10 Staff Report - 15881 Linda Avenue and 15950 Stephanie LaneMEETING DATE:01-22-08
AGENDA ITEM:10
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE:JANUARY 18,2008
TO:MA YOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM:ORRY P.KORB,TOWN ATTORt~EYO~
SUBJECT:15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE
(OWNERS:JENNIFER DEN DAAS AND DAN BLUE.APPLICANT:LINDA
COURT PARTNERS)
A.ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TO\VN OF
LOS GATOS MAKlNG FINDINGS REGARDING APPROVAL OF A
REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM R-1:8 TO R-l:8 PD AND TO
DEMOLISH A SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCE
B.ADOPT ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM R-l:8 TO
R-1 :8:PD FOR A SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION,FOR A LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS ZONED R-1:8 AND
APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMIL Y
RECOMMENDA nON:
Adopt an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance effecting a zone change from R -1:8 to R-
1:8:PD at 15881 Linda Avenue and a portion of 15950 Stephenie Lane.Also,adopt a resolution
reflecting Council's findings in support of the proposed ordinance and the demolition of an
existing single-family residence.
DISCUSSION:
On December 18,2007,Council voted to introduce an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance
effecting a zone change from R-1:8 to R-1:8:PD at 15881 Linda Avenue and a portion 15950
Stephenie Lane.Council also approved the demolition of a single-family residence.The
Ordinance introduced by Council is attached.(Attachment 1)Council's factual findings and
conclusions are reflected in the attached proposed resolution (Attachment 2).
Attachments:
l.Introduced Ordinance
2.Proposed Resolution
PREPARED BY:ORRY P.KORB,TOWN ATTORNEY
OPK L\1B/wp [(\Documents and Serungs\pgarcia LOSGATOSCAiLocaJ Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\Repor1 15881 Linda Avenue vrpq
Reviewed by:__Town Manager es:)
Finance
Rev 1/18/08 325 pm
Reformatted:7/19/99
Assistant Town Manager
Community Development
Clerk
ORDINAL~CE
ORDINAL~CE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINAL~CE EFFECTING A ZONE
CHAL~GE FROl\I R-1:8 TO R-1:8:PD AT 15881 LINDA AVENUE
AND A PORTION OF 15950 STEPHENIE LAc~E
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
15881 Linda Avenue and a portion of 15950 Stephenie Lane as shown on the map which is
attached hereto marked Exhibit A and is part of this Ordinance from R-1:8 (Single Family
Residential,1 to 5 dwelling units per acre),to R-1 :8:PD ((Single Family Residential,1 to 5
dwelling units per acre,Planned Development).
SECTION II
The PD (Planned Development Overlay)zone established by this Ordinance authorizes
the following construction and use of improvements:
1.Demolition of a single-family residence and a nonpermitted second dwelling unit;
2.Construction of seven single family residences;and
3.Landscaping,streets,parking,open space and other site improvements shown and
required on the Official Development Plan.
ATTACHl\lE:"iT 1
4.Uses permitted are those specified in the underlying R-I (Single Family
Residential)zone by Sections 29.40.385 (Permitted Uses)and 29.20.185
(Conditional Uses)of the Zoning Ordinance,as those sections exist at the time of
the adoption of this Ordinance,or as they may be amended in the future,subject
to any restrictions or other requirements specified elsewhere in this ordinance
including,but not limited to,the Official Development Plan.However,no use
listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this
Ordinance,or by Conditional Use Permit.
SECTION III
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All provisions of the TO\Vl1 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
residence 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,30 sheets),are part of
the Official Development Plan.The following must be complied with before issuance of any
grading,demolition or construction permits:
2
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
(Planning Division)
1.ARCHITECTtJRE ANTI SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED.The Official Development
Plans and this ordinance establish the allowed uses and intensity of development.The
Official Development Plans are conceptual in nature such that minor deviations may be
approved through the Architecture and Site approval process if necessary to achieve
architectural excellence.The Development Review Committee shall be the deciding
body of the Architecture and Site applications.
2.BMP.Prior to final occupancy of each unit,the applicant shall pay the Below Market
Price (BMP)as established by Town Council Resolution.
3.HOUSE SIZE.The footprint and size of each house shall be determined during the
Architecture and Site approval process.
4.LANDSCAPE PLAN.A final landscape plan shall be submitted during the Architecture
and Site approval process.
5.TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to the
issuance of a Building,Grading or Encroachment Permit.
6.RECYCLING.All wood,metal,glass,and aluminum materials generated 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 of
material,shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection.
7.*ARCHAELOGICAL.In the event archaeological traces are encountered,all
construction within a 50 meter radius of the find shall be halted,the Director of
3
Community Development shall be notified and an archaeologist shall be retained to
examine the find and make appropriate recommendations.
8.*NATrvE Ai\1ERICAN REMAINS.If human remains are discovered,the Santa Clara
County Coroner shall immediately be notified.The Coroner will determine whether or
not the remains were Native American.If the Coroner determines that the remains are
not subject to his or her authority,the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission,who would attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native
American.
9.*ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND.If the Director of Community Development finds that
the archaeological find is not a significant resource,work will resume only after the
submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provision for reburial and
ongoing monitoring are accepted.Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased
Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in Section 15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines.If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site,a
mitigation program must be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community
Development for consideration and approval,in conformance with the protocol set forth
in Pub lic Resources Code Section 21083.2.
10.*FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT.A final report shall be prepared at the
applicant's cost when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site and/or
when Native American remains are found on the site.The final report shall include
background information on the completed work,a description and list of identified
resources,the disposition and curation of these resources,any testing,other recovered
information,and conclusions.
4
11.*},rESTING.If land clearing,grading,tree and brush removal,tree trimming or
demolition activities are to occur during nesting season (i.e.,between February I and
August 15),a preconstruction survey for nesting migratory birds shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist from one to four weeks prior to the initiation of work.In no nesting
birds are observed,work may proceed.If work is delayed more than four weeks from the
date of the survey,and it is still within the nesting season,the pre-construction survey
shall be repeated.
12.*ACTIVE r-,rESTS.If occupied active nests of a migratory bird species are identified,a
suitable buffer shall be established around the nest tree.Work within the buffer zone
shall be prohibited until August 15th or until the young have fledged,as detennined by
the project biologist.The dimensions of each buffer zone shall be detennined by the
biologist in consultation with the CDFG.Buffer zones vary depending on the species and
site topography,with passerines typically requiring 75 to 100 feet and raptors 200 to 500
feet.
