40 in total): #2, 8, 25, 28, 29, 73, 75, 76, 78-81, 83, 84, 91, 113-115, 118, 121, 125, 128, 129, 131, 133-138, 141-147 & 149-151. ® Moderate (8 in total): #4, 15, 16, 22, 72, 77, 130, 139 & 140. ® Low (14 in total): #12, 14, 19, 27, 82, 85, 86, 116, 117, 122-124, 127 & 132. Tree #2 is a prominent coast live oak situated at Placer Oaks Road entrance of the project. My on-site observations reveal an. "edge of road" stake within 2.5 feet from its trunk. The proposed plans identify a sidewallc about 4 feet and new street 8 feet from the tree's trunk. Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 4 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L. Gabby, Registered Consulting Arborist .Tune 9, 2008 Given the tree's size, location and overall good condition, I recommend it is retained. To achieve a minimal assurance of its protection, I recommend the following measures are incorporated into the design, and details/sections are provided in the plans: [ 1 ] The section of street, curb and sidewalk (including base materials, edging and forms) within 15 feet from the tree's trunk is established entirely on top of existing soil grade with no more than afour-inch vertical soil cut. [2] The soil surface where the sidewalk and street will be constructed within 15 feet from the trunk is not directly compacted (foot-tamping okay). [3] Trenching and soil compaction within 25 feet of the tree's trunk in all directions. away from the street should also be avoided. [4] The proposed water line should be established so no soil cuts (including overcut) occurs within 15 feet from the trunk (or the section within 15 feet directionally-bored 3 to 4 feet below grade}. The detail of the "entry evall," as shown on Sheet L1.0, identifies a cut for the road and sidewalk. This should be revised to conform to the previous paragraph. The "entry wall" is proposed only a few from tree #2's trunk. To avoid causing significant damage/loss to major structural support roots, I recommend it is either omitted from the design, or constructed with no more than afour-inch vertical soil cut required. I~Tote that a pier foundation should also be avoided because, due to the close proximity, it would likely a large root would Likely be encountered. Tree #26 will 6e impacted by installation of the proposed v-ditch. To minimize root loss, I recommend the section of ditch beneath the tree's canopy requires no more than a 4-inch vertical soil cut. The drainage design along the southern boundary differs between the landscape and civil plans. To minimally protect trees #72, 73 and 145, the drainage design on the civil drawings should be implemented as trenching the storm drain line shown on the landscape plans would severely impact these trees. Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 5 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Commacnity Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 Tree #73 is situated on the neighboring southern property, and to achieve its minimal protection, grading and trenching within seven feet of its trunk should be avoided. The plans propose removing the dense grove of native oaks bordering the western property boundary (parallel to Highway 17). These trees form a seemingly significant screening element that would be removed for the new street, grading and construction of the sound/retaining walls. As mitigation to help replace the screen, Sheet L1.0 identifies that 35 coast redwoods of 24-inch box size will be installed along the boundary. These trees can be expected to provide. a dense screen overtime,. but I do suggest they are installed at 10-foot intervals rather than 15 feet. Where the sound wall is proposed beneath the canopies of trees #72, 73 and 145, it should be setback. by at least two feet from their trunks, and established utilizing a pier and above- grade beam design in which no soil disturbance (compaction, fill or cuts) occurs between the footings. Installation of a sewer line via an open trench within the proposed sewer easeffient will adversely impact trees #149 thru 151, and lead to the removal of removal of tree #25. To avoid this significant impact, the line should be directionally-bored (i.e. tunneled) by at least 3.5 feet below existing soil grade, and the access pits established beyond the trees' canopies. Tree #90 will sustain root loss from both trenching for the storm drain and construction of the wallcway. To minimize the impacts, I recommend the walkway is established at least 20 feet from the tree's trunk. To my understanding, this will require. the removal of tree #124, which is an 11.5-inch diameter blue elderberry with a very weak structure prone to failure. The proposed dissipater and storm. drain lines. will impact tree #91 at significant levels over the short- and long-term. To minimize the impacts, I recommend the dissipater is established at least 30 feet from its trunk, and the storm drain line routed uphill is placed at Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 6 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L. Bibby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 least 22 feet from its trunk. Note that the locations of the dissipater .and storm drain line differ between the civil and landscape drawings. The civil drawings show a "perimeter garden wall" around trees #119 and 120, presumably as a .grading limit beneath their canopies. To optimize their chance for survival, I recommend the wall is expanded to be at least 10 feet east and west of their trunks. 5.0 IBC®M1i~IEI®TDATI®115 lZecommendations presented within this section are based on plans reviewed, and serve as guidelines for mitigating impacts to trees of regulated status being retained or removed. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans, and are subject to revision upon reviewing any additional or revised plans. 5.1 I)esagn Guidelines 1. The recommendations presented in Section 4.0 of this report should be followed. 2. For review purposes, the assigned numbers and trunk locations of the inventoried trees should be identified on Sheet C-1 {as shown on Sheet C-2). 3. Unless otherwise approved, all utilities and services should be routed outside from beneath the trees' canopies. In the event this is not feasible, directional boring and/or the use of a pneumatic air device (such as anAir-Spade®) must be considered. For __ _. _. . boring, the ground above tunnel(s) must remain undisturbed and the access pits established as far from the trunks as possible. Additionally, the pit locations (if within the TPZ or designated-fenced areas) shall be reviewed by the Town prior to being dug. Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 7 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 ~ ~ ' 4. All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage). 5. Per Section 29.10.1000(C.1) of the Ordinance, a copy of this report must be incorporated into the final set of project plans, titled Sheet(s) T-1, T-2, etc. (Tree Protection Instructions), and referenced on all site-related plans. 6. The permanent and temporary drainage design,. including downspouts,. should not require water being discharged beneath the trees' canopies. 7. Mitigation is necessary to compensate for the loss of trees removed. Pursuant to Section 29.10.0985 of the Town Code, this shall be determined by the Parks and Public Works Department. The trees shall be planted prior to final inspection, double-staked with rubber tree ties (may not be necessary for trees of 48-inch box size and larger), and all forms of irrigation be of an automatic drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Additionally, to achieve the greatest assurance of proper installation, all new trees shall be installed, including necessary irrigation, by an experienced state-licensed landscape contractor or a professional tree company. 8. The proposed planting plan specifies the installation of coast live oaks within several feet of foundations, driveways, walkways, etc, At these distances, the integrity of these features will become compromised and potentially damaged as the trees mature. As a guideline, I suggest the trunks are designed to be at least 10 feet from any surrounding foundation or hardscape. Where this is not feasible, I suggest an alternative tree type more compatible for the location(s) is considered. Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 8 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist June 9, 2008 9. The landscape design should incorporate the following additional guidelines: a. The landscape plans should identify the existing and proposed locations of any tree proposed for relocation. b. Turf should be avoided beneath canopies of the oaks. As an alternative, I suggest afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips is used. c. Large-growing trees (including any to be relocated) that can exceed the height of retained trees should not be installed beneath canopies of retained trees. d. Plant material installed beneath the oak canopies shall be drought-tolerant, limited in amount, and planted at least five to ten feet from a tree's trunk. A source for identifying suitable drought-tolerant plant material is as follows: www.californiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/ComnatiblePlantsLTnder&AroundOaks d~f e. Irrigation can, overtime, adversely impact the oaks and should be avoided. Irrigation for any new plant material beneath an oak's canopy should be low- volume, applied irregularly (such as only once or twice per week) and temporary (such as no more than three years). f In the event trenches for irrigation and/or lighting are required beneath a canopy, they shall be installed in a radial direction to the trees' trunks. If irrigation trenches cannot be routed as such, the work may need to be performed using a pneumatic air device (such as anAir-Spade®) to avoid unnecessary root damage. g. Stones and new fencing should not be placed against the trees' trunks (I suggest a minimum two-foot setback). Additionally, mulch should not be placed against the trunks. h. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. i. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes). Sot Frotecti®n 1VIeasures before and during I)eveIopinent 10. An ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) certified arborist and/or a member of ASCA (American Society of Consulting Arborists) - to be named the "project arborist" -shall be retained by the applicant/owner or contractor to assist in implementing and achieving compliance with all tree protection measures. Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 9 of 1 Z Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 11. Prior to any grading or site clearing work, apre-construction meeting between the project arborist and contractor shall be held on-site to discuss work procedures, protection fencing locations, limits of grading, tree removals, staging areas, routes of access, supplemental watering, mulching, locations for equipment washing pits, procedures for removing existing paving beneath tree #2's canopy, and any other applicable tree protection measures. The limits of grading should be staked prior to the meeting. 12. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site, and its precise location and placement approved by the project arborist (in the form of a letter submitted to the Town} prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or construction permit. It should be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout construction until final inspection. 13. Prior to construction, 8.5- by 11-inch signs (minimum) should be attached to the fencing on the side facing construction activities and contain the following wording: "Warning -Tree Protection Zone -this fence shall not be removed. Violators are subject to a penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." 14. Unless otherwise approved, all development activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced areas, as well as beyond unpaved area beneath canopies of Ordinance-sized trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment. cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 15. Any approved activity required on unpaved areas beneath the trees' canopies must be performed under the supervision of the project arborist. All work should be manually Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 10 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ^ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 performed using hand tools and wheelbarrows. In the event roots of two inches and greater are encountered during the process, the project arborist shall be consulted. 16. The removal of existing paving beneath tree #2's canopy must be carefully performed to avoid excavating soil and damaging roots during the process. The project arborist should monitor this work, which must not involve the use of heavy equipment or tractors operating or traveling on unpaved soil beneath the canopy, 17. Fost/pier holes dug beneath tree canopies for the proposed sound wall and perimeter fencing must first be reviewed by the project arborist prior to digging. A post-hole digger should be used to dig the first 2.5 to 3 feet below grade. In the event a root of two inches and greater in diameter is encountered during the process, the hole should be shifted over by about 12 inches and the process repeated. All digging below the hand-dug area can occur using amanually-operated mechanical auger. 18. Recommendations that are presented within Section 5.1 of this report and pertain to site development should also be followed. 19. Throughout construction during the months of Nlay thru October, supplemental water shall be supplied to retained trees. The specific trees, methodology, frequency, and amounts shall be prescribed by the project arborist. 20. The relocation of trees shall be performed according to the standards set forth in ANSI A300 (Fart 6)-2005 Transplanting, and also by a company that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role, holds a current California state-licensed contractor's license, carries General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance, and abides by ANSI 2133.1-2006 (Safety Operations). All recommendations provided by the company for pre-, during, and post-transplant care shall be followed. 21. All tree pruning and removal shall be performed in accordance with the most recent ANSI standards, and by a California state-licensed tree service company that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role. The company selected should .also carry rtacer yaks Koad, Los Gatos Page 11 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L. Babby, Registered Consaclting Arborist June 9, 2008 General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance, and shall abide by ANSI 2133.1-2006 (Safety Operations). 22. Where needed, soil should be cleared from the root collars4 of all oaks to minimize the risk of infection by harmful root-rotting organisms. The work should be performed under supervision of an ISA certified arborist. 23. All equipment shall be positioned to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict arises, the project arborist must be contacted to help address the situation. 24. The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint,. chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. Pre ared B !~ • p Y David L. Babby Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE--40018 Date: June 9, 2008 a A "root collar" is the area where the large anchorage roots and main trunk merge,. often distinguished by a distinct swelling at a trunk's base. Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Page 12 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department I David L. Gabby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 EXHIBIT Ao TREE II~El®iT®IZY TABLE rlacer yaks ttoad, Los Ciatos Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department TREE INVENT®RY TABLE ~' o ~ ~ ` ` ~ ,-. ~ .-, ~ ° ~ ° ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o ° ~~' ~~ ~ ~ n ° o ~ °~ P ~ 'fi ° y , n ~ n, o ~ o H, ~ _ n , •~ CJ `U ~ ~ O _ O ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ Vl ~ ~ ~~4 • ~ TREE ~ c < 8 E ~ N ~-' o '. ~ ~ o ~ o ~ b4 . o ~ R' ", ~ ' :. N +. N `:It10 'l1tEENA1v1E.... ~ ~ ~ i ; a~i ° ~ ° r .° 'a ,~, Q'' N v $ ° , Coast Live Oak 2 (Quercus agrifolia) 25 25 45 100% 75% Good Hi h - 1 Comments: At Placer Oaks Road (entrance to property). Asphalt near trunk. "Edge of road" stake about 2.5 feet from the trunk. Coast Live Oak 3 (Quercus a rifolia) 16, 16 35 40 50% 50% Fair High - 3 Comments: Coast Live Oak 26.5, 16,5, 4 (Quercus agrifolia) 10 40 65 65% 50% Fair Moderate X - Comments; Sparse canopy. Highly visible from street and neighboring property. The small trunk (towards the west is t in across tree #2`s easternmost trunk. Provides substantial shade to existin and future road. Coast Live Oak 5 (Quercus agrifolia) 26 45 35 25% 50% Poor Low - 3 Comments: Poor vigor. Appears to be in a state of slow, perpetual decline. Coast Live Oak ~ >1 I (Quercus agrifolia) ~ 40 ~ 55 ~ 75 ~ 75% ~ 50% ~ Fair ~ High ~ X ~ - Comments: Located on bank. Along the bottom side, roots are exposed. There is a large wound with decay near the base. Measures should be taken to sto erosion. Coast Live Oak 9 (Quercus agrifolia) 16 25 20 25% 25% Poor Low - 3 Comments: Significant dieback. Very large cavity where two leaders originate, creating an extremely weak structure. There is also a lar a cavi alon the central leader. Hazardous tree. Valley Oak 10 (Quercus lobata) 23 45 40 25% 50% Poor Moderate - 3 Comments: Fn decline, although recovery may be possible. California Bay Tree 12 (Umbellularia californica) 13 3S 30 100% 50% Good Low X - Comments: Serves as a host for Sudden Oak Death disease. ~ 14 ~ (Quercus lobata) ~ 23 ~ 60 ~ 35 ~ 25% ~ 50% ~ Poor ~ Low ~ X ~ - Comments; Very sparse canopy, declining. Valley Oak 15 (Quercus lobata) 18 40 25 25% 50% Poor Moderate - 1 Comments: Sparse canopy,. although recovery may be possible. Past failure of limbs at top of canopy. Highly as mmetrical. Coast Live Oak t6 (Quercus agrifolia) 20 30 35 50% 50% Fair Moderate - 1 Comments: Sparse canopy, Slte: Placer Oaks Road, Los Gafos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart. Prepared by: Davld L. Bobby 7 of 8 June 9, 2008 TREE IfVVENT'Rl( TAELE .: .~ .. ro ~~ ~ K b O O o o Q ~, ~" ~ ~ O ~ C: U NQ . a 0. P-, ~ .,~0 Q^ ~ , ~ .-., . ~ ~ r~i CJ r-. ~ G v;: ~ H ,y , 9 * W ~ ~N . ~~„; ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ y b +N . TTtEE NO: ' - ~- EI; ~" ~ ~ ~, . ' ' a~ -Q. ~ v c ~ d cd c O . © , 0 ~ G . TR h[A1b1E , .E~ ,: w ~, w:va~ : -~ F" ,e, -~' cn.. ~ O :~ .. :.:.,..en ~ . ~ ~ .. ~. ''5.~ ,~ ~ Coast Live Oak 17 (Quercus agrifolia) 38 60 50 25% 0% Poor Low ~ Comments: Tree is nearly dead and presents a hazard due to its imminent failure. Coast Live Oak 1R (Quercus agrifolia) 29 40 35 25% 50% Poor Low - 2 Comments: Significant decline. If kept, dead top should be removed. Valley Oak 19 (Quercus lobata) 21 23 35 50% 0% Poor i nw x _ Comments: Has a severely decayed trunk, and its failure is imminent - a hazard. Coast Live Oak 20 Quercus agrifolia) 19 30 40 75% 50% Fair High - 3 Comments: Coast Live Oak 21 (Quercus agrifolia) 20 35 35 75% 50% Fair High - 3 Comments: Lower limb has a cavity. Asymmetrical canopy. Valley Oak 22 (Quercus lobata 23.5 50 35 25% 50% Poor Moderate - 1 Comments: Appears viable, though its canopy has significant dieback. Coast Live Oak 23 (Quercus agrifolia) 30 45 40 50% 0% Poor Low - 3 Comments: Severe decay column along lower, eastern trunk. A hazard tree. Valley Oak 29 (Quercus lobata) 24 60 80 25% 50% Poor Moderate - 3 Comments: Large cavity along leader overhanging road. Has significant dieback. Should be pruned significantly to im rove safe _ Valley Oak 25 (Quercus lobata) 38 65 70 75% 50% Fair High - 1 Comments: -__. _. ._ Coast Live Oak 26 (Quercus agrifolia) 48 40 45 75% 25% Fair Moderate - 2 Comments: Has sustained large limb failure in past. There appears to he substantial decay at the top of the canopy. Blue Elderberry 27 (Sambucus caerulea) 15 25 25 25% 25% Poor Low X - Comments; Canopy is declining. One of two leaders have significant decay. Site: Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart. Prepared by: David L. gabby 2 of 8 June 9, 2008 TREE IN1/ENT®Rl( TABLE f - : ~ ~' i.. .. :.. .