The URL can be used to link to this page

2010050306 - Attachment 1 - Planning Commission Staff Report'`°W" °'`~ T® OF LOS GAT®S ITElI~I 1~0: 2 ~ ~ ~•°• PL~Tl®TII®1G COIVII~ISSI®1~ STr~FF REP®RT ~°S G~At°5 1~Ieet~g Date: 1Vlarch 10, 2010. PREPARED BY: Sandy L. Baily, AICP Acting Assistant Community Development Director sbaily@losgatosca. gov APPLICATION NO.: Ordinance No.2081 and 2122 General Plan Amendment GP-07-001 Planned Development PD-07-142 Negative Declaration ND-07-143 LOCATION: 517 and 615 Blossom Hill Road and Placer Oalcs Road for the rescinding application request. Placer Oaks Road for the new application request. APPLICANT: Cupertino Development Corporation PROPERTY OWNERS: Greenleaf Associates LLC, Dunn Properties, LP, Cupertino Development Corporation APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to rescind Planned Development Ordinances 2081 and 2122 to construct 49 apartment units. APNS; 529-16- 042, 026, 073., 529-14-012 and 067. Requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from RM:S-12:PD to R-1:8: PD to construct nine single family houses. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNS 529-16-073, 529-14-012, and 067. DEEMED COMPLETE: September 5, 2009 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: General Plan and rezoning applications are considered to be legislative acts and are therefore not governed by the Permit Streamlining Act. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Provide a recommendation for a strong approval to Town Council regarding rescinding Planned Development Ordinances 2081 and 2122. ... `. ~ , ~`~ 1 k ~, Planning Commmission Staff Report -Page 2 Placer Oaks Road/PD-07-142 March 10, 2010 2. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment and zone change. 3. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning Designation: RM:S-12:PD Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan Parcel Size of the Placer Oaks Project: 3.06 acres Surrounding Area of the Placer Oaks Project: C Existing Land Ilse General Plan ~ Zoning _ . North ~ Smgle Family ,Low Density R-1:8 East I Single Family ~ Low Density R-1:8 Multi-Family I D ensity Medium ! RM . S 1 ° ~ ........................ ... ..~._............~.... .... South Multi-Famly t ... .... ... .... 'Medium Density .._ . ........................ . . RM:S-12:PD . _ . West ~ Highway 17 ~ NA ~ NA CEQA: It has. been determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. FINDINGS: ® All General Plan Amendments must be internally consistent. with the General Plan and its elements. The findings should specifically address the question of density as it relates to the present Land Use and Housing Elements. ® The Planning Commission must make a finding that the zone change is consistent with the General Plan if their recommendation is far approval. ® As required by the Town's h1fi11 Policy ® As required: by the Town's Traffic Impact Policy for a community benefit. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 Placer Oaks Road/PD-07-142 ~ March 10, 2010 ACTION: 1. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding rescinding Planned Development Ordinances 2Q81 and 2122. 2. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment and zone change. 3. Provide a recommendation for approval to Town Council regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. EXHIBITS: 1 - 19. Previously Submitted New Submittals: 20. Excerpt of summary minutes for the meeting of November 18, 2009 21. Letter from Rodger Griffin, (three pages) dated February 17, 2010 22. Letter from Jeffrey Pack (two pages) received March 3, 2010. 23. Revised Draft Planned Development Ordinance (including zone change map and development plans, received March 3, 2010) BACKGROUND: On September 23, 2009, the Planning Commission considered these applications. The Commission accepted public testimony and, following discussion, continued the matter to the meeting of October 28, 2009, with the following directions: ® Provide for relocation of the road. ® Provide architectural diversity. ® Look at traffic calming measures. ® Provide photo simulation of soundwall. ® Provide an alternative with a BMP unit constructed on site. At its meeting of October 28, 2009, the Commission continued this matter, at the applicant's request, with no discussion, to the meeting of November 18, 2009. On November 18, 2009, the Commission considered the matter and continued -the matter to the meeting of January 13, 2010, with the following directions: ® Further develop the Alternative B ten lot subdivision. • Retain the BMP unit. _ . ._.._.._ _.. ..-- _.----._. _... _.. ---- -- - - -r-- Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 Placer Oaks Road/PD-07-142 ' March 10, 2010 Significantly increase architectural diversity. Consider reducing the intensity in the house sizes, worlcing toward eliminating the flag lot. The matter was continued from the meetings of January 13 and February 24, 2010, with no discussion, to allow the applicant and staff time to finalize the revised plans. ANALYSIS: A. Response to Planning_Coinmission Direction The following is the applicant's response to the P1aming Commission's direction in developing the Alternative B ten lot subdivision. Retain the BMP Unit The proposal includes atwo-story, three bedroom BMP unit on Lot 2. The unit will have aone-car garage and two parking spaces in the driveway. An alternative building footprint has been provided for this lot to accommodate the one story historic Fiesta Way house, in the event there is a proposal to relocate the house to this development. Town staff is currently looking at numerous leads on possible site locations for the Fiesta Way house. An attached garage is proposed for the relocated house. The garage for this type of historic. house should be detached and set back behind the front facade. If a garage cannot be detached, the garage should be located behind the house or recessed as far as possible from the front facade. Due to the proposed size and configuration of the lot, it is unlikely that the garage could be detached or relocated. Another alternative would be to provide a parking pad in place of the garage. This however, would make the BMP unit different from the other houses in the development, which is discouraged. Architecture and Site approval will be required for any site the Fiesta Way house is relocated to. If the Commission determines that the garage could be attached and/or a parking. pad is acceptable, a performance standard has been included to further evaluate the location and type of parking (enclosed/unenclosed) during the Architecture and Site process. The market rate units range in size from 2,670 to 2,765 square feet (excluding garages). The BMP unit contains 1,243 square feet (excluding garage). The Fiesta House contains approximately 980 square feet. The adopted BMP guidelines state that the size of BMP's shall be reasonably consistent with the market rate units and there shall not be a significant difference between the BMP and market rate units visible from the exterior. The footprint and square footage of the BMP unit is less than the market rate units. The Commission will need to evaluate if the BMP unit is reasonably consistent with the market rate units. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 Placer Oaks Road/PD-07-142 March 10, 2010 2. Architectural Diversity The applicant has included stone siding on some of the proposed houses to provide architectural variety and diversity. In an attempt to mitigate staff s concern that the garage on Lot 8 dominates the front elevation, an entrance portico has been added and the garage doors have been divided and recessed to minimize the visual impact. If the Planning Commission has a concern with the location of the garage for Lot 8, the development plan would need to be modified to accommodate any required change, to push the garage back towards the house. Staff does not believe that "significant" architectural diversity has been provided as directed by the Commission. As stated in the previous report, Planned Development applications only require conceptual elevations. Applicants have been providing precise architectural plans to expedite the Architecture and Site application process through the Development Review Committee (DRC). If the Commission finds merit with the PD but has concerns with the architecture of the proposed houses, staff recommends that the matter be forwarded to the Town Council with a performance standard requiring that the Architecture and Site applications go through the Planning Commission, rather than the DRC. This performance standard is included in the Draft PD ordinance. The basis .for this recommendation is as follows: ® PD applications only require conceptual plans. ® It is anticipated that the Commission will want additional changes to increase the diversity. ® The Town's Consulting Architect will need to review the proposed architectural changes. If the Fiesta House is relocated to the site, staff, the Planning Commission and the Town's Consulting Architect may want to consider modifying the architectural style and/or elements of the new houses to better transition with the historic house. 