The URL can be used to link to this page

17 Desk Item - 15881 Linda Avenue and 15950 Stephanie LaneN of MEETING DATE: 12/17/2007 ITEM NO: 17 DESK ITEM !p ~ .SOS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: December 17, 2007 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PAMELA JACOBS, INTERIM TOWN MANAGER P,-~, c` SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM R-1:8 TO R-1:8:PD FOR A SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION, FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS ZONED R-1:8 AND APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. APNS 523-25-020 AND 036 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-05-02, ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-06-050 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-07-07. PROPERTY LOCATION: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE OWNERS: JENNIFER DEN DAAS AND DAN BLUE APPLICANT: LINDA COURT PARTNERS DISCUSSION: Attached is correspondence from neighbors (Attachments 31 and 32), documents in request of various Council Members (Attachments 33 through 35) and the response from the Town's Consultants regarding the Ross Creek Report prepared by Guadalupe-Coyote Resources Conservation District (GCRCD) (Attachments 36 and 37). Staff will discuss the findings of the Consultants at the hearing. t,D PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N :\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2007\Linda 15881.dsk.doc Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE December 17, 2007 Attachments* Previously Submitted 1- 30 New Submittals 31. Email from David Crites (four pages) received December 14, 2007. 32. Fax from Ruth Achziger (one page) received December 17, 2007. 33. Resolution 2007-020 adopting Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. 34. Excerpt from Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams regarding bank stability setbacks. 35. Definition Chart. 36. Response from Town's Environmental Consultant (Geier & Geier) and Biological Consultant (Wood Biological Consulting), to the Ross Creek Report prepared by GCRCD. 37. Response from the Town's Hydrology/Hydraulic Consultant (Schaaf & Wheeler). BNL:RT:SLB:mdc (1211712007) Sandy Baily - RE: Protecting Ross Creek Page 1 From: "David Crites" <david.crites@worldnet. att. net> To: <mwasserman@losgatosca.gov> Date: 12/14/2007 1:09 AM Subject: RE: Protecting Ross Creek Attachments: Questions for Town Council.doc Hi Mike Thanks again for meeting with me regarding the Ross Creek project. The neighbors of the project would be happy to see a project go into that site without homes backing up to the creek. A June 3, 2005 letter from the SCVWD directed the applicant to redesign the project without homes backing up to the creek. Page 6.7 of the Los Gatos G&S says this configuration allows "the stream to become a detriment to the area, instead of an asset." I've attached a list of the key questions the council will have to grapple with on Monday. Regards, Dave Crites P.S. While FAR limits do not apply to PD zones, I think it is a red flag that the FARs are so high for this project. I've calculated the FARs for you in the attached summary. ATTACHMENT 31 Key Questions Regarding the Ross Creek Prot Where is the top of bank? a. The parcels are on the LG Flood Hazards map.. b. The GC-RCD has performed a detailed analysis and found that the top of bank is within 10 feet of the homes. c. The GC-RCD also found evidence that neighborhood run-off now drains onto the property. Their analysis is that this run-off and the run-off from the new development would be directed into the creek and would raise the flood hazard elsewhere on the creek. d. The analysis determined that the retaining wall would constrain the flood waters and exacerbate flooding elsewhere. e. A field survey found a healthy aquatic habitat worth protecting. f. The G&S define the top-of-bank as containing the flood waters so the 25 foot bank stability setback should start there. 2. Should the development be designed with homes backing up to the creek? a. Page 6.7 of the G&S says that site plans with homes backing up to the creek allow "the stream to become a detriment to the area, instead of an asset." Contrast this with the town requirement that in-fill projects must be an asset to the existing neighborhood. b. A June 3, 2005 letter from the SCVWD directed the applicant to redesign the project without homes backing up to the creek. The letter stated that houses should be situated on the other side of the road running onto the property. c. Issue 3 in Section 5.3 of the General Plan states that "open space should be a benefit to, not a burden on existing neighborhoods." d. General Plan Policy O.P.3.4 requires the town to "provide access to natural open space, protecting the safety, privacy, and security of adjacent residential areas." The neighbors would like access to an unimproved creek open space. e. General Plan C.P. 2.4 establishes "open space and recreation as the priority land use designations for lands immediately adjacent to reservoirs and streams." f. General Plan C.P. 2.1 requires the application of "land use regulations, scenic easements, or other appropriate measures to keep a maximum of the watershed and lands immediately contiguous to reservoirs and stream channels in an open, natural state." Should the riparian zone be reduced? a. Page 1, appendix B of the G&S states that "native riparian vegetation is not allowed to be removed. " b. A satellite map of the project site reveals that the existing riparian habitat is larger than the applicant proposes. The applicant proposes to remove trees prior to defining the riparian habitat. This would reduce the creek habitat. Questions regarding the Ross Creek Project Page 1 c. The definition of "riparian habitat" on page 11.3 of the G&S states that "the riparian edge is the outer boundary of the existin riparian vegetation; for trees, the dripline is the outer boundary." [emphasis added] d. Using the G&S definition, the project encroaches on the riparian habitat. e. The project proposes a ten foot wide corridor of riparian habitat that can not be replanted with trees because of a sewer maintenance easement. The bioswales are also proposed to be tree-free. 4. What is a reasonable setback from the riparian zone? a. Page 7.4 of the local G&S defines a riparian buffer as ranging between "300 or 20 feet" and page 7.2 defines the model riparian buffer policy as "40 - 150 feet from top of bank or outward dripline of riparian area (whichever is greater)." So 10 feet does not qualify as a riparian buffer, let alone a model riparian buffer. b. CDGF "recommends 100 feet" and pushed the town staff to designate the entire 170 foot western property boundary as protected riparian habitat. Dave Johnston from the CDFC has said that he "would accept" the 10 foot setback on this parcel because to request more would decrease the number of houses considerably. So a 10 foot riparian setback is sub-standard and has not been accepted for sound biological reasons. c. HT Harvey has flip-flopped regarding riparian setbacks. In their Biological Study of 10 Monroe Court, HT Harvey stated that "typical riparian setbacks for new developments are 100 feet." Yet when hired by the applicant, HT Harvey issued an indefensible "riparian assessment" of the project that stated that on this property the riparian habitat was bounded by the creekbank, and a habitat setback of 25 feet was appropriate for the site. Then John Bourgeois, Senior Restoration Ecologist at H T Harvey wrote the Los Gatos Town Council urging the town to adopt a 100 foot habitat setback similar to, or by referencing, the San Jose policy. In September 2007, HT Harvey flip-flopped again and issued another opinion regarding their client's property. This time they reduced their habitat setback recommendation from 25 feet to 10 feet. This reduction has no basis in science but was a simple shell game to avoid having to move the proposed houses after the town staff recognized that the habitat extended beyond the creekbank. d. Scientific literature supports riparian setbacks greater than 10 feet. The literature review compiled by Professor Seth Wenger in 1999 concluded that an optimal buffer ranges between 50-100 feet. e. The upstream and downstream neighbors on the sloped south side of the creek all have setbacks of 100 feet or more. 5. Is this project consistent with the town's conservation ordinances and policies? a. Sec. 29.10.0990 (5) Standards of Review. In connection with a proposed subdivision of land into two or more parcels, no Protected Tree shall be removed unless removal is unavoidable due to restricted access to the property or deemed necessary to repair a geologic hazard (landslide, repairs, etc). Questions regarding the Ross Creek Project Page 2 b. Appendix B, page 1 of the G&S direct that "native riparian vegetation is not allowed to be removed." c. C.P. 4.4 requires the town to "preserve riparian corridors." 6. Is the town receiving enough in return for granting a PD overlay? a. All of the FARs are above 0.326 (0.414, 0.445, 0.349, 0.338, 0.347, 0.439, 0.438). b. The proposed density is 23% higher than the surrounding neighborhood (12,634 sq ft per unit vs. 15,480 on Linda Av). These numbers subtract all of the dedicated creek area and only some of the non-dedicated creek area. c. The rear setback of lot 3 is only 10 feet. d. The side setback of lot 4 is only 5 feet. e. Lot sizes do not conform to the neighborhood (9,510 sq ft average vs. 20,800 sq ft average of 4 immediately adjacent lots). f. The dedicated creek open space is the minimum allowed by local policy. g. The non-dedicated creek open space is below the minimum allowed by local policy and is improved with a retaining wall and Questions regarding the Ross Creek Project Page 3 To: Town Planning Commission Page 1 of 1 2007-12-17 21:34:39 (GMT) 14086081817 From: Duncan Eng FAX COVER SHEET TO Town Planning Commission COMPANY Los Gatos, CA FAX NUMBER 14083547593 FROM Duncan Eng DATE 2007-12-17 21:34:31 GMT RE Planned Development Application COVER MESSAGE I, Ruth M. Achziger, of 15860 Longwood Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 would like to advice the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission to not approve any zoning changes of the following properties: 15881 Linda Avenue and 15950 Stephenie Lane. Planned Development Application PD-05-02, Architecture and Site Application S-06-050. I am voting against any zoning changes to this property. Thank you for your consideration W a> _ Sincerely, DFC 20ol Ruth Achziger OVVN OF LOs PLANNING D11iIsiG ATTACHMENT 32 www.efax.com RESOLUTION 2007-020 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STEAMS, DIRECTING THAT SUCH STANDARDS BE INTEGRATED INTO THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS' PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS, AND FURTHER EXMPTING SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECTS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE DISCRESIONARY APPROVAL. WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos participates in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative along with the Santa Clara Valley Water District,, the County of Santa Clara, and the cities of Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos joins the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative and others in endorsing the water and watershed resource protection goals of flood management, drinking water quality and quantity, surface and groundwater quality and quantity, and habitat protection and enhancement; and WHEREAS, it is recognized that the local control is the key principle for the implementation of resource protection goals, and that cities and the County are the primary jurisdictions for land use planning and land use permit regulation; and WHEREAS, the Town is committed to the development of a consistent, County- wide approach to streamside preservation through the implementation of existing policy and the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams; and WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos understands that once it adopts and implements the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, the Santa Clara Valley Water District will relinquish its development review of streamside properties other than those lands held in fee or easement by the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and ATTACMENT 33 WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos understands that in adopting and implementing the Guide and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, the Santa Clara Valley Water District will continue to provide technical assistance to the Town; and THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos: 1. Adopts the "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams" of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative, incorporating future amendments that may occur from time to time; and 2. Directs that the "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams" be applied to future streamside development in the Town of Los Gatos to the extent feasible provided that single- family homes in residential zones that do not require discretionary approval are exempt from the provisions in the guidelines; and 3. In order protect riparian corridors, implementation of the G&S may require applicants to provide an assessment of onsite biotic and riparian conditions by a qualified professional, which may result in larger setbacks and additional protection measures than those stated in the G&S. 4. Supports continuing participation in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Collaborative on matters pertaining to watershed resource protection. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 20th day of February, 2007 by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: Steve Glickman, Mike Wasserman, and Mayor Joe Pirzynski NAYS: None ABSENT: Diane McNutt, and Barbara Spector (Recused due to living within 500 feet of a stream) ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ?OR OFT OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST LERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS Il. SANK STABILITY/ STREAMBED CONDITIONS ILA Slope Stability Requirements for New and Major Redevelopment Background: Slope stability requirements for watercourses will be determined based on geomorphic and hydrologic conditions, the bank's physical characteristics, such as composition and height, the potential for instability or erosion, other environmental considerations, structure loading and flood potential as determined by the applicant's engineer. Construction activities proposed below the top of bank and/ or in the riparian corridor are subject to review and permit authorization from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, and in most cases, the US Army Corps, of Engineers and their Federal consulting agencies. I1.B.1 Bank Stability for Structures Built Near Streams Establish -a bank stability requirement or trigger that applies to construction of new roads, parking lots, pools, and structures subject to the UBC. The bank stability requirement or trigger should be measured from top of bank and should be based upon stream characteristics including protection of existing riparian vegetation, natural or modified streams banks, and condition of bank. For all new development and major redevelopment, the slope stability trigger will be set to be the greater of: 1) 2 to 1 structural slope stability requirement or trigger (This is measured using a hypothetical 2 horizontal to 1 vertical line projected from the toe of bank to a point where it intersects the adjacent ground.) The protection area should allow for construction access and access around the structure. For banks of larger strecinns, or for sirearns that ure deeply incised or have highly erodable banks, a permitting agency may need to increase the protection area or trigger area in order to protect water quality and other resources. 2) 20 feet from top of bank or property line For construction proposed within the protection area or trigger area, the applicant would need to: (1) conduct a stability analysis by stream type and demonstrate that development would not require introduction of hardscape in order to maintain active floodplain or active channel slope (2) show how maintenance or repair of the stream could be provided 11.6.2 Bank Stability for Structures Built Near Streams Supplement CEQA guidance and checklist to include stream stability impacts from and to proposed development project USER MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR L' -5 ATTACM4ENT 34 F W O U U 0..: O O O O U O~~~ O~ H U b 3 H U o~ o n> o U w 'd > o o °o > d U y A O O (D C) C) > -C 3 C.' j `a cz a o b 0 o 3 o w ~ ~ a a~ Ts o ~ ~ o Q ro o .y O 3 ~ O v ° v •oo ~ o> w°3v3oa;oo~ v~ c7 c7 C7 b b RS .fl N p y N U Ck3 U U U H cC ':1 U R. 4; a o °J o U ca j U F O O C u m ° . ctj U d4 «S ° G > > O US y Q b4 't3 0-0 ,•L1 ,oy cl) GO N > U ca U 3 O N vUi U .fi aS ° S3 W a. ~ a~ ~ co a o ° o w ~ ~ b o i •o U ~ ~ ° U N .U L1. ~ N ~ O Y U 'C «i O 3 O . ~ ~ ~ O~.O .C Ll. ~ 2 U.~ to ° vN 3 bD o o o 0. o 0 > o ao o °b on o a +aq ~ ~ .n w ~ O'cv 3 o p U > U -0 C11 0. O - N U ^ o i o 03 r.+ U c3 +U+ ~ O 3 (D 0 (D 0 > b y a~~i m U Q) T3 U ° 't1 U M p f•' z al C;3 Q C~l a~ ° it ~ ~ b ~ U ~ U U U 7-. 'o. Jo G ~ U O ~ o Y ° z ° -O •c t t: b ro ~ U L40 va ~W ~z ATTACHMENT 35 GEIER & GEIER CONSULTING, INC. Memorandum To: Sandy Baily, Town of Los Gatos Date: December 17, 2007 From: Fritz Geier Subject: Report submitted by Lawrence Johmann on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 15881 Linda Court and 15950 Stephenie Lane, S-06-050, SCH #2007032104 We have reviewed the report dated December 5, 2007 submitted by Mr. Lawrence Johmann of the Guadalupe - Coyote Resource Conservation District. The focus of the report concerns the verification of hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of Ross Creek and the assessment of these characteristics relative to the creek's surface flows and flooding conditions in the vicinity of the project site. Page 7 of the report (Aquatic Habitat Survey) provides general observations concerning the aquatic habitat conditions on the site. Mike Wood of Wood Biological Consulting has reviewed the biological resource comments included in the submitted report and has provided us with a letter addressing the issues raised in Mr. Johmann's report. Mr. Wood's letter is attached. With regard to the issue of flooding hazards on the Ross Creek section on the project site, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) discuss the conclusions of extensive engineering reviews of Ross Creek conditions conducted as a part of the background analyses for the project. The Initial Study also refers to the letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), dated June 3, 2005, providing its assessment of Ross Creek's hydraulic characteristics and capacities. This letter has been a part of the Town's project file for a considerable period and has been submitted in previous comments to the Town; however, we have attached this letter for ease of reference. Please note that the IS/MND's flood hazard evaluation defers to findings of the agencies with permit jurisdiction over the creek, which was the SCVWD prior to adoption of the Guidelines and Standards in late February of this year, and currently is the Town. It is our understanding that the Town has retained a hydrology/ hydraulics consultant, Schaaf & Wheeler, to conduct a peer review for the hydraulic and hydrologic issues raised in Mr. Johmann's report. The results of this peer review will become part of the public record that must be included by the Town Council in its consideration of the environmental review process and project application. P>0, Box 5054 Beikelcy, CA 91,705-5051 510.G-'y 4,2535 - 510.641.2534 FAX NN ATTACMENT 36 WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 65 Alta Hill Way Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Tel: (925) 899-1282 Fax: (925) 939-4026 e-mail: wood-biological@mindspring.com December 12, 2007 Fritz Geier Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 5054 Berkeley, CA 94705-5054 RE: Linda Court Dear Fritz: I have reviewed the report submitted to the Town of Los Gatos prepared by Lawrence Johmann, President of the Guadalupe - Coyote Resources Conservation District dated December 5, 2007. At your request, I am responding only to issues raised by Mr. Johmann relating to biological resources, riparian habitat and setbacks; comments regarding stream flows, creek hydraulics, and the location of the top of bank and floodplain edge should be addressed by a qualified hydrologist and engineer. Mr. Johmann makes numerous excellent observations regarding the state and nature of Ross Creek in the vicinity of the Linda Court project site, the general contributions of riparian habitat to wildlife and the preservation of water quality, and the roles of creek and riparian setbacks. However, with the exception of opposing the proposed site plan's riparian setback, he does not raise any issues that have not already been discussed and addressed by the Town and the applicant. He does point out that the haphazard bank stabilization efforts on neighboring properties are likely contributing to bank erosion and continued instability of Ross Creek. But these observations are presented more as a general description of the degraded nature of Ross Creek and have little to do with the project which the Town is currently evaluating. With the possible exception of the riparian setback, Mr. Johmann has not raised any additional concerns regarding biological issues that require discussion in the context of a CEQA analysis. The primary biological resource issue raised by Mr. Johmann pertaining to the Linda Court project is that of the riparian setback. The Town and its consultants, the applicant's consultants, and representatives of the California Department of Fish and • Page 2 December 17, 2007 Game (Mr. Dave Johnston) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (Mr. Brian Wines) have reviewed the project design and commented at length on this issue. The mapping of the riparian dripline has been accepted by each party as being accurate and the proposed setback between the riparian zone and permanent structures has been approved by the regulatory agencies and Town staff. Mr. Johmann correctly points out that the Santa Clara County Water Resources Protection Collaborative's Guidelines and Standards recommends a riparian setback buffer. As pointed out in the letter from Geier & Geier (letter dated October 5, 2007, page 5, last paragraph) to the Town, riparian setbacks, as typically recommended by the CDFG, vary from as little as 10 feet to as much as 100 feet, depending on the context of the site. Again, the CDFG has reviewed the proposed project and the riparian setback, and has accepted the design as being appropriate from a biological and agency perspective. Mr. Johmann's insistence that there should be at least a 25 foot buffer from the outer dripline of the vegetation for passive activities and 50 feet for structures is well meaning, but does not necessarily consider the context of the property. Furthermore, the designation of a riparian setback by a regulatory agency does not necessarily mean that a project feature may not encroach upon that buffer zone; it merely means that mitigation would be required to allow such an encroachment. Another issue raised by Mr. Johmann concerns the location of the top of bank. From a regulatory perspective, the top of bank is indeed defined, consistent with the Guidelines and Standards as cited in his letter, as the stream boundary where a maiority of normal discharges and channel forming activities takes place. While I am not qualified to comment on the extent of any flood plain, the top of bank as shown on the site plans is consistent with determinations routinely made by the CDFG under the Lake and Streambed Alteration program (California Fish and Game Code §1600 et seq.). Mr. Johnston of the CDFG has concurred with this determination. I hope this provides additional clarification in regards to the issues raised by Mr. Johmann's comment letter. Sincerely, Michael Wood June 3, 2005 Mr. Terry McElroy 214 Almendra Avenue . Los Gatos, CA 95030 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION File: 30469 Ross Creek 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3686 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACIMILE (408) 266-0271 www.valleywater.org AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Subject: Lands of McElroy, Proposed Subdivision on Linda Avenue, Los Gatos, California Dear Mr. McElroy: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the subject site plan which was hand delivered on May 4, 2005. Ross Creek, a District flood control facility runs through the property and is adequate to convey the 100-year flood event. The District offers the following comments on the proposed site plan: 1. Placement of houses with rear yards which extend into Ross Creek creates responsibilities and liabilities which most home owners are not familiar with. Individual owners are responsible for embankment repairs, creek maintenance, and stream stewardship. Subdivisions adjacent to creeks should be carefully developed to protect natural resources and avoid situations where new home owners neither have the resources nor expertise to care for the waterway. Unless the District has property rights (fee title or easement), public funds cannot be utilized to correct problems which may occur.within or adjacent to the channel. 