13.*TREE REMOVALS -CDFG.To comply with the California Fish and Game Code,the
project proponent shall consult with the CDFG prior to removal of the following trees:
Tree#l Species
61 coast live oak 14
63 black walnut 5
65 coast live oak 8
66 coast live oak 5.5
69 willow 7
78 willow 8
94 coast live oak 16
1 For tree locations,please refer to Sheet L-2 of project plans
2 Diameter at breast height
5
The following measures shall be implemented to ensure restoration and
enhancement of the riparian habitat on Ross Creek:
a.Remove the non-native trees from within the riparian corridor,which have
been identified by the project's arborist and accepted by the Town's
Consulting Arborist.
b.Remove the cape ivy from within the riparian corridor.
c.Incorporate non-native species management into the Homeowners Association
Codes,Covenants &Restrictions.This will include on-going eradication of
cape ivy and follow up removal of non-native tree and shrub re-sprouts.
d.Install native riparian tree and shrubs species in gaps within the riparian
corridor and within the riparian setback (Figure 2 of the Riparian
Enhancement Plan).Special care must be taken to not plant trees within the
10-foot wide sanitary sewer easement,which runs through the existing
riparian corridor.The proposed riparian trees on Sheet L-l of the Landscape
Plan are acceptable species to be planted in this area.If California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa)is included in the final planting plan,special care should
be taken to confirm that the trees are NOT propagated from California
sycamores that have hybridized with the London plane tree.Additional shrub
species that could be added to the final planting plan include,coffeeberry
(Rhamnus californica),snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus),California
blackberry,(Rubus ursinus),and California rose (Rosa californica).
6
e.All street and outdoor residential lighting will be directed downward or away
from the riparian corridor.
f.Install a split rail fence along the proposed garden walls to discourage human
intrusion within the riparian corridor.
g.As sho\VTI in the Landscape Plan,incorporate bioswales for water treatment
prior to discharge into the creek.The bioswales will be located outside the 10-
foot wide storm sewer easement (Figure 2 of the Riparian Enhancement Plan).
The bioswales will be vegetated with native bunch grasses and will have
outfalls designed in accordance with Design Guide 12 -Outfall With Rock
Slope Protection,of the Santa Clara Valley Water District's Water Resources
Protection Manual.
14.*REPLACEMENT TREES IN CORRIDOR.To the extent feasible,replacement
plantings (in accordance with the To\VTI of Los Gatos'Tree Protection Ordinance)shall be
placed within the riparian corridor and consist of native species.
15.*NON-NATIVE REMOVALS.The project proponent shall remove existing invasive
non-native plants within the riparian corridor.Specifically,Tasmanian blue gum (tree
#92),silver wattle (trees #80 and 87)cherry plum (tree #68),Japanese privet (tree #83),
and Peruvian pepper (tree #67).
16.*CONSTRUCTION NEAR RIPARIAN HABIT AT CORRIDOR.All construction
related activities shall avoid the riparian habitat corridor,to the maximum extent feasible.
Riparian habitat shall be designated as a sensitive area and clearly shown on construction
plans.Orange construction fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of a grading or
7
building permit,wherever there is a risk of vehicles or equipment accidentally impacting
riparian vegetation.All access/travel routs,staging areas,and equipment maintenance
areas shall be located outside of riparian habitats.
17.*REPLANTINGS IN CORRIDOR.Only native tree and shrub speCIes indigenous to
western Santa Clara may be planted within the riparian corridor.All proposed plantings
shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFG and SCVWD.
18.*INV ASNE PLANTS.The project sponsor shall avoid planting ornamental specIes
reported by the California Invasive Plant Council to have the potential to be invasive.
Species on this list that can spread by windborne seed shall be prohibited from use in
landscaping and shall be noted in the CC&R's.
19.*ARBORIST REPORT.The applicant shall implement the 29 recommendations
provided by the Town's Consulting Arborist,Arbor Resources,in the report dated
February 5,2007.These recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial
Study.
20.BLUE OAK TREE.During the Architecture and Site approval process,the applicant
shall work with the Town's Consulting Arborist,at the applicant's expense,to reassess
the condition of the Blue Oak tree and to evaluate whether or not the tree can be saved
and that it will not be a hazard.
21.*MINIMIZE VISIBILITY.One of the following measures shall be required to minimize
the visibility of the proposed house on Lot 1 from the existing house at 15900 Rochin
Terrace.The measures are in order of preference.If the first measure is determined to be
not feasible,the next measure is required and so on.1)Reconfigure the design of the
residence proposed for Lot 1 to accommodate a buffer landscape strip along the eastern
8
edge of the building envelope for this lot.2)Adjust the site plan layouts of Lots through
3 to provide sufficient area for buffer landscape plantings along the eastern Lot 1
property line;or 3)Offer to plant buffer landscaping on the adjoining property owner's
lot to the east (15900 Rochin Terrace).
22.*GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE.The proposed six foot high,solid wood "Good Neighbor"
fence along the east side of Lot 1 and south side of Lot 5 shall be constructed as early as
possible (prior to project grading activities if possible)to help reduce construction noise
at existing adjacent residences.
23.CC&R's.CC&R's shall include a statement regarding the responsibilities of living next
to a riparian corridor and the limitations of the rear yards for Lots 1 through 4.The
CC&R's shall be reviewed and accepted by the SCYWD.
24.DEED RESTRlCTION.Prior to final occupancy,deed restrictions shall be recorded for
Lots 1 through 4 at the applicant's expense,which discuss the responsibilities of living
next to a riparian corridor and the limitations of the 30 foot setback for Lot 4.
25.FENCING.Prior to final occupancy,a low open design fence shall be installed on top of
the garden walls along the creek.The final fence designs shall be reviewed during the
Architecture and Site approval process.
26.TREE REPLACEMENTS ALONG CREEK.During the Architecture and Site approval
process,the applicant shall work with Town staff,SCYWD and CDFG to determine the
location,size and species of native trees and shrubs that can be planted in the riparian
corridor and buffer zone to create a new screen.
27.GARAGES.The garages on Lots 1 and 2 shall be designed during the Architecture and
Site approval process to be deeply recessed.
9
28.RELOCATION OF REAR PROPERTY LINES.During the subdivision application
process,the rear property lines of the properties along the creek shall be aligned with the
proposed garden walls.The portion beyond the walls shall be incorporated with the
common area parcel.
29.GARDEN WALLS.The proposed garden walls along the creek shall be less than four
feet in height and shall be located along the property line for the parcels adjacent to the
creek.The garden walls shall be extended along the entire length of the properties along
the creek.The side property line fence shall cease at the garden wall and shall not
extend beyond the property towards the creek.The stairs beyond the garden walls shall
also be eliminated.These modifications shall be shown on the plans for the Subdivision
and Architecture and Site applications.
30.WILLOW TREES.Trees #70,74,75,77,79 and 90 shall not be removed unless CDFG,
RWQCB and a biological consultant determine otherwise.
31.IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE.The amount and location of the impervious surfaces in the
backyards of the houses facing the creek,(Lots 1 through 4),shall be designed during the
Architecture and Site approval process to not impact the creek.
(Building Division)
32.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building permit shall be required for the seven propDsed
dwelling units and the demolition of any structure(s).
33.CONSTRUCTION PLANS:The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the
cover sheet of the construction plans submitted for a building permit.
34.SIZE OF PLANS:The maximum size of construction plans submitted for building
permits shall be 24"x 36".
10
35.PLAt~S:The construction plans for this project shall be prepared under the direct
supervision of a licensed architect or engineer.(Business and Professionals Code Section
5538)
36.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.
37.*LEAD-BASED PAINT.A state certified lead-based paint professional shall be retained
to perform a lead-based paint survey of the existing structures and the recommendations
of the professional shall be followed for abatement of any identified lead-based paint
prior to demolition of the structures.