~- ~, _~ ~ y ~~ :ter( ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ v ~ 3 ` ~ ^~ bA . O O \ r , bA \ ,~ ; p :';0.'"i ~ ~+ t'.' -bA.~ ` ~ Q P. ~-1;_ II '~l ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ti ro y; ~ : n7 c ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°} a1 ,ro, P~ U 'c~ o :~ °.o ~ ~ ,~ b ~ .[. ~ tic ~ TREB ~ `~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ , ~, ; ' ~ ~ ; a`6i o ~ ~ o - N °:r ~ -" ~ °A o, N a~i o,. a ~~: ro ; o , .o , -;110 ; , TREE 1~I~1ME, . E~ . w :: G., ~~ wen ; . :. ~ ; O.. Coast Live Oak 28 (Quercus agrifolia) 13, 12, 6 20 25 100% 50% Good High X - Comments: Three trunks originate at or near stump. Relocation does not appear feasible. 29 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 10.5 25 15 100% 50% Good High X - Comments: A few feet from tree #28. Relocation does not appear feasible. 72 California Black ~1Valnut (Juglans hindsii) 13, 12, 11, 8.5, 8 30 50 75% 50% Fair Moderate - 1 X Comments: All trunks originate at about two feet high. 73 Coast Live Oak uercus a ri olia) 14 35 30 75% 50% Fair High - 1 X Comments: 75 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 18.5 35 35 100% 50% Good High - 1 Comments: 76 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 18 30 25 100% 75% Good High X - Comments: 77 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 13.5 30 25 25% 75% Poor Moderate X - Comments: Significant decline, 78 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 15 35 30 100% 75% Good High X - Comments: Coast Live Oak 79 (Quercus agrifolia) 14, 14, 8.5 30 35 75% 50% Fair High X - Comments: _-. Coast Live Oak 80 (Quercus agrifolia) 14, 11 30 25 75% 50% Fair High X - Comments: Coast Live Oak 8t (Quercus agrifolia) 8.5 25 15 100% 50% Good High X - Comments: Site: Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart. Prepared by: David L. Babby 3 of 8 June 9, 2008 ~~~ i~~~•r®~~r ~~~~ o ' u1. ~ vi ~ ' ~ ? . '~ ~i ~ ~ ~ 8 i~.~ O '.~- -_ ~ctl N > }.. dJ ~~ p 4.~ ~ N '. ~ d ~-' a ~, "fI~ i' , II ,. C ~ a~~j b ~ ~ 3 - a~i' ~i ~ r; C m ~ ~ ~'.. ~' 4ti ~ ti c~ ~: o ~ o ~ ,b ~~ w,, ,.TREE ~: ..t `. 8 ~' ' o ~ ~ c ~ ~ o ~. ~ ~~,, ~ ,~ ,~ .c+n :~ °~ a . S: `. .,r:a:. a,::.. l:oast L1ve Uak $2 (Quercus agrifolia) 8, 6 20 25 75% 25% Fair Low X Comments: Poor structure. Coast Live Oak 83 (Quercus a rifolia) 14, 8.5 25 25 100% 25% Fair High X _ Comments: Coast Live Oak 84 (Quercus agrifolia) 15, 5.5 15 30 100% 50% Good High X _ Comments: Willow 85 (Salix sp ,) 14 30 20 100% 25% .Fair Low X _ Comments: Willow ~ 86 (Salix sp.) 14 35 25 100% 25% Fair Low X Comments: Holly Leaf Cherry 87 (Prunus ilicifolia) 12, 5, 5 30 30 100% 75% Good High - 3 Comments: Coast Live Oak 88 (Quercus agrifolia) 34 35 45 100% 75% Good High _ 4 Comments: Coast Live Oak 89 (Quercus agrifolia) 17 30 40 100% 50% Good High - 4 Comments: Coast Live Oak 9@ (Quercus agrifolia) 25 40 45 75% 100% Good High _ 2 Comments: Valley Oak 91 (Quercus lobata } 50 55 60 75% 50% Fair High _ 1 Comments: Coast Live Oak 92 (Quercus agrifolia) 17 25 40 100% 50% Good High - 3 Comments: i Site: Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gafos Comm. Develop. Depart. Prepared by: David L. Babby 4 of 8 June 9, 2008 TREE IN\/ENT®RY Te~BLE ` o y : , b ~ ..o o... ~. ~ . b ti ~ o ao ~ U ~~ ~, o a' A; o ~, c ~ a i TREE 'K c ~ y ~ c o o.. ~. o ~ ~n ~ a; ,~ li; ~ ,p., ,.;NO.:, : TREE~Lr'~ML ._ 'H. w .. ::..w. Fn ~ ~.: .. rn ^° •O :., ..m ~: cG r.~` .~..~ .. a,~.::; 101 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 15 20 25 75% 75% Good Hi h - 4 Comments: Covered in ivy. 102 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 13 30 25 50% 75% Fair High - 3 Comments: Sparse canopy. 103 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 4 10 20 100% 75% Good High - 5 Comments: Small tree. 111 Blue Elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) 4 15 15 75% 50% Fair Moderate - 5 Comments: 112. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 11 20 15 75% 50% Fair Moderate - 2 Comments: Main trunk divides into three leaders at about two feet high. 113 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 11.5 20 15 100% 75% Goad High X - Comments: Possibly relocate. 111 Coast Live Oak (Quercus a rifolia 12.5 20 20 100% 75% Good High X - Comments: Possibly relocate. 115 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 19 30 35 100% 75% Good High X - Comments: I (Q Valley Oak ) I - I - I ° I ° I I I I - I I 116 uercus lobata 10.5, 5 0 /° 0 /o Dead Low X Comments: Valley Oak 117 (Quercus lobata) 14.5 20 20 100% 25% Fair Low X - Comments:Two leaders originate at three feet high and have a crack between them. Not suitable for relocation. Valley Oak I I I I ° ( o I I g I - I 118 (Quercus lobata) 5.5, 5.5 20 20 100 /0 50 /o Good Hi h X Comments: Suitable for relocation. Site: Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart. Prepared by: David L. Babby 5 of 8 June 9, 2008 . TREE INVENTORY T~:~LE .. _ .... .. <.. ; ~ o ` v ; ~ o !, r ~ II ' i;' i~ ~ e m ~ -~ ° s ~: ~ ~ i NN V! ~ r(d J ~ ` ~ "r~i ~ ~ ~' F~-~ tO rJ' 'vl ~ ~ F II ~ ~ ~ ~: `v ~}~a~ ~ q~q~ 1 ~p ~ fl ~ 'cr ~ ' TREE ` G ~ ~ ~ ~ • \ ~ ~f ~~ ~ ~ ®{ ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ', ::•`~REE NAME .. : - ~ , ~ ~ s . , ~ o : ° c ~ ~ eo ' ~ o ~ , I ~ o ':. ., , . ~,. 119 Coast Live Oak ~ (Quercus agrifolia) 1 1, 9 30 25 100% 50% Good Moderate 7 Comments: Two trunks originate at grade. Suitable for relocation. Next to tree #120. 120 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 5, 3 30 15 100% 25% Fair Moderate - 2 Comments: Next to tree #119. 121 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 5.5, 5.5 20 20 100% 75% Good High X . - Comments: 122 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia) 7.5, 7 15 20 100% 25% Fair Low X - Comments: Two trunks originate at grade and form a weak attachment. 123 Coast Live-Oak (Quercus a rifolia) 10, 5, 4, 3, 2 25 25 100% 25% Fair Low X - Comments: Trunks are stump sprouts and weakly attached. 124 Blue Elderberry (Sambucuscaerulea) 11.5 20 20 100% 25% Fair Low - 1 Comments: Has a weak structure. 125 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 8, 5 20 20 100% 50% Good Moderate X - Comments: Asymmetrical canopy. Not suitable for relocation. 126 Blue Elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) 12 20 15 75% 25% Fair Low - 5 Comments: Next to tree #92. 12`9 Willow (Salix sp.) 6, 4 20 20 75% 25% Fair Low X - Comments: 128 Coast Live Oak ( uerctts agrifolia) 6 20 10 100% 50% Good High X - Comments: 129 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 7 20 20 100% 50% Good High X - Comments: Site: Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Deparf. Prepared by: David L. gabby 6 of 8 June 9, 2008 TREE IN1/ENT®RY TJ~~LE v. "O :.. ~. ° ~~: Q~ ~ ' N ~ .~O vi ~~N ~. ~ ` ~ bU a ~ ~b O ~ ~~ ~~ C c ~ ,~ ,~ ~}~r ~ Py M? ~ ~~ ~D ~ o p,a ~ ~ ~ N ° ~ rn F i ~ TREE ~ E ~ ~ ~, o o ~..:o ro ~,, ~ °~'~. .NO . , T1tE1;~I~M1~ °. `r w... ~; w va. ,~ ,: ~ 'x ~ ~ ~.. O:.y .. ,.:~,. ~. .~ a, . ,_.,. ", ca..C, ~. Coast Live Oak 130 (Quercus agrifolia) 4 20 TO 100% 25% Fair Moderate X - Comments: 131 Coast Live Oak (Querczes agrifolia) 11,5 15 20 1-00% 75% Good High X - Comments: 132 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) S.S, 5.5 10 10 7S% 0% Poor Low X - Comrnents: Comprised of three trunks, two of which have failed. The tree should be removed. 133 Cypress (Cupressus s .) 5.5 20 1S 7S% 75% Good High X - Comments: 134 Coast Live Oak (Qztercus agrifolia) 10.5 20 25 100% 75% Good High X - Comments: 135 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 8.5 15 20 100% SO% Good High X - Comments: Immediately northeast of tree #84. 136 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 8 20 15 100% 75% Good High X - Comments: Immediately southeast of tree #84. 137 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 5.5 20 10 100% 75% Good High X - Comments; 138 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 5 15 15 100% 75% Good Hi h X - Comments: Coast Live Oak 139 (Quercus a rifolia) 10 15 1-00 100% 25% Fair Moderate X - Comments: Coast Live Oak 140 (Quercus a rifolia) 7 15 15 100% 25% Fair Moderate X - Comments: Site: Placer Oaks Road, Los Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart. Prepared by: David L. Babby 7 of 8 June 9, 2008 TREE ItVVENI°®Rl( TABLE ~` ~ n; " ~ a _ ~ ~ ~ b~ ~ +" C: dl~ tie N ~' O U ~ H. v ~`~ C,~~ ~~ ~'w ~ o ~ ~ ~.,~ c ~ ~' ~ ~ a -o ' !TREE ~ ~" ~ ro " ~ tl ~ ~ ~ .~ C ® : ~ NO; TL~BL`iAIYtE ~ t., ~ ~ n, o ~ ,.-~ p ~ u ®c7 ~ ~ :° «; l; ' `~ o . , :.. . 141 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 4.5, 2.5 15 10 100% 75% Good Hivh ~ _ Comments: Immediately next to (northeast ofj tree #83. 142 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 12 25 35 100% 50% Good High. X - Comments: 143 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 5 20 25 100% 50% Good High X - Comments: 144 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 7.5, 5.5 20 20 100% 50% Good High X - Comments: Suitable for relocation. 145 Coast Live Oak (Quercus a rifolia) 12 25 20 75% 75% Good High - 1 X Comments: Overhangs site from neighboring property. 146 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 3.5 15 15 100% 75% Good High - 1 Comments: Suitable for relocation. Hasa 4" trunk diameter at 3' high. 147 Cluster of 6 Coast Live Oaks & 1 Holly Leaf Cherry 4.5-9 25 25 100% 75% Good High X - Comments: Oaks appear suitable for relocation. 