Loading...
11 Staff Report - 10 Monroe CourtDATE: MEETING DATE:01/05/04 ITEM NO.II COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT December 17,2003 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL DEBRA J.FIGONE,TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT:CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM RM:12-20 TO RM:12- 20:PD TO CONSTRUCT THREE DWELLING UNITS.NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED.PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-01-2 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-01-14 PROPERTY LOCATION:10 MONROE COURT PROPERTY OWNER:DAVID H.PITZEN APPLICANT:DHP MONROE INVESTORS LLC RECOMMENDATION: 1.Accept report in the form of meeting minutes from the Planning Commission regarding a Planned Development at 10 Monroe Court (Attachment 5). 2.Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony; 3.Close the public hearing; 4.Make the Negative Declaration (Exhibit H of Attachment 8); 5.Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 4); 6.Approved Planned Development Application PD-01-2 and make the required findings (Attachment 2); 7.Move to waive the reading ofthe Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 3); 8.Direct the Clerk to read the title of the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 3); 9.Introduce the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 3)to effectuate Development Application PD-0l-2. (Continued on page 2) PREP ARED BY: '- WfS~~trBUDN.LOm,~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by:_?s:"s Assistant Town Manager ~Attomey __Clerk'---_Finance .V-CommunityDevelopment Revised:12/17/03 9:26 am Refonnatted:5/30/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCil.- SUBJECT:10 MONROE CT December 19,2003 BACKGROUND: In 2000,the applicant proposed a similar application that totaled four single family homes.A significant issue with the proposal was the impacts on the riparian corridor.Although the applicant understood the issue of the riparian corridor impacts,uncertainty r~mained about the appropriate density.As a result,the applicant wanted to pursue the project with the Planning Commission rather than redesigning the project as recommended by the Development Review Committee (DRC).On December 6,2000,the Commission denied the application on the basis that the Town had spent considerable time and effort working on the project and the applicant did not redesign the plans as recommended by the DRC.The applicant appealed the decision ofthe Commission.On March 5, 2001,Town Council upheld the decision of the Commission.The applicant subsequently filed a new application for four iots.The Planning Commission held three public hearings on this matter and a study session.On December 11,2002,the Commission approved the Architecture and Site application to demolish the four houses which currently exist on"this site,contingent upon the approval of the Planned Development and forwarded the Planned Development application to Town Council with a recommendation for approval.Council considered this matter on February 3,2003 and remanded the matter to the Commission with the direction that the plans be modified to limit the development to three homes of no more than 8,000 square feet in aggregate,and that the houses be sited to protect the riparian corridor (Attachment 1)~ DISCUSSION: 1.Project Summary The applicant has revised the development plans and is now requesting approval of a Planned Development to permit the construction of three two story single family units on approximately 1.44 acres.The subject site is located at the southern terminus of Monroe Court.The site is bounded by two single family residences to the west,Los Gatos Creek on the ea.st and north and a three story apartment building on the south. The site currently contains four pre-1941 cottages which as stated above,have been approved to be demolished.The proposed lots will range in size from 6,500 square feet to 9,150 square feet.The Town will receive a dedication of 38,863 square of the riparian corridor.The proposed houses will range in size from 2,150 to 3,115 square feet and has an aggregate total of 8,000 square feet.During the Architecture and Site approval process,the applicant may look at the possibility of adding cellars. The area of the cellar(s)will not be counted towards the 8,000 square feet of visible mass. 2.Planning Commission The Planning Commission considered this matter on November 12,2003 and forwarded the matter to Town Council with a recommendation for approval with two modifications to the performance standards of the Planned Development Ordinance.The Commission was under the assumption that the community open space area would be available to the general public and conditioned the I I PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT:10 MONROE CT December 17,2003 application as such.The community open space area is located on Lot 2 and will contain minor pedestrian paths and benches and is proposed to be available to only the residents within the subdivision.Since there is no parking available to use this open space and because a path cannot be connected to the existing trail system due to safety concerns and grade differentials at Roberts Road,staff does not recommend that this open space area be available to the general public . ..,Therefore,the recommended performance standard was modified to require that the community open space be made available to the residents within the subdivision.. 4.Conclusion The applicant has been working with the Town to develop this site since .1998.The applicant has redesigned the project to reduce tree and riparian impacts to the satisfaction of the Town and other agencies.The.applicant has worked closely with the Town in designing the current plan to address Town Council and staff concerns.If the application is approved,the applicant will theri need to receive Subdivision approval of the three lots and Architecture and Site approval for each house. At that time,Santa Clara Valley Water District will again be involved in the review process to ensure the plans meet their requirements pursuant to the approved Planned Development.Conceptual building elevations are required as part ofa Planned Development.Final elevations will be reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect during the Architecture and Site approval process ifthe Planned Development is approved.Since the Town will be using the consulting architect,and because the applicant has continually provided plans that are more detailed than required,the Architecture and Site applications for the houses are recommended to be approved by the Development Review Committee. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that this project.will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposal. FISCAL IMPACT:None Attachments: 1.Resolution 2003-014 2.Required Findings. 3.Draft Planned Development Ordinance (including vicinity map and development plans received October 1,2003). 4.MitigatLQI1 Monitoring Plan. 5.Excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes of November 12,2003. 6.Desk Item Report 2 to Planning Commission,dated November 12,2003 for the meeting of November 12,2003 7.Desk Item Report to Planning-Commission,dated November 11,2003 for the meeting of November 12,2003.-. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT:10 MONROE CT December 17,2003 8.Report to the Planning Commission,dated November 6,2003 for the meeting of No vem her 12. 2003 (Exhibit A deleted and incorporated as Attachment 1 of this report.Exhibit F deleted and incorporated as Attachment 2 of this report.Exhibit G deleted and incorporated as Attachment 4 of this report and Exhibit I deleted and incorporated as Attachment 3 of this report). 9.Letter from Stan Queen (one page)received at the November 12,2003 meeting. Distribution: David H.Pitzen,DHP Monroe Investors LLC,1228 Lincoln Avenue,San Jose,cA 95125 Ann Lamborn,7 Monroe Court,Los Gatos,CA 95030 Linda Lubeck,120 Carlton Ave #54,Los Gatos,CA 95032 Vincent M.Stephens,Community Projects Review,Santa Clara Valley Water District,5750 ' Almaden Expressway,San Jose,CA 95118-3686 N:\DEv\CNCLRPTS\lOmonroe.l.wpd .' RESOLUTION 2003 .014 RESOLUTION REMANDING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM RM:12-20 TO RM:12-20:PD TO CONSTRUCT FOUR DWELLING UNITS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION:PD-01-2 NEGATIVE DECLARATION:ND-01-14 PROPERTY LOCATION:10 MONROE COURT PROPERTY OWNER:DAVID H.PITZEN APPLICANT:DHP MONROE INVESTORS LLC WHEREAS: A.·This matter came before Council for public hearing on January21,2003,on a request from· the applicant (DHP Monroe Investors LLC)and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town. law. B.Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the applicant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents.Council considered all testimony and materials submitted,including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report dated January 8,2003,Desk Item dated January 17,2003,and Addendum dated January 14,2003,along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. C.The applicant has requested approval of a Planned Development to permit the construction of four two story single family units on approximately 1.44 acres.The density of the development is 2.7 units per acre. D.The Planning Commission considered this matter on August 28,2002 and continued the matter with direction,including reducing the floor area of the units.On October 9,2002,the Commission reconsidered the application and held a study session on November 13,2002 to discuss other alternatives for the develo]2.ment.On December 11,2002 the Commission considered revised plans and approved the Architecture and Site application for the demolition,contingent upon approval of the Planned Development. 1 Attachment 1 I The Commission recommended ap~._....val of the Planned Development for fd..._ots to the Town Council. E.Evidence submitted through the testimony of neighbors and the observations of members of Council made during site visits strongly indicate that,given the intended sizes of the houses,the proposed density of this development would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood. RESOLVED: Planned Development application PD-O 1~2 and Negative Declaration application ND-O 1-14 are remanded to the Planning Commission for modification limiting the developmentto three (3)homes with no more than a total of 8,000 square feet amongst the three,and additional direction that any redesign of the homes shall protect the riparian corridor on the property. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California held on the 3rd day of February,2003 by the following vote. COUNClL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Steve Glickman,Diane McNutt,Joe Pirzynski,Mike Wasserman, Mayor Sandy Decker. None None None ATTEST SIGNED:/s/Sandy Decker MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA /s/Marian V.Cosgrove CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA 2 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR 10 Monroe Court Planned Development Application PD-01-2 Negative Declaration ND-01-14 Requesting approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from RM:12-20 to RM: 12-20:PD to construct three dwelling units.No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result ofthis project and a Negative Declaration is recommended.APN 529-09-026. .J»ROPERTY OWNER:David H.Pitzen APPLICANT:DHP Monroe Investors LLC FINDINGS: A)That the zone change is consistent with the <;Jeneral Plan. .B)As required by the Town's Infill Policy for a community benefit. 1.In-fill projects should contribute to the further development of the surrounding 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 respec~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. 3.Corridor lots may be considered if it decreases the amount of public street and is consistent with objects #1 and #2.It must be demonstrated that a benefit to surrounding properties is being provided. 4.The Planned Development process should only be used to accomplish objects #1 and #2.The applicant sh;:tll demonstrate the benefit of a Planned Development through excellence in design. 5.Approval of an in-fill project shall demonstrate a strong community benefit and findings ofbenefit shall be part of the record. N :\DEV\FINDINGS\l Omonroe.wpd Attachment 2 ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM RM:12-20 TO RM:12-20:PD AT 10 MONROE COURT 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 10 Monroe Court as shown on the map which is attached hereto marked Exhibit A and is part of this Ordinance from RM:12-20 (Multiple family Residential,12 to 20 dwelling units per acre),to RM:12-20:PD ((Multiple Family Residential,12 to 20 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.Demolition of four pre-1941 single-family residences; ·2.Construction of three single family residences;and 3.Landscaping,streets,parking,open space and other site improvements shown and required on the Official Development Plan. 4.Uses permitted are those specified in the underlying RM (Multiple Family Residential)zone by Sections 29.40.610 (Permitted Uses)and 29.20.185. (Conditional Uses)ofthe Zoning Ordinance,as those sections exist at the time ofthe 1 Attachment 3 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 demolition of the single family residences and 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,14 sheets),are part ofthe Official Development Plan.The following must be complied with before issuance of any grading, demolition or construction permits: TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: (Planning Division) 1.ARCHITECTURE AND SITEAPPROVAL REQUIRED.The Official Development Plans and this ordinance establish the allowed uses and intensity of development.The Official 2 --, I 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.These'deviations may include finished floor elevations.The Development Review Committee shall be the deciding body of the Architecture and Site applications. 2.HOUSE SIZE/CELLARS.The footprint and size of each house shall be determined during the Architecture and Site approval process and the proposed houses shall contain no more than 8,000 square feet in aggregate.No additional square footage shall be permitted,except / for cellars which may be approved during the Architecture and Site approval process.The square footage of the cellars is in addition to the square footage shown on the official development plan.Cellars must drain to the stOli:n drainage system,not to Los Gatos Creek or the riparian corridor. 3.TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to;the issuance of a Building,Grading or Encroachment Permit. 4.RECYCLING.All wood,metal,glass,and aluminum materials gen~rated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials .. Receipts from the company(s)accepting these materials,noting type and weight ofmaterial, shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection. 5.PHOTO DOCUMENTATION.Prior to the issuance ofa building permit for the demolition, Structure B shall be photographically documented by providing two sets ofcolored and black and white photographs to the Town for the project file and the historic resources inventory. 6.*RIP ARIAN CORRIDOR.The riparian corridor enhanceme.nt plan (Attachment 1 of the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court dated June 2002)and the riparian study planting plan 3 (Sheet L-Rl"of,the attached Exhibit B)shall be implemented.All future landscaping within 100 feet of the riparian corridor 'shall consist of native trees,shrubs and groundcover that occur naturally in the riparic;:lll habitat near the site and shall be mix similar to species used in the riparian corridor enhancement plan.Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved through the San Francisco BayAreaJARPA (Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application)process and the Santa Clara Valley Water District 7.*EXTERIOR LIGHTING.Any lighting to be installed along the eastern edge of the proposed development shall be designed to minimize the intensity of light reaching the adjacent riparian corridor and setback area. 8.*ARCHAEOLOGIST.The site shall be reinspected by a qualified ",rchaeologist at the applicant's expense,directly after all of the existing buildings and other imported materials are removed and prior to issuanc;:e of any permits for new construction.Findings and recommendations of this survey shall be submitted in writing to the Town.If any deposits ofarchaeological materials are discovered at this time,they will be evaluated for significance if future ground disturbing activities would endanger them.If the evaluation of deposits demonstrates that they are intact and significant deposits of arclH!eological soils (midden), the project sponsor shall be required to submit a plan to the Town for mitigation of impacts on these resources,prior to commencement of any further earthmoving within the identified areas. 9.DOCUMENTS.Escrow papers for each lot shall include a statement that the maintenance and repair of the roadway and creek slopes within the subdivision are the responsibility of the homeowners.Prior to final occupMCY,a copy of the proposed homeowner manual or 4 other materials to be provided to the homeowners shall be submitted to the Town and the Santa Clara Valley District for approval,which addresses the responsibilities ofliving next to a riparian corridor.. 10.FENCING.Prior to final occupancy,an open design fence shall be installed at the boundary of the riparian corridor,located at the current 340 foot elevation. 11.SETBACK.The minimum setback from the proposed structures to the top of the bank shall be ten feet,pursuant to the requireme~ts of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 12.COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE.The community open space located on Lot 2,shall be available to all the residents within the proposed subdivision. (Building Division) 13.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building permit shall be required for the three proposed dwelling units and the demolition of four pre-1941 residences. 14.CONSTRUCTION PLANS:The Conditions ofApproval shall be stated in full on thecover sheet of the construction plans submitted for a building permit. 15.SIZE OF PLANS:The maximum size of construction plans submitted for building permits shall be 24"x 36". 16.PLANS:The construction plans for this project shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or engineeL (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538) 17.DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS:Contact Town of Los Gatos Building Counter technicians for demolition requirements and complete the process before obtaining a building permit for demolition of such work. 18.HOUSE NUMBERS:The developer shall submit requests for additional house numbers 5 from the office of the Town Clerk prior to the building permit application process. 19.RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS:The residences shall be designed with adaptability features for single-family residence per Town Resolution 1994-61. a.Wooden backing (no smaller than 2 II x 8")shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets,shbwets and bathtubs located at 34"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"wide on accessible floor. c.Primary entrance shall have a 36"wide door including,a 5"x5"level landing,no more than 1II out of plane with the immediate interior floor level,with an 18" clearance. 20.SOILS REPORT:Two copies ofa 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. 21.*GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION:The project shall incorporate all 50 recommendations and UBC Design Criteria included in Terrasearch's geotechnical investigation for the proposed project (Attachment 3 of the Initial Study for 10 MOlioe Court,dated June 2002),in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity,erosion hazards and subsurface soil conditions on the site. 22.*LEAD BASED PAINT:Existing construction finish materials that are suspect for containing lead-based paint shall be tested and pending laboratory analysis,will not be subjected to any process which renders them friable unless proper engineering controls and 6 worker protection procedures are initiated. 23 .FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS:A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector upon foundation inspection.This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and the building pad elevation and on-site regaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans.Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor orregistered civil engineer for the following items: a.Pad elevation b.Finish floor elevation c.Foundation corner locations 24.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-1R andMF-lR. 25.TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS:New fireplaces shall be EPA Phase II approved appliances as per Town Ordinance 1905.Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 feet ofchimneys. 26.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:When a special inspection is required by UBC 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 ofthe building permits,in accordance with UBC Section 106.3.5.Please obtain Town Special Inspection form from the Building DivisionService Counter.The Town Special Inspection schedule shall be blue-lined on the construction plans. 27.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS:The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program specification shall be part ofthe plan submittal. 7 The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter. 28.APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing a building pennit: a.Community Development Department: b.Parks and Public Works Department: c.West Valley Sanitation District:378-2407 d.Santa Clara County Fire Department:378-4010 e.*Santa Clara Valley Water District f.*Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board g.*Califomia Department ofFish and Game h.*U.S.Anny Corps of Engineers 1.Los Gatos School District:395-5570 Note:Obtain the school district fonn from the Town Building Service Counter after the Building Division plan check has approved the plans. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOROF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS: (Engineering Division) 29.GRADING PERMIT.A grading perrrtit is required for site grading and drainage.The grading pennit application (with grading plans)shall be made to the Engineering Division of the 'Parks &Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue.The grading plan must also be reviewed and accepted by the Santa Clara Valley Water District prior to the Town issuing the grading pennit.The grading plans shall include final grading,drainage, retaIning wall location,driveway,utilities and interim erosion control.Grading plans shall 8 list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas.Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works,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. 30.GRADING PERMIT FOR WORK IN RIPARIAN CORRIDOR.A grading permit is required for any work within the riparian corridor.A separate application for a grading permit (with grading plans)shall be made to the Engineering Division ofthe Parks &Public Works Department.The grading plans shall include final grading,drainage,riparian restoration,planting,and interim erosion control.Unless specifically allowed by the Director ofParks and Public Works,the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. 31.RETAINING WALLS.A building permit,issued by the Building Division ofthe Community Development Department,is required for all site retaining walls.Walls 'are not reviewed, approved,or inspected by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit process. 32.DRAINAGE.Runoff from lots 2 and 3 shall be collected by a private storm drain system and not allowed to flow directly to the creek.The private drainage system shall be designed to accommodate a 10 year storm.Emergency overflow facilities shall be provided to allow flows larger than a·1 0 year storm to discharge overland directly to the creek. 33,SOILS REPORT.One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the gradIng permit application.The soils report shall include specific criteria and .standards 9 governing site grading,drainage,pavement design,retaining wall design and erosion contro 1. 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. 34.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 engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 35.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 backfill 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. 36.PARCEL MAP.Tentative map approval is required.When approved,a parcel map shall be recorded.Two copies of the parcel map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division ofthe Parks &Public Works Department for review and approval.Submittal shall include closure calculations,title reports and appropriate fee.The map shall be recorded before any permits are issued. 37.DEDICATIONS.The following shall be dedicated on the parcel map by separate instrument. 10 The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued. a.Ingress-egress,storm drainage,sanitary sewer,utilities,and easements as required.Prior to the dedication,the developer shall determine if the storm drain can be repositioned to save two trees near Roberts Road. b.The riparian corridor shall be irrevocably dedicated to the Town.The owner(s)/deve1oper shall be responsible for completing the riparian corridor enhancement plan and riparian planting plan as identified in the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court, dated June 2002.Any permits required by the Town or other agencies,to perform the initial planting within the riparian corridor will be the responsibility of the owners/developer. 38.RIP ARIAN MAINTENANCE.The owners/developer shall fund npanan corridor enhancement and restoration planting as identified in the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court for a period of three years after the work is accepted as complete by the Town.Maintellance shall be performed by a Town approved contractor.The full amount for the maintenance contract shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map.NT Harvey estimated the three year maintenance cost to be approximately $54,000 in their August 29,2003 proposal letter to the Town. 39.FINAL CC&R'S.Final CC&R's shall be approved by the Town Attorney prior to recordation of the final map.The CC&R's shall include provisions for road improvements,vehicle parking enforcement procedures and maintenance of the riparian corridor.The CC&R's shall also include the requirement for an encroachment permit for all work in the public right-of-way or on Town land which includes the riparian corridor. 