38.*HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.The identified hazardous materials being stored on site
shall be carefully removed prior to demolition and grading,and legally disposed of in
accordance with local,county and state regulations.
39.HOUSE NUMBERS:The developer shall submit requests for additional house numbers
prior to the building permit application process.
40.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"x 8")shall be provided in all
bathroom walls,at water closets,showers 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.
11
c.Primary entrance shall have a 36"wide door including,a 5"x5"level
landing,no more than 1"out of plane with the immediate interior tloor
level,with an 18"clearance.
41.SOILS REPORT:Two copies of a soils report,prepared to the satisfaction of the
Building Official,containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations shall
be submitted with the building permit application.This report shall be prepared by a
licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
42.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 or registered civil
engineer for the following items:
a.Pad elevation
b.Finish floor elevation
c.Foundation comer locations
43.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance fornls CF-
IR and MF-1R.
44.TOW'N FIREPLACE STANDARDS:New fireplaces shall be EPA Phase II approved
appliances as per Town Ordinance 1905.Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 feet of
chimneys.
12
45.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 of the building permits,
in accordance with UBC Section 106.3.5.Please obtain Town Special Inspection form
from the Building Division Service Counter.The Town Special Inspection schedule shall
be blue-lined on the construction plans.
46.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS:The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program specification shall be part of the plan
submittal.The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter.
47.APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following agencies approval before
issuing a building permit:
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.California Regional Water Quality Control Board
g.*California Department of Fish and Game
h.U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
i.Los Gatos Union School District
Note:Obtain the school district form from the Town Building Service Counter after the
Building Division plan check has approved the plans.
13
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
(Engineering Division)
48.BIO-SWALE -Bio swales shall be located outside of the riparian buffer zone.
49.DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.The Applicant shall enter an agreement to construct
public improvements in accordance with Town Code §24.40.020.
50.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SECURITY.The applicant shall supply suitable securities
for all public improvements that are a part of the development in a form acceptable to the
TO\VTI in the amount of 100%(performance)and 100%(labor and material)prior to
issuance of any permit.Applicant shall provide two (2)copies of documents verifying
the cost of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the
Parks and Public Works Department.
51.*GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION.Geotechnical investigations shall be conducted
for this project to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site.The
geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design
of foundations,retaining walls,concrete slab-on-grade construction,excavation,
drainage,on-site utility trenching and pavement sections.The project shall incorporate
all recommendations of the investigation in order to minimize the potential impacts
resulting from regional seismic activity and subsurface soil conditions on the site.
52.GRADING PERMIT.A grading permit is required for site grading and drainage.The
grading permit application (with grading plans)shall be made to the Engineering
Division of the Parks &Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue.The
grading plans shall include final grading,drainage,retaining wall location,driveway,
utilities and interim erosion control.Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a
14
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.
53.PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING.Prior to Issuance of any permit or the
commencement of any site work,the general contractor shall:
a.Along with the project applicant,attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town
Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval,working hours,site
maintenance and other construction matters;
b.Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions
of approval,and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and
understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project
conditions of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction.
54.RETAINING WALLS.A building permit,issued by the Building Department at 110 E.
Main Street,may be required for site retaining walls.Walls are not reviewed or approved
by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan
reView process.
55.SOILS REPORT.One copy of the soils report shall be submitted with the grading permit
application.The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site
grading,drainage,pavement design,retaining wall design and erosion control.The
reports shall be signed and "wet stamped"by the engineer or geologist,in conformance
with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code.
15
56.SOILS REVIEW.Prior to issuance of any pennit,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.
57.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 applicant's soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release
of any occupancy pennit is granted.
58.CERTIFICATE OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT.A Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment
shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final map.Two copies of the legal
description for each new lot configuration,a plat map (8-Yz in.X 11 in.)and two copies
of the legal description of the land to be exchanged shall be submitted to the Engineering
Division of the Parks &Public Works Department for review and approval.The
submittal shall include closure calculations,title reports less than 90 days old and the
appropriate fee.The certificate shall be recorded before any pennits may be issued.
59.DEMOLITION.Existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to recordation of
the final map.
16
60.FINAL MAP.A final map shall be recorded.Two copies of the final map shall be
submitted to the Engineering Division of the 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.
61.UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW.Letters from the electric,telephone,cable,and trash
companies indicating that the proposed improvements and easements are acceptable shall
be provided prior to recordation of the final map.
62.DEDICATIONS.The following shall be dedicated on the final map.The dedications
shall be recorded before any permits are issued.
a.Linda Court.A 22-foot private street right-of-way with a 36-foot radius cul-de-
sac.
b.Public Service Easement (PSE).Five (5)foot wide,next to the Linda Ct.right-of-
way.
c.Ingress-egress,storm drainage and sanitary sewer easements,as required.
d.Sanitary Sewer Easement.Ten (10)to twelve (12)feet wide,as sho\VTI on the
tentative map.
e.Emergency Access Easement.Twenty (22)feet wide,from the end of the public
road over the entire Linda Ct.Private right ofway.
f.Riparian Parcel.The Riparian Parcel,identified on the Tentative map as
Conservation Easement,shall be dedicated in fee to the Town and a flood control
and maintenance easement shall be dedicated to SCVWD.
g.The trail easement shown on Sheet C-5 at the east side of Lot 1,shall be
eliminated from the final plans.
17
63.JOINT TRENCH PLANS.Joint trench plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Town prior to issuance of any pennit.
64.ABOVE GROU1'<'D UTILITIES.The applicant shall submit a 75-percent progress
printing to the Town for review of above ground utilities including backflow prevention
devices,fire department connections,gas and water meters,off-street valve boxes,
hydrants,site lighting,electrical/communication/cable boxes,trans fonners ,and mail
boxes.Above ground utilities shall be reviewed and approved by Community
Development prior to issuance of any pennit.
65.PRIVATE EASEMENTS.Agreements detailing rights,limitations,and responsibilities
of involved parties shall accompany each private easement.The easements and associated
agreements shall be recorded simultaneously with the final map.
66.CC&R's.CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney,Community
Development Department,and Parks and Public Works Department prior to recordation
of the final map.
67.PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.The following improvements shall be installed by the
developer.Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered
civil engineer,reviewed and approved by the Town,and guaranteed by contract,Faithful
Perfonnance Security and Labor &Materials Security before the issuance of a building
pennit or the recordation of a map.The improvements must be completed and accepted
by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
a.Drive.Curb,gutter,sidewalk,street lights,tie-in paving,signing,striping,stonn
drainage and sanitary sewers,as required.
18
b.Restripe/Community Benefit. The applicant shall re-stripe the Blossom Hill Road
intersection with Linda Avenue and Old Blossom Hill Road.The striping
shall provide left tum pockets for both eastbound Blossom Hill Road traffic
turning left on Linda Avenue,and for westbound Blossom Hill Road traffic
turning left on Old Blossom Hill Road.
68.SITE LIGHTING.Lighting photometries shall be provided and approved by the Director
of Community Development prior to the approval of the Tentative Map.
