The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 01TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 4 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Anner , Associate Planne r ja nner@losgatosca.gov APPLICATION NO: Planned De velopment Application PD-14-002 Mitigated Negati ve Declaration ND-1 6-002 LOCATION : 105 Newell Avenue (southwest comer of Newell Avenue a nd Winchester Boulevard) APPLICANT/ CONT ACT P E RSON: Maurice Cannargo PROPERTY OWNER: Tango Papa Development Company APP LI CA TI O N SUMMARY: Requestin g approval of a Planned Development to rezone a propert y from R-1:1 2 to R-1:12:PD, de molish an existing building, and construct fo ur single-family resid en ces on property zoned R-1:1 2. APN 409-24-026. RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation to Town Council for denial of the Planned Development application. PROJ ECT DAT A: North East South West CEQA: General Plan Designatio n: Zoning Designation: Applicable Plans & Standards: Parcel Size: Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use Single-Family Residential Office Single-Family Resi dential Single-Family Resi dential Low Density R es ide ntial R-1 :12 -Single Famil y Residential , 12,000 s quare foot lot minimum General Plan; Res id entia l Des i gn Guidelines; Hill side Develo pment Standards and Guidelines 1.4 acres General Plan Zonin g Low Density Residential R-1 :12 Light Indu stri a l CM Low Density R es ide ntial R-1 :12 Low Den sity Resid e ntial R-1 :12 It has b een detennined that this p roject will not hav e a s ignificant impact o n the e nvironment and a Mitigated Negati ve De cl arati o n has been prepared and is recommended. ATTACHMENT 1 Planning Commi ssion Staff Report -Page 2 105 Newell A venue/PD-14-002 September 14, 2016 FINDINGS: ACTION: EXHIBITS: • That the Zone Change (Planned Development) is consistent with the General Plan. • That the project is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines. • That the project is consistent with applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. • That the project is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and addresses the Town 's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. • Forward a recommendation regarding Planned Development Application PD-14-002 to the Town Council. • Forward a recommendation regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the Town Council. Previously received under separate cover: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration Received with this Staff Report: 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings 4. December 11 , 2013 , Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes 5. Project Description (one page) received July 2, 2014 6. Letter of Justification (29 pages), received June 17 , 2015 7. Renderings and Exterior Materials ( 16 pages) 8. Project Data Sheet (five pages) 9. Architectural Consultant Report (nine pages), received February 25 , 2015 10. Response to Architectural Recommendations (two pages), received June 17, 2015 11. Arborist Consultant Report (34 pages), received February I 9, 2015 12. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (eight pages) 13. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (88 pages) 14. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (seven pages) 15 . Planned Development Ordinance (27 pages) with Exhibit A Rezone Area (one page) and Exhibit B Development Plans (25 pages) Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 105 Newell Avenue/PD-14-002 September 14 , 2016 BACKGROUND : Los Gatos Elks Lodge previously occupied the subj ect 1.4-acre site. The site contains a building and paved parking lot that covers the majority of the site. The site is accessed by a dri veway at the northeast corner of the site at the Winchester Boulevard and Newell A venue intersection. The site also contains 38 protected trees. The applicant prese nted development propos als for the subject site to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) on December 11 , 2013. Summary minutes of th e CDAC meeting are attached (see Exhibit 4). A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for th e project. While the applicant's plans do not address the issues regarding the architecture of the propo sed site discusse d by the Co nsultin g Architect or staff s concerns regarding compatibility of the development with the surrounding neighborhood; the applicant is pursuing the z one change with the intent ofreceiving additional feedback on the proposed project. The applicant is requesting approval of the application with direction that can b e incorporated into the required Architecture and Site application and subdivision process. PROJ ECT DESC RIPTION: A. Proj ect Summary The ap plican t is propos in g a Planned Developm ent (PD) to rezone the subject site from R- 1: 12 to R-1 : l 2:PD, de m o li sh an existing building, and construct four single-family re sidences. The existing lot would be subdi vided into four lots with an eas ement for a private street. The existing lo t size is approximately 1.4 acres. Lot 1 has two d esigns, on e with a second unit, and another without. Lot 1 would be approximate ly 16 ,6 15 square feet with a res idence of 4,244 square feet and a 615-square foot garage. In the alternative d es ign including a secondary dwe lling unit, the resi dence would be 4 ,396 square feet (3 ,92 1 square fee t for the main residence; 475 square feet for the secondary dwelling unit). The res idence wou ld be 27 feet , 11 inches high from proposed grad e (lower than ex isting grade). Materials would consist o f painted wood shingle a nd smooth plaster siding, aluminum clad windows, composition shing le roof, m etal cable railing, and h orizontal board fences (Exhibit 7, pages 1-4). Lot 2 would be approximately 16,895 square feet with a re side nce of 3,841 square fee t an d a 695-square fo o t garage. The residence wou ld be 25 feet, three inches high from proposed grade (l ower than existing grade). Materials wo uld consist of wood batt and board sid in g, s tone veneer wainscot, a luminum clad windows, composition shin gle roof, meta l cabl e Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 105 Newell Avenue/PD-14-002 September 14, 2016 railing, and horizontal board fences (Exhibit 7, pages 5-8). Lot 3 would be approximately 14,268 square feet with a residence of 4, 199 square feet and a 664-square foot garage. The residence would be 30 feet high (Sheet A-3.2, Exhibit 15). Materials would consist of painted wood shingle and smooth plaster siding, aluminum clad windows, composition shingle roof, and hori zo ntal board fences (Exhibit 7, pages 9-12). Lot 4 has two design s, one with a second unit , and another without. Lot 4 would be approximately 13,137 square feet with a residence of 4,19 7 squ are feet and a 601-square foot garage. In the alternative design including a secondary dwelling unit, the resi dence would be 4 ,090 square feet (3,410 square feet for the main re sidence; 680 feet square feet for the secondary dwelling unit). The residence is labeled as 25 feet high (Sheet A-4.3, Exhibit 15). However, when height is measured per Town Code, to the existing or proposed grade, whichever is lower, the plan s scale to 32 feet and would exceed the 30-foot maximum height. Materials would consist of painted wood batt and board and smooth plaster s iding, aluminum clad windows, composition shingle roof, metal cable railing, and hori zo ntal board fences (Exhibit 7 , pages 13-16). The applicant is proposing to construct a private street to access the new lots from Newell A venue. Co nstruction would include terraced retaining walls between one and a half feet and six and a half feet along Newell Avenue on Lots 1 and 4. The existing wall along Winchester would be retained and additional terraced walls would be constructed on Lot 4. Fences are proposed along Winchester, Newe ll , and the western property line s. B. Planned Development Application The application is a request for a PD overlay. A PD application is required because the applicant is requesting several exceptions to Town Code requirements and applicable Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Town Code states that the purpose of a PD is to provide for alternative us es and developments that are more consistent with site characteristics, to create an optimum quantity and use of open space, and to encourage good design. If adopted b y the Town Council, the proposed PD ordinance (Exhibit 15) would allow the Development Review Committee to approve the Architecture and Site applications for the new residences. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation for th e PD application to the Town Council, who will be the final deciding body. C. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located at 105 Newell Avenue at the southwest corner of Newell Avenue and Winchester Boul evard . There are si ngle-family residential u ses to the north, south, and west. Office uses are located across the street to the east. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 105 Newell A venue/PD-14-002 September 14 , 2016 D. Zoning Compliance The zoning designation permits single-family homes and secondary dwelling units on confrmning lots. Town Code allows a PD overlay on sites 40,000 square feet or greater. ANALYSIS: A. Conceptual Development Advi sory Committee The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) reviewed the preliminary proposals on December 11 , 2013. The proposals consisted of either a 5-lot single-family subdivision or 11 attached residential condominium units. The CDAC presented several comments (Exhibit 4). The applicant discusses the changes made to the project to address the CDAC comments in the Project Justification letter included as Exhibit 6. B. Planned Development The applicant is proposing to rezone the properties from R-1: 12 to R-1: 12:PD. Through the PD application, the applicant i s proposing to: • Demolish the existing commercial building; • Subdivide one lot into four lots; • Establish an easement for a private street; • Construct four new single-family residences ; and • Construct associated site improvements and landscaping. The PD application incorporates the zone change, subdivision, and single-family residential development. T he PD Ordinance defines the maximum allowable development, including the maximum floor area. Subdivision and Architecture and Site app li cations are required if the PD is approved. The applicant is requesting se veral exceptions through the PD application, including lot siz e and floor area. Planned Development Applications are presented to the deciding body with a lot of detail including final architectural e levations and grading plans. Although the subject applicatio n does not contain the level of detail usually presented to the deciding body, the plans and materials provide the required information to take action on the Planned Development request. The deciding body should consider the intent of the Planned Development overlay which is to provide for developments more consistent with site characteristics than are allowed in other zones, and so create an optimum quantity and use of open space and encourage good design . While the site characteri stics of the subject site make a Planned Development application an appropriate application, the project does Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 105 Newell A venue/PD-14-002 September 14, 2016 not appear to present optimum open space or good design based on the uniqu e site. Furthermore, the project as propo sed would require the following exceptions: • Lots 3 and 4 would be less than the 125-foot minimum lot depth required for residential properties facing arterial roadways; • Three of the four homes (Lots 1, 3, and 4) would exceed the maximum allowed floor area for lots of their net lot size; • Cut and fill depth would exceed the maximum allowed by the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines for lots with greater than 10 percent slope; • No si dewalks on the pri vate street as is required by the Town's Engineering Standards; • Lot 4 currently shows a building height greater than the 30-foot maximum height; and • Encroachment of eaves that exceed the projections allowed into yards by Town Code . C. Lot Dimensions The applicant is proposin g a sma ll er lot depth for Lots 3 a nd 4 than required for residenti al properties facing arterial roadways: Lot Dimension Analysis Lot Required Proposed Required Proposed Depth Depth Frontage Frontage Lot 1 100 11 5 95 132 Lot2 100 11 5 90 123 Lot3 125 12 1 95 139 Lot4 125 121 90 116 No justifica tion for the lot depth exception (Lots 3 a nd 4) has be en provided by the applicant. D. Cuts, Fill s, and Grading The project is subject to the Residential Design Guidelines which state that properties with an average slope gr eater than 10 percent are subject to certain provisions of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The app licant is proposing c ut and fill d epths greater than tho se permitted b y the Hill si de Development Standards and Guidelines: Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7 105 Newell Avenue/PD-14-002 September 14 , 2016 Cut and Fill Requirements Site Element Maximum Cut House and attached garage 8 '** Driveways* 4' Other (decks , yards)* 4' Maximum Fill 3 ' 3' 3 ' *Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence shall be limited to 6 feet. **Excludes cellars . The applicant believes the best development would result from filling Lot 4 and cutting Lot 2 . Although no alternatives were presented or discussed by the applicant, it appears that the development could design sites that would retain the existing topography to a greater extent. The applicant provided a Grading Volume Exhibit (Sheet C 1.5, Exhibit 15). This exhibit shows that, excluding cuts for cellars, cuts would be up to seven and a half feet for Lot 2. Fills would be up to ten and a half feet. Net grading would require the off haul of 5,88 0 cubic yards. Although the site has a large slope and cut and fill would likely be required for any new project, the applicant is creating flat lots which are strongly discouraged in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and the General Plan. In the most recent staff review comments Public Works staff recommended denial of the project because of the retaining wall heights that exceed the maximum of five feet and cause non-compliance with site triangle requirements on the corner of Newell Avenue and Winchester. No justification for the wall location and height exceptions has been provided by the applicant. E. Floor Area The following floor area analysis shows the net lot size (reduced based on average lot slope), maximum allowable house and garage floor areas , and proposed house and garage floor areas: Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8 I 05 Newell A venue/PD-14-002 September 14, 2016 F loor Area Analysis L ot Net Lot Maximum Size SF H ouse SF ---- Lot 1 11,597 3,447 L ot 1 -with 2nd Unit " " L ot2 16,895 4,306 L ot3 12,585 3,641 Lot4 8,975 2,856 Lot 4 -with znd Unit " " Proposed Maximum Proposed House SF G arage SF G arage SF Including znd Unit SF 4,244 945 615 4,396 " " 3,842 1,127 695 4,199 991 664 4,197 798 680 4,090 " " Of the four houses, only the house on Lot 2 i s within the maximum allowed floor area. Lot 2 h as the largest allowed floor area because no slope reduction is required fo r lots with less than I 0 percent average slope. Based on Town and County records , the residences in the immediate n e ighborhood range in s ize from l ,809 square feet t o 2,523 s quare feet. The floor area ratios (FAR) range fro m 0.15 FAR to 0.22 FAR. Th e p roposed resi dences would be 3,841to4,396 squ are feet with 0.23 to 0 .32 FAR. Based on the lot s izes and averages slopes, the maximum s quare foo t age fo r the lots are 3 ,447 (0.30 FAR) for Lot 1, 4 ,308 (0.25 FAR) for Lot 2, 3 ,341 (0.29 FAR ) for Lot 3, and 3,199 (0.32 FAR) for Lo t 4. The following Neighborhood Analysis tabl e reflects current conditions of the immediate n eighborhood. Neighborhood Analysis A ddress House SF --Garage SF Lot Size SF Rouse FAR 10 8 Newell 1,973 399 12,880 0.15 112 Newell 1,8 09 420 12 ,317 0.15 116 Newell 1,885 420 12 ,075 0.16 135 Newell 2,467 528 12,0 19 0.2 1 119 Newell 2,128 468 11 ,445 0.19 115 Newell 2 ,153 576 11 ,6 15 0.19 183 Newell 1,8 90 563 12,600 0.15 100 Brocastle 2 ,523 525 11 ,300 0.22 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 9 105 Newell A venue/PD-14-002 September 14 , 2016 Neighborhood Analysis Address House SF 105 Newell -Lot l 4,244 Lot 1-with rct Unit 4,396 105 Newell -Lot 2 3,842 105 Newell -Lot 3 4,199 105 Newell -Lot 4 4,197 Lot 4 -with 2"d Unit 4,090 Garage SF Lot Size SF House FAR 615 16,615 0 .26 615 16,615 0 .27 695 16,895 0.23 664 14,268 0.29 680 13,137 0.32 680 13,137 0.31 With proposed square footage between 3 ,842 and 4,396 square feet , the residences would be the largest homes in the immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage . With proposed FAR between 0.23 and 0.32 , the residences would also be the largest homes in the immediate n e ighborhood in terms of FAR. The Residential Design Guidelines specify that co n sideration will be g iven to the existing F ARs, residential square footages , and lot sizes in the neighborhood. The proposed lot sizes are larger than those in the immediate neighborhood. However, the larger F ARs illustrate that the larger lot sizes do not warrant the extent of the larger square footages proposed. The largest ex isting residence at 2 ,523 square feet , as compared to the smallest proposed residence at 3 ,842 square feet, is 1,319 sq uare feet larger. Therefore, the proposed project d oes not appear to be compatible wit h the immediate neighborhood. The Residential Design Guidelines also specify that residential development shall be simi lar in mass, bulk, and scale to the immediate neighborhood. The homes in the immediate nei ghborhood are one story with low profile architecture. In addition to being the largest in terms of square footage and FAR, the proposed residences would be the only two story homes in the immediate neighborhood. Therefore, the project is not simi lar in mass, bulk, or scale. The Residential Design Guidelines state that the presence of large scale houses located at a greater distance from the applicant's site wi ll be given less weight than the immediate neighborhood. The applicant provides justification for the proposed FAR (Exhibit 6) and data for homes outside the immediate neighborhood, including homes on La Montagne Court, accessed from Wimbledon Drive. Of the 69 homes , for which data is provided, seven are larger than the proposed homes. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 10 105 Newell Avenue/PD-14-002 September 14, 2016 F. Parking Each single-family dwelling requires two parking spaces. Each attached secondary dwelling unit requires one parking space. The project meets the minimum on-site parking required. The project proposes three parking spaces within the private street. For each lot, two guest spaces are shown in the driveways in addition to two spaces in each garage. G. Sidewalks The Town's Engineering Standards require concrete sidewalks on one side of the street for private streets serving three or more residences. Concrete sidewalks are not required for private streets serving two or fewer res idential lots. The applicant is proposing four residential lots and is requesting an exception because they are not providing sidewalks for the private street. No justification for the lack of sidewalks has been pro vi ded by the applicant. H. Traffic The project would result in a decrease of average daily trips (ADT), AM peak hour trips, and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the project did not require a traffic study or traffic mitigation fees. The project proposes to move site access from the northeastern most comer to approximately 115 feet from the Newell Avenue/Winchester Boulevard intersection. I. Architectural Consultant Review The Planned Development application was reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect (Exhibit 9). The consultant made recommendations for site and building design. The applicant made some changes and provided a written response to the consultant's recommendations (Exhibit 10). J. Walls and Fences Fences are proposed along Winchester, Newell, and the western property lines. Fences up to 14 feet tall along Winchester Boulevard and nine and a half feet tall along the western property lines are shown on the Site Sections on Sheet S-1.3 of Exhibit 15 ; the wood fence detail on Sheet LS-1.0 of Exhibit 15 shows a six-foot maximum fence height. The maximum height for fences is eight feet. No justification for the fence exception has been prov ided by the applicant. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 11 105 Newell A venue/PD-14-002 September 14, 2016 K. Trees The project was reviewed by the Town 's Consulting Arborist (Exhibit 11 ). The project would result in the removal of 36 trees (seven Italian stone pines, five deodar cedars, seven coast live oaks, one silk tree, one black acacia, three carob, one aleppo pine, one european olive, nine sweet gum, one dwarf mugo pine, and two glossy privets). The condition of these trees range from poor to good. The Consulting Arborist states that most of the trees cannot be saved based on the current design. However, she recommends saving a 31-inch diameter Italian stone pine and a 12- inch diameter stone pine. The applicant would need to modify the grading plans for the rear yard of Lot 2 to save the 31-inch Italian stone pine. Performance standard 15 recommends the modification. The applicant will be required to plant replacement trees on-site pursuant to Town Code. L. Secondary Dwelling Units Pursuant to Town Code, second dwelling units are permitted on conforming lots subject to certain limitations. The applicant is proposing conceptual optional floor plans for second dwelling units on Lots 1 and 4. Lot 1 is a conforming lot and has room for the one required parking space for the second unit. However, the applicant is proposing to exceed the allowed FAR. Lot 4 is a non-conforming lot but has room for the one required parking space for the second unit. In addition to the lot being non-conforming, the applicant is proposing to exceed the allowed FAR. Staff would support the opportunity to add a second unit as it would expand the options for housing in the Town. The lot is non-conforming because. the depth is 121 feet, four feet short of the required 125-foot depth. M. General Plan The goals and policies of the 2020 General Plan applicable to this project include, but are not limited to: • Goal CD-1 -Preserve and enhance Los Gatos 's character through exceptional community design. • Policy CD-1.2 -New structures, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area. • Policy CD-1.4 -Development on all elevations shall be of high quality design and construction, a positive addition to and compatible with the Town's ambiance. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 12 105 Newell A venue/PD-14-002 September 14, 2016 Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods. • Policy HOU-2.5 -New single-family, multi-family and mixed use development shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. • Goal HOU-8 -Encourage residential construction that promotes green building and energy conservation practices. • Policy HOU-8.1 -All approvals of residential developments of three or more units shall include a finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and addresses the Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. • Policy LU-1.4 -Infill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding community zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area. • Policy LU-6.7 -Continue to encourage a variety of housing types and sizes that is balanced throughout the Town and within neighborhoods, and that is also compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. • Goal LU-7 -To use available land efficiently by encouraging appropriate infill development. • Goal LU-6 -To preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in residential neighborhoods. • Policy LU-6.5 -The type, density , and intensity of new land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. • Policy LU-6.8 -New construction shall be compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood. • Policy NOI-5 .1 -Protect residential areas from noise by requiring appropriate site and building design, sound walls , and landscaping and by the use of noise attenuating construction techniques and materials. N. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Exh ibit 1) have been prepared for the project by the Town 's Environmental Consu ltant, Kimley-Hom and Associates. The 20-day public review period began on June 10, 2016 and ended on June 30, 2016 . Mitigation measures are required for Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Traffic. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is provided along with the Final MND and response to comments in Exhibits 12 , 13 and 14. The Final MND was prepared to show minor changes in response to comments and does not require recirculation. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the performance standards within the PD Ordinance (Exhibit 15). Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 13 105 Newell A venue/PD-14-002 September 14, 2016 0. Other Exceptions The applicant is proposing eaves encroaching into the required setbacks by 48 inches where 24 inches is the maximum allowed for side yards (Lots 1, 3, 4) and 30 inches is the maximum allowed for rear yards (Lot 2) in residential zones [Town Code Section 29.40.070(b)]. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Staff understands from the applicant that the applicant has met with the neighbors . The Town has not received any public comments at this time. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: A . Summary The project would allow the redevelopment of the 1.4-acre site previously occupied by the Los Gatos Elks Lodge with four residential units which complies with the General Plan designation. The applicant is requesting a PD zone to allow exceptions in the following areas: • Reduced lot depth • Exceeding the maximum allowed floor area • Exceeding maximum cut and fill depths • No sidewalks on private street • Maximum height • Encroachment of eaves in setbacks The project does not comply with Town Code, the applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the Residential Design Guidelines, or the General Plan. The plans are incomplete and inconsistent. Although staff cannot support the project, a draft Ordinance was prepared with performance standards to require the project to adhere with the aforementioned requirements (Exhibit 15). B. Recommendation Based on the summary above, staff recommends that the Commission forward the PD application to the Town Council with a recommendation for denial. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, if the Planning Commission finds merit with the project, the Commission should Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 14 105 Newell Avenue/PD-14-002 September 14, 2016 take the following actions to forward the PD application to the Town Council with a recommendation for approval: 1. Make the required findings (see Exhibit 3); and 2. Recommend that the Town Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit 13) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 14); and 3 . Recommend that the Town Council adopt the Planned Development Ordinance (Exhibit 15). Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Forward a recommendation for approval of the Planned Development Application with modified performance standards to the Town Council ; or 2 . Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction. ~y :·~· / f .ennifer Armer, AICP Associate Planner JP :JA:cg 1\.pproved by: Joel Paulson, AICP Community Development Director cc: Maurice Camargo, AIA, Architect, 3953 Yolo Dr, San Jose, CA 95136 Tango Papa Development Co., Attn: Michael Freisen, P.O. BOX 1701, Los Altos , CA 94023 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2016\Newell l 05.d ocx 105 Newell Avenue T·-. L . -IJ---,--., I .' --[_ --· J. I fl '-...">.::; ' J ~ -' . ' )' • -. ' ' I L . , i . ·./ I . /.. ·. I ; -..,/ ·,, \ -, I ; l I EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PL~'ING COMMISSION -September 14, 2015 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Application PD-14-002 Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-002 Requesting approval of a Planned Development to rezone a property from R-1:12 to R- l:ll:PD, demolish an existing building, and construct four single-family residences on property zoned R-1:12. APN 409-24-0.26. PROPERTY OWNER: Tango Pappa APPLICANT: Camargo & Associates Architects FINDINGS: -CEQA: • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed for the proposed development. The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Required consistency with the Town's General Plan: • That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements in that the Planned Development overlay allows a commercial use consistent with the property's zoning district. Required compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines: • The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes not in hillside residential areas. Required compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: • The project is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines for parcels with an average slope of 10 percent or greater, with the exception of cut and fill depths which have been determined to be acceptable. Required consistency with Town's Housing Element: • The project is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and addresses the Town's housing needs as identified in the Housing Element. N:\DEVIFINDINGS\2016\Nl!WBU.105 .DOCX EXHIBIT 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6874 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR DECEMBER 11, 2013, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA. -------------~-~----~---------------------------~~~--------------~~--------------------------------------~ The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Chair Marcia Jensen, Barbara Spector, Charles Erekson, Margaret Smith, Joanne Talesfore Absences: None. Staff Present: Sandy Baily, Community Development Director ErwiJl Ordonez, Senior Planner Applicants: Kurt Anderson, Maurice Comargo., Tom Grant, Mike Friesen ITEM 1: 105 Newell Avenue Conceptual Development Application CD-13-004 Requesting review of conceptual plans for demolition of an existing commercial building (Elk's Club) and a Planned Development rezoning to alJow construction ofeither a 5-lot single-family subdlvision or 11 attached residentiaJ condominium units on a property zoned R-1:12 . ·: Commeilts: APN 409-24,.026. PROPERTY OWNER.: Tom Grunt APPLICANT: Maurice Camargo, Architect PROJECT PLANNER: Erwin Ordonez Town'• Housing Neecli • Development should meet unmet needs. • Additional detached single-family market rate units are not an un-met housing need in Los Gatos. • Senior housing and units for singles/yoWlger adults with fewer bedrooms and reduced total square footage are needed due to demographics. e Single-story senior units are desirable. r0 Below Market Priee (BMP) units are desirable. IXHIBIT 4 Conceptual Development Advisory Committee December 11, 2013 Page2 Density • The two proposed alternatives seem "over developed" for area and surrounding neighborhood. • Multi-family proposal ovet developed for the lot and neighborhood. • Interested in multi-family podium alternative, as it provides BMP units, but number and size of units should be reduced. • Single-family altemattve has too many units and is only proposed with five units due to requested deviations from existing zoning, development standards, and the private street. • The number of potential single-family units is best determined by first satisfying public street standards and conforming to existing zoning lot standards (minimum lot size, width, frontage, etc.). Fewer well-designed units are desirable. Use ofthe Site • Proposed development's design must "fit" topography, and adequately addresses the existing site conditions and prominent location. • Don't design by numbers, design by lot characteristics. • Multi-story development less desirable. • Planned Developments are not desirable. • Reduction of the Town's standards for developer concession is not desirable. • Conform to existing zoning and design standards. • Fewer units for either alternative are more desirable. • Define the neighborhood. The surrounding Newell A venue seems to be the neighborhood which is a single-family use. • Proposed units should have ample yards and private open space. Concern that HOA developments encourage children to play in the street. • One-level flats may be more attractive. Parkingffraffic/Cireulation • Concerns about traffic at the nearby intersection due to recent developmerit applications. • Need to reduce intensity of uses in the area. • Don't complicate traffic issue with proposed development. • Neighbors will be concerned about the change in traffic. • Maintain public street standards. • Public streets are preferred. • Visitor parking in driveways or distant designated areas is not sufficient. • Preference is for on-street visitor parking. AestheticsNi.sibility • Visual concern due to the property's high setting above Winchester Boulevard. • Single-story more appropriate due to lot height above Winchester Boulevard. • Proposed development needs heavy tree screening along perimeter of the site and especially for views from Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee December 11, 2013 Page3 • Larger more mature trees desired in planned screening. • The number, siz.e, and design of proposed retaining walls are a concern. o Massing, scale, and proximity to other units/neighbors (setbacks) are a concern. • The site. is not a separate neighborltood. • Privacy is a concern. • Neighborhood compatibility with existing Newell Avenue residences is a concern (proportionate size, scale, massing, design, etc.). 11 Potential shadow and light concerns . Miscellaneous o School and traffic impacts. ~ Must identify significant and compelling argument for Town to consider reduced standards. · • Neighbors don't experience traffic "credits" from past uses, but do drive and have to cope with the existing in~ traffic. o Neighbors will not be bashful, so community outreach important for any proposed application. o Discourage General Plan amendment unless it is a senior housing development with BMP units. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee is Wednesday, January 8, 2014. Prepared by: cc: Planning Commission Chair N:\DEV\CDANdlNUTES\2013\l:Z..11-13 .doe This Page Intentionally Left Blank ( PROJECT WRITTEN DESCRIPTION (For a complete written description of the proposal, please refer to the Letter of Justification) Demolition and removal of existing 8,636 square feet a.sSembl y use structure with asphalt paved 83 stall parking and existing site comer access driveway. Subdivide existing 61,000 square feet parcel into four(4) plots, private road and common landscape areas with threes(3) on street parking spaces, street light standards anci fire engine turnaround for four(4) single family residences as a planned unit development. RECEIVED JUL 02 2014 TOVv'N OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION "EXHIBIT 5 This Page Intentionally Left Blank January 20, 2015 Jennifer Savage , Planner & ASS<I:IATES ARCHITECTS Town of Los Gatos Plann ing Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA. 95030 RE: The Elk's Homes Letter of Justification 105 Newell Avenue Los Gatos, CA. Dear Jennifer, RECEIVED JUN 17 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Our letter of Justification correlates. to our application for request for approval to build 4 single family residences that are intended to meet the Town of Los Gatos Residential Design Guidelines especially in all areas pertaining to neighborhood compatibility. EXISTING USE CONSIDERATIONS: The parcel Is 60,915 sq ft in area and in the designated R12,000 zone. The parcel is surrounded to the South and West by R1:12 Zoning -single family residences and commercial properties to the North and East. It is situated on the southwest corner of Winchester Blvd . and Newell Streets. Just a short distance to the south, along Winchester Blvd. and very proximate to our project, is the busy intersection of Lark Avenue and Winchester Blvd. This busy intersection impacts the current driveway approach which is located right on the corner of the property at Newell and Winchester which has an existing traffic stop sign. The current assembly building structure is a two story 8,636 sq ft building which has housed the Elks Lodge fraternal organization since it was built In 1960. It has operated to date with a Conditional Use Permit for a fraternal organization. EXHIBIT 6 The site has an 83 automobile striped asphalt parking area covering most of the site. Although the facility is not being operated in full capacity, we gathered from neighbor's input a history of problems with noise and the building's negative visual impact primarily due to a lack of maintenance upkeep and current automobile parking on site and off site along Newell Avenue by Courtside members. lt is important to note that the site location is visually located where residential homes and zoning. border commercial properties. The topography of the site, sloping upward in two directions from the intersection of Newell and Winchester streets with a +/-14% slope. contributes to its prominent visibility. OUR INITIAL PROPOSED SOLUTIONS: We presented to the CDAC two alternatives for the development of the site. (See attached Exhibit 1.) 1. An eleven unit condominium with the following attributes: a. Primary parking below grade. b. Transition housing between commercial and residential areas. c. Visually set back units away from corner visual impact. 2. A 5-unit single family residential planned development: a. Most compatible to adjacent neighborhood. b. Retains most designated R1:12 zoning regulations. c. Did not solve difficult access to the development from the existing corner driveway approach. d. Net Area of parcels somewhat less than 12,000 sq ft Although CDAC was very open to options of the condominium or town home re-zoning project to avoid versus a planned development the neighbors were completelv opposed to a multi-housing type project of any sort. Based on the CDAC meeting and subsequent neighborhood meetings, we revised the 5- unit single family residential planned development solution to a four-lot Planned Development solution that would be in keeping with the R1:12 requirement of lots being approximately 12,000 sq ft in size. And, most importantly, we are proposing to move the existing access driveway approach to the middle of the site along Newell Ave. We will eliminate the existing driveway access which is at best a very difficult and traffic cumbersome driveway approach. WHY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND NOT A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION? Based primarily on the R1:12 zoning regulations, the residential design guidelines and the How to Read your Neighborhood Workbook, we are proposing to provide compatible parcels of similar size (+/-12,000 sq ft ) and configuration (rectangular with wide frontage ) as follows: Two studies as per attached Exhibit 2 were evaluated as follows: 1. Conventional Subdivision was studied with the following findings: a. A non-conforming (HS Zoning) 42' R cul-de-sac and 40'wide public street was still insufficient to achieve minimum requirements for the four+/-12,000 sq ft parcels. • Each lot was approximately 12,000 sq ft as desired. o Lots do not meet the required depth of 1251 from main street. Q After R1:12 setbacks were included, the buildable footprints of Lots 3 and 4 were not suitable for any fitting home design. ti Lot 1 and 4, combined with the topography along Newell and the width of the required public street, rendered the remaining building sites not compatible with neighborhood homes. 2. Flag lot subdivision (suggested by staff) resulted in the following findings: a. Each lot was an average 13,750 sq ft net excluding the easement for a shared drive. b. Lot 1 would most likely be facing the common drive and not Newell due to the topography of the lot. c. Lot 4 could be accessed from the original corner driveway enabling the house front yard to face Newell. The structure would be very exposed to Winchester. d. Lots 2 & 3 buildable areas were not compatible to adjacent neighborhood house design and siting, as they would be facing the rear yard of lots 1 and 4. e. The flag lot development was not at all compatible to anything in the neighborhood. f. Once subdivided, each property would be developed independently missing the benefit of a planned development approach which would provides integrity to the overall development by delivering a four~lot subdivision with the construction of all homes and completed common area iandscaping from the onset. 3. One or Two parcel subdivision: a. Subdividing the land into one or two parcels would make each 30,000 sq ft for two lots and 61,000 sq ft for one lot rendering both options totally incompatible with an R1:12 zoning and the adjacent neighborhood. Based on all the above, we have concluded that a planned development is the only planning approval process available at this time to achieve a very compatible neighborhood project adhering to most all of the current designated zoning R1:12 zoning regulations and allow us to best meet the Residential Design Guidelines. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS The neighborhood is built on a moderate sloping land area which created homes set on building pads above or below the adjacent roadways. Because of the existing terrain, we found several homes which have split level garages with one-story elevations viewed from the front yards while having a two-story elevation to the rear. (Same as our lot 3 Hause}. The immediate neighborhood includes mostly "ranch style" single, split level and two story homes with intermittent varying styles randomly found, including "two story colonials", craftsman and builder contemporary. We also found a lot of homes that appear to have been renovated with replacement windows and architectural elements of varying styles, i.e. ranch with traditional columns and quoins. The exterior wall finish materials varied extensively with mostly wood siding (vertical, horizontal lap and shingles), stucco, brick and stone wainscot as well as full wall height stone and brick veneers. Please find attached Exhibit 3 which displays a portion of our survey of the immediate homes surrounding our project property highlighting some ofthe architectural elements mentioned above. THE ELK'S HOMES ARCHITECTURE: The architecture of our proposed homes was based on the "Town of Los Gatos Residential Design Guidelines" in conjunction with the "How to Read Your Neighborhood Workbook" to develop compatibility to the immediate neighborhood's homes. In addition, we recognized that the project site is visually situated adjacent to commercial properties. Entering the Town of Los Gatos through a predominantly commercial zone area the project will be the first residential visible site at Winchester and Lark Avenue intersection. In addition to achieving architectural compatibility with the immediate neighborhood, the homes were designed to capture the spirit of the architecture of the Town and to butter itself from the adjacent commercial properties and busy intersection. The Site: o The site will be accessed via 24' wide private road with 3 guest parking stalls along the private road with the entrance to the project located in the center of the site facing Newell Avenue. This eliminates the dangerous existing corner driveway approach. The common landscaped area on Newell's steep slope will be retained and landscaped. e The proposed site design allows for wide front elevations further accentuating the neighborhood compatibility. o We have provided for two car attached garages with two stalls of parking in front of the garage similar to most of the neighborhood homes. o We have provided a fire turn around that conforms to the Santa Clara County Fire Department's design standards. • We have created privacy for the neighbors to the west by lowering the proposed grading from the existing grades by up to 9' in height. In addition, we have placed the side of the garages on the south side to create privacy for neighbors to the south. "' The site design allows for extensive landscape screening along both the Winchester and Newell site frontages and above existing 10' wall along Winchester Boulevard. In addition, all of the proposed setbacks for each home meet the R1:12 setback requirements. The Hames: ii All are two story homes, homes range from 3,410 to 4,244 sq. ft. and FAR range from 3,199 to 4306 sq . ft . " Three of the four homes have maximum heights that are 2' less than the allowed height of 30' in the R:12 Zoning. (Lot 3 has max. height of 30') All are 3 or 4 bedrooms with at least 3 ~baths, and each has a two-car garage and parking for at least two additional cars on site. Two homes have cellars. Two can have optional in-law units. c All have low pitch hip roofs with 48" overhangs used to emphasize a more horizontal profile for our two-story street view plans as well as maximize shading at south and west elevations. • All of the four homes have incorporated ranch, craftsman and builder contemporary style features through use of similar materials and architectural components that are prevalent in the neighborhood. They include the following: Composition Shingles Roofing Stucco Walls Shingle Walls Vertical Wood Siding Single or double wood entry doors FINANCIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR HOME SIZES: Stone and Stucco wainscot Aluminum Clad Windows Wood column porches Wood panel garage doors Stone and stucco chimneys • Initially we proposed 5 smaller houses. CDAC and the neighbors preferred the four proposed homes as more compatibly lot size parcels. • The Four homes, sized as proposed, share the high costs of accommodating the private street, as well as the redevelopment of the site to accommodate a common landscape frontage requiring retaining walls along Newall Avenue • Construction costs of the proposed four homes, considering the onsite and offsite improvements, are estimated to come-in on the high side of common construction costs. • To be a feasible, and potentially successful, our proposed construction development project dictates the need for the four homes sized as presented with all inclusive risk factors, costs, and profit margins considered. • Using the four lot scenario allows for a 'balanced' project. HOME SIZING JUSTIFICATION FROM FAR TOTALS: • The total FAR for each house and garage was calculated for each lot's finished grade, not the original natural grade. Q The total FAR for each house including garages was calculated to property lines including common landscape areas and the private street. c Total allowable garages and living areas per above FAR calculation criteria adds up to 18,541 sq. ft. (Garages 3,948 sq. ft., Living areas are 14,5.93 sq .. ft.) • Total proposed garages and living areas per above FAR calculation criteria adds up to 19,056 sq . ft. (Garages 2,575 sq. ft., living areas are 16,481 sq. ft.} o Our proposed four buildings come to within · 515 sq. ft. of the allowable combined totals for garages and living area, not including cellars. In summation, we feel that our proposed Planned Development Project adheres as much as it is possible to meet most all of the Rl-12 Zoning Code and General Plan Requirements, Residential Design Guidelines, and applicable Hillside Design Guideline's, including compatibility with the existing neighborhood homes and adjacent commercial properties. Furthermore, we have met with many of the neighborhood residents on several occasions and have their support for the project as proposed. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, /~7 Maurice Camargo A.I.A. ... ~·-; ... -----. · .. '- . ~ .:{_ . ,,,. :,/ ----.. ----· -·- ·-·-'·~--.. -... ...__ ._,, __ _ .. ·--··-·-·-· ·-~ -----.. -~-... ..._. ._ .. ,,~ ..._,_,_.._ --... -.. ,; 1 ~~:~,~~~-.1 I~.·' :· ...... . ; ... '' -~ _ .. !. ·" '· -· .. l 1 '>, ·' ·····--.;.- .. · i I ~ j ~ I I I I ·~ I i .,0 I ·~ I I ~ I I >< I I I I ~ ! ......... ,_ .......... --·. -· -· ... ~ .. ... -.... ~ ... ......... . ~ ~ ·~ 0 ~ U) LL! ·~ 0 ...Q ..J a I~ >< l-en ~ 2 0 CD ~~ b~ _J .~ ..,. ~ _J_ ____ I r,, -----~··--' ~\ \ ( EXHIBIT 3 NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY -·~ ..... ,,..__., : ..-. . I I \ I 1 \ '\ . . . -•. , . l i i f. . ! :~ .l_ 1\iVO CAf~ GA.Hi\GE COMP. HIP ROOF · lNQOD FENCE 108 NEWELJ-' .P~ VENUE -RENOVATEDRANCH ·STYLE . •; , /PANE ~lrNDOY./ .'\_STUCCO WALL •c,f:t.°"E'~Q'r.:r. t:.t-.t"!'AY' ( 'i\1·-,•:·o ,,_"' \."'~-...... ,t"t i . . .JI ~L 1.:.1 , I '4.R ,'!"E' ;'"'\' /t::.Rµ ~ \'}f': _....... .0 -...... ',; ,_ ,,, .,.. . ..:'-="• ~ "' ... .. ... I '"J;,· .,. ~~ .... ~ .• . .. ,,,.,. .. .. ,,--~;.b ' ' ' ) :-~IllBBOt~··W I NDOW ,t'r7':;· -·· "· ,r-·:?· • ·'; RE CE SSED l;NTR ·" . ;~-. . ·::: ,.·. • , . , -~~. ;.~. Wtt)C•p ')Y""lC U . ,":.1w ·-~ • · • ·~. • . . · .•. -' _...., •• ~""' -'· ,'' . ' . ~. C:. { E~. _,r -1 ... Yr \. ·-• '5> r . I · ....,..,_T · •!"" ... ~ -·' . . -?. t1900U f:.i f 0 ! ~~ .. .l;!"~~Vli L:t.: . ! -. "' ' . · .. !~ ,, .. l';i\. rlf-f? I ··AA~ r.: ,,,. . ... ;·•· ~ .... -.I ... -.,~~'~ -~ \ -· . _\; .. ~~· . . .:4} -..... . ·• ... ·. . ... . :; · -~ -,f.'1J.!;l=J.'·{A''<V~-\n iT("I ., "' ·'*, ·-·. ""'• , •. ~~-•• ~ .. ". .. ""'~~ ·~ l ' """ -. . •' " . .· ,'. .. • 1 . ' . ' ·",,; . . ...... -.1:: ... ~:;,. t L.: .:v· E . . _ ~/· · · · -;..; .. ~ · ., -~~ . ~( i! ._ .. • ·J(./'t-.~ · -~. , . · ~-'i:ifl.l .!"'J c :-.l\ . • • ·: { . • 'J' ;l ~··· .· ( . ··". ~~t~~'":·~.: :'~ ~ .. ::' ;'. 'I,;'.j{; :· :::·~~¥~-...... ; :~", ; : ; : . "' . ··1· ·1· a·· N,IJ~,·WE ..... Ll ... :.~--C··~o·-~ ·u::--. R"rlr·· .. · ~l ,, .. ilt .!4 >·-~:~~r :\>:$~·~\::;·. '~·::.~·;·-:.'.~--. . -t ' -4 , . ' -.-• . . . '• -. ' .. ..-,.. ~.,. .... _ -.! ., JI • ..:..:. ~ ' '.· ~ • -~ ·' •• :· . : •);~~~:~~ .. ' ... ). •• • i;-_ • • -•••.••• •• ·RA.NCH: STI'LE . . ... . I .\< ·. ,·:r ;· .. ~· ·:~ . .i ..... ', , .; If.~ ~~. u [- V)• ~~" "u 1-Lz UJ I< ;.....·~ ~: 0 ~·Fl e: -'< z > V,'") 0 .. z ~I~ ___, , >· LU ;t ~ :I: (.) w ....,. .... .,, .. 0 ·tn 1 l 1,.IJ _J :1l "1:>' ~~; .... J . :l. "'> c .,, (". ·~ ' I ..... '· .. -l _J < -~ 0 .. }-!.' '. ·~ rr ( -;:. tt < zo:c UJ a;. a: 0 lW .ll .. ~·-· LU ,.~ :~ () Cl) -·-· c tTl ~ iJ j ·-UJ (l; 0 ._._ ~tr: LI; G t:: ~ ~ :3 - ._,, ' ~,__ _,_ z .-, . ·- u.. §; ,,,,.; 0 0: ,.. r •1 ., UJ ·~ ...... ~ ..... _ .,..,. ~- ~· ... -:s tr.: L.Ll z C' i·· I ...... (/) I ~ "'"• '"-· '? .:.... ·~ () 0 ~ d: .w w z w > x:. 0 a:.. co ~( ·::J i . I ZI· ~· >·'tj <t~ 1. ~ ., ~ u ~· z ·~ ·~ w z .~ ·~J C''t l ....--!, (' ,·--r-r: !, .. ,._.rla\ v r ,"; i ~-, i l.~'"r " .. ' ·.'J--1!...·- J ·""-r~.tr -11 ·.,,.. F"' • -, --··• -;...;t.: r 1:..:1 \l ? L..JI. • ; i I. t:. j--~ ... >'' n ' r_• r"l ;•') r.._ F , ·~J, .... \J:.:~_f_:: r,·~,;1"'• . ..) / I / OAN;-'\.MENTiEO !r~ON I SU DER itV.it~t)O\V -· - -I r~·tT!\GHED T~NO CAR·. ~ & . =-~HAGE WITH t 1.on ~01.wr-: -r·,.·\.~"~q -_._1t.:• ._,,. ru "-..... ., .1-...,,1. 127 NI~'VEI"'L COUR.1., RANC H STYLE /GU . _ -rn ~ :-• ., .. • _ _ --- / ¢@ _ --.. -• , I I /' ( --~~ Vi t.:r··=~s-~n -t · (\1PTRV '.~-.,,.·-~"' ,_.... -.... ' t t M""i E P(\r~t:H ": 't }l...! -.. • Jr. """' " i " R r:' :·· ..-)-.. ·r"'. .•.• h :i.. t'"" w ·-.. :· .. -:i t: ,_ .. ~ 1:·. I-Hi +·"·'-:.; npi::-,. ~ f =Av·E-· ' • . . .I \: •. .II I '.....,,...r . O' .... ,. riAf\,·-· •µ'-41 -. .. • y r·-t ,.,. ~. li i -.. .. ·..._.. ... ~l ' . . ...... I. j STU CCO VIAL L I i . . •· ~· E~ Ii V v. ·· r.; Df)l N ...... 4 ... l '~ • J .... \ . 131 NEvVEI~l, (~Q tJ R ~l~ 1 ·~("11 l":l i:.~ ~-~; ~r-.1''"i .,,• "'·' "".., [.,II .••-I • ,_.J,.. ' ~ ... o p. '!11.1n ')\Iii .IU "c"''-·· l ''I ;';,J -l "\l"f l 'IP R.f'"·t""L: -1./ i'\ ... II .• ,. •. r ", ., \ ~-,~·c"C". c··c-r::=-· -...... R .• , , n!:: _•._:..:-,_•L.::o. t"".!11 i , ') ··--r ~,.....;'B' E: *"',-..OR .. 'J l..i-l. -'·~'!~' .. fi.ENovl~TE"b R/\.NcH -"J3t}r1~D:EjrcoN11~?"rPo R1\R Y s·r Y.LE ~~ -...--%!\Ir-' I I \t ·~•(·-. •-'')iv1-· 1· <l ~,·• (....1 , \. I ~ ·-· ~ r .. , ..,..,... l ;)R '\1~. · "'t1· v i. .. t v.-Vl "'· '"'f . -.. ...__ ... -··- 135 N.E.v\'~El~l .. COU J<T ,....,...,., ... ,, •. F[ ·-r '-R'' r. •-· ..... ··'·· -' 1 ~ ,. ' ' "' .... t..-VL_.'-'""-' -· .,. -,. ~ l - --RENOVATED RAf.fCH STYLE N.P;HR OVJ !=I G RC!1 :Lf-\RG£ OVERHAN G 1 ' , .. l:>t""I'"" ' '·'E~'E ..... ~ Dr\ \A\ 'i< '"' 1.::h-·-j ""HJ:. L"r= r.·on~-! .:.:>1 .'\A,·. •'°i . ._1!·· i GABLE AND H~P M:x·-·1 l i f I l I J j ."?_ i j .,. J i. ~J. ~~ .... _ 16 ~ N·E ·v 'E.""" LI : Vl~q ~.JU E -.• ..,, J .. -! • ' • ~-t •. J J\. _..1 ,~ 'i . -~ . --·--· BlJil ... DER CONTE!vIPORAR Y STYLE -:'"'l',"r' GA 0 '1 ~ '1 ()f''F ,,,_. ~•·''· o._c-: r, _, <.'.' 11.11\ I l [~ ·-r 1 I . A • ' ,,., f.--~\,t n .l. .. J'.'t.~n r ·!. ·''L:i ..... , '!.:"" -• ·1·. ,........ \-·· ....... 1 . . '. . . '\j '. r.i. ,.. ' l I I J .i -! I i .; .. ~:11.i r·L r:·, .. w·A· l r--:;;.>r.1;,,.: r::::> .. L •. I . f I I "~ ... _., .. ·-=--..... ..._, ..... -..... _ ... -......... ..,. .......... __ . --·· ... ··-.... ...._....... .• _,._ .. ·-·--=-.• ... -:;;--.::: .... . -:~ ,.,,,~-~••,, I ·-.~~~~fi ..... : ••, :.:.:· ·-:; .' ·.:':~•:·~'.a:~ --· ~~ ...... , ............ .z .... -.=:::; I J "' / •' / " I . .. ;,j,.l :..1.1 -.'i :;.-!:!1 c~ .:{ ~'; :.:: ,•. ~?·' ,,_.• ... ~= -:-.; 0 u >· . ...,.. i.;, ,. .... ... ,., i-· rr:. >-r.r ·- ,:.-.,.. ···,= (!) ' >'" .<. '~·a: ·3: < , ·. ·r!""; . , .. v . ' ... w ··----. >re .; .. ·.7...:..:·~ : r '.'.er. ·w I ·.; .. ~ ' __. oc:::( s: ,. \ oa: ·-~ ·~'>#'· 'J.. ;•'\.t -'-J , .... \..J . .,.. ~ ...... u. ____ ,.,.. __ _ ::r: 'i , ... t .. ~ ,c:::; 00 <.-'.Z • 'f ... EDf<s Project Neighborhood CotinpataibBBH:y Study <l>z Oa Q ~ t(-w 0 C)~ Address: 1.c~ size, Acns: P..ot size, Gq. Ft: Mo~se ol~e, sq. 11:: i'i ;;;-: 2 ~ 0 .-u..z 115 Newell Ct 0.27 11,761 2,153 W ~ ~ ~ 119 Newell Ct. 0.26 11,326 2,128 ~ --:) s :J 123 Newell Ct. 0.25 10,890 2,449 go.. 127 Newell Ct. ·0.29 12,632 2,506 131 Newell Ct. 0.29 12,632 2,323 135 Newell Ct. 0.28 12,197 2,467 108 Newell Ave. 0.3 13,068 1,97.J 112 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 1,809 116 Newell ave. 0.28 12,1~7 1,885 124 Newell Ave. 0.27 11,761 3,212 128 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 2,150 132 Newell Ave. 0,3 13,068 3,742 136 Newell Ave. 0.~9 12,632 3,110 140 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 2,368 144 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 2,513 148 Newell Ave. 0.47 20,473 4,51(;')' 152 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 2,542 156 Newell Ave. 0.31 13,503 2,356 160 NewellAve. 0.33 14,375 2,173 183 Newell Ave. 0.29 12,632 1,860 179 Newell Ave. 0.27 11,761 2,572 175 N·ewell Ave. 0.27 11,761 1,931 171 Newell Ave. 0.27 11,761 3,016 167 Newell Ave. 0.27 11, 761 2,375 163 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 1,838 159 Newell Ave. 0.36 15,682 2,294 147 Newell Ave. 0.27 11,761 2,553 143 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 1,908 139 Newell Ave. 0.29 12,63,2 2,485 1 Elks Project Neighborhood Compatibility Study 2 105 Elena Way. 0.27 11,761 2,655 109 Elena Way. 0.26 11,326 1,918 115 Elena Way. 0.27 11,761 2,285 114 Elena Way. 0.25 10,580 2,662 110 Elena Way. 0.25 10,890 2,181 106 Elena Way 0.28 12,197 2,618 102 Elena Way. 0.25 10,890 2,623 103 Brocastle Way. 0.28 12,197 2,439 107 Brocastle Way. 0.28 12,197 2,251 111 Brocastle Way. 0.28 12,197 2,323 115 Brocastle Way. 0.25 10,890 2,085 120 Brocastle Way. 0.3 13,068 2,850 116 Brocastle Way. 0.34 14,810 2,199 112 Brocastle Way. 0.30 13,068 3,181 108 Brocastle Way. 0.30 13,068 2,700 104 Brocastle Way. 0.27 11,761 2,732 100 Brocastle Way. 0.26 11,326 2,523 .. ' 179 La Montagne Ct. 0.25 10,890 4,046 181 La Montagne Ct. 0.38 16,553 3,965 183 La Montagne Ct. 0.29 12,632 3,596 185 La Montagne Ct. 0.29 12,632 3,672 187 La Montagne Ct. 0.34 14,810 4,083 189 La Montagne Ct. 0.28 12,197 3,474 191 La Montagne Ct. 0.28 12,197 3,564 193 La Montagne Ct. 0.32 13,939 3,960 182 La Montagne Ct. 0.27 11,761 3,256 180 La Montagne ct. 0.27 11,761 4,248. ;· Ell's Project i+~el~hbatrhcod C~mpatibffHty SfJ:~dy 3 101 La Rlnconada Dr. 0 .28 12,197 2,717 105 La Rlnconada Dr. 0 .28 12,197 3,729 109 La RJnconada Dr. 0.28 12,197 5,172 v' 115 La Rlnconada Dr. 0.28 12,197 2,398 119 La Rlnconada Dr. 0.31 13,503 2,609 123 La Rlnconada Dr. 0.26 11,326 1,695 ··: ·: 14854 Clara St. 0.45 19,602 3,603 14796 Golf Links Dr. 0.28 12,197 2,898 14780 Golf Links Dr. 0.26 11,326 2,261 14764 Golf Links Dr. 0.28 12,197 2,309 14748 Golf Links Dr. 0.30 13,068 2,515 14732 Gold Links Dr. 0.28 12,197 2,202· 14716 Golf Links Dr. 0.30 13,068 2,616 :XTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES I .. '"1-,, HOUSE LOT 1 .... ;,,...; I. ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING 2 . PAINTED GREEN (WHITE OPTION} METAL GUTIERS AND )OWNSPOUTS 3. PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE 4 . SMOOTH FINISH TEXTURED EXTERIOR PLASTER 5. WHITE ALUMINUM CLAD WIDOW FRAMES (BRONZE OPTION) 6. BRONZE METAL CABLE RAILING AND POSTS '. DARK GREEN PAINTED GARAGE AND FRONT DOOR 8. WOOD HORIZONTAL BOARD FENCING ~ PAINTED WOOD TRIMS ~ =i EXHIBIT · 'l ~ ;; ... 0:: w ~ => (.!) 0 w 1-z ~ a.. (!) z -LL 0 0 0:: w ....J (!) z I en z 0 -I--en 0 a.. :E 0 (.) a: w I- C/) < -' a. a:: 0 -a:: w ~ w w ...J (!) z -:c en Cl 0 0 < ' ' ~ ; ·; y 1 ~ (!) z ...J en ~ 0 0 z -~ 0 ::i (..) ::? :J z -~ :J ...J <( HOUSELOT2 EXTERIOR MATERl,~LS & FINISHES 1. ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING 2 .. PAINTED WHITE METAL GUTIERS AND DOWNSPOUTS 3 . PAINTED WOOD VERTICAL BATT & BOARD SIDING 4 . STONE VENEER WAINSCOT 5. WHITE ALUMINUM CLAD WIDOW FRAMES (BRONZE OPTION) 6. BRONZE METAL CABLE RAILING AND POSTS 7. WHITE PAINTED GARAGE AND DOOR 8. WOOD STAIN FRONT DOOR 9. WOOD HORIZONTAL BOARD FENCING 10. PAINTED WOOD TRIMS 0:: w I= ::> (!) 0 w ..... z -0: (!) z u.. 0 0 0:: w ...J (!) z -:::c en z 0 -t: en 0 a.. ~ 0 (,' I a:: w w z w > w z 0 ~ ~ z -() -en () a:: ~ al 0 z <( s al _J tS -~ w > ' Ir I ' G z _J -~ w ..J ID () en s 0 Q z ~ Q <( ..J (.) :2 :::::> z -~ :::::> ..J <( HOUSELOT3 =xTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES I. ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING 2. WHITE PAINTED METAL GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS t PAINTED GRAY WOOD SHINGLE SIDING 4. SMOOTH FINISH TEXTURED EXTERIOR PLASTER ;, WHITE ALUMINUM CLAD WIDOW FRAMES (BRONZE OPTION) 6 . STAINED WOOD GARAGE AND FRONT DOOR '.WOOD HORIZONTAL BOARD FENCING 8. PAINTED WOOD TRIMS \ ; " (!) z Ll. 0 0 0::: w __. (!) z -I en z 0 -~ -en 0 0.. :?! 0 ~' a:: w ..... ~ a_ 0:: 0 -0:: w !;< w w _J (!) z -:x: en Cl 0 0 ~ en ~ 0 0 z -~ 0 ::s () :2: ::> z -:2: ::> _J <( HOUSELOT4 EXTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES 1. ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING 2. PAINTED WHITE METAL GUTTERS AND DOVVNSPOUTS 3. PAINTED WOOD VERTICAL BATT & BOARD SIDING 4. SMOOTH FINISH EXTERIOR PLASTER 5. WHITE ALUMINUM CLAD WIDOW FRAMES (BRONZE OPTION) 6. METAL CABLE RAILING AND POSTS 7. STAINED WOOD GARAGE AND FRONT DOOR 8. WOOD HORIZONTAL BOARD FENCING 9. PAINTED WOOD TRIMS 0:: w I= ::> (!) c w 1-z -<( 0.. -u. 0 ~ w _J (.!) z -:::c en z 0 -I-- en 0 0.. ~ 0 (' ~ 0:: w ~ a.. 0:: 0 -0:: w ~ w (.!) z -0 -en 0 a: ~ al 0 z <( s al ....J <( (.) -~ w > (!) z ...J -~ w ...J al (3 en s 0 0 z -~ 0 <( ...J (.) :2 ::> z -~ ::> ...J <( ~·~A • ' ~' :-• • -~ " t,; ·~ ~'''. • •'!:5-'" , .' ' > • .. ; '" • .,-; • <_>- ,:<.' , •• ( iJ ~.5 NeweR Ave. PROJECT DATA i..: ~:·. ... -; ,, . Zoning aJStricl Land US6 Gentlml Plan Designation Total Lot 1 (groa) Lot 2 (gross) Lot 3 (gross) Lot 4 (gl'OllS) lot81-4 siding trim windows roofing Bldg lloor BR1B {sq.It) R1:12 Conditional use for fratemal organization Low density residential 60,062 sq.ft. (1 .379 Acres) 16.615 sq.ft. (0.381 Acres) 16,895 sq.ft. (0.388 acres) 14,268 sq.ft. (0.328 acres) 13137 sq.ft. (0.302 acres) board & batten, plaster wood board 2.5" wood trtm boards composition shingles 12,000 ·aq.ft. IOIS RECEIVED APR -7 20'5 -rn\llrtJ.-OF LOS ( ATOS PLANN\N(j UI• .,\ON EXHIBIT 8· Lot 1 Option 1 Option 2 3,+t1~ ... Primary In-Law main floor -2,230 1,914 475 upper floor -2,014 2,007 - garage -615 615 - cellar -1,098 -1,098 exempt accessory structure - - --included in FAR total -5,957 4,436 1,573 Lot 2 "' 4,30& tw*. main floor -2,776 upper floor -1,065 garage -695 cellar -1,221 exempt accessory structure --included in FAR total -5,757 Lot 3 vi J, Ml w.ac. main floor -2,508 lower floor -1,691 garage -664 accessory structure --included in FAR total -4,863 Lot 4 Option 1 Option 2 3 1 1Gl'l '1'JMV. 397 Primary In-Law main floor -3,011 2,956 - upper floor -1,186 454 680 garage -601 601 - accessory structure ----Included in FAR total ~ 4,798 4,011 680 Setbtlcks {It) Lot 1 front -25 2 5 ft minimum rear -20 20 ft minimum interior side -10 10 ft minimum side adjacent to street -15 1 S ft minimum Lot 2 front -25 2 5 ft minimum rear -20 20 ft minimum interior side 1 -10 10 ft minimum interior side 2 -10 10 ft minimum Lot 3 from -25 2 S ft minimum rear -20 20 ft ·minimum interior side 1 -10 10 ft minimum Interior side 2 -10 10 ft minimum Lot 4 front -ZS 2 5 ft minimum rear -zo 20 ft minimum interior side -10 1 O ft minimum side adjacent to street -15 15 ft minimum A~ II/ops (9') .. Lot 1 20.068 -- Lot 2 7.496 -- Lot 3 10.898 -- Lot 4 20.561 -- Maximlllll height (ft} 30 ft maximum Lot 1 -27'-W Lot 2 -25'-7" Lot 3 -30·-o· Lot 4 -25'-6• Building covemge ('16) 40 pert:ent. Lot 1 -17%. (2845 sqft) Lot 2 -21% (3471 sqft) Lot 3 -22% (3172 sqft) Lot 4 -28% (3615 sqft) Parking Lot 1 garage spaces -2 2 spaces required per uncovered spaces -4 dwelling unit Lot 2 garage spaces -2 2 spaces required per uncovered spaces -4 dwelling unit Lot 3 garage spaces -2 2 spaces required per uncovered spaces -3 dwelling unit Lot 4 garage spaces -2 2 spaces required per 9522uncovered spaces -3 dwelling unit 'I i I ' I Ir TniB RIJflllWB/s . - -See S-• ' 1 1 •Existing Site Plan• -- SeMer or l/ll!lplic ~ -Sewer - I I l I _J This Page Intentionally Left Blank ic·· DG .. -·<· --... : ·-' I . " I CANNON DESIPN GROUP February 23, 2015 Ms. Jennifer Savage Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 105 Newell Avenue Dear Jennifer: ARCHITBCTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN RECEIVED FEB· 2 5 2015 TOVVN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My con:llnents are as follows: Neighborhood Context The site is located at the dead end of Lark Avenue as it meets Winchester Blvd. It is a steeply sloped site currently occu- pied by an Elk's Lodge. The si~ is bordered by a mix of uses. Photographs of the site arc shown on the following page. 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCL E. SUITE 199 LARKSPUR CA. 94939 TEL : 41 S.331 .3795 CDGPLAN@PACBE~lT 9~ The site 1•11--1 ·ed from Winchester Rive~. View up '~• '•' .If Avenue Southe rn site edge CANNON DESIGN GROUP .~!~--~ 105 Newell Avenue Daign Review Comments Febnwy 23, 2015 Page 2 Note low open fence at tho;": ~op of the concrct~ retaining wall. -.1111mercia/ building across Winchester Blvd. Ntwe// Avenue sloping site edge Northwestern site edge 700 LARKSPUR LANDJNG CIRCLE SUITE 199. LARKSPUR. CA . 9493 9 Concerns and Recommendations SITE PLAN 105 Newell Avenue Design Review Comments Fcb=uy 23, 2015 Pagd Most of the concerns that I see arc related to the site pho and its project impacts at the site edges. Need to better understand this street view to retaining wall ru j~~~~~=i~~~ t. 4=.:::-t<JL--J-~-:;.,~::n'u,.,... ~tLa1ks .,__,,--+o._, .,.J,;il[il!lllij~-tappear to end abruptly ; ~ I ·1;1 ·: a: ., • • / ! . ' 1. In gcnCDI, the proposal is to grade the site to allow the construction of four large homes with telatively large first floor plans on one level The upper end of the site is being lowered from natural grade substantWly which will create a ni.ther tall retaining Wllll along that property line. The impacts are largely on-site for the residents and views past the houses to the till retaining wall. However, the retaining wall continues with step-downs to Newell Avenue. At Newell Avenue, there may he ~oro~ visual impacts of that wall as it would be seen from the street and from the immediate neighbor. More clarification is needed on that condition. Eave height wall shown along edge on site section 2 (Nlltldtobetterundemandhowfhi. Tall wall ma nlficant visual Im acts willdltlerfromul.iingoontlltloM) ----...... ----~--------...-------..... ~ How wlll view from Newell Avenue change? faE~E.S~~ ...... ~--c_:::~~~- LOT2 LOT1 Site Section 2 Recommendation: Ask for clarifications on views to the retaining wall from Newell Avenue. Recommendation: Explore the use of floor plans that step down with the grade iather than pding for large flat first Boor plans. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 lARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . lARKSPUR CA . 94939 105 Newell Avenue D esign Review Comments February 23, 2015 Page 4 2. Conditions will change somewhat at the southern boundary adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 where a retaining wall is shown that reaches to approximately the cave height of the home on Lot 2 (See left edge of Site Section 2 above). Recommendation: Ask for clarification of how visual conditions will change along this site edge, and why the wall n eed s to be so high. 3. Currently, there is a long, variable height concrete retaining wall along the Winchester Blvd. site edge (Sec top photo on page 2). There is a low, open rail wood fence at the top of the retaining wall, as shown on the photo below. It appears from Site Sections 3 and 1 (shown below) that tiller solid wood f ences will be placed along the back edges of Lots 3 and 4. This has the potential of changing the focal point view of the site from Lark Avenue. eta '~°' ·~. ~-~-·"~N#~-~d-LOT 4 LOT 1 Site Section 3 LOT4 LOT3 Site Section ·1 CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199 _LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 Recommendation; Ask for clarification of how visual condi- tions will change along this site edge. Recommendation: If tall fences 2.l'C to be allowed along the Winchester Blvd. street edge, ensure that their visual qual- ity is very high. An example is shown in the photo to the right. 105 N~l Ave nue Design Review Comments Fehrua_7 23, 20 15 Pagd 3.SidCW2lks along Newel Avenue swing into the site at the internal entry street, but arc tcrmirulted before they reach all but one of the proposed homes. Recommendation: Extend at least one of the sidew21ks to serve all of the lots. 4. The grade differential between the interoal street and the entry of the home on Lot 1 is subst:anit21. and its design will subswitially impact the streetscape. Recommendation: Provide more design imformation on the stairs and landscaping. 5. The guest parking spaces in front of Lots 3 and 4 would obstruct the pedc:Strian access to the homes on those lots. Recommendation: Relocate the guest parking spaces. BUILDING DESIGN In general, the design of the homes holds together well. There are a few details that would benefit from further refine- ment. LOT1 1. The home is largely covered with painted shingles except for smooth stucco on the first floor of the entry and at the front and side comer of the house frontage to the left of the entry. The stucco at the entry seems to work, but would benefit from a more distinct transition between the stucco and the shingles. However, the comer stucco breaks up what .is otherwise a well unified design. 2. The supporting brackets for the second floor balcony appear small unless they were to be steel. If steel, they would be somewhat out of character with what is otherwise a fairly traditional design. 3. The wain.scot at the base of the structure seems appropriate for the style and the design as presented. However, it varies in height on the right side elevation and is missing from the left side guage facade. 4. The height of the entry arch seems too low for the tall entry doors shown. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939 Stucco comer waH Is not contributing to a unity of design for this house Better transition between shingles and stucco would be hel ul 105 Ncwdl Avenue D~ign Review Comm ents Fcbruaiy 23 , 2015 Page 6 Appropriateness of support size and spacing dependant on ro osed material Entry arch looks low In relationship to the very tall entry doors alnscot does not carry around to all elevations, and varies in height on the right slc{e elevatron Recommendation: Replace the stucco comer walls with shingles. Recommendation: Raise the entry arch to be more compatible with the tall entry doors, or reduce door height Recommendation: Add molding to separate the stucco and the shingles on the entry. Recommendation: Provide clarification on the materials and details fur the balcony support brackets, and provide a narrative of how the proposed materials and details support the architectural style of the house. Recommendation: Unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise, continue the wainscot around all sides of the house at the same height as shown on the front elevation. Add molding to separate stucco and shingles Raise entry arch to be more compatible with tall entry doors or reduce door hel ht Provide more details on material and details of balcony support Unless there Is a Gtrong reason to do otherwise, continue walnscot around all olrlne M tha hnuon at Ihle h .. t,.h+ CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 LOT2 105 Newell Avenue Design Review Comments February 23 , 2015 Page 7 1. The architectural style appears to be very much in the spirit of a Ranch Style. In that idiom, the use of simple columns without caps and bases is appropriate. However, in past applica.tions and in the Town's Residential Design Guidelines, the use of t:nditional beams at the top of a series of columns has been strongly encouraged. Recommendation: Add a support beam at all covered porches. Add beams at all columned porches LOT3 1. The issue on this lot is the detail treatment of the entty and porch. An open arched element is proposed at the entry, but its forward face is in line with the main roof eave. Only one column is proposed for this entry element which appears rather awkw.u:d. Overall, the entry seems much weaker tha.n those on Lots 1 and 2. Also while the ·form is arched, the interml supporting structure appears to be some angular combination of structural elements which do not go very well with the strong arched form. 2.As noted for Lot 2, the use of columns without caps and bases is appropriate for some archirectural styles, such as the Ranch Style. However. this design is a bit more formal, as evidenced by the fortml arched, double wide entty door. 3.It may be a computer drawing error. but the top of the entry doors arc truncated by the arched door frame. 4. The fence to the right of the front elevation appears to be very much like a standard side ya.cd handscape fence. 'Ibis does not seem in keeping with the larger size and quality of the development. ' AlllW i r--------, j i • : I l L .......................... L .~~~~.!~~ .. L.~,.-.... -.1 i ve~~ ~= =--···-····--·-···-;-moie refi_ ;._would h be hlgllly-ble i ·····-·-····----·--i ' • Maybeco .. ~-=:::------T ----~r:.~·rch-:-------·--·------- forma• doors are not fitting Into frame CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA. 94939 I I I ~ I 05 Ncwdl Avenue Design ~cw Comments February 23, 2015 Page 8 Recommendation: Extend the arched :try element forward of the main roof eve line, and develop the structural sup- ports and detailing to better complement the arched form. Recommendation: Add a beam between columns and between columns and adjacent walls. Add columns caps and bases unless the further refinement of the arched entry suggests another approach. Recommendation: Resolve the door height and door head condition. Recommendation: Utilize a higher quality level of fencing on all sides that are visible from outside of the site and from the interior site street. One good example of a similar Los Gatos fence is shown in the photo below. II .--------, I I ~-=i~~~~·:x====t~--•• I ~--·-·--1 .. -.. ,,::=-..::.:.:~ ·-··· .... ~ .... , ..... ; Reeolve entry doorl._11 alze end door head U- CANNON DESIGN GROUP !--~---.1-.1.•. ____ ., _ _. ........ -···-··--·-· ......................... - Ada porch beam Extend canopy Provide structure to reflect curve Add column• · Add caps and bases to columns 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. sum 199. LARKSPU R . CA. 94939 LOT4 105 Newell AV1:nuc Design Review Comments Pc!>ruart 23, 20! 5 Page 9 1. The entry to this house is much weaker than any of the other homes with just a small indentation under the main roo£ This seems inadequate for the scale and ambition of the test of the design. Recommendation: Redesign the front entry to be a better match for the me, scale and style of the house. l Front entry Is relatively weak compared to the other proposed houses Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Canno n CANNON DES IGN GRO U P 700 LARKS PUR LAN D ING CIRCLE . SU ITE 199 LARKSPU R. CA . 94939 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Architectural consulting comment responses RECE;VED JUN 17 2015 Item 1. Item 2 . Item 2b. ltem3. Jtem4. Item 5. Item 1 ltem2 ltem3 Item 4 Item 1 See wall details on Sheet LS-1.0 landscape plan. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Eave height is not affected by fence as it's over 20' away from fence. See Site Plan Sheet S-1.2. Sect ion shows neighbor fence top of 7' wall. See fence detail on Sheet LS-1.0 with max. fence height 6.revise See Sheet TM-2 on Civil plans and Sheet S-1.2 on Architectural Site plan for extended side walk. Steps and Landing provide an ending for our planter retaining wall as designed. There will be optional path to entry from Driveway. We rather keep the exterior plaster with a dark paint color. We are emphasizing the articulation of the front fa~ade with material and texture changes. We agree on separating the exterior plaster from shingles. (Not yet detailed) Support outriggers will be heavy wood timber 6X members and are below the actual structural support system. Wainscot will go around garage as revised. See sheet A-1 .3 The height is constant but varies at ground finish grade level. It Is proportional to from the top of the exterior plaster to the arch which is most important. We'll adjust accordingly. Doors full height will be viewed from approach below. There are beams proposed but not seen In elevation views. There are two columns and we regard nothing "weak" about this one story front elevation on this project. It holds its own just fine. It is an asymmetrical front porch entry . It's a wide horizontal front porch with emphasis to the location of the front door by the roof archway above, as one approaches from street. EXHIBIT 1 0 ltem2 Item 3 The eaves as well as the porch vaulted arch ceiling will be finished in wood boards. We've moved the column to be at the start of the flat eave area of the porch. We'll consider a simple base detail just enlarging the diameter of the column 12" . The top we'd like to appear as the column pierces through ceiling. 8" diameter will work for structural visual proportion. Fence detail is now provided. We're proposing a horizontal wood plank fence of various widths with space between them. This will fence will be used throughout and differs from the various materials used in the homes. Nothing "Weak" about this entry either. It's the most symmetrical front elevation of the four lots. The entry porch is 10'-7" wide and the door will be 9' tall. The clearstory window above the entry doors will also contribute to its "strength" at night with the entry hall light on. I ... .... ARBORRS.J REPORT' Project Address: 105 Newel Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Property Owner: Deborah Ellis, MS ./:\ j !'' Consulting Arbbrist & Horti~ufturist 4 . ~t ·~ LJ ... , .. ~ Service si11ce 1984 /20-~!5 ' '\ . • ,\i' '\,.' \ \: • ' "·'-· \\J";:. .. ~. \ i .. . . ' ~1 l\ \_ Tango Poppa .. JN ~~~?f--~· ... -_--~ ------ -,-·,, ..... . . Prepared for: Jennifer Savage Town of Los Gatos Communffy Planning Department 11 O E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared by: Deborah Enis, MS. Consuffing Arbor/st & Homculturist Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulttng Arborists Board Certified Master Arborist WE-0457B, International Society of Arboriculture Certified Profess ional Horticulturist #30022. American Society for Horticultural Science FEBRUARY 19, 2015 ~i ~o !~ ~: re. "!4 90 ,. "' a ~ ' . Cl .. ~~, ~ ~ rii er. 0 I PO ~ox 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.nd. http://www.decah .com. I EXHIBIT 1 I Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist -.:.'I Service si11ce 1984 Table of Contents TREE MAP ., ............................................................................................................................................................................. &. .. ~'. ...... ,~~ .......... ,1 ••••••••••••••••••• 1 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................................. J:;..;; ......•. :~ ........ ~ ...................... 2 . B . f D . . t' f th P . t '., . . . . 2 ne escnp ion o e roiec .............................................................................................................................................. 1 ...................... ; ....................... . Plans Reviewed ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Brief Description of the Trees ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table l Summary Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 APPl!NDIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 TABLE 2 Complete Tree Table ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Supporting lnformatfon ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Purpose & Use of Report .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Observations ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Tree Protection Distances .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 3 to 5 x DBH ........... : .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Tree Photos .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Assumptions & Limitations ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Glossary .... ; ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Cover photo: The front of the old Elks Club building from Winchester Boulevard. Sweet gum t~ees #Z0-25 and 34-36 are labeled . All photos in this report were taken by D. Ellis on February 9, 2015. PO Box 3714, SarQtOgQ, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decQh@pQcbell.net . http://www.decQh.com. Debarah Ellis, MS Consulting A~borist & Horticulturist '- TREE MAP I ""-·. \ --------L_ -------------~ .... .....___. ______ -- ~~ f-~ ~ -~~"":., __ :_ • -... ~ ·--$#;..-;..... ~~~. . \ . -• ··-..,, .....__, __ ~. _ .. ____,_ ........ Oll'1k>O"r --"""· -. ---'--"' -Laz_ • _ t l ;s:;.__ ~:~ ........... .. ~--! l¥' t ~... g.;. ' vt· . ..=----i-1.L]. ~,.-,.=., ...... _ ..... ERQSIOW CONJBQ.. PUN ---- ~ <' ScveTree * Oebalable-fRead dbouHree) .X Remove. Tree -__ 'fgA._ 11 k PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www;decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. ~ ·-"t-' ~,, Service since 1984 Pagel of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ~' I:,,.. Service sinci 1984 SUMMARY BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT An existing building on the property will be demolished, and four new two-story. single-family residences are planned. PLANS REVIEWED • Existing Site, Sheet S-1.1, June 30, 2014. Camargo & Associates, Architects. • Site Plan (Proposed), Sheet S-1.2. Same as above. • Site Sections, Sheet S-1 .3 . Same as above. • Landscape Plan, Sheet LS-1.0. Same as above. • Elevations/Sections. A-1.3 , 2.2, 4 .2, 4.3 . Same as above. • Tentative Map of Existing Conditions, Sheet TM-1, January 16, 2015. Carroll Engineering . • Tentative Proposed Conditions. Sheet TM-2. Same as above. • Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan, Sheet C 1.1, 1.2. Same as above. • Preliminary Profile & Sections. Sheet Cl .3, 1 .4. Same as above. • Preliminary Underground UtiHties. Sheet C2 . l, 2.2. Same as above. • Temporary Erosion Control Plan. Sheet C3. l • Preliminary Storm water Management Plan. Sheet C4.1. Same as above. BRIEF DESCRIPTiON OF THE TREES There are 38 protected trees i within or adjacent to proposed construction. Most of these trees are not in good condition and are not particularfy valuable trees for the site. All trees are described briefly the Summary Tree Table (Tobie 1 I on page 4 and in greater detail in the Complete Tree Table (Table 2}. beginning on page 8. The Recommendations section of this report includes suggestions for reducing 1 For the purpose of this project, a protected tree in Los Gatos as defined in the Los Gatos Town Code. Division 2 Tree Protection. Section 29.10.0960. 12/3/2010 the Scope of Protected Trees is any tree with a 4-inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision 1val is reouired. Town Street trees of any size· are orotected. Fruit trees less than 18 inches in trunk diameter are exemot PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 2 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arbortst & Horticulturist ,,· A .,4., .. · Sl!ft!U:t! ,JllWJ J9l'J./ construction Impact to certain trees when possible and practical. For those trees that will be retained on the site, the Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions are also included on page 20. Based upon the plans that I have reviewed for this project: • Thlrtv·four (341 trees are shown on the plans and/or are recommended by me to be removed. The reason that the majority of trees on this .site will be removed is due to the extensive grading that will occur h~re, the poor condition of many of the trees, and also the location of several tall-growing trees (&eodal' ceden #28.;31) underneath overhead electric wires . The tall growing deodars should never have been planted beneath the wires; these trees have been topped repeatedly and now is a good time to remove them. • Two (2) trees are categorized as being "Debatable" Save or Remove. These are tzoees #19 (a spindly, volunteer olive that was not included on the plans) and #33 l~•HBE stone J!line, due to its fair/poor structure. Tree #33 is shown to be saved on the construction plans, but I suggest considering removal instead. • Two (2) trees are shown and/or recommended by me to be saved. These are lta:lan •tone u-m•• #27 and 32 . These are not "great" trees, but they are the most reasonable trees to try and save on this site, given the construction plans and the not-very-good condition of most of the trees. • I have not classlled the long hedge row of large •h3ny ..,.:o•ma. shlnabs aioa5 Qbe 1nol'tbwest i:perimeter of the site as "protected trees" (see photo below}. It is difficult to see the trunks of many of these shrubs, but trunk diameters seem to range from 4 to 12 inches in diameter. There are approximately 23 ......-----------· -----·--------- shrubs. I only SO\N one shrub with a 12 inch diameter trunk however: most of the trunks are closer to 4 inches in diameter. Xylosma is used primarily as a landscape shrub and these plants have been pruned to a height of about 1 O feet as a hedge. Most of these shrubs are propose,d to be saved however; and-so they should be protected. They do I 2'1 provide good screening for their height. Shiny xylosma (Xylosma congestum) shrub hedge row (right to left) with ?!ta!ian stone pi:!L1.e #27 in the background at far left. --~ ~::~~~·~;:~L~i:::~.i·t~·;;J~}~{:iI~i~r~~:t}i5zi./_-;_ ":;~~~.r;.~~,·t ·· · .• PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbeltnet. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 3 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service .:~u 1984 TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE Continued on the next page. *Tree not included on some or a// plan sheets. +Trees ecies native to the immediate area. . .. """·l ... · ·.; ........ ,;;,.. . ·[ . .·.. . ., , .. · tr . . . . TrU1-:1 .. · · ·tt , ll::lqJICw11 •. i "· .. , · .,,.. • •• : '-:·! .. "·:, .•. ; '": , Cbmmo~~) ·j Ola~~ mt•~ P, Col'ilUuetidn Actk>n..1i Reason ·-,_,. · ·: .. :·\;~ 1 1 ,,. Name -.__. .. ~, . .Oift , Sub&Jlity.1 " Impact ; ~.. "' -. ,_._,;; :.~. · , • • _,_I , •· i 1 1 jltalian stone pinel9 !Fair J~evere . !Remove !Construction 2 ~eodar cedar js !Fair/Poor !severe 1Remove !Construction/Structure +3 !coast liv~ oak j10 , 10 . !Fair/Poor . Jse~ere JRemove jcon~truction/Structure +4 l~oa~t live _oak 11 a· !f:~ir/Go~d --.jse~e~~ . _ : ~ _ IR~~~ve lc~nstr~ction +5 coast live oak 5 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction/Structure "+6 coast live oak 6 (2.5). Fair Severe Remove Construction ... 7 Silk tree 12 Poor Severe Remove Construction/Overall Condition 8 !Black acacia 14.4.3,3 !Poor Jsevere IR~ove lconstructi;;rVOverall Co~dition 5*2 9 !carob tree 113,6,6, !Poor 3*4, _2*3 10 IAlepp() pine 115 !Fair/Poor 11 Jcarob tree j15 (2.5) !Fair/Poor _+12 tcoas~ Jiv~ o_~k . . 