2. A redesign of the site should occur. A frontage road which runs parallel to the creek should be the primary ingress and egress to the subdivision. The roadway should not encroach into the riparian corridor and utilize a minimum setback as determined by a biologist but no less than 25 feet from the creek bank. Houses should be sited on the opposite side of.the road from the creek. Transmitted for your reference is the District's Streamside Planning Guidelines for residential site planning. 3. The proposed storm drain outlets for the site are not acceptable. Surface water discharge leads to erosion and stream bank failures. The site should tie into the Town of Los Gatos existing storm drain system or utilize a single outfall to Ross Creek. Enclosed for your reference are design guidelines and detail sheets for a rock slope outfall into an earth channel. Permits will be needed from several resource agencies for work in the creek including the Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The processing time from the acquisition of these permits should be considered in project planning. The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy,sofe_and_enhanced-quality-of_livingdn,Santo-Clara-County. through watershed i Mr. Terry McElroy Page 2 June 3, 2005 4. During the development review process with the Town of Los Gatos, the District will request that right of way over Ross Creek be dedicated for maintenance and flood protection purposes. This right of way can either be fee title or an easement. If the subdivision access roadway is intended to be private, a separate ingress and egress easement over the road should also be provided. 5. The estimated 100-year and 10-year flow rates for Ross Creek in this vicinity are 1,210 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 701 cfs, respectively. The estimated normal depth of flow for the 100-year event and the 10-year event are 4.6 feet and 3.5 feet, respectively. The District does not have specific elevations for these flood events. 6. Complete topography for the site development must be provided. Assumed elevations using a reference datum are not acceptable: Please use the Nation Geodetic Vertical Datum (1929) reference for all proposed grading and site improvements. Please reference District File No. 30469 on further correspondence regarding this matter. If you have any questions, or need further information, you can contact me at (408) 265-2607, 6~tension 2439. Sincerely, Vincent Stephens, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Community Projects Review Unit Enclosures cc: Ms. Sandy Bailey, Planning Department, Town of Los Gatos S. Tippets, C, Haggerty, V. Stephens, File (2) vs:jl 0602h-pl.doc Schaaf ' VTheele CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS James R. Schaaf, PE Kirk R. Wheeler, PE David A. Foote, PE Feder C. Jorgensen, PE Charles D. Anderson, PE, 100 N. Winchester Blvd., Suite 200 Santa Clara, CA 95050-6566 (408) 246-4848 FAX (408) 246-5624. S&Nvt?swsv.com offices in Monterey Ray Area Sacramento Sun Francisco December 17, 2007 Fletcher Parsons Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 Re: Linda Avenue Development Flood Conditions Dear Mr. Parsons; As per your request, we have reviewed the reports related to flooding and hydraulic conditions in Ross Creek you provided for the Linda Avenue development. These were the letter from Westfall Engineers, dated August 29, 2007, and the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District report, dated November 30, 2007, from Lawrence Johmann. For simplicity we refer to these as the Westfall and Johmann studies in our review. The intent of our review has been to evaluate the available information to define the 100-year floodplain through the project site. Westfall Study The Westfall study includes a hydraulic analysis based on the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) estimated 100-year flow rate of 1210 cfs and three cross sections within the project site. Based on the project plan and the cross section data, it appears that the cross sections were based on the site topographic map data. It is unclear whether the contours within the stream channel are representative of the channel area. The calculated 100-year floodplain extends 15 to 40 feet from the center of the channel. Johmann Study The Johmann study includes information on the history and configuration of the creek in general, hydrologic analysis of the Ross Creek stream gages, cross section data, and geomorphic evaluation of the stream conditions on the site. Two of the cross sections were within the project site, although it is not clear exactly where the sections were taken, and whether the survey ties to the project datum and elevations. It is also not clear whether the floodplain elevations and extents were based on cross section hydraulics or field indicators. The estimated 100-year floodplain extends 58 to 62 feet from the center of the channel. ATTACHMENT 37 Mr. Fletcher Parsons 2 December 17, 2007 FEMA Analysis Procedure Due to the limitations of the two studies, we estimated the 100-year floodplain extent again based on FEMA analysis procedures and new field cross sections surveyed by Westfall Engineers. Hydrology Ross Creek was studied using detailed methods downstream of the project site as part of the FEMA Flood Insurance Study for the City of San Jose. There is a published 100-year flowrate at Union Avenue of 1200 cfs for a drainage area of 4.0 square miles. The flowrates used in the study were based on a rainfall runoff model calibrated for most of the stream gage stations in the Bay Area. The model accounts for differences in mean annual precipitation, watershed area, and watershed slope and shape. The regional model methodology was used to estimate flows for engaged watersheds, and to avoid depending on individual stream gages which may have poor records or anomalous statistical results. Based on the USGS quadrangle map for the area, there is approximately 0.7 square miles of drainage area downstream of the Linda Avenue site to the Union Avenue crossing. Therefore, the District 100-year flow rate of 1210 cfs may be conservative compared to the FEMA estimate. Hydraulics The channel and floodplain were modeled using the Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS computer model. The new field cross sections were used. The average Mannings roughness factor- was estimated to be 0.050. The backwater calculations were started based on normal depth using the average channel slope from the new cross section data. The results of the hydraulic analysis are summarized below. Table 1 - 100-Year Water Surface Elevations Flow W.S. Vel Flow Top Wall Section Elev Chnl Area Width Elev (cfs) (ft) (ftts) (sq ft) (ft) (ft) Lot 4 1210 320.43 5.6 259.52 70.24 320.5 Lot 3 1210 317.31 7.95 152.11 33.31 319.0 Lot 1 1210 315.34 7.3 196.00 83,87 316.0 The results of the hydraulic analysis show that the calculated water surface elevations are below the elevation of the bottom of the proposed retaining wall at the back of the building lots. Therefore, the wall will not encroach into the 100-year floodplain area. Cross Sections Attached is a plot of the modeled cross sections with the calculated 100-year water surface elevations. Mr. Fletcher Parsons December 17, 2007 Also attached are plots of the new Westfall and Johmann cross sections at Lots 1 and 4 at the same scales. The horizontal distances for the Johmann cross sections were adjusted to get a best tit for the channel area. Based on these plots, the two sets of cross sections are very similar. The Johmann cross section is larger in the channel at Lot 1, but higher in the south overbank. At Lot 4, the Johmann cross section show a deeper channel section, but very similar overbank elevations. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, SCHAAF& WHEELER Kirk R. Wheeler, PE Principal n SS t.; lo. 309 5 e'p OF Linda Ave Plan: Plan 03 12/17/2007 Lot 1 322 320 318 c 0 m 01 w 316 314- 312 -40 i~ -20 ?s- ■ 0 20 40 60 Station (ft) Linda Ave Plan: Plan 03 12/17/2007 Lot 3 318- 316- c 0 m 3141 w 312 i 310 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 Station (ft) Linda Ave Plan: Plan 03 12/17/2007 Lot 4 318 Legend WS PF 1 Ground 0 Bank Sta 1 80 legend WSPF1 Ground 0 Bank Sta 80 Legend f WS PF 1 ■ Ground Bank Sta 20 40 60 Y L T ~ o ~ J O O O O U7 O NT O M O N m c N O ~ O O r O N O M i O CO co O O M M M M co co M co (U) U014BA913 O U 0 U) J N O w O O O LO O ,It O Ch a~ O N ~ N 0 O O O O N O M O O M cli N co - M - OM (4) U0118AG13 j4 wN 0 MEETING DATE: 12/1712007 ITEM NO: /^J rOS~atos COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: December 11, 2007 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PAMELA JACOBS, INTERIM TOWN MANAGER/ SUBJECT: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM R-1:8 TO R-1:8:PD FOR A SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION, FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS ZONED R-1:8 AND APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. APNS 523-25-020 AND 036 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-05-02, ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-06-050 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-07-07. PROPERTY LOCATION: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE OWNERS: JENNIFER DEN DAAS AND DAN BLUE APPLICANT: LINDA COURT PARTNERS RECOMMENDATION: 1. Accept report in the form of meeting minutes from the Planning Commission for the meeting of October 10, 2007 regarding a Planned Development at 15881 Linda Avenue and a portion of 15950 Stephenie Lane (Attachment 16) (motion required); 2. Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony; 3. Close the public hearing; 4. Make the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 20) (motion required); 5. Make the required findings (Attachment 19) (motion required); 6. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 21) (motion required); 7. Direct the Clerk to read the title of the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 23) (no motion required); 8. Move to waive the reading of the Planned Development Ordinance (Attachment 23) (motion required); 9. Introduce the Ordinance to effectuate Planned Development Application PD-04-5 and the zone change (Attachment 23) (motion required); PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ , DIRECTOR OF COMMUNIT DEVELOPMENT N:ADEV\CNCLRPTS\2007\Linda15881.doc Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE December 11, 2007 10. Approve the Architecture and Site application subject to conditions (Attachment 22), (motion required). DISCUSSION: 1. Proiect Summary The project consists of two parcels zoned R-1:8. The Linda Avenue parcel contains 1.45 acres and the Stephenie Lane parcel contains 1.8 acres, totaling 3.25 acres. The applicant proposes to rezone 2.31 acres to R-1:8:PD and adjust the property line to leave the remainder piece of .94 acres to the current property owner who has access from Stephenie Lane. The property proposed to be developed contains a 2,210 square foot single family residence and an unpermitted detached second dwelling unit. The applicant proposes to demolish all structures on the lot. According to the applicant, the existing residence is in good condition. Findings are required to approve the demolition of the residence (Attachment 19). Access to the site is from Linda Avenue. The property abuts Ross Creek. As part of the Planned Development (PD), the applicant proposes to subdivide the 2.31 acres parcel into seven market rate single family residential lots. The applicant proposes to pay into the Below Market Price (BMP) program instead of providing a BMP unit, as allowed by Town Code for projects of five to nine units. The General Plan designation of the site is Low Density Residential, 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The density of the PD project is calculated based on gross lot area, excluding the riparian corridor. At the request of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), a ten foot buffer from the driplines of the trees to remain along the creek (7,195 square feet) has been provided. This buffer is an added protection area. In order to compare neighborhood densities, staff has provided the following calculations. The density of the proposed project noted in the calculations below includes two comparisons, with and without the tree dripline buffer area requested by CDFG. DENSITY Includes street Excludes Street Linda Ave and Rochin Ter/Ct Neighborhood* 3.39 units per acre 4.04 units per acre Linda Ave Neighborhood 2.81 units per acre 3.39 units per acre Proposed project without 10 ft tree driline buffer 3.45 units per acre 3.85 units per acre Proposed project with 10 ft tree dri line buffer 3.74 units per acre 4.24 units per acre *Densities do not take into account any riparian corridor areas that may be on Rochin Terrace and Court properties. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE December 11, 2007 • Architecture and Site - The proposed single family homes will consist of seven two story residences ranging in size from 2,450 to 3,433 square feet. The lots will range in size from 8,041 to 13,040 square feet (excluding sidewalks and parking turnouts). The houses will have a maximum height of 30 feet. Staff and the Town's Consulting Architect reviewed the plans and concluded that the houses are well designed. Due to the design of the project and the lot's isolation and topography, the proposed houses will fit with the existing neighborhood. The Consulting Architect recommended that the garages on Lots 1 and 2 be deeply recessed which has been included as a performance standard in the draft PD Ordinance. Although conceptual building elevations are required as part of a PD, the applicant has provided detailed architectural plans. Since detailed plans have been filed, the draft PD Ordinance allows the Development Review Committee to approve the subdivision map and the Architecture and Site applications. The standard 300 foot notice will be provided for these applications and a public hearing will be conducted. Project Conformance - As part of the proposed PD, the applicant is proposing to reduce the standard residential public street width of 36 feet to a private street width of 22 feet. At a Planning Commission study session, the street width was discussed and at that time, the consensus of the Commission was that the narrower street was the best solution to reduce the amount of impervious coverage. In addition, a narrower street width at the entrance to the subdivision is necessary due to the amount of Linda Avenue lot frontage that is available. The applicant is also requesting to reduce the typical R-1:8 side setback of eight feet to five feet for one side of Lot 4. The justification for this reduction is that the CDFG requested that the proposed footprint of the house be pushed 10 feet towards the front of the lot to create a buffer from the tree driplines. The applicant complied with this request which resulted in reducing one of the side year setbacks. • Story Poles - The applicant worked with Town staff to determine where story poles should be installed. Story poles have been installed on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. The story poles on Lot 4 reflect the footprint of the house prior to CDFG's on-site inspection of the property and have not been relocated to reflect the modified location as shown on the development plans. 2. Planning Commission The Planning Commission first considered this matter on July 11, 2007. Due to the late hour of that meeting, the public testimony was still in process when the matter was continued. The Planning Commission continued hearing new public testimony at their meeting of August 22, 2007. The Commission continued the matter to allow Town staff and the Town's Environmental Consultant time to review and respond to the environmental and flooding information provided by the public at the public hearing. The Commission closed the public hearing except for the PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE December 11, 2007 sole purpose of allowing staff to review and report back to the Planning Commission regarding the additional environmental information provided at the hearing and to allow the project proponent to submit a response. On September 26, 2007, the Commission continued the matter without any discussion to allow additional time to finalize the analysis. On October 10, 2007, the Commission forwarded the matter to Town Council with a recommendation for approval on a five to one vote with comments discussed in the next section of this report. If Council concurs with any of these comments, they will need to be incorporated in the PD Ordinance (Attachment 23). • Impervious Surface - Commission Comment: One Commissioner commented that the amount of impervious surface in the backyards of the houses facing the creek shall be limited to only what is required for pedestrian circulation. Staff Note: No comment. • Architecture and Site Approval Process - Commission Comment: The Planning Commission unanimously concurred that the Commission shall be the deciding body for the Architecture and Site applications, not the Development Review Committee. Staff Note: Although conceptual building elevations are required as part of a PD, the applicant has provided detailed architectural plans. Since detailed plans have been filed, the PD allows the Development Review Committee to approve the Architecture and Site applications. The Planning Commission had no comments or directions to the applicant or staff regarding the architecture. Since the only architectural change, to recess the garages on Lots 1 and 2, was recommended by the Consulting Architect, staff believes the DRC can approve the Architecture and Site applications in a noticed public hearing. • Creek Standards - Commission Comment: Town Council should "pay close attention" to the new Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams regarding building activity near streams when taking an action on this application. Staff Note: One Commissioner had a concern that a garden wall was considered a structure and should not be within the 25 foot setback of the creek bank. A performance standard of the PD reduced the height of the wall to less than four feet. Garden walls do not require a building permit and staff interpreted that garden walls are consistent with the Guidelines and Standards. • Community Benefit - Commission Comment: One Commissioner commented that as part of the community benefit of improving Blossom Hill Road, the applicant shall look into the possibility of incorporating bike lanes so there is a safer bike route for children riding their bikes to school. PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE December 11, 2007 Staff Note: The applicant is offering as a community benefit to make improvements at the intersection of Linda Avenue and Blossom Hill Road. A left turn pocket is proposed to be installed on Blossom Hill Road to turn onto Linda Avenue and Old Blossom Hill Road. There is currently adequate room available to accommodate a bike lane at this intersection. However, staff has determined that at this time, a bike lane at this intersection should not be installed since there is not adequate room for bikes to travel safely eastbound on Blossom Hill Road due to the narrow road width. Future plans are to obtain road dedications between Union and Linda Avenues to accommodate a bike lane. • Visibility Mitigation Measure - Commission Comment: One Commissioner stated that measure three in Performance Standard 21 of the Draft PD Ordinance (Attachment 23), should not be an alternative. Staff Note: This is a required environmental mitigation measure for the project and cannot be eliminated. The Town's Environmental Consultant provided three alternative measures to minimize visibility of the proposed house on Lot 1 from the existing house at 15900 Rochin Terrace. Alternative measure 3, allows the applicant to offer a planting of buffer trees on the adjacent parcel at 15900 Rochin Terrace. Staff concurs that this is the least preferred alternative. The performance standard clearly states that the measures to minimize visibility are in order of preference, and measure 3 is listed as the last alternative. 3. Staff Comments Based on discussion at the Planning Commission public hearings, Town staff recommended the changes discussed below to the Commission at their meeting of October 10, 2007. The Commission concurred with these changes which have been incorporated as performance standards of the draft PD Ordinance (Attachment 23). These changes will be implemented during the Subdivision and Architecture and Site application processes if the project is approved. • Relocation of the bioswales - Staff is recommending that the bioswales be relocated outside of the riparian buffer zones to minimize disturbance to the riparian area. Relocation of rear property lines along the creek - Staff recommends that the rear property lines of the properties along the creek align with the proposed garden wall. By making the garden wall the property line boundary, it would be clear to the property owner that anything beyond the wall cannot be improved and is common area. In addition, the Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintaining this area, as opposed to the individual homeowners. This recommendation will not change the proposed house locations, enlarges the common area while reducing the lot sizes and the rear setback. Staff believes this meets the purpose of a Planned Development to modify development standards to obtain a better project. The applicant is opposed to this recommendation. PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE December 11, 2007 • Garden wall extension - To implement staff's goal to define the limits of development along the creek, it is recommended that the garden walls be extended along the entire length of the properties along the creek. These walls will define the rear setback boundary as discussed above. Elimination of fence and stairs beyond garden walls - The current plans propose a side property line fence and stairs down towards the creek to the currently proposed rear property line. Making the garden walls the rear property line, the fences and stairs beyond the garden walls are no longer needed and should be removed. The applicant opposes this recommendation. 