69.DESIGN CHANGES.The Applicant's registered Engineer shall notify the Town
Engineer,in writing,at least 72 hours in advance of all differences between the proposed
work and the design indicated on the plans.Any proposed changes shall be subject to the
approval of the Town before altered work is started.Any approved changes shall be
incorporated into the final "as-built"drawings.
70.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.
71.TRAFFIC IMP ACT MITIGATION FEE.The developer shall pay a proportional the
project's share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development
within the Town of Los Gatos.The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council
resolution in effect at the time the request of Certificate of Occupancy is made.the fee
shall be paid before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.The traffic impact
mitigation fee for this project using the current fee schedule is $5,742 per each new
home.The credit for the existing home will be pro-rated across each new home.The final
19
fee shall be calculated form the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time of
the request for a Certificate of Occupancy.
72.FUTURE STUDIES.Any post project traffic or parking counts,or other studies imposed
by Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the applicant.
73.PLAL"J CHECK FEES.Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to
submittal of plans to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
Department.
74.INSPECTION FEES.Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance
of any Permit or recordation of the Final Map.
75.FISH AND GAcM"E 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 any permits are issued.
76.SCVWD.A Santa Clara Valley Water District permit for all work within their
jurisdiction shall be obtained prior to issuance of any Town permits.
77.REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD.Any necessary permits from the
Regional Water Control Board shall be provided prior to issuance of any permits.In the
event that no permit is required from this agency,a letter stating as much shall be
provided.(This condition is intended to address the storm drain outfall).
78.AR1VIY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.Any necessary permits from the Army Corps of
Engineers shall be provided prior to issuance of any permits.In the event that no permit
is required from this agency,a letter stating as much shall be provided.(This condition is
intended to address the stomi drain outfall).
20
79.TREE REMOVAL.Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior
to issuance of a grading permit.
80.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 of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or
the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued.The developer's
representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours.Failure to
maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town
performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
81.ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.All work in the public right-of-way will reqUire a
Construction Encroachment Permit.All work over $5,000 will require construction
security.
82.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.The developer or his representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24)hours before starting any work pertaining
to on-site drainage facilities,grading or paving,and all work in the Town's right-of-way.
Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection.
83.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.
21
84.CONSTRUCTION ACCESS.Construction access shall be provided from Linda Avenue.
No access will be allowed via Stephenie Lane.
85.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 Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects
disturbing more than one acre.A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of
an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season.
Interim erosion control measures,to be carried out during construction and before
installation of the final landscaping shall be included.Interim erosion control method
shall include,but are not limited to:silt fences,fiber rolls (with locations and 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 plans and
SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended
provisions C.3 and C.14 of Order 01-024 of the amended Santa Clara County NPDES
Pennit.
86.DUST CONTROL.Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so
that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of
grading,and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible.Further,water trucks
shall be present and in use at the construction site.All portions of the site subject to
blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town,or a minimum
of three times daily,or apply (non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
22
parking areas,and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of
blowing dust for the duration of the project.Watering on public streets shall not occur.
Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the
Town Engineer,or at least once a day.Watering associated with on-site construction
activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m.and 5 p.m.and shall include at least
one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust.All public streets
soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily
basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town.Demolition or earthwork
activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 MPH.All
trucks hauling soil,sand,or other loose debris shall be covered.
87.CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING.No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000)pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from
the Town Engineer (§15.40.070).
88.SITE DRAINAGE.Rainwater leaders shall be dischaq 1 to splash blocks.No through
curb drains will be allowed.
89.STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.A storm water management shall be
included with the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as
defined in the amended provisions C.3.d.of Order No.R2-2005-0035 of the amended
Santa Clara County NPDES Permit No.CAS029718.The plan shall delineate source
control measures and BMP's together with the sizing calculations.The plan shall be
cert,by a professional pre-qualified by the Town.In the event that storm water
measures proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those certified on
23
the Building/Grading Pennit,the Town may reqUIre a modification of the Planning
approval prior to release of the Building Pennit.The applicant may elect to have the
Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility.
90.AGREEMENT FOR STORJ.\;fW A TER BEST MAl'lAGEMENT PRACTICES
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS.The homeovvner's association
shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stonn water filtration
devices required to be installed on this project by Town's Stonn Water Discharge Pennit
No.CAS029718 and modified by Order No.R2-2005-0035.The agreement will specify
that certain routine maintenance shall be perfonned by the homeowner's association and
will specify device maintenance reporting requirements.The agreement will also specify
routine inspection requirements,pennits and payment of fees.The agreement shall be
recorded prior to release of any occupancy pennits.
91.SILT ANTI 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 stonn drains.
92.UTILITIES.The developer shall install all utility services,including telephone,electric
power and all other communications lines underground,as required by Town Code
§27.50.015(b).All new utility services shall be placed underground.Underground
conduit shall be provided for cable television service.
93.RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.The developer shall repair or replace
all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed
because of developer's operations.Improvements such as,but not limited to:curbs,
24
gutters,sidewalks,driveways,signs,pavements,raised pavement markers,thermoplastic
pavement markings,etc.shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better
than the original condition.Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at
the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector,and shall comply with all Title
24 Disabled Access provisions.Developer shall request a walk-through with the
Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing
conditions.
94.DRNEWAY APPROACH.The developer shall install one Town standard residential
driveway approach at each new driveway.The new driveway approach shall be
constructed per Town Standard Details.
95.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:DRNEWAY;c)Retaining Wall,Layer:
RETAINING WALL;d)Swimming Pool,Layer:SWIMMING-POOL;e)Tennis Court,
Layer:TENNIS-COURT;f)Property Line,Layer:PROPERTY-LINE;g)Contours,
Layer:NEWCONTOUR.All as-built digital files must be on the same coordinate basis as
25
the Town's survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or
higher.
96.SAi'JITARY 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.
97.SANTT ARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE.Drainage piping serving fixtures which
have flood level rims less than twelve (12)inches (304.8 mrn)above the elevation of the
next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system
serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an
approved type backwater valve.Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through
the backwater valve,unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec.6.50.025).The
Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer
overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater
valve,as defined section I 03(e)of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section
6.50.010 of the Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition.
Evidence of West Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is
needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
98.CONSTRUCTION NOISE.Between the hours of 8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.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 of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty-five (85)dBA at twenty-five (25)feet.If the device is located within a structure
on the property,the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25)
26
feet from the device as possible.The noise level at any point outside of the property
plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85)dBA.
99.GOOD HOUSEKEEPING.Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction.Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours.
The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be
allowed unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division.
100.SITE SUPERVISION.The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the
job site at all times during construction.
101.HAULING OF SOIL.Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m.and 9:00 a.m.and between 4:00 p.m.and 6:00
p.m.).Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall work with the Town
Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic control
plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off
the project site.This may include,but is not limited to provisions for the
developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of
construction and hauling activities,or providing additional traffic control.Cover all
trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least
two feet of freeboard.
102.UTILITY SETBACKS.House foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient
distance to allow excavation of the utility without undermining the house foundation.The
Town Engineer shall determine the appropriate setback based on the depth of the utility,
input from the proj ect soils engineer,and the type of foundation.