15.6 ]Fair 13 lltali~m st_ci_ne_ pine 111 (2.5) IF air/Good Severe Remove !Severe Remove ... .severe Remove Severe Remove 1ove 14 !Italian stone pine 115 IF air .!Severe IRerr 1ove 1ove . -- iove , 15 !Italian stone pin~l11 _ _JPoor _ t~_v_ere IRerr ] +16 !coast live oak 19 lFair ·!severe !Ren +17 !coast live oak 117 '!Good !Severe IRerr IOVe Construction/Overall Condition ~onstructi~n/~Struct~re !Construction/Overall Condition Construction , 18 !carob tree . J9 . _ _!Poor _ .. _ l~eye_re .... _... !Remove IConstruction/StrucitJr.Ei . . .. . .. . . , 1 ·19 l~lJropEla.~. oliy~ . I~ ... _ m .1!>~~r.-........ __ .1~.<:>?era!~t.~evere;Jqeb~tab~~J~o~a.uon .u~~r!~.~-r.E)_1~ti 11~.~<>_9 r.~d.i!19 I 20 I sweet gum .. ___ J10 ___ IFa lr{Gf.?Od ~ J~i:vere .. ·~· ~Jl3Eimove_ lc;onstructie>r ~-~-__ ·~·~· 21 !sweet gum '7 !Fair jSevere !Remove jconstruction 22 lsweet g~m la !Fair js_evere !Remove IC:onstruction wee~~m __ !___ Fa ir/Poor ___ -~-'.!1~-~~~truction/Ov,:raH co.ndition __ L-----··~------PO Bo;-37l~S~ratog;CA 950l0. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . htf'P:/;w-;;_d~~h.com. -J Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19 , 2015 . Page 4 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arhorist & Horticulturist /'\ 1n·. 1E. Table 1 .Summary Tree Table (continued from the previous page} !r~ ,..~.i.<r·,~··:~.~~ .. ~~:~::'r~;,~ .. ,-~"'~l r:;t~n.~:tlk:~::•· ~\.~.: .. ~ •. ~UOrf~ .. ; ,· .. ~;.t;;:~;;-.. ~. ··.~.~-.::. .. :;:;~.:':;~;.~<:::. .... :~.~~.,...=·:::~; • ·; · :~·-:;"Nlrite ·'-,_.=;: .:~~ ~aut&&lii!Y ~ ... ~ti'Oii•:j Aetrcm~; ~ --~~ :.~ ~::~ .~· ::._~;~.; .~·~~~ ·~;~·~. '!~~_: .. ;~:-~~~ ~·:~·:~:~:~~-·:·~~~~-:.~~ ... ::·~···:~~~:~--1 ;'f i1~¥~;f ~~~~~;·~t~%1 *24 ls~~t QU!fl J6 Farr/Poor I Severe Remove ~Construction/Overall Condition 25 fsweet gum 11 O Fair Severe ' Remove ; Construction . ---. .• Moderate/Severe Remove onstruction/Overal Condition -" -~ 26 !dwarf mugo_ pin_~ ]5.!3 ,_3 Poor 27Jltalian sft>n~_pine '.13 1 __ l_F~lr _. _ .. ~Modera~ --·-jSaye ----~ . _ _ __ _ _ 28 jdeodar cedar 11 ~-_ ]Poor .. _ .. llMocJ~rate/Seve~e{Remove __ ~Structure, Power llnes, Construction . 29 ~(:!odar ~dar 13 . __ Poor ·-··· Moderate/Se\fE!re ~emove _ -~tructu~ •. ~~wer lines._Constru<?tio~ I 3~ ~~od~r-~~~-~~ 9_ .. ___ Poor .... Seve~ ~~m_ove _ ~°"nstru~~~· -~tru~~r~!_Power l_ines 3~ _ deodar ~ar 15 ·-·· Poor --· Severe Remove : C~nstruction, ~tructure! _Power li_ne.s. 32 Italian stone pine 12 .. _.fair Low/Moderate Save __ --33 l~l!a!l ~to~~-e!n~· !~-· ·--~air/P~o.r. --Low~derate D~Eatabl~ ~!~~~-~- ~~ J~~et . 91:1.!1.1 _____ .... .'l~ ... ~----~Jf..~i!"[~~--·-.. l~~yere _ --· ... ~l~~~ _ J~~ns_tr~ction 35 J~~et gum__ :110 IF air fSevere !Remove ~Construction ! 36 .fs>,r,reet gur,n _rn-ig JCon~truction 37 lossy pri~e~ . , 5 Se~re_ onstruction/OveraH Condition . ~!._.9JO.~X .e.~!~_.:.'.~~-·······--· s~~-·-', --~-~~~uction ·--... ~~---,··--- End of Table PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 . ,,,_...,'II'"'-::!-"' Se1'11ice since 1984 Page 5 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service Jiru, 1984 RECOMMENDATIONS l. Existing trees should be numbered on all site-based plans to match the tree tag numbers that are used In this arborist report. 2. The disposition of an trees should be the same on all plans. For example, the Erosion Control Plan shows some trees to be saved that are not shown on the landscape Plan. Trees to be sayed must be numbered (with the tree tag numbers used in this report) on all site based plans including the landscape plan. There should be a demolition plan showing all numbered trees to be removed as well as trees to be saved. 3. Save and protect the following A protected trees: #27 and 33- 4. Remove the following 34 protected trees: #1-18, 20-26, 28-31 and34·38/ 5. The folowing A protected trees are listed as "Debatable": #19 and 33. Read about these trees in the Notes column of the Complete Tree Table in order to learn why they are debatable and review options for dealing with them. 6. Recommendations for Specific Trees: a. #27 Italian stone pine: move all soil disturbance (grading, retaining wall excavation or anything else) no closer than 15 feet to the nearest edge of this tree's trunk as measured in the field. Right now the back edge of the wall is shown at about 12 feet. Removal of existing asphalt must be done carefuUy and under the supervision of the project arborist (put this last sentence on the project plans on the Demolition Sheet). b. The shiny xylosma shru.b hedge row along the northwest perimeter of the project should be protected with standard Type 1 Tree Protection fencing and signage. 7. The Arborlst should review all site-based plans for this project: I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on page 1. Additional improvements on plans that were not reviewed may cause additional trees to be impacted and/or removed. Examples of important plans to review are: the Existing and Proposed Site Plan, Demolition. Construction Staging, Erosion Control, Grading & Drainage, Underground Utilities, landscaping & Irrigation, Building Elevations & Sections, Roof Plan and Construction & landscape Details showing improvements that may impact trees. Therefore the tree dispositions (Save, Remove or Debatable) listed in this· report may change if and when additional plans for this project are reviewed, or if plans that I have reviewed are revised. Plans reviewed by the arborist should be full-size. to-scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements. Scale should be 1 :20 or 1:10. I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive . February 19, 2015. Page 6 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Aliborist & Horticulturist Stroil!" mir.r. 19~1 8. As a part of the design process, try to keep Improvements (and any additional over·excavatlon or work area beyond the improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. SxDBH 2 or the dripline of the tree. Whichever is greater, should be used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be ~onsidered the absolute minimum distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only. for root protection. Farther is better, of course. For disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 5xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is alsc;> better here. Tree canopies must also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around improvements as you locate those impf?vements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees :than the lines shown on the plans! 9. New landscaping and lntgation can be as much or more damaging to exisHng trees than any other type of constructton. The same tree root protection distances recommended for general construction should also be observed for new landscaping . Within the root protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organi~ mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface. The environment around existing tree$ should be changed very carefully or not at all -please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around existing trees an(jj/or have me review the landscape and irrigation plans for this project. : 10. For those trees that wftl be retained on the site, follow the Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protecfionj Dlrectior."J., included in this report on pages 20 through 22. A separate copy of these Directions is enclosed and must be incorporate(:f Into the project final plans. Additional tree protection information is also available from Deborah Ellis if necessary. 11 . Construction or landscaping work done underneath the dl'lpllne of existing trees should preferably Ill• done by hand. taking care to preserve existing roots In undama.ged ~9.nd,itior:i q~ much as. possibl~ _and cu.tting roots cleanly by h(lnd when first encountered, when those roots must be removed. A qualifie(fCorisultiri~l:OrboriSf (the prqject d~risl) should be hired tp monitor tree protection and supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees. This also applies to trees on neighboring propertjes whose canopies overhang the work site. . 12. General Tree Maintenance: .Do no unnecessary pruning, ferllllzatlon. or other tree work. Pre-construction pruning should be limited to the absolute minimum required for construdion clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide such pruning. a3 1e 19 for an explanation of these calculations which are used to estimate root protection distances for trees. PO Box 3"14, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408~725-1357. decah@pocbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell [)rive. February 19, 2015. Page 7 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Hortlcutturist APPENDIX TABLE 2 COMPLETE TREE TABLE Th is Table is continued through page 14. Data fields in the Table are ~xpfained on pages 14 to 17 Tree # Species & Cotnmon Name :.·,:· Trunk ·Diam . 1·s1ze @3ft ... lcONDITION '"" 0 $ e· fi ::::s ~ ·. ;:\::~ ., ~ -~~ '., :;;~1~~'. :, ,, : ' _,.: :. Preservation · con.tructlon ·. Action ; . ~<\. Reason ·-:- , s_ultablllty · ::·: lm~~ct . . . .-'~·;i:\ · f _<.:.,:;-. ~ '~:;.;•· =· ... '· · , .. .... l. ... ~~~. ·~: ., Notes ~: ..,,/... S ervice JJJIU 1984 TREEftoOT !PROTECTION DISTANCES ::c ffi ~ m 0 0 Q.. ~ >< 0 ~ 1 IPinus pinea , .19 Italian stone ~5*101 60 60 ]Fair !Severe Remove jConstruction ~onstructlon : in the path of lope grad ing . This slope seems very un_stable . 3 I 4 s I IPine 120*9 I 60 50 IFalr/Poor 2 =edrus 15 deodara , arcedar 3 IQue~us j10, 10 122•221 70 45 IFair/Poor agrifolia, ~ast live oak 4 !coast live oak 110 .24*181 75 60 !Fair/Good s 1 ~~t 1i~e oak . f . ro·1or60 r 4ci · 1f:a1~!P~r *6 fast live oak t(2.5) J16*14J _7o . 1. _so :_ 1Fair ... 7 rfbizia 112 ]18*251 20 I 20 !Poor ·ufibrissin , ISilk tree Severe Severe Severe 'Severe Remove Remove .Construction/Structure nstruction: in the path of -slope grading. Condition: area oo crowded with trees . _____ . ~ _ already. Construction/Structure ~onstruction: in the path of lope grading. Remove .!Construction ... --·-· •·· ... -•"' ~.-.. .. -----·-· t l ' 3 I 4 I 5 l i I ! 6 4 ·M 3 4 Remove tconstruction/Structure nstruct ion : in the path of I : ' -' _ ~lop" gn.~~~~: .. I I ! . .. ~evere ~~~move . f ~nst~~~n I 3 . I 4 I 5 j Severe .Remove Construction/Overall nstructi n: in the path of 3 5 12 Condition slope grading. Condition: extensive lower ~runk decay and may dead branches . . ---...1.-----·--.1-~-----~-~--I ----__ _..!...__,,~-·-•.. .!.--. I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pocbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Pa~ 8 of 29 ,/\ .. Deborah Ellis, MS 1..t \. A.Gn Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist /,,,,( ~. i"".L ~-~-,,~·· > -~ : ~ Service since 1984 Tree .. --~~~" .. 1 ~i;.~r< '.'..i·, '=· ·-~;( : :· ·;. / ~,· ,' ; < : C_:; ',y:; { > '• .. TREE~ • I Common · pi.m,--. ,,,,__ • -.. ~d . .• '-· .. . • · · . • · ' _. . -· " "" l!lllEC'flON · ·'(lllme · .... @91!,. . , i j : ~bHliy ' •. ~ri · ACliolf' . ! . : ~" .. • • , :: :, : ,· (• · 0, '; • ~' ·.· . . ·· · " .. : f\ . & ~>'~: >S: :1:t'.5A~--~; · >~·;;t · .. :i)i::-r_ "2;?~:._:, ·:{1 ~":i~iS7-. :. :-. , 11 111 ~ ,. ; ... ~ .. 8 !Acacia lme/anoxylon, Black acacia ···-·· -·······-... 9 jCsratonia siliqua, ,carob tree I 10 11 lc~~b tree. 14,4,3,3 .!20"151 50 5*2 l ~ i 13,6,6, :j22*30 :1 40 13*4, 2*31 I 15 ]40•22 :1 70 ····'·· 15 (2.5) J1B*22'.I 50 40 IPoor 40 !Poor 50 IFalr/Poor 50 IFalr/Poor 1Severe !Severe :severe !Severe Remove ;lconstruction/Overall .Condition Remove Remove IConstructton/Overall lcondition 3 6 1 7 11 7 12 121 4 6 111 4 6 111 12 looast INe oak t" 120-18] 75 I 60 !Fair )Severe Remove lconstruction n$truction: in the path of lo~ 9'!ldLn!.1~-_ -···· ... 3 I 4 l 5 I 13 ralian stone 11 (2.5) l30*20l BO I 60 ~Fair/Good !Severe 'Pi_ne 14 •Italian stone j15 i18*20~ 85 l 60 fFair ilSevere 'pine ~ -... -~ ---- !Remove !Construction ...... L ..... . :1Remove ]Construction o · on: in the path of IO.P..9J1.f.!~~f.I~. c struction: in the path of lope grading. C dition: old stake wire rtlally embedded in trunk. 3 l 4 ~ 8 4 6 l 11 i I i -'•··--.... :...· .... ,_..,,~ .. ··-·# .. _ -L-.... ·--.......... _. ·•·.--~ ..... .J..~.~---:.. ..• ·-··. J [--· -----------PO Box 3714, Saro.toga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decak@pacbell.net. kttp://www.decah.com . ----] Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. Februar'( 19, 2015. Page 9 of 29 . ',· . ·,. CONDITION . :""· ... ·. .. ~ .. -.. . ' Species ~·· .. Tree & Trunk PreseJVation Expected · Diam. 'Size f Constructio.n # Common .. @3ft. ... .a. Suitability kn pact 0 Name ~ . m U' s: 2 ···.': . .,. ·' .. -... 0) .. · . .. . .. 15 Italian stone 11 16*15 80 40 Poor Severe pine .. 16 k:oast live oak ~ 40·10 80 50 fair Severe 17 K:oast live oak 17 50"30 75 70 Good Severe . -' -·- 18 ~rob tree .~ 20·10 75 20 ' Poor ~eve re 19 Olea 5 35"8 50 40 Poor ·Moderate/Severe• europaea, European olive . . . . . --~-. ·-. 20 Liquidambar 10 14<>·1s 70 75 ' Fair/Good Severe styraciffua, American sweet gum {sweet gum) -~-----------· -·------------------ Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ~J;l ., " 0-. ,.--~ ~ Service since 1984 , ... -:'.··_·. :. ~ ,· \:. .. ~._= ... ···:.' .. ... ' . TREEROO'r W'ROTECTION • ' .,.!' . ·-· .... · .. , ,, ..... .:·· DIST.ANCES ' '.;::' ;~~~~~ '<:·;·:. .. . ...... .. .. Action ,• Note:SI ; :.··. . ..... ... x :c ~ .. ., m m ..... _-,:- ' .. 'a 'a Q. .. ,. •. "": .. .. 0 .... · . ... ' . ~:·: ; . ,., IO •. .. ... ,.. ·~ ' '.o; .. ... ·', i ' .. ' Remove Construction/Structure Construction: in the path of 3 4 8 I slope grading. I Condition: tree fell over and I part of trunk over the road was I cut off. Now vertical branches ( I gro\\' as replacement trunks. I Remove Construction Constn•~inn: in the path of 3 4 s I ~lope grading. Condition: area crowded with ! ' ltrees; tree very grove affected. Root collar covered with duff. l Remove Construction Construction: in the path of 4 7 12 i slope grading. I . Conditicm: root collar partially I I .. .. .. -·--K:overed with ivy and duff. 416 i Remove . Construction/Structure Construction: in the path of 3 slope grading. Debatable: Location uncertain : Constn •Mion: tree not shown 3 4 5 ·relative to grading on plan; may be on : rieighboring property. Not . sure how affected by grading, . Condition: tall spindly tree; . . --·-··-·· . probably a volunteer. Remove : Construction · Construction: within proposed 3 4 7 roadway. Condition: root collars of sweet gums 20-25 covered -------------------. _ _ with ivy. -·- I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95oio: -408-725~1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. -~--:J Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page JO of 29 Tree # ·~ ' Specie$· ... ..... . ·C<t.nritt.n · Nawe ·· ·. 21 lsweet gum "24 )sweet gum 25r- 26 Pinus mugo !mugo, ldwarfmugo pine Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Hortlcult1.1rist /' ~· A ,~ L~ ~ !If,•--,_, j Service since 1984 . ' . ~ .. ~ . J;.iN~ . ;>, ··~ .~; -~.. . .. ·· :. >;i:· < . .· . . ' . <. ; >J . > "· . : . ' > .. " :-::-·. . . REI! R<l()'r . -· lllzi" · PIH•rvaflo• · ....,._ · . · ··•· ' ·• • : ·,· ... .,... ·., • .. .. . .. " "· • • .,. Ji..OIEC1IQll 17 ~ J10 J5,3,3 I :> ·• 145*8 I so 60 !Fair if Severe J~em~ove i Construction move Construction r: .'l I ie lconstruCtion/Overall !Severe . .. =l~ondltion jRemove ~onstruction/OveraH ondition l40*10l 50 40 !Fair/Poor ' .i50*22 'j~-~rf_ J so ··fF~ir ···~!Severe jRemove Jconstructlon 9*22 50 20 1Poor ~Moderate/SewielRemove. lconstruction/Overall ~ondition Con' tru n: probably within I 3 r v~ry close to proposed roadway (tree not shown on 'erosion control olan , which jshOWS other troos to be lrem9ved). _ . " 3 · ~ntotruction : tree not shown I 3 IOOaii site-based plans , but it is wi~in a proposed driveway. · Conditio : all trunks have lie~ over althCIJ_9._~-~~~~~: .. 4 151 4 I 5 4 1 5 4 l 7 4 5 27 jlt~lian stone l31 150*351 as l 50 ·rair-I_. Moderate -jsave -t orli · : proposed . I a I 13 138 lpme i . j i J rad)ng down frl:>m tree begms t about 12 feet from trunk, inchiding retaining wall. Due latge size of tree mt>ve rading farther from trunk to airitain at least 15 feet of undi~turbed soil (except for . '--·-·-'---··--~ --'---·--··-··-·······---'·-• ------~-------·-··----··-----·--·-·····~~~~~~1.~f~i~-~~-J ___ J_~t PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-13!57. decah@pqcbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 11 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ..-1;,._ ... , • r ,, •• ' ·"' Service since 1984 ,• ,_._..,, ...... ' TftEE ROOT ~ONDIOON' . • -;. ··-. ·>:: ... ~:-:.~· '·~ •' ... ·~ 1, I" • •. ,._ !PROTECTION ' . · . ·: ... ~·:-:--.: ... : ·.,.-:.: ·~ '1 • \{' : .:· :~.:. ....• : . -= .... : .. .. .. · .. . ·-.. ~ Dl~tANGES Species . ·.··¥ ;· .. . . Tr.unk . ~ ........ . :. Expect~ . ::·.-··" .. · ·.<<'. -. Tree & Preservation .•. .. # _ Common oram. Size: I!! Suitablllty · · Construction Action Reason ·( ·.· Notes @3ft. ... ::s -Impact · . .. :c :c ~ Name 0 -m m CD u "! ~ c c 0. s: ::s .. :i '. ..·.: ~ )( 0 ~ ., .. IO ti) :· • .. ' . : . . . . .. ~ .• .. -... . . ,. asphalt and curb). i j Condition : PG&E line I clearance pruning to the side I i (northwest). Roots are I causing damage to existing I asphalt pavement and curb . i 28 deodar cedar 15 30"25 75 40 Poor ModeratefSevere ·Remove Structure , Power lines, Construction : within a few feet 4 6 7 i Construction of hammerhead turnaround . I Shown to be saved, but not I worthwhile. There is a step-I down wall proposed right I behind (to the south) of trees I ~28-32. Shown to be saved, I ! but not worthwhile. i ~andition: topped underneath I overhead power lines. It does I ' not make sense to keep a I large and tall-growing tree like . a deodar cedar in this location. I -. ... -... _.,. -····· -----., .. ··-··-·-··· . -·--· -' j 29 deodar cedar , 13 125*25 75 40 : Poor ModeratefSevere Remove Structure, Power lines,• Construction: four feet from 3 5 6 i Construction . comer of hammerhead I turnaround; also a drainage I catch basin at this corner, plus i step-down wall behind. i I ·Shown to be saved, but not I INOrthwhile. · ' ' Condition: same as above. l ! ! -----·----------· -·-· ----' -·-... -· -------··--------·---··-··'----·-------------·----·'------~ _._. __________ --·----·----··--~--~---~-- I I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19 , 2015. Page 12 of 29 .. , .. \. Deborah Ellls, MS /~~ " .. f, Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ~ ·.,. .. /,;I ·' _;;_.,~ .. _,,,lff':!K ' .... 1 Service since 1984 ; ).· ~· '. . ' ., ;: . : . . . ..... ·~ n-. ~ ; • Truril( '. ' ··:,,: > : "' . • ': ~: ,: . ' .... ' ;· ,1$RQ()t . # I. ~ri ; !1iain•• rSlio ~ ; · bjledllc{" · · :. ·.::Y • .,, . .'· :.c., ·." ' "•\ . .. . . . · . RQ'IEC'mN "l!iome .. ~ .... '.' • i 'Soi~· ll~i1 · _....... .,: •., R .:>' :,•,,":" ... ' ... · ' !Jl$'.l'AilCEs ;..:·: ,: '!::->~ )Y ~. ·~ : .. ~!~t\'.:\~,: ~f~,'t/:~~~-:: ;t,;::;w._ :~--~t}!·":;;t!~ :.::c· ,~ : \ .. :. I I I - 30 ldeodar cedar 19 31 fdeodar cedar 115 32 lltalfan stone pine 33 llt~lian stone pine 12 '15 ;!40•1a :1 so :I 40 lPoor .,Severe 14<>*251 85 40 IPoor .Severe i3o"2o] 65 I 60 ~Fair Low/Moderate 125*251 70 50 IFair/Poor· 'Low/Moderate !Remove lconstruction. Con tructlon: within graded !structure, Power lines area. ' on ltion: This tree hasn't beem topped yet. but it will because it is underneath the verhead power lines. It is alsoivery Impeded by the eighbor's large Eucalyptus ltree; 3 :rRemove ]Construction, Construction: within or close tol 4 Structure , Power lines, raded area Including Save j DebatableiStructure rair!iage swale. Condition: topped; same as 28&29. ··~-·~ .... ~~--~-~ Con.truction: 9 feet from bioswale, 35 feet from new house. Condition : canopy is presently beyqnd the end of overhead power lines but may jeve~tually Interfere with lines. !Will provide some Mure sc~nlng. Construction: 6 feet from lbiosi.Yale, 40 feet from new ·!house. 3 4 t 0 4 .rs 6 7 5 9 6 ~ 11 I :i....--., --'\----·~'"" ........ .: Condition : leans toward street. Partial g1i"dhrig toot. Can provide future screening . ------·-~..:.-.-·-·· .... _,.,..,_., .•. , ..... --·--------~~ ~-~-.. ~------=· ... -... ...l. ... ~.,-.,, .. .J I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www:.decah.col'!t. l Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 13 of 29 Tree • Species & Common Narne 34 jsweet gum 35 sweetgum 36 [sweet gum 37 lugustrom fucidum, glossy privet Trunk Diam~ ISize -_ @3ft. ~ONDITIO.N ! .. I :s 0 -Cl «,) > g tn .... . : •. , _·,:··f. • Prese~t ;~~r Expected Suitability -Construction · Impact 18,8 *25, 75 I 60 rair/Good Severe 10 35*16 60 50 ·Fair Severe ~eve re Severe 19 ---i30·14 70 . r so rair Is h2•1ol 50 I 50 !Poor Deborah Ellis, MS /\. /"1' Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Ii ..... --~,,.l~ -~' .• :~ .:..· .t• ACtlon · Reason _, Remove !Construction Remove !Construction 1Remove Construction -~ . Service since 1984 TREEROOf PROTECTION DISTANCES .. Notes ::c ~ ~ !Construction: within proposed I 3 house. jeonstruction: within proposed I 3 house. ffi I~ c Q. ~ 0 5 9 ! 1 4 i 7 1 Construction: 5 feet from I 3 I 4 I 6 I Pi:<:>flo_sed _ hou_s~. l Remove IConstruction/Overan onstrucf n: within or very 3 4 5 Condition close to proposed roadway. _ Condition : appearance is more like an overgrown shrub . ·-~-~--~'· ~----·•----~· -~---~. --~~---~-~~ ·------~ .. I 38 j91ossy privet ]3,4,5 j15*16j 60 TScJlFair/Poor 1 5evere---iRemove:fconstruction -----jsame as above. ---T31 4 I 5 l ............. -·-----·---.... -··· ·-............. _____ . __ , __ ,., __ ·-·-.. ·--·----..---.---------·--·-------------~--------------... ·---·-.. -·---~--.-. EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS: 1) Tree Number (the field tag number of the existing tree). Each existing tree in the field is tagged with a 1.25 inch round alum inum number tag that corresponds to its tree number ·referenced in the arborist report, Tree Map, Tree Protection Specifications and any other project plans where existing trees must be shown and referenced. 2) Tree Name and Type: Species: The Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Quercus agrifolia where Quercus is the Genus and agrifo/ia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but t hose used in this report are from the most current edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book {2012) Sunset Publishing Corporation . The scientif ic name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree Table, along w ith the regional common name. After that only the common name is used. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725 ~1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah .com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive . February 19 , 2015 . Page 14 of 29 Deborah Elliss MS -ConsuHtng ArJ>orlst & Horticulturist Service ~utu I Q~.1 3) Trunk diameter (~t 3 feet above the ground). This Is the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos, in lieu of DBH3• For multi-trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks. A number: in parentheses (e.g. 2) after the trunk diameter(s) indicates that it was not possible to measure the trunk at 3 feet (due to tree architecture) and so the diameter w<1s measured at this alternate height (in feet), which reflects a more realistic trunk diameter for the tree. Examples: an "'18" in the Diameter column means that the tree has a diameter of 18 inches at 3 feet above the ground. An "18 {2)"' means that trunk diameter was 18 inches measured at 2 feet above the ground. "'18, 7, s• means that this is a multl~trunk tree with trunk diameters of 18, 7 and 5 Inches at 3 feet above the ground. · 4) Size: tree size is listed as height x width In feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes. 5) Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which is rare - like a supermodel in human terms). A 60 Is "'average" (not great but not terrible either). There are two componenp to tree c·:>ndition -vigor and sttucture, and each component Is rated separately. Averaging the two components Is not ·useful because a very low rating for either one could be a valid reason to remove a tree from a site --even if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking fqr each separate component: 100 ls equivalent to Excellent (an ~A' academic grade), 80 Is Good (B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 is Poor {D), 20 is Unucceptab/e (F) and O is Dead. 6) The Condition of the tree .is considered relative to the tree species and present or future intended use of the site.to provide an opinion on the tree's Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. "Is this tree worth keeping on this site, tn this location, as explained ln Table 3 ~elow and on the next page. This Is based upon the scenario that the tree ls given enough above and below-ground space to survive and live a long li~ on the site. Ratings such as •Fair/Good" and HFair/Poor" are intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the same as the Condition Rating because (for example) some trees with poor condition or structure can be significantly Improved with just a small amount of work -and it would be worthwhile to keep the tree if this were done. Excellent Table 3 Preservation S.ultabllltv Ratlna Explanation Such trees are rare but they ha"Ve unusually good health and structure and provic'e J multiple functio. na. I and aesthetic benefits to. the environment ~nd the ~sers of the site. These are greattrees with a minimum rating of "Good" for both vigor ~nd structur·9. Equivalent tb academic grade ·A'. · J DBH is tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height", measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is" the forestry and arborlcultural standard measurement helaht that iS also used in manv tree-related calculations. PO Box 3714, Saro.toga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357, decah@pacbell.net. http://www.deco.h.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 15 of 29 ...... A -< \. Deborah Ellis, MS f \~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-? I - Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ...;~ IL: ~ y, e 3 Preservation Suitabllltv Rating Exolanatfon (continued from the previous oaoe Good Fair Poor None 7) Action (Disposition): These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition flaws that can be improved with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relatively good condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site. These are better than average trees equivalent to academic Qrade 'B'. These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or may not be possible to improve with treatment. These are "average• trees -not great but not so terrible that they absolutely should be removed. The majority of trees on most sites tend to fall into this category. These trees will require more intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than trees in the "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. Equivalent to academic grade ·c·. These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The tree species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas. I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitabiRty for preservation in areas where oeoole or orooertv will be present. Eauivalent to academic arade 'D'. These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to risk or other issues. In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas, dead trees are beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants including decomposers. Eauivalent to academic arade 'F'. a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures. -.. _,,,._,7" '-~ ,,. Service since 1984 b) Remove: this recommendation is based upon tree condition, preservation su itability, expected impact of construction, poor species for the site or any combination of these factors. c} Debatable: there is a problem with potentially retaining this tree. Find out why in the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table. Examples are : • The tree is shown to be saved !and_ may be a desirable tree to sayel but Proposed construction is too close or is uncertain and may cause too much damage to retain the tree. Design changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that It can be saved. • Further evaluation of the tree is necessary (e .g. the tree requires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess tree stability from the roots, or tissue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis. [ PO Box 371~~~5070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. · http://www.decah.com. I Arborist ~eport for 105 Newell Drive . February 19 , 2015 . Page 16 of 29 ~~ Deborah Ellls, MS ~-·1]) Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ;;" ~l t.._ ·~ ~ ..-l-~''i ·_c, ' .. :f Service "1ue 1984 • Condition: the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove t he tree as It stands now. Jn some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the information proitided in thii report as well as the owner's own preferences. • Species : the tree may be a poonpecies.for the area or the Intended use of the developed site. • Uncertain construction impact • Other (as explained for the Individual tree) 8) Reason {for tree removal or to explain why a tree is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple reasons may be provided .. with the most significant reason listed first. Reasons can include but are not limited to: • Construction (excessive construction Impact is unavoidable and it is not worthwhi le to try and save the tree) • Condition (e .g. poor tree condition -either vigor, structure or both) • Landscaping (the tree is being removed because it does not fit In with or conflicts with proposed new landsca~i ng) • OWner's Decision (for some reason the owner has decided to remove this tree) • Species (the tree Is a poor species for the use of the site) • Risk (the tree presents moderate to excessive risk to people or property that cannot be sufficien~ly mitigated) 9) Notes: This may include any other informat ion that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within t he scope of work for this report, such as a more detailed explanation of tr~e condition or expected construction impact. 10) Tree Protection Distances (See page 19). a} RootProtection : i) 3 and SxDBH : Both the 3 and SxDBH distances are listed for each tree. For multi-trunk trees 100% of the :OBH of the largest trunk is added to 50% of the DBH for all other trunks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tree Pr dtection Distance calculation s. For practical purposes, the minimum 3xDBH distance is 3 feet and the minimum SxDBH distance is 4 feet. If di sturbance cannot be kept at least 3 feet from the trunk of a tree, the tree should normally be removed. ii) OTPZ (Optimum Tree Prote"ion zone): This is calculated as per the text, Trees & Development. Matheny :et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. This method takes into account tree-age and the particular tree species tolerance of root disturbance. Because it may not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for trees on many projects due to crowded site conditions, the Arborist may omit this requirement and list only the 3 and S>tDBH distances . b) Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection. c) I have increased a few of the calculated tree protection distances for individual t r ees based upon my professional judgment relative to site constraints. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 17 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS I\ Consulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist )~ Service since 1984 SUPPORTING INFORMATION PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT This survey and report was required by the Town of Los Gatos as a part ot the building permit process for this project. The purpose of the report is to identify and describe the existing protected trees on site --their size. condition and suitability for preservation. The audience for this report is the property o-..yner, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authorities concerned with tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is to preserve the existing protected trees on site that are in acceptable condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site. METHODOLOGY I performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees on February 9, 2015. Tree characteristics such as form. weight distribution, foliage color and density, wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation procedures were taken from: • Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). • Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA), 1992. The above references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations. I measured the trunk diameter of each tree with a diameter tape at 3 feet above the ground, which is the required trunk diameter measurement height of the Town of Los Gatos. Trunk diameter was extrapolated to DBH (diameter at breast height. 4.5 feet above the ground) because DBH is also used calculate tree protection distances and other tree-related factors. The DBH figure is not included in the Tree Tables, but I have used it to estimate construction impacts to trees. Trunk diameter was rounded to the nearest inch. I estimated the tree's height and canopy spread . Tree Condition (structure and vigor) was evaluated and I also recorded additional notes for trees when significant. ·Tree species and condition considered in combination with the current or (if applicable) proposed use of the site yields the Tree Preservation Suitability rating. The more significant trees (or groups of trees) were photographed with a digital camera. Some of these photos are included in this report, but all photos are available from me by email if requested. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com . Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19 . 2015. Page 18 of 29 OBSERVATIONS SITE CONDITIONS A Deborah Ellls, MS Ji·1.n /.· '""Jt t l.•· Consulting Amorist & Horticul"'ri",!.. •. , ·~ ,,..,: Service since 1984 The existing site includes the old Elks Lodge building, asphalt roadway and parking lot and landscqping. Site topography is mainly level nearthe building, but slopes steeply down to Newell Avenue to the north and Winchester Bo01evard to the east. The northern slope seems very unstable, which may be part of the reason that there will .be significant grading here, requiring the removal of all trees In this area. There is an irrigation system for most of the landscaping, although it may have been turned off for a while. Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to partly shaded, depending upon proximity to the existing building and to other trees. Most of the trees on the site are not native to the immediate area and were planted or are volunteers (they were not planted). The several coast live oaks on the northern slope are native to the immediate area and are probably of natural growth (they were not planted), but unfortunately these trees will be removed due to grading. TREE PROTECTION DISTANCES 3 TO 5 X DBH No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such as an excavation must be from the edge of the trunk of ·an individual tru to affect tree stability or heahh at a low , moderate or severe degree --there are simply too many variable involved that we: cannot see or anticipate. 3xDBH however, is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any excavation should be fr9m the edge of the trunk on one side of the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 200~. Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories. DBHis trunk "d iameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used ~uring the desig;n and planr1ing phases of a construction project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid toper. which is the area in wh ich the large buttress roots(main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diam~ter with i.'lcreasing d istance from the trunk. For example , using the 3X DBH guideline an excavation should be no closer than 4 .5 feet from the trunk of en 18-inch DBH tree. Such distances are guidelines only , and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies , sign ificant leans, decay , structural.problems, etc. It is also important to understand that in actual field conditions we ·otten find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by· the guidelines. 3xDBH may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 5X DBH or greater is the "preferred" minimum distance which should be strived for. and this distance or greater should probably be used when there are multiple trenches on more than one side of the trunk. The roots beyond the zone of rapid taper form an extensive network of long . rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Maintaining a 5xDBH tree protection zone ar greater around a tree will preserve more of these transport roots, which will have less of an impact on tree health than if the excavation were closer to the trunk. I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.ne.t . http://wwwfdecah.com. I Arborist Repo r t for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 19 of 29 OTPZ (OPTIMUM TREE PROTECTION ZONE) A I .,.; Deborah Ellis, MS ): ~n Consulting Amorist & Horticulturist,.~ ,,., Service since 1984 OTPZ is the distance in feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree, that construction or other disturbance should not encroach within. If this zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good. This method takes into account tree age, DBH and the particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum distance for construction (for example , root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural industry. The most current 90ideline comes from the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al ., Inter national Society of Arboriculture , 1998. The tree protection zone calculation method in this text was used to obtain the OTPZ's provided in this report. Due to the crowded, constrained nature of many building sites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for many of the trees --therefore I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 5X DBH (see paragraph above). LOS GATOS GENERAL TREE PROTECTION DIRECTIONS Note that the following is excerpted from Division 2 (Tree Protection) of the Los Gatos Town Code and does not constitute the complete Division 2 text. The owner/applicant is responsible for.implementing all pertinent requirements of the Code relative to tree protection. August 7, 2014 Sec. 29.10.1000 New Property Development r 1 I The final approved Tree Preservation Report shall be included in the building permit set of development plans and printed on a sheets titled : Tree Preservation lnstructjon (Sheet T-J ,J-2. etc.}. These Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil, demolition, utility, landscape, irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur. (3.b.l The site or landscape plans shall indicate wbich trees are to be removed. However. the plans do not constitute approval to remove a tree until a sepgrate permit is granted. The property owner or applicant shall obtain a protected tree removal permit. as outlined in section 29 .10 .0980 for each tree to be removed to satisfy the purpose of this definition. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 . Page 20 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & H,-,fiicul\1.irii»t SerW:e tin.a 1984 (3.e.) Protective fencing inspection: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit. the applicant or contractor shall submit to the building department a written statement vertfying that the required tree protection fenoe is installed around street trees and protected trees in accordance with the Tree Preservation Report. · (3.g.! An applicant with a proposed development which requires underground utilities shall avoid the iinstallaticn of said utilities within the dripline of existing trees whenever possible. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boring, air-spade excavation or by hand, taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Wdrk within the dripline of existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or consulting arborist. Section 29.10.1005 Protection of Trees during Construction a) Protective tree fencing .shall soecitv the folowjng: 1) Size and matertals: A five (5} or six {6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shaD be driven into the ground to a depth of at-least two (2) feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. 2) Area type to be fenced. IJ'.ruL[: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ}, when specified by a certified or consulting arborisf-4. ~: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain llnk fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small plante~r. cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3) Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place until final landscaping is required. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4} Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating: 'Warning-Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29 .10 .1025". A template sign has been provided to be used on the project site. 4 If it is not possible to place Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the dripline due to t.he construction, then place the fencing as far from the trunk as possible, including as much of the drlpline as possible, while still allowing for enough room to build improvements. If this happens to be within all or some of the dripllne, then so be it. But the contractor must trv to fence off as much area under the canopy as posslble, do n()t be irresponsible about this.- PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 . Page 2r of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS ~~ /' ] ConsuHlng Aroonst & Horticultu,lst J I~ ~c -,,~--•• F· ...,r._ ,........_ ~!J Service si1ue 1984 b} All persons. shall comply with the following precautions: 1} Prior to the commencement of construction, instal the fence at the dripline. or tree protection zone (TPZ} when specified in an approved arborist report. around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction . 2} Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the drlpllne of the tree unless approved by the director. 3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasolne, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripllne of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree 4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5) Design utllHy services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. 