11 Staff Report - 10 Monroe CourttowN of MEETING DATE: 01/05/04
ITEM NO. r~
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
!ps •~•A.~OS
DATE: December 17, 2003
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM RM: 12-20 TO RM: 12-
20:PD TO CONSTRUCT THREE DWELLING UNITS. NO SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT
OF THIS PROJECT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS
RECOMMENDED. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-01-2
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-01-14 PROPERTY LOCATION: 10
MONROE COURT PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID H. PITZEN
APPLICANT: DHP MONROE INVESTORS LLC
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Accept report in the form of meeting minutes from the Planning Commission regarding a
Planned Development at 10 Monroe Court (Attachment 5).
2. Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony;
3. Close the public hearing;
4. Make the Negative Declaration (Exhibit H of Attachment 8);
5. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 4);
6. Approved Planned Development Application PD-01-2 and make the required findings
(Attachment 2);
7. Move to waive the reading of the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 3);
8. Direct the Clerk to read the title of the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 3);
9. Introduce the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 3) to effectuate Development
Application PD-01-2.
(Continued on page 2)
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LOR Z,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by-.- 5] Assistant Town Manager Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: 12/17/03 9:26 am
Reformatted: 5/30/02
i
I
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 10 MONROE CT
December 19, 2003
BACKGROUND:
In 2000, the applicant proposed a similar application that totaled four single family homes. A
significant issue with the proposal was the impacts on the riparian corridor. Although the applicant
understood the issue of the riparian corridor impacts, uncertainty remained about the appropriate
density. As a result, the applicant wanted to pursue the project with the Planning Commission rather
than redesigning the project as recommended by the Development Review Committee (DRC). On
December 6, 2000, the Commission denied the application on the basis that the Town had spent
considerable time and effort working on the project and the applicant did not redesign the plans as
recommended by the DRC. The applicant appealed the decision of:the Commission. On March 5,
2001, Town Council upheld the decision of the Commission, The applicant subsequently filed a new
application for four lots. The Planning Commission held three public hearings on this matter and
a study session. On December 11, 2002, the Commission approved the Architecture and Site
application to demolish the four houses which currently exist on this site, contingent upon the
approval of the Planned Development and forwarded the Planned Development application to Town
Council with a recommendation for approval. Council considered this matter on February 3, 2003
and remanded the matter to the Commission with the direction that the plans be modified to limit
the development to three homes of no more than 8,000 square feet in aggregate, and that the houses
be sited to protect the riparian corridor (Attachment 1).
DISCUSSION:
1. Project Summary
The applicant has revised the development plans and is now requesting approval of a Planned
Development to permit the construction of three two story single family units on approximately 1.44
acres. The subject site is located at the southern terminus of Monroe Court. The site is bounded by
two single family residences to the west, Los Gatos Creek on the east and north and a three story
apartment building on the south.
The site currently contains four pre-1941 cottages which as stated above, have been approved to be
demolished. The proposed lots will range in size from 6,500 square feet to 9,150 square feet. The
Town will receive a dedication of 38,863 square of the riparian corridor. The proposed houses will
range in size from 2,150 to 3,115 square feet and has an aggregate total of 8,000 square feet. During
the Architecture and Site approval process, the applicant may look at the possibility of adding cellars.
The area of the cellar(s) will not be counted towards the 8,000 square feet of visible mass.
2. Planning Commission
The Planning Commission considered this matter on November 12, 2003 and forwarded the matter
to Town Council with a recommendation for approval with two modifications to the performance
standards of the Planned Development Ordinance. The Commission was under the assumption that
the community open space area would be available to the general public and conditioned the
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 10 MONROE CT
December 17, 2003
application as such. The community open space area is located on Lot 2 and will contain minor
pedestrian paths and benches and is proposed to be available to only the residents within the
subdivision. Since there is no parking available to use this open space and because a path cannot
be connected to the existing trail system due to safety concerns and grade differentials at Roberts
Road, staff does not recommend that this open space area be available to the general public.
Therefore, the recommended performance standard was modified to require that the community open
space be made available to the residents within the subdivision..
4. Conclusion
The applicant has been working with the Town to develop this site since 1998. The applicant has
redesigned the project to reduce tree and riparian impacts to the satisfaction of the Town and other
agencies. The. applicant has worked closely with the Town in designing the current plan to address
Town Council and staff concerns. If the application is approved, the applicant will then need to
receive Subdivision approval of the three lots and Architecture and Site approval for each house.
At that time, Santa Clara Valley Water District will again be involved in the review process to ensure
the plans meet their requirements pursuant to the approved Planned Development. Conceptual.,
building elevations are required as part of a Planned Development. Final elevations will be reviewed.
by the Town's Consulting Architect during the Architecture and Site approval process if the Planned
Development is approved. Since the Town will be using the consulting architect, and because the
applicant has continually provided plans that are more detailed than required, the Architecture and
Site applications for the houses are recommended to be approved by the Development Review
Committee.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
It has been determined that this project.will not have a significant impact on the environment and
a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposal.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments:
1. Resolution 2003-014
2. Required Findings.
3. Draft Planned Development Ordinance (including vicinity map and development plans received
October 1, 2003).
4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
5. Excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes of November 12, 2003.
6. Desk Item Report 2 to Planning Commission, dated November 12, 2003 for the meeting of
November 12, 2003
7. Desk Item Report to Planning Commission, dated November 11, 2003 for the meeting of
November 12, 2003.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 10 MONROE CT
December 17, 2003
8. Report to the Planning Commission, dated November 6, 2003 for the meeting of November 12,
2003 (Exhibit A deleted and incorporated as Attachment 1 of this report. Exhibit F deleted and
incorporated as Attachment 2 of this report. Exhibit G deleted and incorporated as Attachment
4 of this report and Exhibit I deleted and incorporated as Attachment 3 of this report).
9. Letter from Stan Queen (one page) received at the November 12, 2003 meeting.
Distribution:
David H. Pitzen, DHP Monroe Investors LLC, 1228 Lincoln Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125
Ann Lamborn, 7 Monroe Court,. Los Gatos, CA 95030
Linda Lubeck, 120 Carlton Ave #54, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Vincent M. Stephens, Community Projects Review, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5750
Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\ I0monroe. l.wpd
RESOLUTION 2003 - 014
RESOLUTION REMANDING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM RM:12-20 TO
RM:12-20:PD TO CONSTRUCT FOUR DWELLING UNITS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: PD-01-2
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ND-01-14
PROPERTY LOCATION: 10 MONROE COURT
PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID H. PITZEN
APPLICANT: DHP MONROE INVESTORS LLC
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on January 21, 2003 , on a request from
the applicant (DHP Monroe Investors LLC) and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town
law.
B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the applicant and all interested
persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials
submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material
contained in the Council Agenda Report dated January 8, 2003, Desk Item dated January 17, 2003, and
Addendum dated January 14, 2003, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this
application.
C. The applicant has requested approval of a Planned Development to permit the construction
of four two story single family units on approximately 1.44 acres. The density of the development is 2.7
units per acre.
D. The Planning Commission considered this matter on August 28, 2002 and continued the
matter with direction, including reducing the floor area of the units. On October 9, 2002, the Commission
reconsidered the application and held a study session on November 13, 2002 to discuss other alternatives
for the development. On December 11, 2002 the Commission considered revised plans and approved the
i
Architecture and Site application forthe demolition, contingent upon approval of the Planned Development.
Attachment 1
The Commission recommended ap~ -,,val of the Planned Development for fo, _ ots to the Town Council.
E. Evidence submitted through the testimony of neighbors and the observations of members of
Council made during site visits strongly indicate that, given the intended sizes of the houses, the proposed
density of this development would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
RESOLVED:
Planned Development application PD-01-2 and Negative Declaration application ND-O1-14
are remanded to the Planning Commission for modification limiting the development to three (3) homes
with no more than a total of 8,000 square feet amongst the three, and additional direction that any redesign
of the homes shall protect the riparian corridor on the property.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California held on the 3`d day of February, 2003 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steve Glickman, Diane McNutt, Joe Pirzynski, Mike Wasserman,
Mayor Sandy Decker.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: /s/ Sandy Decker
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
2
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR
10 Monroe Court
Planned Development Application PD-01-2
Negative Declaration ND-01-14
Requesting approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from RM: 12-20 to RM:
12-20:PD to construct three dwelling units. No significant environmental impacts have
been identified as a result of this project and a Negative Declaration is recommended. APN
529-09-026.
PROPERTY OWNER: David H. Pitzen
APPLICANT: DHP Monroe Investors LLC
FINDINGS:
A) That the zone change is consistent with the General Plan.
B) As required by the Town's Infill Policy for a community benefit.
1.
In-fill projects should contribute to the further development of the surrounding
neighborhood (i.e. improve circulation, contribute to or provide neighborhood
unity, eliminate a blighted area, not detract from the existing quality of life).
2.
An in-fill project should be designed in context with the neighborhood and
surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding
structures, provide comparable lot sizes and open space, consider garage
placement, setbacks, density, provide adequate circulation and on-street parking.
In-fill development should blend rather than compete with the established
character of the area.
3.
Corridor lots may be considered if it decreases the amount of public street and is
consistent with objects #1 and #2. It must be demonstrated that a benefit to
surrounding properties is being provided.
4.
The Planned Development process should only be used to accomplish objects #1
and #2. The applicant shall demonstrate the benefit of a Planned Development
through excellence in design.
5.
Approval of an in-fill project shall demonstrate a strong community benefit and
findings of benefit shall be part of the record.
N:\DEV\FINDING S\ l0monroe.wpd
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE
FROM RM:12-20 TO RM:12-20:PD AT 10 MONROE COURT
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning at 10
Monroe Court as shown on the map which is attached hereto marked Exhibit A and is part of this
Ordinance from RM:12-20 (Multiple Family Residential, 12 to 20 dwelling units per acre), to
RM:12-20:PD ((Multiple Family Residential, 12 to 20 dwelling units per acre, Planned
Development).
SECTION II
The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the
following construction and use of improvements:
1. Demolition of four pre-1941 single-family residences;
.2. Construction of three single family residences; and
3. Landscaping, streets, parking, open space and other site improvements shown and
required on the Official Development Plan.
4. Uses permitted are those specified in the underlying RM ( Multiple Family
Residential) zone by Sections 29.40.610 (Permitted Uses) and 29.20.185
(Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, as those sections exist at the time of the
1
Attachment 3
adoption of this Ordinance, or. as they may be amended in the future, subject to any
restrictions or other requirements specified elsewhere in this ordinance including, but
not limited to, the Official. Development Plan. However, no use listed in Section
29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this Ordinance, or by
Conditional Use Permit.
SECTION III
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan
specifically shows otherwise.
SECTION IV
Architecture and Site Approval is required before the demolition of the single family
residences and construction work for the new dwelling units, whether or not a permit is required for
the work and before any permit for construction is issued. Construction permits shall only be in a
manner complying with Section 29.80.130 of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION V
The attached Exhibit A (Map) and Exhibit B (Development Plans, 14 sheets), are part of the
Official Development Plan. The following must be complied with before issuance of any grading,
demolition or construction permits:
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
(Planning Division)
1. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. The Official Development Plans
and phis ordinance establish the allowed uses and intensity of development. The Official
2
Development Plans are conceptual in nature such that minor deviations may be approved
through the Architecture and Site approval process if necessary to achieve architectural
excellence. These deviations may include finished floor elevations. The Development
Review Committee shall be the deciding body of the Architecture and Site applications.
2. HOUSE SIZE/CELLARS. The footprint and size of each house shall be determined during
the Architecture and Site approval process and the proposed houses shall contain no more
than 8,000 square feet in aggregate. No additional square footage shall be permitted, except
for cellars which may be approved during the Architecture and Site approval process. The
square footage of the cellars is in addition to the square footage shown on the official
development plan. Cellars must drain to the storm drainage system, not to Los Gatos Creek
or the riparian corridor.
3. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to :the
issuance of a Building, Grading or Encroachment Permit.
4. RECYCLING. All wood, metal, glass, and aluminum materials generated from the
demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials.
Receipts from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting type and weight of material,
shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection.
5. PHOTO DOCUMENTATION. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the demolition,
Structure B shall be photographically documented by providing two sets of colored and black
and white photographs to the Town for the project file and the historic resources inventory.
6. *RIPARIAN CORRIDOR. The riparian corridor enhancement plan (Attachment 1 of the
Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court dated June 2002) and the riparian study planting plan
3
(Sheet L-Rl;,ofthe attached Exhibit B) shall be implemented. All future landscaping within
100 feet of the riparian corridor'shall consist of native trees, shrubs and groundcover that
occur naturally in the riparian habitat near the site and shall be mix similar to species used
in the riparian corridor enhancement plan. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be
reviewed and approved through the San Francisco Bay Area JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resource
Permit Application) process and the Santa Clara Valley Water District
7. *EXTERIOR LIGHTING. Any lighting to be installed along the eastern edge of the
proposed development shall be designed to minimize the intensity of light reaching the
adjacent riparian corridor and setback area.
8. *ARCHAEOLOGIST. The site shall be reinspected by a qualified archaeologist at the
applicant's expense, directly after all of the existing buildings and other imported materials
are removed and prior to issuance of any permits for new construction. Findings and
recommendations of this survey shall be submitted in writing to the Town. If any deposits
of archaeological materials are discovered at this time, theywill be evaluated for significance
if future ground disturbing activities would endanger them. If the evaluation of deposits
demonstrates that they are intact and significant deposits of archaeological soils (midden),
the project sponsor shall be required to submit a plan to the Town for mitigation of impacts
on these resources, prior to commencement of any further earthmoving within the identified
areas.
9. DOCUMENTS. Escrow papers for each lot shall include a statement that the maintenance
and repair of the roadway and creek slopes within the subdivision are the responsibility of
the Promeowners. Prior to final occupancy; a copy of the proposed homeowner manual or
4
other materials to be provided to the homeowners shall be submitted to the Town and the
Santa Clara Valley District for approval, which addresses the responsibilities of living next
to a riparian corridor. .
10. FENCING. Prior to final occupancy, an open design fence shall be installed at the boundary
of the riparian corridor, located at the current 340 foot elevation.
11. SETBACK. The minimum setback from the proposed structures to the top of the bank shall
be ten feet, pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
12. COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE. The community open space located on Lot 2, shall be
available to all the residents within the proposed subdivision.
(Building Division)
13. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the three proposed dwelling
units and the demolition of four pre-1941 residences.
14. CONSTRUCTION PLANS: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover
sheet of the construction plans submitted for a building permit.
15. SIZE OF PLANS: The maximum size of construction plans submitted for building permits
shall be 24" x 36".
16. PLANS: The construction plans for this project shall be prepared under the direct supervision
of a licensed architect or engineer. (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538)
17. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Contact Town of Los Gatos Building Counter
technicians for demolition requirements and complete the process before obtaining a building
permit for demolition of such work.
18. HOUSE NUMBERS: The developer shall submit requests for additional house numbers
5
from the office of the Town Clerk prior to the building permit application process.
19. RESIDENTIALTOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: Theresidences shall bedesigned
with adaptability features for single-family residence per Town Resolution 1994-61.
a. Wooden backing (no smaller than 2" x 8") shall be provided in all bathroom walls,
at water closets, showers and bathtubs located at 34" from the floor to the center of
the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.
b. All passage doors shall be at least 32" wide on accessible floor.
C. Primary entrance shall have a 36" wide door including, a 5"x5" level landing, no
more than 1" out of plane with the immediate interior floor level, with an 18"
clearance.
20. SOILS REPORT: Two copies of a soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building
Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations shall be
submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed
civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
21. *GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION: The project shall' incorporate all 50
recommendations and UBC Design Criteria included in Terrasearch's geotechnical
investigation for the proposed' project (Attachment 3 of the Initial Study for 10 Monroe
Court, dated June 2002), in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional
seismic activity, erosion hazards and subsurface soil conditions on the site.
22. *LEAD BASED PAINT: Existing construction finish materials that are suspect for
containing lead-based paint shall be tested and pending laboratory analysis, will not be
subjected to any process which renders them friable unless proper engineering controls and
6
worker protection procedures are initiated.
23. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or
land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector upon foundation
inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified
in the soils report and the building pad elevation and on-site regaining wall locations and
elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall
be set and certified by a licensed surveyor orregistered civil engineer for the following items:
a. Pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
24. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-1R:
and MF-1R.
25. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New fireplaces shall be EPA Phase II approved
appliances as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 feet of chimneys.
26. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by UBC Section 1701, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted
to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permits, in accordance
with UBC Section 106.3.5. Please obtain Town Special Inspection form from the Building
Division Service Counter. The Town Special Inspection schedule shall be blue-lined on the
construction plans.
27. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program specification shall be part of the plan submittal.
7
The specification sheet is available at the Building. Division Service Counter.
28. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires' the following agencies approval before
issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development Department:
b. Parks and Public Works Department:
c. West Valley Sanitation District: 378-2407
d. Santa Clara County Fire Department: 378-4010
e. * Santa Clara Valley Water District
f. *California Regional Water Quality Control Board
g. *California Department of Fish and Game
h. *U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
I. Los Gatos School District: 395-5570
Note: Obtain the school district form from the Town Building Service Counter after the
Building Division_ plan check has approved the plans.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
(Engineering Division)
29. GRADING PERMIT. A grading permit is required for site grading and drainage. The
grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division
of the'Parks & Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plan
must also be reviewed and accepted by the Santa Clara Valley Water District prior to the
Town issuing the grading permit. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage,
retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall
8
list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless
specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be
issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the
building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E.
Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint.
30. GRADING PERMIT FOR WORK IN RIPARIAN CORRIDOR. A grading permit is
required for any work within the riparian corridor. A seRarate application for a grading
permit (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public
Works Department. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, riparian
restoration, planting, and interim erosion control. Unless specifically allowed bythe Director
of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building
permit.
31. RETAINING WALLS. A buildingpermit, issued bythe Building Division of the Community
Development Department, is required for all site retaining walls. Walls'are not reviewed,
approved, or inspected by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the
grading permit process.
32. DRAINAGE. Runoff from lots 2 and 3 shall be collected by a private storm drain system
and not allowed to flow directly to the creek. The private drainage system shall be designed
to accommodate a 10 year storm. Emergency overflow facilities. shall be provided to allow
flows larger than a 10 year storm to discharge overland directly to the creek.
33. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the
grading permit application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards
9
governing site grading; drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design and erosion control.
The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance
with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code.
34. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's soils engineer shall review
the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls,
site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer
review comments. The applicant's soils engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the
Town either by letter or by signing the plans.
35. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. During construction, all
excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to
placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in
the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction
observation and testing should be documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the
applicants soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy
permit is granted.
36. PARCEL MAP. Tentative map approval is required. When approved; a parcel map shall
be recorded. Two copies of the parcel map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division
of the Parks & Public Works Department for review and approval. Submittal shall include
closure calculations, title reports and appropriate fee. The map shall be recorded before any
permits are issued.
37. DEMCATIONS. The following shall be dedicated on the parcel map by separate instrument.
10
The dedication shall be recorded before any Permits are issued.
a. Ingress-egress, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, utilities, and easements as required. Prior
to the dedication, the developer shall determine if the storm drain can be repositioned to
save two trees near Roberts Road.
b. The riparian corridor shall be irrevocably dedicated to the Town. The
owner(s)/developer shall be responsible for completing the riparian corridor enhancement
plan and riparian planting plan as identified in the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court,
dated June 2002. Any permits required by the Town or other agencies, to perform the
initial planting within the riparian corridor will be the responsibility of the
owners/developer.
38. RIPARIAN MAINTENANCE. The owners/developer shall fund riparian corridor
enhancement and restoration planting as identified in the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court
for a period of three years after the work is accepted as complete by the Town. Maintenance
shall be performed by a Town approved contractor. The full amount for the maintenance
contract shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map. HT Harvey estimated the three
year maintenance cost to be approximately $54,000 in their August 29, 2003 proposal letter
to the Town.
39. FINAL CC&R'S. Final CC&R's shall be approved by the Town Attorneyprior to recordation
of the final map. The CC&R's shall include provisions for road improvements, vehicle
parking enforcement procedures and maintenance of the riparian corridor. The CC&R's
shall also include the requirement for an encroachment permit for all work in the public
right of-way or on Town land which includes the riparian corridor.