11 40.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. 41.401 CERTIFICATION.A 401 Certification shall be obtained from the San Francisco Bay Region Water Quality Control District for work in "waters of the State of California."A copy of the certification shall be provided to the Parks &Public Works Department before the parcel map is recorded. 42.FISH AND GAME REQUIREMENTS.A"1603".permit shall be obtained for the California Department of Fish and Game for proposed improvements in or near riparian areas within their jurisdiction.A copy of the permit shall be provided to the Parks &Public Works Department before the parcel map is recorded. 43.U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REQUIREMENTS.If required,a Section 404 permit shall be obtained from the U.S.Army Corps'bfEhgineers for proposed improvement in or near riparian areas within their jurisdiction.A copy of the pennit or other clearance shall be provided to tlie Parks &Pu1;>lic Works Department before the parcel map is recorded. 44.GENERAL.All public improvements shall be made according to the latest 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 ofgoods 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 shaltbe at the job site during all working hours.Failure to maintain the public right-of-way 12 according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 45.STORM DRAINAGE.The developer shall provide analysis of existing storm drainage facility and hydrology calculations prior to issuance of any building permits.The developer shall implement improvements if needed to accommodate any increase of flows related to this proposal.All modifications shall require regulatory agency approvals and permits. 46.ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.All work in the public right-of-way or on public land (including the riparian corridor)will require a Construction Encroachment Permit.All work over $5,000 will require construction security. 47.FOUNDATION DESIGN.The building foundations on lots 2 and 3 shall be designed to accommodate excavation ofthe adjacent storm and sanitary sewers without loss ofstructural integrity. 48.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.The developer or his representative shall notifY the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24)hours before starting an work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities,grading or paving,and all work in the Town's right-of-way or on public land (including the riparian corridor).Failure to do so will rysult in rejection ofwork that went on without inspection. 49.SURVEYING CONTROLS.Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and 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 13 c.Top of curb 50.EROSION CONTROL.Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks &Public Works Department.A Notice of Intent (NOI)and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regipnal 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 ifgrading is allowed during the rainy season.Interim erosion ,control,measures,to be carried out during construction and befor~installation of the final landscaping shall be included.Interim erosion control meth~d shall include,but are not limited to:silt fences,fiber rolls (with locations and details),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 plan~and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 ofOrder 0 1-024 ofthe amended Santa Clara County NPDES Permit. 51.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PREVENTION.On-site drainage systems shall include a filtration device in the catch basins or bio-swales. 52.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 or into Los Gatos Creek. 53.UTItITIES.The developer shall install all utility services,including telephone,electric 14 power and·all other communications lines underground,as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b).Cable television capability shall be provided to all hew lots. 54.RESTORATION OFPRIVATE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.The developer shall repair or replace all existing private roadway improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because ofdeveloper'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 ofthe Engineering Construction Inspector,and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions.Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 55.AS-BUILT PLANS.After completion of the construction of all work,the original plans· shall have all changes (change orders and field changes)clearly marked.The "as-built"plans shall again be signed and "wet-stamped"by the civil engineer who prepared the plans, attesting to the changes.The original "as-built"plans shall be review and approved the Engineering Inspector.A Mylar and AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built"plans shall be provided to the Town before the Faithful Performance Security or Occupancy Permit is released.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;d)Property Line, Layer:PROPERTY-LINE;e)Contours,Layer:NEW CONTOUR.All as-built digital files· mustoe on the same coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network and shall be 15 ,submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher. 56.CONSTRUCTION NOISE.Between the hours of8:00 a.m.to 8:00p.m.,weekdays and 9:00 a.m.to 7 :00 p.m.weekends and holidays,construction,alteration or repair activities shall be allowed.No individual piece ofequipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85)dBA at twenty-five (25)feet.Ifthe 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 57.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. (Parks Division) 58.*FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN.A final riparian planting plan shall be submitted during the Subdivision Application process.A final landscape plan shall be submitted during the Architecture and Site approval process for each lot. 59.NEW TREES.Newly planted and relocated trees shall be double-staked,using rubber tree ties and shall be planted prior final occupancy. 60.GENERAL.All existing ttees shown to remain on the plan are specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on site. 61.*PROTECTIVE FENCING.Prior to any equipment arriving on site and pnor to construction or building pennits being issued,the applicant shall meet with the Town's Consulting Arborist,at the developer's expense,concerning the need for protective fencing 16 around the existing trees and other required tree protection measures identified in this ordinance.Such fencing is to be installed prior to,and be maintained during,construction. The fencing shall be a five foot high chain link attached to steel poles driven at least 18 inches into the ground when at the dripline ofthe tree.Ifthe fence has to be within eight feet of the trunk of the tree,a fence base may be used,as in a typical chain link fence that is rented.Fencing shall be included at the following locations as identified in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court dated June 2002): a.The 30 inch coast live oak east of Lot 1,six feet from the proposed final wall location on the west and south and out to the dripline on the north. b.The ·18 inch coast live oak at the south end of Lot 1. ,c.Adjacent to the fire truck turnaround. d.The 36 inch coast live oak on Lot 2 shall have approximately 100 square feet of protective root zone. 62.*BUFFERS.Before any equipment arrives on site,platform buffers shall be installed under all canopies out to driplines as shown in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court,dated June 2002.Aplat~orm buffer is a five inch layer of coarse chips from a tree company,with one to 1 ~inch thick plywood full sheets laid over the tip and tied together. This shall cover all parts of the soil beneath the tree canopy and remain in place until construction ceases.All trunks must be wrapped with carpeting or equivalent to eight feet above grade in platform buffer areas. 63.*CONSTRUCTION METHODS.The following methods of construction is required: a.Pier and on-grade beam foundations must be used in any area beneath a tree canopy. 17 b.No excavation for crawl space or equivalent may be excavated in areas beneath buildings beneath tree canopies. c.Trenches for any service or irrigation shall not be located in any area beneath the canopies of trees.Utility trench locations shall be identified prior to the issuance of a building permit so thattheir location is planned and not an incidental location determined by the utility company. d.The trench for the storm drain line proposed adjacent to the 24-inch oak shall be dug by handwithin ten feet ofthe trunk.The trench for the sewer line proposed adjacent to the existing oak near the fire truck turnaround shall be dug by hand if closer than 15 feet from the trunk.No roots over 2 ~inches in diameter shall be cut. e.No vertical cuts shall be made closer than five times the trunk diameter from any tree if trenching is on only one side of the trees root mass.If it is necessary to cut a trench through more than one quadrant of the tree's root mass,the trenches shall be set back a distance ofseven times the trunk diameter.Foundations constructed within the dripline which are closer than five times the trunk diameter from the trunk,shall be of pier and beam design. f.When existing pavement is removed in areas beneath canopies of trees,it shall be done with a jackhammer and the broken pieces loaded by hand onto a tractor,which is standing on unbroken pavement.The tractor shall back up onto undisturbed pavement as it picks up the pavement pieces so as to avoid compression of the soil in newly exposed root zones.The newly exposed root zone areas shall be covered immediately with a layer of three inches of tree chips (as from a chipping machine from a tree 18 company)to protect these root systems from drying out. 64.ROOTS.Ifroots are encountered during excavation,the project arborist shall immediately evaluate anchorage loss and cut the root properly.No roots shall be cut with a backhoe. 65.*EXPOSED ROOTS.Newly exposed root systems shall be watered with a soaker hose applying ten gallons of water per one inch of trunk diameter once every two weeks until construction is completed. 66.*IRRIGATION.All newly planted landscaping shall be irrigated by an in-groundirrigation system.The irrigation system shall avoid excessive watering ofthe existing Oaks and there shall be no irrigation lines within the Tree Protection Zones of the Oaks. 67."'PRUNING.Pruning of any trees shall be done by an ISA certified arborist using ISA Western Chapter Pruning Specifications. 68.INTERLOCKING PAVERS.Any new impervious surface encroaching under the dripline of existing trees shall have interlocking pavers installed. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 69.'REQUIRED FIRE FLOW.Required fire flow for this project is 1,000 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. 70.ACCESS TO WATER SUPPLY:Portions ofthestructures are greater than 150 feetoftravel distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants ..The developer shall provide an on-site fire hydrant or install an approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building. 71..PREMISE 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 19 or road fronting the property.Numbers shall contrast with their background. 72.SIGNING.The hammerhead shall be marked/signed to indicate that no parking is permitted in this area. *Required as Mitigation Measures SECTION VI This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council ofthe Town of Los Gatos on ,2003,and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council ofthe 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:\DEV\ORDS\l Omonroe.wpd 20 I I DBIIIIA TOWN OF LOS GATOS Application No.y\)-0 \-;J.•Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance. ~Zone Change from B"M.~t2-20 to 'R'Y\:\2.-2o~'PrJ D Prezoning to ¥j_';L~\Hc::n(2\e.c\by Planning Commission date \\;\2-\0:S Approved by Town Council date Ord._ -Town Clerk Ma or ( T1 Title Sheet LANDSCAPE <-(/)z ~ tL1 0u..-~...1<(J-<.. rJ'J ~0.~ <E-"rJ'J 000I ...1 IcrU U.l 0a:~ ~ Z :::;) 0<(J 'l:I .!0 QI e'UJ .........e....0 1Il =..I ~...QI t:~Ql ~Ql 1:1Z....o rl.c:Q0C/)u 0 .!:!Q)'"~",c~iVlEb Ql o III......Cl...."'.I -U =<II....,-C'#~j~Q" ('~f U 1 2003 ~IT W OF LOS GATOS I ~ PL f\J~ING DEPARTMEN ~~. fl)-O)-'2.DATE MAY 13 2003 8CN..I! NONEND-()\l~--OEel'lA M!ll'lCADO DRAWN OEe JOB NO. ~~2 llI£E1' SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AREA MAP CIVIL 1. 2. 3. 4. 1."TENTATIVe MAP drawing index owner data DHP MONROE INVESTORS.LLC. 1224 LINCOLN AVENUE SAN JOSE.CA 95125 (408)279-6625 developer PACIFIC DIVERSIFIED 1224 LINCOLN AVENUE SAN JOSE,CA 95125 (408)279-6625 Ll T"ree Removal Plan L2 Conceptual Landscape Plan L-Rl Final Landscape,Plan .L-R2 Irrigation Schedule/Layout '.ARCHITECTU8AL At Site Pla:n (Conceptual) A2 Floor Plans/Elevations AS Floor Plans/Elevations A4 Streetscape vicinity map gener'al notes consultants INTRUEOION Al.A!'<I'1 EO'l"eTEM&E>f.lAL.\..ell INEOTA\..\..I!O IN AL.\..&ING\..B !'AMI\..Y HOMEl&PER POl.IOE!OEF'T. REOOMMSNOATION. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BORRECCO/KILIAN 1148 ALPINE ROAD #201 WALNUT CREEK.CA 94596 (925)944-5307 CIVIL ENGINEER GIULIANI AND'KULL.INC. 11899 EDGEWOOD ROAD SUITE Q AUBURN.CALIFORNIA 95603 . (5S0)885-5107 !~ lot data APN:529-09-026 ZONING:RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE:TOTAL -1.44 AC.(62.715 $.F.) -~/~--../'~----c============= D. or::( :i w> Sz Wt- C)z ~ (/)w> SHEET 1 Of DATE 9/29/03 Joe NO. 98101 VICINITY MAP GRAPHIC SCALE W 0 10 ~40~.:! 1 INCH =20 FEET ABBREVIAnONS £VI<:EI1£RGfIICY \£H1ClE IICCESS fASEl(ENT PSllE PRIVATE STORU ORAlN fASEl(ENT PSSE PRIVATE SANITARY SE\IIll EASflIENT PUE PUBUC UTIUlY EASEMENT SF SQUARE f££T (/)«w ~zC)0::~::>0u.0 ::it-o «0 0LEGEND0wen0PROPOSEDEXISTINGDESCRIPTIONWa:0 0 I- -~------PROPERlY UNE Z «---EASElAENT (AS NOTED)a:0 Clz:i (J) 0 0 :i ..I I~APPROX.LOCATION 10'"OE SEViER EASEfAENTI50130.0.392 ;~ ------r ---~--------------~.~ !:::::.::in=;;==;:;;;;~==r==="-----:::i:<-5'2-6-,60-'__-£i295.57' 'ww-----w-----.~---w-- -~.-.-..--..-.:-------- 529-09-031 RIVIERA TERRACE INV£sTORS LTD, --------'"---- \. \\.. 3 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING (APPRO%.215,700 SO.fT.j ---\'1--- ALL EXISTING HOUSES. (SJi£.LOC APPR!JY..rY?j rlVtu111/(1//11 '/1 IllwJ ---------------------.--.,--------. -~,I-'----- SPIKE IN UllUlY POLE ELEV=J52.BO (LOS GATOS DATUM) ROBERTS R 0 A 0 (FORMERLY CYPRESS AVENUE) BENCHMARK MONROE lllnll)IIII'I'IIIIIi'777~ /I~ ]'/~ I ~~~/ '11 .;~1.Ii,;' {til/II 1/1111/1///IUIINJ1 z«..Ja. w !:: tJ) tJ)c(W ~ZC)0::«::J 0 t-O LL :Jt-O ..(30 0 W u)0W~..~0~Z 0 Cl Z f/) 0 :E 0 :E -I '"<'i gj j ~"¢Q) <8-0c;r~...:'="'0--'5-~e'"J;oo- ~~~~ = ~~J5 JiLz...§=--gaUl-=cog ~.... 6 5.}, ~(Q E >~::>~~-§ 0"'«~- SHEET 1 Of 4 '0!OA1£9/29/03 JOB NO. 98101 GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 ~ff 1 INCH =20 FEET SITE PLAN PREUMINARY GRADNG,DRAINAGE &UTIUTY PLAN TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AREA MAP OESCRIPTION INVESTORS LTD, SITE AREA (TOTAL):1.44 Ac (62,713 SF) CURRENT SITE USAGE/ZONING:RESIDENTIAL CURRENT NUM8ER OF HOUSING UNns:4 PROPOSED SITE USAGE/ZONING:RESlDENTAIL/PLANNEO OEVUOPMENT PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS:3 EXIST,8LDG.FOOTPRINT AREA:4,710 SQFT PROP.8LD~FOOTPRINT AREA:4,859 SOFT VICINITY MAP INTERIOR PARKING SPACES:6 TOTAL PROJECT PARKING:12 EXTERIOR PARKING SPACES:6 SHEET INDEX PRIVATE STREET AREA:3,650 SOFT OPEN SPACE AREA:54.204 SOFT snE INFORMATION: ADDRESS: 10 MONROE COURT LOS GAlOS,CA 95030 APN:529-09-026 SHEET NO ---.. EXISTING HOUSE DEMOLIllON TABLE H SOUARE fEET A 8 Co REAm TO SHEET HOUSE LOCATIONS UllUTY INFORMATION WATER:SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY STORM DRAlNAG(,TOWN OF LOS GATOS . GAS AND mCTRIC<PI\C1AC GAS AND mCTRIC (pC&£) TEl£PHONE:S.8.C. SANITARY SEWER:M:ST VAu.EY SANITARY DISTRICT LOT TABULATlONS aYlL ENGiNEER: GlUUI\N1 AND KUu..INC 488D SlEVENS CREEK 8LVIl SUITE 205 SAN JOSE,CA 9S129 PH:(408)61&-4000 PROJECT INFORMATION OWER fD£yEtQPER' OHP.U.C INVESTORS 1224 UNCroI AVENUE SAN JOSE,CA 95125 PH:(408)279-6625 PARea LOT AREA FOOTPRINT UVING AREA GARAGE 1 9.150 Sf 2,278 SF 2,150 SF 462 SF 2 8.200 SF 2,108 SF 3,115 SF 462 SF 3 6.500 SF 2,044 SF 2.735 SF 484 SF OEDICAllON 38.863 SF N.A.N.A.N.A. -r~----------------..------I~APPROX.LOCATION 10'.,OE SEWER EASEMENTIS013O.R.392 --_/ PIlIVA1£STORU ORAlN £ASEMENT PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT PU8UC UUUTY EASEI.IENT SQUARE FEET PARKING SPACE w-----w------w---- ABBREVIA nONS PSll£ PSSE PUE Sf PS ---,...~--"--------::..------------....--_.-----"---.------ 3 STO~:p~~A2~~E~1~UILDING RIVIERA T£~Jlc~9iN~~STORS '9' --.j'---.j'-- LEGEND ------PROPERTY UNE EASEIIENT (AS NOTED) 8ASEMENT AREA GULAR AREA EXlS1ING D£SCR/PTION --~I'~--- r"i"}}i)}/I)};, v.ii jIJ;{(II{1111 '{(II/IIII (~ ---w.·-----w'----- ALL £XtST:NG HOUSES (S'",LOC A?PRO>C TYC:j' (,'71/;111 /,7/111/11111~l f!777J;;J v;v, ~r~j 529-09-025~.ilLLLf,j LAMBORN SPI E IN unuTY POLE ELEV=352,80 (LOS GATOS DATUM) COURT \\ \\..."If ."'----........../ MONROE -w----~----- BENCHMARK ROBERTS R 0 A 0 (FORMERLY CYPRESS AVENUE) 'illl!,!ill)}I,/I,"II/IIII~ ~j ~~ 'I '/1f;~~~~.?;//i,/'//11/1/1///1/'",u2 z ~:5«a. C)wzC)c «~~ C)C2c SHEET 2 OF 4 DATE 9/29/03 JOe NO. 98101 en c:(W ~ZC)~«:J 0 II..l-.0 :::i,....-.(J 'c:(0 0 (J W u)0W~.0 0 I- ~Z c:(. 0 C> Z (J) 0 :E 0 :E ...I zo '"~ EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT 350 CY. ALL 350 CY. EXPORT 0 CY. ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSlBIUlY FOR ESTIMAlED EARTHWORK. ACTUAL EARTHWORK QUANTITIES MAY VARY DUE TO SITE CONDmONS AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE INDEPENDENT ES1lM ...TE PRIOR TO BIDDING. PATENT PGIDiNti FOR APPLICATION CHART SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 MODULAR DESIGN FOR EASY REPLACEMENT OF FILTER COMPONENTS 1.nD-Cord"Fll:ter body Is pr''lf"o.brk:a:tlld F!"'CII'\",l)l.YPI"'GPyt~lW ."Vll'n N)l'IOf1lOt'lerrt geo'Wxtlle eo All "t'"tal c:PnpOnltJ'l1;$shoJ.t be stainless steel crype :ro4). 3.Ref....1:0 o.ppUcll.'tlQn cho.r"t fOt'"c:o;tc:h ba$ln o.l'ld fltt.tr-!O~11'\G- 4.fltef"nedIuM sho.ll be fOSlSll RodqI rnstlllted ~"Qlnto.lnl!d lr\ 4C<;Ol"'dGnce 'dth l"Illl'IUfocturer recOl'lMndo,'tIons. 5.Refer "to M~fQC:~s reol_oda.1.lons for-ncUnteno.n<;e......~ 6..Flo-GGrd-lnS'et''ts nay be Ins'to.lled (wl'thou't ~hen't pouches) durll'Ig coursu of corwtructlon as 0."ed!rlentotlon COn'tr'o1 devla.Af'kf: cOl'S"truc'tIOf'l.'-Cf'll)Ve sec4nent ttnd Insrto.ll adSOI"bent pouches. NOTES: 529-09-03']<:CTi\DY 1\0l\DTUCI\IT 01111 nll\lr' ALL EXISTING HOUSES (SIZE.LOC APPROX.TYP.) NOTES: 1.SITE STORM WA TER SHALL BE COLLECTED AND TRANSPORTED TO APPROPRIATE OU7F'ALL NO OVERBANK DRAINAGE SHALL OCCUR AT LOS GA TOS CREEK. 2.ALL INLETS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH FOSSIL FlL TER "FLOGUARD"INSERTS, ,r ~~529-09-025 VI//1//1//11/1/1 LAMBOEN TY INE w----- EXISTING ROADWAY EASEMENT 560 OR 523 9.\):'>110.00\ir-7-r~5~~~~~~--j-----J--------:::{) IOPOGRApHY NOTES SHEET 3 Of 4 40 !OATE 8/20/03 JOB NO. 98101 -~1 INCH ~20 FEET / 5.ADJACENT PROPERTY UNES SHOWN ON THESE DRAI+1NGS ARE COMPIl£D FROM RECORD DATA.PURSUANT TO THE CUENTS DIRECTION.A BOUNDARY SVRVEY WAS PERFORMED AT THIS TIME \'tHICH MAY HAVE DETeRMINED THE' ACTUAL PROPERTY UNES.THE PROPERTY UNES SHOWN HEREON ARE niE BEST GRAPHICAL FIT BETWEEN RECORD INFORMATION AND THE TOPOGRAPHICAL fEATURES SURVEYED AND ARE FOR R£f£RfNCf:ONL Y.AND SI-IOULD NOT B~RELIED UPON OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES. 2.TOPOGRAPHY PREPARED BY GIULIANI AND KULL,INC.,FlUD SURVEY OA lED 12/03/00 , .3.SITE BENCHMARK-SPIKE IN unuTY POLE C NORTH SIDE OF MONROE COURT.;J:50'W"LY OF w'L Y CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. nEV..352.80 TOWN OF LOS GATOS DA ruM. 1.1 THE:£X1SJENCE,LOCA TlON AND El£VATlON OF ALL CXlSTlNG UNDER AND ABOVE GROUND UTlUnES SHOHN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND MAY NOT 8£A COMPLETE:INVENTORY OF ALL £XJSTlNG unUT1fS EmeTING THIS SITE. 1 \\ \\C/)«W ~ZC)It:«::J 0 II.1=0 :J........0 «........0 0 "-0 W ur0wc::0 0 ~c::z 0 C)........Z U) 0 :E 0 :E ...I ........ --/--------------------.......----------0~%529-13-015 ------::I:RIVIERA -rERRAcE:INVES-rORS L-rD,a.~~l~~~-'4'>~C)c:: 0 ::J.......C/).......a. ~0 I- ............. ~ -----'1....=~--...--------.----- . I ~APPROX.LOCATION 10'Y.1DE SEVlt:R EASEMENTI5013OR.392 I I I APPROX.lOCAll0N 10''MOE SE'NER EAS£MENT 2255 O.R.461 w------'(I-----w---vJ.-·-- ---529-09-031 RIVltRA TERRACE:INVE:S-rORS L-rD. --,/-'---_. -----.......~----3 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING (AFPROX.215.700 SO.;:;:) All EXISTING HOUSES (SlZE,WC ;.pPP,OX.TYP.) ---,./'vA~--================ ----.,;,'-----j'----=;;===r;CTflrl4W=========== rliilllililllilii]1I1 fltUIIIII/{1I1/1I11I / ~"/j I I /~~/1 lLLLLLf ~ y,IiV;~~~529-09-025 lUI/II/lillI/II LAMBORN SPIKE IN UTIUTY;POlE E1...EV=352.80 (lOS GATOS DATUM) ------------------'-- ROBERTS R 0 A 0 (FORMERLY CYPRESS AVENUE) BENCHMARK t)11111111171171)ltIJI17/)71/~ ~~~~~~L",,,,,w,,~ 1---+----jCHE~~BY DATE:RE\r1S0NS I ~~J:~l:t.mt :;=1.Inc.ORA:'~.BY 4BBOStevens Creek Blvd,Suite 205.Son Jose,CA 95129 1---+----j0'901<ED BY (408)615-4000 Fox (408)615-4004 S.R. Auburn •Son Jose •Oakdale "/ \ \ '" LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA MONROE COTTAGES MONROE COURT AREA MAP •"01 ~,.1\'\1\II"I \ \ I \ I \ \ t; G) :s:;;0 O~/0OJ ZI/~O )~I;(f) ."~() s::f:!o~---<r »f"T1 -0 ~ 0 "~ tO~to !jlOJlji"-..p.~9~N ~to '2J01 r,\l9~i!HOIOI\d~gS.I\99101(i1l.<J~1I Ca/lalG:;IOoO\<C9 1'0.'1 PDT --_._-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAlE MAY I;2<2><2>; 8CAI.E lIell :\'...<Z>1l PllO.ECT MANAGER OEeRA HERCAOO DAAWN YARKA scale:1/8"=1'-0" // /\---PIRS ::--~---~---'_11Jf<N~ND ~ Site Plan (Conceptual) I r 1 flO'I1t'--~---i\1 /\ I 1-------..../ • "'---r \, \ \ '2 0TORY ~~'3>1DENes \. '\ \. \ -~/"'--_/"'--._/"'---"""-/_~/_--"/'---_/""'---_/"'---_/"---~~./"// TL APARTMENTS \ \ '\ '\ '\ .'\ '\ '\ '\ '\ \ '\ '\ "\. '\ \ \ \. '\ '\ \. '\ '\ '\ \ - III 1:1 0--+01 ftl ~~ Ql Ql !---l.Ll -III ~.......... Ql~~id-l'Cl Q 8;-Cot u..-~~-0 -...Cl 0 u CI III-ftl o 0UcCot:E..l ~~II~~ DATE MAY I~200~ OCAL£ 1I8 u =p..~" PllOJECl"J.IAIWlEIl DEElRA MERCADO DRAWN Soc. JOO NO. ~~42 IllEr 8888 8/llfA lSEllAMliUlE B8AHJOSE,Il611ll PHONE;408\227-4404FAX,8 227-&llSS E-MAL:~ 1-0,i'2 2ND LEVEL tcoN CEP11.1AI-) 2ND UNl:L.:\4.'"\:S:f'; L.oT #'2 ~LE'JATIOJ-,J CC.ONCt=:PTUAL) ~115.·.oQ.f! 1ST l-E.Vet..:.lb4b.:~.f'· 2"10 LE\Ja.,:.I4 '8 :S.l". 15i LJ;:VEL:18110 '!>oF. 2ND Ll;l.Ja:BB-t;s,r. "TarA\..:2.\'5 ()"".r. o Lor t.·1 2.NO LEVEL (CONCEPTUAL; LOT it-l .£UYATIQI--l (CON<;:EP11.lAL) ----------'-----------_._-__---_--~--_.___._.-'._._..___.._----__-----_..-_---'-_._._.-_..--__-----, I-'-"--_._---_.._.._._-_._._------_.._--~---------- / ( '2.l~tU.~et.:I!7S 5.f. Lo:r lr,?2ND L~L.(CONCEPltJAL-) FAMILY ROOM DI~ING, UooM l '51"UN12u 15&'0<&.1';. 2ND LENEL:I 1M ';'.1". TOTAlJ 2135 '?,.r. L-on~I~l...ENEL (~CEPl1..IAL) ---_.. LOT iIo'3 ELWA.1l0N (CONCEPTUAL) '"=<:>........ III 1~IIIQl-...-....1:1l.LI -..lAo 0 "-...i~QllA~=-III Q o •-CJ ~c..U 101 -~1ii....0 -..Cl 0 u =WI-III ~.stwc.. ~~!I ~~ DATE MAy 13 2CZlCZl3 &CAll:lIe ll =1'_12'11FRO.EOT_ Deel'!A MEl'!CADO DRAWlI e,Da, JOB NO. '=942 8l£ET A3 DAn;acr:::y '3,2<2><2>3 NA PllOJECT .......=--•D.MER~CRAWII DO .x>BNOYARKA BYEET SS42 MOI-J"'oN E caUR("t-tORrtl '5\DE:5TREE.T5CP-Pf; NOR1H 'SlbE-----'~~- ill MONfwE CoURT ~. '50UTH SIDE \ \ ! MONROE COURT ili ~~I~ii 5 ~i0~ fil r:JgJ g ~l'Jl ~~Ifil0 ~~il~:111a. ~..~i:aa!l1 <1I11 ~~~~~~~@.J"~iN"z0~ O:le ~ fil ir ~ 15 fil fil .~ !!! ~ § ~ 0s.~~az~ !l! ~ , n ~~iii ~~ """'-BOTANICAL NAME COlTION NAME a ~~n I 8EQIJOIA GEH'F'ERVIREN5 COAeoT REDU/CIOCl 31 4 REMAIN 2 6EQUoIA 6S'1PEf<V1~COA6T'REDUIOOD 32 ;3 l'EMA1N 3 GI1Jl!F<CU5 o<\6I<IFOI-lA coA&T:LIVE O.AK 9 3 RS"1A1N 4 SCHn..u&!1OLLE :CAL'~IA FEPF'ER n 9 !OE!1OYE s QUERCUS A6RJFOl..IA coAST LIVE oAK "'.3 REMAIN 6 PeUEToreuGA MENZlE5U Oou::::n.!A5FIR 24 2 REMOve,6AMeUCU6 CAEtaiLEA 6lUc:ELDERBERRY ,3 !OE!1OYE &P5Ue1OT5UGsA MENZIE&11 DCtICiLA!!;FIR 14 3 l'EMA1N 9 PeUE:TOT6UGA MElafE511 O0UGLA6FIR 14 3 l'EMAIN ""PSUETOT6li.iA MEHZIE&II DClt.k'd-ASFIR 13 3 IlliMove- 11 F'8UETOT&JGA MENZIES'!DOUGlA6FIR 1&4 _IN 12 QUERCO&AGRFoLlA COAST LIVE OAK 22 S ·l'EMAIN 13 CUr=Re1l5U5 OS"1FERY1RSN5 ITAL1ANC"'l'F'REe&HUl-TI 2 REMOVE 14 Cl.JPR555U6 5Et1PERYtREN5 ITA1..1AN C'T'FR565 MULTI ,REMO"" 1&TAXU5 eAccAATA FA5TlGATA IRISH YEW MULTI 2 !OE!1OYE 16 .qJA<E68U5 5EMPERYfREN5 ITAL.lAN CYF'RES&MULTI 2 REHOYE n ClJP'RE5eu6 5S1FEFMRENS rrALlAN~MUL.TI 2 REMOvE 1&CUFRC55U5 6e1PEl<V1RSN&ITALIAI\I CTFRE5&MUlTI ,REMOVE '"~.AG;I<IFOI..IA COA&T liVE OAK ..4 l'EMAIN ''''aJPRE55U&5EJ1PERVI~ITALrAN CYPRES5 MULTI 2 REMOvE 21 P5UETOT6I.JGA HENZ!E5l1 DOl.I6LAIl FIR 14 4 REMOvE 22 QIJERCU5 AciRIFOLIA COAST oLIVE OAK 25 2 REMAIN 23 ~5 AGRlFOLIA COAST LIVE oAK 13 2 REMOvE 24 C4JERClJ5 AGr"!lFOj.,IA coAST L.IYE OAK 14 4 REMAIN 2.QUERCUS ,l:l.6RJFQUA COAeoT LIVE OAK 31 2 REMAIN 26 EUc::AL"'r"PTlJSo GP.GUM 31 _IN 2'EUCALYP'1\lS 8P.GUM 31 l'EMA1N 21'5AMBUCU5 CAEF>J!-EA eLUEELD~'4'I<Et1OV1' '"AESULE5 C.4LIFOI'iNICA CALIFOF<NIA eucKEYE ""REMOVE ui j:1 ~ 0 "~ ~ ~'"~ 0w Z 1;1 I l- ff!OC~:J 12 0 '<£~ ~U uz0 0)'~ill () ~0 l- lk'.'<£~Z \'J.-.~eO 0) ~() ~e ~r -1 ~~ ".i:ui~ 51~ GRAPHIC ... SCALE ;l '~..~1 2 T ;;!;:,. (IN FEET )i 1 Inch :#16 Il go.I ~~ffi ~..J 1<~'"~'5 s X ~~~w i3 [:::::::::::::::::::] TREE REMovAL FLAN "" Il1 1III i~ *en 1:1;t~ill 5 5!l g. ~~;d!!l"I ~~I ~h~~ ~~ii-8~ li1e,~~~n~'"'"0~§~:r< "~.~ '"z I '"~Ii' S i '"0 lJl ~ ~ '"5 ~ '"0 5 ~a; 0;S~ ti 0··z ~ i ~ ~ I ~ ~ in ~ gj t- el OCt::J ;,a 0«~ ~ouz0 w<D~a~~ ~(to«z\'l 5 I aU> ~L~e l'l u g 0; l::i~ ~ '"I .... <lN~[ ffi Ii l!i 1Uz 5l -l ~~'S ~~g COAA..6:ELL6 P,4CIFIC COA&T 1RI6 FOl-Y6Tlcl-lll1Ml..H1iUt'1 CUiORANT R.OUER/Nt;;,eAGlE CCT"'NON TJ.I"r'HE MANZANITA WILD LILAC """"""""E fU'AaolNE COAeoT &l~TAe6EL WIHOD~---_~ FmANlc.A1 NAME lRI&TANlA CONFERTA ARcTO&TAPHYLOS SPP. CEANo1l-lJ.O 6PP. CIS1U5 &PP. ERiGERCN KARvlH6KJANJ5 GARRY'A EUIPTICA 1-IEllC"EF<A '&AWrA ANA cA"",,!'IAl-' IRle.DOlJGoLA6IANA POLY6TICI-IUI1I"UJN1lU'1 R16E&GP. &Al.V1A &!