6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees t o be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved . 7) The director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a p rotected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. Section 29.10.1010 Pruning and Maintenance All pruning of protected trees shall be consistent with the current edition of Best Management Practices -Tree Pruning. established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For developments, which require a tree preservation report. a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected trees including cabling, and fertiRzing if specified . 1) Any public utility installlng or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pies or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree (e.g. cable TV /fiber optic trenching, gas, water, sewer trench. etc.} 2) Pruning for clearance of utHtty lines and energized conducton shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 {Part 1) -Pruning. Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning is prohibited. [ PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 . Page 22 of 29 TREE PHOTOS 7 ·•r· ~ ··.~~:~1c~i:WI{~f ~!:~~;:-<:-.~~:~~~·-f :,~~·-i·_:. _,;::~:·;~ :.; ~:.-./··_~'.·-:·.~:::.·'.::,.:~~~ .. These photos show trees on and at the top and bottom of the slope on Newell Avenue. Trees #3 Co 6, 16 ;11nd 17 are coast live oaks. #7 at the top of the slope is a silk tree, mostly dead. Tree #10 is an Aleppo pine., #11 aa~ 18 ore. carob tre.es, #13 . and 14 are Italian stone. pines and #19 is a volunteer olive. Deborah Ellis, MS ~J;l ~~~~~~~~-"" ~ Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist L? _ ·Ji 7 ~~~ ~-! Strvia since 1984 . .r~ , ·' ;~,•" ·~,".'·li~,,h..:;r"~~ ..... ..,.:..!!:''·'"' ....... ,;. .. ·•". ,, .. [ ..... -<' a • • • .•.~ .,,,. _,, .. -.., ··"~ •. '11• '· .:• :~E:~~i€.!:~::~;iF~:; -L, .. :; ~., :~~~-:~7~>~:~t~'..f:.i:::/)€~~_;J'.F~~iy~:~-\~f.iS~\T~T.: :· -.;., PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. ,decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 23 of 29 ~ II . MS / '~D Deborah E is, /-~\ii~ s~1:rlfr11 si11ce J 9ti../ 27 "·~ ~,r _,. -'~·{./~· ... •:· :·: ~· ~ ~ ., .. '· Upper left photo: sweet gam trees #20-26 on the northwest side of the Elks Club building. Upper right: large stone pine #27 at far right (the southwest corner of the site) with deodar cedars #28-30 along the south perimeter. Not visible in this photo are the overhead power lines that have caused these tall-growing trees to be topped repeatedly. The trees look better in the photo than they do on site. Don't be fooled -remove them; They are not worth saving. Lower photos: Italian stone pine #27 from the east (left photo) and the northeast (right photo). I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . I Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 . Page 24 of 29 \· .~.~· 34 ' '.• Left photo: s~one pines #32 aa.c!l 33. Neither are great trees, but #32 is the better one to keep, at least for the near future. Center: •weef: ga.izns #34 .. 36 on the south side of the Elks club building. Right : g!ossy privets #37 21Ecl 38. /~t oeb0rah Ems, Ms ../ ~Il Consulting Anborlst & Horticulturist ~· ... .i, ~ ,,1.-' . . .{!.- I :r'-.Jt:; :-... -.... ~:....-,, .. -.•. ~~ h~ Servic1 sin.a 1984 ·-o.:l~' ~,-,-r:..-~-r-~~rin~~I ----· -.-~~~--·-·'·"··~-· •.-.. .: .;~~~-~i'.:\~''.~~~,\:t:~-- PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.~t. http://www_.decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 25 of 29 Deborah Ellis, MS ·~ .-J ~.:~. L . Service si11ce 1984 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS l) Tree locations were provided by <an unknown party, since tree trunk locations are not included on the and are shown on the Tentative Map of Existing Conditions, Sheet TM-1, but tree trunks do appear on the Existing Site Map S-1. 1 > Tree Map on page T of this report. The Tree Map is a reduced partial copy of the Erosion Control plan that I was given, since that plan contained the majority of trees shown on any of the plans. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field. 2) The CondiHon Ratings for deciduous trees that are out of leaf (because they l:u;we shed their leaves for winter dormancy) are estimated. More accurate condition ratings for these trees can be obtained after they have fully leafed out (usually mid-May through September). Deciduous trees on this site that were completely leafless or in the process of shedding their leaves are: sweet gums and the one silk tree. 3) Some of the trees described In this report were not Included on the Erosion Control Plan (trees #6 aacl 24) and so we tentatively plotted the approximate locations of these trees on the Tree Map. 4) A Basic Evaluation of the subject trees described in this report was performed on February 9, 2015 for the purpose of this report. A basic evaluation is a visual evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing into the tree or performing detailed tests such as extensive digging, boring or removing samples. This is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that additional, more detailed examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary. l) Trees on neighboring properties were not evaluated. ,They were only viewed cursorily from the project site. I did not enter the neighboring property to inspect these trees up close. 2) Several trees had their root collan and or lower trunks covered with soil, vegetation or debris and were obstructed from view when I conducted my tree evaluation. The obstructions should be removed and I should re-examine these previously covered areas. 3) Any information and descriptions provided to me for the purpose of my Investigation in this case and the preparation of this report are assumed to be correct . Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. I assume no responsibility for legal matters in character nor do I render any opinion as to the quality of any title. 4) The information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. 5) Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 6) Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not imply right of publlcation for use for any purpose by any person other than to whom this report is addressed without my written consent beforehand. 7) This report and the values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value or upon any finding or recommendation reported. 8) This report has been prepared in conformity with generany acceptable appraisal/diagnostic/reporting methods and procedures and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborists. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 26 of 29 A Deb~rah Ellls, MS j '}h Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturl~t -~{ _ 11'~ ../.---.. ~···~ !'i s~rrr~ ~incl 1984 9) My evaluatlon of the trees that are the subject of this report Is llmlted to vlsual examination of accesslble Items without dis$eeflon, excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. 10) I take no responslbllHyfor any defects In any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has ~een climbed and examined from above the ground, and as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree. Likewise, root cOlla·r e:>tC.QVdl!Oris and evoluQttons have not been performed unless otherwise stated. . 11 ) The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of ttie trees mentioned herein, should some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever re.ason. B13cause a significant portion of a tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die. Because there may be hidden defects within the rooi system. trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current state. of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some leve!I of risk associated with trees, particular1y large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable. I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if11 can be of further assistance. Sincerely, ~UL Deborah Ellis, MS . Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 LS.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-4578 l.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Enclosures: • Town ·of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions (to be included in the final project plan set) • · Los Gatos Tree Protection Sign template (to be placed on tree protection fencing) I --PoBo;m4.-s~ratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://wwwtdecah.com. -HI Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive .. February 19, 2015. Page 27 of 29 /\ Deborah Ellis, MS j:~h Consultlng Arborl$t & Horticulturist ~ 1·~ ..... .A's.:-·~·.,.-·~·~ ' ~~ S ervice since 1984 GLOSSARY 1. Arborist. Proiect. The arborist who is appointed to be In charge of arborlst services for the project. That arborist shall also be a qualified consulting arborist (either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA} Registered Consulting Arborist} that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required. For most construction projects that work will include inspection and documentation of tree protection fencing and other tree protection procedures , and being available to assist with tree-related issues that come up during the project. 2. Arborist. Qualified Consulting: must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required. 3. Branch dieback: the abnormal and premature death of branches, usually in the upper or more terminal portions of a tree or woody plant. Generally the smaller diameter branches die first, and the dieback may extend downward and/or to larger branches. Branch dieback is generally a symptom of stress some underlying problem with the plant, such as root disease or an unfavorable environment. The plant is "downsizing" to deal with this problem. 4. Ch!orosis/ch!orotic: chlorosis is a plant symptom exhibited abnormally yellow colored foliage. Such foliage is described as chlorotic. This symptom can have many causes such as lack nutrients, diseases or high soil salinity. 5. Drlpline: the area under the total branch spread of the tree , all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline Is often used as an arbitrary "tree protection zone". 6. Girdling roots are roots that grow circularly around the trunk (rather than away from the trunk) and compress the trunk or other roots, constricting the growth of these parts. Circling roots grow similarly, but they do not (or have not yet) restricted growth. Girdling roots can inhibit the flow of water and nutrients by "choking" vascular elements in the trunk or other roots, and they can also cause whole· tree failures at the root collar. 7. ~: is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements, having "knit" canopies. If of the same species, there is usually root grafting between trees, which lends support from the ground, as well as water and mineral sharing. Removal of one or some grove members could cause remaining members to be unstable due to a reduction of previous shelter. Grove trees often have asymmetrical canopies when viewed as individuals. 8. Qualified Tree Service: A tree service is a company that performs tree pruning and tree removals as their main business. A Qualified Tree Service is a tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture} Certified Arborist and acts in a supervisory position on the job site during execution of the tree work. The tree service shall have a State of California .Contractor's license for Tree Service (C61-D49) and provide proof of Workman's Compensation and General Liability Insurance. The person(s) performing the tree work must adhere to the most current of the following arboricultural industry tree care standards: • Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. 2008. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217-355-9411 I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 28 of 29 • ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. 2ooa. Edition. Ibid .. (Covers tree care methodology). Deborah Ellis, MS ~~ ., Consulting Arborist & Homcutturist f.,li.'. • ·; '~ / -,.;.~ .... ·.,, 1 f Servict .rina 1984 • ANSI Z133. 1 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations . 2006 Edition. Ibid . (Covers safety}. 9. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination: The root co//arOunction between trunk and roots) is critical to whole-tree health and stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools, water or pressurized air). The area is then examined to assess its health and structural stability. !Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. Decay assessment of the larne roots close to the trunk Cbuttrtss roots) involves additional testing such as drilling to extract Interior wood with a regular drill, or the use of a resistance- recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavitie,. It. is important to note that root decay often begins on the underside of roots , which is not detectable in a root collar excavation unless the entire circumference of the root is excavated and visible. Dnll tests may detect such hidden decay. Note that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire portion of the root system that is responsible for whole-tree stability. Decayed roots that are inaccessible (e.g. underneath the trun~:) can be degraded to the extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations app~ar to be sound. 10. Stump sprout trees are the result of a tree trunk being cut down to a short stump close to the ground. If t~e tree survives, it sends out many small shoots (suckers) from around the cut stump. Some of these suckers may survive and grow to become significant trunks. These trunks are spaced very close together and usually have Included bark between them, which reduces the strength of th~lr union. Such trunks are prone to failure. Stump sprout trees can be very structurally unsound, particularly as they become large and old . THere is often a great deal of decay associated with the mother stump, which can also reduce mechanical stability. 11 . Topping is the practice of indiscriminately cutting back large diameter branches of a mature tree to some predetermined lower height; to reduce the overall height of the tree. Cuts are made to buds, stubs or lateral branches not large enough to assum& the terminal role . Reputable arborists no longer recommend topping because it is a particularly destructive pruning practice. It is stressful to mature trees and may result in reduced vigor, decline and even death of trees. In addition, branches that regrow from topping cuts are weak ly attached to the tree and are in danger of splitting out. Large topping cuts may have significant decay associated with them, which weakens the branch as welt as the attachment of any secondary branches attached nearby. Topping may be useful however, for immediately reducing the risk of a high risk tree that will soon be removed . · I PO Box 3714, Saratoga. CA 95070. 408-725-13-57.-d~~b-;!l.~et. http://www.decah.com. I Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 29 of 29 LOS GATOS GENERAL TREE PROTECTION DIRECTIONS Note that the following Is excerpted from DMslon 2 {Tree Protection} of the Los Gatos Town Code and does not consHtute the complete Division 2 text. The owner/applicant Is responsible for implementing all pertinent requirements of the Code relative to tree protection. August 7, 2014 Sec. 29.10.1000 New Property Development l 1 l The final qpproved Tree Preservation Report shall be induded in the building permit set of deve!oomenf...plc;ms Gnd-prin!ed-on-0-sheets-titled.; Tr€e-P-reseP1et~oA IRstNc;;iion-iSfieet T-1, T-2. ~ These Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civn, demolition, utility, landscape, irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur. (3.b.) The site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be removed. However. the plans do not constitute approval to remove a tree until a separate permit is granted. The property owner or appUcant shall obtain a protected tree removal permit, as outlined in section 29 .10.0980 for each tree to be removed to satisfy the purpose of this definition. {3.e.) Protective fencing inspection: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building . permit, the applicant or contractor shall submit to the building department a written statement verifying that the required tree protection fence is installed around street trees and protected trees In accordance with the Tree Preservation Report. 13.q.l An applicant with a oroposed development which reauires underground utilities shall qvojd the-installation of said utilities wjthin the dripline of exjstjng trees whenever possjble. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boringr air- spade excavation or by hand, taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the· dripline of existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or consulting arborist. Section 29 .10.1005 Protection ofTrees During Construction a) Protective tree fencing shall soecify the followlnq: - 1) Size and materials: A five (5) or six (6) foot high chain Dnk fencing, mounted on two-Inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated ln a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. 2) Area type to be fenced. ~: Enclosure with chair:i link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist1• ~: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only {such as downtown}: orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards i If it is not possible to place Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the dripline due to the construction, then place the fencing as far from the trunk as possi ble, including as much of the dripline as possible, while still allowing for enough room to build i mprovements. If this happens to be within all or some of the dripline, then so be it. But the contractor must try to fence off as much area under the canopy as possible, do not be irresponsible about this. Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions. Page 1of2 bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3) Duration of Type I, 11, Ill fencing . Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place until final landscaping is required . Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4) Waming sign . Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x l l-inch sign stating: 'Warning-Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025". A template sign has been provided to be used on the project site . b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions: l) Prior to the commencement of construction , Install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2) Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the drlpline of the tree unless approved by the director. 3) Prohibit disposal or deposHlng of oll, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drlpllne of or In drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree 4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. 6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborlst for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved, The certified or consulting arborist shall be present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved. 7) The director and project arborlst shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. Section 29.10.1010 Pruning and Maintenance All pruning of protected trees shall be consistent with the current edition of Best Management Practices-Tree Pruning, established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For developments, which require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected trees including cabling, and fertilizing if specified. l ) Any public utility Installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pies or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree (e.g. cable TV /fiber optic trenching, gas, water, sewer trench, etc.) 2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part l) -Pruning, Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning is prohibited. Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions. Page 2 of 2 WARNING TREE PROTECTION ZONE This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Los Gatos Town Code 29.1091025 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REGARDING DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Application PD-14-002 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND 16-002 July 2016 Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates 100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95113 Kimley»> Horn EXHIBIT 1 2 Response to Comments -105 Newell Avenue Written Comments and Responses Index to Response to Comments All letters received during the public review period for the Notice of Intent to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are listed in the table, Index of Comments Received, below. Each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety with the Issues of concern numbered In the left margin. Correspondingly numbered responses to the comments follow each letter. Index of Comments Received 1.ett~r .c,,~,-,,, ~~~~!'!~~ A Santa Oara Valley Transportation Authority B Santa Oara Valley Water District c Camargo and Associates July 2016 Subject: RE: 105 Newell Avenue From: Molseecl, Roy[mailto:Roy.Molseed@VTA.ORG] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:11 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subjec.t: 105 Newell Avenue A.-1 [vrA has no comments on the above Initial Study. l hanks. RoyMolseed VTA (408) 321-5784 1 Letter A -Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority A-1 The Town acknowledges and appreciates this comment. However, the comments are not at variance with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and no further response is required. This letter will be included in the administrative record as part of the response to comments and will be provided to the Town of Los Gatos decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. 105 Newell Avenue 1 July 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter B -5anta Clara Valley Water District B-1 The Town acknowledges and appreciates this comment. However, the comments are not at variance with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and no further response is required. This letter will be included in the administrative record as part of the response to comments and will be provided to the Town of Los Gatos decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. 105 Newell Avenue 1 July 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter B -San Clara Valley Water District Subjed: RE: 105 Newell Avenue -NOi I Mitigated Neg Dec From: Barton Ching [mailto:BChing@vallevwater.ora] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 4:44 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 105 Newell Avenue -NOi I Mitigated Neg Dec Ms. Jennifer Armer, I apologize if this is past due. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has received and reviewed the subject Initial Study B-1 and Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have no comments. Thank you, Barton BARTON CHING, P.E. LEED AP ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEER II Community Projects Review Unit Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division 5750 Almaden Expy, San Jose, CA 95118 (408) 630-3079 bchi ng@val leywater .org l Letter C -Camargo and Associates C-1 June 28th, 2016 Community Development Department Attn. Jennifer Armer Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 CAMARGO & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS RE : 105 Newell Avenue, APN# 409-24-026, Current Zoning is R-1: 12 Application PD-14-002, ~TI ND-16-002 Dear Jennifer: Just a brief comment on the current draft MND report above. Home on Lot 3 is a two story home not a single story home. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Maurice Camargo, AIA Principal 3953 Yolo Drive San Jose, California 95136 · Office ( 408) 266-3442 · Facsimile ( 408) 266-7560 Letter C -Camargo and Associates C-1 The project description in the Initial Study has been changed to reflect that Lot 3 would have a two-story home. This change reflects a clarification of the project description and does not affect any of the conclusions in the analysis within the Initial Study or Environmental Checklist. 105 Newell Avenue 1 July 2016 Responses to Public Comments Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Application PD-14-002 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration May 31, 2016 Prepared for Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates 100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95113 Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Table of Contents | Page i May 2016 Table of Contents Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 Initial Study 7 Environmental Setting 9 Environmental Checklist 9 Evaluation of Environmental Checklist Responses 18 Aesthetics 18 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 20 Air Quality 21 Biological Resources 27 Cultural Resources 29 Geology and Soils 31 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 33 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 36 Hydrology and Water Quality 38 Land Use and Planning 43 Mineral Resources 45 Noise 45 Population and Housing 51 Public Services 52 Recreation 54 Transportation/Traffic 55 Utilities and Service Systems 59 Mandatory Findings of Significance 63 Attachments A Noise Study List of Figures Figure 1: Regional Map Figure 2: Vicinity Map Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Table of Contents | Page ii May 2016 Figure 3: Site Plan Figure 4: Elevations of Proposed Houses Figure 5A and 5B: Grading and Drainage Plan Figure 6: Landscape Plan Note: All figures are following the Initial Study Section. List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data 47 Table 2: Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels 47 Table 3: Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels With Various Noise Barrier Heights 48 Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 1 May 2016 Mitigated Negative Declaration Lead Agency Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Contact Jennifer Armer, AICP, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 399-5706 jarmer@losgatosca.gov Project Applicant Maurice Camargo, AIA, Architect 3953 Yolo Drive San Jose, CA 95136 Property Owner Tango Papa Development Co. Attn: Michael Friesen P.O. Box 1707 Los Altos, CA 94023 Project Location The project site is located at 105 Newell Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos within Santa Clara County. The 1.4-acre site is located west of Winchester Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection. Access to the site will be from the northernmost loop of Newell Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 409-024-026). Name of Project 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Project Description The project site is located in northern Los Gatos and is within Santa Clara County. The 1.4-acre site (Assessor’s Parcel Number 409-024-026) is located west of Winchester Blvd, and south of the northernmost section of Newell Avenue. The project site is currently developed with an Elks Lodge that has been vacant for four years. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 2 May 2016 The project applicant is requesting approval of Planned Development to: (1) demolish and remove the existing assembly use structure, parking area, and corner access driveway; (2) subdivide one lot into four lots; and (3) construct four new single-family homes and a private street accessed from Newell Avenue. After subdivision, the size of the four lots would range from 14,268 square feet to 16,895 square feet. The approval of a Planned Development would changes the existing zoning designation from R-1:12 to R-1:12:PD. No other changes to the existing zoning requirements are proposed. Findings and Reasons The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment . However, the proposed project has been mitigated (see Mitigation Measures below which avoid or mitigate the effects) to a point where the proposed project will not have the potential to significantly degrade the environment; will have no significant impact on long-term environmental goals; will have no significant cumulative effect upon the environment; and will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The following reasons will support these findings: 1. Identified adverse impacts are proposed to be mitigated through implement ation of mitigation measures incorporated herein. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the Los Gatos General Plan and the Los Gatos Municipal Code. 3. Town staff independently reviewed the Initial Study, and this Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the Town of Los Gatos. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures – Air Quality (AQ) Mitigation Measure AQ-1: BAAQMD-Recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. Recycled water should be used wherever feasible. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 3 May 2016 d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. The project contractor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding dust complaints. The project contractor will post a publicly visible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbance coordinator. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources (CUL) Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Discovery of Unknown Cultural Resources In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50 - meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for 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. A final report shall be prepared 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 will 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. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Discovery of Human 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 Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 4 May 2016 American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. Mitigation Measures – Geology and Soils (GEO) Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Geotechnical Investigation For the proposed roadway and each proposed residential unit, the project applicant(s) shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation. The design-level geotechnical report shall address, but not be limited to, site preparation and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos. Recommendations from the design-level geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the final project design and construction documents. Mitigation Measures – Noise (NOI) Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Noise Attenuation Wall Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvements plans, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Director of Community Development, that a noise attenuation wall is shown on the final landscape plans. The noise attenuation wall shall include the specifications:  The noise attenuation wall shall be a minimum of six feet tall. The approximate location of the recommended noise barriers is shown on Figure 3 of the noise analysis report prepared for the project dated May 2, 2016.  The noise attenuation wall shall be constructed of concrete masonry units (CMU), solid concrete panels, or earthen berm. The noise barriers may include the combination of earthen berm and CMU wall or concrete panels. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. Other types of materials should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to use.  Air conditioning shall be included in all residences to allow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for acoustical isolation. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Construction Vibration The construction contractor shall prohibit the use of vibratory rollers within 30 feet of existing residences. Plate compactors and smaller, rubber-tired equipment shall be utilized as feasible. The Town of Los Gatos Building Division shall ensure that this requirement is incorporated into construction documents prior to issuance of grading permits. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 5 May 2016 Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Construction Specifications to Reduce Noise The project applicant and its successors shall ensure that the following practice s are incorporated into the construction specification documents to be implemented by the project contractor:  Provide enclosures and mufflers for stationary equipment, shrouding or shielding for impact tools, and barriers around particularly noisy operations, such as grading or use of concrete saws within 50 feet of an occupied sensitive land use.  Use construction equipment with lower (less than 70 dB) noise emission ratings whenever possible, particularly air compressors and generators.  Do not use equipment on which sound-control devices provided by the manufacturer have been altered to reduce noise control.  Locate stationary equipment, material stockpiles, and vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from sensitive receptors.  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.  Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible (i.e., such that they do not impede efficient operation of equipment or dramatically slow production rates), which may include, but are not limited to, noise barr iers or noise blankets. The placement of such attenuation measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Gatos Building Division prior to issuance of development permit for construction activities. Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation (TRANS) Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Traffic Control Plan The project applicant shall work with the Engineering Division of the Town of Los Gatos’s Parks and Public Works Department to devise a traffic control plan for incorporation into the construction bid documents (specifications) to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow during periods when soil is hauled off the project site. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:  Hauling and delivery activities and designated truck routes shall be strategically selected, timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption to schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordinati on of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption.  Flag persons shall be placed at locations as necessary. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation.  Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 6 May 2016  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.). Mitigation Measure TRANS-2: Driveway Design The applicant shall hire a registered traffic engineer to ensure appropriate driveway design for the new private access drive. A detailed sight distance evaluation for the project roadway shall be prepared for review and approval by the Parks and Public Works Department and the Community Development Director prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 7 May 2016 Initial Study Background & Project Description Project Title 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Lead Agency Name and Address Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Contact Person and Phone Number Jennifer Armer, AICP, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 399-5706 jarmer@losgatosca.gov Project Location The project site is located at 105 Newell Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos within Santa Clara County. The 1.4-acre site is located west of Winchester Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection. Access to the site will from the northernmost loop of Newell Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 409-024-026). See Figure 1: Regional Map and Figure 2: Vicinity Map. Project Applicant Maurice Camargo, AIA, Architect 3953 Yolo Drive San Jose, CA 95136 Property Owner Tango Papa Development Co. Attn: Michael Friesen P.O. Box 1707 Los Altos, CA 94023 Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 8 May 2016 General Plan Designation Low Density Residential, 0 to 5 Dwelling Units/Acre Zoning R-1:12 (Single-Family Residential, 12,000 square feet minimum lot size) Project Description The project applicant is requesting approval of Planned Development to: (1) demolish and remove the existing assembly use structure, parking area, and corner access driveway; (2) subdivide one lot into four lots; and (3) construct four new single-family homes and a private street accessed from Newell Avenue. After subdivision, each of the four residential lots would range from 14,268 square feet to 16,895 square feet. The proposed layout of the site is shown in Figure 3, Site Plan. The approval of a Planned Development would changes the existing zoning designation from R-1:12 to R-1:12:PD. No other changes to the existing zoning requirements are proposed. The four lots created by the project would be accessed through the addition of a private road off of Newell Avenue. This private shared access drive would extend onto the project site (from the middle of the project site’s northern side), traverse the site, and terminate at the southern edge of the site. The proposed private access drive would be 40 feet wide, would include three on-street parking spaces, and would provide emergency vehicle access. Three of the four proposed homes would be two stories and Lot 3 would be single story. The height of the homes would range from 20 – 25 feet. Views of the proposed building elevations are shown in Figure 4, Elevations of the Proposed Homes. Grading for the proposed project would involve approximately 8,700 cubic yards of soil that would be cut from the higher elevations of the project site. Approximately 2,450 cubic yards of that soil would be spread in lower (eastern portion) of the site to create a flatter grade across the whole site. Approximately, 5,900 cubic yards would exported from the project site to a legal drop site where soils is disposed of or used for other development projects. The project includes retaining walls on each of the individual lots to minimize the amount of grading required for each lot. The walls will range in height from less than 1-foot on the east side of the property to approximately 9 feet on the western property boundary. The proposed grading for the site is shown in Figures 5A and 5B, Grading and Drainage Plan. Stormwater from the project site will be collected in stormdrain inlets to be construct ed within the proposed private street and convey to the existing Town stormdrain located within Newell Avenue. Each lot will have pervious areas where surface water will collect and infiltrate into the ground. The proposed landscaping for the project is shown in Figure 6, Landscape Plan. The landscape plan includes planting ornamental trees along the property boundaries, particularly along Winchester Boulevard and Newell Avenue. Other improvements for the project site include Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 9 May 2016 construction of a sidewalk along the project frontage of Newell Avenue to connect to the existing sidewalk on Winchester Boulevard. The project would require the relocation of a street light and irrigation backflow valve. Environmental Setting The 1.4-acre project site has been previously graded and developed and currently houses an elevated single story building that was formerly an Elks lodge and has a parking area for approximately 80 cars. Currently, access to the project site is form Newell Avenue on the north side of the property. Newell Avenue currently has a U-shaped configuration with two access points on Winchester Boulevard, one approximately 130 feet north of the signalized Lark Avenue intersection and the second approximately 150 feet south of the same intersection. Newell Aven ue also provides access to Brocastle Way, Elena Way and Newell Court; approximately 46 single family homes are located in this area. The project site and the contiguous parcels to the south and west of the site are located within the Town of Los Gatos. The six parcels contiguous to the project site’s southern and western boundary are each developed with a single-family residence. The parcels located contiguous to the site’s southern boundary (175, 179, and 183 Newell Ave) and western boundary (115, 119, and 123 Newell Avenue) are between 0.27 and 0.37 acres. The 0.8-acre parking lot north is comprised of three contiguous parcels. The parking lot and the residential areas are designated as Low Density Residential (0-5 unit/acre) in the Los Gatos General Plan and zoned as R-1:12 (12,000 sf minimum lot size). Other public agencies whose approval is required The project would also require approval from the Santa Clara County Fire Department, West Valley Sanitation District, and San José Water Company. Not to scale FIGURE 1: Regional Location Map 105 Newell Avenue: Initial Study Town of Los Gatos Figure 1 Regional Location Map 105 Newell Avenue: Initial Study Town of Los Gatos Project Location Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 85 17 Not to scale Not to scale FIGURE 2: Vicinity Map 105 Newell Avenue: Initial Study Town of Los Gatos Project Boundary 105 Newell Avenue: Initial Study Figure X Vicinity Map Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 Not to scale Source: Kimley-Horn, 2016 Not to scale FIGURE 3: Site Plan 105 Newell Avenue: Initial Study Town of Los Gatos 3953 Yolo Drive San Jose, CA. 95136 (408) 266-3442 www.camargo.com rev. date project drawn sheet MC, KG 03/16/2015 " F o u r S i n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l P l a n n e d D e v e l o p m e n t " TH E E L K ' S H O M E S 10 5 N e w e l l A v e . • L o s G a t o s • C a l i f o r n i a 2013-20 MAIN FLOOR F.F.319.75 LOWER FLOOR F.F.308.75 (4,197 S Q,FT.) MAIN FLOOR F.F.322.3 UPPER FLOOR F.F.332.3 CELLAR F.F.311.3 (3,860 S Q.FT.) 24 ' 2 0 ' 10' S . S.B 1 0 ' S .S.B 2 0 ' R . S . B 25 ' 25 ' 25 ' 31'-6"8' 31'-6" 25 ' 8'8' 31'-6" 25 ' - 6 " 25 ' 20'22'-11" 20' 38 ' - 1 0 " 20' 2 5 ' 11 ' - 1 " 156° Light Post COVERED PORCH F.F 315.0 F i r e T u r n A r o u n d ONE STORY APN 409-24-025 DN PLANTER NEW WOOD FENCE ROOF PEAK 338.3' ROOF PEAK 336.4' ROOF PEAK 342.7'ROOF PEAK 348.9' SSB SSB SSB F S B F S B TW 306.0 315 316.5 319 312.5 306.0 3 1 8 3 1 2 320 322 319 12,142 SF 308.5 TW 300.5 TW 308 FW 303 MAIN FLOOR F.F.309.25 UPPPER FLOOR F.F.319.25 (4,168 SQ FT.) GARAGE F.F 321.3 GARAGE F.F 319.25 GARAGE F.F 314.6 TW 306.5 BW 306 TW 304.5 TW 304.5 TW 314.0 FW 311.5 TW 311.0 FW 308.5 TWO STORY APN 409-24-028 12,005 SF TWO STORY APN 409-24-030 12,008 SF ONE STORY APN 409-24-029 12,002 SF ONE STORY APN 409-24-024 11,992 SF ONE STORY APN 409-24-023 11,915 SF 304.0 3 1 9 TW 317 32 0 DN SGNL BX 2.5 1.5 SGNL BX 2.5 1.5 SGNL BX 2.5 1.5 I C V I C V H2O MTR SL BOX 1.5/2.5 H2O VLV CL 1.4X1.4 DI TOP 4" DP IRRI RSR SLR PNL UTILITY POLE GUY ANCHOR HOSE BIBB UTILITY POLE UTILITY POLE UTILITY RISER DRAIN DRAIN SGNL POLE LIGHT POLE N e w ell A v e n u e 1 2 9 8 3 0 0 3 0 8 308 306 304 3 1 03 1 6 3 1 4 3 1 2 3 2 0 3 1 8 3 2 0 3 2 0 3 1 7 3 1 6 3 1 4 3 1 2 31 0 3 1 6 3 1 0 3 0 8 3 0 6 3 0 4 3 0 2 3 0 0 2 9 8 2 9 6 300 2983 1 4 316 318 308 322 324 326 3 2 8 3 2 0 3 1 8 3 1 6 3 1 4 314314 3 1 2 3 1 0 3 0 8 3 0 6 3 0 4 3 0 2 30 2 3 0 4 3 0 2 3 0 6 3 2 0 318 300 298 3 1 4 3 0 6 3 0 4 3 1 2 BOUNDARY DN ONE STORY APN 409-24-027 13,105 SF F S B F S B ADDR: 183 NEWELL AVE LOS GATOS, CA 95032 ADDR: 179 NEWELL AVE LOS GATOS, CA 95032 ADDR: 175 NEWELL AVE LOS GATOS, CA 95032 ADDR: 171 NEWELL AVE LOS GATOS, CA 95032 ADDR: 123 NEWELL CT LOS GATOS, CA 95032 ADDR: 119 NEWELL CT LOS GATOS, CA 95032 ADDR: 115 NEWELL CT LOS GATOS, CA 95032 SSB SSB SSB Lot 2 Gross Area Lot 1 Gross Area Lot 3 Gross Area LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 MAIN FLOOR F.F.315.6 UPPER FLOOR F.F.326.6 CELLAR F.F.304.6 (4,195 SQ.FT.) COVERED PORCH F.F 322.3 315.0 28 ' - 7 " 25 ' 2 0 ' R . S . B 10'10' 15' 10'10' 2 0 ' R . S . B 2 0 ' R . S . B 15' 30 ' - 2 " Light Post Light Post Light Post Light Post Light Post Existing Lot APN: 409-24-026 Area: 60,062 SQ. FT. Gross Road Area: 7,640 SQ. FT. Lot 1 Gross Area: 16,611 SQ. FT Road Area: 1,620 SQ. FT. Net Area: 14,995 SQ. FT. Open Space: 13,770 SQ. FT. Yard: 129' x 98' (GROSS DIM) 12,559 SQ. FT. (MINUS DRIVEWAY) Lot 2 Gross Area: 16,895 SQ. FT. Road Area: 1,912 SQ. FT. Net Area: 14,983 SQ. FT. Open Space: 13,424 SQ. FT. Yard: 140' x 90' (GROSS DIM) 12,522 SQ. FT. (MINUS DRIVEWAY) Lot 3 Gross Area: 13,910 SQ. FT. Road Area: 2,519 SQ. FT. Net Area: 11,749 SQ. FT. Open Space: 11,096 SQ. FT. Yard: 100' x 105' (GROSS DIM) 10,456 SQ. FT. (MINUS DRIVEWAY) Lot 4 Gross Area: 12,646 SQ. FT. Road Area: 1,589 SQ. FT. Net Area: 11,548 SQ. FT. Open Space: 9,525 SQ. FT. Yard: 91' x 100' (GROSS DIM) 9,055 SQ. FT. (MINUS DRIVEWAY) 306 319 309.0 315 313.5 GARAGE F.F 309 PARCEL DATA YARD / FENCING Lot 4 Gross Area BAY WINDOW 1 2 3 S-1.2SITE PLAN S C A L E 1 /1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " N SI T E P L A N NOTE THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR REFERNCE ONLYFOR EXTEND OF SITE WORK REFER TOSHEETS TM-1, TM-2, C1-1 AND C1-2 Source: Camargo + Associates, 2015 Not to scale FIGURE 4: Elevations of Proposed Houses 105 Newell Avenue: Initial Study Town of Los Gatos 3953 Yolo Drive San Jose, CA. 95136 (408) 266-3442 www.camargo.com rev. date project drawn sheet 0&.