4. Additional Submittals Attached is additional correspondence received from the applicant, two neighbors, and a report from the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District (GCRCD) regarding Ross Creek (Attachments 24 through 30). The report from the GCRCD was recently submitted and staff has directed the Town's hydrologic/hydraulic consultant to review the report by Monday prior to the hearing. The consultant's findings will be presented at the meeting. The GCRCD is a public agency and is authorized and directed to conduct research in and to advise and assist public agencies and private individuals in land use planning, pollution control, recreation, water quality, and the conservation of soil, water, woodlands, wildlife and other natural resources. CONCLUSION: The most significant issues raised during the public hearings on this matter are discussed below with staff's comment. • Initial Study is inadequate. See the analysis in the report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of October 10, 2007 (Attachment 14) which concludes that the Initial Study for this project is consistent with CEQA. The proposed homes will be subject to flooding from Ross Creek. The proposed development will not be impacted by 100 year flood events. Staff determined that both the sanitary sewer and the proposed bioswales are outside of the flood plain for the 100- year flood. The finished floor elevations for the proposed houses on Lots 1, 3 and 4 would be approximately six, 12 and 11 feet above the anticipated flood flows for the 100- year storm on Ross Creek. Based on the calculated elevations for the 100-year flood, the proposed walls for Lots 1 through 4 will also be outside of the 100 year flood flows. A review of the photographs submitted by the neighbors shows that depths of flows is consistent with the depth of calculated flows indicated in the revised flood analysis. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action, a neighbor questioned if the Town's Flood Hazard Administrator has reviewed the project pursuant to Article IX of Chapter PAGE 7 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE December 11, 2007 20 of the Town Code. The Director of Parks and Public Works is the Flood Hazard Administrator and is also a member of the Development Review Committee. Therefore, the Director has been part of the review process since the filing of the application. • Houses shall not back up to the creek and a road should be placed next to the creek. In order to install a road along the creek, significant grading and taller retaining walls would be required and there would be additional tree removals. In addition, the applicant originally proposed to construct a public trail/open space area along the creek which the neighbors opposed and was therefore removed from the plans. Concerns with the project's impact on the riparian corridor. A representative from CDFG reviewed the arborist reports and visited the site on numerous occasions and concurred with the arborist's findings regarding the trees to be removed in the riparian corridor. Recommendations made by CDFG have been incorporated in the project. A representative from the Regional Water Quality Control Board also inspected the site and concurred with the setbacks recommended by CDFG (which are incorporated in the project) and that the impacts can be adequately mitigated. Santa Clara Valley Water District has also commented in emails that they are "comfortable with what has been proposed" and that their comments can be worked out at a later date after the Planning Commission takes an action on the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposal. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Previously Submitted to Town Council: 1. Report to the Planning Commission and Desk Item Report for the Study Session of July 12, 2006. 2. Planning Commission minutes of July 12, 2006. 3. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of July 11, 2007. 4. Addendum Report for the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2007. 5. Desk Item Report for the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2007. 6. Power point presentation by neighbors for the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2007. 7. Public submittals for the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2007. Letter from Babette Britton. Petition. Photograph of Story Poles. 8. Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of July 11, 2007. 9. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 22, 2007. PAGE 8 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND 15950 STEPHENIE December 11, 2007 10. Desk Item Report for the Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 2007. 11. Public submittals for the Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 2007. Letter from Ross Creek Neighbors Association. Letter from Andy and Lori Orion. Copy of 2005 letter from SCVWD. Handout regarding Los Gatos' Conservation Policy. Article regarding "Deferred Mitigation" under CEQA. Conservation Ecological Evaluation by Verna Jigour. Handout regarding compliance with General Plan and Applicable Specific Plans. 12. Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of August 22, 2007. 13. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of September 26, 2007. 14. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of October 10, 2007. 15. Desk Item Report for the Planning Commission meeting of October 10, 2007. 16. Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of October 10, 2007. 17. Letter with attachments from Andrew and Lori Orion (12 pages), received September 20, 2007. 18. Letter from David Crites (two pages), received November 7, 2007. New Submittals: 19. Required Findings 20. Mitigated Negative Declaration 21. Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 22. Conditions of approval for the Architecture and Site application. 23. Draft Planned Development Ordinance (including zone change map and development plans received June 28, 2007). 24. Ross Creek Report, received December 10, 2007. 25. Letter from Terry McElroy (seven pages), received December 10, 2007 26. Email from David Crites (one page), received December 11, 2007. 27. Letter from Terry McElroy (five pages), received December 12, 2007. 28. Letter from Erin and Susan Garner (two pages), received December 12, 2007. 29. Handouts provided by a neighbor (three pages), received December 12, 2007. 30. Email from B. Juan (one page), received December 12, 2007. Distribution: Linda Court Partners, 214 Almendra Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dan Blue, 15950 Stephenie Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95032 BNL:RT:SLB:mdc REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 15881 Linda Avenue and 15950 Stephenie Lane Planned Development Application PD-05-02 Architecture and Site Application 5-06-050 Negative Declaration ND-07-07 Requesting approval to change the zone from R-1:8 to R-1:8:PD for a seven lot subdivision, for a lot line adjustment between two parcels zoned R-1:8 and approval to demolish a single family residence. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APNS 523-25-020 and 036 PROPERTY OWNERS: Jennifer Den Daas and Dan Blue APPLICANT: Linda Court Partners FINDINGS ■ That the zone change is consistent with the General Plan. ■ As required by the Town's Traffic Policy for a community benefit. Projects that generate additional traffic of five or more peak hour trips may only be recommended for approval if the project's benefits to the community override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections of the General Plan and/or any Specific Plan. If a project generates additional traffic of five or more peak hour trips the burden is on the applicant to cite economic or housing benefits to the Town and/or specific sections of the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan that demonstrate the project's benefit to the Community which outweighs the traffic impact. The deciding body must make specific findings which demonstrate that the benefit(s) of the project outweigh the impact in order to approve the project. ■ 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. 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. ATTACHMENT 19 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. ■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence. In architecture and site approval proceedings, the deciding body shall consider: 1. Maintaining the Town's housing stock. 2. Preservation of historically or architecturally significant buildings or structures. 3. Property owner's desire or capacity to maintain the structure. 4. Economic utility of the building or structure. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\hnda 15881.doc Z J a z O t z m z O C 0 0 N L L d .Q O V 0 W Q D O O O tC O ad N 0 LO O a d 7 C d Q C J co co O V O L. 0 0 0 E U) L En L r c c O O O O N ° N O O . ~ N 0 0 Q 0 0 Q O O Q O ~ E FD E o E N U U U 0 C O i+ U cn O U) O cn 0 o° 0 0 ° o o 0 0 •L •fl c- ° L 'O Q O ` 'p Q C O c Q C Q u C Q o CU o O I.L LL c G C N•- 0 E _0 D C m C 'O V C -o E V C L Q U 7 N C= N U U a) O= M tti f o E 2> E N tn ca Z O O U E Q U ° O 0 O U) (D 0 (Q O N 0 C o ( II C ° E - Q c 3 (B N C O (n 0 -0 y 0 a E a c L U o > i ° c - o aS M o o 'o c U - C U c v 0 c > • 0 L ° p 0° O O t0 Z 0 O L ~ O O ~ o E cn 3.~o EQ E o) ° W c E U a° CO " a) 0 E (6 m Q o O o a~ U) m > O E > n O M c ca. C-- ~ M O cr- 'o c ° a) O O t~ N > E > S c O c 0 '0 dj N C U c' L)" > ° L C o Z a > c O o° Q C7 U) -C N Q C > N 3 0 Q V O O d cv N ca E O to = c6 p),o M O) 'C o C(n o U 0 o ~ O o Lo =1 c -0 N O E c 75 . O C O N o O E N O m 7 E E L U O -0 E U 0 C O V1 U u) O C 6 o U L O w c t L -c L L• L o o Lo -0 a o u t6 'S O U N ` - E a) E O ° 0 M C L -O ct c 0 0 0 M C L fn 0) 0 a) u) i y O U O = O o c O O > U o 0 co ' C U) a) C: C O o U (6 -o N O L p N C C C N 0 0 0 0 0 Q C L r p~ ~ 0 .0 D m Q N a) (O O J- Q N O E t- 0 ~M U7 'L O CO Q) 00 O L C1 O N 0 O N L C v= L E N O O N ~ Uo t6 (9 * U-a- L="O m O m < -0 ~N U) U) V V V D 7 7 L) 0) E _ L ~ tC L 7Ej 5 U U U 00 00 LO m a C C ° Y E Z Q W 5 W Z co 0 ATTACHMENT 20 Z J CL z O z O m Z O F- ti O O N L a) O V O w O O Ln O ca O N O 6 9 0 a a) C d Q tC C J co co LO T a) 'o CL` O O ` O L ✓ 0 ° 0 0 ~ ~ •i-+ C O C O a) co a O C N a) m a E ` Z) ' i= o o c c c C a c c C c a U (n L ~ (n L - O7-o - m-0 a C E C C L) E O c a ~ E O a E O 0 N ° U Q ° U ° W U y p ~ 0 c O u (n o > 4- o > O > a) c a o m o -c o ° o -0 o o L a :3 a o a 0 aom o m a-om C n, U U (D U O C = a L L (z 0 Q) " •D Q] a) O L : CO c -0 ° Y E O C Z -o O O m 3 i o u = o U a) a) ° E m Cu i 0 U) c ~0 m 0 4- ) C o a) p o a L) -c _ o ' ~ . Q N a- U o m N c o i ~ a) a~ m a a) o a) ai ~ a ti C U O Q V 0 C O O m i O a) O E c u o •O ° m c C c0 a cn a 'c -C o 3 'o U 0 0) (D N c0 a "C O t0 Q a) o O N C O (6 O (6 p E O O C s L N U) 7 O L E C a L a L O to ° i O U O Y Q) p N LO T c c c LO a) L L E a) °-r a) N " (6 N '6 -0 y U in Q O m O C (n m O C y a O a) U O - a g C C C a) C 0) 'm O O U O co to Q) -,.,e a) o 0) r- O E N o ° ~ o - . C a) Q U) m - a 0 V) N c~ a) (M•'n O L L Y a) O N (Lf ~N O 0 - c C C a c ft3 0-0 O m- L O U) L U) C) 0 0 O 0) 0 0 .0- ° N O L N • 1-6 C 2 c6 a) - c - U) 76 (D •V a) C ' (6 • ` O C a) C O j a) O t~3 E U E m M c c 2:1 > ° o L , ~ E c a c (D O ° Q- E- L a) c E :E- c~ v a) > c w 0 o O L>- U -6 'E O L a) O O a C - -0 -0 O f- - a) O -0 Z rn CD -0 a) 0--o r- Q) N M m .L C~ Y 0 a > O N O a) O) a) > C O C -0 =3 0 C- U O O CD Q L C -C O W U t0 (0 O - Q) O L O N to (6 7 ~ C O U) _ C O O O- a Q v. O L O -0 40-0 c - Ln in O - co O E '6 co o N a) V Q N V ` p V ` p E 0 U C - ) O d O m co w m 75 U 00 C 'c O 01 E Z U) w Z co 0 N Z J CL Z O F_ Z O 2 z _O I- F- 0 0 N L a) O U W Q 0 O LO O ca 0 cn ad N 0 LO O 0 0. d c d Q C J O O Lo r V d •O aL L o E o > a> C o U (II Q O c O) F N "O 'p c 0 U O a o •y aci c E c c O Q v E o O Q c 0 a rn o > O L L -0 a O o O O U ~ O C U N O N O 'C3 O_ O a c ` U rn Q O 0 C UO m ` 0-2 tts O O « c 'o O N v O `t- > O . C. to c c (II O ` O O O` U N (D Y L L 0 LO c C O a) J a) 0 U (n o. a) c a Q 0 n s c to V C 0 m U c Ur a) 0 3 a) c 0 0 O CLL o 0 E o c E o c-0 U c'C c a? p .E cn O vi O O -0 g N c n Q E a O m e L = o O m Q ~ o cn U o 0 3 D" oar 3~ a co o ~w cc, r ~ oc o ,E o c 00LO (6 c U (n (nj U) L c O c C _ O m o a ~ c Y Y Y (DO M :3 M Y Q) to MO CL 0) 1 to 2c L i U > coc- a) O 0 0 O .0 Oc c O m U O v0i O c co a) p E O O U O C Q ~ 0 to Y to v 3~ to a) ~ c 0 a) O c o O ' ~ N U c o DL c % o o o o E o a i 'o M o Q 0 0 'c U n U U 3 3 ° U o ct) o c E a) a) E 0 o o > 0 v o Em(D~(0CD~ ~ O rn~~ es E E C - o ° F `-N F - aci cd 3~ ~ - N U _V V O CL E O O m ~ co co LO c C O E 5z 0 Z Q W 0 Z 00 O Cl) Z J a Z O H Z O Z _O H 'an V_ G O O N L