11
40. INSURANCE. One million dollars (S1,000,000) of liability insurance holding the Town
harmless shall be provided in a format acceptable to the Town Attorney before recordation
of the map.
41. 401 CERTIFICATION. A 401 Certification shall be obtained from the San Francisco Bay
Region Water Quality Control District for work in "waters of the State of California." A
copy of the certification shall be provided to the Parks & Public Works Department before
the parcel map is recorded.
42. FISH AND GAME REQUIREMENTS. A " 1603 ".permit shall be obtained for the California
Department of Fish and Game for proposed improvements in or near riparian areas within
their jurisdiction. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the Parks & Public Works
Department before the parcel map is recorded.
43. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REQUIREMENTS. If required, a Section 404
permit shall be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps`of Engineers for proposed improvement
in or near riparian areas within their jurisdiction. A copy of the permit or other clearance
shall be provided to the Parks & Public Works Department before the parcel map is recorded.
44. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall conform to the
applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job
related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm
drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will
not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge
shall`be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way
12
according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at
the developer's expense.
45. STORM DRAINAGE. The developer shall provide analysis of existing storm drainage
facility and hydrology calculations prior to issuance of any building permits. The developer
shall implement improvements if needed to accommodate any increase of flows related to
this proposal. All modifications shall require regulatory agency approvals and permits.
46. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of-way or on public land
(including the riparian corridor) will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work
over $5,000 will require construction security.
47. FOUNDATION DESIGN. The building foundations on lots 2 and 3 shall be designed to
accommodate excavation of the adjacent storm and sanitary sewers without loss of structural
integrity.
48. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting an work pertaining to
on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way or on
public land (including the riparian corridor). Failure to do so will result in rejection of work
that went on without inspection.
49. SURVEYING CONTROLS. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by
a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the
following items:
a. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations
b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes
13
c. Top of curb
50. EROSION CONTROL. Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and
submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department. A Notice
of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more
than one acre. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and
stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion
control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final
landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not
limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town
standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide
erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter
months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance
with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of Order 01-024
of the amended Santa Clara County NPDES Permit.
51. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PREVENTION. On-site drainage systems shall
include a filtration device in the catch basins or bio-swales.
52. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the responsibility of contractor and
home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on
a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into
the Town's storm drains or into Los Gatos Creek.
53. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility services; including telephone, electric
14
power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code
§27.50.015(b). Cable television capability shall be provided to all new lots.
54. RESTORATION OF PRIVATE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall
repair or replace all existing private roadway improvements not designated for removal that
are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not
limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs,pavements, raised pavement markers,
thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to
or better than the original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall
be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title
24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering
Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
55. AS-BUILT PLANS. After completion of the construction of all work, the original plans
shall have all changes (change orders and field changes) clearly marked. The "as-built" plans
shall again be signed and "wet-stamped" by the civil engineer who prepared the plans,
attesting to the changes. The original "as-built" plans shall be review and approved the
Engineering Inspector. A Mylar and AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built" plans shall
be provided to the Town before the Faithful Performance Security or Occupancy Permit is
released. The AutoCAD file shall include only the following information and shall conform
to the layer naming convention: a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-OUTLINE; b) Driveway,
Layer: DRIVEWAY; c) Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING WALL; d)Property Line,
Layer: PROPERTY-LINE; e) Contours, Layer: NEW CONTOUR. All as-built digital files
must-be on the same coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network and shall be
15
submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher.
56. CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be
allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five
(85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property,
the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device
as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed
eighty-five (85) dBA.
57. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley
Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused.
Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line.
(Parks Division)
58. *FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. A final riparian planting plan shall be submitted during the
Subdivision Application process. A final landscape plan shall be submitted during the
Architecture and Site approval process for each lot.
59. NEW TREES. Newly planted and relocated trees shall be double-staked, using rubber tree
ties and shall be planted prior final occupancy.
60. GENERAL. All existing trees shown to remain on the plan are specific subjects-of approval
of this plan and must remain on site.
61. *PROTECTIVE FENCING. Prior to any equipment arriving on site and prior to
construction or building permits being issued, the applicant shall meet with the Town's
Consulting Arborist, at the developer's expense, concerning the need for protective fencing
16
around the existing trees and other required tree protection measures identified in this
ordinance. Such fencing is to be installed prior to, and be maintained during, construction.
The fencing shall be a five foot high chain link attached to steel poles driven at least 18
inches into the ground when at the dripline of the tree. If the fence has to be within eight feet
of the trunk of the tree, a fence base may be used, as in a typical chain link fence that is
rented. Fencing shall be included at the following locations as identified in Attachment 2 of
the Initial Study for 10 Monroe Court dated June 2002):
a. The 30 inch coast live oak east of Lot 1, six feet from the proposed final wall location
on the west and south and out to the dripline on the north.
b. The 18 inch coast live oak at the south end of Lot 1.
,c. Adjacent to the fire truck turnaround.
d. The 36 inch coast live oak on Lot 2 shall have approximately 100 square feet of
protective root zone.
62. *BUFFERS. Before any equipment arrives on site, platform buffers shall be installed under
all canopies out to driplines as shown in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for. 10 Monroe
Court, dated June 2002. A platform buffer is a five inch layer of coarse chips from a tree
company, with one to 1 '/2 inch thick plywood full sheets laid over the tip and tied together.
This shall cover all parts of the soil beneath the tree canopy and remain in place until
construction ceases. All trunks must be wrapped with carpeting or equivalent to eight feet
above grade in platform buffer areas.
63. *CONSTRUCTION METHODS. The following methods of construction is required:
a. Fier and on-grade beam foundations must be used in any area beneath a tree canopy.
17
b. No excavation for crawl space or equivalent maybe excavated in areas beneath buildings
beneath tree canopies.
c. Trenches for any service or irrigation shall not be located in any area beneath the
canopies of trees. Utility trench locations shall be identified prior to the issuance of a
building permit so that their location is planned and not an incidental location determined
by the utility company.
d. The trench for the storm drain line proposed adjacent to the 24-inch oak shall be dug by
hand within ten feet of the trunk. The trench for the sewer line proposed adjacent to the
existing oak near the fire truck turnaround shall be dug by hand if closer than 15 feet
from the trunk. No roots over 2 '/z inches in diameter shall be cut.
e. No vertical cuts shall be made closer than five times the trunk diameter from any tree if
trenching is on only one side of the trees root mass. If it is necessary to cut a trench
through more than one quadrant of the tree's root mass, the trenches.shall be set back
a distance of seven times the trunk diameter. Foundations constructed within the dripline
which are closer than five times the trunk. diameter from the trunk, shall be of pier and
beam design.
f. When existing pavement is removed in areas beneath canopies of trees, it shall be done
with a jackhammer and the broken pieces loaded by hand onto a tractor, which is
standing on unbroken pavement. The, tractor shall back up onto undisturbed pavement
as it picks up the pavement pieces so as to avoid compression of the soil in newly
exposed root zones. The newly exposed root zone areas shall be covered immediately
with a layer of three inches of tree chips (as from a chipping machine from a tree
18
company) to protect these root systems from drying out.
64. ROOTS. If roots are encountered during excavation, the project arborist shall immediately
evaluate anchorage loss and cut the root properly. No roots shall be cut with a backhoe.
65. *EXPOSED ROOTS. Newly exposed root systems shall be watered with a soaker hose
applying ten gallons of water per one inch of trunk diameter once every two weeks until
construction is completed.
66. *IRRIGATION. All newly planted landscaping shall be irrigated by an in-ground irrigation
system. The irrigation system shall avoid excessive watering of the existing Oaks and there
shall be no irrigation lines within the Tree Protection Zones of the Oaks.
67. *PRUNING. Pruning of any trees shall be done by an ISA certified arborist using ISA
Western Chapter Pruning Specifications.
68. INTERLOCKING PAVERS. Any new impervious surface encroaching under the dripline
of existing trees shall have interlocking pavers installed.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
69. - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. Required fire flow for this project is 1,000 GPM at 20 psi.
residual pressure.
70. ACCESS TO WATER SUPPLY: Portions of the structures are greaterthan 150 feet of travel
distance from the centerline of the roadway containing public fire hydrants. The developer
shall provide an on-site fire hydrant or install an approved fire sprinkler system throughout
all portions of the building.
71. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new
and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street
19
or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
72. SIGNING. The hammerhead shall be marked/signed to indicate that no parking is permitted
in this area.
*Required as Mitigation Measures
SECTION VI
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos on , 2003, and adopted by the following. Vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los
Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on effect 30 days after it is
adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
NADEV\ORDS.\ 10monroe. wpd
20
10 Monroe Court
F
7
C
J
Q
7
•O
i I P ~ J1 r17~ !
:
PD
UMAINT A
l r OJW N 0jr
LOS
G A T 0 8
Application No. :~-D - 0 ~ - 0
.
Change of zoning map
amending the Town Zoning
Ordinance.
0 Zone Change
from ~M
2~ to y Z - Zc =
❑ Prezoning
to
by Planning Commission
date i+ yak-
Approved by Town Council
date
Ord.
Town Clerk
Mayor
t
e~ a7aeo~ aasoog ,
o'
e
a
l
a!}1aEd
Q
P
0
z
E
o
c~Q
S99v L.LO3 9OHNOW o~ P- ~2
}4
~
Wa
a
a
_
b
~
qq
P. Q r7
p b\
~
~j
Ebb
~ma~
.Q
C7 W
r U
m d
041 u!
a'~ any
a
a
"r'
d.
>
zZQaa
'dUmmm
.p
83 ma
a~aa
~
a
d
1-
w
W JOQ
W
LLLL
II
O
m
: o o 1
1
a
4
n-
d n 01.
w+
r~
F
F
r
OC
.
f~ 6, F Q
-
. W
~ N'
W t. V1
y
r T
F~ UW
J
V
Z
OS C
"CI
v N ri .r
d 4
<
d
ai
O!y
F
W
Q
a
°
yd
z
n"N
~JV'
18
-11
01 nuoi a
d W ON
Q Gv,Zm
N
¢
(yep cD
0.w
O CI.
.r V
!d:
~
M1~
!d
A
IN
92
rob
(L
•
of
a
M
O `LF 1
e I4l~S
al N a
MMM
M
V
M
d
W
MV ~
a
U. eW
rA y 21W01
~ axo C4 Rod
Q W~OJ QxaW,.
~LS' Zd0zs UQ
~ d:l~mo a-•
o Wa,,. go"a~
A~
tl,o VINNOdi'ItlO 'SOltlO SO-1
-piM o ar uos . w qw
B es root-ste (eot) =U ooot-sLs (aov) dVW 3AIIVIN31
a3~ sztss vo'eeor Ius'eoz aU IMG x-3..-Is Dear 121(100 3021NOW ~ P
mlq~ e . o ONIIS3A
S30VII00 30NNOW
s
y3 ~ I
a ~bJ sg~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ I / W
> I- U a u
' wrm f11~ a d, Z (n ~ M ~ O ~ a 2 +S
r S O g W W K a
rtap~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ I U
'AI HMm 4~m~ m W ~~j~I a k' @u ~ J i m~ £
s 'vr 4 ' N¢
C N
E 2 L&~ a~ a
n f ~ 4
A/ \ 3 ,
'rte ua
/
i
J "
1C
I~
I ~ t" 4 z
~i
40 ~Wn
O a _
I ~J I I ~
W W W
L. \Vf
3x ~o sa ',,A l
NI F pu ~ /
O~
Y
l
aioPaoo ro=ar vas ~aagav VIN80dl-lVO 'SO1tl0 SOl n
na as3~ voot-m (Faro) •°A oook-sL. (gob) n - m
um 'D - uus'SaZ eyas •wa A,a~ euaeals oae> iiinw 3011NOW
eG 630 NV-ld 3115 ~
oze d Dui `nnx mglm[~ S3Dt/1103 3ONNOW
a ~ I l
l3 ~ d ~ ~ w
moil ~
w» z -w ~ ~a 1 'J Qo a
s s @ z %
JIM
W < < a
O]N a
Q
/
N¢
a
I
~
~ ~
~ aF i ~r{r// i
Iw
3
E
i
Yy~.
yQ:
0 "Ja o`
C~ ~ O
F ~
G
sg
~x
s,
~o>
\ ~Z
\OW
1 °>4
2
a
j
1 ~
5
~a
M
va 's
tvo Sol
M
J
vwao~n
o
aoar_sts (eoa) XDA OOoa-sls
(so>)
NVId 3E)VNIVU(3
m
oXg30
AA
BZ156 tlJ'-r u°s 5uz ns'Pim r-o -.4s o2st
tanoo 3OMNOW
m
'
ON`d ONIOb'aO
~
~
° -
°o
~nI `un3I 7g l-ling)
W
sm,r
S30V11OO 3OaNO
io
MEN
-
c
i
J 9 9
gym, r
LLzr a ¢$5 s~E a e w $ ~j ! ~ ~ ~ / /
N
1\
z x eY= pz4 'o / l / f
\
£
Q~U 2y~$
3
P
o Y~aae~;~~p3g r *3 / ~ a z
11
3mv / y~ SIN u
y K:_
y ~ /r drvndtl3 a0J 81115 J, r
~
C
py
y'~
61
3e~ S~ti f 3
w I
!
1
Jr
' lVhE ~rl- 9 \ %
~
~s"
~
i
/
~
,r1
y'
1 1
J" Q I
RmcE 1^ I^I ~u $ ' 3 I~1 YY- r~ 1
~
1
1
O
LLo - _ '-.i nH~, r {S
1 a
co Z) o
£ CD
!
S o ~o
j a
I
l
j
i w d S J gal
z
1~~ C
_
n
¢ .r^, ` y~o ~ oa 33ar ionoad N ~
~ ~3aYa`J MO,aa r
ar a
n ([.~~(I r\ .
N
~
v`roz u?~
.',o AVMXjlHG
S1N380y
arll5 9 01 W7
LGIVM ON31X3
VINHOAIVO `SOivO SOI M
alop~op of u°S • w gntl
a asaw vooa-s s (eor) ,oooa-sta (eoa) A3A2if1S o
ato V0 -P aaS 'SOz qn 9^19 MaeYO suaraa5 0096 121F10O 3021NOW M
1-3 x OIHd` H9OdOl
9 F~gFFnFJ J S3DVII03 3ONNOW
ae G
2'dF m y ~ ]p~33~ \ ~ O?
m r
° lIl
° W aogz~a~ r a
I / I \ \ II I
i
~ Z
r
oz
o-2
la
iE
I o I ~s~ z
I I
N
I I-
I
Ww I
m~
00
0
0
/ o' tL
~,-NL
e u~
y
JI(
I
L
tl
g~
r
0
r
N
~j
o1Z
Iu
a
ins
a
0
~7 a
rg
o~
~`a7
$w
~g
g4 g
I
I F
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I ~ I I
gg ~g
S 2 CRI CI(WAY COURT
5 I
Ja:r I
.n'
F I
d F
/ n I
i
i /
S i % / / / / I
\
- eD
2
~n
S 'a
9
I
V `
J
5
C7
D
MONROE COTTAGES ` Giuliani & KuI4Inc& Kull, Inc,
AREA MAP
e.
0 o MONROE COURT 4860 ste+°R° C,°.k 6IW, s it' 205' Son J°RR, CA 95129
o (405) 615-4aoo Fox (405) 615-4004 °EySR
.
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA Auburn • sa„ doge Oakdale
I
I
I
I '
I
i
~m$
Sin, .n
elwol)Ic~ 'so7n~J ~'I
vun
v'°
'
land, eoaooly-
s
s
q
3
n~m$
"
~"m
3
~a~eaa~ve
,~w:"'° _
PaFilsaenl4 ~lll~ed
~
a
r~
1'~
,,g
~"«TLR;'®'
-'b
(len;daauoa) ueld a3FS
e
o
o
}
9
w
ti
m
u
a
W
W
14 s p
d
V ❑ EID
o~ ~aa❑ p
~ a a
aaa❑
z
101
z /
J • lb /
•
/
i
L- ,
t°
a~o3![eJ `eo7eJ ao7
« auww,av ,noww
POIJISIanFQ alp
O
/sue
d 100
SUOPIOn9
4
9
eF
~
9
1
l
19
1
EO
Z it 3F II
~I
g I~
~ ll
'
~-1
v N
J
O s,
J
=
RR
_
Q
4
V
O
J
Ll
pp
O
O
a? ~ '
y
S
~
P
J
y
jJ
J qR
~
O
mN
11
j5h
`9
@
a
-
P
~
~
m
mm
~n
N
N
3
~
~N
d
~
n
a
r
E
o
~
.cxF
J
F
w
0
~N
~ v
~ Ix
2
8 €
N
~
~
v
J
- -
~
Z
q
J
_
O
q~ _
I
a
`F^t
G q'
i
'
awiF
W
: y.it10'J 801uOj~{ 0 a `n
8 ~
paF}FsianFd aFfFa$d r ~ a ~
Eo-c -6 suoF}enaFd /eueld :0013 eF -gg®
E
a flog ~
~ q lu
U
V
n
J
a 4-
O
J
F
W
U
O
u
J
1u
d
J
ell-
G Q'
eN+o;qn~ •eo}ecJ sod
pnoo aoanoW
0
e
°
~
~
-
P F3F FQ F3F d
Z
E
m
~
maffR
ONE-
ads~~aaz;S
~
s
°
.
i
°
o
t3
E
fm
Y
u
0D
m~
Q d
ar
1
,I
LI
~ a rl ~ z. tr0 ~SO1'v'zJ SO"1 Ab~N~A~~~~ ~ e1x3
U o/° v~ xwauwo
O
F
NGIllM 0511 StlNLnONa tlN0 SNVN U3JNtl0bd3tl b0/tlMl Y1M JiNWIJT3 SOi 03-j n u33S3tl Si llllllfilT tl0 Au11S5NM153b (W'. 'SONVFYdO dMl SNbld o3dWtla5 0l:tl 03NU5 NMSW4 Siatl?V.bNNJtl AtNO '$,J3LNJYV 3dvJS4M/1 I+xMe) 'JNI 'S3lNJO55v A NmnN/oJ>3tltlaB b3NMJ90
3rn~a3
Y
~
~
~
~
I~
~
~
H
I"d
&
H
H
H
I
i
r
H
iwf
a
g
gg
~
.
~
d
y~
3
3
~
~
3
3
~
-
-
U
<
M
~
w
p
g
. W
W
aq
v
I
r
Irp.
.
a
.