* " F o u r S i n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l P l a n n e d D e v e l o p m e n t " TH E E L K ' S H O M E S 10 5 N e w e l l A v e . • L o s G a t os • C a l i f o r n i a T.O.R 338’-0” SI T E SE C T I O N S S-1.3 SECTION 1 6&$/( SITE SECTIONS LOT 3 - T.O.R. 340'-6"LOT 4 - T.O.R. 334'-6" LOT 1 - T.O.R. 342'-6" LOT 4 - T.O.R. 334'-6" LOT 2 - T.O.R. 346'-10" LOT 1 - T.O.R. 342'-6" SECTION 2 SECTION 3 LOT 3 - F.G. 319'-9" LOT 4 - F.G. 309'-0" LOT 2 - F.G. 321'-4" LOT 1 - F.G. 314'-6" LOT 2 - F.G. 321'-4" LOT 1 - F.G. 314'-6" WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE T.O.R. 348'-0' 183 NEWELL AVE T.O.R. 348'-0' 123 NEWELL CT LOT 2 - T.O.R. 346'-10" T.O.R. 342'-0' 119 NEWELL CT T.O.R. 338'-0' 115 NEWELL CT T.O.R. 342'-0' 175 NEWELL AVE T.O.R. 348'-0' 179 NEWELL AVE T.O.R. 348'-0' 123 NEWELL CT WOOD FENCE WOOD FENCE CONCRETE RETAINING WALL WOOD FENCE 24' PRIVATE ROAD T.O.R. 338'-0' 115 NEWELL CT T.O.R. 342'-0' 119 NEWELL CT Source: Camargo + Associates, 2015 Not to scale FIGURE 5A: Grading and Drainage Plan 105 Newell Avenue: Initial Study Town of Los Gatos Source: Camargo + Associates, 2015 Not to scale FIGURE 5B: Grading and Drainage Plan 105 Newell Avenue: Initial Study Town of Los Gatos Source: Camargo + Associates, 2015 Not to scale FIGURE 6: Landscape Plan 105 Newell Avenue: Initial Study Town of Los Gatos 3953 Yolo Drive San Jose, CA. 95136 (408) 266-3442 www.camargo.com rev. date project drawn sheet MC, KG 03/16/2015 " F o u r S i n g l e F a m i l y R e s i d e n t i a l P l a n n e d D e v e l o p m e n t " TH E E L K ' S H O M E S 10 5 N e w e l l A v e . • L o s G a t o s • C a l i f o r n i a 2013-20 DN S. B . 2 5 ' S. B . 2 5 ' 28 ' - 7 " S. B . 2 5 ' 29 ' S . B . 2 5 ' S G N L B X 2 . 5 1 . 5 S G N L B X 2 . 5 1 . 5 S G N L B X 2 . 5 1 . 5 I C V I C V H 2 O M T R S L B O X 1 . 5 / 2 . 5 H 2 O V L V C L 1 . 4 X 1 . 4 D I T O P 4 " D P I R R I R S R S L R P N L U T I L I T Y P O L E G U Y A N C H O R H O S E B I B B U T I L I T Y P O L E U T I L I T Y P O L E U T I L I T Y R I S E R D R A I N D R A I N S G N L P O L E L I G H T P O L E N ew el l A v en u e Winchester Blvd. 2 9 8 3 0 0 3 0 8 308 306 304 3 1 03 1 6 3 1 4 3 1 2 3 2 0 3 1 8 3 2 0 3 2 0 31 7 31 6 31 4 3 1 2 31 0 3 1 6 3 1 0 3 0 8 3 0 6 3 0 4 3 0 2 3 0 0 2 9 8 2 9 6 300 2983 1 4 316 318 308 322 324 326 3 2 8 3 2 0 3 1 8 3 1 6 3 1 4 314314 3 1 2 3 1 0 3 0 8 3 0 6 3 0 4 3 0 2 30 2 3 0 4 3 0 2 3 0 6 3 2 0 3 1 8 300 298 3 1 4 3 0 6 3 0 4 3 1 2 BOUNDARY DN TW 314.0 FW 311.5 TW 311.0 FW 308.5 TW 308 FW 303 TW 300.5 TW 304.5 TW 304.5 TW 306.5 BW 306 MAIN F LOOR F .F.315.6 UPPER L EVEL F.F.326.6 BASEMENT F .F.304.6 (4,244 SQ.FT.) MAIN F LOOR F .F.319.75 BASEMENT F.F.308.75 (4,197 SQ,FT.) MAIN F LOOR F .F.309.25 UPPPER F LOOR F .F.319.25 (4,168 SQ FT.) GARAGE F.F 321.3 GARAGE F.F 309 GARAGE F.F 319.25 GARAGE F.F 314.6 COVERED PORCH F.F 322.3 304.0 TW 317 31 9 3 2 0 31 8 3 1 2 306.0 309.0 304.0 TW 306.0 315 MAIN F LOOR F .F.322.3 UPPER F LOOR F .F.??? BASEMENT F.F.311.3 (3,860 SQ.FT.) 315.5 313.5 312.5 308.5 304.5 322 320 319 315.0 316.5 319 2 0 ' 10 ' 10 ' 10'10' 15' 15' 15' 10'10' 1 0 ' 1 0 ' 2 0 ' 2 0 ' 2 0 ' 15' 15' 15' 32 ' - 5 " E01 E 0 2 E03 T1 T1 T1 T-1 T-2 T-2 T-2T-2 T-2 T-2T-3 T-3 T-3 T-3 T-3 T-3 T-4 T-4 T-4 T-4 T-3 T-3 T-3 T-5 T-5 T-5 T-5 T-5 T-5 T-5 T-5 T-4 = LOW EVERGREEN MEADOW AND ORNAMENTALGRASSES AND GROUNDCOVERS = MIXED PLANTINGS OF LOW SHRUBS,PERENNIALS, AND GROUNDCOVERS AREA TO FILL IN WITH XYLOSMA CONGESTUM TO MATCH EXISTING PRIVACY XYLOSMA HEDGE = EXISTING PRIVACY HEDGE TO BE TRIMMED TO 2' ABOVE FENCE HEIGHT E04 (E)PINE (E) STONE PINE (E) JAPANESE MAPLES E05 2 9 '-6 " 6 8 ' - 4 " 4'-2"162' LS-1.0 S C A L E 1 /1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " LANDSCAPE PLAN LA N D S C A P E PL A N P O U R E D I N P L A C E S T A I N E D C O N C R E T E S I T E R E T A I N I N G W A L L (T Y P .) T Y P I C A L H O R I Z O N T A L W O O D F E N C I N G N Source: Camargo + Associates, 2015 Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 17 May 2016 Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected by the Project The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources X Air Quality Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources X Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation X Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant or a potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. _________________________________ _____________________________ Joel Paulson, AICP, Community Development Director Date Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 18 May 2016 Evaluation of Environmental Checklist Responses Aesthetics ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X (a, c) Scenic views and visual character The project site is developed and has an average site slope of 14.4 percent. Mature street trees filter views of the project site from Newell Avenue. An approximately 10-foot wall and additional trees partially obstruct views of the project site from Winchester Boulevard. This lot also contains one high-voltage electrical transmission tower in the southeast corner of the project site. The electrical transmission tower is also partially obscured by the mature trees adjacent to Winchester Boulevard. The principal views of the project site are from Winchester Boulevard, the adjoining single - family residences, and Newell Avenue. The proposed four new lots would be parallel to Winchester Boulevard, positioned two-by-two on the current lot. From Winchester Boulevard, viewers would observe the four residential buildings, set back 20 feet from the roadway. The four new lots would each be set back 5 feet from the new private roadway. The views of the project site from the adjacent single-family residences south and west of the project site are currently screened by fences that line both residential-facing sides of the project site. Mature trees line both sides as well. Street trees would screen intermediate views of the project site along Newell Avenue and Winchester Boulevard. However, the project site overlooks Newell Avenue and Winchester Boulevard from a higher elevation such that the screening effects of the street trees may be somewhat reduced. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 19 May 2016 Views of the hills to the south and west of the project site would not be obscured by the project site, as the project site is north and east of the adjacent residential properties. Views of these hills from Winchester Boulevard and Newell Avenue are obscured by local topography and the existing grading of the project site. The project would not significantly alter views from public viewpoints, nor would it degrade public views of any ridgelines or other visual resources identified in the General Plan. As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas. The project would be compatible with existing residential uses adjacent to the project site. The visual character of the project site would not substantially change with the subdivision of the existing parcel into four residential parcels, and the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. By applying an architectural aesthetic that complements surrounding structures, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The project’s impact on visual character would be less than significant. (b) Scenic resources The closest State Scenic Highway is Highway 9 in the City of Saratoga, approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the project site (Caltrans, 2016). Given the distance, proposed road development and future home development, including future tree removals, would n ot be discernible. Views from this highway of the site are also blocked by intervening trees, development, and topography. In addition, there are no scenic resources such as historic buildings or rock outcroppings on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources as defined by CEQA, which can include, but are not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State-designated scenic highway. Consequently, the project would have no impact on State scenic highway resources. (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare The project site is currently developed with a single building which currently produces sources of light and glare. When future homes are eventually constructed, they would in troduce new sources of indoor and outdoor lighting. The closest uses that would be most affected by nighttime lighting from project homes would be the residences adjacent to the project’s western and southern boundaries. During Architecture & Site(A&S) review, proposed residential designs would be required to demonstrate project compliance with Town Code Section 29.10.09035, which prohibits the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlighting) onto any area outside of the boundaries of a given property. This requirement would also preclude project lighting spillover onto any area outside of the property boundary, thereby avoiding potential lighting impacts on the residences along adjacent streets. Therefore, potential impacts with regard to project lighting would to be less than significant. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 20 May 2016 Source(s) Caltrans. 2016. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System: Marin County.” Accessed April 11, 2016. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodolo gy provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping an d Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 21 May 2016 (a–e) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (farmland); conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; conflict with existing zoning for forest land; result in the loss of forest land, involve other changes resulting in a conversion of farmland or forest land The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. It is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land,” which is land with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres (FMMP, 2014). In addition, the project site not subject to a Williamson Act contract, according to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring service (DOC, 2016). In the Santa Clara County General Plan, the site is designated as Low Density Residential, and it is zoned for Single-Family Residential use in the Town of Los Gatos Zoning Map (Town of Los Gatos, 2016). Since the site is not in agricultural use, the project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The proposed project also would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land uses or result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As such, the project would not result in the conversion of mapped farmland, conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract, or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. As a result, the project would have no effect on agricultural or forest resources. Source(s) Town of Los Gatos. 2016. Planning Department: Interactive GIS Map. Accessed April 11, 2016. http://www.losgatosca.gov/932/Look-Up-Property---Interactive-GIS-Map Department of Conservation (DOC). Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012. 2014. Air Quality ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations . Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 22 May 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X (a) Consistent with air quality plans The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as non-attainment for ozone and inhalable particulates (PM10). To address these exceedances, BAAQMD, in cooperation with Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAOS) in September 2005 and Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule (PMIS) in November 2005. The PMIS discusses how BAAQMD implements the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 103 particulate matter control measures. BAAQMD adopted the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP), which updates the BAOS. The consistency of the proposed project with the most recently adopted regional air quality plan, CAP, is determined by comparing the project’s consistency with the Los Gatos General Plan. Since the CAP is based on population projections of ABAG that are based on the Town’s General Plan in effect at the time the CAP was approved, consistency of the project with the General Plan would indicate consistency with the CAP. The project would be consistent with the use and density allowed on the project site by the Los Gatos General Plan, and therefore, the project would be consistent with the CAP. Impacts would be less than significant. (b) Air quality standards The Regulatory and Planning Framework BAAQMD is responsible for attaining and/or maintaining air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) within federal and state air quality standards. Specifically, BAAQMD has the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels throughout the Basin and to develop and implement strategies to attain the applicable federal and state standards. In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which provides guidance for assessing air quality impacts under CEQA. However, on Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 23 May 2016 March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering BAAQMD to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. On August 13, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the Alameda County Superior Court judgment that invalidated BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds of significance. The Court directed that the Superior Court vacate the writ of mandate issued in March 2012, ordering BAAQMD to set aside its June 2010 resolution (Res. #2010-06) “Adopting Thresholds for Use in Determining the Significance of Projects’ Environmental Effects Under the California Environmental Quality Act.” In December 2015, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents, such as the effects of toxic air contaminants and find particulate matter from existing sources on future residents or users of a project . Nevertheless, the Supreme Court stated that lead agencies still must evaluate existing environmental conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present . The Supreme Court did not apply a holding to reach a conclusion on the validity of BAAQMD’s receptor thresholds. Instead, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to decide the question in light of the Court’s opinion. As of the date of this document, BAAQMD has not formally re-instated the thresholds. The air quality impact analysis below uses the previously-adopted 2011 thresholds of the BAAQMD to determine the potential impacts of the project. While the significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD in May 2011 are not currently recommended by the BAAQMD, these thresholds are based on substantial evidence identified in BAAQMD’s 2009 Justification Report (BAAQMD, 2009) and local agencies, such as the Town of Los Gatos, may rely on the BAAQMD thresholds. Significance Thresholds Exercising its own discretion as lead agency and similarly to multiple other San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions, the Town of Los Gatos has decided to rely on the thresholds within the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by the BAAQMD . The BAAQMD Options and Justification Report establishes thresholds based on substantial evidence and are consistent with the thresholds outlined within the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Although BAAQMD failed to comply with CEQA before completing its 2010 recommendations, Town staff believes that these recommendations, which are listed as follows, still represent the best available science on the subject of what constitute significant air quality effects in the SFBAAB:  NOX and ROG: 54 pounds/day  PM10: 82 pounds/day  PM2.5: 54 pounds/day In addition to establishing the above significance thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions, the BAAQMD also recommended (BAAQMD, 2009) the following quantitative thresholds to Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 24 May 2016 determine the significance of construction-related and operational emissions of toxic air contaminants from individual project and cumulative sources on cancer and non -cancer health risks:  Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million for individual projects and >100 in a million (from all local sources) for cumulative sources;  Increased non-cancer risk of >1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) for individual projects and >10.0 Hazard Index (from all local sources) for cumulative sources; and  Ambient PM2.5 increase: >0.3 μg/m3 annual average for individual projects and >0.8 μg/m3 annual average (from all local sources) for cumulative sources. Project Emissions BAAQMD prepared screening criteria in both the 1999 and 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guideline s (BAAMD, 2011). These screening criteria were developed by BAAQMD to indicate the minimum development size (by land use category) at which air pollutant emissions could exceed the above significance thresholds and potentially significant air quality impacts could occur. The 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines indicated that a project with 320 si ngle-family units as the project size which was likely to result in significant operational air quality impacts. The 2011 BAAQMD Guidelines included the following screening cr iteria for single-family residential use based on the above thresholds: 325 single-family units for operational emissions and 114 units for single-family residences for construction emissions. The 2011 BAAQMD Guidelines also specified that the project must also meet two other criteria: (1) the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures must be implemented during construction; and (2) the project does not include demolition, simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases, simultaneous construction of more than one land use type; extensive site preparation; or extensive material transport (more than 10,000 cubic yards of soil). Although the project would include demolition, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, the project would meet the intent of these criteria, and the project’s impacts related to air quality standards would be less than significant. (c) Cumulative air quality impacts To address cumulative impacts on regional air quality, BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for construction-related and operational criteria pollutants and precursor emissions. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. If daily average or annual emissions exceed these thresholds, the project would result in a cumulatively significant impact. Given that the project’s construction-related and operational criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the project’s contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and result in a less-than-significant impact. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 25 May 2016 (d) Exposure of sensitive receptors CARB regulates vehicle fuels with the intent to reduce emissions. Diesel exhaust is a serious concern throughout California. CARB identified diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant and human carcinogen. In 2005, CARB approved a regulatory measure to reduce emissions of toxic and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of new heavy-duty diesel vehicles, which altered five sections of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. The changes relevant to the proposed project are in Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Cont rol Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, which limit idling of a vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes in any location (with some exceptions) or operation of a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system within 100 feet of residential areas. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and per sons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Adjacent residences are considered to be the closest sensitive receptors to project construction. The EMQ Families First facility, a mental health treatmen t facility for children, youth and families, is located approximately 900 feet west of the proposed home site. Operation of the proposed residences would not generate toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would pose a health risk to adjacent or nearby uses. Construction of the project would result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions (DPM), which are defined as toxic air contaminants (TACs), from onsite heavy-duty equipment, as well as from soils-hauling activities. Exposure of sensitive receptors is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Exposure is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. The State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recommends that districts assume a minimum of two years of exposure for health risk analysis (BAAQMD, 2010b). Construction of the proposed project would not result in two years of continuous operation of diesel equipment, and thus would not result in two years of continuous DPM and TAC exposure. As such, based on the BAAQMD screening criteria, the limited construction duration of these project components would be sufficient to avoid TAC health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant. (e) Odors According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The project would not include any uses identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors. No new or unusual Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 26 May 2016 sources of nuisance odors would be associated with the proposed residence. Therefore, the project’s potential for nuisance odor problems would be less than significant. During project construction, however, nuisance diesel odors associated with operation of diesel construction equipment on-site (primarily during initial grading phases), but this effect would be localized, sporadic, and short-term in nature. Therefore, temporary impacts from nuisance diesel odors on adjacent residential receptors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures – Air Quality (AQ) Mitigation Measure AQ-1: BAAQMD-Recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. Recycled water should be used wherever feasible. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation . h. The project contractor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding dust complaints. The project contractor will post a publicly visible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbance coordinator. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 27 May 2016 Source(s) Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2011 and May 2012. Available online at http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california- environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report. October. Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA- GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. Biological Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 28 May 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Existing Setting. The subject property occupies approximately 1.4 acres of land with an average slope of 14.4 percent. The project site is developed with a parking lot and building from the previous use of the property. Vegetation on the site consists of landscape trees, shrubs, and groundcover along the site perimeter and around the existing building. Trees and shrubs along the southern and western boundaries of the site serve as an effective screening element for adjacent residential properties to the west and south on Newell Court and Newell Avenue. The habitat value of site vegetation is limited to urban-adapted species. (a–d) Special-Status Species, Sensitive Communities and Wetlands, Fish and Wildlife Movement, Corridors, Nursery Sites The project site is located in urban setting in central Los Gatos. Due to the nature of the project site’s location and history, the subject property is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for special-status species. No federally listed, state-listed, or other special-status plant or animal species are expected to occur on the subject property. There would be no impacts. The site does not contain wetlands or riparian habitat, nor does the site contribute to the movement of migratory species. There would be no impact on wetlands or wildlife. (e) Conflict with local policies or ordinance include tree preservation Protected Trees. The Town of Los Gatos’s Tree Protection Ordinance regulates the removal of trees within the Town in order to retain as many trees as possible consistent with the reasonable use of private property. Prior to the removal of any protected tree, except under certain exceptions, a permit must be obtained from the Town. If protected trees must be removed, the Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of Community Development. Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3-1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy – Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements range from two to ten 24-inch box size trees or two to five 36-inch box size trees, depending on the canopy size of the tree to be removed. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 29 May 2016 Future development of homes on the four project lots could result in the removal of additional protected trees. When specific development plans are submitted for these future homes, any proposed tree removals would be reviewed as part of the Architecture and Site review process and would require a tree removal permit. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (f) Conflict with adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans There is no adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community plan that covers the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. There would be no impact on habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. Cultural Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X (a) Historic resources The project would involve the demolition of the existing building onsite. The project site has not been designated as a historic site on any local, state, or federal guidelines, and is not within the Towns designated historic district. As such, no historic resources would be affected, and so there will be no impact. (b- d) Archaeological resources, paleontological/unique geological resources, and human remains Portions of the area proposed for development were disturbed to allow for construction of the existing structure, and the potential for encountering intact archaeological resources would be Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 30 May 2016 low due to this previous surface disturbance. There is no indication from the archival research results that any part of the project site has been used for human bur ial purposes in the recent or distant past. Given the project site’s lack of open areas, there would be a low potential for encountering archaeological resources or human remains. Regardless, there remains a small possibility that buried prehistoric resources could be encountered or damaged, which would result in a potentially significant impact. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates, invertebrates, and microscopic plants and animals. The age and abundance of fossils depend on the location, topographic setting, and particular geologic formation in which they are found. Fossil discoveries not only provide an historic record of past plant and animal life, but may assist geologists in dating rock formations. There are no known paleontological sites recorded in or adjacent to Los Gatos (Town of Los Gatos, 2010). T he potential for encountering paleontological resources, however, cannot be completely eliminated. Additionally, no unique geological features are present on the site. Therefore, development of the site would not result in significant impacts on unique geological features. It is unlikely that archaeological resources or human remains would be encountered during construction of the proposed project. However, the possibility of inadvertent discovery cannot be entirely discounted, and would result in a potentially adverse impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce this potential impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measures – Cultural Resources (CUL) CUL-1: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for 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. A final report shall be prepared 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 will 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. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 31 May 2016 CUL-2: 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. Source(s) Town of Los Gatos. 2010. 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. March 10. Geology and Soils ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 32 May 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (a) Seismic hazards The San Francisco Bay Area is an active seismic region with activity related to the San Andreas Fault system, which is a major rift in the earth’s crust that extends for at least 700 miles along the California Coast. The project site is located approximately 5 miles from the San Andreas Fault, 11 miles from the Hayward Fault, 15 miles from the Calaveras fault, and 20 miles from the San Gregorio fault. These four major faults have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century strong enough to cause structural damage. The project site is mapped just north of one of the traces of the Shannon fault (approximately 1,300 feet from the center of the project site), which is a component of the frontal thrust fault system along the eastern side of the Santa Cruz Mountains. There is no known active or potentially active faults on the project site. As such, the project would not result in hazards associated with fault rupture. Regarding ground-shaking, ground failure, and landslides, the project applicant shall prepare a design-level geotechnical report prior to the issuance of building permit(s). This requirement has been included in Mitigation Measure GEO-1, would reduce this potential impact to a less- than-significant level. (b) Erosion As explained in the Hydrology and Water Quality analysis, below, the project would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, which requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This plan would incorporate erosion control measures that would reduce construction erosion impacts. In addition, pursuant to Town of Los Gatos Code Section 12.20.050, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be required whenever the graded portion of a site includes more than 10,000 square feet having a slope greater than 5 percent. The plan would include an effective revegetation program to stabilize all disturbed areas which will not be otherwise protected. The plan shall include measures to prevent increased discharge of sediment at all stages of grading and development from initial disturbance of the ground to project completion . Therefore, with adherence to existing statewide and local regulations, erosion impacts would be less than significant. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 33 May 2016 (c–d) Soil stability As indicated above, the possibility of shallow landslides at the project site cannot be excluded. Risks associated with those landslides would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1. (e) Soil capability to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available The proposed project would not include installation of septic tanks. Therefore, the project would not result in the construction of septic tanks in soils inadequate to support such facilities. Mitigation Measures – Geology and Soils (GEO) Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Geotechnical Investigation For the proposed roadway and each proposed residential unit, the project applicant(s) shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation. The design-level geotechnical report shall address, but not be limited to, site preparation and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared and submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos. Recommendations from the design-level geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the final project design and construction documents. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X As stated above in the discussion under Air Quality, the Town of Los Gatos relies upon on the thresholds within the Options and Justification Report (dated October 2009) prepared by BAAQMD. BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds are as follows:  Compliance with a Qualified Climate Action Plan or  Emissions below one of the following thresholds: Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 34 May 2016 - 1,100 metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions (MT CO2e) per year; or - 6.7 MT CO2e per capita per year (residential) / 4.6 MT CO2e per service population per year (mixed use) For purposes of this report, project compliance with the 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold is used as the primary basis to determine significance. The project’s consistency with operative goals and policies of the Sustainability Plan that are designed to avoid environmental i mpacts also are also analyzed. (a) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to long-term increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from direct sources (traffic increases and minor secondary fuel combustion emissions from space heating). Development occurring as a result of the proposed project would also result in other indirect operational increases in GHG emissions as a result of electricity generation to meet project-related increases in energy demand. Electricity generation in California is mainly from natural gas-fired power plants. However, since California imports about 20 to 25 percent of its total electricity (mainly from the northwestern and southwestern states), GHG emissions associated with electricity generation could also occur outside of California. Space or water heating, water delivery, wastewater processing and solid waste disposal also generate GHG emissions. Short-term GHG emissions would also be generated by project-related construction activities. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for construction -related GHG emissions, but the project’s construction-related emissions are expected to have a less-than- significant impact on global climate change based on the pro ject’s small size and GHG modeling results done for larger projects.1 The proposed project would also be subject to the existing CARB regulation (Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485), which limits idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles, and compliance with this regulation would further reduce GHG emissions associated with project construction vehicles (compliance with idling limits is required under Mitigation Measure AIR-1 in Section 3, Air Quality). Operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed single-family residences is also expected to be less than significant given the project’s small size and GHG modeling results 1 GHG modeling completed in November 2013 for an 8-unit residential project on 0.75 acres located at 258 Union Avenue indicated that construction activities would generate up to approximately 63.3 metric tons of CO 2- equivalents (MT CO2e), well below the BAAQMD’s operational threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year, indicating that the project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be less than significant. (Source: Town of Los Gatos, 2011. Initial Study, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California, Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-012, Negative Declaration ND-13-002. November.) Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 35 May 2016 done for larger projects.2 In the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the BAAQMD developed screening criteria to indicate the minimum development size (by land use category) at which GHG emissions could exceed the above thresholds and a potentially significant GHG impact could occur. In the 2011 Guidelines, the BAAQMD’s operational GHG screening criterion for single-family residences was 56 units, and the proposed project would fall well below this criterion. Therefore, the project’s operational GHG emissions are considered to be less than significant. (b) Conflict with GHG plans or regulations California has passed a number of bills related to GHG emissions and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has not yet established CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissio ns. GHG statutes and executive orders (EO) include EO S-1-07, EO S-3-05, EO S-13-08, EO S-14-08, EO S- 20-04, EO S-21-09, AB 32, AB 341, AB 1493, AB 3018, SB 97, SB375, SB 1078 and 107, SB 1368, and SB X12. AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to reduced statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Pursuant to this requirement, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies to achieve required reductions by 2020. The Town of Los Gatos Sustainability Plan, adopted in 2012, outlines communitywide GHG emission reduction measures necessary to reduce GHG emissions in Los Gatos. By 2020, the Sustainability Plan documents that GHG emissions would be reduced by approximately 15 percent from the business-as-usual (BAU) assumption. The Sustainability Plan does contain a number of binding GHG reduction measures. Most of the Sustainability Plan’s GHG reduction measures, however, would apply to future home designs and each home’s consistency with these measures would be evaluated during the required A&S application and building permit review to ensure compliance. Source(s) BAAQMD. 2009. Revised Draft Guidelines and Justification Report. Town of Los Gatos. 2012. Los Gatos Sustainability Plan. Available online: http://www.town.los- gatos.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8162. 2 GHG modeling completed in November 2013 for an 8-unit residential project on 0.75 acres located at 258 Union Avenue indicated that project operation would generate up to approximately 114 MT CO2e, well below the BAAQMD’s operational threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year, indicating that the project’s operational GHG emissions would be less than significant. (Source: Town of Los Gatos, 2011. Initial Study, 258 Union Avenue, Los Gatos, California, Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-012, Negative Declaration ND-13-002. November.) Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 36 May 2016 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 37 May 2016 (a–d) Exposure to hazardous materials Based upon a search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor, the project site is not located within one mile of a known cleanup site or other hazardous materials site (DTSC, 2015). According to the State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker, there are no leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) within a quarter-mile of the project site (SWRCB, 2015). Three LUSTs are located between 0.3 miles and 0.5 miles from the project site, on University Avenue, Zena Avenue, and Clearview Avenue. All of these cases have been closed, meaning that corrective actions have been completed and No Further Ac tion letters have been issued by the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health or the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Therefore, the project site is not located on or in proximity to Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List such that significant impacts related to hazardous materials would result. The construction of the proposed project would require heavy equipment for earthwork activities as well as hazardous materials, including fuels, oils, solvents, glues and others. If not managed appropriately, construction activities could potentially expose construction workers or the environment to hazardous materials through inappropriate use, storage, handling, or disposal. Heavy equipment could require on-site refueling, which could also result in inadvertent releases either through poor management or upset and accidental conditions. However, project construction would require adherence to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, which would necessitate the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include best management practices that cover the transport, use, and disposal of any hazardous materials used during construction that minimize the potential exposure to workers, the public, and the environment, as well as the potential for upset and accidental release conditions. Regarding operations, the proposed project’s residential uses may involve use and storage of some materials that are considered hazardous, although these materials are typically limited to everyday use solvents, paints, chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies. These materials would not be substantially different from household chemicals and solvents already in use throughout the town. Household hazardous wastes may be disposed of at one of the Santa Clara County household hazardous waste facilities by making and appointment with the County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste progr am. Regarding schools, the project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing school, so there would be no impact related to release of hazardous materials in proximity to schools. (e–f) Proximity to a public or private airport The project site is not located in proximity to a public or private airport or within the boundaries of an Airport Land Use Plan. Norman Y. Mineta San Jos International Airport and Reid Hillview Airport are located more than 10 miles to the north and northeast, respectively. There would be no impact. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 38 May 2016 (g) Impair implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan The project site is not located within the area of or within the direct vicinity of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project would result in the creation of a privately accessible roadway from Newell Avenue, with emergency access available via the new road. The proposed project would not physically change any public roads that are integral to emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, the impact associated with emergency response would be less than significant. (h) Expose people or structures to wildland fires The project site is located in an area designated as a Non-VHFHSZ (Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone) by CalFIRE (2008). Plans for development of each lot would be reviewed by the Town during the A&S review process to ensure that the homes would be constructed within the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDA), which include slopes of less than 30 percent and areas that are not densely wooded. Impacts would be less than significant. Source(s) Cal FIRE. 2008. Santa Clara County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas as Recommended by Cal FIRE. Available online: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/santa_clara/fhszl_map.43.pdf. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2016. EnviroStor. Available online: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed April 11. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2015. GeoTracker. Available online: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed December 31st. Hydrology and Water Quality ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (for example, the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 39 May 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood-hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood-hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X (a) Violate water quality or waste discharge requirements Construction For project construction activities, projects which disturb one or more acres of soil or projects which disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 40 May 2016 Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground (e.g., stockpiling or excavation). The permit does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. Construction activities for the proposed project would be subject to the provisions of the Construction General Permit. A Notice of Intent must be filed with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the Construction General Permit requires that a SWPPP be prepared. The SWPPP must be consistent with the terms of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s recommended best management practices (BMPs) for construction activities . In addition, pursuant to Town of Los Gatos Code Section 12.20.050, an erosion and sediment control plan shall be required whenever the graded portion of a site includes more than 10,000 square feet having a slope greater than 5 percent. The SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plans would include erosion-control best management practices that would be expected to protect exposed soils from potential erosional forces. These erosion control measures may include: 1) a stabilized construction entrance/exit; 2) storm drain inlet protection; 3) building pad protection; 4) installation of fiber rolls; and 5) hydroseeding of disturbed areas) which would reduce potential erosion hazards to a less-than-significant level. The plan would include an effective revegetation program to stabilize all disturbed areas which will not be otherwise protected. The plan shall include measures to prevent increased discharge of sediment at all stages of grading and development from initial disturbance of the ground to project completion. Therefore, with adherence to existing statewide and local regulations, erosion impacts would be less than significant. Operation The Town of Los Gatos is a co-permittee under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program implemented by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region. The Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) was adopted in October 2009 (amended November 28, 2011) to implement the NPDES program at the local level. The MRP governs discharges from municipal storm drains operated by 76 local government entities, including those in the Town of Los Gatos. MRP Provision C.3, New and Redevelopment Performance Standards, of Order No. R2-2009- 0074 of the MRP requires site designs for new developments and redevelopments to minimize the area of new roofs and paving. The MRP also includes Site Design and Stormwater Treatment Requirements. Where feasible, pervious surfaces should be used instead of paving so that runoff can infiltrate to the underlying soil. Remaining runoff from impervious areas must be captured and used or treated using bioretention. In ad dition, project applicants must execute agreements to allow municipalities to verify that stormwater treatment and flow- control facilities are maintained in perpetuity. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 41 May 2016 Pursuant to MRP Provision C.3.c.i.2(v), the Town would require each residential unit constructed under the proposed project to implement at least one of six specified Low Impact Development (LID) Site Design measures. These include the following measures:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse;  Direct runoff onto vegetated areas;  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas;  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas;  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces;  Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. The incorporation of these site design measures and stormwater treatment measures (bioretention) as required by the Town would reduce the project’s potential effects on stormwater quality to a less than significant level. (b) Substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supplies All water used on the project site would be from the local public water supply provided by the San Jose Water Company, which consists of both surface water and groundwater. There are no existing groundwater wells on the property and none are proposed. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater depletion beyond any impacts associated with the provision of water by the San Jose Water Company and the agencies from which it directly or indirectly receives water, including the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Water Resources . The project would likely result in a reduction in impervious surfaces, as the existing site is primarily occupied by the existing building and a parking lot that cover most of the property. The proposed project’s four new residences would include setbacks of between 5 and 20 feet, including common landscape areas and other pervious areas. An incremental increase in local groundwater recharge is likely as a result of the proposed project. The impact on groundwater supplies would be less than significant. (c–f) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns, exceed runoff capacity, or degrade water quality The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or vicinity. The site does not include any streams or rivers, which could be altered by the proposed project resulting in substantial erosion and siltation on- or offsite. Onsite stormdrains and onsite sidewalk gutters convey accumulated drainage flows northward to Newell Street and the existing stormdrain system. Because the proposed project would not alter any existing streams or drainage patterns, and surface water runoff is controlled onsite, the project would have a less than significant impact on existing drainage patterns. As stated under item (a), above, the proposed project’s storm drainage design would incorporate one or more measures to ensure the control and retention of storm runoff on the Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 42 May 2016 project site and preclude increased, untreated runoff discharges. Consequently, generation of storm runoff by the project would have a less-than-significant impact. Runoff from the roof of the proposed residences and garages would collect in gutters and discharge via downspouts to splashblocks at the base of the residences. All surface flows would be directed away from buildings into drainage swales, storm drain inlets, and drainage systems. This storm drainage methodology is consistent with requirements on similar properties and proposes to direct drainage to public facilities and limit impact on adjacent properties. Although runoff from the proposed project would be collected in a pipe system, storm flows would be discharged slowly into subsoils through the use of on -site infiltration areas, protecting surface water quality. Design and sizing of detention areas would be subject to review and approval by the Town, and such approval would reduce the potential for downstream flooding and erosion hazards. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant. As discussed in item (a) above, new, more stringent water quality regulations of the Clean Water Act have recently been triggered because the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit program has failed to protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County’s creeks and the South San Francisco Bay. Evidence includes violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of toxic substances, and fish consumption health advisories. Future development plans for the four homes would be required to demonstrate that surface runoff is not directly discharged to the surface channel (e.g., provisions for on-site filtration) but rather diverted into landscaped areas and vegetated swales as well as provide stormwater treatment facilities on the site. Therefore, the mitigation measure required in the 2009 IS/MND is no longer required with project updates and the Town’s standard conditions related to conformance with C.3 requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. (g–i) Flood hazard According to the 2020 Los Gatos General Plan, the project site is not within the 100-year floodplain. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Map Number 06085CO239H the project site is located in Zone X, which is an area outside of the 100 -year and 500-year flood plains where flood risk is minimal. The project site is located at an approximate elevation of 321 feet above mean sea level (msl). Additionally, there are no natural drainages on the project site. Consequently, no significant flood hazard impacts would be anticipated. (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 321 feet msl, more than 12 miles south of the San Francisco Bay shoreline; therefore, there would be no risk associated with tsunamis, which are large sea waves. Seiches are standing waves caused by large-scale, short- duration phenomena (e.g. wind or atmospheric variations or seismic activity) that result from the oscillation of confined bodies of water (such as reservoirs and lakes) that may damage low - lying adjacent areas as a result of changes in the surface water elevation. The nearest large water body is Vasona Reservoir, located approximately half a mile to the south, at an Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 43 May 2016 approximate elevation of 297 feet msl. Additionally, the area surrounding the project site has an elevation of approximately 300 feet msl. The project site would not be subject to mudflow or seiche as the project site is located at an elevation approximately 20 f eet above the direct surrounding area and nearby reservoir. Impacts related to erosion are discussed above. Therefore, there would be no impact related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Sources Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map No. 06085CO239H, effective May 18. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor Town of Los Gatos. 2010. 2020 General Plan. September 20. Land Use and Planning ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan? X (a) Physically divide an established community The proposed project would not include construction of a physical barrier (e.g., a freeway, levee, or railroad track) that would physically divide the existing neighborhoods surrounding the project site. The existing corner access driveway on the project site would be removed, and a private roadway would be constructed from Newell Avenue through the middle of the site. The proposed private shared access drive would provide emergency vehicle access, as well as access to the four new residential lots. As such, the project would not physically divide an established community. There would be no impact. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 44 May 2016 (b) Consistency with land use plan or policy General Plan The Los Gatos 2020 General Plan (adopted 2010) designates the project site as Low Density Residential. This designation allows for residential uses at densities of 0 to 5 unit per acre. The project would result in four residential units on 1.4 acres, which would be consistent with this density. The project would be generally consistent with the 2020 General Plan. Zoning The Town has zoned the project site as R-1:12 (Single-Family Residential, 12,000 square feet minimum lot size). The R-1:12 zone would permit subdivision of the project parcel into four lots of between 0.29 and 0.388 acres. The four houses built on the project site would be consistent with the zoning and General Plan. The project proposes to change the zoning to R-1:12:PD to be developed as a planned development. The Planned Development designation is a planning overlay zone that provides for alternative uses and developments more consistent with site characteristics than are allowed in other zones, with the intention of creating optimum quantity and use of open space and to encourage good design. Per Section 29.80.080 of the Town Code, “the PD zone permits establishment of a single use or the integration of several uses not ordinarily possible only if use and development is in compliance with a complete development plan showing relationships of the use or uses to each other, to the district as a whole, and to surrounding areas.” The Planned Development overlay would not conflict with the existing zoning requirements on any of the surrounding properties. The proposed project would not conflict with any existing land use plan or policy, and therefore, no impacts have been identified. (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan There is no adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan applicable to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and there would be no impact. Source(s) Town of Los Gatos. 2010. 2020 General Plan. September 20. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 45 May 2016 Mineral Resources ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X (a–b) Loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally-important mineral resource recovery site The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally-important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity. The General Plan Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element specifically states that mineral sources production areas are “not applicable to Los Gatos.” As such, there are no locally-important mineral resource recovery sites in the project site vicinity, and the project would have no impact to these resources. (Town of Los Gatos, 2010). Source(s) Town of Los Gatos. 2010. 2020 General Plan. September 20. Noise ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 46 May 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? X c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? X (a, c) Exposure to, or generation of, permanent noise The existing vacant structure on the on the project site currently produces minimal amounts of noise. The proposed four single-family residences would result in increased noise associated with residential use, such as operation of appliances and landscaping equipment . These noises would be similar to the noise generated at nearby residences and would not conflict with the existing noise environment. A site specific noise analysis was prepared for the project site to evaluate potential impacts associated with traffic noise from Winchester Boulevard. The Noise analysis, dated May 2, 2016 and prepared by j.c. brennan and associates, is included as Appendix A. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. staff conducted a continuous 24-hour noise level measurement at the project site on Thursday, April 21st, 2016. The sound level meter was programmed to collect hourly noise level intervals during the survey. The maximum value (Lmax) represents the highest noise level measured during each one-hour period, the average value (Leq) represents the energy average of all of the noise measured during each one-hour period, and the median value (L50) represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during each one-hour period. Table 1, Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data, shows the results of the noise level measurement. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 47 May 2016 Table 1 Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data Site Location Date Ldn Average Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dB Daytime (7am-10pm) Nighttime (10pm-7am) Leq L50 Lmax Leq L50 Lmax Continuous (24-hour) Noise Level Measurements A 100 ft. west of Winchester Blvd. Thursday 4/21/2016 64 63 60 79 55 49 69 Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., 2015. Measured noise levels shown in Table 1 were compared to the FHWA traffic noise prediction model to calibrate the model to existing site conditions. The FHWA model was found to under- predict traffic noise levels on the project site by 1 dBA over the full 24-hour period, as shown in Appendix C of Appendix A. Therefore, a + 1 dB adjustment was made to the model. Future Traffic Noise Levels To determine the future traffic noise levels on the project site, j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., utilized the calibrated FHWA traffic noise prediction model and future (2036) traffic forecasts by assuming a 1% per year growth rate over 2014 traffic volumes on Winchester Boulevard. Table 2, Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels, shows the predicted future traffic noise levels at the proposed residential units adjacent to SR-24. A complete listing of the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model inputs is provided in Appendix D of Appendix A. It should be noted that the Table 2 data account for shielding from intervening builds which will shield outdoor areas of the project. TABLE 2 Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels Location Distance Predicted Traffic Noise Levels, DNL Winchester Boulevard – 2036 ADT = 33,024 Lot 3/4 Backyard 100 65 dB Lot 1/2 Backyard 200 56 dB Sources: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., and FHWA RD-77-108 Based upon the predicted future traffic noise levels shown in Table 2, the residential outdoor areas of Lots 3 and 4 will be exposed to future exterior traffic noise levels up to 65 dB Ld n. This would exceed the Town of Los Gatos 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard but would fall within the conditionally acceptable range of 60-70 dB Ldn. Exceeding the Town’s exterior noise Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 48 May 2016 level standard would be a potentially significant impact and mitigation is required to reduced potential impacts to less than significant. Consistency with the Town’s exterior noise standards would be ensured through implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. In order to reduce future traffic exterior noise levels a t these locations, noise reduction measures are required. The project noise study evaluated the effectiveness of a solid noise barrier for reducing future Winchester Boulevard traffic noise levels at the residential uses proposed adjacent to this roadway. A complete listing of the noise barrier effectiveness inputs and results is shown in Appendix E of Appendix A. The results of the barrier analysis are summarized in Table 3, Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels with Various Noise Barrier Heights. TABLE 3 Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels With Various Noise Barrier Heights Roadway Location Noise Level with Varying Property Line Barrier Heights, Ldn 6’ 7’ 8’ Lot 3 58 56 55 Lot 4 56 55 54 Sources: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. with FHWA-RD-77-108 Barrier heights are relative to the proposed building pad elevations. Noise barrier reductions apply to first floor locations only. The results of the barrier analysis shown in Table 3 indicate that the construction of a 6-foot tall solid noise barrier along Winchester Boulevard would result in compliance with the Town of Los Gatos normally acceptable exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn at ground floor locations. Noise barriers should be constructed of concrete masonry units (CMU), solid concrete panels, or earthen berms. Noise barriers may include the combination of earthen berm and CMU wall or concrete panels. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. Other types of materials should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to use. It should be noted that noise barriers are only effective for reducing traffic noise levels at first floor locations. It should be noted that due to the grading of the site, noise barriers of practical heights cannot provide shielding to all areas of the project site, such as decks or balconies. However, exterior noise level at these locations are still predicted to fall within the Town’s conditionally acceptable exterior noise level range of 60-70 dB Ldn. The Town’s policy for conditionally acceptable noise levels are as follows: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice (Town of Los Gatos General Plan Noise Element, Table NOI-1). Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 49 May 2016 Interior Traffic Noise Levels Standard construction practices, consistent with the Uniform Building Code typically provide an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of approximately 25 dB, assuming that air conditioning is included for each unit, which allows residents to close windows for the required acoustical isolation. Therefore, as long as exterior noise levels at the building facades do not exceed 70 dB Ldn, the interior noise levels will typically comply with the interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn. First floor traffic noise exposure at Lots 3 and 4 is predicted to be less than 60 dB Ldn with the use of a property line noise barrier. Sound walls do not shield second floor building facades, additionally noise levels are typically 2-3 dB higher at second floor locations. Therefore, exterior noise levels at the second floor façade are predicted to be up to 69 dB Ldn at Lots 3 and 4. Based upon a typical exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 25 dB, interior noise levels are predicted to be 44 dB Ldn, with windows closed. This would comply with the Town’s standard of 45 dB Ldn. Therefore, no additional interior noise control measures would be required, assuming that air conditioning is included to allow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for acoustical isolation. (b) Exposure to ground borne vibration or ground borne vibration There are no adopted state or local policies for groundborne noise or vibration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) states that non-engineered timber and masonry buildings can be exposed to groundborne vibration levels of up to 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) without experiencing structural damage. Construction of the project features could involve the use of bulldozers and vibratory rollers, which may result in vibration of up to 0.089 in/sec and 0.210 in/sec, respectively, at 25 feet (FTA, 2006). Given existing residences are located within 25 feet from potential vibration-generating construction activities, these vibration levels would result in a significant impact. To ameliorate the impacts of vibration, FTA r ecommends avoiding the use of vibratory rollers in sensitive areas. This requirement has been incorporated into Mitigation Measure NOI-2, Construction Vibration. With implementation of this measure, vibration impacts would be less than significant. (d) Substantial temporary noise increase The Town of Los Gatos Municipal Code Chapter 16 restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Construction noise is limited to 85 dBA at the property line (or 85 dBA at 25 feet if the activity occurs near the property line). Construction noise would range from approximately 74 to 89 dBA at 50 feet, depending on the types of equipment that would be used in project construction (FTA, 2006). As such, without the use of acoustic shield or other noise-reduction measures, construction equipment would exceed the Town of Los Gatos noise standards. Consistency with the noise standards would be ensured through implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 50 May 2016 (e–f) Excessive noise level near a public or private airport The project site is not located in proximity to a public or private airport . Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport and Reid Hillview Airport are located more than 10 miles to the north and northeast, respectively. There would be no impact related to airport noise. Mitigation Measures – Noise (NOI) Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Noise Attenuation Wall Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvements plans, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Director of Community Development, that a noise attenuation wall is shown on the final landscape plans. The noise attenuation wall shall include the specifications:  The noise attenuation wall shall be a minimum of six feet tall. The approximate location of the recommended noise barriers is shown on Figure 3 of the noise analysis report prepared for the project dated May 2, 2016.  The noise attenuation wall shall be constructed of concrete masonry units (CMU), solid concrete panels, or earthen berm. The noise barriers may include the combination of earthen berm and CMU wall or concrete panels. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. Other types of materials should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to use.  Air conditioning shall be included in all residences to allow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for acoustical isolation. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Construction Vibration The construction contractor shall prohibit the use of vibratory rollers within 30 feet of existing residences. Plate compactors and smaller, rubber-tired equipment shall be utilized as feasible. The Town of Los Gatos Building Division shall ensure that this requirement is incorporated into construction documents prior to issuance of grading permits. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Construction Specifications to Reduce Noise The project applicant and its successors shall ensure that the following practices are incorporated into the construction specification documents to be implemented by the project contractor:  Provide enclosures and mufflers for stationary equipment, shrouding or shielding for impact tools, and barriers around particularly noisy operations, such as grading or use of concrete saws within 50 feet of an occupied sensitive land use. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 51 May 2016  Use construction equipment with lower (less than 70 dB) noise emission ratings whenever possible, particularly air compressors and generators.  Do not use equipment on which sound-control devices provided by the manufacturer have been altered to reduce noise control.  Locate stationary equipment, material stockpiles, and vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from sensitive receptors.  Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.  Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible (i.e., such that they do not impede efficient operation of equipment or dramatically slow production rates), which may include, but are not limited to, noise barriers or noise blankets. The placement of such attenuation measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Gatos Building Division prior to issuance of development permit for construction activities. Source(s) Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, available online: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Ma nual.pdf. May 2006. Town of Los Gatos. 2010. 2020 General Plan. September 20. Town of Los Gatos. 2015. Code of Ordinances. December 15. Population and Housing ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 52 May 2016 (a) Population growth The Town of Los Gatos currently has a population of approximately 30,735 (U.S. Census, 2014). According to the 2020 General Plan, the population is expected to increase to 32,600 by 2020 (Town of Los Gatos, 2010). Based upon the Los Gatos-average 2.39 residents per household, the proposed project’s four net residential units would result in 10 new residents. These 10 residents would not represent substantial population growth that would exceed the planned population increase by 2020 . Therefore, the project would not directly induce substantial population growth. Indirect population growth may be induced by the extension of infrastructure—such as roadways, water service, wastewater service, and other utilities—into greenfield or undeveloped areas. The proposed project would result in the construction of a private access drive through the middle of the project parcel. This parcel, however, is already developed, and the roadway would not result in any additional development in undeveloped areas. As such, the construction of the new private access drive would not indirectly induce substantial development or population growth. Impacts on population growth would be less than significant. (b–c) Housing and resident displacement The existing structure on the project site is the vacant building, used for non-residential uses. The project would not displace any people or housing units. The project would result in the construction of new housing. Therefore, no impact would occur. Source(s) Town of Los Gatos. 2010. 2020 General Plan. September 20. US Census Bureau. 2014. Population Estimated. Public Services ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 53 May 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X (a–e) Fire, police, schools, parks and other public facilities Services are currently provided to the project site’s existing building as well as other residences in the project vicinity. The Los Gatos / Monte Sereno Police Department and the Santa Clara County Fire Department would provide emergency and public safety services to the project site. The project’s four residential units would not substantially increase demand for these services such that new or expanded fire or police protection services would be required . Based on an average student yield factor of 0.386 per unit, the project would add approximately two new students to the Los Gatos Union School District , which encompasses grades K through 8. The District has grown from 2,587 students in the 2006–2007 school year to 3,345 students in the 2014–2015 school year, primarily caused by net migration of families with school-aged children (and not by new housing units) (LGUSD, 2015). Based on an average student yield factor of 0.208 per unit, the project would add one student to the Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District (Los Gatos, 2012). The District has grown from 3,153 students in the 2010 – 2011 school year to 3,302 students in the 2014 – 2015 school year (Ed-Data, 2016). Students associated with the proposed project would contribute to the cumulative demand for educational services and result in enrollments that exceed current district capacities. The proposed project would be required by law to pay development impact fees to each school district at the time of the building permit issuance. These fees are used by the school districts to mitigate impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities with new development in accordance with state law. Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the California Government Code, payment of these fees “is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in government organization or reorganization.” Any secondary environmental impacts resulting from the construction of new schools would be analyzed by each School District prior to construction of any new Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 54 May 2016 schools. The three new students associated with the project would not drive the need for any such new construction. Therefore, with payment of development impact fees to each school district as required by law, the project’s impact on the schools attended by project students would be less-than-significant. Impacts to parks are analyzed under “Recreation,” below. The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact on public services. Source(s) Education Data Partnership (Ed-Data). 2016. Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High web page: http://www.ed-data.org/district/Santa-Clara/Los-Gatos--Saratoga-Joint-Union-High, accessed January 2, 2016. Los Gatos. 2012. Memorandum: North 40 Advisory Committee Meeting Report. Community Development Department. August 17. LGUSD. 2015. Framework & Positioning for Overcrowding. Draft. March 10. Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). 2015. Development Review Comments: 15 0776. Recreation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X (a) Increase the use of existing recreation facilities As stated above under Population and Housing, the proposed project would result in approximately 10 new residents in the Town of Los Gatos. Recreational space for these 10 residents would be provided by the common landscape areas, decks, yards, and setbacks that would be included in the proposed project. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 55 May 2016 Existing recreational facilities in close proximity to the project site include Vasona Lake County Park and Oak Meadow Park. Although it is likely that the 10 new residents would use existing recreational facilities in the Town of Los Gatos, their use would not be so substantial as to accelerate the physical deterioration of those facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. (b) Include recreational facilities or the construction or expansion of recreational facilities The proposed project does not include the provision of recreational facilities. As stated above, residents may use existing recreational facilities in the Town of Los Gatos. The approximately 10 new residents would not necessitate the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant. Transportation/Traffic ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? X b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (for example, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (for example, farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, X Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 56 May 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (a–b, f) Conflict with applicable transportation plans or ordinances, including congestion management plans In accordance with the Town of Los Gatos revised Traffic Impact Policy (approved August 19, 2014), projects that would generate 20 or more new peak-hour trips are required to complete a comprehensive traffic impact analysis report. Trip generation rates are based upon the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manal. Using those rates, the proposed project’s four net residential units would result in 3 trips in the AM peak hour and 4 trips in the PM peak hour, both of which are below the standards established in the Town’s Traffic Impact Policy. These net new peak hour trips would not substantially affect traffic operations or conflict with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 2013 Congestion Management Program. Additionally, the new four-home subdivision would be compatible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood (TJKM, 2015). Impacts would be less than significant. The project is not anticipated to disrupt existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or conflict with adopted City plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Because the project is proposed to be accessed via the new private access drive, existing and envisioned bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be unaffected by the project. The project would also ensure that future curb ramps at the Newell Avenue and Winchester Boulevard intersection meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and current City standards. Given the project’s small size and limited trip generation, the project would not conflict with plans related to alternative transportation modes. Impacts would be less than significant. (c) Change in air traffic pattern The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The nearest airport, Mineta San José International Airport, is located approximately ten miles to the northeast. There would be no impact. (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature To accommodate the proposed houses and new roadway, soil would be excavated and hauled from the site during the construction phase. The export of 5,900 cubic yards of material off-site could generate up to 370 truckloads or a total of 740 one-way truck trips (assuming 12 cubic yards per haul truck). Since the Town will prohibit haul truck operations on local roads between Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 57 May 2016 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. as well as 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., trucks operations would occur 6.5 to 7 hours per day. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, the project applicant would be required to work with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow during periods when soil is hauled. Potential safety hazards during project construction would be less than significant with mitigation. The existing corner access driveway on the project site would be removed pending project approval, and a private roadway would be constructed from Newell Avenue through the middle of the site. The proposed driveway serving the four-home subdivision will be located more than 100 feet from Winchester Boulevard. By comparison, the existing driveway is located close to the intersection. Given that the location of property access would change, access location and configuration of the new driveway would be designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, as ensured by Mitigation Measure TRANS-2. Potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. (e) Result in inadequate emergency access The proposed new private shared access drive would provide primary access to the project site. The new road would be 40 feet wide, include three on-street parking spaces, and provide adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on emergency access would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures – Transportation and Circulation (TRANS) Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Traffic Control Plan The project applicant shall work with the Engineering Division of the Town of Los Gatos’s Parks and Public Works Department to devise a traffic control plan for incorporation into the construction bid documents (specifications) to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow during periods when soil is hauled off the project site. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:  Hauling and delivery activities and designated truck routes shall be strategically selected, timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption to schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption.  Flag persons shall be placed at locations as necessary. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation.  Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation.  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.). Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 58 May 2016 Mitigation Measure TRANS-2: Driveway Design The applicant shall hire a registered traffic engineer to ensure appropriate driveway design for the new private access drive. A detailed sight distance evaluation for the project roadway shall be prepared for review and approval by the Parks and Public Works Department and the Community Development Director prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map. Source(s) Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). 