Item 04 - 19 Highland Ave - Staff Report & Exhibits 25-26TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: August 24, 2016
ITEM NO: 4
PREPARED BY: Sally Zamowitz, Planning Manager
SZarn o wi tz@lo sgat os ca . gov
APPLICATION NO.: Architecture and Site Application S-15 -077
LOCATION: 19 Highland Avenue (north side of Highland Avenue just east
of 15 Highland A venue)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Ed Pearson
CONTACT PERSON: Ed Pearson
APPELLANTS: Badame, Roberts, Smullen, and Spalding Families
APPLICATION SUMMARY : Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review
Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to
construct a new single-family residence and remove large
protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Y:!. APN 529-37-033
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Development
Review Committee approving the application, if the Planning
Commission determines that their direction has been addressed.
PROJECT DATA :
CEQA:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Applicable Plans & Standards:
Parcel Size:
Surrounding Area:
Hillside Residential , 0-l dwelling
units/acre
HR-2 112 -Hillside Residential
General Plan; Hillside
Development Standards &
Guidelines
1.04 acres
. .1 .. "§.~.~~-!~I_l:g __ f.::~t.:~l::J.~~-! General Plan ! Zoning
~S>.~~J §.~I_l:_g~-~-£.~~~!xl3:~~-i~~~!i.~r ···l····c;;;·-n~~sity Residenti~l ··r R:~1 -:2o--
East i Single Family Residential .T.Lo~:!?~~~-~~!¥.Re~I~:~~tiai i R-1 :20
•-§~~iil······J:::~~~gf~I~iiiflxB_~i~~~-~!i~l··········l !i_!g~i~-~--~~~~~.t?.~!.~~!....... . ....•. J •••. E~~2·~----
west i Single Family Residential I Hillside Residential I HR-2 Y:!
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were
completed and adopted in 20 I 0 for the approval of a single-family
development application on the site. An Addendum to the MND has
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
19 Highland A venue/S-15-077
August 24, 2016
FINDINGS:
CONSIDERATIONS:
ACTION :
EXHIBITS:
been completed confirming that the proposed project i s in compliance
with the adopted MND and the proposed project will be subject to the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted in
2010. No additional CEQA findings are required .
•
•
•
•
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were
completed and adopted in 2010 for a similar single-family
development application. The proposed application is in
compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will
be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
adopted in 2010.
As required by the Hillside Development Standards &
Guidelines that the project complies with the Hillside
Development Standards & Guidelines.
The project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan .
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting
approval of an Architecture and Site application.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed
within ten days.
Previously received with May 11, 2016 Desk Item Report:
1. Emails from appellants, received May 11,2016
Previously received with June 8, 2016 StaffReport:
2 . Location Map
3. Required Findings and Considerations
4. Recommended Conditions (nine pages)
5. Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (three
pages)
6 . Town Council Resolution (200 1-128)
7 . December 8, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes (15 pages)
8. Consulting Architect 's Report (three pages), dated February 24,
2016
9. 2010 Arborist Report (26 pages), dated February 15 , 2010
10. Project Data Sheet
11. Letter from Anthony Badame ( 13 pages), received March 24, 2016
12. March 29,2016 Development Review Committee Minutes (three
pages)
13. Appeal letter, received April 8, 2016 (four pages)
14. May 11,2016 Planning Commission Minutes (six pages)
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 3
19 Highland A venue/S-15-077
August 24, 2016
BACKGROUND:
15. Applicant's response letter and Attachments (1-14), received May
27,2016
16. Public comment received through 11:00 a.m., Thursday, June 2,
2016
17. Additional letters from applicant (11 pages), received June 2, 2016
18. Development plans ( 16 pages), received March 22 , 20 16
Previously received with June 8, 2016 Addendum Report:
19. Letter from appellant (58 pages), received on June 2, 2016
Previously received with June 8, 2016 Desk Item Report:
20. Revi sed neighborhood outreach statement (one page), received
June 6, 2016
21. Applicant's response to Appellant's letter (five pages), received
June 8, 2016
Received at June 8, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting:
22. Communication from appellants (11 pages), received June 8, 2016
23. Presentation by appellants (15 pages), presented June 8, 2016
24. Communication from applicant ( 5 pages), received June 8, 2016
Received with this Staff Report:
25. Presentation by applicant (37 pages), presented June 8, 2016
26. Revised Recommended Conditions (1 0 pages)
27 . Revised Development plans (15 pages), received July 11 , 2016
28. Revised Project Data Sheet
29. Consultant Reports (10 pages)
30. Addendum to 2010 adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
(1 01 pages), dated August 2016
31. Communication from appellants (23 pages)
32. Communications from applicant (110 pages)
33. Revised Findings
On June 8, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Development Review
Committee (DRC) appro val of the Architecture and Site application to construct a 4 ,357-square
foot single-family residence. The Commission opened the public hearing, asked questions of the
appellants and applicant, and continued the matter to July 27, 2016 to allow the applicant to work
with the neighbors and consider design modifications. On July 27, 2016 staff and the applicant
requested a continuance to August 24 , 2016 in order to re view the revised project and prepare an
Addendum to the adopted MND (Exhibit 30).
Planning Commission StaffReport -Page 4
19 Highland A venue/S-15-077
August 24, 2016
ANALYSIS:
A. Architecture and Site
In discussing the project, the Commission recommended that the applicant consider:
reducing the size, bulk, and mass of the house; increasing the setback from the intermittent
tributary to 20 feet ; reducing the extent of retaining walls ; and aligning the foundation
more closely with the LRDA, in order to fit the house more closely into its natural
surroundings. On July 11 , 2016, the applicant submitted revised development plans
(Exhibit 27) in response to Planning Commission comments made at the appeal hearing.
On August 10,2016, one ofthe appellants, Lisa Roberts (78 Alpine Avenue), submitted a
letter regarding the revised project (Exhibit 31 ). Analysis of the four major Planning
Commission recommendations is below in italic type.
Reduce the size, bulk, and mass of the house
Th e square footage of the revised project has been reduced by 4 29 square feet, and the
building footprint has been reduced by 620 square feet. By shifting the house location to
the south, th e bulk of the house is reduced by setting it further into th e hillside, especially
as viewedfrom the driveway on the southern edge of the property. The massing has been
reduced by three feet in length overall. Consistent with HDS&G roof standards, the floor
plans and associated rooflines have further broken the massing into smaller building
components to reflect the irregular forms of surrounding natural features.
Increase the setback from the creek to 20 feet
As illustrated on the Site Plan, (Exhibit 27, G2) the revised project sh(fts the house location
to the south to maintain a minimum setbackfrom the top of bank of20feet. Please note that
the revised project proposes cantilevering a deck and bay on the northe rn elevation of the
house.