II II ~I
U-11-1
II _
II
1
/ ~sra ~m' ~ ~ a,,~~a>o„` tf'J ~$Olb'~J S01 O ,vnwa~
roc me'm>e oaMrv een ``11n ``''~I I ,
mm &47H.LIiC171tl HdV'JSQtStl'I ~OI 00~ ~QQNQ~ 1~
„301 'JHI 'S3LM~SV ~ ISbi'IIN/0.'bH7RIOH ~~corsora
'3tlNVN'J6 S,YgNB NOHWI NSII 5 4IMYtl0 aXY StMd a3dlla~tld3tl b0/ONO YIY[I ~IINNU313 tl0! 43fltlrvl tl0 03553Ndlfi SI AIIIINVII tl0 llllg6NCd53tl ON 'S14U♦WHI ONtl SNMd Pdd~YtlJS ONP 03NSI5 NNIOItlO 53NONAONM~V AINO 'SW311H~NV -.dPJSa(MU(vMl9) JNI 'S31H]155tl 9 NVIIIN/0133tltlOS ~tl3rvM]510
p
w a ' lob "Hi
4 ill 11 NM ° ` g )
~ F
51 k
o r i b
{
o
z w
le ~ °
u ~,N
as
J
ozu-we~~ ~a ~
l ~W8 ~ l0 -
e,uvcvnmawnaw SYJM 3.iSfD7ld aavo dtlJ6(I QNd7~~ ~cz~iI~1~1+4 ~aa:u ~.no
sooiez wxr - ewaorea a,ro ",n
vox 'OHI `SH.LdDOSSd x8 Nd['Il5T/OOJHZINOH
o
3~ q d g a~ ~ E~ ~a ~3•~'g ~a
w U1 0 g o a s a" ~ a ~ a
z a a s e£ ~ ~ ~ ag Rom H ~
sv~ SON
of Hilo 110 1 ~1 a~11 ~
a Hal 1H
p! RIB In 1 11
ism
out
gin 111 in!
f a
I~q d~ E ~ 9~3
a z
t ~r w
II I
isfr ~ I I d
~U
m3
~'sa
~ s ~ a I a
/ a 12\
Z
s~~ Fa "mw v
w
°
_
am -I
Tn
'I ~
z
s
Z
~
z
y
pr
= "I
Ln
~
I-
'
ni
~
u
g
I
w
n
U
IN
L
1
$3
e
as s~s~.
o f :s 9 9~
9 a a o~
G
l
lt
i
g
p x
X ~ °v m s
Lo~ ~
0
g ~ R
o S
O
S
i
i
i
I ~ ~ ~rorams=tea ~ XCE„r.~
nanivuors s,rrye Ncwum assn sexmmo oxa srma yanncaaa a°laxr oarons3 aoi a3um ao ous]aab si +.uveri ao .w~a¢xoasza ox ais nNi~iao s3oonmox,uv s.o3iiuoav ]ansoxn I~ae, ww -?boon :a
w
m
3
dS
HHg
~
g
w
3 a
i
~
~
A
yp
RIN
~ ~
4p
LL
J~°
q
}
Q
2 "a 3i
W
~ 9'~ as
Q
d
~
d3 3 8
$ ~ g ~
~
6M
_
~
~
L
ado
~
~
mwQ~
~~~zps
yI
I O O
L°_P
alb
~a~
i
yy.~~y5
33
i
i
yio
rib
~
gs
maa
4a~
&o
I 1~~0
N
`
H
!d
F g3~1
''I P~
Yea
11, j68.4z..: '~gff
w
9
~
u ! esejy€~s
dun
$
a•
99
uo
a 2m ~A
~a7°y ~g"'
'
~
~
$ d
d
V §
K9
o gig!
i
b~
8
3
r55¢
i
$
g3
~
~1
u89pg~
a~ a 5'd
ff
a
_
t
w
~m ie+'g
453
~P
o
Wiq _
-,xw
og~ a 3~~ ~ ~B ~ g3~
X38
C
U. 3 R, ,
0~
.
~~s•„8~g~6
,
B UIa
¢ y LL = ~ a
'
w
ki
RIP
4
Vuuu
y
t~
5Q p
As Ana 9.
de am
ca
x ~4
MR6 RIP
HI ~ ao g ~
mg~~~ ~ ~LLai 3
ON,
¢ g ags ~ FI ~~t~°~,g
~ ~ 9ks r r w ~
N
€o`s_
s
a
36 191
i~~ y ~8 d9 J Cp I '1 ~ ~
§2syy 3z ~'I
` 3 ~ ~ Q 3 e 3 Nt W
~ ~m Z
L a dy9p J ] 9 p~ W
~ , 4
QL ~aa~ ~
ga~~~ob o $~s9~~~ '
Q_ JAI 3
---,-1
°
o
0
w
~
0
-
C
yV.~ V p O
V
~
O
V p ° C
w
0
0
~
U
U
_
w
O C
° ~
O~" .O N
°
r
~
d
~
A Q
Q Q
CU
p Q a. q
a
a
~
~
b
b
b
C
v
V
•~I
~
b >
.b o
o
p .ti
W C
cOC O
N cF~., cVi T
Y--t
~
e
CA V
°
Y
~ C _
O CJ ~ O
N NO O Q C c3 ~ 0 C1. c3
~1,
M
,
.
vi CJ O. V y
~ Q 6J .C V V
~ V 'O_~•' N ^O O >
'
G~
i
"
t
~ 'O C
C m O ~V'' •r~n
O • ~ ~
V O L'••i y~~" ~
om
.
~
V
iC ~ •
r
~ N rVn
w ~ Q
¢ cs y ~ c3 •L3 ti ~ - R
p
.
a
a
p,
~ ~ °
O f~ a~ A y "
_
o
C U cd o o 'd a~ o ~ .o
U
'd
C
G
cc
R b z" U
U VO is O
d C
.
O.
O N U
~
~
O ~ R O p
An
d
Q ~ ~ GJ A
G
p
L
,
j
N
3 P.
"
O cG
D
O
V L-i
O
~
{
.
b
y
w
m
C
.r V.
O
u
Cl
V V 0. V
y U
o
o o b
v ti cs a o c
0
N
0
Y~ V 0.
k .C m ca
N 'D 0. C
O
W v 3
,C
hV.4 ¢ b
c
F cCJ ca U G F: aJ m
m'
O
U
C m
r
W
~
Cz]
v
° rA
'O 'y0
, •C
>
~
V °
~ O
.
c~
a
xx
~Ch
aax
0
w
a
3
ti
E
0
z
Q
Q
w
Q
z
Attachment 4
au
b
U .D
R+ W
C O
U V
O
~ C
a a
HI
0
0
U
~
C
o
i
a
i
a
c
o
o a' 0 0
°
a
R;
AQ GlQ
a
~
o a
s
.y
2
O
°
z
°
H
0
d a~ d C
-S 'I-.o ° 0 a
44 o
O
V O ,may" N CL
0 0 F C W r-.
LC
C 4:
,
.
bA 0
O
y cCV .C" p OF'~ Cam.' V .O V d) O
'O O L:.•a~"..
~
b
O
..iCd R. W C
cd O y W 'cc O
°D onw AN
° A A '
^
b
al
En
U
N C
C
°
b
x
~
O
U
' t0
N °W
0
Cq oj!
t N cc q .C
w
t~0
co o
ai w v N
a CGC °
D y O
.
to
O
~ 0!
U b N ^ ° OR OV y
ti G
o A
'
o
w
9
O
~ § o
°
CJ G N N
4)
03
F
Q
1
2 '15 8 14
ou a o va w y . a~ Z' t CD
a~
a
.
o 3 °v'~+ o . ono o cd El
o a~ b a~ `0,
44 a >
C
cu (D 4d
O N O
b ° C id c0 y~ N ' p~
T
N
.
.
N
O y
WC
~ H y cJ 'N ALL .'d A p V
U y
G
C
P
C
N
.
,
. c
d F+
~
p
F
Q
eUS
o 0 '
°
`
° ~
A
a
o
A
b
3
ai
O
T'
z
5
W
g
b
ro
x
U
as O
~ U
O O
F+
Q °
-a
C
T h d
~x
o ~ Q
a
w o
.
0
3
O
U O U
o
A
a
x
Ca a
.
a
0
O
U
U
z
o
°
~
~o
~ O Cr"'
~ ~ w
ti
'
'
U
E'•1
~ '
. ~
.
D .
.a C ~ L1. U .
Oi ~ W ~ U O ~ T t. L~
U k U U F ~pG+ U N
y b
N O b O O N O b U~ O X p y~
~
~
R.
E .
O U O. ~7 U cq ca 'O U G' p O O T C 'U
'
L
Q
.
U
U
i
~ ~ ~ V
~
^
d
~ cd b0
c
_
w
~ ~
.
bq vi
G.
y cJ O Y y
d P+
U O U C
I
y id O..~ O O
x
7
V b
'
.
F
w
O
c
d
44~ y
U in bOD G C cd O p U y O 0 U
t4
_
O .
O .
cd
'd O
0
~
a •
~
~
, U id
N •
O m i b
U
'O W O N C O cd U N O O U V'1 b' n
U
N
O U O O 'CI O O N Oy.., q
U g U w 0 0
A U U Q. O D U
O
Q
N p y j cd V
UF: V O N~~•: U A O
J\ w 'FF cd C p y.
O' N O C r
q
'b O
>
p.,
'
c
d
CIO k U O w O N fem.' t+ cn N U y
0
o
c
f-I
.3 0 o
v ^ o o y :d .
o o
~
a~ > o~ v o v
0
~
,
y
v
oa.cza ° vE ° ° °E~ 3 a 0z C o 0 0
CD
G
v~
p
U
czl
U U
U
~ ~ g
E'•
O
C°
O O ~
A
U
Ga ;141
w
0
w
C9
a
^c3
3
N
0
Q
z
S
W
o
a
o
U
p
tw
O
C
O
~
pp
C
~
„
Q
A
a
U
U
U
a;
a
a.
a.
a
o
o.,
o
0
N F.
U ~
~ O
a
a3
Q3
Q3
a
O
C
C
C
O
O
°
o
o
U
H
c
0
as
Cd
a
°
w
y C T
U
O
N N
~rhh
y
l
-
O" C N
"b
U °
C w
cq3 is
c~a
'b U
o
,
CJ
O
a3 i
'
o
a°i U vi b a~ c ti
O
U
c y
3° Q
n o
N
° a.
° rn
`d G r
• V
y U O O y
y V
y
Gq in .d A
C
Q bq
~
G
p
° a o a°
3
o c L aUU
pp
A,
°
od w
D °3
Y
Q O.
'a
N
r 3
o °
(D.
C °
o
n c~ F~
a
0
d
Q
~
U N
y 3
G
'K U
OJ
C-)
cl
~ aU+
C
C
^ C
~ .U+
ono ° q o 3 a
~ a~
.
~ y 4,
N
p
in, q aN, O 0
O v
y CA
o
3
.
Q
a
i
N
a
a
f=~
~ GJ ~
C .O N y w N y P.
~ ~
cct cV C
cJ C
°
C
b b b
w p O N U U O
N „q
v
~
N
pp
G
O
N
p,
C vi.
C
z°c~
QSna~aO
am
4;
t
o
v
U r,~
C
A
a
O
~
c
.:I
~
m
C.
3
C)
O
z
LLI
Q
z
Q
w
9
J
I
'b 'b ,YUy
W w V
O O to
U U
O ~
b
vO~ 141 ~
G
H
P. G. C, ULa.
O O
O O
c .~Q3
Q
~
a
w
i
°
w
a
•
a
R.
a
i P
,
~
C
o
~ o o
° cd
o
rx
Casa f~Caa
.1
A.
V
o 0
0
~
o m °
z
°
~
o x o
0
a
A C),
C/I
W N m ti tw Lk
y V O
C
a
a
j
•N •R o
U ~J F+. ca m Ci. b
'
O V
O V O T
N
O
ci
.
15
a c °o w° " v 3 d o Qy s i
a ° c ° a ° 50 . U o °
'b s U O m .b .V
U~ tl.
Q
~
O
y w a Q w a
> ¢ o cw > ° a
y 'O
O "O O C
N O
0 T U b
C i
.0
a0
G
0
q ~U ~.rl ° bQ'ai W>U ac°~
N
ti
M
p
~
°
~b
W
U
~
A
A.
Cq cs; U
2
o
LO
w
a
71
a
ti
E
Q
z
C¢
T
W
g
a
0
U
~
y
G
O
G
~
Q
CJ C
0
~
°
O O
~ CJ
A:
A Q
~
r
V
O
C
O
O
'
~r
O
~
d
o
°
E~
$
~ o
z
o
°
~
ao
F~
a o
o .y b o 'D o ai G y
N
C
O U y
C ,
O
O,, ti ~r~ ~ a, O
O rwr
r'a N C U
py N y
> U
O
~y U f+0, O O
b5A 5"C
O N
U
U
S
a
o w
•b
;
v
~u o w
N
a
i
GL y N O c~ '(n 3 y wOO
C
4.
C G cd F,
~
cd
p
R. N O ""r O id U o O 4.
C
ll "I
0
q
7,z
o
U 0 .
o 0 v 5 b a o ao c
'a a~
o P 2
c '~o
o
V
C
'
ou o p
y
N C v F. Q c c
O 'w7 U N
O to
00
0
h ab s, b o 3
N N Q .O U m O bA O O U
N
ti
O
d
E.i
U
~
W
u
ti ~
A
a
~
Ua
b
3
a+
O
0
z
q
Q
W
9
z
BSA
Page 1
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
(2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(3) PUBLIC HEARING
co AGENDA ITEMS 2 AND 3,
(5) 10 MONROE COURT and
(6) 11 COLLEGE AVENUE
(7) Town Council Chambers
(8) 110 East Maim Street
(9) Los Gatos, California
(10) Taken on '
(11) November 12, 2003
(1z) 114433
(13)
n+)
(1s)
(16)
(v)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(2z)
rrs)
(z+)
(25)
PUBLIC HEARING - NOVEMBER 12, 2003
Page 2
(1)
3) Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
( 5)
( 6)
n
Assistant
(a) Director of
Community
(9) Development:
(1o) Town Attorney:
(ii) Transcribed by:
(12)
(13)
APPEARANCES:
Paul Dubois, Chair
Jeanne Drexel
Phil Micciche
Lee Quintana
Joanne Talesfore
Morris Trevithick
Tom Williams
Orry Korb
AOVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES
BY: LISA A. GLANVILLE,
CSR 9932
1083 Lincoln Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
(408) 920-0222
(14)
(15}
(16)
(17)
(1a)
(19)
(23)
(z1)
(a)
(n)
(24)
(25)
--000--
XMAX(1 f 1)
Page 3
PROCEEDINGS:
(2)
(3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Folks, we're back
(4) in session here. We're now going into new public.
(5) hearings. Number 2 on the agenda. 10 Monroe n) jrt
(s) Planned Development Application PD-01-2, Negative
(7) Declaration dash ND-01-14, requesting approval of
(8) planned development to change the zone from RM:12-20
(9) to RM:12-20 PD, constructthree dwelling units.
(lo) Will the applicant please come forward and
(11) identify yourself for the record, please.
(12) STAN QUEEN: Good evening. My name is
(13) Stan Queen. I'm the operations manager for Pacific
(14) Diversified. Our address is 1224 Lincoln Avenue in
(is) San Jose. The zip is 95125.
(16) 1 would like to give you a quick history
(17) on 10 Monroe Court, bring you up to speed aboutthe
(18) site plan that you see before you tonight.
(19) Pacific Diversified came before the Town
(2o) with the site plan in 2000. This plan consisted of
(21) four units that were designed to be built on gentle
(22) slopes, as well as the flat topography of the site.
(23) During final review of the site plan, the
(24) Town Staff brought up a concern during the initial
(25) study. Portions of lots three and four had been
Page 4
(1) located in a newly discovered riparian setback. A
(2) redesign would be necessary, but there was a
(3) possible concern that we had from a previous CDAC
(4) meeting that the Town might want to consider high
(s) density for 10 Monroe Court.
(s) PDCI, or Pacific Diversified, discussed
M with Staff an idea to go before the Planning
(s) Commission, even though we had the issue of the
(9) riparian setback modifications ahead of us. Our
(io) main goal was to get a read on the Commission where
(11) it stood in regards to wanting higher density on 10
(12) Monroe Court.
(13) Pacific Diversified went before the
(14) Commission, in which they indicated no desire for
(15) higher density and denied our application due to the
(is) considerable amount of time the previous builder had
(17) taken before us that we newly partnered with. We
(1E) appealed the application to Council, in which the
(19) Council upheld the decision of the Commission on
(2o) March of 2001.
(21) Since that time, Pac(fic Diversified has
(22) had three public hearings, a study session with this
(23) Planning Commission. On December 11th, 2002, the
(24) Planning Commission approved four units on Monroe
(25) Court contingent on Town Council approval
ATTACHMENT 5
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 1 to Page 4
BSA PUBLIC HEARING -
Page 5
(t) On February of 2003, Pack Diversified
(2) met with the Town Council. Their decision was to
(3) modify the four existing site - four existing home
(4) site plans down to three homes with an aggregate of
(5) 8,000 square feet.
(6) But March of this year, I met with four
(7) out of five Town Councilmembers with the revised
(a) sketch of a newly designed three unit site plan.
(9) All Councilmembers I met with were in favor of the
(io) revisions.
(i q I then contacted neighbors on Monroe and
(12) Brickway Court. Pacific Diversified did not receive
(13) any negative comments from any neighbors.
(14) And what I just gave you is what I gave
(is) them. In fact, I set up a meeting with them on a
(16) Saturday afternoon, with the homeowners, on April
(17) 5th. Only two people showed up, and their feedback
(is) was of a positive nature.
(19) 1 also indicated I would meet with the
(2o) neighbors for an individual meeting if anyone could
(21) not make that meeting or felt uncomfortable and
(22) would like a one on one meeting with me, and 1
(23) would - I would accommodate them as well. There
(24) were no calls for any individual meetings.
(25) Since April of this year, Pacific
Page 6
(1) Diversified has worked closely with Staff to develop
(2) the site plan that you see before,you tonight.
(3) Pacific Diversified has spent hundreds of thousands
(4) of dollars in consultants, architects, engineers,
(s) blueprints and land cost over the last past four
(6) plus years.
M Our small company of ten people has spent
(3) countless hours in resources, which has taxed our
(9) company more than any job PDCI has undertaken. It
(1o) is our sincere hope that you once again approve yet
(11) another site plan tonight which was asked of us to
(12) be modified by the Town Council last February.
(13) Dave Pitzen is the owner and principal of
(14), Pacific Diversified, and any questions that you may
(15) have may be directed to him at marketing and
(16) financial. Scott Stotler is our architect. And all
(17) of the questions as far as the technical issue or
(18) planning issues will probably be handled by me.
(is) Thank you.
(20) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: All right. Any
(21) questions for Mr. Queen? Yes. Commissioner
(22) Talesfore:
(23) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I do have a
(24) question. In the planning report you refer to the
(25) lot area and floor areas previous and then current.
NOVEMBER 12, 2003 XMAX(2q
Page 7
(1) 1 was curious, currently proposed are lots and
(2) square foot - footage - square footage? Whatever.
(3) But I notice that the largest house is - proposed
(4) is on a lot that's smaller than - okay, if you look
(5) at Lot 1, Lot 1 is 2,150, and that's on a lot size
(6) that's like 9,000 square feet. And then Lot 2 is
(7) 31, and that's on a lot size of 82.
(S) So I'm just curious, can you tell me how
(9) that came about, why you're putting a larger home on
(io) a smaller lot? Am I reading that correctly?
(11) STAN QUEEN: The lot area for Lot 2 is
(12) 8,268 feet. The living area is 3,115 square feet.
(13) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Uh-huh.
(14) STAN QUEEN: Lot 1 is - the lot is
(is) proposed on the entire length of the project, which
(16) gives up a 20 foot street in the entrance to the
(17) project.
(ie) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay.
(19) STAN QUEEN: So if you backup that street
(2o) area -
(21) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Waft, wait. Say
(22) that again. Lot 1 what?
(23) STAN QUEEN: Lot 1 or parcel one -
(24) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Uh-huh.
(25) STAN QUEEN: - the property line runs up
Page 8
(1) the center of the - of the street, and it goes the
(2) entire length of the project. So the private street
(3) is the entrance, but that property also is
(4) belonging -
(5) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: So
(6) that's included -
(7) STAN QUEEN: - to parcel one.
(a) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Is that included
(9) in the 9,150?
(10) STAN QUEEN: Yes.
(11) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, thank you.
(12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other questions?
(13) Commissioner Quintana.
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'd just like to
(15) ask you, in the Council's resolution, you stated
(16) that you allowed 8,000 square feet aggregate; is
(17) that correct?
(18) STAN QUEEN: That is correct.
(19) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Council's
(2o) resolution says not to exceed. It doesn't say
(21) guaranteed. I just want to point that out.
(22) STAN QUEEN: Thank you for that
(23) clarification.
(24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Are there any other
(25) questions? Commissioner Drexel.
Page 5 to Page 8 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBUC HEARING - NOVEMBER 12, 2003 XMAX(3i3)
Page 9
(i) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I justwantto make
(2) sure that the - all the suggestions from the Santa
(3) Clara County Water District, have they all been
(4) incorporated into the plan? And I guess that's a
(s) question for you and for Staff.
(o) STAN QUEEN: Yes, they have been.
(7) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: They have been,
(9) thank you.
(9) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other questions?
(io) Okay. Seeing none, thank you very much. And now
(11) open this up to the public. I have no cards on it.
(12) Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak
(ia) to this issue? Seeing no one, is there anything -
(14) are there any other questions for the applicant?