='P. TI-IYM.J6 VUL.G.ARl& GRAPHIC SCALE GENERAL LANDSCAFE NOTES ALL LAND5CAFE AREA Sf.IAU.6E WATERED WITH A 6lJRIED. AUTot"'ATICALL......CONTROLLED IRRIGATION SYSTEM.Low VOLUME .11FR NOZZLE5 ""'"D1<IP WILL BE USED IlMEI<E APFROFRIATE FOR WATER coNSERVATION. AU.LANDSCAPE AREAS 5I-W..L BE COVERED WITH A 2u LA"l'ER ClF BARK MULCH TOP DRE6SI~ (IN FEET ) 1 Inch ..000 1~ CONCEPTUAL PLANT LI5T ALL TREE5 SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A MINIM1i1 OF 24"ElOX SIZE. ALL SHRll65 SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A 5 GAL 51ZE.EXCEPT ACCENT AND GROUNDCOVER 5_UJI.lIOl WILL BE lNSTALLED AT I GAI,..5IZE. ROOT BARRIER PLACE AT PERIMETER OF f'LAHT PIT INSTALL LIN!!AR eARRll!R 0t4LYoN tilDE ClF HAR05CAPE~T~OF ~ER TO ee FLU61-1 WlTi-l RNI&l-l6RAOE' I'I BAcKFILL NIX AS eFEClPIEO IN n.e !OIL Fi!E!CORt'~5C:4RlF'T"6IPES OF f'I.,..6NTlNG PIT AND ROOTeALL 3 TIME&ROOTBA1-L AO..tl5oTAel.E V1NY1..'lUa1HG ·T~eoLT TO &E~AU.OIU s-,,-e4tAY WITH l'Fi!'2E TI'<t.t« T-eAA FeDO."r eTAKE TReE ATTAQ-l1SKT eAR.TlGI-lTEN eoLT AT ~OF T-~AND ee~IKTO PLACE II-'it---~~~~~~~~~&~~~~lMlW INSERT TOOLBAR INTo TOP I-4OLE IN STAKE AND 6CR8.U INTO 50lL e:t..oeK1Ut6E DlFiECTION. f<'JOOT6A1..l.$-lAl.l se 1-AaO'v'E FIN15I-l ~E .aFTER semlNG SLOPE GRACE AWAY FFlGM ROOTBALL WI NO ~&IDE5 "'rllrll::r-...."'-4-I-IIGH eOlL eERM ARO\.W ORlf'l..INE TREE j=>LANTING AND STAKING DETAIL CONTACT REDO'"5TAKE •(006)333-~FOR TREE &T.4Ke9 L:::::::::::::::::::] ----·-·--·~--...:._..:.1 24'80XE'iERGREEN . 06· UNDER EXISTING OAK TREE 2" ROBERTS ROAD .OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE- ,'/, 3"LAYER BARK MULCH UNDER ---=-, DRIPLINES OF (Ei TREES CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ~..... (~) --------------.----_.__._------._----------_.._-----_..._---_.._-,---------------...-.._---------_.._--~---------- ~ B ~y ~t .~ <:l !~"l ii! t- OC ":J 0 « 0 u ill (j)' ()0 t- OC « Z ~ 0 (j) ()1=-! ill!if~IoSl!1~g~~g~~;l • ~~~~~::I ~ "~ ~~'"§~u: '". '"'";:;- ~OC '"g IL-< ffi ~ a I D ...-l z-<.-' 5 '" ,. APPLICATION RATE (Le5. OF BJRE L!~5eED)FER ACRE SIze AvERAGE QC SPACING OYT. TREE POT O' TREE POT Ib'-""5·" TREE POT Ib'13 CUTTINGS I'"~B--- CUTTiNGS "'.11 TREE POTS O'-6-" DEE POTS "'.B DEE POT a'10 DEE POT5 0'22 DEE POTS O'U CCNMON NAME ARROYO LUPINE TI-lREE UJEEK FESCUE SLENDER WH2ATGRASS CALIEOl<NlA BROME I-IYDRO-'SEED MIX RIPARIAN SiTE MAINTENANCE A!i!J RECOI"1l"'fe.IDEO 6'1'I-tT.l4ARvEY AND A55OCIATES. VULPIA MICROSTACHY5 LOTUS PLlRSI-lIAt-l.!S 6ROt'lUS CARINATUS '"BAY AQEA- ALL DISruR6ED AREAS SHALL BE HYOW-5EEDED. SEEDS AVAlLA5lE FROM PACIFIC COAST SEED CCMPANY. BOTANICAL NAME EL'rM1JS T.SAN JUAN BAPTI5TA ECOTYFE LUPINUS 5IY'...Cl.JLENTUS I-lORDELN BRAOIYANTI-lEFU1 vAR."BAY AREA-MEADOW BARLEY HOTE,PROF'\..IGULES AND CUTT~5l4AW..BE COLLECTED ON SITE AND ADJACENT TO TI-lE SITE. ALL ?LANT MATERIAL SHALL eE OF LoCdL ORIGIN ONLY 4lENISTA tj9r:§pE$§U!..ANA _FRENCH BRQOM l.P1.ANT5 SHALL 5E UFROOTED STARTING:IN THE LEA5T 1I'FE5TED AREAS.LroRt<ING TOlLIARD DENSER AREAS. UPFa::lOTED PLANTS SHALL BE REMOvED FROM SiTE AND DISPOSED OF PROPEI'?J..Y. REMOVAL 15 MOST EFFECTIVE BEFORE fI.lE 5EEOS DI5F'ER:eE (Al.lGU5T-SEFTEHeER rrPicALLYl. 2.CN GOING SITE MONITORING:AND REMOvAL OF ALL SEEDLINGs IN YEARS 1-3. HEPERA Hel Ix -EJoK'tL.ISH IvY AND VINCA HAJDg·_PE!$!.~ L REMOvE P\..ANTS HANUALLYORUIITH A HAND I-ELD TRIt1rtER50 TAAT THE PHYSICAL ROOT STRUCTURES REMAIN IN PLACE TO HELP FREVe.lT ER05ION OF EXPOSED 5OU_S INTO n-tE CF.£EK.T"'E FHY5ICAL REMOVAL SHALL BE IMHEDIATEL'FOLLOILED WITl-l APFLICATI~OF f.(ERBIC[OE (ACAJAHA51ERJ APPROVED 6.THE EPA fOR ACllATlC SEmNGS. 2.ON.GOIN:i SITE HC1'IlITORINCr AND REMOVAL OF ALL SEED..lNc;S IN YEARS 1-3. MITIGATION SITE MAINTENA.NCfi ' TI-lE SJ1E PLANTINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UP TO 3 TIMES PER MON,"",DURING TI-IE GROWING:.sEASON.(HA~-APRiL) AND APPROXIMATELY ONCE PER MC'WTJ.I NO\IEMBER-FEBf<!JARY OURfNci TI-lE 3--YEAR ESTASLI~T PERIOD. ALL.DEAD F'L.ANTS WITI-I IN.Tl-IE MITIGATION SITE WILL BE ICEf?LACED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.THOSE SPECIES THAT ARE WELL.AOAPTEO TO Tl-lE ;.IT:E;WILL GBEf<ALLY 6E USED TO REPLAcE TJ.IE DEAD PLANT MATERIAL IRRic:aATlON SYSTEMS WILL REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE DURING THE 3-"rEAR ESTAeLI5H1ENT PERIOD.ANY" COMF'ONEN.T CF Tl-IE S1"5TEM DEEMED NON.-R.JNCTIONIt«,i SH,ALL 6E REPAIRED AND RE~cD AS PART OF THE REGULAR: 61TE HAINT&IANCE UEEDS Wln-l IN EACH P1.ANTJN£i BASIN AND Tl-lR:OlJ6l.l OUT ll-IE SITE-dS A IJ.I.IOlE WILL BE MANJALL.REMOVED 6Y TJ.lE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR C'N A REGULAR BASIS.THE IRRlGATIC'N BASIN:AROl1'ID'eAOllNSTALlED PLANT SHALL ee KEPT ueED FREE BT MAlNTAININ::;;THE MULQ.l"LAYER.6ND MAJoAJA1..LY REMOVIN5 THE we-cDS fI.lAT BECOME ESTAell5HCO IN.T14E MULCH.UEEDS THROUGI-IOUT n-lE SIiE SI-lALJ..BE KEPT TO A MAXIr-tJM J.lEIG~T OF 1-2 FEET YEAR ROl.ND U5ING A MOUIER:OR 11.EED CAlER.GIANT REEO.FRENCl-l 6ROCt1.EN::.LISI-l IVY AND PE:Rl~ll40UGI-lT cxrr TJ.IE SITE e.HALLeeCDNTROLLEDACCORDIN::2 TO TJ.IOSE f'1Ell.IODS OllTLlI-iED A60VE. 'n-lE PROTECTIVE PLANT CAGES AND ROOT PROTECT0R5 AROUND TJ.lE PLANTINGS SHALL BE F<EGULA.<;?,LY MAINTAINED BY TI-lE ~CTOR DURING TJ.IE ~-YEAR ESTASL.ISI-NENT PERIOD.IF A PLANT OU~ITS CAGE PRIOR TO n/E END c:f'Ti1E 3~YEAR PERIOD.1l4E?LANT PROTECTOR $-tALL BE REMOVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO EN5URE THAT TI-le Fl...ANT GROWS UNI-lINDERD.ROOT PROTECTORS 5J.lAU..NOT eE fS1OVED. MEASURES SHALL.BE TAKEN TO PROTECT NATIVE WOODY f:"-ANT SPECIES SHALL 6E THAT HAVE E5TAaL.ISI-lED TI-lROUGH N.C.1lJRAL PROCUREMENT.A MINttu1,TI-lE5ES SPECIES SHALL eE IDENTIFIED A.ND PROTECTED PRIOR TO AND DUR!N:!IlI.EED CCWTROl. ACTIVITIES. lNNAlURAL.INORGANIC DEBRIS AND TRASH n-IAT COLLECT$a-I THE SITE SlJALL 6.E REMOvED eN A REGULAR BASIS. NOTE,INFORMATION PROvIDED BY H.T.HARveY AND ASSOCIATES ECOLOGJCAL CONSULTANTS ON BIGA PLANS.PLAN IS FOR PLANNING I BIDDING PURPOSES ONL"I".CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW RECOMMENDATIONS 6,H.T.HARvEy FOR ALL CREEK HITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. RIPARIAN :;1ITIGATlON SHALL INCLUDE lHj;;REMOVAl-Of ALL EXISTING ~ARDSCAFE.ERADICATION OF SELECT NCN-NATlVE sPEciES AND SUBSEQUENT ESTAeLl5H1ENT OF NATIVE f<lPARIAN VEGETATION.CREEK ENHANCEMENTS WILL.NEED TO eE PERFO~IN ACCORDANCE llJ(Tl-I RESTORATION F<ECOl"'!I'1ENOATION P!=<EPARED BY"I-i.T.l-l,ARVEY AND ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CCNSULTANT6. DUE TO 11-IE NlJMBER OF exISTING PLANTS ON elTE.f'l-ANT INSTALLATIONS AND LOCATION ARE TO 6E ADJUSTED IN FIELD UNDER Tl-IE DIRECTION OF A QUALIFIED RESTORATION ECOLOGIST. ALL EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION 5l-lAU SE MAINTAINED.ANO PROTECTED 'fl.lROUGI-I OUT CON5TIalCTION AND MAINTEN.ONCE PeRIOD.A QUALIFIED BIOLOGIST 5HOllLD CLEARL.Y MAf'K IN TJ.IE FI=.LD ALL NATive VEGETATICJN PRI~ TO ANY'NON~NATIVE ERADICATION EFFORTS. AFalNDQ DONAX'-GIANT 'BEED L REt10YAL lNCLUDE5 THE CUTTINGS a=STEMS TO ApPfCOXlHATELY 2'A6O\IE EXI5TfNCi GRADE .AND 1l-tE IMMEDIATE APPLlCATlC'N OF HEReIClDE (ACaJAMASTER)~e"r TJ..IE EPA FOR U5t::IN AClUATIC SETTINGS. REMOVAL 15 MOST EFFECTIvE POST FLou.El'<!NGJ lMJD ~T TYPICALLY). 2 ..seDIMENT RE:'T&lTtON FENCING CAN BE UTILIZED 0URtNGl REMOVAL TO ENSURE THAT NO STRAY FRAGMENTS OF GIANT REED ARE DISPERSED INTO CREEK.ALL STEMS ~T BE I4AULED O!T SiTE AND DISF'06ED OF PROFeRt.Y. 3.CN GOtNQ SITE MONITORING-AND 5lJ65EQJENT REMOVAL AND I-ICRBICIDE APR..ICATICNS YEARS 1·3 0 SXMB91 BOTAN1C4t NAME CCf1MCIN NAME AESOJLU5 CALI~JCll8 CALI!"ORNIA SUCKEYE 0°QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK QUERCUS LOSATA VALLEY OAK 0 SALIx LAEYIGATA REO WlL!..OW ~€I SALIX LA5lOLEPIS ARROYO WILLOJ} SAMSUCUS HEXlCAN,A l"'i-EXlCAN.ELDERBERRY ©BACCI-lARIS PILULARIS COYOTE"6RI.JSI.I 0 HETERCt1ELES AReUTlFOLIA TOYCN 0 ROSA CALlFOl<NlOJS CALlFO~IA WILDROSE 0 RU6U5 URf,lNU5 CALIFORNIA 61...ACKEERR.! iii (IN FEET 1 1 inch 1:1 20 ft. GRAPHIC SCALE (E)NATIvE MIXED OVERSTORY SYCAMORE /BAY I OAK /conONUlOOD STING PRIom TREE TO REMAIN. TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE FENCING IN:ERNATIONAL ORANGE PLAS,TIC WEBBING. sTER STAKES,SPAcE 6 FT.ON CENTER. GOVER AReA INSIIlE PROTECTIVE FENCING WITH A 3"LAYER OF LARGE BARK MULCH.REMOVE MULCH AND RETAIN EXISTING GRADE WHEN FENce IS REMOVED., VERIFY FINAL DETAn.S,FENCE LAYOUT AND ANY OTHER COf\IDtTION5 OF APPROVAl..WITH ARBORIST. WILLOW PLANTING DET.AIL NTS V2-CHICKEN WIRE SUPPORTED WITH Tl-lREE (~)314-STAKES ORiveN INTO SOIL ~:~~~I~E2F ~3 WILlCUJ ~ TREE FOTS 3 .SALIx LAEvlGATA CUTIfNGS 50 RU6U5 DEE POTS (EJ 18"COTTONWOOD I SAMBUCUS TREE FOTS 1 24"'1 PIG F'LANTIN::.;.prT 2-4~x2"·MIN.. PROTECTIVE CAGE I PLANTING DETAIL r---,,\--8"elG:LEAF MAPLE ~.Cl-IICKEN WiRe SUPPORTED USlTH TI-lREE (3)CUT 2-1.0~POLE STAKES DICIvEN INTO SOli... RIPARIAN PLANTING PLAN (E>EUCALYPTUS ----..._,.......,.", .1 '1' I f L lJ-lESC COUSlTrtJCTJON DOCUIJENTS AR£PRO'AOEO TO I\.LUSTRo\TE THE:!lESlC»lInWT MID GE~A1. ~Of ro,SmuCTJOt'I DESlRfO,AND i1APt:f TliE FlflEST QUAUTY OF CONSmUCTlON,).fA'lER1AlS AND \'iOR\(I/..\NSHIP THROU<;l-lOUT THE PRo.lEer. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS flE$CUJ110li Of AU.OUESTlmlS CR '1!1ilI"'NCES ~RC/.tmrs,PU.~S IAUST B(nlROUGH THE"V.l105"'..APE AAonTECi (~ltA)AAD ISSUED LU 1,RlTIDI FORM. Cr;;tllRACICoP."CQ:PTS UI·.B!UT'l'BY"fIOT R(PCRTING u:y DiSC!rtJ'M;083 m iHE:I.NlOso.P::A/lCHltEcr bIY.Rl11UCF'i'!r.R TO IIfSTALl.1IC OO'PART Of TIl(liOOK I, IRRl-TROL Nc-e PLUS~6 CCNTRQLLER MOUNTED oN AS PEDESTAL eTATION CONTROLLER NUMBER vALVE SiZE UPM. POINT OF et::::'NNECTION AT 3/4u WATER METER (veRIFY'AVAILAeLE P51.SIZE AND LOCATION) ,~ "3 EMITTERS 3 EMITTERS ~ DEEFaT TREE FOT SET ALL.pop-UP SFRINt<::l...ER:S FLU5l-I WlTI-I FINI5H GRADE AND ONE INCH (lW)HORIZONTALL.Y AWAY FROM 5DGE OF WAL'<.5.CtIRe.HCADEReOARO,ETC. SPRAY !-lEADS TO BE SUPPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TWE SPECIFICATION5.NO!ZLlNG SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WIll-!T1-IE FLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. T~E CORRECT DEGREE 0;:ARC OF NOZZL..C $-l4U..BE AS Sl-{C\LN eN THE F'l_ANS AND ADJUSTED TO Tl-lE A~A TO SE.COVERED .AND BY"TJ-lE unND CONDITIONS Tl..JAT MAY AFFECT COVERAGE.IF IT BEcot1E5 APPARENT rnAT llllND CONDITIONS OR CfFSET5 IN F'-ANTlNG:AREAS ~VE NOT eEEN CON51DERED,CONTRACTOR SHALL.NOTIF"r'"THE CUNER'5 REPReSENTATIve FOR SOLUTlON5 PRIOR TO INSr~1NG TI-lAT PORTION CF Tl..JE IRRIGATION SYSTEN A"T'ECiED. ALL.MATERIAL IS SFECIFIC TO nU5 DESIGN.l14E IRR/(;oAT!Qi SYSTEM(S)~AvE e=-EN DESIGNED ACCORDING TO THE OPERATIONAl.C~ARACTER[STIC& C'F n.lE SPECiFIED EC!.JIFMENT.IF ANY Cj.jA."lGESo OR SUBSTITUTIONS ARE MADE WITl-JOUT T!-lE APPROvED ~ITTEN CALaJL.ArIONS,CONTRACTOR SHAL...!.. ASSUME RJLL.RESPCNSISIL.ITY AND C05TS FOR THE RESUL.i5 OF TH05E CI-lANGES.• DESIGN IS eASED 0t\I CONNECTING 3/4"WATER METER WITH A MINIMUM lI.IORI<ING:PRESSURE 45 PSI A"lD 3S GPM.SAFE FLOW AVAILABLE TO EACH vALVE. VERIFY FRIOR TO IN5TALLATION. IRRiGATION SCI-lEDULE AS RECCt1MENDED BY 1-1.1.HARVEY AND ASSOCIATES SCHEDULE 4eI PVC MAIN LINE.1"SiZE THE CONTRACTOR SHAL.L INCLUDE [N THE BID THE ADDITION OF fIVE (5)DRIP C\.iTLETS AND RISER AS5ENBUES UJIT~n:Slf\lG TO ACCOMMODATE CHA~S IN THE FIELD NOT ANTICIPATED AT DES[GN.PHASE.OR FOR CL.OSER SPACIN:::.if REGlUlRED TO ACl--llEvE 6ETTER COVERAGE.UNUSED IRRIGATION MATERIAL 5I-IALL Be RETURNED TO THE OlLNER FOR R./TURE MAINTENANCE AFTER THE INSTALL.ATION 15 CCMPLETED.CONTRACTOR SHAlL DOCUMENT tIMER=:EXTRA MATERIAL ~A5 sEEN INSTALLED ON TI-lE -A.5-eIJILT"PLANS>. IRRIGATION LEGEND WIRE -"14 DIRECT BLlRlAL GLUE-u.ELD-ON 111,OR EQUAL. PRIMER ~WELD-ON P-10,OR eQUAL SPLICE KlTS-3M-DeY.OR EaJAL NOTE,Ir-&=ORMATICN PROV[DED SY ~.T.HARvEY AND AS50CIATES ECOL.OOICAL CONSUL.TANT5 .'.--] ON eKoCA PL.AN.S.PLAN [S FOR:Pl..ANN[NG I BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY.CC'NT~ORSHALL. FO'....L.OW RECOMMENDATION5 SY l...tT.HARVEY FOR ALL.CREEK MITIGATION 1<EQ!JIRENENTS. RAlNeIRD MJL.TI~FLCW EMITTER XPT·!iZI·6 ON 112"eCl-I'SIZ'RISER WITH SEe 6X ACCESS BOX RAIN61RD 15-DYF ELECTRIC REMOTE CONTROL VAL\1= uJlT~RAIN61RD ReY-~.lS0xFIL.TER AND P51_M4lZlX-llP0 PRESSURE REGL/L.ATOR NOTE,APPROXIMATELY 1iZ>-I;!C::AL\..ct..zS OF WATER ~D'6E AFPl-IED TO EACH PlANT APF'ROXIMATELY TI--IREE (3)TIMES>PER NCNT1-I tN:YEAR I n·lRouGHOlIT THE GROJJiNC!r $EASON. (MARCH -OCTOBER).FLA"'TIN:::?l5 SHOULD BE IRRIGATED DURING-THE GROWING 5EASCN TWlCi: PER MONTH IN YEAR '2 AND A=PRQXIMATa.Y ONCE PeR MCN1l-I IN YEAR 3.MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR:TO AD,ljST IRR"IC:ATICN SCHEDULE ACCORDING TO UF-ATHER CONDITICN5 AND PLAN-To ~ANCE. THE CONTRACTOR IS C.AJJTIONEO TO·DEfEND TJ-lE-~YD~~CSOF :Tl-l15 SYSTEM'BY FOLLCUJlNG JT.IE FL:Al'.fs AN!::>SPECIFICATIONS CARERJLLY. PARrlaJLAR.A,Ti"ENTION.Sl-lOULD 6E GIVEN TO,OPER:ATL~CONTROL.L.::!Q PROFEf<l..Y,OFERATING~T>-IE.&Y5TEM AFT'ER.FLOJJ.CONTROLS'OR..se:C'l:ION·~ VALvES·I4AVE 6EEN"AD..WTED TO·DESIGNED OPERAT1~FRESSURS,Al'oO FOLL.OWING>:MANUFAClURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR lNSTALL.ATICN OF ALL.IT81S,r...e:SIZING OF VALVES AND PIPES IS SPS:CIFIC TO THIS OESIGN AND LAYOUT.IF MODIFICATIONS A~t1AOE !N ,!-IE FIELO...ALL VALvES A'IO PlFINCs MUST BE SIZED PROPERLY"TO CONFORM WITI-I THE ST~ARD GPM.AND vELOCIIT REaLJlREMENTS.CCNTRACTOR MUST 5UeM1T CALCULATIONS AND MODIFIED L.AYOUT CN OVERL..AY"S;.lEET FOR IlJRITTE1'I APPROVAL PRlOR TO INSTAL.LING !HE C~ANG"'"-...D lTEM!S). SPACING CFALL ~EADS ARE SPECIFIC.TO THE AREA AS·54-lOU.N ON ·Tf.lE PLANS"CONTRACTOR·5HAL!;.,-VERlFY ALL.AREA5-TO 9E IRRIGATED AREn-:e SAME SIZE AS SHOlLN ~Tl-IE PLAN.IF THE SIZE CF il-lE AREA ~A5 ClANGED IN ANY WAY,OR TI-IE GRADE 15 OIFFERENT THAN UMAT THE ORIGINAl. DESIGN 15 BASED ON.CON'i'RAC:TOR HJ5T NOTIFY OUNER.'S REPRESENTATIVE IN WRITING:FOR RE50Ll.H1CN TO Tl-IE C~E(S).U'U-ESS NOIlFiED [N ~TINt::i,CONTRACTOR Sl..JALL NoT PROCEED Ar.lEAD WITl-l THE [NSTALLATION 1k-lTIL Tl-IE Cl-IANG,ES J.lA.....E eEEN RE:VfEUF-D AND ACCEPTED 6Y Tl-lE Ol!k'ER'S REPRE5-::NTATIVE. IT 15 INreNDED THAT T~E PIPING:LAY"OUT \5 D1AaR.Ao"1M,j.TIC.ALTHCU:::rl-I TI-lE SIZlI't:t 15 SPECIFiC TO TI-E LAYOJT.PIPING 5HAL.L SE ROUTED ARO'..:ND TREES,5I4RU6S.ARCI-lITECiURAL FEATURES ETC.IN 5UCH A MANNER AS TO AVOiD D~ES TO PI.A~T[W..:<S OR O71-iE.~FEAl'lIR:ES.ANY PIPING Si-lCUN WITH!N PAVED AREAs.ORUJlll·UN THE FOOTF'RINT CF A ~IS FOR DE5:&ol CL.ARITY CNLY:,,l.ND 5HAlL.BE INSTALL.ED IN PL.ANTER AREAS u.;..rcP...EVER.POS516L.E.! SET ALL DRIP OUTLET5 nu::>[NCHE5 (r)BEL.ow FlNl&H GRADE.OR ENCLOSED IN PLASTIC EMITTER SOXE5 AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN5_PLACE END 01 D1STR~6UTIONT'~BING EvENL.":"SPACED AROUND Tl-lE RCOT6ALL.FOR l·m•.LSIDE PLANTlN:::....LOCA-rE.AT L.EAST ONE EMITTER CN THE UP·I-iIL!.. SiDE OF THE PL.,ANT.5TAKE mE DI5TR/BUnON TUSING EVERY T1LO FEET (2')OR CLOSER IF NECESSAerr Wl1l-l WIRE METAL STAKES TO INSURE &EClJRITY. 1'UBING SI-lALL AL..50 6E BURIED 2"BEL.OW SO[l,..~E Exq:;:PT FOR THE FINAL 6",UA-lICH 5H~L BE.SEO)RED WITH A PLASTIC l'U61NG-STAKE.THE END OF THE ru6~SHALL SE POINTED [N A DOlLNiJJARD DIRECTION TO INSURE THAT THE IJJATER WILL DROP TO THE GROUND RATI-IER l1-lAT RUN DOtI.N THE TUBIN:::!sACK rCWARDS T14E CUTLET.CCNTR:ACTOR SHAL.L.SNAKE TUBING:TO f'R.e.IENT RESTRICTION CF TI-lE ruBIN!::,;AND P05516LE DETACI-IMENT FRCM THE OUTLET.NUH6ER OF OUTL.ETS SHAll.eE IN ACCORDANCE Wln·1 TI-IE PLANS AS 5HOU.N.CNE CIRCLE ON TI-IE FLA.'"REPRESENTS ONE OUTLET 00 A PVC RISER:nu::>CIRCLES Toc,,£"n-lER CN THE PLAN REPRE5ENT TWO cun...5Ts ON A TEE FITTING ON A,PVC Rl.5ER.FOLL.OW THE GENERAL GUIDE Sl-loc.N aEL.OUJ FOR.THE Nl.NBER OF EH1TIER5 TO EACl-I F"..A"'T.EMITTERS SHALL BE LOCATED lL\-IERE THE ROOmALL AND THE NATIVE 5O[L..MEET•. -- o -=~=-~~r..oc=.o.m E!aW.016T~ ~EOGEClF~ !'o.~~Jf;Ul:l5ll11ON~ DT~!>C(Ie.s;:y'Z·CELO!1~ ~~ O'1fTTl!RooxoeeJ"l< MULTI-DRIP DETAIL GRAPHIC SCALE z~•.J 'I i i j.- (IN FEET J t inch""20 IL .:NO~:TO PREVENT SIGNIfICANT ROOT LOSS AND TREE FAlUJRE.NO ISATION CHING SHOUU>BE AlLOWED INSIDE OR ADJACENT TO THE [)RIP TING LARGE OAK TREES. AL.L.LATERAL LINES ARE 3/4n D!AMi::TER:UNL.ESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OT~ERlllI5E CN THE 1RR.1GATION PLANS. THESE DRAWINGS ARE DESIGN DRAWINGS.T~E LAYOUT AND SPRINKLER/ORI:=>DE51GN 15 BASED ON SPECIFIC DIMENSICNS AS 5l-l0UN.ON THE SITE PLAN,OR SCALED FROM TI-lE L.ANDSCAPE PL.AN.ACTUAL..DIMENSIONS AND/OR CON5TfalCTION MAY V":'RY AT tl-IE DI6CRETICN OF Tl-IE ctlNER IF CHANGE5 OCCUR CONTRACTOR SI-lAL.L PROVIDE AN OVEFa..AY SI-IOlIJING-DESIGN MODIFICATIONS TO VALVE5 .AND/OR piPE S[ZE5,AND ADJUST THE L.AY"OUT AUD NlIH6ER OF HEADS TO ACCOMMODATE TI-lE Dli"FERENT SIZE AREAc'SJ.TI-IE CCNlRACTOR 5I-IALL.PREPAf'£A DETA1L.ED ·A5·eulL.T~DRAWING FOR SUeMITTAL TO THE OJ..t'-lER TO BE useD A5 FINAL RECORD D'RAlUI~. V-cPJFY,SIZE.LOCATION AND AVAILABL.E FRE5SlJRE 0;:.pac.PPJOR TO lN5TAL.LATlON..IF DIFFERENT TI-IAN ~AT 15 SHO'JX ON T~E IRRIGATION F'l...AN.STOP IJJ:::?R:K AND CONTACT eK~A IN UIRlrrr-:c.f-oR RE5O'~TION.FAILURE TO DO 50 WIL.L.MEA"t T;4E LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR ACC=:F'T5 ALl.RESPCNSlalLlrr A,'U'COSoTS FOR REPAIRS.MODlFICATICN5 OR OTHER WORK NECES5ART"TO F'ROvIDE T~E OlLNER W[TH A PROPER ~ING IRRlGATICN SY5TEM(SJ. EXACT LOCATION OF CCNTROLLEFUS).COORD!NATE WlT~OllNER AND ELECTRICAL.CC'NTRACTOR FOR LOCATION oF lllZl VOLT ELECTRICAL S1UBOJT FOR CONTROLL.ERt5}. ALL.PIPING.VALVES,ETC.5~WITHIN PAveD AF'...EAs.15 FOR DESIGN CL.AR:FICATION ONLY".AND SH.<1L.L BE IN5TALLED IN ~TlN::i AREAS UA-lERE P0551BL.E. LOCATE·IRRIGATION"Ce:;t.iTROLl:.ER.- IN LANDSCAFE':AREA CONTRAcro~TO PROviDE ELECTRICAL WIRE TO EACH vALvE VALVE DETAIL FILTER/PRESSURE REG.DETAIL ~T-ifl ~~+~lii lJJ ::..---------F.O.c.AT 3/4"WATER METER VERlPr INSTALLATION F"f<IOR TO BEGINNING WORK CONTRACTOR.TO VERIFY lLJORK1NG PRESSURE AND GR1 PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ~/IIII1I1I/IIIIi:1 LOCATE IR!"IGATION CONTROLLER ~IN LANDSCAPE AREA : CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ELECTR1C4L,,'WIRE TO EACH VALvE ,,' POCo AT 3/4u WATER METER t VERIFY INSTALLATION PRIOR ~\ TO BEGINNING lIX:>RK ~:4 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WOI<K.lNG:p~'.. PRESSURE AND GA-!PRIOR TO ElEGINiiUNG WORK L !;•. ,e TRENCi4ING DETAIL ~l.ATlRl'llGAoJ'lClol~LH2C1i_t..<.Tm.(lf'Iol4TlvElIOll.. ~AU.~D:RTct..al».ollDR000 .QID cot:r.fCT ~TO or.~Cf'ADJACOIT lIOl&~~. %.==}~~~~~tll1'l l.TAPEQQ~UR:E.EIo'£RT'TCHFCllT(IO"ITOI'1.oU'(I.lt£ RIPARIAN IRRIGATION PLAt~ """'"L ~"""""""'"~81ZE ~~~B4SE ~'LA"l'EROF~~OVER ~ACTEDlllJB.GR,.4DE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER DETAIL _ l _ c---.-~.~- MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE:August 21,2002 PROJECT:10 Monroe Court PD-01-2 Impact Mitigation Monitoring Action Responsibility .Timing Hazards and Existing construction finish materials that are suspect for Required as a condition Director of Community During demolition process Hazardous containing lead-based paint shall be tested and pending of approval Development Materials laboratory analysis,will not be subjected to any process which renders them friable unless proper engineering controls and worker protection procedures are initiated. Geology and The project shall incorporate all 50 recommendations and Required as a condition Director of Community Prior to issuance of a building Soils UBC Design Criteria included in Terrasearch's of approval.Development permit. geotechnical investigation for the proposed project (Attachment 3 of the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court, dated June 2002),in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity,erosion hazards and subsurface soil conditions on the site. Biological The riparian corridor enhancement plan (Attachment 1 of Required as a condition Director of Community During the Architecture and Site Resources the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court dated June 2002)of approval.Development and Director of approval process and prior to and the riparian study planting plan (Sheet L-Rl,of the Parks and Public Works issuance of a building permit and approved landscape plan)shall be implemented.All future Department prior to final occupancy. landscaping within lOO feet of the riparian corridor shall consist of native trees,shrubs and ground cover that occur naturally in the riparian habitat near the site and shall be a mix similar to species used in the riparian corridor enhancement plan.Final landscape and irrigation plans. shall be reviewed and approved by Santa Clara Valley Water District. N:\DEV\SANDY\ENv\lOmonroe.wpd PAGE10f6 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE:August 21 ,2002 PROJECT:10 Monroe Court PD-OI-2 Impact Mitigation Monitoring Action Responsibility Timing Biological Any lighting to be installed along the eastern edge of the Required as a condition Director of Community Prior to final occupancy Resources proposed development shall be designed to minimize the of approval.Development Continued intensity oflight reaching the adjacent riparian corridor and setback area. Prior to any equipment arriving on site and prior to Required as a condition Director of Community Prior to issuance of a building construction or building permits being issued,the applicant of approval.Development permit shall meet with the Director of Parks,Forestry and Maintenance Services concerning the need for protective fencing around the existing trees.Such fencing is to be installed prior to,and be maintained during,construction. The fencing shall be a five foot high chain link attached to steel poles driven at least 18 inches into the ground when at the dripline of the tree.If the fence has to be within eight feet of the trunk of the tree,a fence base may be used,as in a typical chain link fence that is rented. Fencing shall be included at the following locations as identified in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court dated June 2002): a.The 30 inch coast live oak east of Lot 1,six feet from the proposed final wall Iocation on the west and south and out to the driplineon the.north. b.The 18 inch coast live oak at the smith end ofLot 1. c.Adjacent to the fire truck turnaround. d.The Douglas fir between Lots 2:mid 3,six feet flOIll tins tree.(Tree to be removed) N:\DEV\SANDY\ENV\IOmonroe.wpd PAGE 2of6 ___L _ MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE:August 21,2002 PROJECT:10 Monroe Court PD-01-2 Biological Resources Continued Mitigation The following methods of construction is required: a.Pier and on-grade beam foundations must be used in any area beneath a trce canopy. b.No excavation for crawl space or equivalent may be excavated in areas beneathcanopies oftrees. Utility trench locations shall be identified prior to the issuance of a building permit so that their location is planned and not an incidental location determined by the utility company. .c.Trenches for any service or irrigation shall not be located in any area beneath the canopies of trees. Utility trench locations shall be identified prior to the issuance of a building permit so that their location is planned and not an incidental location determined by the utility company. d.The trench for the storm drain line proposed adjacent to the 24-inch oak shall be dug by hand within ten feet of the trunk.The trench for the sewer line proposed adjacent to the existing oak near the fire truck turnaround shall be dug by hand if closer than 15 feet from the trunk.No roots over 2 1,inches in diameter shall be cut. e.No vertical cuts shall be made closer than five times the trunk diameter from any tree iftrellching is on only one side ofthe trees root m(lSs.If it is necessary to cut a trench through more than one quadrant ofthe tree's root mass,the trenches shall be set back a distance of seven times the trunk diameter.Foundations constructed within the Monitoring Action Required as a condition of approval Responsibility Director of Community Development and Parks and Public Works Department During plan check imd construction .N:\DEv\SANDY\ENV\10monroe.wpd PAGE30f6 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE:August 21,2002 PROJECT:10 Monroe Court PD-01-2 Impact Mitigation Monitoring Action Responsibility Timing Biological drip line which are closer than five times the trunk Resources diameter from the trunk,shall be of pier and beam Continued design. f.When existing pavement is removed in tractor shall back up onto undisturbed pavement as it picks up the pavement pieces so as to avoid compression ofthe soil in newly exposed root zones'.The newly exposed rot zone areas shall be covered immediately with a layer of three inches of tree chips (as from a chipping machine from a tree company)to protect these root systems from drying out. Newly exposed root systems shall be watered with a Required asa condition Director of Parks and Public During construction soaker hose applying ten gallons of water per one inch of of approval.Works trullk diameter once every two weeks until construction is completed. All newly planted landscaping shall be irrigated by an in-Required as a condition Director of Parks and Public Prior to final occupancy ground irrigation system.The irrigation system shall avoid of approval.Works excessive watering of the existing Oaks and there shall be no irrigation lines within the Tree Protection Zones ofthe Oaks. Pruning of any trees shall be done by an ISA certified Required as a condition Director of Parks and Public During construction arborist using ISA Western Chapter Pruning Specifications of approval.Works N :\DEV\SANDY\ENV\1 Omonroe.wpd PAGE40f6 -\. ...--'- MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE:August 21,2002 PROJECT:10 Momoe Court PD-01-2 Impact Mitiuation Monitorinu Action Responsibility Timinu Biological Before any equipment arrives on site,platfonn buffers Required as a condition Director of Community Prior to issuance of a building Resources shall be installed under all canopies out to driplines as of approval.Development and Director of permit Continued shown in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for 10 Momoe Parks·and Public Works Court,dated June 2002.A platfonn buffer is a five inch layer of coarse chips from a tree company,with one to 1 1:> inch thick plywood full sheets laid over the tip and tied together.This shall cover all parts of the soil beneath the tree canopy and remain in place until construction ceases, All trunks must be wrapped with carpeting or equivalent to eight reet above grade in platfonn butTer areas. Ensure that any required pennits from the Santa Clara Required as a condition Director of Community Prior to issuance of a building Valley Water District,Califomia Regional Water Quality of approval.Development and Director of pennit and during construction Control Board,California Department of ,Fish and Game Parks and Public Works and US Anny Corps of Engineers are obtained by the project applicant for any work in the creek and all pennit conditions are properly implemented during construction. N:\DEV\SANDY\ENV\10momoe.wpd PAGE 50f6 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE:August 21,2002 PROJECT:10 Monroe Court PD-01-2 Impact Mitigation Monitoring Action Responsibility Timing Cultural The site shall be reinspected by a qualified archaeologist at Required as a condition Director of Community During construction. Resources the applicant's expense,directly after all of the existing of approval.Development buildings and other imported materials are removed and prior to issuance of any permits for new construction. Findings and recommendations of this survey shall be submitted in writing to the Town.If any deposits of archaeological materials are discovered at this time,they will be evaluated for significance if future ground disturbing activities would endanger them.If the evaluation of deposits demonstrates that they are intact and significant deposits of archaeological soils (midden),the project sponsor shall be required to submit a plan to the Town for mitigation of impacts on these resources,prior to commencement of any further earthmoving within the identified areas.. N:\DEV\SANDY\ENV\lOmonroe.wpd PAGE6of6 BSA Page 1 PUBUC HEARING -NOVEMBER 12,2003 Page 3 XMAX(1/1) (1)TOWN OF LOS GATOS (Z)PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (3)PUBLIC HEARING (')AGENDA ITEMS 2 AND 3. (5)10 MONROE COURT and (6)11 COLLEGE AVENUE (7)Town Counci 1 Chambers (8)110 East Main Street (9)Los Gatos.California (10)Taken on (ll)November 12.2003 (lZ)#14433 (13) (H) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (ZO) (Zl) (22) (23) (Z') (25) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) PRO C E E 0 I N G S: CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.Folks,we're back in session here.We're now going into new public hearings.Number 2 on the agenda 10 Monme Go'let .