Reduce the extent of the retaining walls
The driveway and fire truck turnaround were redesigned to more closely follow the natural
grade and maintain a 1 0-:.foot s etback from the top of bank. These changes and the
modification to shift the house location to the south reduced the length of th e retaining
walls to 210feet, where the project previously proposed 653 feet of retaining walls.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5
19 Highland A venue/S-15-077
August 24, 2016
Aligning the foundation more closely with the Least Restrictive Development Area
The Regulatory Constraints Exhibit (Exhibit 32) illustrates the available area with slopes
less than 30 percent (LRDA), setback from th e top of bank, building setbacks, and property
lines. The Footprint Comparison Exhibit (Exhibit 32) illustrates the reduced size of the
revised project footprint. Consistent with the HDS&G D esign objectives, which encourage
architectural d es ign that is responsive to site constraints and opportunities, while
continuing to require building outside of the LRDA, the revised project is set furth e r into
the hillside.
B. Hillside Development Standards
While the HDS&G define exceptions for building height and maximum floor area as major
exceptions, any deviation from the standards may be granted after carefully considering the
constraints of a particular site. The revised project continues to request consideration of
development on slopes greater than 30 percent. Given the constraints of the site and the
Commission's direction to reduce the mass of the house; staff believes the revised project
is an appropriate development proposal for the subject site.
C. Neighborhood Compatibility
Based on Town and County records, the residences in the area range in size from 680
square feet to 6 ,249 square feet. The F ARs range from 0.20 to 0.43. As indicated in the
cover sheet (Exhibit 27 , A 1.1 ), the revised project proposal is for a 4,031 square-foot home
and 617 -square foot garage for a total of 4 ,648 square feet on a 45,240-square foot parcel.
Per HDS&G Table 1, Reduction of Net Site Area on Sloping Lots, with an average slope of
28.76 percent, the net lot area is reduced to 19,779 square feet. Per HDS&G Table 2,
Maximum Allowed Gross Floor Area, the maximum allowable floor area for the lot is
5,100 square feet ( 4, 700 square feet for a home, and 400 square feet for a garage).
The Neighborhood Analysis table below includes the gross rather than net lot area (lots in
the area would be subject to a slope reduction based on topography). While 400 square feet
of garage space does not count towards the FAR per the HDS&G, garage square footage is
included in County records and is therefore included in the neighborhood analysis below
for comparison. The provided floor areas may also include cellars . Addresses have been
included on the map in Exhibit 2 for additional reference and site context.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6
19 Highland A venue/S-15-077
August 24, 2016
Neighborhood Analysis Table
ADDRESS Living
50 Alpine A venue 3,120
54 Alpine A venue 4 ,602
58 Alpine Avenue 5,451
66 Alpine A venue 3,779
74 Alpine Avenue 2 ,040
76 Alpine A venue 3,644
78 Alpine A venue 4,429
1 06 Alpine A venue 3,633
118 Alpine A venue 3,922
15 Highland A venue 3,625
63 Highland A venue 2,417
25 Highland A venue 4 ,343
140 Foster Road 4 ,834
1 Highland A venue 2 ,279
48 Jackson Street 4 ,819
52 Jackson Street 680
53 Grove Street 3,489
previous project
19 Highland A venue 4,357
revised project
19 Highland Avenue 4,031
D. Trees
Garage
825
858
798
560
416
473
588
677
816
0
734
798
564
580
864
0
540
720
617
Living
and garage Lot size FAR
3,945 21 '168 0.15
5,460 31 ,240 0.15
6,249 23 ,848 0.23
4,339 14,922 0.25
2,456 25 ,762 0.08
4,117 8 ,511 0.43
5,017 22 ,151 0.20
4,310 20,037 0.18
4 ,738 20,036 0.20
3,625 18 ,763 0.19
3,151 128,485 0.02
5,141 67,879 0.06
5,398 220,936 0.02
2,859 111 ,427 0.02
5,683 20,006 0.24
680 11 ,550 0.06
4,029 39,526 0.09
5,077 45,240 0.10
4,648 45,240 0.09
The revised project proposes to remove seven, rather than 15 protected on-site trees. The
tree protection measures within the 2010 arborist report (Exhibit 9), are included in the
recommended conditions of approval. The applicant commissioned revisions to their May
10 , 2016 arborist' s report to reflect the revised project (Exhibit 32). While the revised
project proposes saving several trees adjacent to the main floor and retaining wall
excavation on the south side of the house, the revised project will continue to be required to
provide canopy replacement pursuant to Town Code standards for any trees required to be
removed as part of the improvements. The applicant is working with a landscape architect
that is familiar with riparian and creek settings and will work with staff to provide species
and locations appropriate for the site, in conformance with the HDS&G .
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7
19 Highland A venue/S-15-077
August 24, 2016
In response to the appellants ' concern that the proposed removal of a single large coast live
oak in poor condition could affect habitat for special status bats, a Biological Evaluation
Peer Review was completed by Live Oak Associates, Inc. on July 21, 2016. While the peer
review confirmed , consistent with the 2010 MND, that the removal would not represent a
significant loss of bat roosting habitat, the peer review did outline a two-step tree removal
condition for the tree , which the applicant has agreed to , in order to address any remaining
concerns regarding common bat species.
E. Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were circulated based on the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 2010. No comments
were received on the document and the Planning Commission adopted the MND and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 5) when the project was approved
on December 8, 2010. The current application includes minor modifications to the original
approved project, and an Addendum to the adopted MND (Exhibit 30) has been prepared,
including a brief explanation of why a subsequent MND , pursuant to 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines, is not required.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION :
A . Conclusion
The applicant has revised the proposed project design to address the June 8 , 2016 Planning
Commission concerns and has met with the appellants . The revised project reduces the size,
bulk and mass ; increases setbacks from the creek; and reduces the length of retaining walls.
The revised project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan and the HDS&G, with
the exception of the request for consideration of development on slopes greater than 30
percent. Should the Planning Commission determine that the project revisions meet the
direction provided at the June 8, 2016 meeting, the Commission can make the findings to
approve the Architecture and Site application as outlined in the recommendation section
below.
B. Recommendation
The following actions are needed to approve the Architecture and Site application:
1. Make the CEQA finding that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with
the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be subjected to the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 2010 (Exhibit 33); and
Planning Commission StaffReport-Page 8
19 Highland A venue/S-15-077
August 24,2016
2 . Make the finding that the LRDA exception is appropriate and the project otherwise
complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (Exhibit 33); and
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan
(Exhibit 33); and
4 . Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20 .150 of the Town Code
for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 33); and
5. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 with the revi sed recommended
conditions (Exhibit 26) and revised development plans (Exhibit 27).