2015. Development Review Comments: Review of a proposed revision of the Fire Department access for a proposed 5-lot development in the Wildland-Urban Interface Area. March 20. TJKM. 2015. Technical Memorandum: Review of Proposed 4-Home Subdivision at 105 Newell. September 21. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 59 May 2016 Utilities and Service Systems ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction or which could cause significant environmental effects? X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project-projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X (a, e) Wastewater treatment and requirements Sanitary sewer service would be provided to the proposed project by West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD), which operates under the authority and regulations of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. WVSD provides wastewater collection to an area of approximately 30 square miles and 109,000 people. Wastewater is collected and transported to the San Jose -Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF). The RWF treats an average of 110 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater, approximately 13 percent of which goes to the adjacent South Bay Water Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 60 May 2016 Recycling pump station (RWF, 2014). The facility is permitted to treat up to 167 mgd, pursuant to its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (RWQCB, 2014). As indicated under item (d) below, conservatively assuming the proposed project would result in water demand of 144 gallons per person per day, and all of that water exits the project site as wastewater, the proposed project would result in 1,440 gallons of wastewater per day (SJWC, 2011). This increased wastewater flow generated by the project would be accommodated within the RWF’s remaining dry weather capacity of 57 mgd. The impact would be less than significant. Regarding wet weather flow, stormwater from the project site would be directed to separate storm system, so the project would not substantially increase wet weather flow. The proposed project would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing treatment facilities. Impacts would be less-than-significant. Wastewater from the project would be directed to existing facilities, which would continue to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by the Regional Water Board. Therefore, the project would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements and the impact is less than significant. (b) Wastewater and water treatment facilities Refer to Topics (a, e) for wastewater treatment, and Topic (d) for water treatment. (c) Stormwater drainage As stated in “Hydrology and Water Quality,” above, the proposed project’s storm drainage design would incorporate one or more measures to ensure the control and retention of storm runoff on the project site and preclude increased, untreated runoff discharges. The proposed stormdrain inlets on Elks Place would convey stormwater runoff from the project site to the existing stormdrain on Newell Avenue. The project, therefore, would not require new or expanded facilities, and would result in a less-than-significant impact on the storm drainage system. (d) Water supply The San Jose Water Company (SJWC) provides water to approximately one million residents through supplies from groundwater production wells, imported supplies from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and local surface water from the Santa Cruz Mountains, the last of which is provided to the Town of Los Gatos and surrounding communities. Total deliveries in 2010 were approximately 123,000 acre-feet (AF) of water, of which approximately half went to single-family dwellings. In the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, demand (based on service area Housing Elements) was projected to reach 132,000 AF by 2015 and 143,000 AF by 2035. Total supplies in 2010 were 133,000 AF, and supplies were projected to increase to 144,000 AF in 2015 and 159,000 AF in 2035 (SJWC, 2011). SJWC’s per capita water use is 144 gallons per person per day (gpd), which is targeted to reduce to 111 gpd by 2020 (SJWC, 2011). Conservatively assuming the project’s 10 residents each Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 61 May 2016 consume 144 gpd, the proposed project would result in a net new demand of 525,600 gallons, or 1.61 AF, per year. Assuming the residents consume 111 gpd, the proposed project would result in a net new demand of 405,150 gallons, or 1.24 AF. Based on the most recent UWMP, water supply for 2015 was projected to be 405,580 AF, and total demand was project to be 375,720 AF, resulting in a surplus of 29,860 AF. The 1.61 AF/Year that would be required by the project would be accommodated by the remaining capacity. Sufficient water supply would be available from existing entitlements to serve the proposed project. SJWC does have some concerns on the ability of the District to provide water in a six -year drought. As stated in the District’s UWMP, the water supply available from the District during a drought is highly dependent on the groundwater basin level and semitropic water bank level at the start of the drought. A multiyear drought may require mandatory water conservation be enacted to meet the water demands required by all customers. Sufficient water supply would be available from existing entitlements to serve the proposed project, and mandatory water conservation measures, if necessary, would ensure adequate supply during a drought. Impacts on water supply would be less than significant. (f-g) Adequate landfill and compliance West Valley Collection and Recycling is the Town’s exclusive solid waste hauler, including for construction and demolition. Pursuant to AB 939, the Town has a per-resident disposal target of 6.0 pound per day (ppd), and an employee disposal target of 11.6 ppd. As of 2014, which is the most recent year for which data is available, the Town disposed of 3.9 ppd per resident and 7.5 ppd per employee, thereby meeting its target rates (CalRecycle, 2016a). In 2014, approximately 19,300 tons of solid waste from the Town was transported to Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, which is the primary landfill receiving waste from the Town, and additional solid waste was dispersed among several other landfills in the region (CalRecycle, 2016b). The Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill is located in the City of San Jose . It can receive up to 3,650 tons per day of solid waste, and currently receives approximately 1,300 tons per day . The facility has 28.6 million cubic yards of capacity, of which approximately 11 million cubic yards remained in 2011. The landfill has a cease-operation date of 2048 (CalRecycle, 2016c). The proposed project would result in a minor quantity of waste associated with demolition of the on-site structure, as well as waste associated with occupation of the four residences. Conservatively assuming a waste generation rate of 12.23 pounds per day, the four project residences would generate approximately 50 pounds of waste per day, or 9 tons per year. This waste generation would be accommodated within the permitted capacity of Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill. West Valley Collection provides single stream recycling services, meaning that all recycling materials are placed in a single bin and do not need to be sorted by the customer. These materials are sorted at West Valley’s Materials Recovery Facility in the City of San Jose . The Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 62 May 2016 project residents would therefore comply with waste diversion requirements and solid waste regulations, and impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant. Source(s) CalRecycle. 2016a. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. Available online: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DataTools/Reports/DivDispRtSum.htm. Accessed January 2, 2016. CalRecycle. 2016b. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility. Available online: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx. Accessed January 2, 2016. CalRecycle. 2016c. Facility/Site Summary Details: Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill (43-AN-0015). Available online: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/43-AN- 0015/Detail. Accessed January 2, 2016. Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF). 2014. Media Fact Sheet. Available online: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34681. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2014. Order No. R2-2014-0034, NPDES No. CA0037842. San Jose Water Company (SJWC). 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 63 May 2016 Mandatory Findings of Significance ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X (a, c) Significant Impacts on the Natural and Man-Made Environments The potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory were considered in the response to each question in the respective sections (Sections 4 and 5) of this checklist. In addition to project specific impacts, this evaluation considered the project’s potential for significant cumulative effects. There is no substantial evidence that there are biological or cultural resources that are affected or associated with this project. The potential for adverse direct or indirect impacts to human beings were considered in the response to certain questions in sections 1. Aesthetics, 3. Air Quality, 6. Geology and Soils, 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 9. Hydrology and Water Quality, 12. Noise, 13. Population and Housing, and 16. Transportation and Traffic. As a result of this evaluation, there is no Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Page 64 May 2016 substantial evidence that there are adverse effects on human beings associated with this project. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet these Mandatory Findings of Significance. (b) Cumulative Impacts The geographic scope of cumulative impacts varies depending on impact category. Regardless, most project impacts would be confined to the project site or immediate surroundings . In general, the proposed project would result in relatively minor contributions to Town-wide or regional cumulative impacts. There are no known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects that could combine with the proposed project (including identified project mitigation measures) to result in significant cumulative effects. No cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed development of four single family residences in combination of future remodels/additions to existing residences allowed by the Town’s General Plan and Municipal Code requirements have been identified. As such, the project’s contribution to cumulative effects would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this project has been determined not to meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance. Town of Los Gatos 105 Newell Avenue Planned Development Initial Study | Appendices Attachment A Noise Analysis Prepared for: Attn: Alex H. Jewell Kimley-Horn 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Prepared by: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert. Vice President Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Newell Avenue Subdivision Town of Los Gatos, California May 2, 2016 jcb Project # 2016-130 1287 High Street, Auburn, California 95603 * 530-823-0960 (p) * (530)823-0961 (f) j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job # 2015-143 Environmental Noise Analysis 105 Newell Avenue Subdivision – Town of Los Gatos, California Page 1 of 10 INTRODUCTION The 105 Newell Avenue Subdivision project consists of a four-lot division of an existing 1.38 acre parcel for the construction of four single-family homes. The lot is adjacent to the west side of Winchester Boulevard immediately south of Newell Avenue. The project is located in the Town of Los Gatos, California. Figure 1 shows the project site plan. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Fundamentals of Acoustics Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz). Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person. Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels, unless otherwise noted. The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. Newell Avenue Subdivision Figure 1: Project Site Plan Figure Prepared: May 2016 j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job # 2015-143 Environmental Noise Analysis 105 Newell Avenue Subdivision – Town of Los Gatos, California Page 3 of 10 The day/night average level (Ldn or DNL) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. Table 1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations. Appendix A provides a summary of acoustical terms used in this report. TABLE 1 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities --110-- Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft.) --100-- Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft.) --90-- Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft.), at 80 km/hr. (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft.) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft.) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft.) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft.) Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft.) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft.) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office Dishwasher in Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. November, 2009. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job # 2015-143 Environmental Noise Analysis 105 Newell Avenue Subdivision – Town of Los Gatos, California Page 4 of 10 Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:  Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction  Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning  Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:  Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived;  Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference;  A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and  A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response. Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job # 2015-143 Environmental Noise Analysis 105 Newell Avenue Subdivision – Town of Los Gatos, California Page 5 of 10 REGULATORY CONTEXT Federal There are no federal regulations related to noise that apply to the Proposed Project. State There are no state regulations related to noise that apply to the Proposed Project. Town of Los Gatos General Plan Noise Element The Town of Los Gatos General Plan establishes an acceptable exterior noise level of 60 dB Ldn for residential uses. An acceptable interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn is also established for all residential uses. Exterior noise levels of up to 70 dB Ldn are considered “conditionally acceptable” and require that a detailed analysis of interior noise levels be conducted to ensure that the project meets the Town’s interior noise level standard. EVALUATION OF FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AT THE PROJECT SITE Existing Traffic Noise Levels j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. staff conducted a continuous 24-hour noise level measurement at the project site on Thursday, April 21st 2016. See Figure 2 for noise measurement location. A Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meter was used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meter was calibrated before and after use with an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). The sound level meter was programmed to collect hourly noise level intervals during the survey. The maximum value (Lmax) represents the highest noise level measured during each one-hour period, the average value (Leq) represents the energy average of all of the noise measured during each one-hour period, and the median value (L50) represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during each one-hour period. The noise level measurement survey results are provided in Table 2. Appendix B provides the complete results of the continuous noise level measurement. Legend : Continuous (24-hr) Noise Measurement Site Newell Avenue Subdivision Figure 2: Noise Measurement Locations Figure Prepared: May 2016 A X 105 Newell Avenue j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job # 2015-143 Environmental Noise Analysis 105 Newell Avenue Subdivision – Town of Los Gatos, California Page 7 of 10 Table 2 Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data Location Date Ldn Average Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dB Site Daytime (7am-10pm) Nighttime (10pm-7am) Leq L50 Lmax Leq L50 Lmax Continuous (24-hour) Noise Level Measurements A 100 ft. west of Winchester Blvd. Thursday 4/21/2016 64 63 60 79 55 49 69 Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., 2015. Measured noise levels shown in Table 2 were compared to the FHWA traffic noise prediction model to calibrate the model to existing site conditions. The FHWA model was found to under- predict traffic noise levels on the project site by 1 dBA over the full 24-hour period, as shown in Appendix C. Therefore, a + 1 dB adjustment was made to the model. Future Traffic Noise Levels To determine the future traffic noise levels on the project site, j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., utilized the calibrated FHWA traffic noise prediction model and future (2036) traffic forecasts by assuming a 1% per year growth rate over 2014 traffic volumes on Winchester Boulevard. Table 3 shows the predicted future traffic noise levels at the proposed residential units adjacent to SR-24. A complete listing of the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model inputs is provided in Appendix D. The Table 3 data account for shielding from intervening builds which will shield outdoor areas of the project. TABLE 3 PREDICTED FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Location Distance Predicted Traffic Noise Levels, DNL Winchester Boulevard – 2036 ADT = 33,024 Lot 3/4 Backyard 100 65 dB Lot 1/2 Backyard 200 56 dB Sources: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., and FHWA RD-77-108 Based upon the predicted future traffic noise levels shown in Table 3, the residential outdoor areas of Lots 3 and 4 will be exposed to future exterior traffic noise levels up to 65 dB Ldn. This would exceed the Town of Los Gatos 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard but would fall within the conditionally acceptable range of 60-70 dB Ldn. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job # 2015-143 Environmental Noise Analysis 105 Newell Avenue Subdivision – Town of Los Gatos, California Page 8 of 10 In order to reduce future traffic exterior noise levels at these locations, noise reduction measures should be considered. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. evaluated the effectiveness of a solid noise barrier for reducing future Winchester Boulevard traffic noise levels at the residential uses proposed adjacent to this roadway. A complete listing of the noise barrier effectiveness inputs and results is shown in Appendix E. The results of the barrier analysis are summarized in Table 4. TABLE 4 PREDICTED FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITH VARIOUS NOISE BARRIER HEIGHTS Roadway Location Noise Level with Varying Property Line Barrier Heights, Ldn 6’ 7’ 8’ Lot 3 58 56 55 Lot 4 56 55 54 Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. with FHWA-RD-77-108 Barrier heights are relative to the proposed building pad elevations. Noise barrier reductions apply to first floor locations only. The results of the barrier analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that the construction of a 6-foot tall solid noise barrier along Winchester Boulevard would result in compliance with the Town of Los Gatos normally acceptable exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn at ground floor locations. Figure 3 shows the locations of the recommended noise barriers for the proposed project. Noise barriers should be constructed of concrete masonry (CMU) units, solid concrete panels, or earthen berms. Noise barriers may include the combination of earthen berm and CMU wall or concrete panels. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. Other types of materials should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to use. It should be noted that noise barriers are only affective for reducing traffic noise levels at first floor locations. It should be noted that due to the grading of the site, noise barriers of practical heights cannot provide shielding to all areas of the project site, such as decks or balconies. However, exterior noise level at these locations are still predicted to fall within the Town’s conditionally acceptable exterior noise level range of 60-70 dB Ldn. The Town’s policy for conditionally acceptable noise levels are as follows: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice (Town of Los Gatos General Plan Noise Element, Table NOI-1). Newell Avenue Subdivision Figure 3: Noise Barrier Location Figure Prepared: May 2016 : Potential Noise Barrier Location j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Job # 2015-143 Environmental Noise Analysis 105 Newell Avenue Subdivision – Town of Los Gatos, California Page 10 of 10 Interior Traffic Noise Levels: Standard construction practices, consistent with the uniform building code typically provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of approximately 25 dB, assuming that air conditioning is included for each unit, which allows residents to close windows for the required acoustical isolation. Therefore, as long as exterior noise levels at the building facades do not exceed 70 dB Ldn, the interior noise levels will typically comply with the interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn. First floor traffic noise exposure at Lots 3 and 4 are predicted to be less than 60 dB Ldn with the use of a property line noise barrier. Sound walls do not shield second floor building facades, additionally noise levels are typically 2-3 dB higher at second floor locations. Therefore, exterior noise levels at the second floor façade are predicted to be up to 69 dB Ldn at Lots 3 and 4. Based upon a typical exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 25 dB, interior noise levels are predicted to be 44 dB Ldn, with windows closed. This would comply with the Town’s standard of 45 dB Ldn. Therefore, no additional interior noise control measures would be required, assuming that Air conditioning is included to allow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for acoustical isolation. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is predicted to be exposed to transportation noise levels which could exceed the Town of Los Gatos exterior and interior noise level standards. Therefore, the following noise control measures would be required:  A 6-foot tall noise barrier would be required to comply with the Town of Los Gatos 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard. The approximate location of the recommended noise barriers is shown on Figure 3. If a noise barrier is not considered practical due to site grading issues, the Town may at their discretion determine that conditionally acceptable noise levels are acceptable for this project. In this case, no exterior noise control measures would be warranted. Sound walls should be constructed of concrete masonry (CMU) units, solid concrete panels, or earthen berm. Noise barriers may include the combination of earthen berm and CMU wall or concrete panels. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. Other types of materials should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to use.  Air conditioning should be included in all residences to allow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for acoustical isolation. Appendix A Acoustical Terminology Acoustics The science of sound. Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study. Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal. A-Weighting A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response. Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one-tenth of a Bell. CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging. Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz (Hz). Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting. Leq Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level. Lmax The highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time. L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one hour period. Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound. Noise Unwanted sound. NRC Noise Reduction Coefficient. NRC is a single-number rating of the sound-absorption of a material equal to the arithmetic mean of the sound-absorption coefficients in the 250, 500, 1000, and 2,000 Hz octave frequency bands rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.05. It is a representation of the amount of sound energy absorbed upon striking a particular surface. An NRC of 0 indicates perfect reflection; an NRC of 1 indicates perfect absorption. Peak Noise The level corresponding to the highest (not RMS) sound pressure measured over a given period of time. This term is often confused with the AMaximum@ level, which is the highest RMS level. RT60 The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed. Sabin The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 Sabin. SEL Sound Exposure Level. SEL is s rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train passby, that compresses the total sound energy into a one-second event. STC Sound Transmission Class. STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. It is widely used to rate interior partitions, ceilings/floors, doors, windows and exterior wall configurations. Threshold The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered to be 0 dB for of Hearing persons with perfect hearing. Threshold Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. of Pain Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Simple Tone Any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or set of single pitches. Ap p e n d i x B Ho u r L e q L m a x L 5 0 L 9 0 0: 0 0 : 0 0 5 2 6 9 4 7 4 3 1: 0 0 : 0 0 4 8 6 7 4 2 4 0 H i g h L o w A ve r a g e H i g h L o w A verage 2: 0 0 : 0 0 4 5 6 0 4 2 3 9 L e q ( A v e r a g e ) 68 5 8 6 3 6 1 4 5 5 5 3: 0 0 : 0 0 4 7 6 6 4 2 4 0 L m a x ( M a x i m u m ) 93 7 0 7 9 7 6 6 0 6 9 4: 0 0 : 0 0 5 2 6 7 4 8 4 2 L 5 0 ( M e d i a n ) 61 5 7 6 0 5 9 4 2 4 9 5: 0 0 : 0 0 5 8 7 4 5 6 5 0 L 9 0 ( B a c k g r o u n d ) 58 5 3 5 6 5 6 3 9 4 5 6: 0 0 : 0 0 6 1 7 6 5 9 5 6 7: 0 0 : 0 0 6 2 8 0 6 1 5 8 C o m p u t e d L d n , d B 6 4 8: 0 0 : 0 0 6 8 9 3 6 1 5 8 % D a y t i m e E n e r g y 9 1 % 9: 0 0 : 0 0 6 2 7 5 6 1 5 8 % N i g h t t i m e E n e r g y 9% 10 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 0 7 5 5 9 5 7 11 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 1 7 5 6 0 5 7 12 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 2 8 6 6 0 5 7 13 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 1 7 4 6 0 5 7 14 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 1 7 4 6 0 5 7 15 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 2 7 5 6 1 5 7 16 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 2 7 8 6 1 5 7 17 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 1 8 2 6 0 5 7 18 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 1 8 3 6 0 5 6 19 : 0 0 : 0 0 5 9 7 0 5 8 5 5 20 : 0 0 : 0 0 6 7 9 2 5 8 5 4 21 : 0 0 : 0 0 5 8 7 4 5 7 5 3 22 : 0 0 : 0 0 5 6 7 5 5 4 4 9 23 : 0 0 : 0 0 5 3 7 0 5 0 4 4 Ni g h t t i m e ( 1 0 p . m . - 7 a . m . ) 20 1 6 - 1 3 0 N e w e l l A v e n u e S u b d i v i s i o n 24 h r C o n t i n u o u s N o i s e M o n i t o r i n g - S i t e A Da y t i m e ( 7 a . m . - 1 0 p . m . ) Th u r s d a y , A p r i l 2 1 , 2 0 1 6 St a t i s t i c a l S u m m a r y Ld n = 6 4 d B 20 1 6 - 1 3 0 N e w e l l A v e n u e S u b d i v i s i o n 24 h r C o n t i n u o u s N o i s e M o n i t o r i n g - S i t e A Th u r s d a y , A p r i l 2 1 , 2 0 1 6 Ap p e n d i x B 30405060708090 10 0 12 A M 4 A M 8 A M 12 P M 4 P M 8 P M S o u n d L e v e l , d B Ho u r o f D a y Le q Lm a x L5 0 L9 0 Future 33,024 91 9 2 1 35 Soft Medium Heavy Location:Description Distance Offset (dB)Autos Trucks Trucks Total 1 24-hr Measuremetn Site A 100 1 63 56 58 65 2 Lot 3/4 Backyard 100 1 63 56 58 65 3 Lot 3/4 Façade 100 4 66 59 61 68 4 Lot 1/2 Backyard 200 -4 54 47 49 56 5 Lot 1/2 Façade 200 4 62 55 57 64 Ldn Contour, dB 75 70 65 60 Notes: Job Number: 2016-130 Appendix C FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Noise Prediction Worksheet Project Information: Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph): Project Name: Newell Avenue Subdivision Roadway Name: Winchester Blvd. Traffic Data: Year: Average Daily Traffic Volume: Percent Daytime Traffic: Percent Nighttime Traffic: Percent Medium Trucks (2 axle): Percent Heavy Trucks (3+ axle): Intervening Ground Type (hard/soft): Traffic Noise Levels: -----------------Ldn, dB------------------ Traffic Noise Contours (No Calibration Offset): Distance from Centerline, (ft) 19 41 88 190 Future 33,024 91 9 2 1 35 Soft Medium Heavy Location:Description Distance Offset (dB)Autos Trucks Trucks Total 1 24-hr Measuremetn Site A 100 1 63 56 58 65 2 Lot 3/4 Backyard 100 1 63 56 58 65 3 Lot 3/4 Façade 100 4 66 59 61 68 4 Lot 1/2 Backyard 200 -4 54 47 49 56 5 Lot 1/2 Façade 200 4 62 55 57 64 Ldn Contour, dB 75 70 65 60 Notes: Job Number: 2016-130 Appendix D FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Noise Prediction Worksheet Project Information: Assumed Vehicle Speed (mph): Project Name: Newell Avenue Subdivision Roadway Name: Winchester Blvd. Traffic Data: Year: Average Daily Traffic Volume: Percent Daytime Traffic: Percent Nighttime Traffic: Percent Medium Trucks (2 axle): Percent Heavy Trucks (3+ axle): Intervening Ground Type (hard/soft): Traffic Noise Levels: -----------------Ldn, dB------------------ Traffic Noise Contours (No Calibration Offset): Distance from Centerline, (ft) 19 41 88 190 63 56 58 70 15 300 302 308 309.25 314.25 309 6 Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Total Autos? Medium Trucks? Heavy Trucks? 655495258 Yes Yes Yes 754475156 Yes Yes Yes 853465055 Yes Yes Yes 952454854 Yes Yes Yes 10 51 44 48 53 Yes Yes Yes 11 50 43 47 52 Yes Yes Yes 12 50 43 46 52 Yes Yes Yes 13 49 42 45 51 Yes Yes Yes 14 49 42 44 51 Yes Yes Yes Notes: 316 317 Receiver Description: 322 315 Top of Barrier Elevation (ft) Barrier Height2 (ft) Medium Truck Elevation: Heavy Truck Elevation: Receiver Elevation1: Job Number: Project Name: Roadway Name: Year: 1.Standard receiver elevation is five feet above grade/pad elevations at the receiver location(s) Newell Avenue Subdivision Heavy Truck Ldn, dB: Medium Truck L dn, dB: 2016-130 Automobile Elevation: Barrier Breaks Line of Sight to… Lot 4 Backyard Centerline to Barrier Distance (C1): Barrier to Receiver Distance (C2): 323 318 319 320 321 Pad/Ground Elevation at Receiver: Barrier Effectiveness: Base of Barrier Elevation: Starting Barrier Height -------------------- L dn, dB -------------------- Noise Barrier Effectiveness Prediction Worksheet FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Appendix E-1 Project Information: Noise Level Data: Site Geometry: Winchester Blvd. 2Location(s): Auto Ldn, dB: Existing 63 56 58 70 15 300 302 308 308.75 313.75 310 6 Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Total Autos? Medium Trucks? Heavy Trucks? 654475056 Yes Yes Yes 753464955 Yes Yes Yes 852454854 Yes Yes Yes 951444753 Yes Yes Yes 10 50 43 46 52 Yes Yes Yes 11 49 42 45 51 Yes Yes Yes 12 49 42 45 51 Yes Yes Yes 13 48 42 44 50 Yes Yes Yes 14 48 41 44 50 Yes Yes Yes Notes: 321 322 323 324 1.Standard receiver elevation is five feet above grade/pad elevations at the receiver location(s) Barrier Breaks Line of Sight to… 316 317 318 319 320 Starting Barrier Height Barrier Effectiveness: Top of Barrier Elevation (ft) Barrier Height2 (ft) -------------------- L dn, dB -------------------- Automobile Elevation: Medium Truck Elevation: Heavy Truck Elevation: Pad/Ground Elevation at Receiver: Receiver Elevation1: Base of Barrier Elevation: Site Geometry:Receiver Description: Lot 3 Backyard Centerline to Barrier Distance (C1): Barrier to Receiver Distance (C2): Noise Level Data:Year: Future (2036) Auto Ldn, dB: Medium Truck L dn, dB: Heavy Truck Ldn, dB: Project Name: Newell Avenue Subdivision Roadway Name: Winchester Blvd. Location(s): 2 Appendix E-2 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Noise Barrier Effectiveness Prediction Worksheet Project Information:Job Number: 2016-130 ~ ~ '""' .r;.. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE 105 NEWELL AVENUE PROJECT Mitigation Measures AQ-1: BAt\QMD-Rccommend Basic Construction Mitigation Mea sures. To limit the pro ject's construction -related dust and criteria po llutant emissions, the fo ll owing the Bay Area Air Quali ty Management District (BAAQMD)-recommendcd Basic Construction J\ilitigation Measures s hall be included in the project's grading plan, building plans, and contract specification s: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas , staging areas , soil piles, graded areas, a nd unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times p er day. Recycled water s ho uld be used wherever feasib le. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose m aterial off-site shall b e cove red. c. AU vis ible m ud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public road s shall b e removed using wet p ower vacuum s tree t sweepers at leas t once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d . e. f. All veh icle speed s o n unpaved road s shall b e limited to 15 mph. All roadways, d ri veways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as poss ible. Idling times shall be minimized e ither b y shutting equipme nt off whe n n o t in u se o r reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the C alifornia airborne toxics control measu re Title 13, Section 2485 of Cali fo rnia Code of Regulatiom [CCR]). Clear sig nage s hall be provided for con struction workers at all access points. Party Respon sible for Implementation Project E ngin eer and Construction Con tractor Implementation Trigger /Timing Prior to issuance of grading permit I during construction Agen cy Res p o n sible fo r M o nitoring Director of C o mmunity D evelopment 105 Newell Avenu e PD-14-002 ND-16-002 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progra m T iming and Monitoring Review specifications; monitor prior to a nd during regular inspections Monitoring Compliance R ecord (Name/Dat e) Initials: Date: __ _ Initial s: Date: __ _ l ni tial s: Date: __ _ l nitials: Date: ___ _ EXHIBIT 1 4 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE 105 NEWELL AVENUE PROJECT Party Res ponsible for Mitigation Measures Implementation g. All construction eq uipment s hall be maintain ed and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and d etermin ed to be running in proper condition prior to h. operation. The project "di sturban ce contractor shall designate a coordinator" responsible for re sponding to any local complaints regarding dust complaints. The project contractor will post a publicly visible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbanc e coordinator. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensu re compliance with applicable regulations. CU L-1: Discove01 of Unknown Cultural Resources In the event that archaeological traces are encountered , all construction with in a SO-meter radius o f the find will be halted , the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archa eologist will be retained to examin e the find and make appropriate reco mmendations. If the Community Development Director find s that t he archaeological find is not a significant reso urce, work will res ume o nl y after the submittal of a preliminary arc haeological re port and after provisio m for reburial a nd ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisiom for identifying d escendants of a deceased Native American and for rebu rial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.S (e). If the site is foun d to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program Con struction contractor and archaeological monitor Implementation Trigger /Timing During ground- d isturbing activities 2 Agency Responsible for Monitoring Director o f Community D evelopment 105 Newell Avenue PD-14 -002 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Timing and Monitoring Monitor during construction Monitoring Complian ce Reco rd (Name/Date) Initials: Date: ___ _ Initials: Date: __ _ Initials: Date: __ _ Initials : D ate: __ _ SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE 105 NEWELL AVENUE PROJECT Party Res pons ible for Mitigati on Measures Imple mentatio n will be prepared and submitted to th e Community D ev elopment Directo r for con side ration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Cod e Sec tion 21083.2. A final report shall be prepared when a find is d etermin ed to be a significant archaeological site, and/or when Native America n remain s are found on th e site. The fi nal report will include background information on th e complet ed wor k, a d esc ription and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation o f these resources, any testing, other recovered informatio n, and conclusions. C UI ~2: D iscovecy of l luman Remain s I f human remains arc discovered, the Sa nta Clara County Coron er will be notified. T he Coroner will de termine whether or not the remain s are Native American. I f th e Coroner d eterm ines that the remains arc no t subject to his authority, he wil l notify the Native American H eritage Commission, wh o shall attem p t to ide ntify d es cendants o f th e deceased N ative Americans. G E0-1: Geotechnical T nvcs tigation For th e proposed roadway and each proposed resid ential uni t , t he project applicant(s) shall consult with a registe red gcotcc hnical engi nee r to prepare a design-level geotcchnical inves tigation. The design -level geotech nica.l report shall address, but n ot be limited to, site preparatio n and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A design-level geotechnical report shall Construction Contractor Developer-contracted geotechnical engineer Implementation T rigger/Timing During ground- disturbing activities Prior to issuance of building permit / prior to con struction 3 Agen cy R espo n sible for M o nito ri ng Director of Community Development Building Division 105 Newell Avenue PD-14-002 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program T iming and M o nito ring Monitor durin g construction Rev iew specifications; monitor prior to and d uring regular ins pections Monito ring C o mpliance R ecord (Nam e/D a te) Tnit ial s: Date: ___ _ Initials: Date: __ _ Initials: Date: __ _ Initiak Date: Initial s: Date: __ _ Initial s: Date: __ _ Initials: -I "" ~o.a1'Y SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE 105 NEWELL AVENUE PROJECT Party R esp o n sible for M itigation Measures Imp leme nta tio n be prepared and submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application (s) a nd reviewed and approved b y th e T o wn o f Los Gatos. Reco mme ndations fr o m the des ign - lc vcl geotechnical report shall be incorporated into th e final project d esign and construction d ocuments. NOl -1: Noise Attenuation Wall Prio r to th e issuance o f a g rading permit or improvem ents plans, t he applicant shall d emonstrate to th e Directo r of Community D evelo pment , that a nois e attenuation wall is shown on th e final landscape plans. The no ise a ttenuation wall shall includ e th e sp ecifi cati o ns: • The no ise attenuati on wall shall b e a minimum of six fe et tall. The appro xim ate location of the reco mmended noise barriers is shown on F igure 3 o f th e nois e analysis repo r t prepared foe the proj ect dated Ma y 2, 2016. • T he no ise attenuation wall shaU b e constructed o f concrete masonry units (C M U), solid co ncrete panels, or earthen berm . The n oise barriers may include the comb ination o f earthen b erm and C MU wall or concrete panel s. W ood is n ot recommended due to eventual warping and d egradation of acousti cal performance . O th er types of materials should be review ed by an acoustical consultant p rio r to use. • Air conditio ning shall be includ ed in all residences to all ow occupants to close doors and windows as des ir ed for acou stical isolati o n. Construction Contracto r Imple m e ntation T ri gger /Tim i ng Pri o r to issuance of building / grading permit / during construction 4 Agen cy Resp o n sible fo r Monit orin g Building Division 105 Newell Avenue PD-1 4-002 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti ng Program Timing an d Monit oring Revi ew specifications; monitor during construction; review mitigation program if required Monitoring Com plian ce R ecord (Name/D ate) Date: ___ _ Initials: Date: ___ _ Initials: Date: ___ _ Initials: Date: ___ _ Initials: Date: ___ _ I nitials : Date: ___ _ SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE 105 NEWELL AVENUE PROJECT Mitigatio n Measures NOl-2: Con s truction Vi bration The construction contractor s hall prohibit the use of vibratory rollers within 30 feet of ex isting residences. Pl ate compactors and s mall er, rubber-tired equipment shall be utilized as feas ibl e. The T own of Los Gatos Building Division shall ensure th at this requirement is incorporated into construction documents prior to is1mance of grading permits. NOI-3: Construction Specifi ca tions to Reduce N oise The projec t applicant and its successors shall en sure that the fo ll owin g practices arc incorporated into the comtruction specification d oc ume nts to be impleme nted by the pro ject contractor: • • • Provide e nclosures and m ufflers for statio nary eq uipment, s hrouding or shi eldi ng for impact tools, and barriers around particularl y noisy operations, such as grading or use of concrete saws within 50 fee t of an occupied se n sitiv e land use. Use construction equipment with lower Ocss than 70 dB) noise emissi o n ratings whenever possible, particularly air compressors and gene rators. Do not u se equipme nt on which sou nd-control devices provided b y the manufacturer have been alte red to reduce noise contro l. • Locate stationary equipme nt, mate ri al s to ckpil es, and veh icl e staging areas a s far as practicable from sensitive receptors. • Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion Party Responsible for Implementation Con strnctio n Contractor Construction Contractor Implementation Trigger /Tim ing Prior to issuance of g rad ing p ermit / during construction Prior to issuance of grading permit / d uring construction 5 Agency Responsible for Monitoring Building Division Building Division 105 Newell Avenue PD-14-002 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Timing and Mon itoring Review s peci ficati o n s; monitor during construction; rev iew mitigation program if required Review specifi cations; mo nitor during construction; review mitigation p rogram if required Monitoring Compli an ce R ecord (Nam e/Date) Initials: Date: __ _ Initials: Date: __ _ Initials: Date: __ _ In iti al s: Date: Initial s: Date: __ _ Initi als: Date: __ _ Initials: Date : __ _ In itia ls: Date: __ _ SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE 105 NEWELL AVENUE PROJECT Mitigation Measures engmes. • Implement noise attenuatio n measures to th e ex tent feas ibl e (i.e., such that t hey do not imped e efficient operation of equipment o r dramatically slow pro duction rates), which may include, but are not lim ited to, noise barriers o r n o ise bl ankets. The pl ace me nt of such attenuatio n measures shal l be reviewed and approved by th e Los Gatos Building Division prior to issuance o f d eve lopment pe rmit for construction activities. 