-:*- Planned Development Application PD-01-2,Negative Declaration dash ND-01-14,requesting approval of planned development to change the zone from RM:12-20 to RM:12-20 PO,construct three dwelling units. Will the applicant please come forward and identify yourself for the record,please. STAN QUEEN:Good evening.My name is Stan Queen.I'm the operations manager for Pacific Diversified.Our address is 1224 Lincoln Avenue in San Jose.The zip is 95125. I would like to give you a quick history on 10 Monroe Court,bring you up to speed about the site plan that you see before you tonight. Pacific Diversified came before the Town with the site plan in 2000.This plan consisted of four units that were designed to be built on gentle slopes,as well as the flat topography of the site. During final review of the site plan,the Town Staff brought up a concern during the initial stUdy.Portions of lots three and four had been (1) [Z) (3)Los Gatos Planning COR1l1issioners: (') (5) (6) (7) Assistant ,(8)Oi rector of COll1llunity (9)Development: (10)Town Attorney: (11)Transcri bed by: [lZ) (13) (ll) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (ZO) [Zl) (22) (23) [2') (25) Page 2 A P PEA RAN C E $: Paul Dubois.Chair Jeanne Drexel Phil Micciche Lee Quintana Joanne Tal esfore Morris Trevithick Tom \/i 11 i ams Ony Korb ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES BY:LISA A.GLANVILLE. CSR 9932 1083 Lincoln Avenue San Jose.CA 95125 (408)920-0222 --000-- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 4 located in a newly discovered riparian setback.A redesign would be necessary,but there was a possible concern that we had from a previous CDAC meeting that the Town might want to consider high density for 10 Monroe Court. PDCI,or Pacific Diversified,discussed with Staff an idea to go before the Planning Commission,even though we had the issue of the riparian setback modifications ahead of us.Our main goal was to get a read on the Commission where it stood in regards to wanting higher density on 10 Monroe Court. Pacific Diversified went before the Commission,in which they indicated no desire for higher density and d,enied our application due to the considerable amount of time the previous builder had taken before us that we newly partnered with.We appealed the application to Council,in which the Council upheld the decision of the Commission on March of 2001. Since that time,Pacific Diversified has had three public hearings,a study session with this Planning Commission.On December 11th,2002,the Planning Commission approved four units on Monroe Court contingent on Town Council approval. ATTACHMENT 5 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,LLC (408)920-0222 Page 1 to Page 4 BSA PUBUC HEARING·NOVEMBER 12,2003 XMAX(2J2) Page 5 (1)On February of 2003,Pacific Diversified (2)met with the Town Council.Their decision was to (3)modify the four existing site -four existing home (4)site plans down to three homes with an aggregate of (5)8,000 square feet. (6)But March of ~his year,I met with four (7)out of five Towl1 Councilmembers with the revised (8)sketch of a neWly designed three unit site plan. (9)All Councilmembers I met with were in favor of the (10)revisions. (11)I then contacted neighbors on Monroe and (12)Brickway Court.Pacific Diversified did not receive (13)any negative comments from any neighbors. (14)And what I just gave you is what I gave (15)them.In fact,I set up a meeting with them on a (16)Saturday afternoon,with the homeown~rs,on April (17)5th.Only two people showed up,and their feedback (18)was of a positive nature. (19)I also indicated I would meet with the (20)neighbors for an individual meeting if anyone could (21)not make that meeting or felt uncomfortable and (22)would like a one on one meeting with me,and I (23)would - I would accommodate them as well.There (24)were no caIls for any individual meetings. (25)Since April of this year,Pacific Page 6 (1)Diversified has worked closely with Staff to develop (2)the site plan that you see before you tonight. (3)Pacific Diversified has spent hundreds of thousands (4)of dollars in consultants,architects,engineers, (5)blueprints and land cost over the last past four (6)plus years. (7)Our small company of ten people has spent (8)countless hours in resources,Which ha,s taxed our (9)company more than any job PDCI has undertaken.It (10)is our sincere.hope that you once again approve yet (11)another site plan tonight which was asked of us to (12)be modified by the Town Council last February. (13)Dave Pitzen is the owner and principal of (14).Pacific Diversified,and any questions that you may (15)have may be directed to him at marketing and (16)financial.Scott Stotler is our architect.And all (17)of the questions as far as the technical issue or (18)planning issues will probably be handled by me. (19)Thank you. (20)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:All right.Any (21)questions for Mr.Queen?Yes.Commissioner (22)Talesfore.· (23)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I do have a (24)question.In the planning report you refer to the (25)lot area and floor areas previous and then current. Page? (1)I was curious,currently proposed are lots and (2)square foot -footage -square footage?Whatever. (3)But I notice that the largest house is -proposed (4)is on a lot that's smaller than -okay,if you look (5)at Lot 1,Lot 1 is 2,150,and that's on a lot size (6)that's like 9,000 square feet.And then Lot 2 is (7)31,and that's on a lot size of 82. (8)So I'm just curious,can you tell me how (9)that came about,why you're putting a larger home on (10)a smaller lot?Am I reading that correctly? (11)STAN QUEEN:The lot area for Lot 2 is (12)8,268 feet.The living area is 3,115 square feet. (13)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Uh-huh. (14)STAN QUEEN:Lot 1 is -the lot is (15)proposed on the entire length of the project,which (16)gives up a 20 foot street in the entrance to the (17)project. (18)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay. (19)STAN QUEEN:So if you back up that street (20)area- (21)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Wait,wait.Say (22)that again.Lot 1 what? (23)STAN QUEEN:Lot 1 or parcel one- (24)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Uh-huh. (25)STAN QUEEN:-the property line runs up Page 8 (1)the center of the -of the street,and it goes the {2)entire length of the project.So the private street (3)is the entrance,but that property also is (4)belonging- (5)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So (6)that's included - (7)STAN QUEEN:-to parcel one. (8)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Is that included (9)in the 9,150? (10)STAN QUEEN:·Yes. (11)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay,thank you. (12)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Any other questions? (13)Commissioner Quintana. (14)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I'd just like to (15)ask you,in the Council's resolution,you stated (16)that you allowed 8,000 square feet aggregate;is (17)that correct? (18)STAN QUEEN:That is correct. (19)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Council's (20)resolution says not to exceed.It doesn't say (21)guaranteed.I just want to point that out. (22)STAN QUEEN:Thank you for that (23)clarification. (24)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Are there any other (25)questions?Commissioner Drexel. Page 5 to Page 8 (408)920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,LLC BSA PUBUC HEARING·NOVEMBER 12,2003 XMAX(313) Page 9 (1)COMMISSIONER DREXEL:I just want to make (2)sure that the -all the suggestions from the Santa (3)Clara County Water District,have they all been (4)incorporated into the plan?And I guess that's a (5)question for you and for Staff. (6)STAN QUEEN:Yes,they have been. (7)COMMISSIONER DREXEL:They have been, (8)thank you. (9)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Any other questions? (10)Okay.Seeing none,thank you very much.And now (11)open this up to the public.I have no cards on it. (12)is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak (13)to this issue?Seeing no one,is there anything- (14)are there any other questions for the applicant? (15)No,this is all applicant's. (16)There are no other speakers. (17)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:There are no other (18)speakers.Okay,I have a couple questions. (19)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:For? (20)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:For the- (21)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Mr.Queen?Mr.Queen? (22)Mr.Queen,would you return,thank you. (23)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:If you take out (24)the street easement,what is the actual size of the (25)lots? Page 10 (1)STAN QUEEN:Well,the calculation would (2)have to be figured up.We have the footprints. (3).Scott's got a lot area.That's all Staff had asked (4)us to do.They didn't ask us to back out the (5)street. (6)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And -I don't (7)have any specific questions. (8)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.No questions. (9)Anybody else have any other questions?Then I guess (10)that's all the questions,and I'm going to close the (11)public hearing,return this to the Commission for (12)questions of Staff,comments or a motion. (13)Commissioner Drexel. (14)COMMiSSIONER DREXEL:I can make a motion, (15)if that will maybe (inaudible),you know - (16)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Go for it. (17)COMMISSIONER DREXEL:Okay.I move to (18)recommend approval of Planned Development (19)Application PD-01-2 with the condition that at (20)the -that the footprint and size of each home be (21)determined at A and S as to an aggregate of 8,000 (22)square feet. (23)We recommend that the Town Council make (24)the mitigated Negative Declaration in Exhibit Hand (25)adopt the mitigation monitoring plan in Exhibit G. Page 11 (1)We make the following findings:We find (2)that the zone change is consistent with the General (3)Plan as required by the in -Town's Infill Policy. (4)For a community benefit,we find that the project (5)contributes to the development of the surrounding (6)neighborhood as it eliminates blight. (7)The project is designed in context with (8)the neighborhood as the plan is for single family (9)dwellings in a street of single family dwellings. (10)The project demonstrates excellence in (11)design.The project presents -represents a strong (12)community benefit in the project plans because they (13)include the restoration of the creek bank by (14)removing a series of non-riparian plants and (15)restoring plant and wildlife that is native to the (16)creek. (17)Also,the project creates an open space, (18)prOViding views to the creek from Monroe Court.We (19)recommend that the Town Council approve the zone (20)change request incorporating the preliminary (21)development plan as part of the Planned Development (22)Ordinance in Exhibit I. (23)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Do we have a second for (24)the motion? (25)COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I'll second. Page 12 (1)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I second. (2)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.It's seconded by (3)Commissioner Talesfore.Do we have comments? (4)Commissioner Quintana. (5)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I have a question (6)of Staff regarding the riparian restoration plan. (7)In the Staff Report,and as far as I could tell from (8)the plans here,I wasn't clear whether it still (9)included the removal of the stone wall and whether (10)that was consistent with the joint aging-what is (11)it?Joint Aquatic whatever whatever agency ',)ermit. (12)MR.WILLIAMS:It is,Commissioner. (13)That's actually a requirement of theirs is to remove (14)the wall. (15)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay.Another (16)question I had is the Staff -what is the General (17)Plan designation on this site? (18)MR.WILLIAMS:I'm sorry.High density (19)residential at 12to 20. (20)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay.The Staff (21)Report indicates that the density is two dwelling (22)units per acre.How -I'm having trouble figuring. (23)out the consistency.I'm also not sure whether (24)that's accurate,because did they inclUde the (25)riparian habitat area?Did they back out the ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,LLC (408)920-0222 Page 9 to Page 12 BSA PUBLIC HEARING·NOVEMBER 12,2003 ..XMAX(4f4) Page 13 (1)eight -you know,I'm not sure.Big question mark. (2)And then while Tom is looking at that,I (3)just want to make the comment that I still do not (4)believe that this demonstrates excellence in site (5)design.I am very concerned that we have a private (6)street and a private -private street that is (7)maintained for easements,that we have a common area (8)that is actually located pn a private lot,and there (9)is no provision for a homeowners association to (10)manage the cost of those. (11)I also have some questions of Staff (12)regardil'lg the maintenance qf the -of the creek. (13)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:We got one question at a (14)time here. (15)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay. (16)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:We got one we're working (17)on (inaudible). (18)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay.So (19)basically what I'm saying in that is I t~ink that (20)this is a situation where the PO should include a (21)homeowners association that takes responsibility for (22)the private street and the -and the common area, (23)and the common area should not be part of a private (24)parcel. (25)MR.WILLIAMS:The density does include Page 14 (1)the riparian corridor.And then you had another (2)question.I'm sorry,I can't remember- (3)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Well,the dense- (4)okay,so the density includes the riparian corridor (5)as two dwelling units per acre.How is that (6)consistent with the General Plan? (7)MR.WILLIAMS:The General Plan calls for (8)12 to 20 units an acre.It's consistent with the (9)General Plan because it's under what the maximum (10)allowable is with the General Plan.I think we'd (11)hav~an issue if it would exceed that density.It's (12)f<;ir below that density. (13)COMMISSiONER QUINTANA:My -my (14)understanding is that when there's a range of 12 to (15)20,that the 12 is the lower end,and while there (16)might be some leeway with regards to environmental (17)concerns,that the difference between -to me, (18)anyway,between two and 12- (19)MR.WILLIAMS:Well,it -if I may,in (20)our housing element that's adopted,that's soon to (21)be certified,the State HCD,this was one of the (22)issues that we had with them relative to our (23)underlying zoning and density for our mandated (24)housing production,but since this is a PO,a (25)planned development,you have the ability to - Page 15 (1)·COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I - I - (2)MR.WIWAMS:-create a different (3)density. (4)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I -with all due (5)respect,a PO allows deviation from the zoning,not (6)from the General Plan. (7)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.I've got a motion (8)on the floor..Commissioner Drexel. (9)COMMISSIONER DREXEL:I do have a question (10)about a homeowners association.Is that something (11)that we would set up during -during the PO,or is (12)that something we would look.at at A and S? (13)What's -What's the deal with the homeowners (14)association?And how are these things going to be (15)maintained? (16)MR.WILLIAMS:They're not proposing it. (17)And in terms of the riparian corrjdor,our ~arks and (18)Public Works Department will maintain it. (19)COMMISSIONER DREXEL:So we don't have to (20)worry about any -anything else?I mean,what was (21)your concern- (22)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:My concern is that (23)you have a private street- (24)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Who maintains it? (25)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Who maintains it? Page 16 (1)How is the money collected?The history of private (2)streets,when there isn't a homeowners association, (3)is they get into battles when the street needs (4)repair,and often it just never gets repaired. (5)That's number one. (6)Number two is the common area is contained (7)within parcel two,and that just doesn't make any (8)sense to me.If it's a common area,it -it seems (9)logical,especially with a PO,to have it as a (10)separate parcel that is maintained by a hom.eowners (11)association. (12)And my - I have another question for (13)Staff.The conditions of the project indicate that (14)the homeowners -excuse me,the homeowners,the (15)property owners,will be responsible for the (16)maintenance of the riparian habitat restoration for (17)the first three -three years?No? (18)MR.WILLIAMS:No.The- (19)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:The -okay.They (20)will be required to pay for - (21)MR.WILLIAMS:Correct. (22)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:-(inaudible)- (23)okay.Thank you for the clarification. (24)My concern is the maintenance of the - (25)any repairs that will be required by floods of Page 13 to Page 16 (408)920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,LLC BSA PUBUC HEARING -NOVEMBER 12,2003 XMAX(5/5) Page 17 (1)the -of the creek itself,that the Town is taking (2)the financial responsibility for that as well? (3)MR.WIWAMS:I'm sorry,I missed - (4)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay.Santa Clara (5)Valley Water District did not want to have this (6)dedicated to them because they did not want the (7)responsibility of either maintaining the riparian (8)habitat or maintaining the creek bed. (9)MR.WILLIAMS:Correct. (10)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:So if there is a (11)flood,and there is a problem,the Town is accepting (12)the responsibility for the repairs and the cost,and (13)the homeowners are not being bonded for that,or (14)they have no financial responsibility;is that (15)correct? (16)MR.WILLIAMS:Correct. (17)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay. (18)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Commissioner Quintana, (19)did you wish to modify -request the maker of the (20)motion to modify the motion to include a homeowners (21)association? (22)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I certainly would, (23)with the provision that the homeowners association (24)takes -that -that the private street and the (25)common area be a separate lot and -and maintained Page 19 (1)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Is there going to (2)be a fence along that common area that separates the (3)house from this corridor?Lot 2. (4)MR.WIWAMS:No.Not - I don't believe (5)there is. (6)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So that lot is (7)open to the creek? (8)MR.WIWAMS:Correct. (9)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Commissioner Quintana. (10)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Okay.I think- (11)MR.WILLIAMS:There are- (12)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I think, (13)Commissioner Talesfore,there is a fence along (14)the -I think it's the 340 elevation contour (15)between the creek and the back partof the property. (16)I also think there's a fence in -I'm not sure (17)about this.But there may be -yes,if you look on (18)L-2,there is a wooden fence six feet high (19)separating the house on Lot 2 from the common area, (20)but in none of these drawings is - (21)MR.WILLIAMS:It's from the riparian (22)corridor to the common area,not from the (23)neighborhood to the common area,though,which I (24)think -is that your question? (25)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:The riparian- Page 18 CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:I think that complicates it. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Then- CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Yeah. COMMISSIONER DREXEL:So - COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Then that's what I'm proposing; COMMISSIONER DREXEL:As the make -as the maker of the motion,I would like to add that the -that the homeowners association be formed to take care of the common -commonly owned parts of the PD,which would be the roads and the common area,and support its maintenance. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.The seconder of the motion. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I'll agree with that.Is there an issue of a fence,though,along that?I mean,is there supposed to be a fence?Who would I ask that to?Staff? CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:A question of Staff. Staff. association. (1)by the- (2)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:1- (3)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 ) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) -homeowners Page 20 (1)well,I'm -I.'m stating both,that there is a (2)fence -you asked between lot- (3)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:My reason for (4).asking it is,one,if we make this a homeowners (5)'association in charge of the -you know,that (6)common area,are they also -does that include the (7)fence if it's their -do you see what I'm saying? (8)Is it -who puts the fence up,or who maintains it? (9)MR.WILLIAMS:Well,the fence would be in (10)the riparian corridor. (11)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:So that would be (12)maintained by the homeowners association? (13)MR.WILLIAMS:It would be maintained by (14)our Parks and Public Works Department,because we're (15)maintaining the riparian corridor. (16)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Okay. (17)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And the fence is (18)in the riparian corridor,or is it outside- (19)MR.WILLIAMS:Hold on for just a minute. (20)I'll look at the plan. (21)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:While you're doing (22)that,I would comment that there is no drawing in (23)this plan set that I can see that actually (24)identifies the common area as the common area. (25)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:It's not a common area. ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,LLC (408)920-0222 Page 17 to Page 20 BSA PUBUC HEARING -NOVEMBER 12,2003 XMAX(6/6) (4G8)920-0222 Page 21 (1)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Then what is it? (2)MR.WILLIAMS:Yeah,the fence is on the (3)property line,so it would be- (4)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Mr.Korb,would you care (5)to respond to some of these? (6)MR.WILLIAMS:The fence is on the (7J property line,according to the plans,so it would (8)be maintained by whatever mechanism the developer (9)establishes,and on page 11 of attachment -of (10)Exhibit I,there's a condition to establish CC&Rs, (11)and that is the mechanism that the property owner (12)will establish for maintenance. (13)So .the mecT'fanism will be CC&Rs rather than (14)a homeowners association. (15)COMMISSIONER DFlEXEL:Then I retract that. (16)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Very good. (17)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I have a question. (18)Do CC&Rs allow- (19)COMMISSIONER TALESFOFlE:(Inaudible)thank (20)you. (21)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:-allow a (22)mechanism for financing in the future - (23)MR.WILLIAMS:I don't think you need a- (24)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:-maintenance? (25)MR.WILLIAMS:-financing mechanism.I Page 22 (1)think it's an obligation of the property owners (2)under the CC&Rs to establish maintenance.But I'll (3)let the Town Attorney address that.I mean,I - I (4)d~n't see an underlying need for -for a funding (5)mechanism here for the private maintenance of these (6)areas. (7)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:And I just heard (8)that there is no common area.I was always under (9)the assumption that the area under the oak tree was (10)a common area,and there's even a fence in the (11)landscaping plan that delineates it from the house (12)on Lot 2?On parcel two.If you look at- (13)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:I believe it is on (14)parcel two,though.Go ahead.Mr.Williams. (15)MR.WILLIAMS:If it's the one I'm looking (16)at,it is in the open space. (17)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:What is in the (18)open space? (19)MR.WILLIAMS:The oak tree that you're (20)identifying. (21)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:It's in open space (22)that belongs to Lot 2,but is -can be used by the (23)entire development. (24)MR.WILLIAMS:Right.Yeah,it's within (25)the community space.And -and if -as I remember Page 21 to Page 24 Page 23 (1)the history,there was some neighborhood testimony (2)that the neighborhood also wanted access to this (3)open space,and I think it was designed to allow (4)not -use of not just these three property owners, (5)but of the neighborhood. (6)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:I'm not sure (7)that's in the conditions of the project.And there (8)doesn't seem to be any improvements being suggested (9)in the landscaping plan.It's just open space. (10)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Mr.Korb,can we get a (11)clarification on my ihterpretation as this open (12)space is actually on Lot 2.Is it really available (13)to the rest of -of the development?What is the (14)status here? (15)MR.KORB:Well,my understanding is that (16)the open space exists on -on a single parcel. (17)Now,if the CC&Rs are drafted in a manner that (18)allows access to the open -to that area to persons (19)other than the -the property -yoU know,the (20)owner of that individual parcel,then it's open (21)space,so at least it's accessible open space to, (22)you know,persons other than the property owner. (23)They would probably have to grant an easement of (24)some sort through the CC&Rs,but I'm not sure what (25)the mechanism is,what the intended mechanism is Page 24 (1)here. (2)And to answer your question regarding (3)whether CC&Rs can fund or can set up a system for (4)funding,yes,they can.Whether it's necessary in (5)this situation,I'm not sure.Butthey can do that. (6)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Thank you.Commissioner (7)Trevithick. (8)COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:But am I (9)right -am I right in saying it does not constitute (10)a fourth lot,would it be called exclusive use of (11)that lot bythe property owner? (12)MR.KORB:Well,you're correct that it (13)does not constitute a fourth lot.This is a three (14)lot subdivision,so it's within an individual (15)parcel.But again,within the subdivision (16)conditions and CC&Rs related to the -those (17)(inaudible)conditions,open space easements can be (18)granted to users other than the owner of the parcel, (19)to a designated area. (20)COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:But it would not (21)be fenced off?Is it fenced off? (22)MR.KORB:It does not have to be fenced (23)off. (24)COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK:Does not have to (25)be. ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,LLC BSA PUBLIC HEARING -NOVEMBER 12,2003 XMAX{ll1) Page 28 (1)GARY MESSICK:Good evening.i'm Gary (2)Messick,representing Tapestry.And we're simply (3)asking to have our Conditional Use Permit changed so (4)that we would be allowed to pursue a full and (5)complete liquor license in our existing (inaudible). (6)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.Are there (7)questions for Mr.Messick?Commissioner. (8)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I'ust curious, (9)you're -are you planning on also ma.ng available (10)to the outside patio area your chan in the (11)liquor - I mean,in hard liquor as ell?Will that (12)be part of it? (13)GARY MESSICK:No. (14)COMMISSIONER TALE ORE:And how -pardon (15)me? (16)GARY MESSICK:this point,you know, (17)it's walled,and we ar.-we've been serving wine (18)and beer out there or about a year,so - (19)COMMISSIO R TALESFORE:That's what j (20)wanted to kno .It's walled? (21)GARY M SICK:Yes. (22)COMMI SIONER TALESFORE:Okay.Thank you. (23)CHAI MAN DUBOIS:Are there any other (24)ques'ns for Mr.Messick?Commissioner Drexel. (25)MMISSIONER DREXEL:Do you -do you do Page 27 .(1)going to call for the question.All those in favor (2)of the motion,signify by saying aye. (3)(Ayes.) (4)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Opposed? (5)COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:No. (6)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Motion carries with one (7)dissenting,Commissioner Quintana dissenting . (8)MR.KORB:As stated,this is a (9)recommended decision on a zone change to the Town (10)Council.Having been approved,it will (11)automatically be scheduled for hearing before the (12)Town Council.Notice will be provided to all (13)interested parties. (14)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Next item on the agenda ~ (15)~i~s...:.1...:.1..::C~0~II:.::e::l.ge~A~ve~n~u~e....,.::.C~0!.!.n~d~itilllio:unlilialL.lU...silieup...leiil,0TlJ.l.Wtt",UJ,;;-:..:04-~6 .......::~~ (16)requesting approval to modify an existing (17)Conditional Use Permit application to expand from (18)beer and wine to full liquor service.This is the (19)Tapestry Restaurant.Property zoned C-2.n I (20)have the applicant please come forw and identify (21)yourself for the record.Yes.. (22)COMMISSIONER TREYI CK:-recuse myself (23)from this.I'm within 50 eet of the property. (24)CHAIRMAN DU IS:Thank you,Commissioner (25)Trevithick. COMMISSIONER TALESFOBE:Thank you. MR.KORB:As you kno\f,'this is a PO, which means that your de ./ion will be a recommended decision to the Council.you state in your motion a -an added ndition be added -addressed to insure that the op n space is available to person -to users ther than the owner of that parcel,then we ill,separate and apart from,you know,workin here tonight on language,develop language w·h the applicant to insure that when it goes~touncil that intent will be fulfilled. CO ISSIONER DREXEL:All right.Then 1-th n I so recommend.,. OMMISSIONER TALESFORE:And I second rt. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.We have a motion on the floor.There are no more comments.I'm Page 25 MR.KORB:Right. COMMISSIONER TREYITHICK:Thank you. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.Commissioner Quintana. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:What is the difficulty of there being four lots instead of .three? MR.WILLIAMS:The Council directed three lot subdivision.I think if the concern is,as the Town Attorney pointed out,is make a condition to grant an easement over that open space and condition the CC&Rs to maintain it. COMMISSiONER QUINTANA:Okay.I can see that,but I think the Council's intent was three houses,not necessarily just three lots. MR.WILLIAMS:It was specifically three lots. CO~MlSSIONER QUINTANA:Okay. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.Do we wish to make any more modifications to the motion or suggest modifications? COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:Well-go ahead. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:Are you -. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Commissioner Talesfore. Turn your mike on. Page 26 (1)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:I'd like to make (2)the condition that you just offered to us about the (3)CC&Rs and the easement. (4)MR.KORB:Let me make - (5)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:zort'-or how (6)we -okay. (7)MR.KORB:If I could make - (8)COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:/es. (9)MR.KORB:If I could make a)Suggestion. (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 ) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,LLC (408)920-0222 Page 25 to Page 28 BSA PUBLIC HEARING -NOVEMBER 12,2003 XMAX(8/8) Page 29 (1)much take-out?Do you do any? (2)GARY MESSICK:We do some. (3)COMMISSIONER DREXEL Okay,you do a (4)little bit,all right.And that's - (5)~RY MESSICK:Not as much we'd like, (6)but , (7)CO MISSiONER DREXEL:Okay.That's just a (8)question or the future.Wouldn't -it wouldn't (9)bother you'we -if we limited your take-out to, (10)say,ten perc t of your business or something like (11)that,would it? (12)GARY MESSIC'No.I'd be happy for it to (13)grow to ten percent. (14)COMMISSIONER DEXEL:All right.That (15)sounds -that sounds g .d,thank you. (16)CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:.kay.Any other (17)questions?Seeing no other estions,I thank you, (18)sir.I have one card from the au 'ence,and that is (19)Mr.Flick.Dave Flick. (20)DAVE FLICK:Good evening.I'Dave (21)Flick.130 Stacia Street,Los Gatos.I'm he owner (22)of (inaudible)Plaza and Tapestry Restau nt (23)building.And I just wanted to point out to y U (24)that it is entirely managed and owned,all the~ ('.build(ngs on the ,.e are owned and ""n"oned \ Page 30 (1)us,so there isn't an issue with the tenants in the (2)upstairs apartments.they don't have any problem· (3)with it. (4)They've been really excellent tenants,the (5)restaurant,for -for a long time.We've never had (6)any problems with them.I think he's in a little (7)bit of an unfair disadvantage right nowwith the (8)other restaurants in Town that have full bar (9)service,and I -personally,I've planned things (10)there before and had recommendations from people, (11)well,we'd like to go someplace where we can ha.ve a (12)cocktail or two,some of the people that don't drink (13)the wine.I think it kinds of puts them on a even (14)keel with some of the other restaurants,that they (15)do have that.. (16)Again,it's not a bar.Ws not- (17)alcohol's not allowed without the service of food. / (18)What it is is justa:n extension of his restaurant (19)services,andYthink he deserves it,and I think he (20)really need~/(inaudible). (21)CHAIF3MAN DUBOIS:Are there any questions (22)for Mr lick?CommissionerTalesfore. (23)C MMISSIONER TALESFORE:Did you say that (24)y u also managed the apartments that are nearby?(2;DAVE FLICK:Yeah.The -the upstairs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 31 above The Tangles,I own all those bUiidings,'and part of- COMMISSIONER TALES FORE:Okay.And so- DAVE FLICK:-one (inaUdible). COMMISSIONER fALESFORE:,-you were notified about this,obviously,'tause you're here. I'm just curious,did you - DAVE FLICK:I own all the buildings on site. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE:ow that. DAVE FLICK:Oh,okay. COMMISSIONER TALESFORE'And those are apartments above? DAVE FLICK:Yes.They'penthouses,but they're -they're owned bye. COMMISSIONER TA SFORE:Okay.So my question is did you al~6 inform your tenants that this is going to - / DAVE FLICK:/The tenants are well aware of it,yeah.' COMMIS~IONER TALESFORE:Thank you. DAVE FtlCK:They're the ones who get take-out' CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:Okay.Are there any other questions?Okay.Are there any other Page 32 questions for the applicant?Seeing no other questions,I'm going to dose the public hea.ring, return this to the Commission for questions of ff,comments or a motion.Commissi'oner Drexel,•we you waving your finger at something? CO MISSIONER DREXEL:I can do a motion - CHA~AN DUBOIS:Let's go for it.You're a good mOtion maker., COMMISSlQNER DREXEL:Okay.I move we forward this reiNest to the Town'Council with the recommendation~modify the applicant's Conditional Use Permit,U-04-6,With the conditions in Exhibit 0,plus the folldwing conditions: That there shall be no d~tlicated walk-Up counter,no more than ten ~rcentof applicant's business shall be take-out.Ttlat really isn't directed to the applicant so mu~as future holders of this who might be affected by t~CUP in the future,so this is just like posterity.\ As required by Section 29.20.190 Ofth~ Town Code for granting aConditional Us Permit,we find that the proposed use of the property i desirable to the pUblic convenience,since it provides choice for those wishing to have cocktails with dinner. Page 29 to Page 32 (408)920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,LLC REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: Date:_,~N~0:::..;v,-"e=m"",b"",e~r-=1~2,,-,2:::.;0::,.::0=3 For Agenda Of:November 12,2003 Agenda Item:=2 _ DESK ITEM 2 The Planning Commission The Director of Community Development 10 Monroe Court Planned Development Application PD-01-2 Negative Declaration ND-01-14 Requesting approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from RM:12-20 to RM:12-20:PD to construct three dwelling units.No ,significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Negative Declaration is recommended,APN 529-09-026. PROPERTY OWNER:David H.Pitzen APPLICANT:DHP Monroe Investors LLC DEEMED COMPLETE:August 21,2002 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:Rezoning applications are cOIl-sidered to be1egislative acts and are therefore not governed by the Permit Streamlining Act. EXHIBITS: REMARKS: A-J K. Previously Submitted. Letter from SCVWD (four pages)received May 29,2003. Pursuant to a request from Commissioner Burke,attached is a letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD).Please note that this letter has comments which were made for ,an earlier propos hibit E is the most current letter from SCVWD. ,) / Prepared by:Sandy L.Baily,Associate Planner BNL:SLB:mdc N:\DEV\REPORTS\l Omonroe.2dsk.wpd Attachment 6 ~."."- 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE,CA 95118·3686 TELEPHONE (408)265·2600 FACSIMILE 1408)266·0271 www.volleywo ~e r.erg AN EQUAL OPPORTUNlrf EMPLOYER File:12995 Los Gatos Creek May 29,2003 Ms.Sandy Baily Planning Department Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos,CA 95032 Construction of Three Houses at 10 Monroe Court,Los Gatos Assessor's Parcel No.529-09-026 Subject:Monroe Cottages at 10 Monroe Court,Los Gatos;Assessor's Parcel No.529-09-026 Dear Ms.Baily: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)has reviewed the plans for Monroe Cottages, dated May 9,2003,and submitted to the District on May 19,2003. Los Gatos Creek,which traverses the eastern portion of the property,is a District flood control facility;therefore,the proposed work requires a District permit. As you are aware,the District is concerned about the proximity of this project to the Los Gatos Creek top of bank and to the riparian corridor.The District has provided comments on numerous submittals for this project,and the District's position regarding the proximity of the houses to the creek continues to be of concern as noted in the comments provided below which are similar to those provided previously. The re-design of the project to reduce the number of houses by one provides the opportunity to design the site to better protect the riparian habitat and provide room for "soft"bank repairs,if necessaryin the future,while still providing rear yards for the homeowners. Based on the above plans,we have the following comments regarding the proposed project: 1.The proposed work may require a Department of Fish and Game Stream Bed Alteration Agreement,Army Corps of Engineers permit,and a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)401 permiHor work (vegetation removal,re-vegetation,and sanitary sewer connection)done in Los Gatos Creek. 2.It is unclear why the rear yards for lots 2 and 3 are to be lowered resulting in the top of bank being moved further from the proposed houses.We had previously indicated that some minor amount of cut at the rear of these houses could be done to allow for access to basements that were being required as part of the living space;however,based on the latest plans,basements are no longer reqUired living space.Grading should not be done along the creek in these lots that effectively moves the top of bank further from the Exhibit K The mission of the Santa Cbro Valley Wafer Disrrici is a healthy,safe and enhanced quality of living in Santo Clara County ihreugh wotershed Db stewordship and comprehensive monagemeni of woter resources in a pracrical,cesi·effective ond environmentally sensitive manner.~§) ( Ms.Sandy Baily Page 2 May 29,2003 houses.If the grading is required to allow access to the cellar proposed for lot 2,it should be eliminated,since it is not required as part of the living space and the house is already 490 square feet larger than the next largest house (lot 3). 3.All drainage from the site is to be directed to the proposed storm drain system.No overbank drair]age to Los Gatos Creek is allowed. 4.The proposed re-design is more appropriate for the site,three houses instead of four; however the house for lot 2 still encroaches into the recommended 20-foot setback from the top of bank.We recommend that this house be redesigned to provide a 20-footset bank to the creek and minimize encroachment into the riparian corridor.Since this house is currently 3,170 square feet,490 square feet larger than the house for lot 3 and 1,020 square feet larger than the house for lot 1,a reduction in square footage to accommodate this request is reasonable and would make this house more in keeping with the other two houses and the existing houses. 5.We understand that the foundations for the houses will be pier and grade beam.In order to further protect the root structure of the 36-inch oak on lot 2 from damage caused by the portion of the foundation located within the dripline,we req~est that the buttress roots for this tree be located and the foundation piers be adjusted accordingly to avoid impacting the buttress roots.This comment has been prqvided by the District on this project previously. 6.The proposed re-vegetation work along the creek is being proposed to mitigate for impacts this development may have o.n the riparian corridor.In order for these efforts to be effective and achieve their goal,special care Will need to be taken to ensure that future property owners understand how to coexist with the riparian habitat.The applicant should develop a homeowner's manual for lots 2 and 3 that proVides information to the owners about coexisting with the riparian habitat.The manual should include such topics as: What is the riparian corridor. How to maintain the health of the native vegetation. The importance of not re-introducing non-native invasive species into the area. Watering guidelines. Pruning. Use of herbicides,pesticides,and fertilizers near the creek. Responsible party for the maintenance of the restored riparian areas and how the area will be maintained. Ms.Sandy Baily Page 3 May 29,2003 All work within 50 feet of the top of bank will require a District permit as per District Ordinance 83-2,a copy of which should be provided to each owner and possibly included in the Covenants,Conditions,and Restrictions.Activities that require a permit include landscaping,irrigation,fence installation/replacement, grading,and any other construction.. •Property owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the creek banks within their property~the District has no right of way and is therefore not responsible for maintenance and repair of these creek banks. No overbank drainage from the houses is allowed,as it can cause erosion and may lead to bank failure.Drainage from the site is to be directed to the existing storm drain system. Other agencies,such as the California Department of Fish and Game,California Regional Water Quality Control Board,and Army Corps of Engineers,also have jurisdiction over the creek,and permits from these agencies may also be - reqUired for work in or affecting the creek. _~Jhi.~LJILgJ}!J9L(m_(;t..?n'i otheIJJlat.~Llgl§..RIQYlq~s;UQ .tb~__Qwne.rSJegaId.ing_.tbe__cre.e~needs__.. to be submitted to the District for review,comment,and approval.This comment has been provided by the District on this project previously. In addition,re-vegetation requires a maintenance/establishment period of at least three years.The project proponent should identify the party responsible for maintenance of these plantings and it should be clear who will be responsible for the creek/riparian area of the project site once the project is complete-common open space for Home Owners Association,dedication to the Town,or private property owners retain ownership and ultimate responsibility. 7.The 48-inch boxed specimen coast live oak trees should be deleted from the plant list on. sheet L-2.Importing nursery oaks into a natural oak woodland with heritage oaks is hortiCUlturally ill advised and ecologically irresponsible.This comment has been provided by the District on this project previously. 8.To prevent significant root loss and tree failure,no irrigation trenching should be allowed inside/adjacent to thedripline of existing large oak trees.The risk of property damage and personal injury is high in this development if the health of existing oak is compromised by poor planting/irrigation design.It is suggested that the applicant refer to Trees and Development,A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development by Nelda Matheny and James Clark 1998,International Society of Arboriculture. This comment has been provided by the District on this project previously. 9.On sheet L-R2 the drip lines of all existing oaks (tree nos.12,19,25,.etc.)should be shown to ensure that all main or lateral lines are located outside of the dripline to prevent significant root loss,tree decline,and eventual tree failure. 13. t, Ms.Sandy Baily Page 4 May 29,2003 10.The number of emitters (4)for a deepot or tree pot appears to be excessive,since the pot diameters are only 2.5 inches and 4 inches,respectively.Please re-evaluate the need for this many emitters and revise the plan accordingly. 11.Documentation should be provided to the District and the Town of Los Gatos indicating compliance with the plant list note on sheet L-R1 regarding the use of "propagules and cuttings shall be collected on site and adjacent to the site.All plant material shall be of "local origin"only.Proper documentation would include submittal from the seed collectorinative plant nursery showing the purchase order/contract for plants from the developer confirming local origin.This comment has been provided by the District on this project previously. 12.On sheet L-R1 Leymus triticoides var 'Rio'should be deleted frorn the hydroseed mix as it is not a local variety.In addition,the mix should specify the 'Bay Area'selection of Bromus carinatus and the 'Bay Area'selection of Hordeum brachyantherum instead of the 'Salt'selection,which is intended for salt marsh use.This comment has been prOVided by the District on this project previously. The decomposed granite under oak tree no.19 should be deleted and replaced with ____3Jncb.~f-barJunutcb.,-ClS-r:e.q.ueste.d~pre~io.usl¥_fjjLund.er-ber.itage_oakJraps-water,.. prevents proper infiltration of water and air,and can lead to the decline oOhe tree over time.This comment has been provided by the District on this project previously. Please submit two sets of revised plans -addressing the above comments to the District for permit review.Reference District File No.12995 on further correspondence regarding this project. If you have any questions or need further information,you can reach me at (408)265-2607, extension 2322. ;teIY~ Colleen Haggerty Assistant Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc:Mr.Stan Queen,Pacific Diversified S.Tippets,V.Stephens,D.Chesterman,L.Spahr,C.Haggerty,M.Mahoney,File (2) ch:jl 0523c-pl.doc -- REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: Date:...:..N.:...oo::...,:v..=e=m=b..=e;;...r..::..1.:.01,,-=2::,::0,,,,,0.::::,3 For Agenda Of:November 12,2003 Agenda Item:---'2=--_ DESK ITEM The Planning Commission The Director of Community Development .10 Monroe Court Planned Development Application PD-01-2 Negative Declaration ND-01-l4 Requesting approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from RM:12-20 to RM:12-20:PD to construct three dwelling units.No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Negative Declaration is recommended.APN 529-09-026: PROPERTY OWNER:David H.Pitzen APPLICANT:DHP Monroe Investors LLC DEEMED COMPLETE:August 21,2002 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:Rezoning applications are considered to be legislative-acts-and-areLherefoIelIor-goverrreet-by tl'"'"'le.---- Permit Streamlining Act. EXHIBITS: A.REMARKS: A-I J. Previously Submitted. Letter from Anne Lamborn (two pages)received November 7, 2003. Attached is a letter from an adjacent neighbor.Following is staff's responses to the concerns raised in her letter: 1..The view coming down the road is directly to the community open space and onto the creek,not a garage. 2.The Town does not regulate the price of market rate units. 3.Only conceptual elevations are required at this time.During the Architecture and Site approval process the elevations,window locations,building materials and colors will be reviewed. 4.Same as above. 5.As stated in the report,no trail will be installed to Roberts Road due to the elevation change. The plans do not indicate that a fence is proposed along the neighbor's property at the creek side.If the Commission decides the neighbor's request to not install a fence has merit,a condition of approval could be added. 6.A condition of approval requires that the developer is responsible to determine whether or not the utility lip.e can be relocated to save the two trees near Roberts Road (which includes the Buckeye). Attachment 7 The Planning Commission -Page 2 10 Monroe CourtlPD-O 1-02.ND-O 1-14 November 12,2003 7.Real brick cannot be.used in the roadway.To ensure the road meets vehicle load requirements and to reduce maintenance,decorative pavers must be used. 8.The conditions of approval include numerous in depth mitigation measures to reduce tree impacts. 9.The biological consultant and the Santa Clara Valley Water District will be part of the team to monitor the creek restoration (which includes the removal of the ivy)and to ensure that there will be no environmental impacts. 10.Comment noted.The tree is located within the proposed roadway to the development and must be removed. 11.As stated previously,the neighbor's fence is located on the applicants parcel which has to be removed to accommodate the development.The easement is for access only which will be maintained. 12.The applicant has met Town Council direction on the maximum square footage pennitted for the units.The floor area ratios are actually lower than the previous submittal due to the loss of a lot. 13.The applicant provides more parking tha~is required for the development. Bud N.Lortz,Director of Community Development Prepared by:Sandy L.Baily,Associate Planner BNL:SLB:mdc N:\DEV\REPORTSllOmonroe.ldsk.wpd Anne Lamborn 7 Monroe Court,Los Gatos,Ca 95032 .408-354-8493 annelamborn@comcast.net November 7,2003 Planning Department Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos,CA 95032 RE:TEN MONROE COURT NOV.12,2003 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING·"MONROE COTTAGES" To the Planning Commission and Planning Department: I have reviewed the October 1,2003 resubmitted plans from Pacific Diversified and have the following comments and requests,being that I am the northerly adjacent neighbor: 1.Parcel 2 - I would prefer to have the garage on Parcel 2 not to be so axial with Monroe Court.It appears to me that if the garage is open,it is open to the entire street.This aspect was mentioned by Commissioner Talesfore in the previous hearing. 2.Pricing - I would like to have an estimate of the market price on today's market.Currently,there is a property for sale on neighboring Ohlone Court for $1.8 million.Will Monroe Cottages be similar in price or more?. 3.North Elevation of Parcel 1 -What will the window plan and exterior of the north elevation of parcel 1 be?I am hopin·g that the windows will be minimal in that direction because it faces my home and garden.Also,the exterior of the second floor will be very visible to me and I would prefer the entire fagade to be brick or stone.If there is paint,I would like it to be "hillside color plan." 4.Exterior Elevations with Materials and Colors -In the conceptual plans, I like the use of real stone,real brick,and the neo-craftsman architectural style. would hope that subtle colors would be selected for the exteriors in order not to mar the natural landscape.I would like to see complete exterior elevations for all three cottages.In these elevations, I would like to see the real materials noted. 