Q) .a O U O W Q O L O m 0 Ch 06 N 0 Lh O 0 CL d C d Q C J O O r V d .O Q. rn c F T . y C O Q Q) C O w U Q C O O O Q) ~ o) C L U) O C C = o to -O E N (nQ) ° t0 ~ O _0 t- O N Q) v- L C ' X i O C O U L O _ tiS C Q) Q) U M O C O O a) C U O C 0-C ~ 0 E p o a t6 O ~ v, ~ ~ U a) 0 L O U L L ~ ~ C Q) c~ 0) O Q Q Q) (0 a :3 Cco O a N M Qj c0 Q (`6 0 c O O Q) , O -0 E Q) h-- : Q U W Q) C C 0 O Q) -0 O O C Q) 0 N O U -0 U C ~ C O O C O cp Co Q C 0 Co NO m_ in C c CO L L C c0 Q Co CU ` C O O Cl tB O O -C 'V ~ C C C O U C Q (0 Q C 0 _ 0 C co 0 4) 6 -C Ca. ~ C O o r o 0 a) Q) R3 U U O) J o C z C N m 0 C c o n c a) L _ L O C 0 o 0 0 U CL Q) Z' O O 3 N 0 - O ° 0 o a i - o 0 v i in U 0 0 Q O Q) 0 ~ ~ Q) N O V 0 L (D >1 M O M 0 U '0 a~ 0) . -m _ C CL N -o E L >1 E N U 0 C c co ~ 0- (D co 'C N o C 0 -O o.o c~ E ( 6 0 o'~ -0 0()~ o M C 0 (1) (10 co Q) 4- t6 _ ( 0 O~ O O ' w O a u) 0 ) " Q) E L) 0 0 S-0 > W U) ~ c~ N c O` O O 0 Co c O 0 0 0 0¢ / .c 0 ~ U tq L V) o m o - 0 co a OU _ 3 L J (0 to cD L Q) 0 O U m O. E 00 00 LO O 70 c c 0 .1~ 0) E 0 z Q S W 0 Z co O ,'I' Z J a _Z Z Z 1-- H n 0 0 N ~t9 a) O V W Q 0 O LO O t0 O W N O Ln O 0 a m C a) Q C J co t" Ln r V a) O a` ~ 7-0 C U 0 O co O_ f- O U U O _ C O a) = a o D Q. U E o O D E Q) a W 0 U a) C O O V Q O C > CD 0 O tT O m C O U o fn N 0 O >i U .L C O L to p m to ` 3: a) - N E 'F W m = 3 d ~ to 0 3: N cn O- O O C to a) a) O O (6 > 0 0 0 00 .a co n F- 3 U C Co C a) p 0 C N N co to y C O E O ~ O Q) cSS t6 E O C r_ Q L C O O a~ m (D 0 U) -0 (B Q) O - O O cn C fB ti) aJ C .E 3 E co Q 0 c d m - co 0 0) O a- 0) 00 0 C: U) O C) ~ L O co O U a) U ~ ` t n ( : c: Ui O O Y O a U v s (0 N O _ U) O W L v- -4-- - O U E. O U 0 C a) O rn C O tB > U a ; a) C O (D L _ y s 0 O ~ O~ W O 6 3 0 a C a v a L m -r- cn o a J c: E U O C Q O a) " 0 0 U a) O Y v O 'a O-0 -C c6d O E o Q) C N ~ o C a) CL _0 0 3 o_ x 3 c coo a) -O a ) 3 i a " E 0 -m to 4) a) Y L C 0) a) U t0 Q O) > -F C O a) -r- L U O n t0 w_ U) U C) V • td p) ` O Q E O O _ _ 0) m ~ 00 LO ca C c O cz E r) Z Q S W 0 Z co O LO Z J a Z O F_ Z O Z O Q H .L ti 0 O N 6j) d O U W Q 0 O LO O O N O LO 0 0 a d c d Q m C J 00 O LO r V O O CL -c '0 O O O. c " ' (Q c C cz - a) c t0 c U c v- tB • p a LO U .C a O U .c U W Q c 0 U . U O 0 N U D O 0 a) O - c O 0 c O a) c ~E ~ E O a 2 CL O ^ ^ll L E ^O` E N ^O' E O N. p N U Q p U O N U 0 0 c 0 cu cu V) o > U) O > U) 0 > c -00 a) O -00 a) o •00 a) O o _0 a c c a _0 a c a o a .0 c a c o ca o m o ca 0 - -0 ~ ~ - Q E m c O N m -0 U) > U) CU N _ c C: -2 0 c m m o f a o a~ E a) > 0 a 0 ° •Fn a c ku a co a) M N 3 Q c . a i c Q. ~ C o c o 0 a) U c a L c > •C E (0 a) cv N c ca c a> U O- 0 a LL O)w U> p O Q 0` U c o - f- CO 0 O a) C N U ) ~ X> a. O m~ U ~ ,0 m p E c 0 a O a c6 ~ > tB U>~ O t~ ~p ` N C a) Q Q ° ° N p 0) a) U) cu U) m v m a) ate U) U) c -'.4 , Ens a) m O •L c •5 p Q) ~ L) ' ^ m m -C Y _ CL C: W W O W L _ > W U 0) v, M C: 0-0 c o f U 0 0) m N v 0 ca > .X N E -0 a) a) c 'c a 3 CL L U t0 U) i) E w c a) m 0 0 c (0 a) O a) a) c co > a a) o Q c N c U c >,.C ) Q 0 v ca o p 5 :.2) c 0 N a) c N E a c m !E o o _0 a) o 70 U) c c r (o co - o a) o N U 0 U c Q U-0 U C m ° o O U Q N V N L 0 0 O Q E 0 0 O 0 O (n 0 _ O N i co m m co co Lo m c C O O7 E O Z U) w 0 Z co 0 Q0 Z J CL z O F_- Z O m z O N 9 f - C) 0 N Ln d O V W Q 0 0 LO a (0 ,,0 V/ N 0 LA; O 0 a d O C a) Q ca C J r co co LO r U a) O aL E p) o E c O o a) c o o C (a ` a) a U ` a) a Q O C 0)'o N L (6 S; - O 0) L cu C F- U .0 U C p a O_0 C C a O O d O (n 0 O ) _ 0Y C 0 C>O fl ` E L c E O C c a E O o c a U E O - U E E O O U Q ~ U Q m c O < N o > N O cu > N O > a~ c o o o -00 O m:~ -co O o~ _ c _ 0 a c _ L "O 0- c 0 c a c a c a L L O . . C G Q) O C - O N o L a) co oQ)NNO~ E ' N .C N O Q C- a N (n N N a N a) 0 0) - O O 3 M U a > (n Co N U c .C O -C U) `C O) .C •a) N C N C ° vi (0 u " L O o C- Q C C O ( C 0 0 U C: m 0 U -a c L a) ~ O a . 0 _O Q) -0 L m a) m 52 Q) E C E O o p N 0 C .0) N N C • =3 a) N O a) F- i~ a) E C Q E N O . N o U c E O O > .C d' o o V c C= C: C (D m O o C S C = O) L N M O U a) C t~ O O -0 O CO N 0 O > N > N ,N F- Y o C 4- c N a i 0 4- 0 Q) O co o a p p -0 ti 0 a N N p E o N O m U a M y O 0 E Q c 2> O m~ ' m Q) Q c N a~ O) a . - N O a p t0 N a) U c E N a) c E a) - ' ` ~ L N (0 O Co - N m E O N Y M m E . L a) 0 N O) O) O C U C C C L -0 > a E a) t0 M C a) c N -C N Q cn LL < O •U O O C N - 0 C (n U) - L) C U a) o c U O N o " C _ a) 'O f ns o o c O L a) 0 a O E p O) O OL C-Q m a) _0 c o Z 0) 5 aE,~ C O a) O a) Q C O p _O a O E O a) O 0) t~ O ~ U F a 3 F- 0 . o F- 0) Q U (n .E E c~ w O U) N N V m L c O Q O O O O 4 m~ m O O d co co is c c O O7 M Z Q W 0 Z co 0 rl- Z J a Z O Z O Z 0 0 0 N L d O V W Q (D LO 0 ca 0 Ch N 0 O 0 a d Q C J r aD co U) O a C c c c m O U 4- _0 O U 4- -0 L' = L O C 0 0) 0) C w O 0) E C) O c 0) a) m c CL :3 - r co C: C, CL = :6 O U U) rn O U to to 7+ O O w- C O"= O y C O a) L c E L E L E L c E C :3 CL E o 0 D DL E :3 0- E 0 = 0- E O a) E a) o E a) o E a) o E Z O> U O> U O> U Q O> U y ~ ~ ~ p C O O ~ O U Q O cn c (B cn O c (a U) O c (6 O c (0 C O O> a) - O O O> O O O> a) - O O O> Q) O O Q c~ a 07 0- 07 C6 O m O (Lf O (6 U O CC Q' a) a) a) O 0) N O N NJ-- mo-cw N x (1) C O M :3 0 - > co O 0 ~ O L O N a) . O a) - cn c g E o O t0 c 0 0 N 4' o o a ) -0 a) 0) o~ W 0~ o 0 - ~ '0 0) L - 0cn ) 0 U) o co 0 O O U+ O 'O L O O Lo N O1 c (B C to a O U U N O O' N O c a) Z 0 U C o rn to U O x 'a C~ m O m o E L a) o p) C O . 4_ O O O 0 Co O -Fz Q a o 0 CZ > Q O co C: tCS a. L O a) a ' O O O , O O) C 0) 0 N 0 U ~ ~ U) C O C C~ N . c N -0 O N C 0 0 O E c O o 0 _ U) O C O O U to O U) 4- U . O > t"C O O n -0 0 t 0 a O E ' 3 N Q L) 0 .0 O L71 O O O O (i3 N to O O O N O O C O a) O N - tQ O a) N r O O w O C o~r t0 O c N f Q O O E_ 7 00 ~ N N o 0)o .O c c n O_ -0 'M O vi O ~D aoQ ~o oQ= avi~ c - N o a) m N c c J N o L c N c E o c~ i w L o O_ to M •Q ~ O 4... M 0 N t6 U O O M 0 0 C U O N O a) 0 -0 :3 c` m O O O N O a) ' O j N ~ Q) i x a t6 p U N_0 0 a) O N V L C) 0) o ° E o t o f o c U Co o a te -0 70 N m O a) - E c a 0 o U") ) -C - N -o Q (D 0 o o 0 E au) ° o N L O m o E c " ° 0 L Q~ V7 O, 0 N O C Q Cn Q) c 0 O C 0 :3 a) L a) Lo. 0) cu a) o a) U L - t o a) c a) 75 c c m CL ` C ' L = -0 o o _O co O D N > o - - CO a) c 0. a E Q 0 O > t0 O_ -1 a -0 a) w Q. Q w E- N 0 N to Q ~ co ° -0 I- U -0 N 0 C 0 d N to G m CL (n L E U) Z tv C t C C Q m "a L = tC = t C 2 = co 00 LO C 'c O O) E Z VJ W 0 Z 00 O 00 NOTICE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION e~sz., ru,. Lead Agency: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department MAR 1 3 200 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 TOWN OF LOS ~,Ik T, S Project Title and PLANNING DNi" 11 4 Location: 15881 Linda Court and 15950 Stephenie Lane (APN 523-25-020,523-25-036) Planned Development Application PD-05-02 Architecture and Site Application S-06-050 Project Description: The 2.32-acre project site is comprised of two parcels situated at the north ends of Linda Avenue and Stephenie Lane. The western parcel (APN 523-25-036) is located at the end of Stephenie Lane and adjoins the eastern parcel (APN 523-25-020) on the western parcel's northeastern boundary. The western parcel encompasses approximately 1.8 acres; the proposed lot line adjustment would combine the northern, 0.87-acre portion of this parcel with the eastern parcel to form the project site. The northern portion of the Stephenie Lane parcel is vacant, while the southern part of the parcel contains a house and other improvements. The improved southern portion of the western parcel is not a part of the project. The eastern parcel is located at the end.of Linda Avenue, which parallels Stephenie Lane to the west. The Linda Avenue parcel presently contains one single-family. residence and a cottage. Combined, the two parcels constitute a total parcel area of 100,927 square feet (s.f.). The project applicant is requesting approval of Planned Development and Architecture and Site applications for: (1) approval to change the zone from R-1:8 to R-1:8:PD for a seven-lot subdivision; (2) a lot line adjustment between the two parcels zoned R-1:8; and (3) approval to demolish a single-family residence. The demolition of the existing residence on the site would accommodate a new roadway and seven residential lots, increasing the number of residences on the project site. Access to the proposed residential lots would be through the extension of Linda Avenue onto the project site to form a cul-de-sac. The proposed project would create seven residential lots, a common area, and appropriate access facilities on the project site. The northern perimeter of the two parcels is bounded by Ross Creek and project plans provide for the dedication of a riparian area along Ross Creek to the Town. The riparian zone would encompass approximately 7,748 s.f. along the northern site boundary that adjoins or includes the creek channel. Proposed building envelopes for Lots 1 through 4 would be set back 25 feet from the edge of the riparian zone. Total residential lot area on the 2.32-acre site would be approximately 75,176 s.f. for the seven proposed lots. The proposed lots would range from 8,041 s.f. to 13,254 s.f. in area. The common area would constitute 5,654 s.f. and the access drive would require 9,329 s.f. The adjustment in lot lines would affect the northern portion of the western parcel (APN 523-25-036) at the end of Stephenie Lane. The southern portion of this parcel contains an existing single-family residence that is excluded from the project proposal. The northern portion of the western parcel (APN 523-25-036) would be combined with the adjoining parcel to the east, APN 523-25-020, to form the MARCH, 2007 ATTACHMENT 21 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE proposed project site. Lots 4 and 5, a portion of Lot 3, a part of the dedicated riparian zone, and the project's common area would be located on this part of the project site. The project site also currently contains a single-family residence on the southern part of the eastern parcel (APN 523-25-020). This building would be demolished and replaced with Lots 6 and 7. 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, mitigating potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Statement of Reasons to Support Finding: 1. Aesthetics: The project site is bounded on the north by Ross Creek, its associated riparian vegetation, four adjacent residences on Loma Vista Avenue, and one residence on Linda Avenue north of the Ross Creek. Dense vegetation also occurs on the site's western boundary and adjoining rear yards of residential lots on Stephenie and Lilac lanes. The site is bounded on the south by two residential lots served by Stephenie Lane and Linda Avenue. One residence on Linda Avenue (south of Ross Creek) adjoins the project site on its eastern perimeter. Due to site topography and location, views of the 2.32-acre property are primarily limited to the 11 parcels that immediately surround the site. The project site adjoins the rear or side yards of these residences and extensive vegetation screening on the subject property and adjoining residential lots filters or obscures views the site from neighboring properties. The riparian vegetation along Ross Creek provides an extensive visual buffer for residences on Loma Vista Avenue, Lilac Lane, and Linda Avenue. The most prominent views of the project site are available from the residence (15900 Rochin Terrace) on the eastern boundary of the site and the two residences (15950 Stephenie Lane and 15909 Linda Avenue) to the south of the site. The proposed project entails the subdivision of the site into seven lots and an extension of Linda Avenue for access, with seven single-family homes ultimately being constructed on these lots. The development plans submitted as part of the project application indicate that the proposed residential structures would be set back from the top of Ross Creek's bank by a minimum distance of 25 feet, with appropriate setbacks from adjoining properties as required. In conjunction with the proposed landscaping plans for the project, views of the project improvements would continue to be screened by both on-site and neighboring landscape plantings. The proposed landscaping plan includes provisions for the