(ib~ No, this is all applicant's.
(16) There are no other speakers.
(17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: There are no other
(18) speakers. Okay, I have a couple questions.
(19) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: For?
(20) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: For the -
(21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Mr. Queen? Mr. Queen?
(22) Mr. Queen, would you return, thank you.
(23) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: If you take out
(24) the street easement, what is the actual size of the
(25) lots?
Page 10
(1) STAN QUEEN: Well, the calculation would
(2) have to be figured up. We have the footprints.
(3) Scott's got a lot area. That's all Staff had asked
(4) us to do. They didn't ask us to back out the
(s) street.
(s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: And - I don't
(7) have any specific questions.
(a) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. No questions.
(9) Anybody else have any other questions? Then I guess
(io) that's all the questions, and I'm going to close the
(11) public hearing, return this to the Commission for
(12) questions of Staff, comments or a motion.
(is) Commissioner Drexel.
(14) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I can make a motion,
(is) if that will maybe (inaudible), you know -
(16) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Go for it.
(17) CCMMISSIONER DREXEL: Okay. 1 moveto
(ia) recommend approval of Planned Development
(19) Application PD-01-2 with the condition that at
(2o) the - that the footprint and size of each home be
(21) determined at A and S as to an aggregate of 8,000
(22) square feet.
(23) We recommend that the Town Council make
(24) the mitigated Negative Declaration in Exhibit H and
(2s) adopt the mitigation monitoring plan in Exhibit G.
Page 11
(i) We make the following findings: We find
(2) that the zone change is consistent with the General
(s) Plan as required by the in - Town's Infill Policy.
(4) For a community benefit, we find that the project
(5) contributes to the development of the surrounding
(s) neighborhood as it eliminates blight.
M The project is designed in context with
(a) the neighborhood as the plan is for single family
(9) dwellings in a street of single family dwellings.
(io) The project demonstrates excellence in
(11) design. The project presents - represents a strong
(12) community benefit in the project plans because they
(is) include the restoration of the creek bank by
(14) removing a series of non-riparian plants and
(is) restoring plant and wildlife that is native to the
(is) creek.
(17) Also, the project creates an open space,
(18) providing views to the creek from Monroe Court. We
(19) recommend that the Town Council approve the zone
(2o) change request incorporating the preliminary
(21) development plan as part of the Planned Development
(22) Crdinance in Exhibit I.
(23) CHAIRMAN DUB.OIS: Do we have a second for
(24) the motion?
(25) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'll second.
Page 12
(1) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I second.
(2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. It's seconded by 4.
(3) Commissioner Talesfore. Do we have comments?
(4) Commissioner Quintana.
(s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I have a question
(s) of Staff regarding the riparian restoration plan.
(7) In the Staff Report, and as far as I could tell from
(a) the plans here, I wasn't clear whether it still
(9) included the removal of the stone wall and whether
(io) that was consistent with the joint aging - what is
(i i) it? Joint Aquatic whatever whatever agency -.;ermit.
(12) MR. WILLIAMS: It is, Commissioner.
(13) That's actually a requirement of theirs is to remove
(14) the wall.
(15) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. Another
(16) question I had is the Staff - what is the General
Plan designation on this site?
(18) MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. High density
(19) residential at 12 to 20.
(20) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. The Staff
(21) Report indicates that t7e density is two dwelling
(22) units per acre. How - I'm having trouble figuring
(23) out the consistency. I'm also not sure whether
(24) that's accurate, because did they include the
(25) riparian habitat area? Did they back out the
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 9 to Page 12
0)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(s)
(7)
(B)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(18)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
PUBLIC HEARING - NOVEMBER 12, 2003
Page 13
eight - you know, I'm not sure. Big question mark.
And then while Tom is looking at that, I
just want to make the comment that I still do not
believe that this demonstrates excellence in site
design. I am very concerned that we have a private
street and a private - private street that is
maintained for easements, that we have a common area
that is actually located on a private lot, and there
is no provision for a homeowners association to
manage the cost of those.
I also have some questions of Staff
regarding the maintenance of the - of the creek.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: We got one question at a
time here. _
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: We got one we're working
on (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. So
basically what I'm saying in that is I think that
this is a situation where the PD should include a
homeowners association that takes responsibility for
the private street and the - and the common area,
and the common area should not be part of a private
parcel.
MR. WILLIAMS: The density does include
Page 14
(1) the riparian corridor. And then you had another
(2) question. I'm sorry, I can't remember-
(3) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Well, the dense -
(4) okay, so the density includes the riparian corridor
(5) as two dwelling units per acre. How is that
(s) consistent with the General Plan?
(7) MR. WILLIAMS: The General Plan calls for
(a) 12 to 20 units an acre. It's consistent with the
(9) General Plan because it's under what the maximum
(1o) allowable is with the General Plan. I think we'd
(11) have an issue If it would exceed that density. It's
(12) far below that density.
(13) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: My-my
(14) understanding is that when there's a range of 12 to
(15) 20, that the 12 is the lower end, and while there
(16) might be some leeway with regards to environmental
(17) concerns, that the difference between - to me,
(1s) anyway, between two and 12 -
(19) MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it - if I may, in
(20) our housing element that's adopted, that's soon to
(21) be certified, the State HCD, this was one of the
(22) issues that we had with them relative to our
(23) underlying zoning and density for our mandated
(24) housing production, but since this is a PD, a
(25) planned development, you have the ability to -
Page 15
(1)• COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I - I -
(2) MR. WILLIAMS: -create a different
(3) density.
(4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I - with all due
(5) respect, a PD allows deviation from the zoning, not
(s) from the General Plan.
(7) CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: Okay. I've got a motion
(a) on the floor. Commissioner Drexel.
(8) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I do have a question
(1o) about a homeowners association. Is that something
(11) that we would set up during - during the PD, or is
(12) that something we would look at at A and S?
(13) What's - what's the deal with the homeowners
(14) association? And how are these things going to be
(15) maintained?
(16) MR. WILLIAMS: They're not proposing it.
(17) And in terms of the riparian corridor, our Parks and
(18) Public Works Department will maintain it.
(19) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: So we don't have to
(20) worry about any - anything else? I mean, what was
(21) your concern -
(22) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: My concern is that
(23) you have a private street-
(24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Who maintains it?
(25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Who maintains ft?
Page 16
(i) How is the money collected? The history of private
(2) streets, when there isn't a homeowners association,
(3) is they get into battles when the street needs
(4) repair, and often it just never gets repaired.
(5) That's number one.
(s) Number two is the common area is contained
(7) within parcel two, and that just doesn't make any
(a) sense to me. If it's a common area, it - it seems
(9) logical, especially with a PD, to have it as a
(1o) separate parcel that is maintained by a homeowners
(11) association.
(12) And my - I have another question for
(13) Staff. The conditions of the project indicate that
(14) the homeowners - excuse me, the homeowners, the
(1s) property owners, will be responsible for the
(1s) maintenance of the riparian habitat restoration for
(17) the first three - three years? No?
(18) MR. WILLIAMS: No. The-
(19) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: The - okay. They
(2o) will be required to pay for -
(21) MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.
(22) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - (inaudible) -
(23) okay. Thank you for the clarification.
(24) My concern is the maintenance of the -
(25) any repairs that will be required by floods of
Page 13 to Page 16 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING -
Page 17
(1) the - of the creek itself, that the Town is taking
(2) the financial responsibility for that as well?
(3) MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I missed-
(4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. Santa Clara
(s) Valley Water District did not want to have this
(s) dedicated to them because they did not want the
(7) responsibility of either maintaining the riparian
(a) habitat or maintaining the creek bed.
(9) MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.
(10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: So 'rf there is a
(11) flood, and there is a problem, the Town is accepting
(12) the responsibility for the repairs and the cost, and
(13) the homeowners are not being bonded for that, or
(14) they have no financial responsibility; is that
(15) correct?
(16) MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.
(17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
(ia) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana,
(19) did you wish to modify - request the maker of the
(2o) motion to modify the motion to include a homeowners
(21) association?
(22) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I certainly would,
(23) with the provision that the homeowners association
(24) takes - that - that the private street and the
(25) common area be a separate lot and - and maintained
Page 18
(1) by the -
(2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I -
(a) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - homeowners
(4) association.
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I think that complicates
(s) it.
(T COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Then-
(a) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Yeah.
(9) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: So -
(10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Then that's what
(11) I'm proposing:
(12) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: As the make - as
(13) the maker of the motion, I would like to add that
(14) the - that the homeowners association be formed to
(is) take care of the common - commonly owned parts of
(is) the PD, which would be the roads and the common
(17 area, and support its maintenance.
(13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. The seconder of
(19) the motion.
(20) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I'il agree with
(21) that. Is there an issue of a fence, though, along
(22) that? I mean, is there supposed to be a fence? Who
(23) would I ask that to? Staff?
(24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: A question of Staff.
(25) Staff.
VOVEMBER 12, 2003 XMAx(5i5)
Page 19
(1) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Is there going to
(2) be a fence along that common area that separates the
(3) house from this corridor? Lot 2.
(4) MR. WILLIAMS: No. Not- I don't believe
(s) there is.
(e) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: So that lot is
(7) open to the creek?
(a) MR, WILLIAMS: Correct.
(9) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. I think-
(11) MR. WILLIAMS: There are -
(12) COMMISSIONER. QUINTANA: ]think,
(13) Commissioner Talesfore, there is a fence along
(14) the - I think it's the 340 elevation contour
(15) between the creek and the back part of the property.
(16) 1 also think there's a fence in - I'm not sure
(17) about this. But there may be - yes, if you look on
(i a) L-2, there is a wooden fence six feet high
(19) separating the house on Lot 2 from the common area,
(2o) but in none of these drawings is -
(21) MR. WILLIAMS: It's from the riparian
(22) corridor to the common area, not from the
(23) neighborhood to the common area, though, which 1
(24) think - is that your question?
(25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: The riparian -
Page 20
(1) well, I'm - I'm stating both, that there is a
(2) fence -you asked between lot-
(s) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: My reason for
(4) asking it is, one, if we make this a homeowners
(5) association in charge of the - you know, that
(s) common area, are they also - does that include the
M fence if it's their - do you see what I'm saying?
(a) Is t - who puts the fence up, or who maintains t7
(9) MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the fence would be in
(io) the riparian corridor.
(11) COMMISSIONER TALESFCRE: So that wculd be
(12) maintained by the homeowners association?
(13) MR. WILLIAMS: It would be maintained by
(14) our Parks and Public Works Department, because we're
(15) maintaining the riparian corridor.
(16) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay.
(17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: And the fence is
(1 a) in the riparian corridor, or is it outside-
(19) MR. WILLIAMS: Hold on for just a minute.
(2o) I'll look at the plan.
(21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: While you're doing
(22) that, I would comment that there is no drawing in
(23) this plan set that I can see that actually
(24) identifies the common area as the common area.
(25) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: It's not a common area.
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 17 to Page 20
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - NOVEMBER 12, 2003 xMax(616)
Page 21
(1) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Then what is it?
(2) MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, the fence is on the
(3) property line, so it would be -
(4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Mr. Korb, would you care
(s) to respond to some of these?
(a) MR. WILLIAMS: The fence is on the
m property line, according to the plans, so it would
(a) be maintained by whatever mechanism the developer
(s) establishes, and on page 11 of attachment - of
(1o) Exhibit I, there's a condition to establish CC&Rs,
(11) and that is the mechanism that the property owner
(12) will establish for maintenance.
(13) So the meoffanism will be CC&Rs rather than
(14) a homeowners association.
(15) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Then I retract that.
(ie) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Very good.
(17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I have a question.
(18) Do CC&, Rs allow -
(19) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: (Inaudible) thank
(20) you.
(21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - allow a
(22) mechanism for financing in the future -
(23) MR. WILLIAMS: I don't think you need a-
(24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: -maintenance?
(25) MR. WILLIAMS: -financing mechanism. I
Page 23
(1) the history, there was some neighborhood testimony
(2) that the neighborhood also wanted access to this
(3) open space, and I think it was designed to allow
(4) not - use of not just these three property owners,
(s) but of the neighborhood.
(e) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'm notsure
M that's in the conditions of the project. And there
(a) doesn't seem to be any improvements being suggested
(s) in the landscaping plan. It's just open space.
(10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Mr. Korb, can we get a
(11) clarification on my interpretation as this open
(12) space is actually on Lot 2. Is it really available
(13) to the rest of - of the development? What is the
(14) status here?
(15) MR. KORB: Well, my understanding is that
(16) the open space exists on - on a single parcel.
(17) Now, If the CC&Rs are drafted in a manner that
(ia) allows access to the open - to that area to persons
(19) other than the - the property - you know, the
(20) owner of that individual parcel, then it's open
(21) space, so at least it's accessible open space to,
(22) you know, persons other than the property owner.
(23) They would probably have to grant an easement of
(24) some sort through the CC&Rs, but I'm not sure what
(25) the mechanism is, what the intended mechanism is
Page 22
(i) think it's an obligation of the property owners
(2) under the CC&Rs to establish maintenance. But I'll
(3) let the Town Attorney address that. I mean, I - 1
(4) don't see an underlying need for - fora funding
(s) mechanism here for the private maintenance of these
(e) areas.
(7) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: And I just heard
(a) that there is no common area. I was always under
(B) the assumption that the area under the oak tree was
(1o) a common area, and there's even afence in the
(11) landscaping plan that delineates it from the house
(12) on Lot 2? On parcel two. If you look at -
(13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I believe it is on
(14) parcel two, though. Go ahead. Mr. Williams.
(is) MR. WILLIAMS: If it's the one I'm looking
(1e) at, it is in the open space.
(17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: What is in the
(19) open space?
(is) MR. WILLIAMS: The oak tree that you're
(20) identifving.
(21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: It's in open space
(22) that belongs to Lot 2, but is - can be used by the
(23) entire development.
(24) MR. WILLIAMS: Right. Yeah, it's within
(25) the community space. And - and if - as I remember
Page 24
(1) here.
(2) And to answer your question regarding
(3) whether CC&Rs can fund or can set up a system for
(4) funding, yes, they can. Whether it's necessary in
(5) this situation, I'm not sure. But-they can do that.
(e) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you. Commissioner
(7) Trevithick.
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: But am I
(s) right - am I right in saying it does not constitute
(1o) a fourth lot, would it be called exclusive use of
(11) that lot by the property owner?
(12) MR. KORB: Well, you're correct that it
(13) does not constitute a fourth lot. This is a three
(14) lot subdivision, so it's within an individual
(is) parcel. But again, within the subdivision
(is) conditions and CC&Rs related to the - those
(17) (inaudible) conditions, open space easements can be
(1a) granted to users other than the owner of the parcel,
(19) to a designated area.
(20) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: But it would not
(21) be fenced off? Is it fenced off?
(22) MR. KORB: it does not have to be fenced
(23) Off.
(24) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Does not have to
(2s) be.
Page 21 to Page 24 (403) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - I
Page 25
(1) MR. KORB: Right.
(2) COMMISSIONERTREVITHICK: Thankyou.
(3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
(4) Quintana.
(5) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: What is the
(6) difficulty of there being four lots instead of
(7 three?
(s) MR. WILLIAMS: The Council directed three
(9) lot subdivision. I think if the concern is, as the
(io) Town Attorney pointed out, is make a condition to
(11) grant an easement over that open space and condition
(12) the CC$Rs to maintain it.
(13) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. I can see
(14) that, but I think the Council's intent was three
(is) houses, not necessarily just three lots.
(16) MR. WILLIAMS: It was specifically three
(1'n lots.
(18) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
(19) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Do we wish to
(2o) make any more modifications to the motion or suggest
(21) modifications?
(22) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Well - go ahead.
(23) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Are you
(24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Talesfore.
(25) Turn your mike on.
Page 26
(1) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I'd like to make
(2) the condition that you just offered to us about the
(3) CC&Rs and the easement.
(4) MR. KORB: Let me make -
(s) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Fort orhow
(6) we - okay.
MR. KORB: If I could make
(s) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE, ' es.
(9) MR. KORB: If I could make a uggestion.
(1 o) COMMISSIONER TALESFORt: Thank you.
(11) MR. KORB: As you knovy; this is a PD,
(12) which means that your de '/ion will be a recommended
(13) decision to the Council. you state in your
(14) motion a - an added ndition be added - addressed
(1s) to insure that the op n space is available to
(16) person - to users ther than the owner of that
(17) parcel, then we ill, separate and apart from, you
(is) know, workin here tonight on language, develop
(19) language w' h the applicant to insure that when it
(20) goes to until that intent will be fulfilled.
(21) CO ISSiONER DREXEL: All right Then
(22) 1- th n I so recommend.
(23) OMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And I second it.
(24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. We have a motion
25) on the floor. There are no more comments. I'm
VOVEMBER 12, 2003 XmAx7r7)
Page 27
(1) going to call for the question. All those in favor
(2) of the motion, signify by saying aye.
(3) (Ayes.)
(4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Opposed?
(s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: No.
(6) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Motion carries with one
M dissenting, Commissioner Quintana dissenting.
(9) MR. KORB: As stated, this is a
(9) recommended decision on a zone change to the Town
(io) Council. Having been approved, it will
(11) automatically be scheduled for hearing before the
(12) Town Council. Notice will be provided to all
(13) interested parties.
(14) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Next item on the agenda
(is) is 11 College Avenue. Conditional Use Permit U-04 8
(16) requesting approval to modify an existing
(17) Conditional Use Permit application to expand from
(19) beer and wine to full liquor service. This is the
(19) Tapestry Restaurant. Property zoned C-2. n I
(20) have the applicant please come fonv and identify
(21) yourself for the record. Yes.
(22) COMMISSIONER TREVI CK: - recuse myself
(23) from this. I'm within 50 eet of the property.
(24) CHAIRMAN DU IS: Thank you, Commissioner
(25) Trevithick.
Page 2B
(1) GARY MESSICK: Good evening. I'm Gary
(2) Messick, representing Tapestry. And we're simply
(3) asking to have our Conditional Use Permit changed so
(4) that we would be allowed to pursue a full and
(s) complete liquor license in our existing (inaudible).
(6) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Are there
(7) questions for Mr. Messick? Commissioner
(a) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I' ust curious,
(9) you're -are you planning on also ma ng available
(1o) to the outside patio area your chain in the
(11) liquor- I mean, in hard liquor as ell? Will that
(12) be part of it?
(13) GARY MESSICK: No.
(14) COMMISSIONER TALE ORE: And how - pardon
(is) me?
(16) GARY MESSICK: this point, you know,
(17) it's walled, and we ar - we've been serving wine
(ia) and beer out there or about a year, so -
(19) COMMISSIO R TALESFORE: That's what i
(2o) wanted to kno . It's walled?
(21) GARY M SICK: Yes.
(22) COMMI STONER TALESFORE: Okay. Thank you.
(23) CHAI MAN DUBOIS: Are there any other
(24) ques ns for Mr. Messick? Commissioner Drexel.
(25) MMISSIONER DREXEL: Do you - do you do
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 25 to Page 28
BSA PUBLIC HEARING -
Page 29
(1) much take-out? Do you do any?
(2) GARY MESSICK: We do some.
(s) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Okay, you do a
(4) little bit, all right. And that's -
(5) \GARY MESSICK: Not as much we'd like,
(s) boil
NER DREXEL: Okay. That's just a
M CO \eeu
(a) questfuture. Wouldn't - it wouldn't
(s) bothe- if we limited your take-out to,
(1o) say, tt of your business or something like
(11) that, w(12) GA
C - No. I'd be happy for it to
(13) grow ent.
(14) CONER D EXEL: All right. That
(15) soundounds g d, thank you.
(16) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: kay. Any other
(17) questions? Seeing no other estions, I thank you,
(18) sir. I have one card from the au 'ence, and that is
(19) Mr. Flick. Dave Flick.
(2o) DAVE FLICK: Good evening. I' Dave
(21) Flick. 130 Stacia Street, Los Gatos. I'm he owner
(22) of (inaudible) Plaza and Tapestry Rest staU nit
(23) building. And I just wanted to point out toy u
(24) that it is entirely managed and owned, all the
(25) buildings on the site are owned and controlled
Page 30
(1) us, so there isn't an issue with the tenants in the
(2) upstairs apartments. They don't have any problem.