27
103.MAINTENANCE ACCESS.The applicant shall propose maintenance access
improvements for the Town Engineer to reVIew,comment on,and approve.The
Engineering Division shall approve the surface materials over each public easement.
104.CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN.The Applicant shall submit a constmction
management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan,Traffic
Control Plan,Project Schedule,site security fencing,employee parking,constmction
staging area,constmction trailer,and proposed outhouse locations.All constmction
staging and parking shall occur on-site.
(parks and Forestry Division)
105 .WATER EFFICIENCY.This project is subject to the Town's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance,Chapter 26,Article IV of the Town Code.A fee as established by Town
Council resolution shall be paid when the landscape,irrigation plans and water
calculations are submitted for review prior to the issuance of building permit.
106.NEW TREES.All newly planted trees are required to be double staked to Town
standards.
107.GENERAL.All newly planted trees shown on the plan are specific subjects of approval
of this plan and must remain on the site.
108.IRRIGATION.All newly planted landscaping shall be irrigated by an in-ground
irrigation system.Special care shall be taken to avoid irrigation which will endanger
existing native trees and shrubs.
109.PROTECTIVE FENCING.Prior to any equipment amvmg on site and pnor to
constmction or building permits being issued,the applicant shall meet with the Town's
Consulting Arborist,at the developer's expense,concerning the need for protective
28
fencing 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 drip line 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.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SAL~TA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
110.REQUIRED FIRE FLOW.Required fire flow for this project is 1,000 GPM at 20 psi.
residual pressure.
109.FIRE HYDRANTS.Provide one public fire hydrant at a location to be determined by the
Fire Department and the San Jose Water Company.Hydrant(s)shall have a minimum
single flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual,with spacing not to exceed 500 feet.Prior to
applying for a building permit,the applicant shall provide civil drawings reflecting all
fire hydrants serving the site.To prevent building.permit delays,the developer shall pay
all required fees to the water company ASAP.
110.HYDRANT INST ALLATION.Fire hydrants shall be installed and located along the
new or replacement water main installation(s),at a maximum spacing of 500 feet.
Provide hydraulic calculations to show that the required fire flow will be provided.
111.TIMING OF REQlJIRED WATER SlJPPLY HYDRANTS.Installations of required fire
service(s)and fire hydrant(s)shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department,prior to
the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials.Building permit issuance
may be withheld until required installations are completed,tested and accepted.
29
112.FIRE ACCESS ROADS.The applicant shall provide access roadways with a paved all
weather surface,a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet,vertical clearance of 13 feet
six inches,minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside,and
a maximum slope of 15%.Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard
Details and Specifications sheet A-I.
113.ROADWAY TURNAROUND.The applicant shall provide an approved fire department
engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside.
Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications
sheet A-I.Cul-de-sac diameters shall be no less than 72 feet.
114.FIRE LANE MARKINGS.The applicant shall provide marking for all roadways within
the project.Markings shall be per fire department specifications.Installations shall also
conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and
Specifications A-6.
115.PARKING ALONG ROADWAYS.The required width of the fire access roadways shall
not be obstructed in any manner and parking shall not be allowed along roadways less
than 28 feet in width.Roadway widths shall be measured curb face to curb face.
116.TIMING OF ROADWAY INSTALLATrONS.Required access roads,up through first
lift of asphalt,shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of
constmction.Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until
installation is complete.During construction,emergency access roads shall be
maintained clear and unimpeded unless alternative solutions are approved by the Fire
Department.Prior to issuance of a building permit,the developer shall contact the Fire
Department to discuss their plan for maintaining the emergency access road during
30
construction.Note that building pennit issuance may be withheld until installations are
completed.
117.PREMISES IDENTIFICATION.Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all
new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the
street or road fronting the property.Numbers shall contrast with their background.
*Required as Mitigation Measures
31
SECTION VI
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos on ,2008,and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of
the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on
effect 30 days after it is adopted.
COlJNCIL 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,CALIFOMrrA
N:\DEV\ORDS\linda 15881.1.doc
32
CONDITIONS OF APPROY AL
15881 Linda Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-06-050
Requesting approval to demolish a single family residence on property zoned R-l :8.
PROPERTY OWNERS:Jennifer Den Daas
APPLICANT:Linda Court Partners
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1.APPROVAL:The approval of this application is contingent upon the adoption of the
Planned Development for the subject site and no permits shall be issued until such time.
2.EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL.The Architecture and Site application will expire two years
from the date of approval unless the approval is used before expiration.Section 29.20.335
defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance.
3.RECYCLING.All wood,metal,glass and aluminum materials generated 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 of material,
shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Towns demolition inspection.
Building Division
4.DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS:Contact TOWTI of Los Gatos Building Counter
technicians for demolition requirements and complete the process before obtaining a building
permit for demolition of such work.
5.*LEAD-BASED PAINT.A state certified lead-based paint professional shall be retained to
perform a lead-based paint survey of the existing structures and the recommendations of the
professional shall be followed for abatement of any identified lead-based paint prior to
demolition of the structures.
6.*HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.The identified hazardous materials being stored on site shall
be carefully removed prior to demolition and legally disposed of in accordance with local,
county and state regulations
*Required as mitigation measures
0i:\DEV\CONTIITNS\2007\linda 15881.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS MAKING
FINDINGS REGARDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONE
FROM R-l:8 TO R-l:8 PD AND TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
APN:523-25-020 AND 523-25-036
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-05-02
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-06-050
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-07-07
PROPERTY LOCATION:15881 LINDA AVENl.TE AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE
WHEREAS:
A.This matter came before Council for public hearing on December 18,2007,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 December 11,2007,along with any and
all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning these applications.
C.On July 11,2007,August 22,2007,September 26,2007,and October 10,2007,the
Planning Commission considered the subject applications for Planned Development and Architecture
and Site approval for a seven (7)lot subdivision of single-family residences located adjacent to Ross
Creek.The public hearings followed a study session on the project held by the Planning
Commission on July 12,2006.The Commission voted to approve the Architecture and Site
application and recommended approval of the Planned Development application.
D.Council finds as follows:
i.That the proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan.The General
Page 1 of 14
Attachment 2
Plan designates the project site as "R-l,Low Density,"allowing for residential densities of zero (0)
to five (5)units per net acre.The site is 1.9 acres (net)allowing up to ten (10)dwelling units.