5.Request of No Fence on Creek Frontage between Seven Monroe Court and Creek -There is a strip of land that is currently part of Ten Monroe Court that separates my property from Los Gatos Creek.I have a minimal fence there marking the division.This view of the Creek is my primary viewscape.I would like that view to remain entirely open to me.Since we already have the Los Gatos Creek Trail on the lower side of the Creek,I doubt that I nor any of the neighbors would like for that to be an additional trail. Exhibit J Anne Lamborn 7 Monroe Court,Los Gatos,Ca 95032 408-354-8493 annelambom@comcast.net 6.Large Native Buckeye near Roberts Road Bridge -This buckeye is beautiful and should remain if at all possible.Plans call for its removal.I would like you to explore not removing the mature native buckeye. 7.Conceptual Landscape Plan -I like the use of the diagonal real brick paving in the various driveways and at the entrance to Monroe Cottages,which I will also be using to enter my property.To me,real brick is far more attractive than pavers and it is entirely in keeping with the style of Brickway and Monroe Courts. 8.No Heavy Equipment overMyGi~mtStonepirie's Dripline -Please notice that the dripline of my giant stonepine extends into fen-Monroe Court.00 not -run heavy equipment over ,my giant stonepine's dripline.This is a heritage tree and gives value to Ten Monroe Court. 9.Herbicide (Aguamaster)to Remove Ivy from -Upperside of Los Gatos Creek,Our Drinking Water -I believe that you should not be using an herbicide beside our regional drinking water source.Can you find another way to remove the ivy?By the way,underneath the ivy are sandbags to stabilize the upper bank along Los Gatos Creek. 10.Removal of Heritage Oak Tree at Entrance of Monroe _Cottages -It is unfortunate to me that the plans call for the removal of the heritage oak tree at the entrance of Monroe Cottages. 11.My Parcel Three has been in existence~ince.1923and is my access - If the Planning Commission feels that this development is too den?e for the property,I would like to preserve my exclusive access easement that is my Parcel Three.This exclusive access easement has always been in this configuration frOm times before my arrival on Monroe Court,which was 1970. I have replaced the fencing two times,always according to the original configuration. 12.The Development feels _Dense..;.The house plans seem attractive and the placement of the garages in Parcels 1 and 3 have good locations.The Floor Area Ratio seems extremely high in comparison to my property in which my house is only 1,500 square feet and the lot is .43 acre. 13.Parking and Traffic -I really don't know how overflow parking can be accommodated if there is-a dinner party.I hope that with this development that there will not be extra cars parked on the street.Hopefully,the traffic is manageable,but I question it. Respectfully submitted, Anne Lamborn REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: FINDINGS: ACTION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: EXHIBITS: Date:November 6.2003 For Agenda Of:November 12.2003 Agenda Item:2 The Planning Commission The Development Review Committee 10 Monroe Court .. . Planned Development Application PD-01-2 Negative Declaration ND-01-14 Requesting approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from RM:12-20 to RM:12-20:PD to construct three dwelling units.No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Negative Declaration is recommended.APN 529-09-026. PROPERTY OWNER:David H.Pitzen APPLICANT:DHP Monroe Investors LLC DEEMED COMPLETE:August 21,2002 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:Rezoning applications are considered to be legislative acts and are therefore not governed by the Pennit Streamlining Act. •The Planning Commission must make a finding that the zone change is consistent with the General Plan if their recommendation is for approval. •As required by the Town's Inflll Policy Recommendation to Town Council for the zone change. It has been detennined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and aNegati ve Declaration has been prepared for t~1is proposal, A.Resolution 2003-014 B.Letter of Justification (three pages)received July 1,2003 C.Project data sheet (one page) D.Letter from H.T.Harvey &Associates (three pages)received July 28,2003 E.Letter from SCVWD (two pages)received July 1,2003 . F.Required findings G.Mitigation Monitoring Plan (six pages) H.Mitigated Negative Declaration,received June 28,2002 1.Draft Planned Development Ordinance (including zone change map and development plans received October 1,2003) Attachment 8 The Planning Commission -Page 2 10 Monroe CourtlPD-OI-02.ND-01-14 November 12,2003 A.BACKGROUND In 2000,the applicant processed a similar application with the Town for four single family homes which had maj or impacts in the riparian corridor.The applicant-understood the issue of the riparian corridor,but remained uncertain about the direction received ,from the CDAC regarding the appropriate density and wanted input from the Commission prior to redesigning the plans.On December 6,2000,the Commission denied the application on the basis that the Town had spent considerable time and effort working on the project and the applicant did not redesign the plans as recommended by the Development Review Committe~.~eapplicant appealed the decision of the Commission. On March 5,2001,aI1d the Tqwn Council upheld the decision of the Commission. The applicant refiled the application for four lots.The Planning Commission held three public hearings on this matter and a study session.On December 11,2002,the Commission approved the Architecture and Site application to demolish the four houses which currently exist on this site, contingent upon the approval of the Planned Development and forwarded the Planned Development application to Town Council with a recommendation for approval.Council considered this matter on February 3,2003 and remanded the matter to the Commission with the direction that the plans be modified to limit the development to three homes of no more than 8,000 square feet in aggregate, an~that the houses shall be designed to protect the riparian corridor (Exhibit A). B.REMARKS 1.Application Request The applicant is now requesting adoption of a Planned Development to permit the construction of three two story single family units on approximately 1.44 acres.The density of the development is 2 units per acre ..The subject site is located at the southern terminus of Monroe Court.The site is bounded by two single family residences to the west,Los Gatos Creek on the east and north and a three story apartment building on the south. The site currently contains fourpre-1941 cottages which as stated above,have been approved to be demolished.The proposed lots will range in size from 6,500 square feet to 9,150 square feet.The Town will receive a dedication of 38,863 square of the riparian corridor.The proposed houses will range in size from2,150 to 3,115 square feet and has an aggregate total of 8,000 square feet.During the Architecture and Site approval process,the applicant may look at the possibility of adding cellars. The area of the cellar(s)will not be counted towards the 8,000 square feet of visible mass Below is a table summarizing the data changes. The Planning Commission -Page 3 10 Monroe CourtlPD-O 1-02,ND-O 1-14 November 12,2003 LOT LOT AREA FLOOR AREA ** Originally Last Currently Originally Last .Currently Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed 1 7,683 sq ft .6,245 sq ft 9,150 sq ft 3,295 sq ft 2,370 sq ft 2,150 sq ft 2 5,753 sq ft 5,753 sq ft 8,200 sq ft 2,582 sq ft 2,582 sq ft 3,115 sq ft 3 21,556 sq ft 4,925 sq ft*6,500 sq ft*3,413 sq ft 2,950 sq ft 2,735 sq ft 4 27,724 sq ft 5,551 sq ft*NA 2,518 sq ft 1,443 sq ft NA Total NA NA NA 11,808 sq ft 9,345 sq ft 8,000 *Majority of reduction due to the applicant deeding the riparian corridor to the Town **Does not include a two car garage Conceptual building elevations are required as part of a Planned Development.Final elevations will be reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect during the Architecture and Site approval process if the Planned Development is approved,Since the Town will be using the consulting architect,and because the applicant has continually provided plans that are more detailed than required,the Architecture and Site applications for the houses are recommended to be approved by the Development Review Committee, As part of the proposed Planned Development,the applicant is proposing to'reduce the required setbacks.See the project data sheet (Exhibit C)and Sheet 1 of the development plans (Exhibit I) f0r a summary of the proposed setbacks.The largest reduction in setbacks is for the rear yard of Lot . 2 which ranges from six feet to approximately 34 feet (20 feet is required). Lot 2 will contain a community open space area where pedestrian paths and benches will be provided.The applicant considered construction of a pedestrian trail froin this area to Roberts Road to allow for quicker access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail.However,upon further study,it was determined by staff that a trail could not be installed due to safety concerns and grade differentials at Roberts Road. 2.TreesfLandscape The civil plans and the landscape plans are inconsistent concerning the existing trees.Refer to the landscape plan for accurate tree information.A total of 15 trees are proposed to be removed which consist of one California Pepper,three Douglas Firs,two Blue Elderberries,six Italian Cypresses, one Irish Yew,one California Buckeye and one Coast Live Oak.See Sheet L-l of Exhibit I for the tree removal list.To mitigate the tree removals,the applicant will plant three 24 inch,twelve 36 inch and one 48 inch box trees outside of the riparian corridor.The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)had o~iginally recommended the ·elimination of the proposed 48 inch oak.Since this tree is outside of the riparian corridor,staff is not requiring the tree be removed.Additional native The,P1anning Commission -Page 4 10 Monroe CourtJPD-01-02,ND-01-14 November 12,2003 planting is proposed in the riparian area as recommended by the biological consultant.The small size of the plants proposed is necessary to ensure proper restoration of the riparian area.An arborist .has reviewed the revised plans and has added new mitigation measures,With these measures there will be nO tree impacts ass<;>ciated with the footprint modifications.The biological consultant and the SCVWD have also reViewed the most current plans (Exhibits D and E),A concise landscape plan will be required during the Architecture and Site approval process and a concise riparian planting plan will be required.during the Subdivision approval process'for the three lots;The irrigation plan will be required prior to th~issuance of a building permit andwill be reviewed by the Town and SCVWD,At the recotnrnendation of staff,the landscape plan includes a six foot open design fence at the boundary of the riparian corridor to ensUre that the property owners will not disturb this area, 3.Traffic/Access There will be no traffic impacts associated with this project.Access to the site will be from the existing tenninus of Monroe Court which is 22 feet wide.An access easement is proposed to be provided across the northern portions of the proposed Lot 1 and along the western boundary of the proposed Lots 2 and 3 to provide driveway access to all three lots.The proposed paved access drive will be approximately 25 feet wide.A paved hammerhead turnaround is proposed on Lots 1 and 2 to meet Fire Departl11ent requirements.At the beginning development stage,a cul-de-sac was considered by the applicant,but discouraged bythe Conceptual Development Advisory Committee due to the amount of hardscape. 4.Parking A total of nine parking spaces are required and 12 spaces are proposed.Each unit will have two parking spaces in the garage.Spaces are also available in the driveways.The applicant has worked with staff to design the parking areas to ensure adequate maneuverability. 5.Grading The proposal will require an estimated 350 cubic yards of cut and 350 cubic yards of fill for a total of 700 cubic yards.The applicant has worked well with staff in reducing the amount of grading and eliminating retaining walls for the design of the house.A geotechnical investigation was done for the site and is discussed in the Geology and Soils section of the Initial Study.The results of the in vestigation determined that the site's surface and subsurface conditions are suitable for the proposed development.The Parks and Public Works Department determined that a.peer review of this study was not required. 6.Neighborhood Compatibility As stat,ed earlier,the final designs of the homes will be consider~d during the Architecture and Site approval process.The neighborhood consists of one and two story homes.A three story apartment The Planning Commission -Page 5 10 Monroe CourtlPD-01-02,ND-01-14 November 12,2003 building is located adjacent to the subject site.Excluding the apartment building,the square footages of the existing residential structures range from approximately 969 to 2,625 square feet.The proposed development will have larger lots with larger homes which will range from 2,150 to 3,115 square feet 7.Conceptual Development Advisory Committee On December 8,1999,the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee considered a preliminary review of a similar project to build four townhouses,The Committee identified the following concerns or deficiencies with the proposal: •Prefer higher density (e.g.,duplex,attached,duet,etc.), •Talk with neighbors to get input. •Visual impact of development from trail needs to be addressed. •Not much open space for children (i.e.,lack of "backyards"). •Maintain lower density. •Two-story looking design, •Proposing "subdivision;'onto the site. .•Prefer smaller units. •Too much asphalt. •Proposal does not maintain the ambiance of the .site, •Does not reflect "small town"character desired by the Town. 8.General Plan The applicant has submitted a letter to justify how the project is consistent with the General J->Ln (Exhibi t B).The applicant has worked with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)concGrni i \g work near the creek and has therefore met policies C.P.2.9,C.P.2.10,and C.P.2.14 of the Gen<:.'.!al Plan.Policy L.P.8.7 of the General Plan states that when a development is adjacent to a creek,a condition shall be included that the creek be dedicated to the Town in fee with a maintenance; easement granted to the SCVWD.The District has indicated that since they have no right-uf.way at the subject sit~,and do not want one,they do not want to be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the creek.Therefore,the Town will receive the dedication of the riparian corrinn[ and will contract with a consulting biologist to ensure the mitigation measures within the corrinoc are being met at the applicants\homeowners expense.Subsequent to the mitigation manito:;llg:.I.he Town will maintain the corridor which at that time should require minor maintenance. 9.Environmental Site Assessment Due to the tree removals and the vicinity to the creek,an Initial Study was prepared for the four lot project.The study has not been included with this report since it was previously reviewed by the Commission at past hearings.The study is available in the file.The Negative Decl~ration is The Planning Commission -Page 6 10 Monroe CourtlPD-O 1-02.ND-O 1-14 November 12,2003 included with this report (Exhibit G).The study was sent through the State Clearinghouse due to the agencies involved with the work proposed near the creek.The areas of mitigation are as follows: •Hazards and Hazardous Materials •Biological Resources •Cultural Resources •Geology and Soils The subject property has approximately 200 feet of frontage along the riparian corridor of Los Gatos Creek.Although typical riparian setbacks for new developr,nents are 100 feet,the biological consultant detennined that a 50 foot setback from the riparian corridor was adequate in this case. The applicant has worked closely with the biological consultant and SCVWD to finalize a site plan to mitigate concerns in the riparian area.The mitigation measures recommended by ~e biological consultant will improve the existing condition of Las Gatos Creek over the long term.SCVWD has stayed in close contact with the Town concerning this development.Due to the proposed restoration improvements,SCVWD will not be requiring their normal setbacks of 20 to 25 feet from the proposed structures to the top of the bank.The absolute minimum setback SCVWD will accept from the top of the bank is ten feet and a condition has been included that this minimum setback be met. SCVWD has recommended several conditions of approval relating to the sewer lateral,foundation system,grading and creek work,that are identified in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration which are not required as mitigation measures.The recommendations have been addressed through input from other consultants and have been incorporated in the final conditions of approval. Comments on the Initial Study were received from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board which were included in an earlier report.The Board is recommending that a study be conducted for the proposed develop~ent to ensure that the size of the storm drain is adequate to handle the increased runoff.Accordingto the Parks and Public Works Department,this study is a standard condition and will 1?erequired prior to the issuance of pennits.It is too early in the process to conduct this st].1dy since the :;unount of impervious surface area keeps changing during the Planned Development process and may further change during the Architecture and Site Application review process. C.RECOMMENDATION The applicant has been working with the Town to develop this site since 1998.The applicant has designed the project to reduce tree and riparian impacts to the satisfaction of the Town and other agencies.Members of the Development Review Committee have met with the applicant on numerous occasions concerning the most current proposal.The applicant has worked closely with the Town in designing the current plan to address Town Council and staff concerns.If the application is approved,the applicant will then ~eed to receive Subdivision approval ofthe three lots and ArchitectUI:e and Site approval for each house.At that time,SCV\"'D will again be involved The Planning Commission -Page 7 10 Monroe CourtlPD-01-02,ND-01-14 November 12,2003 in the review process to ensure the plans meet their requirements pursuant to the approved Planned Development.In addition,the plans will be reviewed by the Town's consulting architect to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood.Therefore,it is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1.Recommend that the Town Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit H)and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit G).The plan has been modified to reflect the current proposal. 2.Make the required findings (ExhibifF). 3.Recommend that the Town Council approve the zone change request,·incorporating the preliminary development plan as part of the Planned Development Ordinance (Exhibit I). 4.Forward the zone change request to Town Council. Prepared by:Sandy L.Baily,Associate Planner BNL:SLB:mdc cc:David H.Pitzen,DHP Monroe Investors LLC,1228 Lincoln Avenue,Sari Jose,CA 95125 Ann Lamborn,7 Monroe Court,Los Gatos,CA 95030 ..Linda Lubeck,120 Carlton Ave #54,Los Gatos,CA 95032 Vincent M.Stephens,Community Projects Review,Santa Clara Valley Water District,57~)iI Almaden Expressway,San Jose,CA 95118-3686 . N:\DEY\REI?ORTS\lOmonroe.3.wpd ·.._",,-'-~_.-'_...---...-.--,'-'-"'-'-'.-.........~~-.-._._-"--_.~.._--'----_....,.'.--~-_":'-, PACIFIC DIVERSIFIED COMPANY,INC. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION June 30 2003 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission 110 E.Main.Street Los Gatos,CA 95031 RE:#10 MONROE COURT Dear Chairperson,Paul Dubois,and Planning Cornmissjoners: JUL 0 1 2003 TOWN OF LOS GAroe' CQl1M'JNJTY DEVE!..IJPME,"!T This letter is submitted in connection with the above referenced application in which DHP Monroe Investors LLC is requesting your recommendation of zoning from RM:5-20 to RM:5~20PD to demolish four 1941 single family residences and to construct three single family custom homes.. The four existing condemned homes shall be replaced with three new craftsmen style custom homes.Each custom home is specially designed to work with the site's grade and existing trees.Architecture was carefully designed to compliment the character of the site'as well as the Town.We have followed the existing topography and care has been taken not to disturb existing roots of heritage oak and redwood trees.Having taken the Town's concern regarding a court design,we have modified the street for a 3-point turn to reduce the amount of asphalt.The creek riparian area will be revitalized and restored to its original state before the impact of the existing homes were built in the early 1900s. Community Benefits 1.Demolish four existing condemned units that are in disrepair which will reduce the amount of police calls responding to vandalism and vagrants.This will also improve the view from the creek's trail with a restored creek bank.and new homes that will blend with the existing homes that are next to the trail. 2.Improve the health of heritage oak trees with proper trimming and removal of choking vines to improve the oaks'life span. 3.Complete Monroe Court,which is currently a stub street,with a 3-point tum.This will stop cars from using the neighborhood driveways as a turn around and improve upon the safety concerns of children playing in the driveways. EXHIBIT B 1224 Lincoln Avenue,San Jose,CA 95125 •Office:408-279·6625 •Fax:408·279-1244 •e-mail:PacDiv'g)pdci.cl'lm L1e.#580705·8 (, Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission #10 Monroe Court 06/30103 Page 3 DHP Monroe Investors LLC has a proven track record as a custom horne builder and we appreciate the opportunity to work with the Town of Los Gatos on this project and look forward to future proj ects as well. Sincerely, ~~.1......1'/.......----_ Stan Queen Operations Manager cc:David H.Pitzen >~?:'J{~~~j~:;I!~*j{ifJ\;{~~;l~~~li~?'~~~~,sr:N§L~:F'AMfe)?:;;ffE;,sIDENJfJA&~p;.R:o~Ee:1?oAfi~~{t~~l~~~;;~~~Ff;~~~f1::~f,I.~\ .::,:EXrSTING'PROPOSED:·>REQUIREDI . ".CONDITIONS PROJECT -..PERMITTED Zonin district RM:12-20 RM:12-20:PD Land use •siding •trim •windows •roofing •first floor •second floor •garage •from: •rear •side •side street Buildin Parking Res. 720 to 1 ,440 sq ft three single family homes ft Conceptual Conceptual· Conceptual Conceptual .1,560 to 1,816 sq ft 334 to 1,469 sq ft 462 to 484 sq ft Approx 19 to 32 feet to centerline of roadwa Ipro e line 6 to 34 feet 5 to 31 feet 10 % 12 set b PD set by PD- set by PD- set by PD- 25 feet minini\';,ii 20 feet m'nim"j 8 minilllll:l I ! 15 minimlFf,I 30 feet maximum 40%maximum: Tree Removals 15 16 replacement ~~~:~'-l --~'-'-'I L-=.S.:;.ew.:.:...;:.er:.....::;or:.-,s::..;e=-::t/;.;:·c ---L_.:;.se::..;w"-e:;.;.r .J--__---::..se::..;w"-e:;.;.r ..1...-._.~J N :\0EV\SANOY\MlSClI Omonroe.data.wpd EXHT"RIl':~ 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY .SAN JOSE.CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE (A08)265·2600 FACSIMILE IA08)266-0271 www.volleywo te r.org AN EOUAl O'PORTUNIlY E>n\OV:P. June 30,2003 Ms.Sandy Baily Planning Department T own of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos,CA 95032 RECEIVED -lUL - 1 2083 TOWN OF LOS GATOS P!..P.~~N!NG !J::P.t..?Ti-AENT File:12995 Los Gatos Creek Re:Construction of Three Houses at 10 Monroe Court,Los Gatos, Assessor's Parcel No.529-09-026 Subject:Monroe Cottages at 10 Monroe Court,Los Gatos-Assessor's Parcel No.529-09,.026 Dear Ms.Baily: Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)staff met with Mr.Stan Queen of Pacific Diversified on June 3,2003,to discuss the proposed project in regards to our May 29,2003,letter -3nd the direction the Town of Los Gatos (Towri)has given to Pacific Diversified to modify the plan so that the project can be approved.This letter is to clarify to Town planning staff,the planning commission,and the Town council the District's position regarding this project. Our continuing concern with this project is the proximity to the riparian corridor and tup of bank af Los Gatos Creek.As stated previously,the proposed redesign is preferable to the rJrevious designs and th8 District would prefer to see additional revisions made (as noted in our letter); however,we understand that the current design is based on direction prav·lried from the planning commission and council as a compromise between the sometimes conflicting objectives for the project.If no further modifications to the project size and scale are required by the Town,we will concur with the project as pmposed;however,we ask that the following be made requirements of the project: The final project addresses Comment Nos.5 through 13 (landscaping,riparian pianting, and tree protection comments)of our May 29,2003,comment letter. Lowering of the rear yards to accommodate basement access is to be mirJimizhd b:)~Jt no point is to exceed 4 to 6 feet of cut. Runoff from the site must not be allowed to flow overbank into Los Gatos Cleek.Ti 12 rear yards will need to include drainage features to pick up site runoff and direct it to thE; proposed storm drain system. The oak trees on site are not to be impacted during backyard grading.An arbor-1st should beconsulted regarding potential impacts to the trees. EXRIB~T E The mission of the Santo Claro Volley Woler District is a healthy,safe and enhanced q'Joliiy of living in Son::;C:',cc C·~r"1 :,..:'.'21,,.",.,;.:,r,e·:::-';:':-_\ stewardship and comprehensive management of water resources in a practical,-:ost·effedive eno ·2"/j·cr,,,,,,coily ,~r,sri'·',-nc,,"'·;- Ms.Sandy Baily Page 2 June 30,2003 The proposed fencing for the rear of lots 2 and 3 is to remain as shown on the latest plans to date,which is approximately along the existing top of bank (elevation 340 feet). All areas of the bank previously designated to be replanted with riparian vegetation are to remain as re-vegetation areas. Details will need to be provided showing how the area will be graded to conform to the bank. No further encroachment into the riparian corridor or setback to the top of bank is to occur. Many of these elements are currently addressed by the current plans;however,these are items that should not be compromised by any alteration of the project as it moves through the permitting process. Lastly,we are concerned about the continued maintenance of the creek after it has been restored and we understand that the creek portions of the site will be dedicated to the Town which we support. Please qontinue to provide copies of the plans to us for review and ultimately permit issuance as the project proceeds throughthe approval process.'Reference District File No.12995 on further correspondence regarding this project. If you have any questions or need further information,you can reach me at (408)265-2607, extension 2322.. ;ereJ;,~ Colleen Haggerty Assistant Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc:Mr.Stan Queen,Pacific Diversified S.Tippets,V.Stephens,D.Chesterman,L.Spahr,C.Haggerty,File (2) ch:fd 0630a-pl.doc i \, NOTICE ENDORSED JUL 1 0 2002 Town of Los Gatos BRENDA DAVISEnvironmentalImpactReviewSantClC ,County Clerk-F(~co:'de!'a ara ounty By :3 i HOR!!lCHi Deputy Recommended Nef{~vc%1~{~t~pn •~.......t ~~:••.r.,.....,.