14~ Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 14 10 10 50% 25% Poor Low - 2 Comments: The tree's top either broke or was removed from the tree sometime ago. Has a poor structure. 149 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 45 70 70 75% 75% Gaod High - 1 Comments: 150 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 19 40 35 75% 75% Good High - 1 _ __.._ Comments: _ _ 151 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 23 55 45 50% 75% Fair High - 1 Comments: Sparse canopy, 152 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) l6 25 30 75% 50% Fair High - 3 Comments; Slte: Placer ®aks Road, Los Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart. Prepared by: David L. Ba6by 8 of 8 June 9, 2008 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist June 9, 2008 E~IBIT B: SITE 1VIAP Placer Oafs Road, Los Gatos Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 1 ~ li ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~}it ~ t W- ~~ ~! b . b a ~. ~~~_# ~ ~ s-~ lY O ~ z~ "~ a ~ a w d • ~4\. 1 S t r ~~ ,, ~ ,~~ , 0 ,; ~.. ~ ~ ,~. 4V ~\c ~ ' . t '..1 ~ L ' - Y ~ ... ~ 't. ~''~. FI•h~~ tr ~. 1~.1; ' J'~ I,~ 4i\, ~. l.~t.. ~, _ '~:~i~ . ~~i'~ 4.... ~ ~ --..l ~ \ {11t ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 s ~ ~+ Q , •• Q F ~; Q J ;~ _ ~~. 1 ITEM 2: 615 Blossom Hill Road (Placer Oaks Drive, Conceptual Development Application CD-07-O1 Preliminary review of plans to amend a Planned Development for a nine lot subdivision to construct nine single family residences on three acres as opposed to 49 apartment units on. eight acres of property zoned RM:5-12:PD. APN 529-14- 012. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Cupertino Development Corporation Comments: __ . 1. The flag lot does not work. 2. Freeway noise is a concern. Houses need to be kept away from freeway. 3. Eliminate the BIYIP unit and pay in-lieu fee. Lot 3 is too close to Hwy 17. 4. The sound wall is a visual concern along Hwy 17. Concerns were expressed about the below grade lots and air pollution. 5. Houses should be designed with large interior courtyards to provide quiet open space. 6. Impact to Placer Oaks neighborhood is a concern. 7. Address any impacts for school children at the intersection of Roberts and Blossom HiII Rd. ~, Revise the layout of the lots. 9. Improvements prop®sed for the road may impact the trees. 10. Lots 3 and 9 could be used for parking and fire truck turnaround. 11. Provide greater landscaping between the freeway and the houses. 12. Revise the noise study. Provide a diagram of the noise contours at ground and second story Ievel. 13. It will be a challenge in providing family housing so close to the freeway. 14. There is a benefit in reducing the nuynber of units which in turn reduces the traffic impacts. However, there is a concern about losing rental housing. Questionable what is the better alternative. 15. There will be neighborhood concerns with access off of Placer Oaks Drive. Provide the least amount of impact to the neighborhood. 16. People have a right to choose where they want to live. Some people are willing to live next to a freeway. Town's responsibility is to make it user friendly. 17. Houses are too large for lot. 1~. Design the units so that they are more entry level housing in terms of affordability. 19. Provide more guest parking. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:25 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee is Wednesday, October 11, 2006. cc: Planning Commission Chair N:\DEV\CDAC\MINi1TES\2006\9-13 -06cdac.min.wpd ffiTBIT 1® . ,. _ O OS--G~TbS~ ..... ----- -_. __ . _- 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872 SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS JUNE 13, 2007 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm by Acting Chair, John Bou~^geois. ~1TTENI3ANCE Members present: Joe Pig^zynski, Bay^b r^a Spector^, John Bourgeois, Tom O=Donnell, Mai^cia Jensen, Joanne Talesfore and Buy^ba Cardillo. Members absent: Jane Ogle an~Margaret Smith Staff present: Bud Lortz, Community Development Director; Randy Tsuda, Assistant Community Developme t Director; and Sandy Baily, Associate Planner. VERBAL C®li~IlVI,~NICATI®NS: Ray Davis coented that the General Plan does not address the need for recreation. for the youth. Stat that the General Plan Committee needs to move toward creating a recreational element ofie General Plan. ITEM 1 PLACER ®t~KS I20AI) Baily summarized the background of the project and the current proposal. Lortz discussed State and ABAG housing unit requirements and that the loss of these units must be allocated elsewhere. These requirements will be discussed at a future meeting. The following comments were raised by the Committee: ® If access is from Placer Oaks Road, higher density would not be good for the Placer Oalcs neighborhood. ® To what extent -should. the Town encourage or force the three property owners to work together? ® Project has been in the works since 1999 and the odds are that it will remain vacant for a period of time if down zoning is not permitted. ® As a compromise, consider a medium density development with access to Placer Oaks Road with a stub towards Blossom Hill Road in the event there is a possibility in the future to connect. E~HIBTT 11 --~,y-- ~_--- -------- -- - - - - -- -- - ------- - ---- -- - - - -- -- - - -- -- - --= -,_ b~ . ~- ~- - - --- -_ _ -- --_- _~ ~~ -._----~-ss - -- - - _~ - ~ Gerieral PTari Committee Minutes ~ -~ ---- ~ _- - June 13, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Jensen moved to not recommend a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to encourage the original plan and to encourage the property owners to work together. Does not believe it is in the best interest of the Town to separate the parcels and it is not fair to impact the Placer Oalcs neighborhood. The Town needs to be proactive to get the type of development the Town wants. Spector seconded, and the following discussion ensued: • Concerns were expressed that the applicant does not have enough leverage to work something out with the other property owners. • Doubtful this motion will get the action the Committee is hoping for. • Is the Town giving up too soon or is the Town punishing the applicant? • The motion is a creative alternative to have property owners and neighbors talk and to keep the doors open for the approved Planned Development. • Access to the site is the lcey concern. This motion is not intended to send a message that access to the site for a higher density development should be from Placer Oalcs Road. • The density was a major issue at the time of approval. It is possible that the approved Planned Development is not the best density. Jensen moved to modify her motion to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The basis for the modified motion is that the subject parcel is unique by itself. Although the Committee is concerned with the loss of housing, the Committee is equally concerned about not impacting the existing Placer Oaks neighborhood. The Town has a responsibility to consider the neighborhood. Spector accepted the modified motion. Motion passes 6 to 1 (Bou~°geois opposed). ITEM 2 Al~PI2®VAL OF MIIVIJTES O'Donnell move to approve the minutes of May 23, 2007. Jensen seconded, motion passed unanimously. ITEM 3 AI)J The meeting was adjourned~t 6:45 p.m. by Bourgeois to the next regularly scheduled meeting of June 27, 2007. Prepared by: '' ~ ,~ .Sandy L. Ba'ly, Associat ann N:\DE V \GPC\2007 m mutes\GPC-6- 13.07. doc ® . ® ~~ ® ~, August 21, 2009 Revised Sept. 1, 2009 `~ URBAN Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission DESIGN & Town of Los Gatos PANNING 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 _. ~.. `.. , ..._ .gip, Subject: PD 12czoning ~ General Plan Change SEP ~ Z009 Placer Oal~ road (APl~i9 529®16®73) Project Description and Community Benefits , ~ ' r'r +-~' ~.,,. TO: Chair O'Donnell ~ Town Planning Commissioners: REZONING NECESSARY The original concept of the existing approved PD involved the cooperation of three individual properties, with separate owners of each of the properties. The joint development required the cooperation of all owners. Nearly 10 years have passed since this site was approved for 39 apartments. This property was teamed up with two adjacent parcels. The adjacent parcel was approved for 10 apartments and one contained 48 existing apartments. Total size of the approved PD was 97 apartments all accessing Blossom Hill near the existing Roberts Rd. light. The key to having these 97 apartments accessing Blossom Hill Rd. was the cooperation of William Errico, then the managing owner of the 48 existing apartments and the property with existing an access road up the hillside to Blossom Hill. During the intervening years Mr. Errico's health issues caused him to reevaluate the direction of .his .properties in Town.. He has subsequently relocated and sold his properties. With the sale of his 48 unit apartments, we lost the access to Blossom Hill. ~~~®~ DESIGN GROUP, INC, 405 Alberto Way service by Design 2545-'09.09.01-CBrev-Itr page 1 of 7 Suite C Los Gatos, CA 95032 408,358.3707 fax: 356,1964 paragondg@megapathdsl.net MEMBER A.I.B.O. MEMBER B.I.A. The 39 approved apartments on this 3-acre site have an approved emergency access road- to Placer Oaks at the top of the hillside. We considered the option of maintaining the 39 apartments, but instead we have determined that it is not in the best interests of our neighbors on Placer Oaks or the Town to have 300+ cars from 39 apartments traveling on Placer Oaks to Las Gatos Blvd or Blossom Hill Rd. The existing RIVI 5-12 Zoning requires a minimum of 15 homes on this 3- acre site. Again, we do not believe it is appropriate or in the best interest of our neighbors to put X150 cars from 15 homes on Placer Oaks. We believe that the proposed 9 homes is a reasonable request and. that the 90 trips over a 24 hour period is a workable traffic absorption on Placer Oaks. All of this has led us to the requested re-zoning, as it would clearly be imprudent to propose 15 homes all accessing Placer Oaks. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construct nine new single-family residences on the lower section of the 3- acre parcel. Access is via Placer Oaks Road, utilizing the existing roadbed down hillside. No construction of new homes is to be located on the tree studded hillside. Existing roadbed is to be widened to 22 feet as per Town access requirements. A pedestrian walkway is separated from vehicular traffic. Walkway is to be constructed as if floating above the hillside with minimum intrusion on vegetation and no trees removed to accommodate its construction. Grading and alterations of existing roadbed is to be limited to the 22-foot roadbed by utilizing retaining walls at edge of paving. There will be no slope banks extending beyond the roadway, this will minimize the effect on existing hillside trees.. Homes are to be two story, 3000-3200 SF of living area. Horne plan layouts are oriented around an exterior courtyard that minimizes the existing freeway generated noise. Building mass is utilized to shield noise where possible. Service by Design 2545-'09.09.01-CBrev-Itr page 2 of 7 Each home has atwo-car garage and a .minimum 2-car driveway for accommodating personal guests. General and overflow guest parking for 10 cars is provided on the street. A minimum of 46 spaces (5+ spaces per residence) provided on site. The soundwall along freeway frontage is to be setback from the property line to allow for a landscape berm with soundwall set at top of berm. The existing trees between the wall and freeway are to remain and new trees added to the mix and to fill the existing voids. RE: CDAC NITG OF 9.13.06 (CDAC Comments in black Comments: 1. The flag lot does not work. (Flag lot has been removed) 2. Freeway noise is a concern. Houses need to be kept away from freeway. (Revised circulation roadway adds distance between frwy and homes) 3. Eliminate the BMP unit and pay in-lieu fee. (In-lieu fee proposed, BIVIP units removed) 4. The sound wall is a visual concern along Hwy 17. Concerns were expressed about the below grade lots and air .pollution. (soundwall is set back from property line to allow an additional landscaping buffer from the frwy) 5. Houses should be designed with large interior courtyards to provide quiet open space. (Courtyard exterioi° yard areas are located on the sides of the homes away from the frwy) 6. Impact to Placer ®aks neighborhood is a concern. (Direct impact to Placer Oaks home across from the project entry to be mitigated with a physical/landscape structure obscuring headlight glare) ~. Address any impacts for school children at the intersection of Roberts and Blossom Hill Rd. (The project no longer utilizes access from Blossom Hill) ~. Revise the layout of the iota. {Site layout and roadway revised) 9. ImproveHnents proposed for the road may impact the trees. (Tree impact minimized by providing separate pedestrian access that removes no gees from the hillside) 10. Lots 3 and 9 could be used for parking and fire truck turnaround. (Full fire truck turn-a-round provided on reconfigured internal street) 11. Provide greater landscaping between the freeway and the houses.(Landscaping and distance has been. increased along frwy) 12. Revise the noise study. Provide a diagram of the noise contours at ground and second story level. (Noise study supplemented) Service by Design 2545-'09.09.01-CBrev-Itr page 3 of 7 13. It will be a challenge in providing family housing so close to the freeway (Exterior living with courtyards opposite frwy increases the sites livability) 14. There is a benefit in reducing the number of units which in turn reduces the traffic impacts. However, there is a concern about losing rental housing. Questionable what is the better alternative. (39 apartment units accessing Placer Oaks is at best improper) 15. There will be neighborhood concerns with access. off of Placer ®aks Drive. Provide the least amount of impact to the neighborhood. (9 homes significantly reduces the effects of traffic on Placer Oalcs) 16. People have a right to choose where they want to live. Some people are willing to live nest to a freeway.. Town's responsibility is to make it user friendly. (Exterior living with courtyards opposite frwy increases the sites livability) 17. Houses are too large for lot. (Homes decreased and lots increased in size) 1~. I-esign the units so that they are more entry level housing in terms of affordability. (Entry level. priced homes is financially infeasible when reducing land usage from 39 apartments to 9 single family residences) 19. Provide more guest parking. (More parking provided, 5+ spaces per home on site) Service by Design 2545-'09.09.01-CBrev-Itr page 4 of 7 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE _(GP verbiage in black 2.0 LAND USE L.P.1.5 Preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, and riparian and wildlife habitats, and promote tasteful, high quality, well designed, environmentally conscious and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments. -Hillside area and its existing vegetation is preserved, all proposed homes are located on the lower, .near level portion of the site L.P.1.8 fn-fill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding- structures, and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area. -This sites only access is via Placer Oaks/Frank Ave and as an in-fill development is of the size and character of the existing neighborhood. The prior approved apartment project had access via Blossom Hill Rd, those access agreements are no longer in effect ISSUE 2 L.G.2.1 To limit the intensity of new development to a level consistent with surrounding development and with the Town at large. , 2.2 To reduce the visual impact that new construction and/or remodeling has on our town and its neighborhoods. c4~ 2.3 To preserve the quality of the personal open space (yards) throughout the town. -This proposed single-family residential project meets all three goals ISSUE 4 L.P.4.1 Continue to encourage a variety of housing types and sizes that is balanced throughout the °fown and within neighborhoods and that is also compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood., 8~ 4.4 Avoid ®emolitions. If allowed, the replacement house should be similar in size and scale as the original and maintain the neighborhood character. -This proposed project meets all of these goals and in addition the land is vacant. There is no demolition of an existing residence ~c no trade-off for density, project is a net nine sngle®family homes 3.0 HOUSING, ISSUE 5 H.G.5.1 Provide adequate management and staffing of affordable housing funds and programs. - In-Lieu BMP fees from this project will aid in funding adequate staffing of affordable housing funds and programs ~et°vice by Design 2545-'09.09.01-CBrev-Itr page 5 of 7 4.0 TRANSPORTATION 4.3D- A collector street that serves abutting property in the hillside areas, carrying trafFic to arterial streets or other collectors. The cross-section of the hillside collector shall be dictated by grade and other topographical or botanical. considerations. In general, two lanes without parking,. with or without sidewalk along one side (depending on topographic considerations) shall be provided. c~L T.P.1.2 Vehicular and pedestrian safety should be an important factor in the design of roadways. -Hillside access road is proposed at 22' wide to minimize the grading and effect on adjoining vegetation. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is accomplished. via separate routes so as to keep the pedestrians safer and the to keep the roadway as narrow as possible. T.P.1.4 Adopt street standards that reflect the existing.. character of the neighborhood, while taking into account safety and maintenance considerations. -The roadway access for this proposed project is a part of an association and is to be privately maintained. No additional roadway surface is added to the town's maintenance program 10.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT C.D.P.1.1 Promote and protect the physical and other distinctive qualities of residential neighborhoods., 1.4 -Promote and protect uiewsheds., 1.5 -Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density., 1.10 - buildings, landscapes and hardscapes shall follow the natural contours of the property. & 1.13 -Encourage the under grounding of utilities on new construction and substantial remodels. - Proposed project preserves the hillside vegetation and the proposed single- family homes maintain the size and massing of the existing neighborhood. Service by Design 2545-'09.09.01-CBrev-Itr page 6 of 7 COMMUNITY BENEFITS In addition to providing needed close-in housing for the Town, our project will provide several other significant benefits to the community, some listed below; 1. ENERGY CONSERVATION -GREEN INITIATIVE: Proposed homes will exceed the T-24 minimums by at least 15% 2. TRAFFIC REDUCTION: Requested rezoning from existing Medium Density Residential (5-12 u/ac) to Low Density Residential (0-5 u/ac) will reduce traffic on Placer Oaks X200 trips per day over the approved apartments and X60 trips per day over the minimum 15 units allowed under 5-12 u/ac of existing zoning 3. HILLSIDE VEGETATION PRESERVED: Pedestrian access via a separate walkway that floats above grade removes no trees. Proposed access road is kept at minimum width by separating the pedestrian walkway, which in turn disturbs significantly less vegetation. 