Existing zoning would allow the proposed single-family residential use,and the proposed density
of 3.7 units per acre would be consistent with the existing zoning.The applicant seeks approval of
a zone change from R-l:8 to R-l :8PD for a seven (7)lot subdivision.The Planned Development
application would limit the project to seven (7)units and would allow the project design to vary from
existing zoning code requirements,specifically allowing one (1)nonconforming side setback and a
narrower street than normally permitted by code.The project also complies with General Plan Land
Use Element Policy L.P.2.2 regarding the balancing the size and number of units to achieve
appropriate intensity of new development;Policy L.P.3.5 regarding consistency of proposed type and
intensity of land use with the immediate neighborhood,which is also residential with lots similarly
sized;Policy L.PA.5 regarding maintaining the Town's capacity to meet its housing needs as
identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan;Conservation Element Policy C.P.2.14
regarding protecting riparian corridors though the use of restrictive setbacks,as are present in this
project;Policy C.PA.3 regarding preservation of native habitat,which is a feature of this project in
the riparian corridor.EVIDENCE:Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated
March 2007 ("ISIMND"),Town Council Staff Report ("TCSR")dated December 11,2007,
Attachment 21,page 12;Staff Report to the Planning Commission ("PCSR")dated July 5,
2007,page 8,12/11/07 TCSR Attachment 3;Letter of Justification from McElroy Properties
received by Town Planning Department on July 3,2007,Exhibit A to 7/5/07 PCSR,1 2/11/07
TCSR,Attachment 3;Testimony of Sandy Baily to Planning Commission on July 11,2007,
12/11/07 TCSR,Attachment 8,4:12-6:13.
11.As required by the Town's Traffic Policy for a Community Benefit,the
Page 2 of 14
project's benefit to the community outweighs traffic impacts associated with the project.A traffic
study was prepared by the applicant based on a previously considered nine (9)lot alternative.That
study concluded that the trips generated were relatively small and would have no impact on nearby
intersections or roadways.The traffic impact for a project with greater density than the current seven
(7)unit project is considered minor based on the Town's Traffic Policy.Nevertheless,the project
includes improvements at the intersection of Linda Avenue and Blossom Hill Road,including a left
tum pocket to tum onto Linda Avenue and Old Blossom Hill Road.The project would help restore
the ecosystem of Ross Creek by removing invasive nonnative plants and replacing them with native
plant species.The project would increase housing stock in the Town and would contribute to the
Town's Below Market Price Housing Fund.EVIDENCE:12/11/07 TCSR,p.4-5;Testimony of
Terry McElroy to Planning Commission on July 12,2006,12/11/07 TCSR,Attachment 2,8:16-
20;Letter of Justification from McElroy Properties received by Town Planning Department
on July 3,2007,Exhibit A to 7/5/07 PCSR,12/11/07 TCSR,Attachment 3.
111.As required by the Town's Infill Policy for a Community Benefit:
1.This infill project contributes to the further development of the
surrounding neighborhood in that the density of proposed development is consistent with the existing
development in the surrounding neighborhood,the project will improve the intersection of Linda
Avenue and Blossom Hill Road,and the project will restore a portion of Ross Creek.EVIDENCE:
See findings and evidence cited in sections i and ii above.
2.This in-fill project is designed in context with the neighborhood and
surrounding structures,provides comparable lot sizes and open space,considers garage placement,
setbacks and density,provides adequate circulation and on-street parking and,therefore,blends
rather than competes with the established character of the area.EVIDENCE:See findings and
Page 3 of 14
evidence cited in sections i and ii above.
3.Finding regarding corridor lots not applicable to this project which does not
feature corridor lots.
4.This Planned Development is proposed to accomplish objects #1 and #2
above.EVIDENCE:See findings and evidence cited in sections i and ii above.
5.This in-fill project demonstrates a strong community benefit as demonstrated
in section ii above.
111.As required by section 29.10.09030(e)of the Town Code regarding the demolition
of a single family residence:
1.Demolition of the existing structure will not adversely affect the Town's
housing stock because it will be replaced by seven (7)single family units.EVIDENCE:12/11/07
TCSR,p.2.
2.There is no evidence that structure proposed for demolition is structurally or
architecturally significant.
3.The property owner has no desire to maintain the structure,the removal of
which is necessary to facilitate this seven (7)residential unit project.EVIDENCE:Passim.
4.There is no evidence that the economic utility of the structure proposed for
demolition exceeds that of the seven (7)residential units that would be added by the project.
iv.The IS/MND is adequate for the project.Project opponents argued that the rS/MND
failed to properly address issues regarding potential project impacts on the project site,specifically
in regards to Ross Creek and its associated riparian area.These issues,including aesthetics,biological
resources,hydrology and water quality,were addressed by experts in the development of the rS/MND.
Opposing opinions of persons purported to be experts was not presented to the Town until the third
Page 4 of 14
meeting of the Commission on the project on August 22,2007,when David Crites,presented the
Commission with copies of a document dated August 22,2007,entitled:"Conservation Ecological
Evaluation:Initial Study for 15881 Linda Court &15950 Stephenie Lane,Los Gatos,CA Along Ross
Creek,tributary to Guadalupe River,"authored by Verna Jigour of Verna Jigour Associates,[12/11/07
TCSR,Attachment 11]("Jigour 1")and referred to as a "draft."An evaluation and response to
Jigour 1 by the Town's expert Geier and Geier was submitted to the Town on October 5,2007
[12/11/07 TCSR,Attachment 14]("Geier Response").On December 17,2007,the day of the
hearing before Council,a second document apparently prepared by Verna Jigour dated December 17,
2007,entitled:"December Follow-up Memorandum:Conservation Ecological Evaluation:Initial
Study for 15881 Linda Court &15950 StelJlenie Lane,Los Gatos,CA Along Ross Creek,tributary
to Guadalupe River"[submitted immediately prior to hearing]("Jigour 2")was submitted to the
Town.Additionally,on or about December 5,2007,members of Council received a document
authored by Lawrence Johmann,President of the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District,
dated November 30,2007,entitled:"Ross Creek at Stephanie Lane &Linda Ave"[12/11/07 TCSR,
Attachment 24]("Johmann Report").As explained below,Council finds that Jigour 1 and 2 and the
Johmann Report do not constitute substantial evidence in support of a fair argument that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.Jigour 1 and 2.These documents express opinions regarding the following
potential negative impacts of the project:aesthetics,primarily the visual impacts resulting from the
removal of non-native trees from the riparian area;biological resources,primarily concerning
downstream Guadalupe River steelhead population,loss of riparian habitats and California Quail;
hydrology and water quality,primarily the elevation of the "top of bank;"and land use planning under
the Town Code.[Jigour 1 and 2,passim]Jigour concludes that "...the Initial Study prepared for
Page 5 of 14
this project insufficiently addresses numerous direct and cumulative impacts of the proposed project
and thus fails to provide mitigation which will reduce those impacts to a level less than significant."
[Jigour 2,p.1]
a.Council finds that Jigour is not qualified as an expert in the areas on
which she opines in Jigour I and 2.Both documents refer to Jigour as a "ISA Certified Arborist."