1 1lA NS-1: Traffic Control Plan The project applicant shall work with the Engineering Division of t he T own of Los Gatos's Parks and Public Works D epartment to devise a traffic control plan for inco rp o ration into the construction bid documents (s pecifications) to ensure sa fe and e ffici e nt traffic fl ow during periods when soil is hauled o ff the project site. The plan sha ll include, but no t be limited to, th e fo ll owin g me as u re s: • Hauling and deli very acti viti es and designated truck rou tes shall b e stra tegicall y selected , timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption to schools, res idents, busine sses, special events, and o th er pro jects in th e area. T he schools located o n the haul ro ute shall be contac ted to help with th e coordinatio n of the trucking operation to minimi ze traffic disruption. • Plag p ersons shall be placed at locations as necessary . All fl ag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate th e operation. • Prior to constructio n, ad vance notification o f all affected re sidents and emerge ncy se rvic es shall be Party Responsible for Implementation Proje ct Applicant and Project Engineer Implementation Trigger /Timing Prior to iss uance of grading permit / during construction 6 Agency Res ponsible for Monitoring E ngineering Development Se rvices 105 Newell Avenue PD-14-002 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Timing and Mo nitoring Review specifications; mo nitor prior to an d during regu lar in spectio ns M onitoring Compliance Record (Name/Date) I nitial s: D ate: __ _ In itials : Date: ___ _ Initials: Date: ___ _ Initial s: Date: ___ _ SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE 105 NEWELL AVENUE PROJECT P ar ty R espons ible for Mit igatio n M easu res Imple m e nta tio n made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation. • Hauling of so il on or off-site s hal l not occur during th e morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and betwee n 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m .). TRr\NS-2: Driveway Design The applicant shall hire a registered traffic engmeer to ensure appro priate driveway design for the new private access drive. /\ detailed sight distance evaluation for the project roadway shall be prepared for review and approval b y the Park s and P ublic Works Department and th e Community Development Director prio r to ap proval of th e Final Subdivision Map . Project Appli cant & Project Engineer Imple m e n tation Trigger /T im in g Prior to approval o f Final Subdivis ion Map 7 Agen cy R esp o n s ible for Monitorin g Engineering Development Services & Community Develo pment Director 105 Newell Aven ue PD-14-002 Mitigati on Monitoring and Reporting Program Timingand Monitoring Review specifications; monitor p rior to and during regu lar inspections Mon itoring Complian ce R ecord (Name/Date) I nitials: Date: __ _ Initials : Date: ___ _ Initials: Date: ___ _ Initials: Date: ORDINANCE Draft Ordinance: s ubj ect to modification by Town Council based on deliberations and direction ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1:12 TO R-1:12:PD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 NEWELL AVENUE (APN: 409-24-026) THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAfN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is h ereby amended to change the zoning on property at I 05 Newell Avenue (Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel N umber 409-24-026) as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A , and i s part of this Ordinance, from R-1: 12 (Single-Family Residential, 12 ,000 square foot lot minimum) to R-1: 12 (Single-Family Residential 12,000 s quare foot lo t minimum, Planned Development). SECTION II The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements: 1. Removal of existing s ite improvements. 2. Construction of four market rate s ingle-family detached res idence s and up to two seco ndary dwelling units. 3. Landscaping, private street, parking and other improvements sh ow n and required o n the Official Development Plans . 4. Uses permitted are tho se s pecified in the R -1: 12 (Single Family Residential , 12 ,000 s quare foot lot minimum) zo ne by Sections 29.40.380 (Permitted Uses), as it exists at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future. Page 1 of 27 EXHIBIT 1 5 SECTION lII COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Develo pment Plan s pecifically shows otherwise. SECTION IV A Tentative Subdivision Map and Architecture and Site Approvals are required before construction of s ubdivision improvements or new residences , whether or not a permit is required for the work and before any p ermit for construction is issued. Construction permits s hall only be in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130 of the Town Code. SECTION V The a ttached Exhibit A (Map), and Exhibit B (Official Deve lopment Plans), are part of the Official Development Plan. The following performance standards must be complied with before issuance of any grading, or construction permits (mitigation meas ures are so no ted and are flagged with an asterisk): TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. OFFI C IAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS . The Official Development Plans provided are conceptual in nature. Final building footprints and building designs shall be determined during the Architecture and Site approval process . Colors and building material s shown on the Official Development Plan are not approved and shall be reviewed during the Architecture and Site approval process. 2. 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 , and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. Page 2 of27 3. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. A separate Architecture and Site (A&S) application and approval is required for each of the new residences. The Architecture and Site app li cations shall be reviewed by the Development Review Committee. Architectural details, including fencing and a project entry sign, shall be refined as part of this process with input from the Town 's Consulting Architect. A full A&S submittal shall be provided, including (but not limited to) the following details/clarifications: a. Clarification of total lot size. b. FAR for each site based on net lot size after removal of street easement area and required slope reduction. c. Building heights shall be shown to be no more than 30-feet as measured to the existing or proposed grade, whichever is lower. d. Any bay windows shall be at least 36 inches above the finished floor to qualify for the bay window setback exception. e. A photometric plan for proposed street lighting shall show compliance with engineering standards. f. Additional retaining wall details. g . Reduction in fence height, or request for fence height exception for heights greater than si x feet and not exceeding eight feet. h. Accurate and scaled site sections 1. Existing and proposed site elevations (streetscape or site section) from Winchester Boulevard. J. Memo detailing how the proposal will meet the recommendations of the Arborist Consultant Report. k. Memo detailing how proposal wi ll meet the recommendations of the Consulting Architect's Report. 4. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. A fina l landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Town 's Consulting Landscape Architect and approved as part of the Architecture and Site process. Minimum tree size at time of planting shall be 24-inch box. Page 3 of27 5. WATER CONSERVATION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. The proposed landscaping shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. SETBACKS. The minimum setbacks are those specified by the R-1: 12 zoning district or as otherwise shown on the Conceptual Development Plans. 7. LOT DEPTHS. The lot depths shown on the Conceptual Development Plans shall be modified so that lots 3 and 4 shall meet the required 125 foot lot depth. 8. BUILDING HEIGHT. The maximum height of the new residences shall be 30 feet. The maximum height for detached garages shall be 15 feet. 9. HOUSING SIZE. No additional square footage shall be permitted for any of th e units . 10. SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS. Secondary dwelling units are permitted on Lot s l and 4. 11. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. All exterior building and outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed away from neighboring properties, to shine on the project site only. Lighting shall be the minimum needed for pedestrian safety and security. Lighting specifications shall be reviewed as part of the Architecture and Site process . 12. TREE PRESERVATION: All recommendations of the Town 's Consulting Arbori s t shall be followed. Refer to the report prepared by Deborah Ellis, dated February 19 , 2015 for additional details . The Arborist Consultant shall reevaluate the plans for the new residences during Architecture and Site review. 13. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for trees approved for removal prior to the issuance of demolition permits. 14. REPLACEMENT TREES. New trees shall be planted to mitigate the loss of trees being removed. The number of trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table in the Tree Protection Ordinance. New trees shall be double staked and shall be planted prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits. Page 4 of27 15. TREE FENCING. Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees and shall remain through all phases of construction. Refer to the report prepared by Deborah Elli s dated February 19 , 2015 for requirements. Fencing shall be six foot high cyclo ne attached to two-inch diameter steel posts drive 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than 10 feet apart. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans. 16. RECYCLING. All wood, metal , g lass and aluminum materials generated from demolition work shall be deposited to a company which w ill recycle the materials . Receipts from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting type and weight of material, shall be s ubmitted to the Town prior to the demolition inspection. 17. FlNAL UTILITY LOCATIONS. The applicant shall submit plans showing the final locations and scr eening of a ll exterior utilities, including but not limited to , backflow preventers, Fire Department connections, transformers, utility boxes and utility meters. Uti lity devices shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Developme nt. T he plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to is suance of building permits for new construction. 18. EXISTING RET AINlNG WALL. The existing retaining wall height along Winchester Boulevard shall not increase should the wall need to be rebuilt. 19. PLAN INCONSISTENCY. Any inconsistencies between sheets shall be limited to whichever is more restrictive. 20. SIDEWALKS . Sidewalk s along Winchester Boul evard and Newell A venue shall meet minimum Town Code requirements. 21. GENERAL PROVISIONS. This Planned Development shall comply with provi s ions in Town Code Sections 29.40.0 15 through 29.40.070, and Article V , unless m ore restrictive pro vis ions are required in other performance standards for the subject Planned Development. 22. DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE PROPERTY LlNES: Development shall take place within property lines unless written permission is obtained from nei ghboring property owners. 23. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION M EAS U RE AQ-1 *: BAAQMD-Reco mmend Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. To limit the project's construction-related du st and Page 5 of27 criteria pollutant emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included in the project 's grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas , and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. Recycled water should be used wherever feasible. b. All haul trucks transporting soil , sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalk s to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. f. Idling times shall be minimized either b y shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics contro l measure Title 13 , Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be prov ided for cons truction workers at all acce ss points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. The project contractor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding dust complaints. The project contractor will post a publicly visible sign with a contact telephone number for the disturbance coordinator. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with appli cable regulations. 24. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1 *: Discovery of Unknown Cultural Resources. In the event that archaeological traces are encountere d , all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community Page 6 of27 Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist wi ll be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for 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 approva l, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeo logical si te , and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report will 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. 25. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-2*: Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are discovered , the Santa C lara 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. 26. GEOTECHNICAL MITIGATION MEASURE GE0-1 *: Geotechnical Investigation. For the proposed roadway and each proposed residential unit , the project applicant(s) shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation. The design-level geotechnical report shall address, but not be limited to , site preparation and grading, building foundations, and CBC seismic design parameters. A design-level geotechnica l report shall be prepared and submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application(s) and reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos. Recommendations from the design-level geotechnical rep ort shall be incorporated into the final project design and construction documents . Page 7 of27 27. NOISE MITIGATION MEASURE NOI-1 *:Noise Attenuation Wall. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvements plans, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Director of Community Development that a noise attenuation wall is shown on the final landscape plans. The noise attenuation wall shall include the specifications: • The noise attenuation wall shall be a minimum of six feet tall. The approximate location of the recommended noise barriers is shown on Figure 3 of the noise ana lysis report prepared for the project dated May 2, 2016. • The noise attenuation wall shall be constructed of concrete masonry units (CMU), sol id concrete panel s, or earthen berm. The noise barriers may include the combination of earthen berm and CMU wall or concrete panels. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. Other types of materials should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to use. • Air conditioning shall be included in all residences to all ow occupants to close doors and windows as desired for acoustical isolation. 28. NOISE MITGATION MEASURE NOI-2*: Construction Vibration. The construction contractor shall prohibit the use of vibratory rollers within 30 feet of existing resi dences. Plate compactors and smaller, rubber-tired equipment shall be utili z ed as feasible. The Town of Los Gatos Building Division s hall ensure that this requirement is incorporated into construction documents prior to issuance of grading permits. 29. NOISE MITGATION MEASURE NOI-3*: Co nstruction Specifications to Reduce Noise. The project applicant and its s uccessors shall ensure that the following practi ces are incorporated into the construction specification documents to be impleme nted by the project contractor: • Provide enclosures and mufflers for stationary equipment, shrouding or shielding for impact tools, and barriers around particularly noisy operations, such as grading or use of concrete saws within 50 feet of an occupied sensitive land use. • Use construction equipment with lower (less than 70 dB) noise emission ratings whenever poss ible , particularly air compressors and generators. • Do not use equipment on which sound-contro l devices provided by the manufacturer have been altered to reduce noi se control. Page 8 of27 • Locate stationary equipment, material stockpiles, and vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from sensitive receptors . • Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. • Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible (i.e., such that they do not impede efficient operation of equipment or dramatically slow production rates), which may include, but are not limited to , noi se barriers or noise blankets. The placement of s uch attenuation meas ures shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Gatos Building Division prior to iss uance of development permit for construction activities. 30. TRANSPORA TION/TRAFFIC MITGA TION MEASURE TRANS-I*: Traffic Control Plan. The project applicant shall work with the Engineering Division of the Town of Los Gatos 's Parks and Public Works Department to devise a traffic control plan for incorporation into the construction bid documents (specifications) to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow during periods when soil is hauled off the project site. The plan shall include, but not be limited to , the following measures: • Hauling and delivery activities and designated truck routes shall be strategically se lected, timed and coordinated to minimi ze traffic disruption to schools, residents, businesses, s pecial events, and other projects in the area. The school s located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimi ze traffic disruption. • Flag persons shall be placed at locations as neces sary. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation. • Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation. • 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.). 31. TRANSPORA TION/TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURE TRANS-2*: Driveway Design . The applicant shall hire a registered traffic engineer to ensure appropriate driveway des ign for the new private access drive. A detail ed sight distance evaluation for the project roadway shall be prepared for review and approval by the Parks and Public Page 9 of27 Works Department and the Community Development Director prior to a pproval of the Final Subdivision Map. Building Divis ion 32. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit shall be required for the demolition of the existing building and a Building Permit the construction of each new s ing le-family residence. A separate plan set is required for each lot. Separate Building Pe rmits are required for each lot 's Site Retaining Wa ll s . Separate permits are required fo r e lectrical , mechanical , and plumbing work as necessary. 33. C ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be b lu e-lined in full on the cov er sheet of the co ns truction plans. A Compliance Memorandum s ha ll be prepared and submitted with the Building Permit application d etailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 34. SIZE OF PLANS : Four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24 " x 36", max imum size 30" x 42". 35. DEMOLIT ION REQU IREMENTS: Obtain a Building D epartment D em oliti on Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District Application from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has been completed , all s ignatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that a ll utilities have been disconnected, return the compl eted form to the Building Departm e nt Service Counter with the Air Qua lity Di strict 's J# Certificate, PG&E verific atio n, and three (3) sets of site pl ans showing all existing s tructures, existing utility service lines s uch as water, sewer , and PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town. 36. STREET NAME & BUILDING ADDRESSES: Request the new street n ame or veri fy approval of proposed street name and s ubmit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior t o s ubmitting for the Building Permit application process. 37. SOILS REPORT: A Soils R eport, prep ared to the satisfaction of the Building Official , containing found ation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the Building P ermit Application. This report shall be prepared by a li cens ed C i vil E n ginee r specializing in soils mechani cs. Page 10of27 38. FOUNDATION fNSPECTIONS: 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 that the building pad elevation and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the 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 comer locations d. Retaining Walls 39. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wood 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 future grab bars when needed. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor. c. Primary entrance shall be a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no more than I-inch out of plane with the immediate interior fl oor level with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 40. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined, i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet. 41 . 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. Page 11 of 27 42. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905 or a gas appliance with no wood burning components. Tree limbs shall be cut within IO-feet of Chimney. 43 . FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly. 44. SPECIAL INSP ECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, 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 and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgato sca.gov/building 45. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The To wn standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program 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 ARC Blue Print for a fee or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 46. APPROVALS REQUIRED : The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a . Community Development -Planning Division : Jennifer Armer (408) 399-5702 b . Engineering/Parks & Public Works Dept.: Mike Weisz (408) 354-5236 c . Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e . 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. f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: ( 415) 771-6000 TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Enginee ring Division 47 . GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, and Engineering Design Standards. All work Page 12of27 shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-o f-way shall be kept clear of all job related mud, slit, concrete, dirt, and other construction debri s at the end of the day. Dirt and de bri s shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materi als on the s idewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permi t is issued . The Deve loper's representati ve in charge shall be at the j o b 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 maintenanc e at the Developer's expense. 4 8. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approval s li sted below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to th e approved plans or conditions of approvals s hall b e approved by the Town E ngineer. 49. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE P UB Ll C RIGHT-OF-WAY (INDEMNITY AGREEMENT): The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for all ex istin g a nd propose d private improvements wi th in the Town 's right-of-way. The Owner sh all be solely responsible fo r mai ntai nin g the improvements in a good a nd safe condition at all times and shall indemnify the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must b e completed and accepted by the Town Attorney, a nd a co py of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the En gineering Divi s ion of the Parks and Public W orks Department, prior to th e iss uance of any permits. 50. PUBLIC WORKS INS PECTIO NS: T he Deve loper or hi s/her representative sh all notify the Engineeri n g In spector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting an y work pertaining to on-site drainage fac iliti es, grad in g or paving, and a ll work in the Town's right -of-way. Failure to do so w ill result in rejecti o n o f work that went on without in s pection. 51. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or repl ace a ll existing improvem ents no t d esignated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Developer's operations . Improvements such as , but not limited to : curbs, gutt er s , sidewalk s, driveways, s igns, pavements, raised pavement mark er s , thermoplastic pavement markings, e tc., shall be r epaired and repl aced to a conditi on equal to or better Page 13of27 than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti , etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's so le expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore . 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. The Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 52. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job si te at all times during construction. 53. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions suc h as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 54. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be depo sited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Dep artment. 55. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall b e deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any Permit or recordation of the Parcel I Final Map. 56. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required pl ans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California , and submitted to th e Town Engineer for review and approval. 57. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the E ngineering Di vision of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles A ve nue. The grading pl an s shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location(s), driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervio us areas . Un less specifically allowed by the Director of Park s and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside Page 14of27 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. 58. COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ST AND ARDS AND GUIDELINES: All grading activities and operations shall be in compliance with Section III of the Town 's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All development shall be in compliance with Section II of the Town 's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. 59. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map (except maps for financing and conveyance purposes only) or prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits, whichever comes first, the Applicant shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any required easements to the Town. 60 . SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant's engineers shall prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval by the Town. 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. Approval of the Applicant's soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 61. 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 shall 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 permit is granted. Page 15 of27 62. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Feasibility by Milstone Geotechnical, dated June 26, 2014, and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town's consultant and costs shall be borne by the Applicant. 63. TREE REMOVAL: A tree removal permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 64. 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. 65. 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 as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction. 66. 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. 67. PARCEL MAP: A parcel map is required. Two (2) copies of the parcel map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department for review and approval. Submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports and the appropriate fee. The map shall be recorded before any permits for new construction are issued. Page 16of27 68. UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW: Letters from West Valley Sanitation District, the electric, telephone, cable, and trash companies indicating that the proposed improvements and easements are acceptable shall be provided prior to map recordation. 69. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated on the parcel map: a. Elks Place (private street): 1. Private easements for ingress and egress, storm drainage , and sanitary sewer, as needed. IL Emergency Access Easement: 20-foot wide minimum, from the Newell A venue/Elks Place intersection to the terminus of Elks Place. iii . Public Service Easement (PSE) for joint trench facilities only. 70. DEMOLITION: The existing building shall be demolished prior to recordation of the parcel map affected by this existing building. 71. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct public improvements in accordance with Town Code Section 24.40.020. The Applicant shall supply suitable securities for all public improvements that are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100% performance and 100% labor and materials prior to the issuance of any permit. The 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. 72 . PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the Developer per Town standards. 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. Winchester Boulevard: Remove and replace existing sidewalk with a 10-foot detached sidewalk with park strip, install street trees, and upgrade three curb ramps. Page 17of27 b. Newell A venue: Install new curb, gutter, 10-foot detached sidewalk with park strip, and street trees. c. Winchester/Lark Intersection : Upgrade existing traffic signal to current Town standards including, and may not be limited to, non-LED signal indication to LED 's, non-ADA compliant pedestrian pushbuttons to ADA compliant, 8" signal heads to 12", pedestrian signals to solid pedestrian count down signals, and installation of video detection devices, as applicable. 73. 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. 74. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.01 S(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provid ed for cable television service. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities. 75. WVSD (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 parcel map with respect to the subject property or properties or immediately prior to the issuance of a sewer connection permit, whichever comes first. Written confirmation of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to map recordation. 76 . TRENCHING MORATORIUM : Trenching within a newly paved street will be allowed subject to the following requirements : a. The Town standard "T" trench detail shall be used. b . A Town-approved colored controlled density backfill shall be used. Page 18 of27 c. All necessary utility trenches and related pavement cuts shall be consolidated to minimize the impacted area of the roadway. d. The total asphalt thickness shall be a minimum of three (3) inches, meet Town standards, or shall match the existing thickness, whichever is greater. The final lift shall be 1.5-inches of one-half (Yi ) inch medium asphalt. The initial lift(s) shall be of three-quarter(~) inch medium asphalt. e. The Contractor shall schedule a pre-paving meeting with the Town Engineering Construction Inspector the day the paving is to take place. f. A slurry seal topping may be required by the construction in spector depending their assessment of the quality of the trench paving. If required , the slurry seal shall extend the full width of the street and shall extend five (5) feet beyond the longitudinal limits of trenching. Slurry seal materials shall be approved by the Town Engineering Construction Inspector prior to placement. Black sand may be required in the slurry mix. All existing striping and pavement markings shall be replaced upon completion of slurry seal operations. All pavement restorations shall be completed and approved by the Inspector before occupancy. 77. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA : Any proposed improvements, including but not limiting to trees and hedges , will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080, 26.10 .065, and 29.40 .030. 78. TRAFFIC IMP ACT MITIGATION FEE: The Developer shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements n e eded 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 final traffic impact mitigation fee for thi s project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued , using a comparison between the existing and proposed uses. 79. STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities including but not limited to clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation ofland, which disturbs one ( 1) acre or more or which are part of a larger planned development that disturbs les s than one ( l) acre are Page 19of27 required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State Water Resources Control Board. The Applicant is required to provide proof of WDID# and keep a current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the construction site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and/or Building Department upon request. 80. STORMW ATER DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF : All new development and redevelopment projects are subject to the stormwater development runoff requirements. Every Applicant shall submit a storm water control plan and implement conditions of approval that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and maintenance of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures. Increases in runoff volume and flows shall be managed in accordance with the development runoff requirements. 81. SITE DESIGN MEASURES : All projects shall incorporate one or more of the following measures: a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas. c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas. d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat storm water. 82 . STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN : A storm water management shall be included with the grading permit application for all projects as defined in the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. The plan shall delineate source control measures and BMPs together with the si zing calculations . The plan shall be certified by a professional pre-qualified by the Town. In the event that the 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 the Building Permit. The Applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility. Page 20 of27 83. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Certification from the biotreatment soils provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division Inspection staff a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site. Additionally deliver tags from the soil mix shall also be provided to Engineering Division Inspection staff. Sample Certification can be found here: 84. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd _wp.shtml?zoom_highlight=BIOTREATMENT+SOIL 85. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property owner/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 the Town 's Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or modifications . The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner/homeowner's association and shall specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees . The agreement shall be recorded , and a copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits. 86. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture'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 to approval from the Town Engineer. No construction or employee parking will be allowed on Winchester Boulevard and Newell A venue. 87. 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.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off of 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 Page 21 of 27 activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris. 88. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to 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. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours . The Applicant/Subdivider shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 89. 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 from the source. 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. 90 . CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Developer shall submit a construction management plan that incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), concrete washout(s), and proposed outhouse locations. 91. 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. Page 22 of27 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. 92. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 93. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING - Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3 .i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed a minimum often (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right of way. 94. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised 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 an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division. 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 Page 23 of27 materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment 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. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 95. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS ROAD REQUIRED: Provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet , vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. For installation guide lines refer to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by LGTC. 96. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED: Pro vide 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 Standa rd Details and Specification sheet A-1. Cul-De-Sac Diameters shall be no less than 72 feet. CVC Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by LGTC. 97. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED: Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and 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. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix BB, Table BB105. l and Appendix C. 98. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one-and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one-and two-family dwellings and in existing one-and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE : The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any Page 24 of27 modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CRC Sec. 313 .2 as adopted and amended by LGTC. 99. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and /or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to any appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supp ly of the purveyor ofrecord. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compli ance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by the purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CVC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. I 00. GOUND LADDER ACCESS: Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations. With the climbing angle of seventy five degrees maintained, an approximate walkway width along either side of the building shall be no less than seven feet clear. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required access. CVC Sec. 503 and 1029 NFPA 1932 Sec. 5.1.8 through 5.1 .9.2. 101. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specifications SI-1. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. I 02. FIRE LANE MARKING REQUIRED: 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-1. Page 25 of27 103. TIMING OF INSTALLATION: When fire apparatus access roads or water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alterative methods of protection are provide. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 CVC Sec. 501.4. 104. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12. 7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the buildings cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be sued to identify the structure. CVC Sec. 505.1. Page 26 of27 SECTION VI This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gato s on , and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Lo s Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gato s on , and ---- becomes effective 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS : ABSENT: ABSTAIN : ATTEST: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS , C ALIFORNIA Page 27 of27 This Page Intentionally left Blank