4. EXISTING AGING SEWER LINE: Replace and rebuild existing aging major flow sewer line across site In short, this proposed project can be a win-win for our neighbors, the Town aid our selves. We respectfully request your recommendation for approval of this proposed new community. ~IBD Cc/ K. Kolker service by .Design 2545-'09.09.01-CBrev-Itr page 7 of 7 Page 1 of 1 Sandy Baiiy o The Oaks Apartments/Placer Oaks Site "~~ From: <mortsher@aol.corn> To: <sbaily@losgatosca.gov> Date: 07/05/2007 11:17 AM Subject: The Oaks Apartments/Placer Oaks Site Sandy Baily: Re:The Oaks Apartments/Placer Oaks Site We are disappointed to learn of the recent proposal to rezone portions of the 4.9 acres and allow exclusive access to Placer Oaks road. Our home is located directly across the proposed access point and, therefore, would be impacted more than any other property owner in the neighborhood (traffic, headlights shinning into the house).. We oppose this zone change and support having access to the lands below from Blossom Hill road as it exists currently. Any increased traffic in the Frank Ave/Placer Oaks neighborhood is of major concern especially since there still remains approximately 1.4 acres to be developed between these proposed 9 houses and the existing apartment complex; and, in addition, the Swanson property is now underway. Mort and Alba Sherin 16996 Frank Ave Los Gatos, CA 95032 40~-356-i3S24 AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's fi~ee from AOL at AOL.cofln. ~zBaT i3 file://C:\Documents and Settings\sbaily.LOSGATOSCA\Local .Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise... 07/09/2007 RESOLUTI®1®I lid®. RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY AT PLACER OAKS .ROAD (APNS: 529-16-073, 529-14-012 AND 067) WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65353, the Town Council conducted a public hearing for consideration of .amendments to the General Plan on 2009. WHEREAS, during this hearing, the Town Council considered the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential for property at Placer Oaks Road (APNS: 529-16-073, 529-14-012 AND 067). RES®LVED, the Town Council finds that (a) the proposed General Plan amendment is internally consistent with the existing goals and policies of the General Plan and its corresponding elements and (b) that all proceedings have been conducted in compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65350 et seq. RES®LVED, the Town Council hereby changes the land use designation of the General Plan as shown on Exhibit A from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the day of 2009 by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS AYES: NAYES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT; ATTEST; CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\RESOS\placeroaks.doc SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA E%HIBIT 14 ®p~n Space ®eresity R iafen4i ~ ,~~~~~ _ ~ / ~~ ~1i~~ j(J~~ C~ra~~ ~rci~A~ I ~\A ~ A A P~abli~ \\~ /> `~\ f / e ®ensitl/ _ - ._ _. _ - Application No. GP-07-001 A.P.N. #529-16-073, 529-14-012, 067 " Change of the general plan map amending the Town General Plan From: Medium Density Residential To: Low Density Residential Forwarded by Planning Commission Date: Approved by Town Council Date: ®rd: Clerk Administrator Mayor OItDI1~A~1CE ORDI1~lA~1CE OF TI3E TOWIot OF LOS GATOS RESCINDIl®tG O1~DI1®1Al®ICES 2081 AI~1D 2122 Al®1D A~IEI~IDING THE ZOIVII~IG 012DI1~TA1~tCE EFFECTING ~1 ~01\1E CIIAIOTGE FI20~I I~M:S-12:PD TO IZ-1:8:PD r~T PLACER OAFS LOAD (APNS: 529-16-073, 529-14-012 ~1D 067) THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby .amended to change the zoning at Placer Oaks Road as shown on the map which is attached hereto marked Exhibit A and is part of this Ordinance from RM:S-12:PD (Medium Density Residential, 5-12 units per acre, Planned Development), to R-1:8:PD (Single Family Residential, 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Planned Development). SECTION II The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements: 1. Construction of nine single family residences; and 2. Landscaping, streets, parking, open space and other site improvements shown. and required on the Official Development Plan. E~i3IBIT 15 3. Uses permitted are those specified in the underlying R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone by Sections 29.40.385 (Permitted Uses) and 29.20.185 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, as those sections exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future, subject to any restrictions or other requirements specified elsewhere in this ordinance including, but not limited to, the Official Development Plan. However, no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed. unless specifically authorized by this Ordinance, or by Conditional Use Permit. SECTION III COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan specifically shows otherwise. SECTION IV Architecture and Site Approval is required before the construction work for the new dwelling units, whether or not a permit is required for the work and before any permit for construction is issued. Construction permits shall only be in a manner complying.. with Section 29.80.130 of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION V The attached Exhibit A (Map) and Exhibit B .(Development Plans), are part of the Official Development Plan. The following must be complied with before issuance of any grading or construction permits: 2 ~ T® THE SATISFACTI®N ®F THE DIRECT®It ®F COM1VIUl~IT~' DEVEL®PI~IENT: (Planning Division) 1. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. The Official Development Plans and this ordinance establish the allowed uses and intensity of development. The Official Development Plans are conceptual in nature such that minor deviations may be approved through the Architecture and Site approval process if necessary to achieve architectural excellence. The Development Review Committee shall be the deciding body of the Architecture and Site applications. 2. BMP. Prior to final occupancy of each unit, the applicant shall pay the Below Market Price (BMP) as established by Town Council Resolution. 3. HOUSE SIZES. No additional square footage shall be permitted for any of the units. 4. LANDSCAPE PLAN. A final landscape plan shall be submitted during the Architecture and Site approval process. 5. GARAGE WINDOW. The design of the garage window for Plan A~A shall be finalized during the Architecture and Site approval process pursuant to the direction of the Town's Consulting Architect's comments, dated May 29, 2008. 6. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a Building, Grading or Encroachment Permit. 3 7. TENTATIVE MAP. The Development Review Committee may be the deciding body of the tentative map. 8. GREEN BUILDING. The house shall be designed to achieve compliance with GreenPoint Rated Standards for green building certification. The GreenPoint checklist shall be completed by a Certified Green Building Professional. 9. WALKWAI'~: The applicant shall look at installing the walkway at grade during the Architecture and Site approval process. 10, SOUNDWALL. Final details of the soundwall shall be provided during the Architecture and Site approval process. Gate(s) shall be provided in the soundwall to access the landscape area adjacent to Highway 17 for maintenance purposes and. shall be constructed pursuant to the detailed noise study prepared by Edward. L. Paclc Associates (Pack), Inc, dated June 12, 2007. 11. FENCING. All proposed fencing for the development shall be reviewed during the Architecture and Site approval process. 12. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: If land clearing, grading, tree and brush removal, tree trimming or demolition activities are to occur during the nesting season (i.e., between February 1 and. August 15), apre-construction nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist. The biologist should survey the area immediately adjacent to the construction area for the presence of nests. This pre- construction survey shall. be conducted no more than one week prior to the planned grading activity. 4 • ~ a. If nesting birds with eggs or young are .observed during the pre- construction surveys, grading in the affected project area shall not commence until after the young have fledged. b. If no nesting birds are observed, no further action is required, and grading and construction may proceed, provided it commences within one week of the survey to prevent "take" of individual birds that may have begun nesting after the survey. 13. *TREES: Recommendations made by Arbor Resources (June 9, 2008) shall be implemented. to eliminate or minimize the construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendations are listed under .Section 5.0 of the arborist's report but .Section 4.0 also includes additional design recommendations. These include design guidelines section addressing tree location mapping, utility i locations, drainage facilities, and landscape design. The report also provides protection measures before and during construction, addressing fencing, work within tree canopies, etc. 14. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS. The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by the Town's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's reports, dated June 9, 2008, on file in the Community Development Department. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. The applicant shall prepare and submit a memorandum with the building permit, detailing how each of these recommendations have or will be addressed. 5 15. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Town's Consulting Arborist shall review the building permit plans, at the developer's cost, to ensure all of the required tree protection measures have been implemented in the construction plans. 16. *ARCHAEOLOGICAL: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community Development Director will. be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. 