[Jigour 1 and 2,coversheets]Neither document contains a statement of Jigour's experience,skill,
training,professional certification or other qualifications to opine on any subject other than the
condition of trees.The condition of trees on site is the one subject Jigour does not conside{Jigour
1,p.1].Jigour I and 2 are not signed.
b.Notwithstanding Jigour's lack qualifications to gIve the opinions
contained in Jigour I and 2,Council further finds that Jigour's opinions and conclusions are not
supported by facts.Jigour's description of the characteristics of Ross Creek is erroneous and
nonsensical.For example,Jigour concludes by the presence of a single Blue Oak tree that Ross Creek
was originally intermittent rather than perennial.[Jigour 1,p.2]Based solely on the fact of a low
flow in August 2007,the import of which Jigour fails to explain,Jigour concludes that the perennial
nature of Ross Creek is solely attributable to urban runoff.[Jigour 1,p.2]Jigour then attributes
the existence of native willow trees to increased water flows resulting from urban runoff.[Jigour 1,
p.2]Jigour next speculates that these native trees might not have been present in their current
location absent some form or location of development.[Jigour 1,p.2]Jigour expresses surprise at
the clarity of water in Ross Creek despite low water flows [Jigour 1,p.2],but fails to consider the
possibility that sediment disruption is reduced in periods of low flow.[9/14/07 Garner Itr.,Exh.CC
to 10/5/07 PCSR,12/11/07 TCSR,Attachment 14,p.6]Jigour concludes that the top of bank
Page60f 14
determination is erroneous based solely on her detennination that it crosses a topographical contour
at the northeast corner of the project plan.[Jigour 1,p.3]Jigour fails to explain the significance of
the topographical contour or her basis for concluding that a line of de :narcation cannot cross a
contour.Jigour concludes that proposed bioswales would be located in an area "that distinctly
appears to be a flood terrace,"[Jigour 1,p.3]but does not explain the facts that support this
determination.Jigour never acknowledges in Jigour 2 that the bioswales are proposed to be relocated
entirely outside of the riparian corridor.[12/11/07 TCSR,p.5]Jigour concludes that the removal of
native willow trees in the riparian corridor will have a negative aesthetic impact by removing
screening,thus making the project visible to neighboring properties.[Jigour 1,p.5;Jigour 2,p.1]
Jigour fails to acknowledge in Jigour 2 the Linda Court Riparian Enhancement Plan,prepared by H.T.
Harvey &Associates and incorporated into the project [10/5/07 PCSR,Ex.DD,12/11/07 TCSR,
Attachment 14]("Harvey Report"),calls for the retention of seven (7)native trees in the riparian
corridor [Harvey Report,p.4,],and screening value of 23 replacement trees that must be planted.
[Gier Response,p.2]Instead,Jigour dismisses the Riparian Enhancement Plan for its failure to
include a "visual analysis."[Jigour 2,p.1]Jigour fails to cite any relevant aesthetic standard
adopted by the Town requiring either a visual analysis,the nature of which is not explained by Jigour,
or a requirement that projects be invisible to any neighboring property.In fact,the Town has no such
standard that is applicable to this project.Lastly,Jigour fails to acknowledge Mitigation Measure #1
specifically designed to minimize project visibility.[Geier Response,p.3]Jigour concludes that
the project will contribute to cumulative water impacts to the Guadalupe River steelhead population
based solely on her conclusion that the project will result in a reduction of the riparian canopy caus ing
a loss of its cooling effects on stream flows.[Jigour 1,p.6]That conclusion ignores the effects of
Page 7 of 14
Ross Creek conditions upstream and downstream from the project site;in particular,that any shading
and cooling effects of surface waters at the project site are soon lost since the downstream end of the
vegetated portion of Ross Creek is 3.7 miles from Guadalupe River,resulting in a significant area of
solar heating.[Geier Response,p.2]Furthermore,the conclusion ignores Riparian Enhancement
Plan calling for the retention of seven (7)native willow trees and the planting of replacement native
vegetation,all of which contribute to the riparian canopy.[Geier Response,p.2]Jigourerroneously
concludes that mitigation is improperly deferred.[Jigour 1,p.5]In fact,the ISIMND identifies
significant environmental impacts for six (6)impact categories as revealed through the performance
of detailed studies conducted during the environmental review process.[Geier Response,p.5 -6]
No required studies were deferred.[Id.]In response to these potentially significant impacts,the
ISIMND identifies and requires the implementation of mitigation measures for each of these impacts
before,during and/or after project development.[Id.]Jigour concludes without factual foundation
that the project will potentially impact the movement of California quail through the Ross Creek
riparian corridor.[Jigour 1,p.8]In reaching this conclusion,Jigour fails to demonstrate that the
project site currently has a significant function as a wildlife movement corridor or substantial breeding
habitat for significant wildlife species.[Geier Response,p.2]Jigour fails to acknowledge that the
riparian corridor will be retained and restored through the removal of nonnative vegetation and the
planting of native vegetation.[Id.]
c.The conclusions reached in Jigour I and 2 are in the nature of advocacy
regarding ultimate policy questions rather than scientific descriptions of site conditions and potential
project impacts.For example,the Executive Summary in Jigour 1 concludes:"Even without time to
fully flesh out this report,it is clear that the Town of Los Gatos will be seriously in error and in
violation of the California Environmental Quality Act if it proceeds to grant a Mitigated Negati ve
Page 8 of 14
Declaration to the project as proposed."[Jigour 1,p.1]In the Limits of Assignment section ofJigour
l,Jigour states that her work is limited as follows:"...I've had only a week and a half to complete
this assignment and was not able to devote all my time to it."[Jigour 1,p.2]In the Overview section
of Jigour l,Jigour essentially admits her bias as follows:"As one who has appraised the potential for
steelhead restoration at a regional scale,and with my background and expertise in watershed-scale
habitat restoration plans,I cannot help but view open spaces along riparian corridors from that
perspective.My initial thought was that this site as a whole would be ideal for conservation and
habitat restoration.Having now visited the site twice ...I'm even more convinced that the option
should be considered ...."[Jigour 1,p.2]Later in the same section Jigour again shows bias as
follows:"...it has been my deep disappointment to find few clients sincerely interested in such
proactively responsible planning and design approaches.Site planning is typically done by engineers
or architects with little or no thought to relationships with affected ecosystems.Site design
motivations have tended to be purely monetary and concessions to ecological issues are offered only
in response to regulatory requirements."[Jigour 1,p.4]In her Conclusions in Jigour I,Jigour
states:"...the proposed project fails miserable [sic]with respect to the insensitivity of its site
planning to the Ross Creek riparian system and the Guadalupe River watershed.The Town cannot,
in good conscience,approve the change of zoning based on design excellence and certainly cannot
approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project."[Jigour 1,p.10]The Executive
Summary in Jigour 2 concludes that the Town "must either deny the requested Mitigated Negative
Declaration and zone change that will pennit this development,or initiate an Environmental Impact
Report."[Jigour 2,p.1]In the AssignmentlIntroduction section of Jigour 2,Jigour states:"I respond
herein ...because I am seriously concerned about the Town's stance on this project,with respect to
the site and impacted ecosystems and also the truly alarming precedent it sets for other agencies now
Page90f [4
The Johmann Report.The J ohmann Report includes information on the history
charged with implementing the Guidelines &Standards for Land Use Near Streams."[Id.]In a
section IV.b.of Jigour 2,Jigour states:"My observation is that public recourse agencies get bullied
into complying with what project proponents want -usually there is no one around to stand up for the
resources and the pressure put on them is so overwhelming that they must choose their battles
carefully."[Jigour 2,p.3]Later in the same section regarding riparian buffers,Jigour asks:"Does
the Town of Los Gatos want to end up looking like the most urbanized part of this valley in 50
years???[sic]"[Id.]In section IV.e.of Jigour 2,in the context of the removal of unhealthy trees as
expressly permitted in the Town Tree Protection Ordinance (Town Code section 29.10.0990)Jigour
offers her own interpretation of the ordinance stating:"It should be remembered that the purpose of
this ordinance is tree conservation not tree culling."[Jigour 2,p.5]Later in the same section,Jigour
argues the position of project opponents as follows:"If the current site plan were modified by simply
eliminating the houses that back up to the creek (l to 4)and retained the houses facing the creek (5
to 7)the grading required for houses 1 to 4 would be eliminated,the entire 'garden'/retaining wall
along the creek would be eliminated,and most of the trees slated for removal could be retained."