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Grant the appeal and remand the application to the DRC with direction for revisions; or
2. Modify the conditions of approval in Exhibit 26 as deemed appropriate ; or
3. Continue the application to a date certain with direction to staff and the applicant for
desired revisions; or
4. Grant the appeal and deny the Architecture and Site application.
Prepared by:
Sally Zarnowitz, AlA
Planning Manager
JP:SZ:cg
Approved'bi:
Joel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
cc: Ed Pearson, 239 Thurston Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Lisa Roberts, 78 Alpine A venue, Lo s Gatos, CA 95030
Theresa Spalding, 15 Highland A venue, Los Gatos , CA 95030
Dede Smullen, 25 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Anthony Badame, 1 Highland A venue, Los Gatos , CA 95030
N:\DEV\PC R EPORTS\20 16\Hi g hland -19-a ppea l-8-24 -16.doc
I
I
Pearson Residence
19 Highland Avenue
June g th Planning Commiss ion Meeting
STU 0 t01'H~i_ Cl.5 G N
..
CEQA I Environmental Review I Agency feedback
Multiple analysis and reports have been conducted and peer reviewed, stating that there is no
n egative i mpact to the creek o r s ite.
The proposed project sub stantially conforms to the assumptions and findings made in the initial
study a nd is s upported by multiple agencies.
Bess Wiersema
Bart Hechtman
Velimir Sulic
G1nger Bolen
Patrick Boursier
Chris Hundemer
Richard Gessner
Mark Thomas
Studio Three Design. Architect
Matteon1 O'Laughlin & Hechtman Lawyers,
Land Use Attorney
Peoples Associates, C1vil Engineers
HT Harvey Ecological Consulting
HT Harvey Ecological Consulting
C2 Earth Geotechnology, Soils Engineer
Monarch Consulting Arborist
Ecotone Landscape Design
·vou've received a letter from an environmental
consultant hired b y the neighbors contending that
the 2010 mitigated negat1ve declaration is
Inadequate and can't be used for this house
because there's a new owner I think the town
attorney would tell you 1f asked that a mitigated
negative dedaralion that IS not challenged Wit hin
30 days of approval is legally deemed adequat e for
the project stud1ed, regardless of who owns the
property, and that the CEOA rev1ew of the current
plan is lim1ted to a reVIew of the changes from the
p rior plan to determine if those changes create new
environmental i mpacts Town staff d 1d that review,
and as descnbed in the staff report, the changes
actually reduce env~ronmental1mpacts compared
to the pnor plan •
-Bart Hechtman, L and Use Attorney
EXHIBIT 2 5
8/17/2016
1
History of 19 Highland Avenue
i;{ First subdivision was created 1886.
~ A resubdivision was completed June
Jr.{ 12" 1978. Recorded at Book 420 of
maps at page 8 . (I nfo. from Peoples
Associates)
~ S ince then. surrounding neighbors
N have used this as their private park.
·Note bench is located on Roberts Property viewing Pearson Property * Lot was for sale 05/26/20 12 through 06/18/2016 when purchased by Ed Pea rson . Ed prefers a more
modern-rustic aesthetic than the original fa9ade of the 20 10 application , which also better conforms to th e
Hill side Guidelines. A redesign commenced. * Important to note that the current proposal maintains the same LRDA, setbacks, ori entation, majority of
the footprint , overall floorp lan and is comparable in square footage to the approved pl an.
History of 19 Highland Avenue
Planning Commission Decisions
[1998Application : 5 ,222 S.F. with Detached Garage Iff.._ _____ _, Denied l
§oo 1 Application : 5,144 S .F. with Detach~d Garage ~'---------J Denied )
@010 Application : 4,133 S.F. with Attached Garage (588 S .F .) ~'-------' Approved l
Approved
@ DRC
016 Application : 4,357 S .F . with Attached Garage (720 S.F .)
8/17/2016
2
Creek location I LRDA
The appellants imply that modifications to the creek have been made, and negatively impact the
project. The facts conclusively show that this is not true . Actual top of bank markers were set by
HT Harvey and surveyed as well.
Plea se note that the 1996 su rvey was submitted and on file 12/17/1997.
r---------
\ .. ·----· ....... -)
..... __ \-·
..... . .. .... ~......... -~·
, I ·.. '0' .--:;. . . . -~ _,
,, . -·t.
,._ ;:;-.
1996 Survey by Westfall Engineers 2015 Survey by Peoples Associates
Creek location I LRDA
/
/
1996 Survey by Westfa ll Engineers 2015 Survey by Peoples Associates
8/17/2016
3
Grading, Fire Tu rnaround , Driveway, Retaining Walls
During the redesign , great effort was taken to reduce the overall grading , as well as the reta ining
wall heights on the site. Th e building plate h eights were reduced , extensive decking was
reduced, and the spo t eleva ti ons of the placem ent of the house were lowered. The rear yard
area was also modified to reduce the number of retaining walls.
Previous Grading Proposed Grading
[ 342 Cut ~ 272 Cut
~--------'
[ 385 Fill j=:f'-3_5_1 _Fil_l ----'
[ 40 Import )=q 0 Import
[ 0 Export ~ 0 Export
~--------'
Retaining Walls
Previous Retaining
Wall Heights
Previously Approved
@6'-6"
Proposed Retaining
Wall He ights
Maximum Proposed /
@ 4'-0" v
r·--coLoR --w/\U.
CODE HEIGH T
0'-2'
2'·3'
3'
4' ----·-
TOTAL WALL LENGTH
------~--·-----
LINEAR %OF TOTAL
FEET WALL LENGTH
280 42.9%
108 16.5%
139 21 .3%
126 19.3'l'o
653 100%
-
~ ----~~ ...::...-r-"F'-'i-_-.-;.·;~~'1\ -~-~ tt~-1) ~-----I . L J I -
II ..___ -----/1 '"": -~ _r-L J
' -~ -'\.-J .__ ~\.--------_./ c-----~ -. ' ....-/
RETAINING WALL HEIGHT $.LENGTH EXHIB IT
8/1 7/2 016
4
Immediate Neighbor Reta inin g Walls
Immediate Neighbor Retaining Wall s
2S HiGh"'nd Ave/Smullon
Setbacks + Orientation
W.1ll Heltht_: .. /· 5"-1'
P ~lo« Helcht; ll'
Setbacks match the 20 10 proposal and have not been altered. The Town has confirmed these setbacks. Front
setbacks are also established by the point of access to the property, shape of the lot and street frontage. A
common practice is to locate the frontage at the short side of a lot. This is consistent with the neighborhood.