(3) with it.
(4) They've been really excellent tenants, the
(5) restaurant, for- for a long time. We've never had
(s) any problems with them. I think he's in a little
m bit of an unfair disadvantage right now with the
(s) other restaurants in Town that have full bar
(s) service, and I - personally, I've planned things
(1o) there before and had recommendations from people,
(11) well, we'd like to go someplace where we can have a
(12) cocktail or two, some of the people that don't drink
(13) the wine. I think it kinds of puts them on a even
(14) keel with some of the other restaurants, that they
(15) do have that.
(is) Again, it's not a bar. Lt s not -
(17) alcohol's not allowed without the service of food.
(1s) What it is is just.an extension of his restaurant
(19) services, and Ythink he deserves it, and I think he
(20) really needpr'(inaudible).
(21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Are there any questions
(22) for Mr licr commissioner Talesfore.
(23) C MMISSIONER TALESFORE: Did you say that
(24) y u also managed the apartments that are nearby?
(25) DAVE FLICK: Yeah. The - the upstairs
NOVEMBER 12, 2003 xtvwx(aia)
Page 31
(i) above The Tangles, I own all those buildings,' and
(2) part of -
(3) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay. And so -
(4) DAVE FLICK: - one (inaudible).
(5) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE - you were
(s) noted about this, obviously, 'cause you're here.
(7) I'm just curious, did you -
(a) DAVE FLICK: I own all the buildings on
(9) site.
S w that.
(10) COMMISSIONER TA/e.
(11) DAVE FLICK: Oh, (12) COMMISSIONER TAthose are
(im) apartments above?
(14) DAVE FLICK: Yes. s, but
(15) they're - they're owned (1s) COMMISSIONER TA . So my
(17) question is did y
ou also inform your tenants that
(18) this is going to -
(19) DAVE FLICK: ~~~tletenants are well aware of
(2o) it, yeah.
(21) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you.
(22) DAVE FLICK: They're the ones who get
(23) take-out:'
(24) CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: Okay. Are there any
(25) other questions? Okay. Are there any other
Page 32
\ (1) questions for the applicant? Seeing no other
questions, I'm going to close the public hearing,
(3) return this to the Commission for questions of
(4) ff, comments or a motion. Commissioner Drexel,
(5) we you waving your finger at something?
(s) CO MISSIONER DREXEL: I can do a motion -
(7) CHkI AN DUBOIS: Let's go for it. You're
(s) a good mot\on maker.
(9) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Okay. 1 move we
(1o) forward this reo4est to the Town' Council with the
(11) recommendation modify the applicant's Conditional
(12) Use Permit, U-04-61 With the conditions in
(13) Exhibit D, plus the folllwing conditions:
(14) That there shall be no dedicated walk-up
(15) counter, no more than tenercent of applicant's
(16) business shall be take-out. T~at really isn't
(17) directed to the applicant so mucks as future holders
(1a) of this who might be affected by tl1 CUP in the
(1s) future, so this is just like posterity. \
(2o) As required by Section 29.20.190 of th
(21) Town Code for granting a Conditional Us Permit, we
(22) find that the proposed use of the property i
(23) desirable to the public convenience, since it
(24) provides choice for those wishing to have cocktails
(25) with dinner.
Page 29 to Page 32 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
Date: November 12, 2003
For Agenda Of. November 12, 2003
Agenda Item: 2
DESK ITEM 2
REPORT TO:
FROM:
LOCATION
The Planning Commission
The Director of Community Development
10 Monroe Court
Planned Development Application PD-01-2
Negative Declaration ND-01-14
Requesting approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from
RM: 12-20 to RM: 12-20:PD to construct three dwelling units. No
significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this
project and a Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 529-09-026.
PROPERTY OWNER: David H. Pitzen
APPLICANT: DHP Monroe Investors LLC
DEEMED COMPLETE: August 21, 2002
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: Rezoning applications . are
considered to be legislative acts and are therefore not governed by the
Permit Streamlining Act.
EXHIBITS: A - J Previously Submitted.
K. Letter from SCVWD (four pages) received May 29, 2003.
REMARKS:
Pursuant to a request from Commissioner Burke, attached is a letter from the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD). Please note that this letter has comments which were made for an earlier
prot)os hibit E is the most current letter from SCVWD.
of Community Development
Prepared by: Sandy L. Baily, Associate Planner
BNL:SLB:mdc
N :IDE VaEPORTS\ 10monroe.Zd skwp d
Attachment 6
4 1i
, "AY 3 n ~pn~ File
May 29, 2003
T(-AA,. OF LC)fi Gi -71
Re
Ms. Sandy Baiiy
Planning Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
12995
Los Gatos Creek
5750 ALMADEN EXPWY
SAN JOSE, CA 95 1 1 8-3686
TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600
FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271
www.vaileywatLr.org
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLCYER
Construction of Three Houses at
10 Monroe Court, Los Gatos
Assessor's Parcel No. 529-09-026
Subject: Monroe Cottages at 10 Monroe Court, Los Gatos; Assessor's Parcel No. 529-09-026
Dear Ms. Baily:
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the plans for Monroe Cottages,
dated May 9, 2003, and submitted to the District on May 19, 2003.
Los Gatos Creek, which traverses the eastern portion of the property, is a District flood control
facility; therefore, the proposed work requires a District permit.
As you are aware, the District is concerned about the proximity of this project to the Los Gatos
Creek top of bank and to the riparian corridor. The District has provided comments on
numerous submittals for this project, and the District's position regarding the proximity of the
houses to the creek continues to be of concern as noted in the comments provided below which
are similar to those provided previously.
The re-design of the project to reduce the number of houses by one provides the opportunity to
design the site to better protect the riparian habitat and provide room for "soft" bank repairs, if
necessary in the future, while still providing rear yards for the homeowners.
Based on the above plans, we have the following comments regarding the proposed project:
The proposed work may require a Department of Fish and Game Stream Bed Alteration
Agreement, Army Corps of Engineers permit, and a Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) 401 permit for work (vegetation removal, re-vegetation, and sanitary
sewer connection) done in Los Gatos Creek.
2. It is unclear why the rear yards for lots 2 and 3 are to be lowered resulting in the top of
bank being moved further from the proposed houses. We had previously indicated that
some minor amount of cut at the rear of these houses could be done to allow for access
{ to basements that were being required as part of the living space; however, based on
the latest plans, basements are no longer required living space. Grading should not be
done along the creek in these lots that effectively moves the top of bank further from the
Exhibit K
The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy, sere and enhanced cluclity or living in Santa Clore County through watershed E'er
YG>
stewardship and comprehensive management of water resources in a practical, costafFective and environmentally sensitive manner.
Ms. Sandy Bally
Page 2
May 29, 2003
houses. If the grading is required to allow access to the cellar proposed for lot 2, it
should be eliminated, since it is not required as part of the living space and the house is
already 490 square feet larger than the next largest house (lot 3).
All drainage from the site is to be directed to the proposed storm drain system. No
overbank drainage to Los Gatos Creek is allowed.
4. The proposed re-design is more appropriate for the site, three houses instead of four;
however the house for lot 2 still encroaches into the recommended 20-foot setback from
the top of bank. We recommend that this house be redesigned to provide a 20-foot set
bank to the creek and minimize encroachment into the riparian corridor. Since this
house is currently 3,170 square feet, 4.90 square feet larger than the house for lot 3 and
1,020 square feet larger than the house for lot 1, a reduction in square footage to
accommodate this request is reasonable and would make this house more in keeping
with the other two houses and the existing houses.
5. We understand that the foundations for the houses will be pier and grade beam. In
order to further protect the root structure of the 36-inch oak on lot 2 from damage caused
by the portion of the foundation located within the dripline, we request that the buttress
roots for this tree be located and the foundation piers be adjusted accordingly to avoid
impacting the buttress roots. This comment has been provided by the District on this
project previously.
6. The proposed re-vegetation work along the creek is being proposed to mitigate for
impacts this development may have on the riparian corridor. In order for these efforts to
be effective and achieve their goal, special care will need to be taken to ensure that
future property owners understand how to coexist with the riparian habitat. The
applicant should develop a homeowner's manual for lots 2 and 3 that provides
information to the owners about coexisting with the riparian habitat. The manual should
include such topics as:
• What is the riparian corridor.
• How to maintain the health of the native vegetation.
• The importance of not re-introducing non-native invasive species into the area.
• Watering guidelines.
• Pruning.
• Use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers near the creek.
• Responsible party for the maintenance of the restored riparian areas and how the
area will be maintained.
Ms. Sandy Baily
Page 3
May 29, 2003
• All work within 50 feet of the top of bank will require a District permit as per
District Ordinance 83-2, a copy of which should be provided to each owner and
possibly included in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. Activities that
require a permit include landscaping, irrigation, fence installation/replacement,
grading, and any other construction.
• Property owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the creek
banks within their property-the District has no right of way and is therefore not
responsible for maintenance and repair of these creek banks.
• No overbank drainage from the houses is allowed, as it can cause erosion and
may lead to bank failure. Drainage from the site is to be directed to the existing
storm drain system.
• Other agencies, such as the California Department of Fish and Game, California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Army Corps of Engineers, also have
jurisdiction over the creek, and permits from these agencies may also be
required for work in or affecting the creek.
This manual: and any other materials provided to the owners. regarding-the-creek needs___ _
to be submitted to the District for review, comment, and approval. This comment has
been provided by the District on this project previously.
In addition, re-vegetation requires a maintenance/establishment period of at least three
years. The project proponent should identify the party responsible for maintenance of
these plantings and it should be clear who will be responsible for the creek/riparian area
of the project site once the project is complete-common open space for Home Owners
Association, dedication to the Town, or private property owners retain ownership and
ultimate responsibility.
7. The 48-inch boxed specimen coast live oak trees should be deleted from the plant list on
sheet L-2. Importing nursery oaks into a natural oak woodland with heritage oaks is
horticulturally ill advised and ecologically irresponsible. This comment has been
provided by the District on this project previously.
8.
To prevent significant root loss and tree failure, no irrigation trenching should be allowed
inside/adjacent to the dripline of existing large oak trees. The risk of property damage
and personal injury is high in this development if the health of existing oak is
compromised by poor planting/irrigation design. It is suggested that the applicant refer
to Trees and Development, A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land
Development by Nelda Matheny and James Clark 1998, International Society of
Arboriculture. This comment has been provided by the District on this project previously.
On sheet L-R2 the drip lines of all existing oaks (tree nos. 12, 19, 25, etc.) should be
shown to ensure that all main or lateral lines are located outside of the dripline to prevent
significant root loss, tree decline, and eventual tree failure.
Ms. Sandy Bally
Page 4
May 29, 2003
10. The number of emitters (4) for a deepot or tree pot appears to be excessive, since the
pot diameters are only 2.5 inches and 4 inches, respectively. Please re-evaluate the
need for this many emitters and revise the plan accordingly.
11. Documentation should be provided to the District and the Town of Los Gatos indicating
compliance with the plant list note on sheet L-R1 regarding the use of "propagules and
cuttings shall be collected on site and adjacent to the site. All plant material shall be of
"local origin" only. Proper documentation would include submittal from the seed
collector/native plant nursery showing the purchase order/contract for plants from the
developer confirming local origin. This comment has been provided by the District on
this project previously.
12. On sheet L-R1 Leymus triticoides var'Rio' should be deleted from the hydroseed mix as
it is not a local variety. In addition, the mix should specify the 'Bay Area' selection of
Bromus carinatus and the 'Bay Area' selection of Hordeum brachyantherum instead of
the 'Salt' selection, which is intended for salt marsh use. This comment has been
provided by the District on this project previously.
13. The decomposed granite under oak tree no. 19 should be deleted and replaced with
3Jnches-of-barkmulca,-as-req_uested_pre_v_iousLy-FilLund.er_h-eritage_oak_tr-aps_wate r,-
prevents proper infiltration of water and air, and can lead to the decline of the tree over
time. This comment has been provided by the District on this project previously.
Please submit two sets of revised plans addressing the above comments to the District for
permit review. Reference District File No. 12995 on further correspondence regarding this
project.
If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at (408) 265-2607,
extension 2322.
Sincerely,
Colleen Haggerty
Assistant Engineer
Community Projects Review Unit
cc: Mr. Stan Queen, Pacific Diversified
S. Tippets, V. Stephens, D. Chesterman, L. Spahr, C. Haggerty, M. Mahoney, File (2)
ch:jl
0523c-pl.doc
Date: November I1, 2003
For Agenda Of: November 12, 2003
Agenda Item: 2
DESK ITEM
REPORT TO
FROM:
The Planning Commission
The Director of Community Development
LOCATION: 10 Monroe Court
Planned Development Application PD-01-2
Negative Declaration ND-O1-14
Requesting approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from
RM: 12-20 to RM: 12-20:PD to construct three dwelling units. No
significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this
project and a Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 529-09-026.
PROPERTY OWNER: David H. Pitzen
APPLICANT: DHP Monroe Investors LLC
DEEMED COMPLETE: August 21, 2002
EXHIBITS:
A. REMARKS:
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: Rezoning applications are
considered to be legislative-acts-and-are-therefore rrot governed-bi the
Permit Streamlining Act.
A - I Previously Submitted.
J. Letter from Anne Lamborn (two pages) received November 7,
2003.
Attached is a letter from an adjacent neighbor. Following is staff's responses to the concerns raised
in her letter:
1. The view coming down the road is directly to the community open space and onto the creek, not
a garage.
2. The Town does not regulate the price of market rate units.
3. Only conceptual elevations are required at this time. During the Architecture and Site approval
process the elevations, window locations, building materials and colors will be reviewed.
4. Same as above.
5. As stated in the report, no trail will be installed to Roberts Road due to the elevation change.
The plans do not indicate that a fence is proposed along the neighbor's property at the creek
side. If the Commission decides the neighbor's request to not install a fence has merit, a
condition of approval could be added.
6. A condition of approval requires that the developer is responsible to determine whether or not.
the utility line can be relocated to save the two trees near Roberts Road (which includes the
Buckeye).
Attachment 7
The Planning Commission - Page 2
10 Monroe Court/PD-01-02. ND-O1-14
November 12, 2003
7. Real brick cannot be,used in the roadway. To ensure the road meets vehicle load requirements
and to reduce maintenance, decorative pavers must be used.
8. The conditions of approval include numerous in depth mitigation measures to reduce tree
impacts.
9. The biological consultant and the Santa Clara Valley Water District will be part of the team to
monitor the creek restoration (which includes the removal of the ivy) and to ensure that there
will be no environmental impacts.
10. Comment noted. The tree is located within the proposed roadway to the development and must
be removed.
11. As stated previously, the neighbor's fence is located on the applicants parcel which has to be
removed to accommodate the development. The easement is for access only which will be
maintained.
12. The applicant has met Town Council direction on the maximum square footage permitted for
the units. The floor area ratios are actually lower than the previous submittal due to the loss of
a lot.
13. The applicant provides more parking than is required for the development.
Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development
Prepared by: Sandy L. Baily, Associate Planner
BNL:SLB:mdc
N:TE V\R E PORTS\ t Omonroe. l dsk. wpd
Anne Lamborn
7 Monroe Court, Los Gatos, Ca 95032
408-354-8493 annelambom@comcast.net
November 7, 2003
Planning Department
Town of Los Gatos 7 2003
110 East Main Street ,
Los Gatos, CA 95032 o~Mch;r
RE: TEN MONROE COURT NOV. 12, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING - "MONROE COTTAGES"
To the Planning Commission and Planning Department:
I have reviewed the October 1, 2003 resubmitted plans from Pacific Diversified
and have the following comments and requests, being that I am the northerly
adjacent neighbor:
1. Parcel 2 -1 would prefer to have the garage on Parcel 2 not to be so axial
with Monroe Court. It appears to me that if the garage is open, it is open to the
entire street. This aspect was mentioned by Commissioner Talesfore in the
previous hearing.
2. Pricing - l would like to have an estimate of the market price on today's
market. Currently, there is a property for sale on neighboring Ohlone Court for
$1.8 million. Will Monroe Cottages be similar in price or more?
3. North Elevation of Parcel 1 - What will the window plan and exterior of the
north elevation of parcel 1 be? I am hoping that the windows will be minimal in
that direction because it faces my home and garden. Also, the exterior of the
second floor will be very visible to me and I would prefer the entire fagade to be
brick or stone. If there is paint, I would like it to be hillside color plan."
4. Exterior Elevations with Materials and Colors - In the conceptual plans,
I like the use of real stone, real brick, and the neo-craftsman architectural style. I
would hope that subtle colors would be selected for the exteriors in order not to
mar the natural landscape. I would like to see complete exterior elevations for all
three cottages. In these elevations, I would like to see the real materials noted.
5. Request of No Fence on Creek Frontage between Seven Monroe Court
and Creek - There is a strip of land that is currently part of Ten Monroe Court
that separates my property from Los Gatos Creek. I have a minimal fence there
marking the division. This view of the Creek is my primary viewscape. I would
like that view to remain entirely open to me. Since we already have the Los
Gatos Creek Trail on the lower side of the Creek, I doubt that I nor any of the
neighbors would like for that to be an additional trail.
Exhibit J
Anne Lamborn
7 Monroe Court, Los Gatos, Ca 95032
408-354-8493 annelambom@comcast.net
6. Large Native Buckeye near Roberts Road Bridge - This buckeye is
beautiful and should remain if at all possible. Plans call for its removal. I would
like you to explore not removing the mature native buckeye.
7. Conceptual Landscape Plan - I like the use of the diagonal real brick paving
in the various driveways and at the entrance to Monroe Cottages, which I will
also be using to enter my property. To me, real brick is far more attractive than
pavers and it is entirely in keeping with the style of Brickway and Monroe Courts.
8. No Heavy Equipment over My Giant Stoneaine's Dripline - Please notice
that the dripline of my giant stonepine extends into Ten Monroe Court. Do not
run heavy equipment over my giant stonepine's dripline. This is a heritage tree
and gives value to Ten Monroe Court.
9. Herbicide (Aguamaster) to Remove Ivy from Upperside of Los Gatos
Creeks Our Drinking' Water - I believe that you should not be using an herbicide
beside our regional drinking water source. Can you find another way to remove
the ivy? By the way, underneath the ivy are sandbags to stabilize the upper bank
along Los Gatos Creek.
10. Removal of Heritage Oak Tree at Entrance of Monroe Cottages - It is
unfortunate to me that the plans call for the removal of the heritage oak tree at
the entrance of Monroe Cottages.
11. My Parcel Three has been inexistence gince,1923 and is my access -
If the Planning Commission feels that this development is too dense for the
property, I would like to preserve, my exclusive access easement that is my
Parcel Three. This exclusive access easement has always been in this
configuration from times before my arrival on Monroe Court, which was 1970.
1 have replaced the fencing two times, always according to the original
configuration.
12. The Development feels Dense - The house plans seem attractive and the
placement of the garages in Parcels 1 and 3 have good locations. The Floor
Area Ratio seems extremely high in comparison to my property in which my
house is only 1,500 square feet and the lot is .43 acre.
13. Parking and Traffic - I really don't know how overflow parking can be
accommodated if there is -a dinner party. I hope that with this development that
there will not be extra cars parked on the street. Hopefully, the traffic is
manageable, but I question it.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Lamborn
Date: November 6. 2003
For Agenda Of: November 12.2003
Agenda Item: 2
REPORT TO:
FROM:
The Planning Commission
The Development Review Committee
LOCATION: 10 Monroe Court
Planned Development Application PD-01-2
Negative Declaration ND-01-14
Requesting approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from
RM: 12-20 to RM: 12-20:PD to construct three dwelling units. No
significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this
project and a Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 529-09-026.
PROPERTY OWNER: David H. Pitzen
APPLICANT: DHP Monroe Investors LLC
DEEMED COMPLETE: August 21, 2002
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: Rezoning applications are
considered to be legislative acts and are therefore not governed by the
Permit Streamlining Act.
FINDINGS : ■ The Planning Commission must make a finding that the zone change
is consistent with the General Plan if their recommendation is for
approval.
■ As required by the Town's Infill Policy
ACTION: Recommendation to Town Council for the zone change.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT:
EXHIBITS
It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact
on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for t`.~is
proposal.