[Jigour 2,p.6]
2.
and configuration of Ross Creek in general,hydrologic analysis of the Ross Creek stream gauges,
cross section data,and geomorphic evaluation of the stream conditions on the project site.It also
includes observations regarding the state and nature of Ross Creek in the vicinity of the project site,
the general contributions of riparian habitat wildlife and the preservation of water quality,and the
roles of creek and riparian setbacks.It concludes that the "top of bank"should be set at the 100 year
flood line elevation [Johmann Report,p.13],that the riparian setbacks are inadequate when
measured from that elevation [Id.],and that the proposed development at the Building I Site show
Page 10 of 14
a bios wale and retaining wall within the flood area.[Id.]
a.Council finds that Johmann is not qualified as an expert in the areas on
which he opines in the J ohmann Report.This finding is not intended to reflect on J ohmann's
qualifications to serve as an officer of the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District,which
are assumed.Johmann signed the Johmann Report as a "P.E.'lJohmann Report,p.15]However,
J ohmann's Qualification Infonnation shows that he recei ved degrees in "Manufacturing Engineering
Technology"and "Engineering Management,"and that his work experience with professional
associations are in the areas of quality,reliability and manufacturing engineering.[Johmann Report,
p.16]Johmann's training regarding rivers and streams is limited to a series of workshops and on the
subjects of monitoring,stabilization and restoration,primarily within the singular system of "fluvial
geomorphology."[Id.]Johmann's Qualification Infonnation does not show any license,training or
experience in the areas of hydrology.Additionally,and as discussed below,the Johmann Report fails
to follow commonly accepted hydrological methods of determining stream flows and flood levels.
b.Notwithstanding J ohmann's lack qualifications to gi ve opinions on the
subjects of the Johmann Report, Council further finds that Johmann's opinions and conclusions are
not supported by facts.Johmann's approach to determining flood levels is based on a
geomorphological method associated with river and stream restoration projects rather than a
hydrological analysis of current and projected water flow in an existing condition.[12/17/07
Testimony of Kirk R.Wheeler ("Wheeler Testimony")]While the Johmann Report contains
substantial descriptions of existing stream conditions,including the condition of the two relevant
stream gauge conditions,the relevance of these observations to floodplain elevations is unclear in the
report.[Id.]Contrary to what is nonnally found in a hydrological report prepared by a qualified
professional,the Johmann Report fails to show the location within the project site of cross-sections
Page [1 of [4
used by lohmann,and whether the survey ties to project datum and elevations.[12/17/07 Letter
from Kirk Wheeler to Fletcher Parsons,12/17/07 TCSR,Attachment 37 ("Wheeler Letter"),p.
1]It is also not clear whether the floodplain elevations and extents were based on cross-section
hydraulics or field indicators.[Id.]Observations made by Johmann relating to biological resources
and riparian habitat does not raise any issues that were not already discussed and addressed in the
preparation of the ISIMND.[12/12/07 Letter from Michael Wood,12/17/07 TCSR,Attachment
36 ("Wood Letter"),p.1]
c.hmann's essential difference with the ISIMND concerns the width
of the riparian setback and the location of "top of bank,"each of which constitutes a policy
determination of Council in its application of the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams,adopted by the Town on February 20,2007 (Resolution 2007-020)("Guidelines").
lohmann's conclusions in this context constitute advocacy regarding how the Guidelines should be
applied rather than scientifically supported opinions.For example,the Guidelines only recommend
a riparian setback and do not mandate riparian setbacks of any specific width.[Wood Letter,p.2]
Nevertheless,without factual support or explanation,Johmann concludes that there should be at least
a 25 foot buffer from the outer dripline of the vegetation for passive activities and a 50 foot buffer for
structures.[Johmann Report,p.9;Wood letter,p.2]Regarding the top of bank determination,the
Guidelines state that the stream boundary should be "where a majority of normal discharges and
channel forming activities take place."[Johmann Report,p.13,Wood Letter,p.2;Wheeler
Testimony]Top of bank for purposes of the project is set according to the standard used by the
California Department of Fish and Game which is the "well defined break in slope associated with
the active low channel."[Wood Letter,p.2;California Department ofFish and Game Definition
Page 12 of 14
received August 21,2007,12/11/07 TCSR,Attachment 10]This is generally determined to be
below the 100 flood elevation.[Wheeler Testimony]Nevertheless,Johmann concludes that the top
of bank should be set at the 100 year flood elevation,an elevation associated with less common flood
occurrences,based solely on the existence of riparian vegetation in the area.[Johmann Report,p.
9 and 13]Johmann's advocacy is demonstrated in the concluding statement in the Johamann Report:
"Ross Creek neighbors and all concerned citizens should also join together to pressure town officials
and the SCVWD [Santa Clara Valley Water District]to implement projects to restore the degraded,
denuded,channelized segments of the creek to a more natural state for the benefit of all citizens,as
well as wild/aquatic life,in accordance with the SCVWD's 'Clean,Safe Creeks and Natural Food
Protection Program,'which property owners have been paying for since 200 I."[Johmann Report,
15]
v.The application of the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance regarding the detennination
of whether to retain or remove trees is proper and consistent with both the intent of the ordinance and
with past practice.Town Code section 29.10.0990(5),provides that no protected tree shall be
removed in connection with a proposed subdivision unless subject to one of the exceptions permitted
therein.The project requires,among other things,a subdivision of land.Nevertheless,section
29.10.90990(5)is not applicable to this project.The intent of section 29.10.0990(5)is to ensure that
a subdivision application alone does not also pennit the removal of protected trees.This prohibition
is necessary to tree protection because the law presumes approval of a subdivision application meeting
minimum zoning requirements.Proposals to remove protected trees in connection with land
development are ripe for determination only when considered in conjunction with detailed land
development applications that include site planning such as building envelopes and architecture.The
provisions of Town Code section 29.10.1000 are engaged to evaluate the necessity for tree removal,
Page 13 of 14
options for avoiding tree removal and replacement options In the context of proposed new
development.This planned development project includes detailed site planning of building
envelopes,architecture,riparian corridor restoration and landscaping.Consequently,the provisions
of section 29.10.1000,and not section 29.10.0990(5),apply to this project.The Town has
consistently applied the provisions of the Tree Protection Ordinance in this manner in the
administration of planned development applications.
RESOLVED:
That this resolution be incorporated into the record of Council's determination of this
application as the statement of findings regarding the matters contained herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos,California held on the day of January,2008 ,by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFOR1l\TIA
N\ATY\Resos &Ords\RESO 15881 Linda Ave.wpd
Page 14 of 14