3. Flay Lot and House Sizes The flag lot 'has been eliminated. House sizes have been reduced. Plan A has been reduced by 465 square feet and Plan B has been reduced by 275 square feet. The market rate units now range in size from 2,670 to 2,765 square feet (excluding garages). The houses from the original plan ranged in size from 2,700 to 3,000 square feet (excluding garages). The added BMP unit contains 1,243 square feet. The Fiesta House contains approximately 980 square feet. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 Placer Oalcs Road/PD-07-142 March 10, 2010 B, Additional Plan Modifications The applicant has made the following additional modifications to the plan: The property lines have been modified to not encompass the slope. Lots now range in size from 4,258 to 14,859 square feet. The lots from the original plan ranged in size from 5,214 to 25,567 square feet. Two guest parking spaces between Lots 8 and 9 have been eliminated in front of the common pathway up to Placer Oaks Road. A permeable fire truck turnaround has been provided in this area that has reduced the amount of asphalt paving. The elimination of the two guest parking spaces has reduced t11e on street parking from eight spaces to ten. A total of 47 parking spaces would be provided on-site as follows: 19 garage spaces (nine; two-car garages and one, one car garage), 20 spaces in driveway aprons, and eight. on-street parking spaces. Town Code requires three parking spaces for each residential unit. At this rate,. the proposed ten unit residential development would require 30 parking spaces and the project would more than meet this requirement. C. Staff Comments The Town has received confirmation from the West Valley Sanitation ,District that the revised plan meets the agency's requirements. The Town has also received correspondence that the original noise study is applicable to the revised plan (Exhibit 22). Although a traffic study was not required, as discussed in a previous report, an extensive traffic analysis was conducted based on past neighborhood concerns associated with traffic. The analysis concluded that the trip increase was statistically insignificant and that none of the surrounding. roadway segYnents would experience a noticeable increase in traffic with the addition of the proposed project. Therefore, the traffic generated with this proposal will not impact the neighborhood. As discussed in the previous report, the Town worked with the Placer Oaks neighborhood in 2004 regarding traffic calming measures. The previous report noted the traffic calming measures that have been implemented for the neighborhood in 2005. Based on neighborhood traffic concerns raised at the public hearing on this project, the Commission discussed that additional traffic calming measures should be researched. Therefore, as noted in the previous report, the applicant has volunteered to contribute $15,000.00 for traffic calming as a community benefit. A performance standard is included in the draft PD Ordinance, reflecting the applicant's contribution. As noted in the performance standard,. if the traffic calming for the Placer Oalcs neighborhood is not submitted by the neighborhood or does not meet Town criteria, the payment will be reallocated to the next prioritized traffic calming project. At this tune, the next prioritized traffic calming project is in the Vista del Monte neighborhood. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7 Placer Oaks Road/PD-07-142 March 10, 2010 A comment was raised by one of the Commissioners regarding the nexus of the community benefit. Several projects have been approved where the applicant contributed funds for a community benefit that were not directly related to the project or the project's neighborhood. These contributions include the following: ® Monetary contribution to a soccer field. ® Monetary contribution for offsite landscaping. ® Monetary contribution for recreation. ® Monetary contribution to Town's BMP program. The Commission has the discretion to determine whether the community benefit is appropriate. CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The Commission should carefully consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed General Plan amendment would convert the general land use designation to what previously existed prior to the PD. The proposal is also compatible with the existing land use in the Placer Oaks neighborhood. Since access to the site is only available from Placer Oaks Road, a low density development as opposed to a medium density development would be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan in regards to maintaining the character and compatibility with existing neighborhoods. The proposed density of 2.94 units per acre is compatible with the neighborhood (BMP units are not counted towards the density). As discussed above, the traffic generated with this proposal will not impact the neighborhood. Staff believes the Commission should also carefitlly consider the following issues when formulating a recommendation to Town Council. These issues relate to the consistency of the General Plan and BMP guidelines discussed above: Neighborhood Compatibility Community Benefit Compatibility of BMP and market rate units Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8 Placer Oaks Road/PD-07-142 March 10, 2D 10 B. Recommendation if the Commission finds merit with this application, the Commission should take the following actions: 1. Recommend that the Town Council rescind Ordinances No.2081 and 2.122; 2. Recommend that the Town Council adopt the General Plan amendment (Exhibit 14); 3. Find that the Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan (Exhibit 7); 4. As required by the Town's Traffic Policy for community benefit (Exhibit 7); 5. Forward a recommendation for approval of the following to the Town Council: a. Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit 5) b. Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit 6) c. Planned Development application (Exhibit 23) ~~ ~~ Prepared by: Saridy L. Baily, AICP Acting Assistant Community Director Development P~C~Q~L CC> ~a- Approved by: Wendie R. Rooney Director of Community Development WRR:SLB:cgt cc: Greenleaf Associates T,LC, 2971 Gordon Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051 Dunn Properties, Lp, 301 Alta Loma Lane, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Cupertino Development Corporation, 1307 So. Mary, Suite 120, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Rodger Griffin, Paragon Design Group, Inc., 405 Alberto Way, Suite #C, Los Gatos, CA 95032 N:\DEU\REPORTS\2010\placeroaks, doc TOVVl~I OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COIVIIVIISSIOI~ 1VIEETII~TG ACTIOl®T Ii~IIl~tUTES TOWN COU1~dCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY,1®IOVEMBER 18, 2009 CO1oTTI1`1UED PUBLIC HEARII®1GS 5. 517 and 615 Blossom Hill Road and Placer Oaks Road. Ordinance No.2081 and 2122. Requesting approval to rescind Planned Development Ordinances 2081 and 2122 to construct 49 apartment units to allow the project described below on the Placer Oaks site only. APNS: 529-16-042, 026, 073, 529-14-012 and 067. PROPERTY OWNERS: Greenleaf Associates LLC, Dunn Properties, Lp, Cupertino Development Corporation. APPLICANT: Cupertino Development Corporation. (Continued from. September 23, 2009). Placer Oafs Road. General Plan Amendment GP-07-001. Planned Development PD-07-142. Negative Declaration ND-07-143. Requesting. approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Meditun Density Residential to Low Density Residential. and approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from RM:S-12:PD to R-1:8: PD to constrict nine single family houses. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNS 529- 16-073, 529-14012 and 067. PROPERTY OWNER/.APPLICANT: Cupertino Development Corporation. PROJECT PLANNER: Sandy Baily, Acting Assistant Community Development Director. (Continued from September 23, August 28, and October 28, 2009) Acting Assistant Community Development. Director Sandy Baily gave a presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Marcia Jensen --Asked staff what $15,000 buys as a traffic calming measure. --Asked if the Commission needs to make a finding of an error in an original Planned Development ordinance in order to rescind it. Associate Civil Engineer John Gaylord --Commented that a speed bump could cost $2,000-$3,000 and $15,000 could possibly buy a traffic circle. ~nIB3T 20 Town Attorney ®rry I~orb --Commented it is a legislative decision to rescind an ordinance and the. Commission has free reign. Commission Questions: --Asked staff about the Architecture and Site (A&S) process if they approve the Planned Development (PD) when they are not satisfied with the architectural diversity at the PD level. --Asked if the flag lot shown in both the 10-lot subdivisions could be avoided. --Asked for confirmation that the Commission could not consider the Fiesta: Way house when considering this application. __Asked for clarification on the criteria in the Town's Traffic Calming Policy for having the $15,000 allocated to that neighborhood. --Asked how the immediate neighborhood is defined. --Asked if there is such a thing as anticipatory traffic calming when bringing in a development that will impact traffic. --Asked about past experience with petitions for traffic calming. Acting Assistant Community Development Director Sandy Baily answered Commission questions: __Commented if the item were continued, depending on which alternative the Commission chose, they could write a condition in more detail regarding specific architectural diversity. __Commerted the flag lots would have to be addressed by the applicant, but one option is to reduce the house size and footprint of the house which would make the lots bigger. --Commented the Fiesta Way house cannot be a consideration in this application because the relocation of this house will not be determined until after the Library project is approved. Associate Civil Engineer John Gaylord enervated Commission questions: --Commented that traffic calming involves a requirement for the community to agree on a solution in the. form of a petition involving over 50 percent of the households,. along with several other criteria. Only one of the other criteria has to be triggered in addition to the petition. __Commented the immediate neighborhood is determined by analysis and it does take into consideration cut-through traffic. __Confirmed. that traffic calming is anticipated. and projects are looked at with Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) numbers based on what that project would contribute to the area in addition to the local existing. traffic. --Commented traffic calming petitions require 50 percent participation and are typically for existing communities when the neighbors feel there are traffic issues. New projects require traffic studies and if increased traffic is determined, it would be part of the mitigation of the project. This project is not expected to increase traffic, but the applicant has offered to contribute funds if traffic calming is desired by the. neighborhood. Town Attorney Orry Korb --Confirmed the Fiesta Way historic structure is not technically relevant in the Commission's consideration of this PD, but would be relevant at the A&S level. --Commented that the historic preservation of the Fiesta Way structure is an important component of the Library project and the environmental analysis of that project, and relocation of it to a suitable location will be an important issue at a future date. Chair Thomas O'Donnell opened the public hearing. Rodger Griffin, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project and addressed the recommendations from the meeting of September 23, 2009. Commission Questions: --Asked what someone would see when entering or leaving the Town. --Asked about the height of the soundwall from bottom to top. -_Asked if all homes would be Models A and B if a 9-home subdivision is approved. --Asked if a BMP (Below Market Price) unit is added and happens to be a relocated historic home, if there would be ten houses with two Victorians and the rest of the homes Models A and B. __Asked applicant if he understood that if a 9-lot subdivision was approved, they maybe required to provide more architectural diversity than the two models at the A&S level. --Asked if applicant would recommend one of the proposals over the others. --Asked if applicant is bothered by two flag lots. --Asked about courtyard design for mitigating noise and asked why the houses furthest from the freeway use that design. Rodger Griffin, Applicant, answered Commission questions: __Commented when viewing the site from the north or south, the soundwall will be obscured in its entirety by vegetation. They are also putting a screen of mostly Evergreen trees between the property line and the .soundwall so the berm will be planted with trees. --The height of the soundwall is nine feet above the center line of the freeway and varies from 9-12 feet on top of a berm. _-Commented that the 9-home subdivision would .all be Models A and B. --Commented that they would look for further direction if a 10-lot subdivision was approved, but it would include two Victorians with the rest of the homes Models A and B if the Fiesta Way house was relocated to the site. --Confirmed he understood that significant architectural diversity was necessary. --Commented the 9-lot proposal is their first choice and an appropriate use on the site. The in-lieu fees offer monies that could be used in a more flexible manner. They have no objection to building or accommodating the BMP unit but believe they were following the original guidance given by the Town. _-Commented he is not bothered by flag lots since it is on a private roadway and the frontage and landscaping is more cohesive in a PD than if it were done on individual homes. --Commented that Lots 1, 2 and 3 also have courtyards, but they are smaller than those on Lots 4 and 8. Commissioner Charles Erelcson __Asked applicant how they accommodated the conditions in the General Plan with regard to flag lots when laying out Options A and B. Chair Thomas ®'Donnell --Asked staff to comment on any precedents on flag lots. --Aslced staff if Commission has authority to require an applicant to add a BMP unit without adding any units to the original proposal. Acting Assistant Community Development Director Sandy Baily --Commented that flag lots have been approved on a case by case basis in the past. --Commented the Commission could recommend that density be reduced. Rodger Griffm --Commented the General Plan conditions regarding flag lots refer to public streets and they are not altering a public street. These lots are not the same situation because there are streets on both sides with a public walkway. They do not actually function as flag lots because more of the. homes are exposed from the front .and you can see them from the street: Commissioner Charles Erekson --Asked staff if General Plan flag lot requirements apply to this situation. Acting Assistant Community Development Director Sandy Baily --Commented that flag lot requirements are not differentiated between public or private streets. Rodger Griffin --Commented they have created their own community that provides the best preservation of the hillside, but does not coordinate with the more conventional grid style layout of the lots above. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Asked about sound measurement levels and where the noise was measured. Jeff Pack, Edward Lo Pack Associates, Into --Commented. sound was measured at 112 feet from the center line of Highway 17. Yin Rong --Commented his house is directly next to the property and hopes the new soundwall will improve noise level and not amplify noise to their house. __Commented his second concern is the wall that will be built between the two properties and part of his property will not be accessible. __Commented his third issue is realignment of the street and if any earth movement will have an effect on his geological situation. Chair Thomas O'Donnell --Asked Mr. Rong if he currently has an easement. --Asked Mr. Rong if he has found anything in the record that suggests there will be lots of earth movement there. I'in Rong ®-Commented he .does not have an easement. --Commented he does not have any evidence of any earth movement and just wanted to ask the question. Commissioner Charles Erekson --Asked Mr. Rong if he had other concerns about the way the street will enter into the project. ~'in Rong --Commented he has concerns about his kids who walk and bike to school. --Commented he has limited parking due to the fire lane in front of his property. Chair Thomas O'Donnell --Confirmed that Mr. Rong lives up the hill on Frank Avenue. Mort Sherin --Commented he finds the road relocation much more acceptable and is willing to go with it. --Commented he would like to still have the option of screening that was proposed at the last meeting. --Commented his other concern is about common area parking spaces in the project and if it is adequate for keeping cars off of Placer Oaks Drive and Frank Avenue. Lee Quintana --Commented the project as proposed is not consistent with the current housing element and should be tabled until after the new General Plan Housing Element is approved. ®_Commented that when the current PD and A&S were approved it was not known that the site had potential geologic hazards from liquefaction and lateral spreading. This is not mentioned in the staff report. -_Commented the soundwall mitigation in the proposed project impacts more trees and a large number of them are rated as being high to moderate significance for retention. __Commented she has concerns about the noise impacts. --Commented the intensity of the project has not been greatly reduced. Rodger Griffin --Commented on the grading issue raised by Mr. Rong and noted that the roadway is being moved over about ten feet on a slight slope. --Commented he does not know how to address the access to Mr. Rong's private rear yard. - - -- - -a- ------ - --------------- 9 - -- p Commented IVIr. Sherin s screen o tion will still be installed. --Commented the original geological report identified the potential for liquefaction and the Town's geological consultant determined that it was overstated and a further report indicated less liquefaction potential. They have already adopted an agreement for mitigation for any potential in that regard with a grout wall that will be installed at the base of the hill. -_Commented there are more trees in this proposed project because the first tree report was done ten years ago and many of the trees were not of size to be in the report at that time. Jeff Pack __Responded to 1Vlr. Kong's concern about reflections off the corner of the soundwall and. commented that the noise will go into the hillside. --Commented that reflections off the retaining wall do not present a significant increase because sound loses acoustic energy and is about one decibel of reflection. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Asked for clarification on dBA measurements. Jeff Pack --Commented the 24-hour average is about 76 dBA at the building setback or rear yards on the outside, and the reflective component would only add about one decibel. Chair Thomas O'Donnell closed the public hearing, and asked staff if the proposed project complies with the General Plan as it currently exists. Acting Assistant Community Development Director Sandy Bally __Commented 1VIs. Quintana may have been referring to the housing inventory where the apartment project was inchided in the housing counts in the current housing element. Since the apartment project is unlikely to happen, the site has been taken out of the proposed housing element count. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Confirmed with staff that 55 dBA is the acceptable level noted for developments in the General Plan. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell --Asked Town Attorney if the Commission is to take the BMP unit into consideration when setting the density for a project. Tovrn Attorney Orry ]Korb -=Commented the. zoning. code provides certain density limits and the Commission can augment that density by the addition of a BMP unit(s). --Commented the purpose of the incentive is to ensure that the BMP unit is constructed and allows for density above what would normally be permitted, but only for the affordable unit. Commissioner 1VIarcia Jensen --Commented she does not recall they demanded a BMP unit and disagrees with l~Ir. Griffin about ignoring ordinances on private properties regarding flag lots. _-Commented she does not feel any architectural diversity has been .shown in the plan and is troubled that it will be addressed at A&S. --Asked that Town Council consider whether a nexus ought to be required for a Community Benefit and a proposed project. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Commented she is still not convinced this is where single family homes should be built due to noise issues from the freeway and air quality from auto emissions from those vehicles. --Commented that Mr. Pack testified tonight that dBA levels are at 76, and the Town and General Plan is at 55 dBA. --Questioned Mr. Pack's testimony at the previous meeting. where he stated that the soundwall was designed to mitigate for the .ground floor elevation and recommended that highly sound rated windows on the second floor be kept closed to keep the sound out. --Commented she objected to the second story level windows being kept closed to mitigate the noise issue. Commissioner Charles Erekson --Commented on his concern about adding a tenth lot and if eight original lots should be the same size. --Commented he does not believe the conditions in the General Plan have been addressed adequately regarding flag lots. Commissioner 1l~darico Sayoc --Commented that while PDs override what is there, the Commission would like proposals to enhance the requirements of the underlying zone. __Commented she would like the BMP built on site rather than in-lieu fees. --Commented on noise mitigation on the second story and said she does not believe in housing that recommends people keeping their windows closed and asked if applicant had considered larger one story homes that eliminate the second story noise issue. Vice Chair John Bottrgeoas --Expressed concern about the noise issue and asked staff if the site had already been zoned residential. Town Attorney Orry Korb --Commented it is zoned for residential and anybody can make an application consistent with the existing zoning, A&S rules and subdivision rules and should be able to get approval. --Commented he does not feel it is appropriate to say you cannot build residential housing here; however, the Commission does not have to approve this particular project in this particular configuration. ti Chair Thomas ®'Donnell , __Commented property is zoned for much higher density and that the noise level is unfortunate. --Commented. one option is to not require a BMP on site which would eliminate the flag. lots. --Commented he personally does not like flag lots and believes a density of nine is reasonable. --Commented if the Commission wants to add specific conditions, it can be done, but applicant has a right to build residential on that site. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Confirmed this is a recommendation to Town Council and that the recommendation could be that Town Council take a look at redesignating the zone. __Commented that when she thinks of the site as a family home environment she cannot imagine someone living there for a long period of time whereas apartments are usually short term residences. Commissioner Charles Erekson --Commented the property has been zoned for residential use and would respect property owner's assessment regarding density and that they have responded responsibly with road relocation. __Commented the architectural diversity needs to be addressed. --Commented applicant has addressed attenuating the sound. --Commented he still has a concern about incorporating a BMP unit with a flag lot. Vice Chair John Bourgeois --Commented he would prefer high density use on this site, but likes the 10-lot option alternative B. 1@~Iotion by Vice Chair John Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner 1VIarico Sayoc to continue Ordinance No.2081 and 2122, General Plan Amendment GP-07-001, Planned Development PD-07-142, and Negative Declaration ND-07-143 to January 13, 2010, to further develop the 10-lot subdivision alternative B with the following. direction: (1) Retain the BMP unit. (2) Significantly increase the architectural diversity. (3) Consider reducing the intensity and size in a couple of the designs to eliminate the flag lot. Commissioner Charles Erekson --Asked for Vice Chair Bourgeois's intent regarding architectural. diversity. Vice Chair John Bourgeois --Commented he wants to see more than two styles of homes with diversity in size and story. Town Attorney Orry Korb --Commented that staff will work on the language about architectural diversity and reiterated that nothing in the PD should in any way dictate the architecture of the project and eliminate the Commission's discretion to evaluate the architecture as they come through the A&S process. __Commented the original language was intended to address the PD which has to be approved at the PD level and staff wanted to ensure that minor deviations could be accommodated. Chair Thomas O'Donnell --Asked Vice Chair Bourgeois what if the applicant follows alternative B and comes back with l O lots including a flag lot. Vice Chair John Bourgeois __~esponded that he is not saying he will not vote for it if it has a flag lot but would need to see strong justification for it. Commissioner 1VIarcia Jensen --Commented her understanding of the motion is that they are not saying they will vote for it if they come back with a flag lot, but to come back with a creative solution for alternative B given the studies contained in the staff report. There is no guarantee one way or the other. Commissioner Charles Erelcson -_Commented that if they come back with a flag .lot they would need to address the section of the General Plan that says flag lots should be considered under these circumstances. Chair Thomas O'Donnell --Asked Commissioner Erelcson if he believes it is possible for the applicant to satisfy the four requirements for flag lots in the General Plan. Commissioner Charles Erelcson --Commented that he feels it is possible to do. Chair Thomas O'Donnell --Commented he does not like the flag lot but can support the motion. --Commented that, based on the Commissioners' comments, if the applicant can come back without the flag lot and some architectural diversity, they would have met what the Commission is asking for, even though the Commission is not saying exactly what they will do until they have considered what is presented. Commissioner Marcia Jensen ®-Commented she does not feel consensus has been reached and is not comfortable with whatever applicant will come in with. --Commented she is not taking a position and will consider the proposal when it is presented. Chair Thomas ®'I~onnell --Commented he was speaking for the majority and not for Commissioner Jensen. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner Joanne Talesfore dissenting and Commissioner Philip 1Vgicciche absent. Town attorney ®rry Korb commented that the public hearing on this matter has been continued to January 13, 2010, and there will be no other official notice of the hearing. ,.., (_,I 0 February 17, 2~1~ Community ®eveloPment ®ept. Town ®f ~®s Gat®s 11® Fast MainY/`treet Los Gatos, C~ 9530 ~/°ub~~cta P® Rezoning ~ General Pian Ch®nge Placer ®a~s Road (LPN; 529-1~-75) T®s Town Planning Cornriraissi~n ®ear Chairperson & Planning commission Members; UI~BA(~l DESIGN & PGNING ~s leer your direction to us at the November 1~, 209 meeting we h®ve significantly revised the arrangement of the lots and homes. ../°ITF R~~ /°1® ® Flag lot eliminated bome sizes (square footage) reduced New PSMP, two®story as recommended by,/.°taff ® PIMP relocated to allow flexibility if historic Fiesta bome approved for site architectural diversity enhanced through the use of new stone exteriors No flag lots are proposed in this response to your concerns expressed at the Nov. i~th PC Mtg. Every lot complies with the lot frontage required by Town ®rdinanee. The size of the proposed flans has been reduced, Plan ~ reduced by 4.65,j'F to 267~~/'F total and Plan ~ reduced by 275,>'P to 2765,J°F total, This reduction decreases the flans foot]arint and results in more and larger rear yards oriented to the hillside. JEY?)1C8 ~32~ ~L'S2~Y[ 2545 ' 10 2 17-PC Resp:dce ~~~o~ DESIGN GROUP, INC. 405 Alberto Way Suite C Los Gatos, CA 95032 408.358.3707 fax:356.I969 parpgondg@megapathdsl.net MEMBER A.I.B.D. MEMBER O.I.A. ~I~T7' 7 ~/ I ,/'tone exterior walls now provide architectural variety and diversity among the 10 lots, an entrance portico has been added. to lot #8 to balance the facade while the garage doors are divided and deeply recessed to minimize the frontage, Lots #8 & #9 are open to the eommon pathway from the hillside; the pa•f'hway terminates at a permeable paving turn-a-round that reduces the amount of asphalt paving. ~ new two-story 13MP home has been incorporated into the site. The home is three bedrooms of 124.3„fF. The two-story was recommended iay,~'taff to be in keeping with the other homes proposed for this site, The location of the PIMP has also been shifted to a more inclusive location with a lot size that can accommodate both the proposed plan or if desired by the Planning Commission, the historic Fiesta home. We continue to offer the relocation of the ~listoric Fiesta home onto this site. Lot #2 can facilitate the use of the Fiesta dome or the proposed three- bedroom plan. The main site entry remains realigned to reduce headlight glare into our neighbor's home across Placer Oaks. To further reduce the potential for headlight glare a low profile wood screen will be added to the neighbors yard as previously accepted by the Owner. as requested at your Oct.. 21St hearing, the soundwall facing the freeway frontage is now stepped along the toj~ of the landscaped berm and remains setback from the property line to allow for greater landscaping. The existing trees between the wall and freeway are to remain and new trees added to the mix to fill the axis#ing voids. approximately half of the length is at elevation 319 and half at elevation 32~. This elevation difference is necessary to maintain the minimum 12~foot height above the pad elevation of the adjacent homes. ' 7~'Y7J2C2 ~)13+ Des1g~1 2545'10.2.17-PCRespdcc COI~1NiU~IITY ~~F.FIT: basic Community ~aenefit of this project continues to be the voluntary reduction from 15 units, the minimum required under the General Plan designation to 9 market rate homes. The ±50®/~ reduction in trip generation is areal and measurable benefit to our surrounding neighbors ~n additional benefit, after conferring with the Town Traffic engineer, Jessie Pu, we propose to construci~ the listed traffic mitigation for "Vista ®el Monte" that has a designated budget of ~151'C, Recognizing the communi#y's need for a family oriented PSP1P; we are proposing to provide a full three-bedroom 13MP home Instead of building a minimum size, two-bedroom structure. accommodating the historic Fiesta home on this site remains as a potential community bane#it. ,/'hould the Town decide that it is appropriate for it to be moved to this site, we welcome the opportunity to preserve the home for future generations. 1~/ith this submission we continue to demonstrate our desire to accommodate the concerns expressed by the Planning commission and respectfully request your recommendation to the Town Council for approval of this proposed new community. )® i7~~~'~~ U~ ~~~t~n 2545-'10217-PCRespdoc ('d K. Kolker iC.V . f d 1 JJ oaf 6 / B F J,~e~ i I~ ~= S q_ tiw: 9975 MAMILTQN AUENUE SUITE 26 5AN J(7Si", GA 95125 flc~trstic~ctl C'vrr,sultaj~ls ~~-~~~ 7~Et,; 40$-379-1195 FAX: 408.371.19 96 `^'~'•R~okassociatos.com March 2, ~~?Q 10 Fra____~~__cct No. 39____0~2_3~ ~~® Ivlr, Keit}1 Kolker ~"j~~ Q 3 2010 l,azldnlar}c I3cveTopmc~rlt 13Q7 ~outll l'/Iar'y A~Jenu~ Suite l2U ~~ ~ ~ NG ~IV~AT ®S Surizly~jale, CA 9~0~7 1~1®f~ SuhjECt; Noise Mitigation for New Site I..ayt~~ut< "Placer (3al~s" Si91g1c;-~'azllii~, DevelopzlZent, }-li~llway 17, l.,os Gatos Dear Keith: The original noise assessment study for the `'P1a.cer 4.:)~tks" devc~loPzllenr; dated June 12, 20Q7, is applicable to the 1rz#esi Site Plan f.<>z•war•ded to n1~~ }~y l~.od~;er Cir}Ffin oza 1°ebruary 26; 2()}U, `l'he noise znitiga#ion measures otzlJined in tT1e recomrllendations section ol'rhe report arc related to rhysic<~l aspects oi'tile site;, (}~rol~erty .lines. Yzuildirag P~ids, itc,) and are not depezldeni or1 the site layout. `T'hen`efore> horl~cs may 13c zzloved arouzui without al~'fecting thE4 reconlnlGndatiorzs ofthe sound repor~r. 1f you have azly questions; pleasr;: c~zil m~;. Sincerely, FDWAI~D L. PA(~"K ASS(.)t'~.. 1NC'. ~ `~~ ---- Jeffrey K. Pack Presiders( cc; badger C..'yriffin. Paragon T~esign r~tIEMBEFt: ACptJSTiCAI. 5QCIETY QF AME=RICA P1A,7lONAt. CoUNCiL of ACpUSTICAL CONSUt_`fANI`5 ffiIBIT 22 {~~ ~ ~ ~iY ~~ _'_~ z _ ._- - ----- L-- ~ i. [qQ( I 3 ~~ Dw u f.~ 1 6 A ~! ,~ ~ ~ i ~o ~x ~ t ma F X r ~, .. 2, f b Lj 9 I \ i ,,1 `\ ~;} ~I ~, ,~ !; v -- -- -- _ -g-_ "_ - -- -- k : ~`'~ ~~--. ~ _ ....._ t 1 71. ~ ~`~ ..~ ~~~~~.. ~~ I ~~1 ~~ ~ 1'~~ i. ~- --- ~_, , l~ f',Ii ' b l~ r 1• ~ , _ l ~ ,i. ~_ ,,M ... .,. `.': i a '~~' 1 l~ 41 w $' Y~: ~; ' ul I ~~r -- - ,J ~• ~ F ~ :I H a N N i~ ~~ eY ar ~~ w~ W t F 7 ~ X w a i ~ 1 _.._...~ ~ ~ , ,~~ ~ ' ~I f ~_ - '__......~ ti..~'._...~ 4 e ,~ I ~ w ~n ~~~ ~~ I ,_~ ..: ,~~ Ob0'c, S~vp ~13~b'ld '\ 'L\ ~~~ \ $ T ~~ a a , , • I. S ~~ ' 1 __ + ! ~ I g ~ 3 ~ m ~,~ l ~~. ~~ ` ._.J ~ + ~ ~ F at ' ~ . ~~ ~ b .: s ,` , I '~~ \1 ~ ~ i ~ \~ ~ ; P } \ 3 S ~ I ~ a. ~ `\ 1 ~. ~ \~ ~~. 1..! . ~ .1... _I~ . L -.4--- ~, ~' J; : _~ - 6 t(') ,~~ ', 6~ L6..1 ~~ H } r. ;._~ '"'i ~ I ': ~. ,.. _ . j ,.. ~: ' .J.1_ 1 1 . .~1. ~...~ 1 .. •~{~{.r _~ t~-, ,~_, ' ~ .. ~, ~.Y'i . I I ~. OI2DIl~TANCE ORDL®1~CE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS RESCIlVDI1~1G ORDII0TA1vCES 2081 Al®TD 2122 STD A1VIE1VDI1®tG THE ZO1VIIiTG ORDI1~dAI~1CE EFFECTIlotG A ZONE ' CHAl~GE .FROM RM:S-12:PD TO R-1:8:PD AT PLACER OAFS ROAD (AP1~TS: 529-16-073, 529-14-012 AND 067) THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS .DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to rescind Ordinances 2081 and 2122 and to change the zoning at Placer Oaks Road as shown on the map which is attached hereto marked Exhibit A and is part of this Ordinance from RM:S-12:PD (Medium Density Residential, 5-12 units per acre, Planned Development), to R-1:8:PD (Single Family Residential, 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Planned Development). SECTION II The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements: 1. Ten single family residences, one of which is a Below Market Price Unit; and 2. Landscaping, streets, parking, open space and other site improvements shown and required on the Official Development Plan. 1 EXHIBIT 23 3. Uses permitted are those specified in the underlying R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone by Sections 29.40.3.85 (Permitted Uses) and 29.20.185 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, as those sections exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future, subject to any restrictions or other requirements. specified elsewhere in this ordinance including, but not limited to, the Official Development Plan. However, no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this Ordinance, or by Conditional Use Permit. SECTION III COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan specifically shows otherwise. SECTION IV Architecture and Site Approval is required before the construction work for the new dwelling units and potential house relocation, whether or not a permit is required for the work and before any permit for construction is issued. Construction permits shall only be in a manner complying. with Section 29.80.130 of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION V The attached Exhibit A (Map) and Exhibit B (Development Plans),. are part of the Official Development Plan. The following must be complied with before issuance of any grading or construction permits: 2 TO THE SATISFACTIOlQd OF THE DIRECTOR OF COlVIIVIUl®tI'TX DEVELOFIVIEI®1Ta (Planning Division) 1. ARCIiITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. The Official Development Plans and this ordinance establish the allowed uses and intensity of development. The Official Development Plans are conceptual in nature such that deviations will be approved through the Architecture and Site approval process to achieve architectural excellence. Deviations nchide, but are not limited to, building footprint (approved setbacks must still be maintained), height, window and door locations, and architecture style and details.