The "Road" IS not a public street. rather a pnvate easement access road for the Smullen's use only, stating !hat
it is a road is inaccurate and m isleading
Neighborhood Setback Diagram
8/17/2016
5
Setbacks + Orientation
The LRDA has been established per guidelines and the home placement is nearly identical to the 20 10
approval, but actually reduces the envelop from 107' x 35' to 103' x 35'. T he siting of the house meets th e
Hillside Guidelines:
../ Located in a manner to
minim ize the need for
grading and preserve
natural features
../Avoid high retaining walls
../ Graded areas shall not be
larger than the area of the
footprint plus what is
needed to accommodate
access
~
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSE FOOTPR INT OUTS ID E OF LRQA
Setbacks + Orientation
/
8/17/2016
6
Fl oor Area
Town Code allows , with slope reduction per Hillside Gu idelinesF* [ 4 ,700 S .F.]
2010 proposal was for 4 ,133 S.F. plus 588 S.F. garage= ~ [ 4,721 S .F.)
Current proposal is for 4,357 S .F. plus 320 S .F. garage=
(garage reduction 720-400)
Floor Area
T he hom e i s n ot the largest
home in the neighborhood , and
has a sign ifica ntly reduced
FAR compared to adjacent
hom es.
[ 4 ,677 S.F.) ~
(Reduced by 44 S.F.)
8/17/2016
7
Trees + Landscape Elements
Pe r the arborist's report from Monarch, there are 91 trees of 10 different sp ecies. The proposa l is to remove 14
trees. most of w hich are In "fair" condition only. 85% of the tre es inventoried will be retained! The majority of
the trees requested to be removed have already been approved per the prev ious appl ication.
)(
":-~·.>(... .. _,. ,"'(·.~
\.;, \-(_ I -------. ·-··~ -
Trees + La ndscape Elements
~ 1~-, ,·:x ·f
r:·v-. \.::.'\ .. -. ·/ '
Ed P earson has mad e s evera l gestures t o m aintai n specific trees per the appellants requests as
well as offered to provide additional la ndsca pi ng per their specification (at his cost).
A iandscape plan by
a certified landscape
professional has
been developed to
prov ide privacy to
both the home-owner
and surrounding
properties specifying
native plantings that
are sensitive to the
surroundings. This
plan provides
requested screening
a long the private
road to the Smullen's
property, the
driveway turnaround,
and the views from
Roberts properties.
landsca pe Screening Pla n )'
8/17/2016
8
Trees + Landscape Elements
Neighborhood Socialization
Met (a nd attempted to meet) with adjacent neighbors.
Total of 7 meetings, many of which were unattended.
Made the following modifica tio ns and adju stments to
the project:
Changed color to deeper
earth tones
Added more wood si di ng
throughout
Lowered shed roofs at
certa in locations
Added landscaping at road ,
driveway and turn aro und
8/17/2016
f(!o'/"<1!'"""" •"!!"""""~fOII·· ...... ·~·""· ""'-·IJif'!'lll"' ... _.,It-....... f ___ ,.,. ... _._.,, .... ·--~----
-..--t ~C!N..,.M•-"'" ....... __ ..... ,.. ........ -•-
-.li.unt"..:-• ._... .... ~--~~
.,..,.~,---.... -.-v .. -................... ""-· .... ~ ........ ~~t-
-... -~ ............ ~"""'·""'··--... .....__ ....... ,,t .. , ....,._,.... __ .......... c..r; .. -..... ",.. ............ 1(.~~ _ ..... ..,
....,_ ... ~, .. --.. ~.,.,..-•• ..,...,~ .. ......_ • ......,..,.w __ _..,.._..,.
....,.. ...... ...a ............ ...c.A .. -·--"-~._...... ...... ¥lil>
...-.. .... ,...._ .. ~--~,JILK.$-t~ ........ _..,.
...... -.~o~.,.. ..... ~ ... -.. ............ _~
1,1• ~-_.~ ................ ~-~ ... -----··'· ""-" __ ...... ____ ,.........,_. ................... tl ... ., .... _ _,
-·~--..... "' ................. ltoot ... _ ............ _._...,.......~ .... ,.._ . ..__
• w .......... --..... ~ .. ..,_""",..,..,_•...._t'lf., ...
_...... ... !1., .. ~-··.._..,._ •• _." ..... .,.,. ........
-~
t ---,..~·-·~-............... ~-~ ... •• ____ """"'""...,,_.., ................ _ ... _ .... ...,..,....... ..
_...., ...... IIH ......... • .... ._, ___ ,......._r._otA -... ----· _..,......, __ .............. ,. ____ _
··~.,,.No. __ ...... .., __ ., .... ...,.
• "'--_.._ .... ,.. ................. ...,~~·-.... ~ .... .._.tA ., .... ..... ....u.""""'""'JI .................................... __ .... __ .f<_~,.
_....,..,,_.,_,. ..,...,,.,....,.,. __ .., _., .,....UJV ~-
---~· ... -~ ... ~·'~" ............. 4JIIl....-~-r ._.. --· ....... -·""--... ...., .... _ .. ~'"-··~, ... , ........ .~ ... .._ .. ., __ ..,. __ .,..,... __ ...,. ........ _ . ...,._
.. ..,,.4 ......... _ ...... ......,.
t ~~~· ... -.-l<r ..... ~•~J-.... •_.YI{»¥..CI ·-~Oo "'lo ..._ __ ~_,.,...,_.,.... .............. __.., ·-
to!._"'W_yOI"......,. .... .-..... ,.,-.~-.w w--""-.. •
-··-•·"'-""·--·· , .. ~-~ ..... ..-..w..> ...... _...~ • f ... -...... ~ ..... -----_.....,.,....._ ..... _ • ..._ ........ ~"' .... ~·-,...-~ .. -.............. __
....... ~f" ............ M..........,. ..... __ !_I'Ot""""a•--.l ......... ~ ................... ---...-....... ..._.._,._«.......,. _..........,_,.....,. __ ....,lf-__ toillt ..:t -liNil•lloo---.....
9
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section A · Design Objectives
While the applicant has elected to maintain the majority of the footprint and overall floor plan of
the originally approved project, greater care has been taken to blend the new home into the
natural landscape as well as conform directly with Hillside Design Guidelines V, satisfying section
A overall design objectives by being sited appropriately along the topography lines, the materials
and colors are respectful of the natural surroundings , the overall style is reflective of the rural
character. and placement is compatible and respectful to both the creek and the neighbors .