\.'~!DEhJ fYt'l<"{'I • Lead Agency:Town of Los Gatos JUI 2 S 2C!i~} Community Development Departinetit 110 East M ·Str t _..".~"._{-,c:.f'"_.,....,-..~am ee TC'WN Or LU:;:,,_,,-,1.::·_,',;,;,'~:t,"~"8 Los Gatos,CA 95031 pl..A!';NlblG DEP,AXm-lic.t·T '.","IL:_~ Project Title and Location:10 Monroe Court Planned Development Application PD-Ol-2 Architecture and Site Application S-O 1-1 00 Negative Declaration ND-01-14 . ,JU N 2.8 2002 TOWN OF LOS (;i,c.:rOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Project Description:At present,the·project site is developed with four cottages,which are currently vacant.The project sponsor is requesting the following: e Rezoning from RM:12-20 to RM:12-20 PD to construct four dwelling units. Archi tecture and Site approval to demolish four pre-1941 structures. The subject property consists of one parcel totaling 1.44 acres or 62,713 square feet (Assessor's Parcel No,529-09-026).The site is currently developed with four cottages.Project plans indicate that these four cottages are proposed to be demolished.Total floor area in the four existing cottages is 4,710 square feet (sJ.)and they would be replaced with four new residences with a total floor area of 11 ,808 sJ. Proposed residences would have two levels of living area and a two-car garage,ranging from 2,518 s.f.to 3,413 s.f.In addition to residences,the project would include development of driveway accesses to the four residences and provision of landscaping. The proposed residences would cover approximately 12 percent of the site (7,414 sJ.),while driveways would cover about eight percent of the site (4,877 sJ.).Landscaping and open space would cover the remaining 80 percent of the site (50,422 sJ.or 1.16 acres)and would be located in community open space,residential yards,and the bank of Los Gatos Creek in the eastern part of the subject property. Access to the project would be from the existing terminus of Monroe Court,which is 22 feet wide. An access easement is proposed to be provided across the northern portions of proposed Lots 1 and 2 to provide driveway access to all four lots.The proposed paved access drive would be 25 feet wide and would be approximately 100 feet long,extending across both Lots 1 and 2.Lot 2 31so would have paved hammerhead turnaround that would meet fire department requirements.FraIn Lot 2,a 25-foot wide driveway would extend across the west end of Lot 4 and onto Lot 3. Determination:Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there.will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio~measures listed below have been added to the project.An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. JLme,2002 1 SXHIBIT H -: Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court Statement of Reasons to Support Finding: 1.Aesthetics:The four existing cottages on the project site are one story high,and they would be replaced with four,two-story homes.The existing adjacent home on the south side of Monroe Court is one story and approximately 23 feet high,while the adjacent home on the north side is two stories and up to approximately 27 feet above .the existing grade.The proposed home on Lot 1 (adjacent to the existing home)would be a maximum of 27 feet above the proposed grade.The project architect's streetscape plan (dated 3/29/02)indicates that the portion of the proposed Lot 1 home located adjacent to the existing home would be approximately four feet taller than the existing home. All proposed homes would be approximately 27 feet high,which would be similar to the maximum height of the existh1g home located adjacent to the northwestern project boundary. Proposed building footprints would average 1,850 s.f.,which is slightly larger than the footprints of existing homes n,580 s.f.and 1,640 s.f.)located immediately west and northwest of the site. However,building footprints of other homes on Monroe Court range from 1,440 sJ.to 2,625 s.f., and proposed building footprints would fall within this range.SUbsequent to approval of the proposed project,each proposed home would be subject to Architecture and Site review where the appropriateness of building heights and mass will be considered. Project development would result in the removal of 13 existing trees.While tree removal would increase visibility of the site from surrounding areas,sufficient tree cover would be retained to help screen views of proposed homes from the existing adjacent home on the south side of Monroe Court. Proposed removal of a 13-inch oak tree on the south side o.f Monroe Court on Lot 1 would increase visibility of the Lot I home from the existing horne on the north side of Monroe 'Court.However, proposed retention of two mature oaks and o~e mature redwood immediately north of the proposed home would screen views of the LotI home.There is One oak and fivefir trees located along the southern project boundary,and proposed retention of .211 but one of these trees would help screen views of proposed homes.from the adjacent three-story apartment building.Removal of a 24-inch fir tree at the southern boundary and an 18-inch fit tree on the boundary between Lots f and 2 would increase visibility of the central portion of the site from this apartment building,and'proposed homes would be visible.However,it should be noted that these apartments currently overlook the four existing cottages.The proposed landscaping plan indicates planting of eight trees along ~he southern boundary,which would ultimately provide visual screening. Outdoor lighting would be provided on the building exteriors.However,this lighting would not be expected to adversely affect nighttime views in the area.The Zoning Ordinance (Section 29.10.09035)would prohibit the produGtion of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlight)onto any area outside the prbject boundary. 2.Agriculture Resources:The project site was developed previously for residential use and the site's ag'ricu!tural potential is limited by existing surrounding residential development,open space associated with Los Gatos Creek,as well as current zoning.Therefore,the project would not adversely affect existing agricultural resources at the site.Since the site has not been in agricultural use,the project would not adversely a~fect any existing agricultural operations. 3.Air Quality:The proposed project would not result in a net traffic increase since the four proposed homes would replace four existing cottages.However,since cottages are smaller than proposed homes,proposed homes could generate slightly more daily trips.Such minor air emissions increases would not be considered significant.In addition,the size of the proposed four-unit project would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD)threshold levels for potential signi~icance.The BAAQMD threshold level for potential significance is 320 single-family 2 June,2002 Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court residential units.At or above this size,traffic generated by a project could produce air quality problems,and an air quality impact assessment would need to be prepared and submitted to the BAAQMD for review. Construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants,including suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions.The BAAQMD l does not require quantification of construction emissions,but considers any project's construction-related impacts to be less than significant if required dust-control measures are implemented.The Town's standard construction notes that are included with all projects require the contractor to "meet or exceed the requirements of the appropriate air quality management agencies.:."Therefore,standard Town requirements would require implementation of the BAAQMD's standard dust control measures (which are required on sites of three acres or less),which would mitigate the project's construction- related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. 4.Biological Resources:_A survey of the riparian habitat on the project site and an assessment of the edge of the riparian corridor were conducted by H.T.Harvey &Associates in June,2000.A copy of this report is available for review at the Town Community Development Department.These studies determined that the subject property has approximately 200 feet of frontage along the riparian corridor ofLos Gatos Creek.The portion of the riparian corridor on the opposite (east)bank of Los Gatos Creek receives considerable human disturbance associated with a highly used pedestrian and bicycle trail.In addition,properties adjacent to the project site ,are a source of disturbance since they have little or no setback from the riparian corridor.The riparian habitat of Los Gatos Creek adjacent to the property is of high to moderate quality,as it has several large native riparian trees and shrubs such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia),California buckeye (Aesculus californica),Mexican' elderberry (Sambucus mexicana),and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularus).The oak trees are quite large,occur at or near the top of the bank,and tend to dominate most of the canopy cover on the property. Much of the overstory and understory of the riparian vegetation on-site consists of non-native species. These include 'eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.)and acacia (Acacia sp.)trees,and several invasive understory species including English ivy (Hedera helix),periwinkle (Vinca major),Himalayan. blackberry (Rubus discolor),and giant reed (Arundo donax).The creekside portion of the project site is terraced and contains several trees planted for landscaping such as redwood (Sequoia sempervirens),Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens),and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). These studies determined that the previous site plan significantly encroached into the existing riparian corridor (approximately 0.08 acre),exceeding the current level of encroachment by the cottages (0.01 acre).In addition,the previous proposal resulted in the removal of trees (a direct impact)within the riparian corridor.The increased encroachment and removal of woody vegetation was determined to be a significant degradation of the riparian corridor with the primary effect of the proposed encroachment into the riparian corridor would be diminished wildlife use within the riparian habitat The increased human encroachment into the riparian corridor would have minimal effect on mammals and fish,it would have resulted in:increased disturbance to birds using the ripariail corridor frj' breeding,foraging,and shelter;hindered lateral movements of birds to and from the ri parian corridOi'; and tree removal from the riparian corridor would have resulted in the direct loss of habitat for birds. Although typical riparian setbacks for new developments are often 100 feet,H.T.Harvey condu·hi that a 50-foot setback from the riparian corridor would be adequate to ensure that the existing functions and values of the creek are protected.Recommended mitigation ratios were as follows:(;.5:1 (mitigation:encroachment)ratio for encroachment into the 50-foot riparian setback zone;1:1 ratio for encroachment into the riparian corridor itself;3:1 for direct removal of native vegc:l2tio:l withir,the riparian corridor.Subsequently,the site plan was revised and the two homes that encroached i:::to th~ riparian zone were reduced in size and relocated so that the homes on Lots 3 8nd t;were t.:p [0 3 June,2002 \. Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court approximately 30 feet farther from the creek.The impacts and recommended mitigation for the current site plan were determined by H.T.Harvey to be"as follows: Impact Mitigation Mitigation Type of Impact'(acres)Ratio (acres) Encroachment into Riparian Setback 0.16 0.5:1 0.08 Encroachment into Riparian Corridor 0.01 (approx.)1:1 0.01 Permanent Riparian Impacts 0.03 3:1 .0.09 Total Mitigation 0.16 H.T.Harvey conc.luded that the project's impacts on the riparian corridor would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level if the r~commended comprehensive habitat restoration plan is implemented. This mitigation plan calls for eradication of non-native pest plants,removal of hardscape and debris, along with planting and maintenance of native trees and shrubs of local genetic origin.Therefore, implementation of this plan would actually improve the condition of Los Gatos Creek over the long- term.To mitigate the project's impacts on the riparian corridor to a less-than-significant level,the following measures shall be implemented: Mitigation:The riparian corridor enhancement plan (included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study) and riparian planting plan (Sheet L-Rl,dated 1/3/02)shall be implemented. Mitigation:All future landscaping within 100 feet of the riparian corridor shall consist of native trees,shrubs,and groundcover that occur naturally in the riparian habitat near the site and shall be a mix similar to species used in the riparian corridor enhancement plan. Mitigation:To minirni~e additional.irnpacts on wildJife,.any lighting to be installed along the eastern edge of the proposed development shall be designed to minimize the intensity of light reaching the adjacent riparian corridor and setback area . .Mitigation Monitoring:The Building Division will be responsible for ensuring that any required permits from the Santa Clara County Valley Water District,California Regional Water Quality Control Board,California Department of Fish and Game,and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers are obtained by the project applicant for any work in the creek and all permit conditions are properly implemented during construction. Removal of Ordinance Trees.Policies 11 and 12 of the Open Space Element vf the Los Gatos General Plan emphasize preservation of public and private landscaping.The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that one or more replacement trees of a species and size designated by the Parks and Forestry Division may be required for tree removals on an application for any zoning approval or subdivision of land that is under consideration by the Planning.Commission.The Los Gatos Landscaping Policy states that any tree ove~12 inches in circumference that is removed by a project shall be replaced with a minimum of thr.ee l'S-gallon trees.When it is not possible to replace trees removed at a 3:1 ratio,the new trees planted are required to.be larger in size than 15 gallons to adequately mitigate for those trees removed;this policy satisfies the Town Tree Protection Ordinance and Town Landscaping Policies. There are 27 existing trees distributed throughout project site.The majority of'trees on the site are located in the western portion of the project site on Lot 1,the southern project boundary,and the eastern portion of site along the Los Gatos Creek riparian corri~or.Of the 27 trees.on the subject property,the proposed landscape plan indicates that.13 ordinance-size trees are planned for removal. Trees'planned for removal include one California pepper,one douglas fir,two blue elderberry,six Italian cypress,one Irish yew,one coast live oak,and one California buckeye.None of the large oaks within the riparian corridor will be removed as part of project development.The buckeye and one eld .•rberry trees would be removed just south of Roberts Road (adjacent to the creek)to accommodate the proposed storm drain line that would extend from the end of Monroe Court to Roberts Road.The 4 June,2002 Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court oak tree to be removed is located on Lot 1 (south.of Monroe Court)and would be removed to accommodate the driveway to this proposed home. A tree survey was conducted on the site by Barrie D.Coate and Associates in September,1999.A copy of this report is available for review at the Town Community Development Department.The Coate report identified two very large redwoods on the western property boundary and two very large mature coast live oaks in the eastern portion of the site as dominant trees on the project site.These trees would be retained as part of the proposed project.Coate also identified the row of Douglas firs along the southern property boundary as another dominant feature of the site.Coate notes ~hat these fir trees have been thinned severely and in one case topped,presumably to provide a view for the adjacent apartments.Four of the five fir trees would be retained as part of the project. Coate also reviewed proposed plans for potential damage to oak tree roots for underground utilities. He concluded that construction of the proposed sewer and storm drain lines in proximity to two oak trees (#19 and #25)would not adversely affect these trees assuming recommended measures are implemented.These measures include digging utility trenches by hand and avoiding the area beneath tree canopies. The proposed landscaping plan indicates 13 trees would be planted,while the riparian planting plan proposes 19 trees to be planted within the riparian corridor.During the Architecture and Site review process,the Town Parks and Forestry Division will ultimately determine the adequacy of the proposed landscape plan and riparian planting plan with respect to compliance with·the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance and Landscaping Policy and the appropriate selection of replacement tree species. Concerns were also raised by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District)and H.T.Harvey regarding the landscaping and irrigation plans.H.T.Harvey recommended use of native sf:.-ecies within 100 feet of the riparian corridor,but the conceptual landscape plan (dated 4/25102)inoirates a mixture of native and non-native species.The District is concerned that excessive irrigatir:n co,t1d threaten the health of existing oak trees if irrigation lines are located within the Tree Preservation Zones (TPZs)of these trees.The following measure shall be implemented to address con(;r~rf'S with the landscaping and irrigation plans: Mitigation:The conceptual landscape plan shall be revised to reflect recommended use of native species within 100 feet of the riparian corridor. Mitigation:The proposed irrigation plan shall be revised to avoid excessive watering of exis r j;.r,5 oi'ks, including removal of irrigation lines within the Tree Protection Zones of oak trees. Mitigation Monitoring: The Parks Division will be responsible for ensuring that all conflicts between the conceptual landscape plan,irrigation plan,and riparian planting plan are resolved and landscape concerns of the Santa Clara Valley Water District are addressed. During project construction,there would be the potential for damage to the 'trees that are pr()pc;sl~d to be retained.Implementation of the following measures,which are recommended by C'Jate ,nd Associates,will minimize such potential impacts to a less-than-significant level: Mitigation:Fences shall be installed at the drip line or as close to the drip line as practical b(";flJi"I:.~"I y equipment arrives on-site.Fences must be installed before any demolition begins and :...tay ill place until construction is completed.It may be necessary to change the opecific l()c:~.Lici.:;I)C fences between the demolition and construction period,but under no circumstances :,hol;ld ,i·i·;r~ be an interim period where tree protection fences are not in place. Mitigation:Fences shall be five feet tall,portable chain link fencing panels with '!.-inch g8ivani;.::~d .posts driven through holds in the pads at least 18 inches into the ground to relJ.in t~e y.u,el.:;I! 5 }WIC,2002 l Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court place.Fencing shall be installed at the following locations (indicated on map in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study): •The 30-inch coast live oak east o~Unit 1,six feet from the proposed final wall location on the west and south and out to the drip line on the north. •The 18-inchcoast live oa~at the south .end of Lot 1 as shown in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study,six feet from the final wall. •Adjacent to the fire truck turnaround as shown in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study. •The Douglas fir between Lots 2 and 3,six feet froIn this tree. Mitigation:Before any equipment arrives.on-site,platform buffers shall be installed·under all canopies out to drip lines as shown in Attachrrtent 2 of the Initial Study.A platform buffer is a five-inch layer of coarse chips from a tree company,with 1 to I-t/2-inch thick plywood full sheets laid oVer the top and:tied together.This must cover ~parts of the soil beneath the tree canopy and remain in place until all contractors are gone.All trunks must be wrapped with carpeting or equivalent to 8 feet above grade in platform buffer areas. Mitigation:Pier and on-grade beam foundations must be used in any area beneath a tree canopy. Mitigation:No excavation for crawl-space or equivalent may be excavated in areas beneath buildings beneath tree canopies. Mitigation:Trenches for any service or ir.rigation shall not be located in any area beneath the canopies of trees.Utility trench locations shall be 'identified so that their location is planned and not an incidental location determined by the utility company. Mitigation:With respect to the storm drain line proposed adjacent to the 24-inch oak,the trench shall be dug by hand within ten feet of the trunk.No roots over 2-1/2 inches in diameter shall be cut. Mitigation:With respect to the sewer line proposed adjacent to an existing oak near the fire truck turnaround,any portion of this line located closer,than 15 feet from thet"runk shall be dug by hand.No roots over 2-112 inches in diameter shall be cut. Mitigation:No vertical soil cuts shall be made closer than five times the trunk r..::ameter from any tree if trenching is on only one side of the trees root mass.If it is necessary to c,ut a trench through more than one quadrant of the tree's root mass,the trenches shall be set back a distance of seven times the trunk diameter.Foundations constructed within the dripline which are closer than five times the trunk diameter from the trunk shall be of pier and beam design. Mitigation:Pruning of any of the trees,particularly the coast live oaks,must be done by an ISA certified arbotist using ISA Western Chapter Pruning Specifications. Mitigation:When ex.isting pavement is removed in areas beneath canopies of trees,'it must be done with a jackhammer and the broken pieces loaded by hand onto a tractor,which is standing on unbroken pavement.The tractor must back up onto undisturbed pavement as it picks up the pavement pieces so as to avoid compression of the soil in newly exposed root zones.The newly exposed root zone areas must be covered immediately with a layer of three inches of tree chips (as from a chipping machine from a tree company)to protect these root systems from drying out. Mitigation:Newly exposed root systems must be watered with a soaker hose applying 10 gallons of water per one inch of trunk diameter once every two weeks until construction is completed. 6 June,2002 \ Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court I " Mitigation Monitoring:The Building Division will be responsible for ensuring that all tree protection measures are properly implemented during construction. 5.Cultural Resources:Since most of the existing cottages on the site were constructed before 1941, the proposed demolition was reviewed by the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee.The Committee recommended approval of the proposed demolition subject to the condition that Structure B be photographically documented.The Committee recommended approval of proposed demolition for the following reasons: • • • • The structure was found to not be historically significant. Although the siting is interesting,the buildings are not architecturally significant. The buildings are structurally deficient. The buildings are not in a highly visible location. The Committee's finding and requirement of photographic documentation would reduce potential impacts on historic resources to a less-than-significant level.Therefore,no significant impacts on historic resources would result from project development. An archaeological field inspection was conducted as part of this Initial Study.A copy of this report is on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department.The inspection included an archival search of State records and a field inspection of the project site.The archival research revealed that there are no recorded prehistoric sites recorded within or adjacent to the subject property,and there is no evidence that it has been inspected by an archaeologist in the past.However, a Primary Record (P-43-001111)was prepared for the property in March,1998 by Mr.Ward Hill;an architectural historian.Mr.Hill concluded that the existing cottages are not identified as histclric resources in -either the intensive or reconnaissance surveys conducted for the Los Gatos Historic Architecture Survey.These houses do not appear to be associated with important persons,nor do they appear to be associated with events or historic themes of significance in the history of Los Gatos, Other than noting that the stone walls/foundation of House B (located on proposed Lot 3)and its heavy beam frame may be an unusual form of construction for Los Gatos,Mr.Hill concludes l:ie house is probably not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources_,He ,!ISO recommended photo documentation. The field inspection of the project area was limited to the areas not covered by buildings,-cement walks,or cobble paving and/or construction,dense vegetation or landscaping.Therefore,the majority of the property could not be inspected.No traces of archaeological materials were seen anywhere- inside the project boundaries.Given the fact that the property is almost completely covered by tither buildings,paving,and/or vegetation,there is still some potential that buried archaeological reSOcd:;::t-; could be discovered there.To ensure that any subsurface cultural resources arc not o.j\-'~rsel·1 affected by project development,the following mitigation measures will be required:. Mitigation:The subject property shall be re-inspected by a qualified archaeolugist diw:.:dy 3fle,all the existing buildings and other imported materials are removed and priJr to con3tru:tior.. Findings and recommendations of this survey shall be submitted in writing to the Toy;".If~,ny deposits of archaeological materials are discovered at this time,they will be ev2t)u.ite:c5 fo i significance if future ground disturbing activities would endanger them.If the evaluation 0 [ deposits demonstrates that they are intact and significant deposits of arch~e()logical soil,; (midden),the project sponsor shall be required to submit a phn to the Town for mi tj gati 811 '!f impacts on these resources,prior to commencement of any further earthmoving vo/ithill t;-le identified areas. 