- The Architecture and Site plans shall be reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect at the .applicant's i cost. The Planning Commission shall be the deciding body of the Architecture and Site applications for the new single family residences and potential house relocation. 2. GARAGE WINDOW. The design of the garage window for Plan A~A shall be finalized during the Architecture and Site approval process pursuant to the direction of the Town's Consulting Architect's comments, dated May 29, 2008. This performance standard is not applicable if major changes occur to the house design as permitted in the above Architecture and Site approval performance standard. 3. HOUSE SIZES. No additional square footage shall be permitted for any of the units (excluding a cellar for the Fiesta Way house if relocated to the site). 3 4. BACKUP. A minimum garage backup distance of 25 feet shall be provided for Lots 4, 7 and 10. 5. PARKING. If the Fiesta House is relocated to the site, during the Architecture and. Site process, the location of the garage or parking pad shall be confirmed. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN. A final landscape plan shall be submitted during the Architecture. and Site approval process. This plan shall be reviewed by the Town's Consulting Arborist at the applicant's expense. 7. OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE SCREEN. The applicant shall work with the property owner at 16996 Frank Avenue (APN 529-14-033), to construct a landscape screen on the Frank Avenue property to provide screening for the glare from vehicles exiting the development. The screen shall be installed prior to final occupancy of the first unit. r 8. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a Building, Grading or Encroachment Permit. 9. ADDITIONAL TREE MITIGATION. The applicant shall mitigate the Oak tree removed to accommodate the roadway realignment at the Placer Oaks Road frontage pursuant to Town Code requirements. 10. TENTATIVE MAP. The Development Review Committee may be the deciding body of the tentative map. 11. GREEN BUILDING. The houses shall be designed to achieve compliance with GreenPoint Rated Standards for green building certification. The GreenPoint checklist shall be completed by a Certified Green Building Professional. 4 12. SOLAR. During the Architecture and Site approval process, all new residences, to the extent feasible, shall be designed to talce full advantage of passive solar opportunities. 13. WALKWAY: The applicant shall consider the possibility of installing the walkway at grade during the Architecture and Site approval process. 14. SOUNDWALL. The soundwall shall be stepped to break the continuous length of the wall. Final details of the soundwall shall be provided during the Architecture and Site approval process. Gate(s) shall be provided in the soundwall to access the landscape area adjacent to Highway 17 for maintenance purposes and shall be constructed pursuant to the detailed noise study prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates (Pack), Inc, dated June 12, 2007. 15. FENCING. All proposed fencing for the development shall be reviewed during the Architecture and Site approval process. 16. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: If land clearing, grading, tree and brush removal, tree trimming or demolition activities are to occur during the nesting season (i.e., between February 1 and August 15), apre-construction nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist. The biologist should survey the area immediately adjacent to the construction area for the presence of nests. This pre- construction survey shall be conducted no more than one week prior to the planned grading activity. a. If nesting birds with eggs or young are observed during the pre- construction surveys, grading in the affected project area shall not commence until after the young have fledged. 5 r b. If no nesting birds are observed,. no further action is required, and grading and construction may proceed, provided it commences within one week of the survey to prevent "take" of individual birds that may have begun nesting after the survey. 17. *TREES: Recommendations made by Arbor Resources (June 9, 2008) shall be implemented to eliminate or minimize the construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendations are listed under Section 5.0 of the arborist's report but Section 4.0 also includes additional design recommendations. These include design guidelines section addressing tree location mapping, utility locations, drainage facilities,. and landscape design. The report also provides protection measures before and' during construction, addressing. fencing, work within tree canopies, etc. 18. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS. The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by the Town's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's report, dated June 9, 2008, and/or subsequent reports prepared during the Architecture and Site process, on file in the Community Development Department. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. The applicant shall prepare and submit a memorandum with the building permit, detailing how each of these recommendations have or will be addressed. 19. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Town's Consulting Arborist shall review the building permit plans, at the 6 developer's cost, to ensure all of the required tree protection measures have been implemented in the construction plans. 20. ADDITIONAL TREE MITIGATION. The applicant shall mitigate the Oak tree removed to accommodate the roadway realignment at the Placer Oaks Road frontage pursuant to Town Code requirements. 21. *ARCHAEOLOGICAL: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the fmd will be halted, the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. 22. *NATIVE AMERICAN REMAINS: If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the .deceased Native Americans. 23. *F1NAL 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. 24. *ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND: If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only 7 after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). If the site is found. to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. 25. 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. 26. BMP UNIT. The developer shall work with Town staff during the Architecture and Site approval process. to make the required arrangements for the BMP unit. The BMP unit must receive approved building permits prior to the: issuance of the building permit for the last market rate unit. The BMP contract shall be completed prior to issuance of a building permit. Final occupancy clearance of the BMP unit shall occur prior to the final of the last market rate unit. 27. DEED RESTRICTION. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's office, stating that the required BMP unit must be sold as a below market priced unit pursuant to the Town's BMP regulations. 8 28. FINISH OF BMP UNIT. The internal finish of the BMP unit (excluding the Fiesta House if relocated to the site) shall be identical to that of the market rate units in the project, except that the developer may request Town approval of substitutions for luxury interior finishes, appliances and fixtures. (Building Division) 29. *NOISE: The project shall be required to include a noise wall along the project boundary that is contiguous to the ~ Highway 17 freeway .with the height specifications as recommended in the detailed noise study prepared by Pack. To control flanking noise, the barrier shall continue along the southern property boundary as specified in the detailed noise study. In addition, recommended noise control measures (e.g., closed windows where there is a direct line-of sight, windows meeting specified Sound Transmission Class ratings, and mechanical ventilation) shall be incorporated into project homes to achieve acceptable interior noise levels. 30. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the construction of the new single family residences and the sound wall. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and. plumbing work as necessary. 31. CODES: Projects will be required to conform to the 2007 California Building, Fire, Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes. The CC's are based on model codes; 2006 International Building Code and Fire Code and 2006 Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and the 2005 National Electrical Code. 32. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum 9 shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 33. SIZE OF PLANS: For sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36." 34. SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. California Building Chapter 18. 35. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed four (4) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property or the public right-of way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall conform to CaUOSHA regulations. 36. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection: This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report;. and, the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations 10 d. :Retaining Walls r 37. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wooded backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs located 34-inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor. c. Primary entrance shall a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no more than 1-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 38. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: California Title 24 Energy Compliance. forms CF-1R, MF-1R, and WS-SR must be blue-lined on the plans. 39. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location~of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 11 40. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance as per Town. Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10-feet. of chimneys. 41. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION, provide a letter from a California registered architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 42. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1701, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out, signed by all requested parties, and beblue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.~ov/building 43. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (or Clean Bay Sheet 24x36) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee. 44. PLANS: The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of a licensed architect or engineer. (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538) 45. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: 12 e. Community Development -Planning Division: Sandy Baily at 354-6873 f. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: John Gaylord at 395- 3460 g. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 h. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 i. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. TO THE SATISFr~CTIOl~t OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS A1~1D PUBLIC WORKS: (Engineering Division) 46.. 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 8z 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 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. 13 47. SOILS INVESTIGATIONS AND REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS. All requirements and recommendations as outlined in the Geo Forensics, Inc - Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed New 9-Unit Subdivision dated July 2, 2007 and the AMEC -Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review dated July 7, 2008 and all referenced documents therein shall be incorporated into final designs. This condition shall include the requirement for a stability analysis to be completed per the July 7, 2008 AMEC Review. This analysis shall be completed and provided to the Town Engineering. Department prior to any permits. 48. PAD CERTIFICATION. A letter from a licensed: land surveyor shall be provided stating that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the structure. The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation placement. 49. 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 14 that acopy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction. S0. 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. 51. PATHWAY RAILINGS. All private and public pathways with adjacent downhill walls or slopes greater than 3:1 shall have protective railings. 52. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the grading permit and public improvement application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 53. SOILS RE~IIEW. 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. 54. 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 15 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. 55. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The Applicant shall enter an agreement to construct public improvements in accordance with Town Code §24.40.020. 56. 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 Town 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. 57. 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. 58. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT. All sewer connection and treatment plant capacity fees shall be paid either immediately prior to the recordation of any subdivision or tract maps with respect to the subject property or properties, or immediately prior to the issuance of a sewer connection permit, which ever event 16 occurs first -written confirmation of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to map recordation. 59. DEDICATIONS. The following shall be dedicated on the final track map by separate instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued. a. Public Service Easement (PSE). Ten (10) feet wide, next to the Placer Oaks Road right-of--way and five (5) feet wide, private road along lot frontages. b. Ingress-egress, storm drainage and sanitary sewer easements, as required. c. Emergency Access Easement. Twenty (20) feet wide, from the end of the private road to Placer Oaks Road. 60. JOINT TRENCH PLANS. Joint trench plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to recordation of a map. The joint trench plans shall include street and/or site lighting and associated photometrics. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that public street light billing will by Rule LS2A, and that private lights shall be metered with billing to the homeowners association. Pole numbers, assigned by PG&E, shall be clearly delineated on the plans. 61. WATER DESIGN. Water plans prepared by SJWC must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any permit. 62. ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES. The applicant shall submit a 75-percent progress printing to the Town for review of above ground utilities including backflow prevention devices, fire department connections, gas and water meters, off-street valve boxes, hydrants, site lighting, electrical/communication/cable boxes, 17 ___ -- - transformers, and mail boxes. Above ground utilities shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to issuance of any permit. 63. PLAN 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. 64. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any Permit or recordation of the Final Map. 65. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The following improvements shall be installed by the developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract,. Faithful Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. a. Placer Oaks Road. Curb,. gutter, sidewalk, street lights, tie-in paving, signing, striping, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, as required. 66. 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 sub,~ect to the approval of the Town before altered work is started. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final "as-built" drawings. is 67. INSURANCE. One million dollars ($1,000,000) of liability insurance holding the Town harmless shall be provided in a format acceptable to the Town Attorney before recordation of the map issuance of the building permit. 68. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE (RESIDENTIAL). The developer .shall pay a proportional the project's share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project using the current fee schedule is $5,742 per unit. The final fee shall be calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. 69. INTERSECTION IMPACT FEES. The developer shall pay a fair share toward the future intersection improvement at Lark Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard. The fee amount is estimated at $942.00. 70. COMMUNITY BENEFIT. Community benefit is required to mitigate traffic impact. 