.../ 1. In harmony and visually blends with the natural environment
.../ 2. Responsive to site constraints and opportunities
.../ 3 . Compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and respectful of neighbors
.../ 4 . Respectful of the rural character of the hillsides
Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V
Section A· Design Objectives
The major difference between this house and the previous approval is the arch itectural style. T h e
proposed design has been reviewed by COG I Larry Canon , the Town's consulting architect. Only
two recommendations were provided and the applicant has incorporated both recommendations
into the project:
* Extend landscaping along road ... see landscape plan for extensive landscap ing along
the road
* use one roofing matenal!or tne enttre nouse ... a dart< oronze metal roottnat ts non-
reflectiv e, fire safe, and com patible with the modem rustic style of the home has been
selected.
8/17/2016
J
10
Hillside Development Standards +Guidelines V
Section B · Design to be Neighbor Friendly
~ Decks and balconies are tucked into the staggered building footprint and do
not create a privacy issue to any neighbor
~ Landscape screening is provided along the road , at the driveway turnaround
and as much of the natural vegetation is maintained
~ Windows are oriented to maximize privacy both for the project and neighbors
~ The main floor level of the home sits below the grade of the road
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section B · Design to be Neighbor Friendly
\
\
' ' \
8/17/2016
11
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section B • Design to be Neighbor Friendly
1;:{ Pearson
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidel ines V
Section C & D • Design for Sustainability & Fire Safety
../ Sensitive to sola r exposure on certain facades with windows placement and
ove rh angs
../ Mate rial s selecti ons t hat meet and/or exceed WU I re quirements
../ Current green score is 95 points (previou s approved plan was 92)
8/17/2016
12
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section E-Building Height Standards
../ The home m eets the height limits as set fo rth in th e Hillside Guid elines .
. ~"'--·, ~
The height along
the private road
ranges from
j10'to 17'-3"
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section E -Building Height Standards
../ Th e ho me m eets th e height lim its as set forth in th e Hill s id e Guide lin es.
--.... _ .......
8/17/2016
13
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidel ines V
Section E -Building Height Standards
Th e home is not a 3 story home . The multi levels step along t he slope, per Hillside
Guidelines. There is no place were th e 3 levels sta ck directly up on one another.
garage
upper level
- - - - - - --• private road-- - - - -- -
Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V
Section F-Minimize Building Bulk & Mass
./ Undulating far;ade on all elevations provides interest and minimizes the effect of the
sheer walls in th e ve rtica l d irection. Light and shadow are increased by provid ing varying
overhangs, shed roofs and va ried elevations
./ Not prominently v is ible from a distance as well as s urroundi ng p roperties
8/17/2016
14
Hillsid e Development Sta nd ards+ Guidelines V
Section F -Minimize Building Bulk & Mass
View from Badame __ _..
Driveway
Story Poles
(proposed house not
vi sible from neighbors
house)
View from Badame --ll!t~j
Driveway
Rendering
(proposed house not
visible from neighbors
house)
Hillside Development Standards + Guidel ines V
Section F-Minimize Building Bulk & Mass
Vi ew from Sm u llen --~
Driveway
Story Poles
(proposed house not
visible from neighbors
house)
View from Smullen --~3
Dri veway
Rendering
(p roposed house not
visible from neighbors
house )
8/17/2016
15
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section F -Minimize Building Bulk & Mass
View from Roberts _......_
Yard
Story Poles
(proposed house not
visible from neighbors
house)
View from Roberts _ ..... .._
Yard
Rendering
(proposed house not
visible from neighbors
house)
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section F-Minimize Building Bulk & Mass
../ Building is parallel with the contours
8/17/2016
16
Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V
Section F-Minimize Building Bulk & Mass
,/ Building form s are simple and the architecture style blends with the landscape
,/ Vaulted ceil ing s are used to increase volume on the interior while keeping plate
heights reduced
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section G -Roofs
,/ Rooflines have been broken up , with multiple plate heights, to stagger a long
with the building footprint.
,/ T he slope of the roof is oriented in the same direction as the slope
8/17/2016
17
Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V
Section H -Architectural Elements
"' The proposed home utilizes architectural detailing on all sides of the home : a
mix of quality materials is maintained on all facades, repeated th roughout.
Hillside Development Standards +Guidelines V
Section H -Architectural Elements
"' The proposed home utilizes architectural detailing on all sides of the home: a
mix of quality materials is maintained on all facades , repeated t hro ugho ut.
8/17/2016
18
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section H -Architectural Elements
./ All exposed structure is enclosed by a natural slatted wood system that
coordinates with the wood siding on the home .
deck structure
./ All lighting is dark sky compliant and also meets the Hillside Design Guidelines
VI, Section D.
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section I -Materials & Colors
./ Materials proposed are a mi x of dark tan smooth stucco, natural wood siding ,
and natural stacked slate stone in a coordinating color, dark bronze standing
seam roof, dark bronze clad windows and lighting .
./ All building materials meet or exceed the LRV of 30 (main building material is
24 ), are non-reflective and blend with the natural landscape .
./ A blend of stucco , horizontal wood siding, and stacked stone has been
integrated throughout to break up the massing of the home. Foundations and
roof forms are simple , and broken up, and elevations and plate height vary .
./ The contract between the building and the natural surroundings is minimized
8/17/2016
19
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V
Section I -Materials & Colors
Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines VI
Section A, B and C
./ Section A: no fences are proposed
,/ Section B: no gates at driveway entrance
lighting is "dark-sky compliant"
./ Section C: retaining walls have been minimized and me et the height
requirements
planters have been added for additional landscape buffer
8/17/2016
20
Rebuttal
The neighbors intent?
TO B L OCK THE PROJECT NO MATTER WHAT
Unfortunately, at the most recent meeting on 5/18/2016, only the Smullens showed. Mr. Pearson preferred to
not have to bring this project to the Planning Commission, rather resolve any outstanding items wi th his
neighbors and move forward in an honest and neighborly manner. Afte r making such modifications to the plans
as color, style, materials, new landscape efforts. additional biological , creek and civil work as well as additional
arborist studies, 3 0 models, etc., Mr. Pearson and his team were told by the appellants that their inten t was to
appeal. no matter what efforts have been made (unless "the size of the home was sign ificantly reduced, and
made single story"), that they are supporting one another in continuing the appeal to Town Council should the
Commission uphold the Planning Department's and DRC approval of the proposed project. This relentless and
un-neighborly approach requiring Mr. Pearson to spend sign ifica nt extra money and time on specialists to
continue to prove and re-prove that the project is consistent with Town and State guidelines on both technical
and design fronts it fra nk ly abhorrent. The proposed project is compliant with Hillside Guidelines. and efforts
have been made to take into account neighbors needs and concerns. The applicant respectfully requests that
th e Planning Commission once again uphold the approval by the DRC. with limited, if any, conditions.
Rebutt al
T he neighbors are neighborly and are participating in the process appropriately?