A. Resolution 2003-014
B. Letter of Justification (three pages) received July 1, 2003
C. Project data sheet (one page)
D. Letter from H.T. Harvey & Associates (three pages) received July
28, 2003
E. Letter from SCVWD (two pages) received July 1, 2003
F. Required findings
G. Mitigation Monitoring Plan (six pages)
H. Mitigated Negative Declaration, received June 28, 2002
I. Draft Planned Development Ordinance (including zone chanvze map
and development plans received October 1, 2003)
Attachment 8
The Planning Commission - Page 2
10 Monroe Court/PD-01-02, ND-01-14
November 12, 2003
A. BACKGROUND
In 2000, the applicant processed a similar application with the Town for four single family homes
which had major impacts in the riparian corridor. The applicant-understood the issue of the riparian
corridor, but remained uncertain about the direction received, from the CDAC regarding the
appropriate density and wanted input from the Commission prior to redesigning the plans. On
December 6, 2000, the Commission denied the application on the basis that the Town had spent
considerable time and effort working on the project and the applicant did not redesign the plans as
recommended by the Development Review Committee. The applicant appealed the decision of the
Commission. On March 5, 2001, and the Town Council upheld the decision of the Commission.
The applicant refiled the application for four lots. The Planning Commission held three public
hearings on this matter and a study session. On December 11, 2002, the Commission approved the
Architecture and Site application to demolish the four houses which currently exist on this site,
contingent upon the approval of the Planned Development and forwarded the Planned Development
application to Town Council with a recommendation for approval. Council considered this matter
on February 3, 2003 and remanded the matter to the Commission with the direction that the plans
be modified to limit the development to three homes of no more than 8,000 square feet in aggregate,
and that the houses shall be designed to protect the riparian corridor (Exhibit A).
B. REMARKS
1. Application Request
The applicant is now requesting adoption of a Planned Development to permit the construction of
three two story single family units on approximately 1.44 acres. The density of the development is
2 units per acre. The subject site is located at the southern terminus of Monroe Court. The site is
bounded by two single family residences to the west, Los Gatos Creek on the east and north and a
three story apartment building on the south.
The site currently contains four pre-1941 cottages which as stated above, have been approved to be
demolished. The proposed lots will range in size from 6,500 square feet to 9,150 square feet. The
Town will receive a dedication of 38,863 square of the riparian corridor. The proposed houses will
range in size from 2,150 to 3,115 square feet and has an aggregate total of 8,000 square feet. During
the Architecture and Site approval process, the applicant may look at the possibility of adding cellars.
The area of the cellar(s) will not be counted towards the 8,000 square feet of visible mass Below
is a table summarizing the data changes.
The Planning Commission - Page 3
10 Monroe Court/PD-01-02, ND-O1-14
November 12, 2003
LOT
LOT AREA
FLOOR AREA**
Originally
Proposed
Last
Proposed
Currently
Proposed
Originally
Proposed
Last
Proposed
Currently
Proposed
1
7,683 sq ft
6,245 sq ft
9,150 sq ft
3,295 sq ft
2,370 sq ft
2,150 sq ft
2
5,753 sq ft
5,753 sq ft
8,200 sq ft
2,582 sq ft
2,582 sq ft
3,115 sq ft
3
21,556 sq ft
4,925 sq ft*
6,500 sq ft*
3,413 sq ft
2,950 sq ft
2,735 sq ft
4
27,724 sq ft
5,551 sq ft*
NA
2, 518 sq ft
1,443 sq ft
NA
Total
NA
NA I
NA
11,808 sq ft
9,345 sq ft
8,000
*Majority of reduction due to the applicant deeding the riparian corridor to the Town
**Does not include a two car garage
Conceptual building elevations are required as part of a Planned Development. Final elevations will
be reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect during the Architecture and Site approval process
if the Planned Development is approved. Since the Town will be using the consulting architect, and
because the applicant has continually provided plans that are more detailed than required, the
Architecture and Site applications for the houses are recommended to be approved by the
Development Review Committee.
As part of the proposed Planned Development, the applicant is proposing to-reduce the required
setbacks. See the project data sheet (Exhibit C) and Sheet 1 of the development plans (Exhibit I)
for a surnmary of the proposed setbacks. The largest reduction in setbacks is for the rear yard of Lot
2 which ranges from six feet to approximately 34 feet (20 feet is required).
Lot 2 will contain a community open space area where pedestrian paths and benches will be
provided. The applicant considered construction of a pedestrian trail from this area to Roberts Road
to allow for quicker access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. However, upon further study, it was
determined by staff that a trail could not be installed due to safety concerns and grade differentials
at Roberts Road.
2. Trees/Landscge
The civil plans and the landscape plans are inconsistent concerning the existing trees. Refer to the
landscape plan for accurate tree information. A total of 15 trees are proposed to be removed which
consist of one California Pepper, three Douglas Firs, two Blue Elderberries, six Italian Cypresses,
one Irish Yew, one California Buckeye and one Coast Live Oak. See Sheet L-1 of Exhibit I for the
tree removal list. To mitigate the tree removals, the applicant will plant three 24 inch, twelve 36 inch
and one 48 inch box trees outside of the riparian corridor. The Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) had originally recommended the'elimination of the proposed 48 inch oak. Since this tree
is outside of the riparian corridor, staff is not requiring the tree be removed: Additional native
The.Planning Commission - Page 4
10 Monroe Court/PD-01-02. ND-01-14
November 12, 2003
planting is proposed in the riparian area as recommended by the biological consultant. The small
size of the plants proposed is necessary to ensure proper restoration of the riparian area. An arborist
has reviewed the revised plans and has added new mitigation measures. With these measures there
will be no tree impacts associated with the footprint modifications. The biological consultant and
the SCVWD have also reviewed the most current plans (Exhibits D and E). A concise landscape
plan will be required during the Architecture and Site approval process and a concise riparian
planting plan will be required during` the Subdivision approval process for the three lots. The
irrigation plan will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit and will be reviewed by the
Town and SCVWD. At the recommendation of staff, the landscape plan includes a six foot open
design fence at the boundary of the riparian corridor to ensure that the property owners will not
disturb this area.
3. Traffic/Access
There will be no traffic impacts associated with this project. Access to the site will be from the
existing terminus of Monroe Court which is 22 feet wide. An access easement is proposed to be
provided across the northern portions of the proposed Lot 1 and along the western boundary of the
proposed Lots 2 and 3 to provide driveway access to all three lots. The proposed paved access drive
will be approximately 25 feet wide. A paved hammerhead turnaround is proposed on Lots 1 and 2
to meet Fire Department requirements. At the beginning development stage, a cul-de-sac was
considered by the applicant, but discouraged by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
due to the amount of hardscape.
4. Parking
A total of nine parking spaces are required and 12 spaces-are proposed. Each unit will have two
parking spaces in the garage. Spaces are also available in the driveways. The applicant has worked
with staff to design the parking areas to ensure adequate maneuverability.
5. Gradina-
The proposal will require an estimated 350 cubic yards of cut and 350 cubic yards of fill for a total
of 700 cubic yards. The applicant has worked well with staff in reducing the amount of grading and
eliminating retaining walls for the design of the house. A geotechnical investigation was done for
the site and is discussed in the Geology and Soils section of the Initial Study. The results of the
investigation determined that the site's surface and subsurface conditions are suitable for the
proposed development. The Parks and Public Works Department determined that a peer review of
this study was not required.
6. Neighborhood Compatibility
As stated earlier, the final designs of the homes will be considered during the Architecture and Site
approval process. The neighborhood consists of one and two story homes. A three story apartment
The Planning Commission - Page 5
10 Monroe Court/PD-01-02, ND-01-14
November 12, 2003
building is located adjacent to the subject site. Excluding the apartment building, the square footages
of the existing residential structures range from approximately 969 to 2,625 square feet. The
proposed development will have larger lots with larger homes which will range from 2,150 to 3,115
square feet.
7. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
On December 8, 1999, the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee considered a preliminary
review of a similar project to build four townhouses. The Committee identified the following
concerns or deficiencies with the proposal:
• Prefer higher density (e.g., duplex, attached, duet; etc.).
• Talk with neighbors to get input.
• Visual impact of development from trail needs to be addressed.
• Not much open space for children (i.e., lack of "backyards").
• Maintain lower density.
• Two-story looking design.
• Proposing "subdivision" onto the site.
• Prefer smaller units.
• Too much asphalt.
• Proposal does not maintain the ambiance of the.site.
• Does not reflect "small town" character desired by the Town.
8. General Plan
The applicant has submitted a letter to justify how the project is consistent with the General Ni;cr
(ExhibitB). The applicant has worked with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)concurni .g
work near the creek and has therefore met policies C.P.2.9, C.P.2.10, and C.P.2.14 of the Cen,_.,al
Plan. Policy L.P.8.7 of the General Plan states that when a development is adjacent to a creek, a
condition shall be included that the creek be dedicated to the Town in fee with a maintenance
easement granted to the SCVWD. The District has indicated that since they have no right-uf way
at the subject site, and do not want one, they do not want to be responsible for the repair and
maintenance of the creek. Therefore, the Town will receive the dedication of the riparian corridor
and will contract with a consulting biologist to ensure the mitigation measures within the corn) do,
are being met at the applicants\homeowners expense. Subsequent to the mitigation monito:i 11g...he
Town will maintain the corridor which at that time should require minor maintenance.
9. Environmental Site Assessment
Due to the tree removals and the vicinity to the creek, an Initial Study was prepared for the four lot
project. The study has not been included with this report since it was previously reviewed by the
Commission at past hearings. The study is available in the file. The Negative Declaration is
The Planning Commission - Page 6
10 Monroe Court/PD-01-02. ND-01-14
November 12, 2003
included with this report (Exhibit G). The study was sent through the State Clearinghouse due to
the agencies involved with the work proposed near the creek. The areas of mitigation are as follows:
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
The subject property has approximately 200 feet of frontage along the riparian corridor of Los Gatos
Creek. Although typical riparian setbacks for new developments are 100 feet, the biological
consultant determined that a 50 foot setback from the riparian corridor was adequate in this case.
The applicant has worked closely with the biological consultant and SCVWD to finalize a site plan
to mitigate concerns in the riparian area. The mitigation measures recommended by, the biological
consultant will improve the existing condition of Los Gatos Creek over the long term. SCVWD has
stayed in close contact with the Town concerning this development. Due to the proposed restoration
improvements, SCVWD will not be requiring their normal setbacks of 20 to 25 feet from the
proposed structures to the top of the bank. The absolute minimum setback SCVWD will accept
from the top of the bank is ten feet and a condition has been included that this minimum setback be
met.
SCVWD has recommended several conditions of approval relating to the sewer lateral, foundation
system, grading and creek work, that are identified in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration
which are not required as mitigation measures. The recommendations have been addressed through
input from other consultants and have been incorporated in the final conditions of approval.
Comments on the Initial Study were received from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board which were included in an earlier report. The Board is recommending that a study be
conducted for the proposed development to ensure that the size of the storm drain is adequate to
handle the increased runoff. According to the Parks and Public Works Department, this study is a
standard condition and will be required prior to the issuance of permits. It is too early in the process
to conduct this study since the amount of impervious surface area keeps changing during the Planned
Development process and may further change during the Architecture and Site Application review
process.
C. RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has been working with the Town to develop this site since 1998. The applicant has
designed the project to reduce tree and riparian impacts to the satisfaction of the Town and other
agencies. Members of the Development Review Committee have met with the applicant on
numerous occasions concerning the most current proposal. The applicant has worked closely with
the Town in designing the current plan to address Town Council and staff concerns. If the
application is approved, the applicant will then need to receive Subdivision approval of the three lots
and Architecture and Site approval for each house. At that time, SCVWD will again be involved
The Planning Commission - Page 7
10 Monroe Court/PD-01-02. ND-01-14
November 12, 2003
in the review process to ensure the plans meet their requirements pursuant to the approved Planned
Development. In addition, the plans will be reviewed by the Town's consulting architect to ensure
compatibility with the neighborhood. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission
take the following action:
1. Recommend that the Town Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit H) and
adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit G). The plan has been modified to reflect the
current proposal.
2. Make the required findings (Exhibit F).
3. Recommend that the Town Council approve the zone change request, incorporating the
preliminary development plan as part of the Planned Development Ordinance (Exhibit I).
4. Forward the zone change request to Town Council.
Prepared by: Sandy L. Baily, Associate Planner
BNL:SLB:mdc
cc: David H. Pitzen, DHP Monroe Investors LLC, 1228 Lincoln Avenue, Sari Jose, CA 95125
Ann Lamborn, 7 Monroe Court, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Linda Lubeck, 120 Carlton Ave #54, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Vincent M. Stephens, Community Projects Review, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 57;")o
Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686
N:\DEV\RE FORTS\ I0monroe.3.wpd
j~
PACIFIC DMRSTED COMPANY, INC,
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION
June 30 2003
Town of Los Gatcs Planning Commission
I 10 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 410 MONROE COURT
Dear Chairperson, Paul Dubois, and Planning Commissioners:
vEc,
J U L 0 1 2003
TOWN OF l_0S GATOS
CeO.4Af,.:J11'ITY 1EVE opr,~Sn:T
This letter is submitted in connection with the above referenced application in which
DHP Monroe Investors LLC is requesting your recommendation of zoning from RM:5-20 to
RM:5-20PD to demolish four 1941 single family residences and to construct three single family
custom homes.
The four existing condemned homes shall be replaced with three new craftsmen style
custom homes. Each custom home is specially designed to work with the site's grade and
existing trees. Architecture was carefully designed to compliment the character of the site as
well as the Town. We have followed the existing topography and care has been taken not to
disturb existing roots of heritage oak and redwood trees. Having taken the Town's concern
regarding a court design, we have modified the street for a 3-point turn to reduce the amount of
asphalt. The creek riparian area will be revitalized and restored to its original state before the
impact of the existing homes were built in the early 1900s.
Community Benefits
1. Demolish four existing condemned units that are in disrepair which will reduce the amount of
police calls responding to vandalism and vagrants. This will also improve the view from the
creek's trail with a restored creek bank and new homes that will blend with the existing
homes that are next to the trail.
2. Improve the health of heritage oak trees with proper trimming and removal of choking vines
to improve the oaks' life span.
3. Complete Monroe Court, which is currently a stub street, with a 3-point turn. This will stop
cars from using the neighborhood driveways as a turn around and improve upon the safety
concerns of children playing in the driveways.
=BIT B
1224 Lincoln Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125 Office: 408-279.6625 Fax: 408-279-1244 e-mail: PacDiv1E_bPdci.com
LICA 580705-8
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
#10 Monroe Court
06/30103
Page 3
DHP Monroe Investors LLC has a proven track record as a custom home builder and we
appreciate the opportunity to work with the Town of Los Gatos on this project and look forward
to future projects as well.
Sincerely,
7Stan Queen
Operations Manager
cc: David H. Pitzen
SINGL
E FAMi~.Y ;RESLDE041C POJECD,4TA~....
:.EXISTING
CONDITIONS
:PROPOSED
PROJECT.
REQUIRED/.
PERMITTED
Zoning district
RM:12-20
RM:12-20:PD
-
Land use
Multi-family (four
houses
three single family
homes
-
General Plan Designation
High Density Res.
same
-
Lot size s . ft.
1.44 Ac
6,500 to 9,150 s ft
set b PD
• siding
Conceptual
-
• trim
Conceptual
-
• windows
Conceptual
-
• roofing
Conceptual
-
• first floor
720 to 1,440 sq ft
1,560 to 1,816 sq ft
set by PD-
• second floor
334 to 1,469 sq ft
set by PD-
• garage
462 to 484 sq ft
set by PD-
• frGnt
rear
Approx 19 to 32 feet to
centerline of
roadway/ roa line
6 to 34 feet
25 feet minima„
20 feet m!nim m
• side
5 to 31 feet
8 minim ; i
• side street
Approx 38 feet to
property line
15 minim-, r
Maximum height ft.
Conceptual
30 feet maximum
Building coverage
10%
40% maximum
Parking
12
9
Tree Removals
15
16 replacement !r.~t
Sewer or septic
sewer
sewer
N: iDE V'SANDY`.NUSC, 10M0=e.dattupd
EXF.7~T'P
" 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY
SAN JOSE, CA 9511 "686
TELEPHONE (A08) 265.2600
FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271
www.valleywater.org
AN EQUAL CMRTUNn EMPLOYER,
' EI"Y'I File: 12995
Los Gatos Creek
J U L - 1 2 3 3 3
TOWN OF LOS GATCS Re: Construction of Three Houses at
PL ANNI 1IG DERA.RTMENT 10 Monroe Court, Los Gatos,
Assessor's Parcel No. 529-09-026
June 30, 2003
Ms. Sandy Saily
Planning Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Subject: Monroe Cottages at 10 Monroe Court, Los Gatos-Assessor's Parcel No. 529-09-026
Dear Ms. Baily:
Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff met with Mr. Stan Queen of Pacific Diversified
on June 3, 2003, to discuss the proposed project in regards to our May 29, 2003, letter and the
direction the Town of Los Gatos (Town) has given to Pacific Diversified to modify the plan so
that the project can be approved. This letter is to clarify to Town planning staff, the planning
commission, and the Town council the District's position regarding this project.
Our continuing concern with this project is the proximity to the riparian corridor and top of bank
of Los Gatos Creek. As stated previously, the proposed redesign is preferable to the previous
designs and the District would prefer to see additional revisions made (as noted in our letter);
however, we understand that the current design is based on direction provided from the
planning commission and council as a compromise between the sometimes conflicting
objectives for the project. If no further modifications to the project size and scale are required
by the Town, we will concur with the project as proposed; however, we ask that the following be
made requirements of the project:
The final project addresses Comment Nos. 5 through 13 (landscaping, riparianrianting,
and tree protection comments) of our May 29, 2003, comment letter.
Lowering of the rear yards to accommodate basement access is to be mil limi-=;d b;AL at
no point is to exceed 4 to 6 feet of cut.
Runaff from the site must not be allowed to flow overbank into Los Gatos Creel-. -1-1
rear yards will need to include drainage features to pick up site runoff and direct it to
proposed storm drain system.
The oak trees on site are not to be impacted during backyard grading. An arbonst
should be consulted regarding potential impacts to the trees.
X:iIR r L
The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy, safe and enhanced quality of living it en.; C7o c C-un.; 're-
stewardship and comprehensive management of water resources in c practical, cos!-effectiN•a and -na-crrr, r`cll; _-rs'ri _ n•:•r,n_
Ms. Sandy Bally
Page 2
June 30, 2003
The proposed fencing for the rear of lots 2 and 3 is to remain as shown on the latest
plans to date, which is approximately along the existing top of bank (elevation 340 feet).
• All areas of the bank previously designated to be replanted with riparian vegetation are
to remain as re-vegetation areas.
Details will need to be provided showing how the area will be graded to conform to the
bank.
• No further encroachment into the riparian corridor or setback to the top of bank is to
occur.
Many of these elements are currently addressed by the current plans; however, these are items
that should not be compromised by any alteration of the project as it moves through the
permitting process.
Lastly, we are concerned about the continued maintenance of the creek after it has been
restored and we understand that the creek portions of the site will be dedicated to the Town
which we support.
Please continue to provide copies of the plans to us for review and ultimately permit issuance as
the project proceeds through the approval process. 'Reference District File No. 12995 on further
correspondence regarding this project.
If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at (408) 265-2607,
extension 2322. :
Sincerely,
Colleen Haggerty
Assistant Engineer
Community Projects Review Unit
cc: Mr. Stan Queen, Pacific Diversified
S. Tippets, V. Stephens, D. Chesterman, L. Spahr, C. Haggerty, File (2)
ch:fd
0630x-pl.doc
JtiOSTED ON~ oiC, 73
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CCL.r,. _ ' i•`
t1? ZNDA DAVIS, COUN, : ' C
r NOTICE
Town of Los Gatos
Environmental Impact Review
Recommended Negative lyy0~,-yye`lrat3on
~q Q !rte R 4; .rn
ENDORS£p
JUL 1 0 200?