7 June,2002 Negative Declaration.-10 Mon.roe Court Mitigation Monitoring:The Community Development Del?artment will be responsible for ensuring this measure is implemented appropriately during construction as the need arises.' 6.Geology and Soils:A geotechnical investigation was conducted for this project by Terrasearch in May,2000 and a copy of this study is on file at the Town Community Development Department. The geotechnical investigation for the proposed project was undertaken to determine the soil conditions at the site,investigate the stability of the descending slope to Los Gatos Creek,and establish geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development.T ~rrasearch indicates that the site's surface and subsurface conditions are suitable for the proposed development,assuming recommendations are incorporated into the project plans.Based on results of the investigation, criteria were established for the grading of the site and the foundation design for.the proposed residences,and the stability of the slope above Los Gatos Creek.Soils consist of near surface claystone,siltstone,and sandstone bedrock overlain by two to four feet of fill soil.A sliver fill was used to construct a narrow dirt road along the top of the slope on the northern portion.of Lot 4.Fill soils indicate a high potential for expansion when exposed to moisture variations.No groundwater was encountered in borings.At the time of Terrasearch's investigation,the slope above Los Gatos Creek was overgrown with vegetation,but had no indications of failure or movement on the slope face with the exception of slumping in a sliver fill soils be~Qw Lot 4. The project site is located within six kilometers of the San Andreas Pault and two kilometers of the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault.The project site is not located within the boundaries of the Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone,and no faults are known to traverse the site.Based on historical eVidence,it is likely that at least one significant earthquake will produce strong ground motions at this site during the design life of the proposed sthictUres.Structural considerations for proj ect construction will need to include design parameters as specified by Terraseatch (see Attachment 3 of the Initial Study).The geotechnical investigation concluded that there would be a low potential for other seismic hazards such as liquefaction,lateral spreading,landsliding,and·slope failure.The following measure shaUbe required to reauce identified potentially significant geologic,soils,and geotechnical constraints to less~than·significant levels: Mitigation:The project shall incorporate.all 50 recommendations and UBC Earthquake Design Criteria included in Terras¢arch's geotechniCal investigation for the proposed project (included as Attachment 3 of the Initial Study)in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity,erosion hazards,and subsurface soil conditior.s on the site. Mitigation Monitoring:The Building Department will be responsible for ensuring that all .recommendations are incorporated into .the project design and properly implemented during construction. 7.Hazards and HazardOus Materials:The project Site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites Lists.The four existing cottages are proposed to be demolished as part of the project.If these buildings contain asbestos or lead-containing paint,demolition could result in airborne relea.se of hazardOUS building materia.ls,such as asbestos fibers or lead dust.Proposed demolition would be required to comply with state and federal regulations for inspection and removal of hazardous building materials,including.asbestos-containing materials and lead-containing substances.If found to be present in building materials to be removed,asbestos and/or lead abatement practices such as .containment and removal would be required prior to demolition or renovation.In addition,the project applicant will be required to obtain clearance for asbestos removal from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit.Therefore,due to existing regulations,the potential for public health hazards associated with the release of airborne asbestos fibers at the project site would be considered less than significant.In addition to implementing asbestos abatement requirements,the project sponsor will implement the following additional measure to mitigate other public health risks associated with lead-based paints to a less-than-significant level: 8 June.2002 ( l'{egative Declaration -10 Monroe Court Mitigation:Construction finish materials that are suspect for containing lead-based paint will be tested,and pending laboratory analysis,will not be subjected to any process which renders them friable unless proper engineering controls and worker protection procedures are initiated. Mitigation Monitoring:The Building Department will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate testing for lead-based paints is completed and recommendations are properly implemented during construction. 8.Hydrology and Water Quality:Los Gatos Creek traverses the eastern portion of the subject property,flowing northward through the Town of Los Gatos and joining the Guadalupe River in San Jose.Stream flows ultimately discharge into San Francisco Bay via Alviso Slough.The project site has been mapped as a part of Panel 3 of the Town of Los Gatos Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).Located in a flood hazard zone A13,the base flood elevations calculated for this site range from elevation 320 feet to 323 feet. Currently,there are four vacant cottages on the western part of the site.All of these houses are outside of the flood limits for the lOa-year storm event,with the closest structure approximately 50 feet from these flood limits. Los Gatos Creek is a flood control facility maintained by the Santa Clara Valley Water District; consequently,the proposed project will require a District permit.The District has submitted four letters outlining District concerns with the development of the subject property.The two most recent letters dated April 12 and June 15,2000 address specific issues arising from the present project proposal.Letters dated April 27,1987 and September 2,1997 present District concerns regarding previous development proposals for the subject property. With regard to the current project application,the District notes that although there is some encroachment into the riparian corridor and minimal setbacks to the creek bank,the applicant is proposing to restore the riparian habitat on-site to offset the project's impacts.The District normally recommends a minimum 20-to 25-foot setback from the top of bank to allow for access around.the house and for creek maintenance,bank repairs.and for a usable backyard,The proposed plan indicates a minimum lO-foot setback from the top of bank and riparian corridor,and the District stated this setback should not be compromised further.In addition,.the District recommended inclusion of the following as Conditions of Approval: The applicant must obtain a District permit. G The sanitary sewer lateral for the proposed home on Lot 1 shall be moved outside the dripline of the oak tree to avoid impacts to this tree.Final landscaping and irrigation plans must be submitted to the District for review and approval.The landscaping and irrigation plans should address District concerns regarding impacts to the existing oak trees including placement of irrigation within the dripline of oak trees and placement of irrigated plans within the dripline of oak trees.In addition,the 48-inch boxed specimen live oak tree is to be deleted from the 'project plans. Proposed foundations shall be pier and grade beam.In order to further protect the root structure of the 36-inch oak on Lot 4 from damage caused by the portion of the foundation located within the dripline,the District requests that the buttress roots for this tree be located and foundation piers be adjusted accordingly to avoid impacting the buttress roots. o Lots 3 and 4 needs to be graded to provide positive drainage of the property to the street and the roof drains from these lots must also be directed to the storm drain system and not the creek. The plans should include notes addressing both of these items. 9 June.2002 ·~. Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court I. •Copies of the proposed homeowner manual,CC&Rs,and/Qr any other materials provided to the owners regarding the creek for this development need.to be submitted to the District for review, comment,and approval.These documents should address the following items: o A definition and description of the riparian corridor. o How to maintain the health of the native vegetation. o The importance of not re-introducing non-native invasive species into the area. o Watering guidelines. o Pruning. o Use of herbicides,pesticides,fertilizers near the creek. o Responsible party for the maintenance of the restored riparian areas and how the area will be maintained.' . o AU work within 50 feet of the top of bank will require a District permit as per District Ordinance 83-2, a copy of wnich should be provided to each owner and possibly included in the CC&Rs.Activities that require a permit include landscaping,irrigation,fence installation/replacement,grading and other construction. o Property owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the creek banks within their property.The District has .no right-of-way,and is therefore not responsible for rnaintenanceand repair of these creek banks. o No overbank drainage from the proposed homes sh\lll be allowed,as it has caused erosion and may lead to bank failure.Drainage from the site is to be directed to the storm drain system. o Other agencies such as the Departrnent of,'Fish and Game,Regional Water Quality Control Board,and Army Corps of Engineers also have jurisdiction over the creek,and pennits from these agencies may also be required for work in or affecting the creek. 9.Land Use and Planning:The Los Gatos General Plan currently designates the prqject site for high-density residential uses,12 to 20 units per acre.The proposed density of 2.8 units per acre (4 units on 1.44 acres)would not exceed allowable densities,and therefore,would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the'project site.The project site is zoned "RM:12-20, Multiple-Family Residential Zone,"Permitted uses within this zone include single-family dwellings. The proposed density of 2.8 units per acre would not exceed allowable densities,and therefore,would 'comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements. The project area is developed with a mix of single-and multi-family residential uses. The proposed residential use would be compatible with e)(ist1ng adjacent residential uses.Since the four proposed homes would replace four cottages,the den~ity would remain unchanged with the project proposal. However,proposed homes wOtlld be substantiallY~'!Iger than the existing cottages and somewhat larger than existing adjacent residences.Potential land use.compatibility problems that could arise from this difference in size would be minimized to a less-than-significant level by the project'5 design,which proposes homes on Lots 1 and 2 (closer to existing homes)to be smaller and more consistent with the sizes of existing adjacent homes.No land use compatibility problems would be anticipated between proposed homes and the existing apartment building to the south.Since apartment units would overlook project homes on Lots I,2,and 3,proposed planting of tree screens along the southern boundary would help provide some privacy for these homes.In addition, 10 June,2002 Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court proposed orientation of the Lot 3 home toward Los Gatos Creek to the northeast would help to maximize privacy in this home's outdoor areas. 10.Mineral Resources:The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally- important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity. 11.Noise:The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16)restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays.This ordinance also limits noise generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet.Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 76 to 85 dBA at 50 feet for most types of construction equipment with slightly higher levels of about 88 to 91 dBA at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment.If noise controls ,are installed on.construction equipment,the noise levels could be reduced to 75 to 80 dBA at 50 feet,depending on the type of equipment.With controls,construction noise levels could be made to comply with the Town Noise Ordinance. Residential uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors.The potential for construction-related noise increases to adversely affect nearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of construction activities to these receptors.There are two residences to the west and a three-story apartment building to the south.Residences to the west and the three-story apartment building to the south are located as close as 20 to 30 feet from the closest project residences.At 20 feet from the project boundary,the ordinance noise limit would result in maximum noise levels of 85 dBA at the closest residences and maximum interior noise levels would reach 60 to 70 dBA with the windows closed,which could periodically result in speech interference effects.Temporary disturbance (e.g.,speech interference)can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds 60 dBA.However,it should be noted that existing fencing would be maintained through construction,and this would help reduce construction noise levels at the. residence immediately to the west and first floor apartments to the south.In addition,such construction noise levels would only occur for'a short period when grading equipment and construction equipment are being operated in proximity to the western and southern project boundaries,.not during the entire project construction period.Due to the small size of this project and short duration of construction,such a temporary impact is considered to be mitigated to a less- than-significant level by enforcement of time restrictions and ·noise level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance. The Los Gatos Noise Element provides noise guidelines,and these guidelines indicate a maximum exterior noise level of 55 dBA (Ldn)for residential uses.State land use compatibility noise guidelines for single-family residential uses indicate that noise levels up to 60 dBA (Ldn)are considered normally acceptable,with noise levels between 60 and 70 dBA (Ldn)being conditionally acceptable. Noise levels above 70 dBA (Ldn)are unacceptable for such uses. Generalized 1990 noise contours contained in the Town Noise Ordinance indicate that existing nais\.: levels are approximately 53 dBA (Ldn),which would be consistent with the Town's 55-dBA noise standard for residential uses.When this noise level is compared to State noise guidelines,exteriCl noise levels at the site are also within the acceptable range for residential uses.Noise me2.,suremems and modeling taken in the vicinity of this section of Highway 17 as part of the General .Plan Update indicate that noise levels within 439 feet from the Highway 17 freeway would exceed 60 dBA (Idn), The eastern portion of the site is approximately 500 feet from the freeway,and therefore,noise level:; at proposed Lots 3 and 4 could approach but would likely not exceed 60 dBA (Ldn),Such noi~e levels would be considered acceptable when compared to State noise guidelines,but could excGed t''Ie Town's 55-dBA noise goal in the eastern margin of the site.Although the Town's noise goal nlay not be met on Lots 3 and 4,the Town's Noise Element (Policy 9)states that these noise goals are long range community aspirations and acknowledges that such goals may not be attainable at this 11 ]une,2002 \ Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court time.Such goals may be more appropriate for residential neighborhoods that are located'away from major noise sources (such as freeways or arterial roadways).In areas where the Town's noise goal cannot be met,the Town also uses the State's land use compatibility noise guidelines as a criterion for defining significance of a noise impact under CEQA. 12.Population and Housing:The proposed project would not increase local or regional population, nor would it result in a significant loss of existing housing.The proposed project would displace four existing housing units,which are currentlY vacant.The loss of four housing units would be orfset by the construction of four new homes on the project site.The project would not be consideredgrowth-inducit)g,since the project would involve redevelopment of an existing developed property and the site is surrounded by existing development.The project is already developed with four residential units,and no new roads or utilities would be extended to any contiguous undeveloped areas.'" 13.Public Servi~es:The project wO\lld not significantly ipcrease demand f?r public services since this site is already developed and services are already provided to the existing cottages on the project site.Since the cottages are currently vacant,the project would e,liminate exi~ting problems at the site with vandalism and trespassing.The Santa Clara Fire Departnienthas reviewed the proposed site plan, and the project will be required to meet Department requirements regarding provision of an on-site fire hydrant or approved automaticfire sprinkler system hi ,the borne on Lot 3.This home is located more than 150 feet from the centerline of a roadw.ay containing public fire hydrants..Project driveways,roadways,and tumarounds must also meetthe Department's access requirements. 14.Recreation:The proposed project would not add new population to the area,and therefore would not increase the demand for recreational services.. 15.Transportation and Traffic:The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174)requires preparation'of a detailed traffic study for any project with the potential to generate 20 or more additional AM or PM peak hour trips.The proposed proj~ct would not result in a net traffic increase since.the four proposed homes would replace fOIl1"existing cottages.However,since cottages are smaller than proposed.homes,proposed homes c:ould gerierate slightly more daily trips but not enough to exceed the Town's study cfiteria of 20 additional peak trips. The Town Zoning Ordinance would require provision of two parking spaces for each residential unit. Each project home is proposed to have a two-car garage. 16.Utilities and Service Systems:Utilities are currently provided to existing cottages located on the project site.Therefore,no major off-site utility improvements are expected to be required. \ Copies of the Initial Study used to maRe the above recommendation are on file and available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street,Los Gatos,California. Date 12 JUlle,2002 July 24,2003 Mr.Stan Queen Pacific Diversified 1228 Lincoln Avenue San Jose,California 95125 Fax Number:(408)279-1244 .i:}....,C·E,VEDnt JUL 2 8 Z003 TO\NN 0F lOS G.AJOS PLANNING DEPARTMENT Subject:Monroe .Cottages at 10 Monroe Court,Review of Revised Site Plan (HTH Project #1824-01). Mr.Queen: As per your request,we have reviewed the revised site plans dated May 9,2003 for the Monroe Cottages project (Giuliani &Kull,Inc.,job no.98101).The proposed project would involve the demolition of four existing cottages and construction of three new, two-story.domestic dwellings with associated hardscape features.The existing cottages and the proposed new dwellings are adjacent to and just within the riparian corridor of Los Gatos Creek.It is our opinion that,with the implementation of the proposed mitigation·measures,the resulting higher level of human activity adjacent to Los Gatos Creek from the new buildings will not result in decreased habitat value of the riparian corridor.The primary revision to the site plan is a reduction of the number of new homes· on the site from four to three,with a bit of additional grading to lower the elevation of the two backyard areas that abut the riparian corridor.This reduction in the number of houses will reduce the am.ount of anthropogenic disturbance to wildlife resulting from the· development. The project also entails landscaping features ·and the installation of a new sanitary sewer line.The placement of tan bark or other soft,landscaping material under the canopy of tWo large coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia)that are part of the riparian·corridor will, combined with native understory planting in the vicinity (see below),help prevent future encroachment of the currently pervasive ~on-native groundcover.In addition,it is c.rm understanding that the placement of the sanitary sewer trench has been approv~d b/Rn arborist,and will not pose any threat to existing mature native oaks. ElG-EB I'!.'D 3150 Almaden Expressway,Suite 145·San Jose,CA 95118·(408)448-9450 0 Fax:(408)+48-9<54 ( We have also reviewed the revised landscaping plans (pages L1 to L-R2 in the plan set from Borrecco/Kilian &Associates,Inc.,dated 5109/03);ar+d would like to re-emphasize the need for the use of native vegetation within 100 feet.of the riparian corridor.For example,we wotild recommend replacing trees,shrubs and herbs that are not native to Santa Clara County'(e.g.,Brisbane box (Tristania conferta),forest pan,sy.tree (Cercis .canadensis),fleabane (Erigeron karvinskianus)and Cistus sp.)in the landscaping plan with any of the species outlined in the riparian mitigation plant list,or other native trees and shrubs such as:California sycamore (Platanus racemosa),box elder (Acer negundo), big-leaved maple (Acer macrophy//um),coffeeberry'(Rhamnus californica),red flowering.currant (Ribes sanguineum),black sage (Salvia-me//ifera),and bush monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus).In addition,for those plants for wliich no,species riames are given,we would suggest using native species as described above.We would be happy to'provide further guidance to Borrec90/Kilian &.Associates,Inc.o~species selection issues.' Impacts to,and encroachment into,the riparian corridQr will be mitigated as recommended in our initial riparian survey letter report dated'July 18,2000. Encroachment into a 50-foot ripariB.!l setback zone should be mitigated at a 0.5:1 (mitigation:encroachment)ratio,encroachment into the riparian corridor itself should be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio,and direct.removaL of native vegetation within the riparian corriq.or should be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. The current site configuration (May 9,2003)encroaches approximately 0.11 acres into a 50-foot riparian setback area,approxiInately 0.02 acres into·the riparian corridor itself, and will result in the direct loss of 0.03 acres of riparian vegetation.These impacts thereby require 0.17 acres of mitigation (Table 1). 0.17 0.06 0.02 0.09 Mitigation (acres) Total:' 0.11 0.5:1 0.02 1:1 0.03 3:1 Encroachment Into Riparian Setback Encroachment Into Riparian Corridor Permanent Riparian Impacts Table,1.Impacts and Mitigation,MOnJ:oe Court,Los Ga.tos,CA. .Type of Impact Impact Mitiga«OD ,(acres)Ratio The mitigation details outlined in our letter to BorrecolKilian &Associates dated September 12,2001 and shown on the landsc:aping plans (s~e sheets L-Rl and L-R2)will provide mitigation in excess of the required mitigation outlined above.We feel that the Los Gatos Creek riparian corridor will improve over existing conditions following proper implementation of the.riparian mitigation described in our previous correspondence. H.T.HARVEY &ASSOCIATES I hope these recommendations will be helpful for your planning needs.If you have any questions or need ft1rther inf<?nnation,please call me at (408)448-9450,extension 405. Project Number 1824-01 Attachment:.Letter report dated July 18,2000 Letter report dated September 12,2001 Cc:Sandy Bailey,Town of Los Gatos Planning Department DDS,PHR,file 1824-01 H.T.HARVEY &:ASSOC//;TE~ TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSlrlN ;.m'i 1 21,005 SUBr-,1ITTED fOR THE RECORD PACIFIC DIVERSIFIED COMPANY,INC. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION March 31,2003 To:Homeowners of Monroe and Brickway Court RE:MONROE PROJECT Dear Neighbor: Thank you for your response to my earlier letter dated March 26,2003,regarding the new Conceptual Site Plan developed (or Monroe Court. In response to your request to meet as a group,I will be available to meet with all of you,at the site,this Saturday,April 5th.,from 3:30 to 4:30 PM.I do request, however,that you call to confirm your attendance.-- Ifyou are unable to attend at this time,I will attempt to meet with you.Please call to schedule an individual meeting. Please contact my assistant,Connie Shoffner,to confirm your attendance or to schedule an individual meeting.She can be reached during nonnal business hours (8:30 AM to 5:00 PM)at (408)279-6625. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sin=e~eP _ Stan Queen Operations Manager SQ:cms cc:Town of Los Gatos David Pitzen Attachment 9 1224 Lincoln Avenue,San Jose,CA 95125 •Office:408-279-6625 •Fax:408-279-1244 •e-mail:PacDiv@pdci.com L1C.#580705-8