T he applicant has made many attempts to socialize the plans with the neighbors, as well as hear a nd
accommodate their concerns and feedback. Mr. Pearson has made multiple emails, phone calls. and meetings
with most of the neighbors over the past severa l months in a neighborly fashion . A brief itemization of the
contact has been written by the owner. Mr. Pearson i s b affled by the continued efforts of some of the neighbors
to block this previously approved project from moving forward, especially as multiple attempts have been made
to satisfy their concerns . While there are some neighbors contesting the project. there are also neighbors in
support of this d evelopment and their acknowledgement letters are also attached.
Roberts-Rohen letter dated 12/712010, they end their letter of onginal support with a paragra ph stating the
following : ·eandid/y, there wt/1 always be neighbors who oppose development because they prefer a vacant
wooded lot fn their neighborhood to the construction o f another home. Such a view does a temble disservice
not just to the property owner who only wishes to build a home to live in, it creates the impression that the
planning and building standards of the communi/y are alway s subject to, and can be disregarded by, the will of
a few neighbors who would utilize the publiC planning process as a de facto eminent domain proceeding. While
the Commission can and should listen to all those interested in the application, we h ope the Commission
approves the application because the proposed home would be a welcome and desirable addition to the
neighborhood a nd our community. •
8/1 7/2016
21
Re bu ttal
The neighbors want to prote ct the creek?
-See Desk Item from HI Harvey di sputing
the re port turn ed in late by Smullen
-See Desk Item from C2 Earth Geotech
Rebuttal
8/17/2016
.. .
~
' J~·~
• ---'-4 ~ ... :.-~
2 2
Rebuttal
Rebuttal
The neighbors are concerned about the SF of the proposed home?
$~"""£ Bt'-."'tti.S
... ~$.~:~·.""'
--
::.~ ~ :p:.-:-.,.
.,. --·-· ....... -·~-.,, ............................. ~
_,, ...
.... t.. ... ,.,....~~o~
.............. <!.too ,.,._......._,!1-...... ~ -. .......... ,.. .. ,_, ,,.,, __ , .. ,.._ .... --'"'·--··~~ ....... ~. _...,..,..QO\ootllll.,. ............ , ... ¥_ ....
Srf;-~ ... ACAFS
A~~t"'X ~1'\
\
I
8/17/2016
23
Rebu ttal
The neighbors are concerned about the S F of the prooosed home?
tJT'C· 145/.(MS
t~!JFM!:= StQttf ~2-\
Rebuttal
...... 1 .... ...__, .. .,. ...... ..__tt,.
·---~---.... ,. .. ~-..... ,,_...1 ... •U\tl ,....,._,.,"""""' .... __ ...__ o!1M1J
-·-~ .. ,.."' ..... "," if~''"" ..... L MlV
~ ....... .,MJ
s.:t ]V.o\(~5
.t:~~~! !\.o-!.l: 1~
.,_ ... _, .. ,. _ ...... ,.u.
~-"'""l<'o'li iOioll \oo':NOo ·---··'~ .... '""'" __ .,.,. ... _. ...• ___ .._, • ....:<' ..
tol>'"'t_'_, ....... __ "'
:~ .. ~XM:LlM.~Al!!!tJol
The neighbors are concerned about the S F of the proposed home?
~, .. ,,.,,)(
"
i-"l ~· liiCQI'
A\'CM.. ... lZJ'f ~· ....
----... _
.. , .. ,., .
Iii ............. -~~
~~±:~:'7.~--------··•-"'l.>" , ...... -~-<;oo-UJW
---..~
8/17/2016
24
Rebuttal
T he neighbors are concerned about the SF of th e proposed home?
-·
1ff1' t64.V)fl~
·-·~'-L":'ft ....
I
)
-.........
*"-""-... ~;.; ... ·~;"':" ... .. --............. ., '""'--... --""'•t.tJ•
.......... JJ~·'..kt•
NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
~; ... AP.. ..... S
1\\'(.PM..(t.t.OI'I'f )21 ....
19 Highland Ave-Attachment #14
PROJECT ADDRESS:
19 Highland Ave.
....... ,..~..~ ............
• c.aa..M • ~r.
.... (1''¥ _.........,.
~ --........._ ----·-··-
A Field
Guide to
American
Houses
.. .. -.-. ...... ~
8/17/2016
25
NE lGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
ACCfSSO
"
4CCfSSOfiiT !MlD'"O UN!
!MAO£ 8V!I..l
8/17/2016
26
NE!GHBORJlOOI)ANALYSIS
ACCI!NO
" ""' ...
"'" .....
.. , ....
.... ... ,
8/17/2016
27
NEIGH BORHOQD ANALYSIS
LOl Sal:
'"'
, .. ~-
LI't'ING M"TH IW..S
SPACI!(S"' :~::,0:..".
-·.-..--. """""" .............. ,.
-..-ol-••nc .. ,........,..,_
"" 8 UILf
8/17/2016
28
,, ...
c..,.
8/17/2016
29
L01ICZitfWI ~~=· ~c.a:..-C~~D~:• -·
Architectural Plans Cover Sheet
.,,...,.
""''
'""""" OLI\'f!IO
'"" ....
~~==~~~~~~===4~~~~
::-~-:=:.:::-i_!_=;.·=--;
~:::::-.:.:-·._.:-_ -·
------· .......... -.. -~· ---~-"' ___ ,.. ________ .. --. -____ ...... -·-·-_..... . . . ...
.. .
8/17/2016
30
8/17/2016
Architectural Plans-Floor Plans
_· ~~· $' .·
A2.1
Architectural Plans-Roof Plan
¢·
A2.2
31
Architectura l Plans -Exterior Elevations
•-..r··-"""
-~--... ::-
:=..-·:~--
~ -";, ;:_
~........;n ---"!"::. -~--,:~~::-:.1-I -~~-· ;;._, •• ~~ -,-,• h r ,~ .., n 0 : u J :: ~ :::
! 1 ....ZO-_..,.:-JO• ••
: .. ,'
·,, __ _
. l7~ .. -=-~
-· ~ ..
A3.1
Architectural Plans -Exterior Elevations
l ... t,..,..,.,.
~"':f~~ =-.
·---
--. I ,'l
t
,·i
A3 .2
8/17/2016
32
Architectural Plans-Building Sections
1-----~
-:;:;..r
Civil Plans -Cover Sheet
r;:·,.;~ ..
~ :1-;-_r;-
t-=
r··f --=-
~~~~~:.
. ==:.-~.:::.;=.:-•
·~-;;..";;;.;::;;,.;:;:;-...;;..
~£~:.:::.::-~
·.~C!-"':':0!:...~----
~-===-=:~-==~~-
;::r:::....--:-==
~-t=..-~"'='F.!
~~~~~
.... !;: .. ==-----
8/17/2016
··~
I .. ,.