BRENDA DAVIS, County Clerk-Reccrder
Santa Clara County
$y t!n~it i(~N Deputy
Lead Agency: Town of Los Gatos ,U}
Community Development Departinen`1
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031 pI~,r:NiP:O i~z^Gt~Tt,4thJT
,JUN2B2002
Project Title and
Location: 10 Monroe Court TODM-I OF LOS GATOS
r'•'IMMUNITY t)7_:vELQPMENT
Planned Development Application PD-01-2
Architecture and Site Application S-01-100
Negative Declaration ND-01-14
Project Description: At present, the project site is developed with four cottages, which are currently
vacant. The project sponsor is requesting the following:
Rezoning from RM:12-20 to RM:12-20 PD to construct four dwelling units.
Architecture and Site approval to demolish four pre-1941 structures.
The subject property consists of one parcel totaling 1.44 acres or 62,713 square feet (Assessor's
Parcel No. 529-09-026). The site is currently developed with four cottages, Project plans indicate
that these four cottages are proposed to be demolished. Total floor area in the four existing cottages
is 4,710 square feet (s.f.) and they would be replaced with four new residences with a total floor area
of 11,808 s.f.
Proposed residences would have two levels of living area and a two-car garage, ranging from 2,518
s.f. to 3,413 s.f. In addition to residences, the project would include development of driveway
accesses to the four residences and provision of landscaping.
The proposed residences would cover approximately 12 percent of the site (7,414 s.f.), while
driveways would cover about eight percent of the site (4,877 s.f.). Landscaping and open space
would cover the remaining 80 percent of the site (50,422 s.f. or 1.16 acres) and would be located in
community open space, residential yards, and the bank of Los Gatos Creek in the eastern part of the
subject property.
Access to the project would be from the existing terminus of Monroe Court, which is 22 feet wide.
An access easement is proposed to be provided across the northern portions of proposed Lots 1 and 2
to provide driveway access to all four lots. The proposed paved access drive would be 25 feet wide
and would be approximately 100 feet long, extending across both Lots 1 and 2. Lot 2 ulso would
have paved hammerhead turnaround that would meet fire department requirements. Fro;!l Lot 2, a
25-foot wide driveway would extend across the west end of Lot 4 and onto Lot 3.
Determination: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there. will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures listed below have
been added to the project. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required.
June, 2002 EXHIBIT 11
Negative Declaration - 10 Monroe Court
Statement of Reasons to Support Finding:
1. Aesthetics: The four existing cottages on the project site are one story high, and they would be
replaced with four, two-story homes. The existing adjacent home on the south side of Monroe Court
is one story and approximately 23 feet high, while the adjacent home on the north side is two stories
and up to approximately 27 feet above the existing grade. The proposed home on Lot 1 (adjacent to
the existing home) would be a maximum of 27 feet above the proposed grade. The project
architect's streetscape plan (dated 3/29102) indicates that the portion of the proposed Lot 1 home
located adjacent to the existing home would be approximately four feet taller than the existing home.
All proposed homes would be approximately 27 feet high, which would be similar to the maximum
height of the existing home located adjacent to the northwestern project boundary.
Proposed building footprints would average 1,850 st, which is slightly larger than the footprints of
existing homes (1,580 s.f. and 1,640 s.f.) located immediately west and northwest of the site.
However, building footprints of other homes on Monroe Court range from 1,440 s.f. to 2,625 s.f.,
and proposed building footprints would fall within this range. Subsequent to approval of the
proposed project, each proposed home would be subject to Architecture and Site review where the
appropriateness of building heights and mass will be considered.
Project development would result in the removal of 13 existing trees. While tree removal would
increase visibility of the site from surrounding areas, sufficient tree cover would be retained to help
screen views of proposed homes from the existing adjacent home on the south side of Monroe Court.
Proposed removal of a 13-inch oak tree on the south side of Monroe Court on Lot 1 would increase
visibility of the Lot 1 home from the existing home on the north side of Monroe `Court. However,
proposed retention of two mature oaks and one mature redwood immediately north of the proposed
home would screen views of the Lot 1 home. There is one oak and five fir trees located along the
southern project boundary, and proposed retention of all but one of these trees would help screen
views of proposed homes from the adjacent three-story apartment building. Removal of a 24-inch fir
tree at the southern boundary and an 18-inch fir tree on the boundary between Lots i and 2 would
increase visibility of the central portion of the site from this apartment building, and proposed homes
would be visible. However, it should be noted that these apartments currently, overlook the four
existing cottages. The proposed landscaping plan indicates planting of eight trees along :he southern
boundary, which would ultimately provide visual screening.
Outdoor lighting would be provided on the building exteriors. However, this lighting would not be
expected to adversely affect nighttime views in the area. The Zoning Ordinance (Section
29.10.09035) would prohibit the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by
floodlight) onto any area outside the project boundary.
2. Agriculture Resources: The project site was developed previously for residential use and the
site's agricultural potential is limited by existing surrounding residential development, open space
associated with Los Gatos Creek, as well as current zoning. Therefore, the project would not
adversely affect existing agricultural resources at the site. Since the site has not been in agricultural
use, the project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations.
3, Air Quality: The proposed project would not result in a net traffic increase since the four
proposed homes would replace four existing cottages. However, since cottages are smaller than
proposed homes, proposed homes could generate slightly more daily trips. Such minor air emissions
increases would not be considered significant. In addition, the size of the proposed four-unit project
would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for
potential significance. The BAAQMD threshold level for potential significance is 320 single-family
2
June, 2002
Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court
residential units. At or above this size, traffic generated by
problems, and an air quality impact assessment would need
BAAQMD for review.
a project could produce air quality
to be prepared and submitted to the
Construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended
and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. The BAAQ.MD` does not require
quantification of construction emissions, but considers any project's construction-related impacts to
be less than significant if required dust-control measures are implemented. The Town's standard
construction notes that are included with all projects require the contractor to "meet or exceed the
requirements of the appropriate air quality management agencies.:." Therefore, standard Town
requirements would require implementation of the BAAQMD's standard dust control measures
(which are required on sites of three acres or less), which would mitigate the project's construction-
related air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level.
4. Biological Resources: - A survey of the riparian habitat on the project site and an assessment of the
edge of the riparian corridor were conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in June, 2000. A copy of
this report is available for review at the Town Community Development Department. These studies
determined that the subject property has approximately 200 feet of frontage along the riparian
corridor of Los Gatos Creek. The portion of the riparian corridor on the opposite (east) bank of Los
Gatos Creek receives considerable human disturbance associated with a highly used pedestrian and
bicycle trail. In addition, properties adjacent to the project site,are a source of disturbance since they
have little or no setback from the riparian corridor. The riparian habitat of Los Gatos Creek adjacent
to the property is of high to moderate quality, as it has several large native riparian trees and shrubs
such as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Mexican
elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularus). The oak trees are quite
large, occur at or near the top of the bank, and tend to dominate most of the canopy cover on the
property.
Much of the overstory and understory of the riparian vegetation on-site consists of non-native species,
These include eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp,) and acacia (Acacia sp.) trees, and several invasive'
understory species including English ivy (Hedera helix), periwinkle (Vinca major), Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus discolor), and giant reed (Arundo donax). The creekside portion of the project
site is terraced and contains several trees planted for landscaping such as redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens), Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga rne:nziesii).
These studies determined that the previous site plan significantly encroached into the existing riparian
corridor (approximately 0.08 acre), exceeding the current level of encroachment by the cottages (0.01
acre). In addition, the previous proposal resulted in the removal of trees (a direct impact) within the
riparian corridor. The increased encroachment and removal of woody vegetation was determined to
be a significant degradation of the riparian corridor with the primary effect of the proposed
encroachment into the riparian corridor would be diminished wildlife use within, the riparian habitat
The increased human encroachment into the riparian corridor would have minimal effect on mammals
and fish, it would have resulted in: increased disturbance to birds using the riparian corridor fc
breeding, foraging, and shelter; hindered lateral movements of birds to and from the riparian corrido;:;
and tree removal from the riparian corridor would have resulted in the direct loss of habitat for birds.
Although typical riparian setbacks for new developments are often 100 feet, H.T. Garvey conclu,i~;,i
that a 50-foot setback from the riparian corridor would be adequate to ensure that the exktin
functions and values of the creek are protected. Recommended mitigation ratios were as follows: 0.5:1
(mitigation: encroachment) ratio for encroachment into the 50-foot riparian setback zone; 1:1 ratio for
encroachment into the riparian corridor itself; 3:1 for direct removal of native vegetatioa withi:: the
riparian corridor. Subsequently, the site plan was revised and the two homes that encroached i to tha
riparian zone were reduced in size and relocated so that the homes on Lots 3 -id q. were are to
3
June, 2002
Negative Declaration - 10 Monroe Court
approximately 30 feet farther from the creek. The impacts and recommended mitigation for the
current site plan were determined by H.T. Harvey to be as follows:
Impact Mitigation Mitigation
Type of Impact' (acres) Ratio (acres)
Encroachment into Riparian Setback 0.16 0.5:1 0.08
Encroachment into Riparian Corridor 0.01 (approx.) 1:1 0.01
Permanent. Riparian Impacts 0.03 3:1 0.09
Total Mitigation 0.16
H.T. Harvey concluded that the project's impacts on the riparian corridor would be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level if the recommended comprehensive habitat restoration plan is implemented.
This mitigation plan calls for eradication of non-native pest plants, removal of hardscape and debris,
along with planting and maintenance of native trees and shrubs of local genetic origin. Therefore,
implementation of this plan would actually improve the condition of Los Gatos Creek over the long-
term. To mitigate the project's impacts on the riparian corridor to a less-than-significant level, the
following measures shall be implemented:
Mitigation: The riparian corridor enhancement plan (included as Attachment l of the Initial Study)
and riparian planting plan (Sheet L-Rl, dated 113/02) shall be implemented.
Mitigation: All future landscaping within 100 feet of the riparian corridor shall consist of native
trees, shrubs, and groundcover that occur naturally in the riparian habitat near the site and shall
be a mix similar to species used in the riparian corridor enhancement plan.
Mitigation: To minimize additional. impacts on wildlife, any lighting to be installed along the eastern
edge of the proposed development shall be designed to minimize the intensity of light reaching
the adjacent riparian corridor and setback area.
-Mitigation Monitoring: The Building Division will be responsible for ensuring that any required
permits from the Santa Clara County Valley Water District, California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are
obtained by the project applicant for any work in the creek and all permit conditions are properly
implemented during construction.
Removal of Ordinance Trees. Policies 11 and 12 of the Open. Space Element of the Los Gatos
General Plan emphasize preservation of public and private landscaping. The Los Gatos Tree
Protection Ordinance states that one or more replacement trees of a species and size designated by the
Parks and Forestry Division may be required for tree removals on an application for any zoning
approval or subdivision of land that is under consideration by the Planning. Commission. The Los
Gatos Landscaping Policy states that any tree over 12 inches in circumference that is removed by a
project shall be replaced with a minimum of three 15-gallon trees. When it is not possible to replace
trees removed at a 3:1 ratio, the new trees planted are required to. be larger in size than 15 gallons to
adequately mitigate for those trees removed; this policy satisfies the Town Tree Protection Ordinance
and Town Landscaping Policies.
There are 27 existing trees distributed throughout project site. The majority of trees on the site are
located in the western portion of the project site on Lot 1, the southern project boundary, and the
eastern portion of site along the Los Gatos Creek riparian corridor. Of the 27 trees, on the subject
property, the proposed landscape plan indicates that 13 ordinance-size trees are planned for removal.
Trees- planned for removal include one California pepper, one douglas fir, two blue elderberry, six
Italian cypress, one Irish yew, one coast live oak, and one California buckeye. None of the large oaks
within the riparian corridor will be removed as part of project development. The buckeye and one
elderberry trees would be removed just south of Roberts Road (adjacent to the creek) to accommodate
the proposed storm drain line that would extend from the end of Monroe Court to Roberts Road. The
4
June, 2002
Negative Declaration - 10 Monroe Court
oak tree to be removed is located on Lot 1 (south. of Monroe Court) and would be removed to
accommodate the driveway to this proposed home.
A tree survey was conducted on the site by Barrie D. Coate and Associates in September, 1999. A
copy of this report is available for review at the Town Community Development Department. The
Coate report identified two very large redwoods on the western property boundary and two very large
mature coast live oaks in the eastern portion of the site as dominant trees on the project site. These
trees would be retained as part of the proposed project. Coate also identified the row of Douglas firs
along the southern property boundary as another dominant feature of the site. Coate notes that these
fir trees have been thinned severely and in one case topped, presumably to provide a view for the
adjacent apartments. Four of the five fir trees would be retained as part of the project.
Coate also reviewed proposed plans for potential damage to oak tree roots for underground utilities.
He concluded that construction of the proposed sewer and storm drain lines in proximity to two oak
trees (#19 and #25) would not adversely affect these trees assuming recommended measures are
implemented. These measures include digging utility trenches by hand and avoiding the area beneath
tree canopies.
The proposed landscaping plan indicates 13 trees would be planted, while the riparian planting plan
proposes 19 trees to be planted within the riparian corridor. During the Architecture and Site review
process, the Town Parks and Forestry Division will ultimately determine the adequacy of the proposed
landscape plan and riparian planting plan with respect to compliance with-the Town's Tree Protection
Ordinance and Landscaping Policy and the appropriate selection of replacement tree species.
Concerns were also raised by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) and H.T. ;-iarvey
regarding the landscaping and irrigation plans, H.T. Harvey recommended use of native species
within 100 feet of the riparian corridor, but the conceptual landscape plan (dated 4125/02) inoirates a
- mixture of native and non-native species. The District is concerned that excessive irrigation cottld
threaten the health of existing oak trees if irrigation lines are located within the Tree Preser,,ation
Zones (TPZs) of these trees. The following measure shall be implemented to address con(;~-rrs with
the landscaping and irrigation plans:
Mitigation: The conceptual landscape plan shall be revised to reflect recommended use of native
species within 100 feet of the riparian corridor.
Mitigation: The proposed irrigation plan shall be revised to avoid excessive watering of exis*il~ ; c ks,
including removal of irrigation lines within the Tree Protection Zones of oak trees.
Mitigation Monitoring: The Parks Division will be responsible for ensuring that all conflicts between
the conceptual landscape plan, irrigation plan, and riparian planting plan are resolved and
landscape concerns of the Santa Clara Valley Water District are addressed.
During project construction, there would be the potential for damage to the trees that are prcpos, d to
be retained. Implementation of the following measures, which are recommended by Ind
Associates, will minimize such potential impacts to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation: Fences shall be installed at the drip line or as close to the drip line a, practical bcfur---. awi
equipment arrives on-site. Fences must be installed before any demolition begins and ray i*,
place until construction is completed. It maybe necessary to change the specific loco ,&7 s o'
fences between the demolition and construction period, but under no cizcurnstances shi ld ,!,-`re
be an interim period where tree protection fences are not in place.
Mitigation: Fences shall be five feet tall, portable chain link fencing panels with 7-inch eaivaniz.°.d
posts driven through holds in the pads at least 1S inches into the ground to retain *`e rai,els
June, 2002
Negative Declaration - 10 Monroe Court
place. Fencing shall be installed at the following locations (indicated on map in Attachment 2 of
the Initial Study):
• The 30-inch coast live oak cast of Unit 1, six feet from the proposed final wall location on the
west and south and out to the dripline on the north.
The 18-inch coast live oak at the south end of Lot 1 as shown in Attachment 2 of the Initial
Study, six feet from the final wall.
• Adjacent to the fire truck turnaround as shown in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study.
• The Douglas fir between Lots 2 and 3, six feet from this tree.
Mitigation: Before any equipment arrives on-site, platform buffers shall be installed under all
canopies out to driplines as shown in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study. A platform buffer is a
five-inch layer of coarse chips from a tree company, with 1 to 1-1/2-inch thick plywood full
sheets laid over the top and tied together. This must cover alj parts of the soil beneath the tree
canopy and remain in place until all contractors are gone. All trunks must be wrapped with
carpeting or equivalent to 8 feet above grade in platform buffer areas.
Mitigation: Pier and on-grade beam foundations must be used in any area beneath a tree canopy.
Mitigation: No excavation for crawl-space or equivalent may be excavated in areas beneath buildings
beneath tree canopies.
Mitigation: Trenches for any service or ir rigation shall not be located in any area beneath the
canopies of trees. Utility trench locations shall be'identified so that their location is planned and
not an incidental location determined by the utility company.
Mitigation: With respect to the storm drain line proposed adjacent to the 24-inch oak, the trench shall
be dug by hand within ten feet of the trunk. No roots over 2-1/2 inches in diameter shall be cut.
Mitigation: With respect to the sewer line proposed adjacent to an existing oak near the fire truck
turnaround, any portion of this line located closer than 15 feet from the trunk shall be dug by
hand. No roots over 2-1/2 inches in diameter shall be cut.
Mitigation: No vertical soil cuts shall be made closer than five times the trunk c:ameter from any tree
if trenching is on only one side of the trees root mass. If it is necessary to cut a trench through
more than one quadrant of the tree's root mass, the trenches shall be set back a distance of seven
times the trunk diameter. Foundations constructed within the dripline which are closer than five
times the trunk diameter from the trunk shall be of pier and beam design.
Mitigation: Pruning of any of the trees, particularly the coast live oaks, must be done by an ISA
certified arborist using ISA Western Chapter Pruning Specifications.
Mitigation: When existing pavement is removed in areas beneath canopies of trees, it must be done
with a jackhammer and the broken pieces loaded by hand onto a tractor, which is standing on
unbroken pavement. The tractor must back up onto undisturbed pavement as it picks up the
pavement pieces so as to avoid compression of the soil in newly exposed root zones. The newly
exposed root zone areas must be covered immediately with a layer of three inches of tree chips
(as from a chipping machine from a tree company) to protect these root systems from drying
out.
Mitigation: Newly exposed root systems must be watered with a soaker hose applying 10 gallons of
water per one inch of trunk diameter once every two weeks until construction is completed,
6
June, 2002
Negative Declaration - 10 Monroe Court
Mitigation Monitoring: The Building Division will be responsible for ensuring that all tree protection
measures are properly implemented during construction.
S. Cultural Resources: Since most of the existing cottages on the site were constructed before 1941,
the proposed demolition was reviewed by the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee. The
Committee recommended approval of the proposed demolition subject to the condition that Structure
B be photographically documented. The Committee recommended approval of proposed demolition
for the following reasons:
• The structure was found to not be historically significant.
• Although the siting is interesting, the buildings are not architecturally significant.
• The buildings are structurally deficient.
• The buildings are not in a highly visible location.
The Committee's finding and requirement of photographic documentation would reduce potential
impacts on historic resources to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, no significant impacts on
historic resources would result from project development.
An archaeological field inspection was conducted as part of this Initial Study. A copy of this report
is on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The inspection included an
archival search of State records and a field inspection of the project site. The archival research
revealed that there are no recorded prehistoric sites recorded within or adjacent to the subject
property, and there is no evidence that it has been inspected by an archaeologist in the past. However,
a Primary Record (P-43-001 111) was prepared for the property in March, 1998 by Mr. Ward Hill; an
architectural historian. Mr. Hill concluded that the existing cottages are not identified as historic
resources in either the intensive or reconnaissance surveys conducted for the Los Gatos Historic
Architecture Survey, These houses do not appear to be associated with important persons, nor do
they appear to be associated with events or historic themes of significance in the history of Los Gatos.
Other than noting that the stone walls/foundation of House B (located on proposed Lot 3) and its
I
heavy beam frame may be an unusual form of construction for Los Gatos, Mr. Hill concludes the
house is probably not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resource:. , He a'so
recommended photo documentation.
The field inspection of the project area was limited to the areas not covered by buildings,'cement
walks, or cobble paving and/or construction, dense vegetation or landscaping. Therefore, the majority
of the property could not be inspected. No traces of archaeological materials were seen anywhera
inside the project boundaries. Given the fact that the property is almost completely covered by eithtr
buildings, paving, and/or vegetation, there is still some potential that buried archaeological rese ,i
could be discovered there. To ensure that any subsurface cultural resources arc -lot aJvCtrse,,:,
affected by project development, the following mitigation measures will be required.:
Mitigation: The subject property shall be re-inspected by a qualified archaeologist dirzccl_y after all
the existing buildings and other imported materials are removed and prior to conatructicr..