71. TRAFFIC CALMING CONTRIBUTION. The applicant has offered a contribution of $15,000.00 to the Town for Neighborhood Traffic Calming as a community benefit. These funds shall remain earmarked for the Placer Oaks neighborhood for a minimum period of two (2) years. In the event that the neighborhood fails to submit a Neighborhood Petition within the two (2) year period or fails to pass the criteria required as defined by the Town Traffic Calming Policy then the payment shall be reallocated to the next prioritized 19 project in the Town Traffic Calming priority list. This payment shall be paid prior to issuance of the first building permit. 72. SIGNAL UPGRADE. The developer shall upgrade the existing traffic signal equipment at Los Gatos Boulevard/Chirco Drive by 1) Installing pedestrian countdown signal heads and ADA-compliant pedestrian push buttons; 2) Replacing 8" signal heads with 12" signal heads; acid 3) Replacing non-LED signal indication with LED's. 73. TRAFFIC CALMING. The developer shall re-stripe and re-sign the existing traffic calming devices in the Chirco/Placer Oaks neighborhood as directed by the Town Engineer. 74. TREE REMOVAL. Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to issuance of a grading permit. 75. 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. 20 76. 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. 77. PUBLIC WORDS 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. 78. 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 79. 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 of section C.3 of the current Santa Clara County NPDES Permit. The plan shall delineate source control measures and BMP's together with the sizing calculations. The plan shall be reviewed and certified by the Town Stormwater Quality Consultant - a deposit for this review will be required. In the event that storm water measures proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those certified on the Building/Grading Permit, the Town may require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of 21 the Building Permit. The applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility. 80. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS. The homeowner's association shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project by Town's Stormwater Discharge Permit. The agreement will specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the homeowner's association and will specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement will also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded prior to release of any occupancy permits. 81. 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/buildng 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 darns, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream 22 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 No. R2-2005-0035 of the amended Santa Clara County NPDES Permit. 82. 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, 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 MPHo All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 23 83. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, constriction trailer, and proposed outhouse locations. 84. 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). 85. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be piped through curb drains. 86. 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. 87. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b). Flex connection maybe required at all connections to structures and over grouted materials. Ail new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. 88. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace. all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs,. pavements, raised 24 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 awalk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 89. SIDEWALK REPAIR. The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. Sidewalk repair shall match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. 90. CURB AND GUTTER. The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. New curb and gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. 91. DRIVEWAY APPROACH. The developer shall install 22 foot Town standard residential driveway approaches. The new driveway approaches shall be constructed per Town .Standard Details. 92. FENCING. Any fencing proposed within 200-feet of an intersection shall comply with Town Code Section §23.10.080. 25 ._ o 93. AS-BUILT PLANS. An AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built" plans shall be provided to the Town prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The AutoCAD file shall include only the following information and shall conform to the layer naming convention: a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-OUTLINE; b) Driveway, Layer: DRIVEWAY; c) Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING WALL; 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 the Town's survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher. 94. 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. 95. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE. Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level n7ms less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec. 6.50.025). The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve, as defined section 103(e) of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section 6.50.010 of the 26 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. 96. 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) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 97. 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. 98. SITE SUPERVISION. The General. Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 99. 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 27 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. 100. 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. The CC&R's shall include the maintenance of the soundwall and landscaping of the soundwall. 101. *GEOLOGY AND SOIL: The recommendations of the geotechnical report by GeoForensics Inc. (dated May 5, 2008) shall be implemented. These recommendations address site preparation, grading, ground improvements, foundations, retaining walls, drainage, and pavement. 102. ROAD REALIGNMENT -The roadway which enters and exits the development at Placer Oaks Road shall be realigned during the subdivision application process to reduce the glare from vehicles exiting the development. T® TI3E SATISFACTI®I~1 ®F THE SA1~1TA CLARA C®Ul®TTY FI12E DEPAI2.TIVIEI`1T: 103. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. Required fire flow for this project is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. 104. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW OPTION. The developer shall provide the required fire flow from fire hydrants spaced at a maximum of 500 feet or provide an 28 approved fire sprinkler system throughout all portions of the building, designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D and local ordinances. The fire sprinkler system supply valuing shall be .installed per Fire Department Standard Detail & Specification W-1/SP-6. 105. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S). 'The developer shall provide one public fire hydrant at a location to be determined jointly by~the Fire Department and the San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 1,500 GPM at 20 psi residual. To prevent building permit delays, the developer shall pay all required fees to the water company ASAP. 106. TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY HYDRANTS. Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire ~ Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested and accepted. 107. LOCATION IDENTIFIER. Prior to project final inspection, the general contractor shall ensure that an approved ("Blue Dot") fire hydrant location identifier has been placed in the roadway, as directed by the Fire Department. 108. FIRE ACCESS ROADS. The developer shall provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and- Specifications sheet A-1. 29 _ s 109. ROADWAY TURNAROUND. The developer shall provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. Cul-de-sac diameters shall be no less than 72 feet. 110. TIMING OF ROADWAY INSTALLATIONS. Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt,. shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction. Bulls combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until installation is complete. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads maybe approved on a case by case basis. 111. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY 112. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval. 30 11.3. GRAFFITTI REMOVAL. The .developer shall post a letter of credit or cash in ~ the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) which .shall be maintained for a period of fifteen (15) years for the removal of .graffiti on the sound wall once construction has been completed. *Required as Mitigation Measures SECTION VI This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , 2010, and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\ORDS\placeroalcs. l .doc 3 ]. rorwarded by Planning Commission Date. ~ Approved by 1°own Council Date: ®rd~ Clerk Administrator IVlayor E%HIBTT A