·~,.....---~-·--:--;.-::;:-_-
---..
~---
-.. -...
-v--
A4 .l
33
Civil Plans -Site Plan
.. -.-
~.-.;; ...
.. -;.··-
Civil Plans -Utility Plan
r-----·--·------------------··-·-
..
.... -.... l.
ij t. .
II. :I
1 ..
-·---lW
~~
'1 . :i
t :·1
I ··'
II •j
I., . . I
' .
'
tl I ~ , r ,I--t· .'!'.;-
8/17/2016
34
Civil Plans -Grading + Drainage Plan
\
.' \
\
\
f -· J.
Civil Plans -Tree Inventory
---~----j//1 -...
---
~ ........
~ .," ...
t
I
-·~~
8/17/2016
....
35
Civil Plans Details + Sections
d t :1 11 t· l!
I
--.J I
i '!
~· .
1
..
I ~ l
•w jl;
'""<~'i: ..
I m
I ···I
! ~
~
L ___________ ~~~
.. .. .. '· ..
Civil Plan s -Ero sion Co ntrol Plan
,-:.---~--~ ~
·-/
'II
' .... ~_,_-""" :~.!;~¥;:~·
'·
,., .... (,....-
=..:zc-·( ·--~~~
.,
I ·'
u
I.
•,
.....
·l
.I
--· --·---·--.----r
8/1 7/20 16
36
8/17/2016
Landscape Plan
37
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Augus t 24, 2016
19 Highland Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-15-077
Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an
Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence and remove
large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Yz. APN 529-37-033.
PROPERTY OWNER! APPLICANT: Ed Pearson
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the
conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans . Any
changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community
Development Director or the Planning Commission/Town Council, depending on the
scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two
years from the date of approval (August 24, 2018) unless the approval is used before
expiration. Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted
under the Zoning Ordinance.
3. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
4 . EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the
Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines.
5 . DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction
shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder 's Office that
requires all exterior materials be maintained in conformance with the Town's Hillside
Developme nt Standards & Guidelines.
6. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations made by the Town 's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's
report , dated February 15 , 2010, on file in the community Development Department,
except as otherwise noted. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building
permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable.
a. The removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the extent feasible. A pre-
construction tree survey shall be conducted prior to any grading or construction
work to determine if any trees planned to be substantially trimmed or removed
are identified as protected trees.
b. If tree remo va l, pruning, grubbing and demolition activities are necessary, s uch
activities shall be conducted outside of the breeding season (i.e., between
September I and January 31 ), to avoid impacts to nesting birds .
1. If tree removal , pruning, grubbing and demolition activities are scheduled
to commence during the bird breeding season (i.e., between February I
and August 31 ), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of work.
The preconstruction survey shall include the project footprint and up to a
300-foot buffer, access and sight-lines permitting. If no active nests of
migratory birds are found , work may proceed without restriction and no
further measures are necessary. If work is del ayed more than two weeks,
EXHIBIT 2 6
the preconstruction survey shall be repeated , if determined necessary by
the project biologist.
11. If active nests (i.e. nests with eggs or young birds present, or hosting an
actively breeding adult pair) of special-status or migratory birds are
detected, the project biologist shall designate non-disturbance buffers at a
distance suffi cient to minimize disturbance based on the nest location,
topography, cover, species, and the type/duration of potential disturbance.
nt. No work shall occur within the non-disturbance buffers until the young
have fledged , as determined by a qualified biologist. The appropriate
buffer size shall be determined in cooperation with the CDFW and/or the
USFWS. If, despite the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer it is
determined that project activities are res ulting in nest di sturbance, work
shall cease immediately and the CDFW and the USFWS s hall be
contacted for further guidance.
tv. If project activities must occur within the non-disturbance buffer, a
qualified biologist shall monitor the nest(s) to document that no take of
the nest (i.e., nest fai lure) will re s ult. If it is determined that project
activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately
and the CDFW and the USFWS shall be contacted for further guidance.
c. Tree number 56 shall be removed via a two-step process over two consecutive
days outside of the bat winter torpor season, i.e. outs ide of the time period fro m
mid-October through end of March, under supervis ion of a qualified biologist.
The afternoon of the first day, limbs would be removed using chainsaws and
chipped on site. The tree would then be removed the second day, with no
biologist supervision required.
7 . CREEK SETBACK: The proposed residence shall maintain a minimum setback of20
feet from the creek/drainage course.
8. GENERAL: All existing trees shown to remain on the plan and newly planted trees are
specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on site.
9. NEW TREES: New trees to be planted shall be double-staked, using rubber tree ties and
shall be planted prior to occupancy. New tree selection to conform to the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines, Recommended Native Trees for Hillside Areas
(Appendix A).
10. TREE NUMBER 30: Tree number 30 shall be protected and retained. Tree protection
measures shall be reviewed by staff to ensure compliance with the arborist report.
11. IRRIGATION and WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: All newl y
planted material shall be irrigated by an in-ground system. Special care shall be taken to
avoid irrigation which will endanger existing native trees and vegetation. The final
landscape plan shall meet the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and 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.
12. STORY-POLES : The story poles on the project site shall be removed with i n 30 days of
approval of the Architecture and Site application.
13. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 2: With review and
approval by the Town, all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February 15,
201 0) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize construction-related impacts on the
trees to be retained. Recommendations are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations,
of the arborist's report. These include recommendations under the Design Gui delines
section addressing tree retention and relocation , so il disturbance, mulching, trenching,
drainages facilities, and installation of new trees. The report also provides
recommendations for Protection Measures before and during development ,
encompassing fencing, removal ofhardscape, demolition, work within tree canopies,
etc. The report recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study.
14. CULTU RAL RESO URCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 3: In the event that
archaeological trace s are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the
find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified , and an
archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate
recommendations.
15 . CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEAS URE 4: If human remains are
discovered , the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will
determine whether or not the remain s are Native American. If the Coroner determines
that the remains are not s ubject to his authority, he will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native
Americans.
16. CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEASURE 5: Ifthe Community
Development Director find s 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. Provisio ns for
identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will fo llow the
protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5( e). If the site i s found to be a
significant archaeological site, a mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to
the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance
with the protocol set forth in Public R eso urces Code Section 21083 .2.
I 7. CULTURAL RES O URCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 6 : A final report sh all be
prepared when a find is determin ed to be a s ignificant archaeological s ite, and/or when
Na tive American remains a re found on th e site. The final report shall include
background information on the completed work, a description and li st of identifi ed
reso urces, the di sposition and curation of these resources, an y testing, other recovere d
information, and conclusions.
TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL
Building Division
18. AIR QUALITY-MITIGATION MEASURE I: To limit the project's construction-
related dust, criteria pollutant, and precurso r emissions, the following BAAQMD-
rec ommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be impl eme nt ed.
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soi l pile s, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks tran sporting 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 po wer vacuum street sweepers a t least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speed s on unpa ved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e. All roadways , drivewa ys, and s idewa lk s to b e paved shall be completed as soon as
po ssible. Building pads sha ll be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedi n g
or soil binders are used .
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13 , Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations). 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 . A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead
Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site . This person shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number
shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
19. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the construction of the
new single family residence. Separate building permits are required for site retaining
walls , water tanks, or swimming poo ls; separate electrical, mechanical , and plumbing
permits shall be required as necessary.
20 . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full
on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be
prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the
Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
21. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36."
22. SOILS REPORT: A soils report , prepared to the satisfaction ofthe Building Official ,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted
with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineer specializing in soils mechanics .
23. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS : A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer
or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation
in spection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as
specified in the soils report and that the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall
locations and elevations have been prepared according to approved plans . Horizontal
and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or regi stered civil
engineer for the following items :
a . Building pad elevation
b . Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation comer locations
d. Retaining Walls
24 . RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be
designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution
1994-61:
a . Wooden backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom wall s, at
water closets, showers and bathtubs located 34 inches from the floor to the center of
the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.
b . All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on the acces s ible floor.
c. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5' x 5' level landing on
both sides of the door, no more than 1/2-inch out of plane with the immediate
interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance on the strike side.
d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
25 . TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE : All required California Title 24 Energy
Compliance Forms must be blue-lined on the plans.
26. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA
Phase 11 approved appliance a s per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within
1 0-feet of chimneys.
27. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: This project requires a Class A roofing assembly.
28. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland Urban
Interface Fire Area and must comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code.
29. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by
a California licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public
Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182.
30. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed
Landscape Architect certifying that the landscaping and vegetation clearance
requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and
Government Code Section 51182.
31. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: 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 Ins pection form must be completely filled-out, signed by all
requested parties and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms
are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at
www .losgatosca.gov.
32. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as
the second or third page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division
Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
33. APPROVALS REQU IRED : The project requires the following agencies approval
before is suing a building permit:
a. Community Development -Planning Division
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: ( 408) 3 78-401 0
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward paperwork to the appropriate school
district(s) for processing. A copy of paid receipt is required prior to permit is suance.
f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000
TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Divis ion
34. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted
Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, and Engineering Design Standards. All
work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-
way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and
debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities . The storing of goods and
material s on the si dewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unles s an encroachment
permit is issued. The Developer's representati ve in charge shall be at th e 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.
35. APPROVAL: This application sh all be completed in accordance with all the conditions
of approvals listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and
approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or
conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer
36. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5 ,000 will require construction
security. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary
encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not
limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water
District, California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits
must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
Department prior to releasing any building permit.
37. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or his/her representative shall notify
the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work
pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's
right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without
inspection.
38. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or
replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or
removed because of the Developer's operations . Improvements such as, but not limited
to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway, and pavement shall be repaired and replaced to a
condition equal to or better 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 sole 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.
39. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the
street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as
limitations on works hours , protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public
access in a safe manner may be required.
40. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan
review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department
41. INSPECTION FEES : Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance
of any permits.
42. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a
Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review and approval.
43. GRADING PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required for site grading and drainage work
except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Code. The grading
permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the
Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans
shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and
interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of
existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of
Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the
building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A
separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed
for grading within the building footprint.
44. TREE REMOVAL: A tree removal permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading
or building permit, whichever comes first.
45 . 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
46. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E.
Main Street, may be required for onsite retaining walls. Onsite walls are not reviewed or
approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works.
47. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE 1: A geotechnical investigation
shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at
the site and to determine the potential for liquefaction on the site. The geotechnical
study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of
foundations, concrete slab-on-grade construction , excavation, drainage , on-site utility
trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be
incorporated into project plans .
48. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permit, 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, 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.
49. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVA TlON : 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 pennit is granted.
50. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS : The project shall incorporate the
geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Limited Geotechnical Study
Lands of Orphan and Supple mental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update
Pearson Property by Upp Geotechnology, dated November 22 , 2013 and December 22 ,
2015, respectively, 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.
51. 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 .50.015(b). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable
television service. 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 .
52. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE : The Developer shall pay the project's
proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative
development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the
Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued . The fee shall
be paid before issuance of a building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for
this 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.
53. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation Di strict): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West
Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used
or reused. A sanitary sewer clean-out is required for each property at the property line
or location specify by the Town.
54. 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.
55. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning
or evening peak periods (between 7:00a.m. and 9:00a.m. and between 4 :00 p.m . and
6:00p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer s hall work with the
Town Building 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 the
project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner
to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and
hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other
significant projects in the area may also be required. All trucks transporting materials to
and from the site shall be covered.
56 . 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 8:00a.m. to 8:00 p.m.,
weekdays and 9:00a.m. to 7:00p.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.
57. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit a construction
management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum employee parking, materials
storage area , concrete washout, and proposed outhouse locations.
58. 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 stormwater.
59. DUST CONTROL: Blowing du st 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 di s turbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks
shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to
blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum
of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of
blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur.
Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by
the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction
activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least
one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets
soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily
basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork
activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All
trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
60. 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.
61. 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 1 0 ' minimum from adjacent
property line and /or right of way.
62 . SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of contractor
and home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned
up on a daily basis . Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT
washed into the Town 's storm drains.
63 . 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 of the Parks and Public
Works Department. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job
related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into
storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the
street will not be allowed unless 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:
64. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE. Building construction shall comply with the
provisions of California Building code (CBC) Chapter 7a. Vegetation clearance shall be
in compliance with CBC Section 701 A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval.
65 . AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire
sprinkler system shall be provided in all new structures located in the designated
Wildland-Urban Interface area. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor
shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit application and appropriate fees to
the Fire Department for review and approval, prior to beginning work.
66. WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTIONS. Potable water supplies shall be
protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies . The applicant, or
any contractors and subcontractors shall contact the water purveyor supplying the site
and 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 an appliance capable of causing contamination of the
potable water supply of the purveyor of record . Final approval of the system(s) under
consideration will not be granted by the Fire Department until compliance with the
requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having
been met by the applicant(s).
67. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND REQUIRED .
Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum
radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire
Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1.
68 . PREMISE IDENTIFICATION . Approved addresses shall be placed on all new
buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from the s treet. Numbers shall be a
minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background .
N:\DE V\CON DITN S\20 16\Hi ghland-19 _ Rev ised .doc