17. *NATIVE AMERICAN REMAINS: If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans.. 18. *FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT: A final report shall be prepared at the applicant's cost when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site and/or when Native American remains are found on the site.. The final report shall include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. 19. *ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND: If the. Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for 6 reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. 20. WATER EFFICIENCY. This project is subject to the Town's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 26, Article IV of the Town Code. A fee as established by Town Council resolution shall be paid when the landscape, irrigation plans and water calculations are submitted for review prior to the issuance of building permit. (Building Division) 21. *NOISE: The project shall be required to include a noise wall. along the project boundary that is contiguous to the Highway 17 freeway with the height specifications as recommended in the detailed noise study prepared by Pack. To control flanking noise, the barrier shall continue along the southern property boundary as specified in the detailed noise study. In addition, recommended noise control measures (e.g., closed windows where there is a direct line-of sight, windows meeting specified Sound Transmission Class ratings, and rneehanical ventilation) shall be incorporated into project homes to achieve acceptable interior noise levels. 7 22. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the construction of the new single family residences and the sound wall. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary. 23. CODES: Projects will be required. to conform to the 2007 CaliFornia Building, Fire, Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes. The CC's are based on model codes; 2006 International Building Code and Fire Code and 2006 Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and the 2005 National Electrical Code. 24. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions ofApproval must be blue-lined in fiill on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions ofApproval will be addressed. 25. SIZE OF PLANS: For sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36." 26. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. California Building Chapter 18. 27. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed four (4) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property or the public right-of--way. Shoring plans and. calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall conform to Cal/OSHA regulations. s '28. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report; and, the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items.: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining Walls 29. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wooded backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs located 34-inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor. c. Primary entrance shall a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no more than 1-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 9 30. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-1R, MF-1R, and WS-SR must be blue-lined on the plans. 31. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Tovtm of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 32. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10-feet of chimneys. 33. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION,. provide a letter from a California registered architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 34. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1701, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted. to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out, signed by all requested parties, and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.los 7atg_osca. Gov/building 10 ` 35. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (or Clean Bay Sheet 24x36) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee. 36. PLANS: The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or engineer. (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538) 37. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: e. Community Development -Planning Division: Sandy Bally at 354-6873 £ Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: John Gaylord at 395- 3460 g. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 h. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 i. Local School District: 'The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. Tf~ THE SATISFACTI®10i ®F THE DIRECT®R ®F PARKS ANI) PUBLIC W®RKS: (Engineering Division) 38. GRADING PERMIT, A grading permit is required for site grading and drainage. The grading permit application (with .grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parlcs & Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining 11 wall. location, driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parlcs and Public Worlcs, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. 39. SOILS INVESTIGATIONS AND REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS. All requirements and recommendations. as outlined in the Geo Forensics, Inc - Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed New 9-Unit Subdivision dated July 2, 2007 and the AMEC -Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review dated July 7, 2008 and all referenced documents therein shall be incorporated into final designs. This condition shall include the requirement for a stability analysis to be completed per the July 7, 2008 AMEC Review. This analysis shall be completed and' provided to the Town Engineering Department prior to any permits. 40. PAD CERTIFICATION. A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the structure. The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation placement. 41. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work,. the general contractor shall:. 12 ` a. Along with the project applicant, attend apre-construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters; b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval, and will make certain that all project sub- contractors have read and understand them prior to commencing work. and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction. 42. RETAINING WALLS. A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E..Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls aie not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process. '~ 43. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the grading permit and public improvement application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 44. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage -plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. The applicant's soils 13 engineer's approval shall i:hen be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 45, SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. During construction, all excavations and. grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or baclcfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing should be documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the applicants' soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 46. UTILITY- COMPANY REVIEW. Letters from the electric, telephone, cable, and trash companies indicating that the. proposed improvements and easerrients are acceptable shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. 47. DEDICATIONS, The following shall be dedicated on the final track map by separate instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued. a. Public Service Easement (PSE), Ten (10) feet wide, next to the Placer Oalcs Road right-of way and five (5) feet wide, private road along lot frontages. b. Ingress-egress, storm drainage and sanitary sewer easements, as required. c. Emergency Access Easement. Twenty (20) feet wide, from the end of the private road to Placer Oalcs Road. 14 48. JOINT TRENCH PLANS. Joint trench plans .shall be reviewed and approved. by the Town prior to recordation of a map. The joint trench plans shall include street: and/or site lighting aild associated photometrics. A .letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that public street light billing will by Rule LS2A, and that private lights shall be metered with billing to the homeowners association. Pole numbers, assigned by PG&E, shall be clearly delineated on the plans. 49. WATER DESIGN. Water plans prepared by SJWC must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any permit. 50. ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES. The applicant shall submit a 75-percent progress printing to the Town for review of above ground utilities including backflow prevention devices, fire department connections, gas and water meters, off-.street valve boxes, hydrants, site lighting, electrical/communication/cable boxes, transformers, and mail boxes. Above .ground utilities shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to issuance of any permit. 51. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The following improvements shall be installed by the developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. a. Placer Oalcs Road. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, tie-in paving, signing, striping, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, as required. 15 a ' 52. DESIGN CHANGES. The Applicant's registered Engineer shall notify the Town Engineer, in writing, at least 72 hours in advance of all differences between the proposed work and the design indicated on the plans. Any proposed changes shall be subject to the approval of the Town before altered work is started. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final "as-built" drawings. 53. INSURANCE. One million dollars ($1,000,000) of liability insurance holding the Town harmless shall be provided in a format acceptable to the Town Attorney before recordation of the map issuance of the building permit. 54. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE (RESIDENTIAL). The developer shall pay a. proportional the project's share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project using the current fee schedule is $.5,742 per unit. The final fee shall be calculated. form the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. 55. COMMUNITY BENEFIT. Community benefit is required to mitigate traffic impact. 56. SIGNAL UPGRADE. The developer shall upgrade the existing traffic signal equipment at Los Gatos Boulevard/Chirco Drive by 1) Installing pedestrian: countdown signal heads and ADA-compliant pedestrian push buttons; 2) Replacing 8" signal heads with 12" signal heads; and 3) Replacing non-LED signal indication with LED's. 16 57. TRAFFIC CALMING. The developer shall re-stripe and re-sign the existing traffic calming devices in the Chirco/Placer Oaks neighborhood as directed by the Town Engineer. 58. TREE REMOVAL. Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to issuance of a grading permit. 59. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest 60. adopted Town Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right- of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued, The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of--way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. 61. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of--way. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection. 17 62. SURVEYING CONTROLS. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set aild certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes 63. EROSION CONTROL. Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parlcs 8z Public Worlcs Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm. Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more than one acre. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and deta.ils), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and S WPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of Order No. R2-2005-0035 of the amended Santa Clara County NPIDES Permit. 64. DUST CONTROL. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after 18 completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction .activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 65. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, construction trailer, and proposed outhouse locations. 66. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be 19 allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§ 15.40.070). 67. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be piped through curb drains. 68. NPDES. On-site drainage systems shall include a filtration device such as a bio- swale or permeable pavement. 69. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the responsibility of contractor and home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right- of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's storm drains. 70. UTILITIES. The developer shall. install all utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b). Flex connection may be required at all connections to structures and over grouted materials. All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground. conduit shall be provided for cable television service. 71. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-tht•ough with the Engineering 20 Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 72. SIDEWALK REPAIR. The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. Sidewalk repair shall match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. 73. CURB AND GUTTER. The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. New curb and gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. 74. DRIVEWAY APPROACH. The developer shall install 22 foot Town standard residential driveway approaches. The new driveway approaches shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. 75. FENCING. Any fencing proposed within 200-feet of an intersection shall .comply with Town Code Section §23.10..080. 76. AS-BUILT PLANS. An AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built" plans shall be provided to the Town prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The AutoCAD file shall include only the following information and shall conform to the layer naming convention: a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-OUTLINE; b) Driveway, Layer: DRIVEWAY; c) Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING WALL; 21 ~ ~+ i d) Swinnning Pool, Layer: SWIMMING-POOL; e) Temiis Court, Layer: TENNIS-COURT; f) Property Line, Layer: PROPERTY-LINE; g) Contours, Layer: NEWCONTOUR. All as-built digital files. must be on the same coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher. 77. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved. by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line. 78. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE. Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 inm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec. 6.50.025). The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting. from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve, as defined section 103(e) of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section 6.50.010 of the Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition. Evidence of West Valley Sanitation District's decision- on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 79. CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 8:00 a.rn. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and 1lolidays, construction, 22 alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five {25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 80. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division. 81. SITE SUPERVISION. The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 82. HAULING OF SOIL. Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peals periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m, and 6:00 p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the Town Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, 23 or providing additional traffic control. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 83. CC&R's. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney, Community Development Department, and Parlcs and Public Worlcs Department prior to recordation of the final map. The CC&R's shall include the maintenance of the soundwall and landscaping of the soundwall. 84. *GEOLOGY AND SOIL: The recommendations of the geotechnical report by GeoForensics Inc. (dated May 5, 2008) shall be implemented. These recommendations address site preparation, grading, ground improvements, foundations, retaining walls, drainage, and pavement. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CI,ARA COIJNTI' FIRE DEPARTMENT: 85. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. Required fire flow for this project is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. 86. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW OPTION. The developer shall provide the required fire flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500 feet or provide an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail & Specification W-1/SP-6. 87. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S). The developer shall provide one public fire hydrant at a location to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and the San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500. feet, with a 24 minimum single hydrant flow of 1,500 GPM at 20 psi residual. To prevent building permit delays, the developer shall pay all required fees to the water company ASAP. 88. TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY HYDRANTS. Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested and accepted. 89. LOCATION IDENTIFIER. Prior to project final inspection, the general contractor shall ensure that an approved ("Blue Dot") fire hydrant location identifier has been placed in the roadway, as directed by the Fire Department. 90. FIRE ACCESS ROADS. The developer shall provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. 91. ROADWAY TURNAROUND. The developer shall provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications. sheet A-1. Cul~de-sac diameters shall-be no less than 72 feet. 92. TIMING OF ROADWAY INSTALLATIONS. Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department 25 h ~ . ., t prior to the start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until installation is complete. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and Ltnimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads may be approved on a case by case basis. 93. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property.. Numbers shall contrast with their background. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY 94. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its. officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval. 95. GRAFFITTI REMOVAL. The developer shall post a letter of credit or cash in the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) which shall be maintained for a period of fifteen (15) years for the removal of graffiti on the sound wall once construction has been completed. *Required as Mitigation Measures 26 r 1. ~' SECTION VI This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , 2009, and adopted. by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEVIORDS\placeroaks.doc 27 ®pen Space ®ensity A~'ired P~edlic \\~ /~'`~\ / l e ~~ Density TOWN OF LOS GATOS Application No. PD-07-142 A.P.N. # 529-16-073, 529-14-012, 067 " Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning ®rdinance ® Zone Change From: RM :5-12:PD To: R-1:8:PD Prezoning Forwarded by Planning Commission Date: Approved by Town Couneil Date: ®rd: Clerk Administrator Mayor ffiIBIT A