Findings and recommendations of this survey shall be submitted in writing to the Town. If n
deposits of archaeological materials are discovered at this time, they will be evaluitzd for
significance if future ground disturbing activities would endanger them. If tae evaluation of
deposits demonstrates that they are intact and significant deposits of archaeological soils
(midden), the project sponsor shall be required to submit a plan to the Town for mitigation ~f
impacts on these resources, prior to commencement of any further earrhr,,ovin w thi,t t e
identified areas.
June, 2002
Negative Declaration - 10 Monroe Court
Mitigation Monitoring: The Community Development Department will be responsible for ensuring
this measure is implemented appropriately during construction as the need arises.
6. Geology and Soils: A geotechnical investigation was conducted for this project by Terrasearch in
May, 2000 and a copy of this study is on file at the Town Community Development Department.
The geotechnical investigation for the proposed project was undertaken to determine the soil
conditions at the site, investigate the stability of the descending slope to Los Gatos Creek, and
establish geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Tan•asearch indicates that
the site's surface and subsurface conditions are suitable for the proposed development, assuming
recommendations are incorporated into the project plans. Based on results of the investigation,
criteria were established for the grading of the site and the foundation design for the proposed
residences, and the stability of the slope above Los Gatos Creek. Soils consist of near surface
claystone, siltstone, and sandstone bedrock overlain by two to four feet of fill soil. A sliver fill was
used to construct a narrow dirt road along the top of the slope on the northern portion of Lot 4. Fill
soils indicate a high potential for expansion when exposed to moisture variations. No groundwater
was encountered in borings. At the time of Terrasearch's investigation, the slope above Los Gatos
Creek was overgrown with vegetation, but had no indications of failure or movement on the slope
face with the exception of slumping in a sliver fill soils below Lot 4.
The project site is located within six kilometers of the San Andreas Fault and two kilometers of the
Monte Vista-Shannon Fault. The project site is not located within the boundaries of the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone, and no faults are known to traverse the site. Based on historical
evidence, it is likely that at least one significant earthquake will produce strong ground motions at this
site during the design life of the proposed structures. Structural considerations for project
construction will need to include design parameters as specified by Terrasearch (see Attachment 3 of
the Initial Study). The geotechnical investigation concluded that there would be a low potential for
other seismic hazards such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, landsliding, and -slope failure. The
following measure shall be required to reduce identified potentially significant geologic, soils, and
geotechnical constraints to less-than-significant levels:
Mitigation: The project shall incorporate: all 50 recommendations and UBC Earthquake Design
Criteria included in Terrasearch's geotechnical investigation for the proposed project (included
as Attachment 3 of the Initial Study) in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from
regional seismic activity, erosion hazards, and subsurface soil conditions on the site.
Mitigation Monitoring: The Building Department will be responsible for ensuring that all
recommendations are incorporated into the project design and properly implemented during
construction.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes
and Substances Sites Lists. The four existing cottages are proposed to be demolished as part of the
project. If these buildings contain asbestos or lead-containing paint, demolition could result in
airborne release of hazardous building materials, such as asbestos fibers or lead dust, Proposed
demolition would be required to comply with state and federal regulations for inspection and removal
of hazardous building materials, including asbestos-containing materials and lead-containing
substances. If found to be present in building materials to be removed, asbestos and/or lead
abatement practices such as containment and removal would be required prior to demolition or
renovation. In addition, the project applicant will be required to obtain clearance for asbestos
removal from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition
permit. Therefore, due to existing regulations, the potential for public health hazards associated with
the release of airborne asbestos fibers at the project site would be considered less than significant. In
addition to implementing asbestos abatement requirements, the project sponsor will implement the
following additional measure to mitigate other public health risks associated with lead-based paints to
a less-than-significant level:
June, 2002
Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court
Mitigation: Construction finish materials that are suspect for containing lead-based paint will be
tested, and pending laboratory analysis, will not be subjected to any process which renders them
friable unless proper engineering controls and worker protection procedures are initiated.
Mitigation Monitoring: The Building Department will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate
testing for lead-based paints is completed and recommendations are properly implemented
during construction.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality: Los Gatos Creek traverses the eastern portion of the subject
property, flowing northward through the Town of Los Gatos and joining the Guadalupe River in San
Jose. Stream flows ultimately discharge into San Francisco Bay via Alviso Slough. The project site
has been mapped as a partof Panel 3 of the Town of Los Gatos Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Located in a flood hazard zone
A13, the base flood elevations calculated for this site range from elevation 320 feet to 323 feet.
Currently, there are four vacant cottages on the western part of the site. All of these houses are outside
of the flood limits for the 100-year storm event, with the closest structure approximately 50 feet from
these flood limits.
Los Gatos Creek is a flood control facility maintained by the Santa Clara Valley Water District;
consequently, the proposed project will require a District permit. The District has submitted four
letters outlining District concerns with the development of the subject property. The two most recent
letters dated April 12 and June 15, 2000 address specific issues arising from the present project
proposal. Letters dated April 27, 1987 and September 2, 1997 present District concerns regarding
previous development proposals for the subject property.
With regard to the current project application, the District notes that although there is some
encroachment into the riparian corridor and minimal setbacks to the creek bank, the applicant is
proposing to restore the riparian habitat on-site to offset the project's impacts. The District normally
recommends a minimum 20- to 25-foot setback from the top of bank to allow for access around. the
house and for creek maintenance, bank repairs, and for a usable backyard, The proposed plan
indicates a minimum 10-foot setback from the top of bank and riparian corridor, and the District
stated this setback should not be compromised further. In addition,. the District recommended
inclusion of the following as Conditions of Approval:
The applicant must obtain a District permit.
The sanitary sewer lateral for the proposed home on Lot 1 shall be moved outside the dripline of
the oak tree to avoid impacts to this tree. Final landscaping and irrigation plans must be
submitted to the District for review and approval. The landscaping and irrigation plans should
address District concerns regarding impacts to the existing oak trees including placement of
irrigation within the dripline of oak trees and placement of irrigated plans within the dripline of
oak trees. In addition, the 48-inch boxed specimen live oak tree is to be deleted from the project
plans.
Proposed foundations shall be pier and grade beam. In order to further protect the root structure
of the 36-inch oak on Lot 4 from damage caused by the portion of the foundation located within
the dripline, the District requests that the buttress roots for this tree be located and foundation
piers be adjusted accordingly to avoid impacting the buttress roots.
Lots 3 and 4 needs to be graded to provide positive drainage of the property to the street and the
roof drains from these lots must also be directed to the storm drain system and not the creek.
The plans should include notes addressing both of these items.
9
June, 2002
Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court
• Copies of the proposed homeowner manual, CC&Rs, and/or any other materials provided to the
owners regarding the creek for this development need to be submitted to the District for review,
comment, and approval. These document's' should address the following items:
o A definition and description of the riparian corridor.
o How to maintain the health of the native vegetation.
o The importance of not re-introducing non-native invasive species into the area.
o Watering guidelines.
o Pruning.
o Use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers near the creek.
o Responsible party for the maintenance of the restored riparian areas and how the area will be
maintained.
o All work within 50 feet of the top of bank will require a District permit as per District
Ordinance 83-2, a copy of which should be provided to each owner and possibly included in
the CC&Rs. Activities that require a permit include landscaping, irrigation, fence
installation/replacement, grading and other construction.
c Property owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the creek banks within
their property. The District has no right-of-way, and is therefore not responsible for
maintenance and repair of these creek banks.
o No overbank drainage from the proposed homes shall be allowed, as it has caused erosion
and may lead to bank failure. Drainage from the site is to be directed to the storm drain
system,
o Other agencies such as the Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and Army Corps of Engineers also have jurisdiction over the creek, and permits from
these agencies may also be required for work in or affecting the creek.
9. Land Use and Planning: The Los Gatos General Plan currently designates the project site for
high-density residential uses, 12 to 20 units per acre. The proposed density of 2.8 units per acre (4
units on 1.44 acres) would not exceed allowable densities, and therefore, would be consistent with the
General Plan land use. designation for the project site. The project site is zoned "RM:12-20,
Multiple-Family Residential Zone." Permitted' uses within this zone include single-family dwellings.
The proposed density of 2.8 units per acre would not exceed allowable densities, and therefore, would
comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements.
The project area is developed with a mix of single- and multi-family residential uses. The proposed
residential use would be compatible with existing adjacent residential-uses. Since the four proposed
homes would replace four cottages, the density would remain unchanged with the project proposal.
However, proposed homes would be substantially larger than the existing cottages and somewhat
larger than existing adjacent residences. Potential land use, compatibility problems that could arise
from this difference in size .would be minimized to a less-than-significant level by the project's
design, which proposes homes on Lots 1 and 2 (closer to existing homes) to be smaller and more
consistent with the sizes of existing adjacent homes. No land use compatibility problems would be
anticipated between proposed homes and the existing apartment building to the south. Since
apartment units would overlook project homes on Lots 1, 2, and 3, proposed planting of tree screens
along the southern boundary would help provide some privacy for these homes. In addition,
10
June, 2002
Negative Declaration -10 Monroe Court
proposed orientation of the Lot 3 home toward Los Gatos Creek to the northeast would help to
maximize privacy in this home's outdoor areas.
10. Mineral Resources: The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally-
important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity.
11. Noise: The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays. This ordinance
also limits noise generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Project construction
would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment.
Construction noise sources range from about 76 to 85 dBA at 50 feet for most types of construction
equipment with slightly higher levels of about 88 to 91 dBA at 50 feet for certain types of
earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the
noise levels could be reduced to 75 to 80 dBA at 50 feet, depending on the type of equipment. With
controls, construction noise levels could be made to comply with the Town Noise Ordinance.
Residential uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. The
potential for construction-related noise increases to adversely affect nearby residential receptors
would depend on the location and proximity of construction activities to these receptors. There are
two residences to the west and a three-story apartment building to the south. Residences to the west
and the three-story apartment building to the south are located as close as 20 to 30 feet from the
closest project residences. At 20 feet from the project boundary, the ordinance noise limit would
result in maximum noise levels of 85 dBA at the closest residences and maximum interior noise '.evels
would reach 60 to 70 dBA with the windows closed, which could periodically result in speech
interference effects. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in
the interior of a building exceeds 60 dBA. However, it should be noted that existing fencing would be
maintained through construction, and this would help reduce construction noise levels at the
residence immediately to the west and first floor apartments to the south. In addition, such
construction noise levels would only occur for a short period when grading equipment and
construction equipment are being operated in proximity to the western and southern project
boundaries; not during the entire project construction period. Due to the small size of this project
and short duration of construction, such a temporary impact is considered to be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level by enforcement of time restrictions and noise level standards contained in the
Town Noise Ordinance.
The Los Gatos Noise Element provides noise guidelines, and these guidelines indicate. a maximum
exterior noise level of 55 dBA (Ldn) for residential uses. State land use compatibility noise
guidelines for single-family residential uses indicate that noise levels up to 60 dBA (Ldn) are
considered normally acceptable, with noise levels between 60 and 70 dBA (Ldn) being conditionally
acceptable. Noise levels above 70 dBA (Ldn) are unacceptable for such uses.
Generalized 1990 noise contours contained in the Town Noise Ordinance indicate that existing neisc:
levels are approximately 53 dBA (Ldn), which would be consistent with the Town's 55-dBA noise
standard for residential uses. When this noise level is compared to State noise guidelines, exterie:
noise levels at the site are also within the acceptable range for residential uses. Noise memurements
and modeling taken in the vicinity of this section of Highway 17 as part of the General Plan Update
indicate that noise levels within 439 feet from the Highway 17 freeway would exceed 60 dBA (I dr).
The eastern portion of the site is approximately 500 feet from the freeway, and therefore, noise levels
at proposed.Lots 3 and 4 could approach but would likely not exceed 60 dBA (Ldn). Such noise
levels would be considered acceptable when compared to State noise guidelines, but could ex.cced the.
Town's 55-dBA noise goal in the eastern margin of the site. Although the Town's noise goal may
not be met on Lots 3 and 4, the Town's Noise Element (Policy 9) states that these noise goals are
long range community aspirations and acknowledges that such goals may not be attainable at this
11
June, 2002
Negative Declaration - 10 Monroe Court
time. Such goals may be more appropriate for residential neighborhoods that are located-away from
major noise sources (such as freeways or arterial roadways).. In areas where the Town's noise goal
cannot be met, the Town also uses the State's land use compatibility noise guidelines as a criterion for
defining significance of a noise impact under CEQA.
12. Population and Housing: The proposed project would not increase local or regional population,
nor would it result in a significant loss of existing housing. The proposed project would displace
four existing housing units, which are currently vacant. The loss of four housing units would be
offset by the construction of four new homes on the project site. The project would not be
considered growth-inducing, since the project would involve redevelopment of an existing developed
property and the site is surrounded by existing development. The project is already developed with
four residential units, and no new roads or utilities would be extended to any contiguous undeveloped
areas. .
13. Public Services: The project, would not significantly increase demand for public services since
this site is already developed and services are already provided to the existing `cottages on the project
site. Since the cottages are currently vacant, the project would eliminate existing problems at the site
with vandalism and trespassing. The Santa Clara Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan,
and the project will be required to meet Department requirements regarding provision of an on-site
fire hydrant or approved automatic fire sprinkler system in the home on Lot 3. This home is located
more than 150 feet from the centerline of a roadway containing public fire hydrants. Project
driveways, roadways, and turnarounds must also meet the Department's access requirements.
14. Recreation: The' proposed project would not add new population to the area, and therefore
would not increase the demand for recreational services.
15. Transportation and Traffic: The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) requires
preparation of a detailed traffic study for any project with the. potential to generate 20 or more
additional AM or PM peak hour trips. The proposed project would not result in a net traffic increase
since,the four proposed homes would replace four existing cottages. However, since cottages are
smaller than proposed homes, proposed homes could generate slightly more daily trips but not
enough to exceed the Town's study criteria of 20 additional peak trips.
The Town Zoning Ordinance would require provision of two parking spaces for each residential unit.
Each project home is proposed to have a two-car garage.
16. Utilities and Service Systems: Utilities are currently provided to existing cottages located on the
project site. Therefore, no major off-site utility improvements are expected to be required.
Copies of the Initial Study used to make the above `recommendation are on file and. available for
public inspection during regular business hours at the Town Community Development Department,
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California.
Date ud N. Lortz, irector of Commu it. Development
12
June, 2002
((r4'.\~affil
HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
July 24, 2003
Mr. Stan Queen
Pacific Diversified
1228 Lincoln Avenue
San Jose, California 95125
Fax Number: (408) 279-1244
RF tWEU
J J L 2 8 2003
TOWN r)F LOS GATOS
PLANNING OEFAETMENT
Subject: Monroe Cottages at 10 Monroe Court, Review of Revised Site Plan gTM
Project # 1824-01).
Mr. Queen:
As per your request, we have reviewed the revised site plans dated May 9, 2003 for the
Monroe Cottages project (Giuliani & Kull, Inc., job no. 98101). The proposed project
would involve the demolition of four existing cottages and construction of three new,
two-story domestic dwellings with associated hardscape features. The existing cottages
and the proposed new dwellings are adjacent to and just within the riparian corridor of
Los Gatos Creek. It is our opinion that, with the implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures, the resulting higher level of human activity adjacent to Los Gatos
Creek from the new buildings will not result in decreased habitat value of the riparian
corridor. The primary revision to the site plan is a reduction of the number of new homes
on the site from four to three, with a bit of additional grading to lower the elevation of the
two backyard areas that abut the riparian corridor. This reduction in the number of
houses will reduce the amount of anthropogenic disturbance to wildlife resulting from the
development.
The project also entails landscaping features and the installation of a new sanitary sewer
line. The placement of tan bark or other soft, landscaping material under the canopy of
two large coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) that are part of the riparian corridor will,
combined with native understory planting in the vicinity (see below), help prevent future
encroachment of the currently pervasive non-native groundcover. In addition, it is oiur
understanding that the placement of the sanitary sewer trench has been approv-d b/ an
arborist, and will not pose any threat to existing mature native oaks.
? i0 TBI.
3 L50 Almaden Expressway, Suite 145 e San Jose, CA 95118 ^ (408) 448-9450 o Fax: (408; 448- )44
We have also reviewed the revised landscaping plans (pages L1 to L-R2 in the plan set
from Borrecco/Kilian & Associates, Inc., dated 5/09/03); and would like to re-emphasize
the need for the use of native vegetation within 100 feet-of the riparian corridor. For
example, we would recommend replacing trees, shrubs and herbs that are not native to
Santa Clara County (e.g., Brisbane box (Tristania conferta), forest pansy tree (Cercis
canadensis), fleabane (Erigeron karvinskianus) and Cistus sp.) in the landscaping plan
with any of the species outlined in the riparian mitigation plant list, or other native trees
and shrubs such as: California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), box elder (Ater negundo),
big-leaved maple (Ater macrophyllum), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), red
flowering . currant (Ribes sanguineum), black sage (Salvia mellifera), and bush
monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus). In addition, for those plants for which no, species
names are given, we would suggest using native species as described above. We would
be happy to provide fizrther guidance to Borrecco/&ilian & .Associates, Inc. on species
selection issues.
Impacts to, and encroachment into, the riparian corridor will be mitigated as
recommended in our initial riparian survey letter report dated July 18, 2000.
Encroachment- into a 50-foot riparian setback zone should be mitigated at a 0.5:1
(mitigation: encroachment) ratio; encroachment into the riparian corridor itself should be
mitigated at a 1:1 ratio, and direct removal of native vegetation within the riparian
corridor should be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio.
The current site configuration (May 9, 2003) encroaches approximately 0.11 acres into a
50-foot riparian setback area, approximately 0.02 acres into the riparian corridor itself,
and will result in the direct loss of 0.03 acres of riparian vegetation. These impacts
thereby require 0.17 acres of mitigation (Table 1).
1. Impacts and
Type of Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Mitigation
(acres)
Ratio
(acres)
Encroachment Into Riparian Setback
0.11
0.5:1
0.06
Encroachment Into Riparian Corridor
0.02
1:1
0.02
Permanent Riparian Impacts
0.03
3:1
0.09
Total:
0.17
The mitigation details outlined in our letter to Borreco/Kilian & Associates dated
September 12, 2001 and shown on the landscaping plans (see sheets L-Rl and L-R2) will
provide mitigation in excess of the required mitigation outlined above. We feel that the
Los Gatos Creek riparian corridor will improve over existing conditions following proper
implementation of the riparian mitigation described in our previous correspondence.
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
i
I hope these recommendations will be helpful for your planning needs. If you have any
questions or need further information, please call me at (408) 448-9450, extension 405.
Sinc
i`
o urgeois
Ject Manager
Project Number 1824-01
Attachment:. Letter report dated July 18, 2000
Letter report dated September 12, 2001
Cc: Sandy Bailey, Town of Los Gatos Planning Department
DDS, PHR, file 1824-01
H. T. HARVE11 A 5 OC ,",7D:3
March 31, 2003
PACIIC DMRSED COMPAMY, K
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION
To: Homeowners of Monroe and Brickway Court
RE: MONROE PROJECT
Dear Neighbor:
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSiIN
J, 00
S' 18NlITTED
FOR THE RECORD
Thank you for your response to my earlier letter dated March 26, 2003, regarding
the new Conceptual Site Plan developed for Monroe Court.
I
In response to your request to meet as a group, I will be available to meet with all
of you, at the site, this Saturday, April 5`h, from 3:30 to 4:30 PM. I do request,
however, that you call to confirm your attendance.
If you are unable to attend at this time, I will attempt to meet with you. Please
call to schedule an individual meeting.
Please contact my assistant, Connie Shoflner, to confirm your attendance or to
schedule an individual meeting. She can be reached during normal business hours
(8:30 AM to 5:00 PM) at (408) 279-6625.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Stan Queen
Operations Manager
SQ:cros
cc: Town of Los Gatos
David Pitzen
Attachment 9
1224 Lincoln Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125 - Of ice: 408-279-6625 - Fax: 408-279-1244 - e-mail: PacDiv@pdci.com
LIC.# 580705-8