removal and relocation of trees on the project site. The biological and habitat effects of tree removal and transplanting are discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this study. The landscape plan indicates that nine trees would be removed and 23 new trees would be planted along the northern perimeter of the site within and adjoining the riparian zone. The new landscape trees would replace the loss of existing trees and augment the screening effects provided by remaining riparian vegetation. The changes in rear yard views from six residences along Lilac Lane, Loma Vista Avenue, and Linda Avenue would be minimized through the retention of the existing riparian vegetation along Ross Creek as well as the replacement of non-native and invasive species with native tree plantings. In addition to landscape plantings on the northern perimeter of the project site, the landscape plan specifies transplanting of site trees to the western and southern boundaries of the property to supplement existing landscaping; additional plantings on these two sides of the site would provide additional screening of views of the proposed project from the rear and side yards of three residences on Stephenie MARCH, 2007 2 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15.950 STEPHENIE LANE Lane and Linda Avenue. Front yard tree planting along the proposed Linda Avenue extension would also filter views of the site's proposed residences from existing residences surrounding the project site. The project design was reviewed for the Town by an architecture and design firm, Cannon Design Group, for compatibility of the proposed design with existing neighborhood characteristics. As part of this review, the architect's report identified one exception to trees screening the site development from adjoining properties. The report indicates that the existing house (15900 Rochin Terrace) adjoining the east side of the subject property would have direct views of the long, right side elevation of the house proposed for Lot 1, a potentially significant visual impact. A sanitary sewer easement along the eastern property line would preclude the planting of buffer landscaping along this boundary. In addition to the landscaping plan requirements, the project sponsor will be required to implement the following additional measures to mitigate visual impacts to a less-than-significant level: MITIGATION: One of the following measures shall be required to minimize visibility of the proposed house on Lot 1 from the existing house at 15900 Rochin Terrace: ■ Adjust the site plan layouts of Lots 1 through 3 to provide sufficient area for buffer landscape plantings along the eastern Lot 1 property line; or ■ . Offer to plant buffer landscaping on the adjoining property owner's lot to the east (15900 Rochin Terrace); or ■ Reconfigure the design of the residence proposed for Lot 1 to accommodate a buffer landscape strip along the eastern edge of the building envelope for this lot. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will be responsible for ensuring.that.one of the above design changes is reflected in final project plans. Street lighting would be provided along the proposed extension of Linda Avenue and exterior lighting would be provided on the seven proposed homes. The proposed street extension would be located within the interior of the site and project homes are proposed along both sides of the street. Proposed homes in combination with existing and proposed landscape trees would help block or screen proposed street lighting. In addition, the proposed design of street lighting would direct light downward, limiting the potential for adverse impacts on adjacent residences. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance (Section 29.10.09035) would prohibit the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlights) onto any area outside the project boundary. 2. Agriculture Resources: The project site is currently undeveloped and the site's agricultural potential is limited by its small size (2.32 acres) and surrounding residential development. Although the site was part of a former orchard use, the project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural uses/operations at the site. 3. Air Quality: The project would be consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAOS), the most recently adopted regional air quality plan. The consistency of the proposed project with the BAOS is determined by comparing the project's consistency with the Los Gatos General Plan. Since the BAGS growth assumptions for Bay Area communities are based on the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) population projections and these projections are based on the Town's General Plan land use designations and population projections, consistency with the General Plan would indicate consistency with the BAGS. The project MARCH, 2007 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE would develop fewer lots than allowed by the Los Gatos General Plan, and therefore, the project would be consistent with the BROS. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the BAAQMD as non-attainment for ozone and inhalable particulates (PM,o). According to the Los Gatos Community Development Department, the proposed project would result in a net traffic increase of 60 trips per day with seven trips during the AM peak hour and seven trips during the PM peak hour. Air emissions increases associated with the proposed project would not be considered significant since the size of the proposed 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 375 single-family units. At or above this size, traffic generated by the project would have the potential to generate significant local and regional air quality impacts, and an air quality impact assessment would need to be prepared and submitted to the BAAQMD for review. Adjacent residential uses are considered to be sensitive receptors. Proposed grading activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. The project parcel is 2.32 acres, and project construction would result in surface disturbance of more than one acre; surface distutbance'is not expected to exceed three acres. The BAAQMD 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 dust control conditions require implementation of the BAAQMD's standard dust control measures (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 detailed evaluation of the project site's biological resources was performed by Wood Biological Consulting (WBC) in January 2007. This report is on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. Reconnaissance field surveys of the project site were conducted to identify and map biological habitats and wildlife resources; a field survey was performed in January 2007. In addition, the Town's consulting arborist, Arbor Resources (AR), inventoried all trees (greater than four inches in diameter) located within the site area proposed for development (approximately 2.32 acres) and evaluated the condition of these trees. This report is included as Attachment 1. The following discussion of biological resources summarizes the findings of the referenced studies, and includes mitigation measures that were recommended in these studies to reduce potentially significant adverse effects to less-than-significant levels. Existing Site Characteristics. A majority of the property supports disked ground. dominated by non- indigenous species of annual grasses and forbs. Remnants of an orchard are present, and include black walnut, English walnut, apricots, sweet almond, and apple. Mature ornamental trees and shrubs present around the home include coast redwood, Canary Island palm, silver dollar gum, Lombardy poplar, weeping willow, Italian stone pine, Aleppo pine. Native coast live oak and valley oaks are also present in the vicinity of the existing home on the project site. The subject property borders and overlaps Ross Creek and adjacent riparian habitat occurring on its banks. Within the study area, the Ross Creek channel is 8 to 15 feet wide, with a rocky/gravelly bottom and very little sediment. Directly opposite of the subject property, the stream banks are encroached upon by residences, retaining walls, fences, patios and backyard landscaping. At numerous locations, the stream banks have been armored with broken concrete and sack-Crete. Within the property boundaries, the banks of Ross Creek support a mature, albeit narrow, canopy of indigenous trees and shrubs including arroyo willow, coast live oak, valley oak, blue oak, California buckeye, hollyleaf cherry. Non-indigenous trees and shrubs are common, and include Tasmanian blue MARCH, 2007 4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEMENIE LANE gum, privet, black walnut, olive, and silver wattle among others. Within the riparian zone, the understory consists primarily of non-indigenous vines and herbs including periwinkle, Algerian ivy, poison hemlock, and Bermuda buttercup among others. Scattered native understory species are present on site, including California blackberry, mugwort, miner's lettuce, bedstraw, and sedge. Riparian habitat, such as that occurring adjacent to Ross Creek, represents a significant natural community and impacts would fall under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). No wetlands falling under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction are present on site. Special-Status Biological Resources. Special-status natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection (i.e., Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and/or Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code). Riparian habitats are considered by state and federal regulatory agencies to represent a sensitive and declining resource. Wetlands and riparian areas can serve significant biological functions by providing nesting, breeding, foraging, and spawning habitat for a wide variety of resident and migratory wildlife species. Impacts to stream channels with a defined bed and bank, as well as adjacent riparian vegetation, are addressed specifically by the California Fish and Game Code 1600 et seq.) and may be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. The potential for occurrence of a total of 50 special-status plant species was evaluated in the WBC study. No federally or state-listed plant species have been recorded as occurring on the subject property or in the immediate vicinity. No special-status plant species are considered to have any potential for occurrence on the subject property based on a lack of suitable habitat and/or the fact that they would have been recognizable during the present survey. The study area does not correspond with any significant wildlife movement corridors for native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The WBC study also evaluated the potential for occurrence of a total of 49 special-status animal species.. No federally or state-listed animal species have been recorded as occurring on the subject property or in the immediate vicinity, and none are considered likely to occur on site based on a lack of suitable habitat and the site's isolation from potential source populations. However, a total of six special-status animal species, could occur on site. These include Cooper's hawk, oak titmouse, yellow warbler; Nuttall's woodpecker, Allen's hummingbird, and California thrasher. Impacts to these or other migratory birds would be considered significant. Although not expected, the potential exists for special-status bat species to roost in the existing residence or other structures. Project Impacts on Biological Resources. Project implementation would include the demolition of the existing structures, removal of existing landscaping and native and non-indigenous trees, grading and filling, and construction of a storm drain dissipator and bio-filtration swale. As a result, the proposed project could result in potentially significant direct adverse impacts on biological resources. The proposed project would result in the removal of existing native riparian vegetation adjacent to Ross Creek. Specifically, the AR report indicates the proposed project calls for the removal of a total of 14 native trees whose canopies are contiguous with the Ross Creek riparian corridor. No special-status plant species would be adversely affected by the proposed project. The CDFG requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for any modifications to a creek channel below the top of bank. Typically, this includes the removal of native trees outside the channel but with canopies extending over the top of bank. According the WBC, CDFG indicates that in areas where dense canopies of native riparian trees extend well beyond the top of bank, it is assumed that they contribute to the habitat values for fish and wildlife species that occupy, or could occupy the channel. Specifically, riparian trees MARCH, 2007 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE provide shade and contribute woody and leaf debris on the channel banks that enhance wildlife habitat values. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) requires a permit for the placement of any structure within 50 feet of the top of a creek bank or a levee. The SCVWD emphasizes the value of the streamside environment for supporting riparian vegetation and the functions riparian vegetation provides. Riparian vegetation benefits terrestrial species as well as semi-aquatic amphibians and reptiles and fish. While the residences proposed on Lots 3 and 4 would be situated within 50 feet of the top of Ross Creek's bank, the project applicant has coordinated project planning efforts with the SCVWD and the District has reviewed and accepted the proposed lot design. The project site supports suitable nesting habitat for raptors and migratory passerines. Site clearing activities could result in a take of protected migratory birds. Disturbance during the nesting season could result in the potential nest abandonment and mortality of young. This would be a potentially significant impact. Also, existing structures could provide suitable roosting habitat for special-status bat species, especially if left abandoned for a period of time-prior to demolition. Since existing structures are currently occupied and in good condition, potential impacts on special-status bat species would be less than significant. The following measures shall be required to reduce the project's impacts on biological resources to less- than-significant levels: MITIGATION: If land clearing, grading, tree and brush removal, tree trimming or demolition activities are to occur during the nesting season (i.e., between February 1 and August 15), a pre-construction survey for nesting migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist from one to four weeks prior to the initiation of work. If no nesting birds are observed, work may proceed. If work is delayed more than four weeks from the date of the survey, and it is still within the nesting season, the pre-construction survey shall be repeated. If occupied active nests of a migratory bird species are identified, a suitable buffer shall be established around the nest tree. Work within the buffer zone shall be prohibited until August 15°i or until the young have fledged, as determined by the project biologist. The dimensions of each buffer zone shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Buffer zones vary depending on the species and site topography, with passerines typically requiring 75 to 100 feet and raptors 200 to 500 feet. MITIGATION: To comply with the California Fish and Game Code, the project proponent shall consult with the CDFG prior to removal of the following trees: Tree Species DBH2 61 coast live oak 14 63 black walnut 5 65 coast live oak 8 66 coast live oak 5.5 69 willow 7 70 willow 6 74 willow 10 75 willow 21 77 willow 35 78 willow 8 79 willow 12 MARCH, 2007 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION- 15 881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE Tree Species DBH2 81 blue oak 33 90 willow 16 94 coast live oak 16 For tree locations, please refer to Sheet L-2 of project plans Diameter at breast height if the proposed activity is deemed to fall under CDFG jurisdiction, the project proponent shall apply for and secure the appropriate permit. MITIGATION: To the extent feasible, replacement plantings (in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos' Tree Protection Ordinance) shall be placed within the riparian corridor and consist of native species. MITIGATION: The project proponent shall remove existing invasive non-native trees within the riparian corridor. Specifically, Tasmanian blue gum (tree #92), silver wattle (tree #80, 87), cherry plum (tree #68), Japanese privet (tree #83), and Peruvian pepper (tree #67). MITIGATION: All construction-related activities shall avoid the riparian habitat corridor, to the maximum extent feasible. Riparian habitat shall be designated as a sensitive area and clearly shown on construction plans. Orange construction fencing shall be installed wherever there is a risk of vehicles or equipment accidentally impacting riparian vegetation. All access/travel routes, staging areas, and equipment maintenance areas shall be located outside of riparian habitats. MITIGATION: Only native tree and shrub species indigenous to western Santa Clara County may be planted within the riparian corridor. All proposed plantings shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFG and SCVWD. MITIGATION: The project sponsor shall avoid planting ornamental species reported by the California Invasive Plant Council to have the potential to be invasive. Species on this list that can spread by wind-borne seed shall be prohibited from use in landscaping. MITIGATION MONITORING: Prior to obtaining a tree removal permit and grading permit, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate permits are obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game and Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Parks Division of the Parks and Public Works Department will be responsible for ensuring that the above measures are properly implemented prior to and during construction. Tree Removal. The AR report identifies 104 trees within the 2.32-acre development area that was surveyed. Of these, 88 are ordinance-size and include #1-27, 29-35, 42-50, 55-58, 61, 64-67 and 69-104 (tree numbers are indicated on Sheet C4 of project plans). The other 16 are exempt per Section 29.10.0970(2) of the Town's Ordinance as these are fruit or nut trees with trunk diameters of less than 18 inches. Policy O.P.3.3 of the Open Space Element of the Los Gatos General Plan emphasizes preservation of public and private landscaping along Town streets. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3-1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy - Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements range from two to six 24-inch box size trees or two 36-inch and/or 48-inch box size trees, depending on the canopy size of the tree to be removed. MARCH, 2007 7 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION- 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE Project plans indicate that 40 ordinance-size trees would be removed to achieve the proposed design. Of these, 13 trees are classified as having a moderate suitability for preservation, while 27 trees have a low suitability. Based on their poor condition, small size, and/or species (i.e. highly prone to limb failure), AR determined that the loss of each complies with the Town's Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 29.10.0985 of the Town Code, replacement trees and/or payment to the Town Forestry Fund is necessary to mitigate the loss of each tree removed except for those which are dead and/or present a hazardous condition, which pertains to #21 (dead), 61 (uprooting), 77 (hazardous) and 81 (fallen over). The landscape plan also indicates that six trees would be transplanted. Implementation of the project plans would need to provide reasonable assurances of survival for these trees. To minimize potential damage to trees to be retained, the following measures will be required by the Town and these measures will reduce potential tree impacts to a less-than-significant level: MITIGATION: The project applicant shall be required to implement the 29 recommendations provided by the Town's consulting arborist, Arbor Resources, in the report dated February 5, 2007. These recommendations are included in Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will be responsible for ensuring that all recommendations made by the arborist are reflected in final project plans. The Parks Division of the Parks and Public Works Department will be responsible for ensuring that all tree protection measures are properly implemented during construction. 5. Cultural Resources: A cultural resources. study was prepared for the project site by Holman & Associates in January 2007. The analyses of potential archaeological and historical resources included an archaeological literature review as well as field survey of the site. This report is on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The archaeological literature review was conducted to obtain information about recorded historic and/or prehistoric archaeological sites in and around the project area, and information about previous formal archaeological surveys of the project area and its immediate surroundings. There are no archaeological sites within a quarter, mile of the project area and there have been no previous archaeological surveys of the area. There is one historic site, P-1712, recorded within a quarter mile of the site; the Walters House, built some time between the 1860s and 1880s, has been the subject of an historical evaluation. The nearest recorded prehistoric sites are found in the vicinity of the Vasona Reservoir and along the northern base of Blossom Hill, found south of the current project area. No indications of aboriginal use and/or occupation of the parcel were noted during a field survey of the property, and no concentrations of potentially significant historical archaeological materials were noted. While the parcel is located in a riparian zone (a favored location for prehistoric villages and camp sites), the study concludes that future development of the parcel would have no effect on prehistoric or archaeological materials. The report does not make any recommendations for archaeological monitoring of construction-related earthmoving activities, and does not recommend that a program of mechanical subsurface presence/absence testing be done. However, the potential for such resources cannot be completely eliminated due to the site's proximity to this channel. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be required: MITIGATION: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. MARCH, 2007 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 1.5881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPIIENIE LANE MITIGATION: If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the.Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. MITIGATION: If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. MITIGATION: A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report will include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Planning and Building Divisions of the Community Development Department will be responsible for ensuring that these measures are implemented appropriately during construction as the need arises. 6. Geology and Soils: A review of the Town's hazards maps indicates that the project site has a moderate to slightly-moderate erosion hazard (due to slopes above the creek bank), high shrink-swell .potential, low potential for liquefaction, high to low potential for fault rupture, and moderate to high potential for seismic shaking. No debris flow hazards were identified for the site. The Town's Fault Map indicates that the site is located approximately 300 feet southwest of a concealed fault. At a minimum, the proposed residences would be expected to be subject to strong groundshaking during its design life. However, it should be noted that most of the Bay Area as well as surrounding residences are subject to groundshaking hazards. As a standard project condition, the Town will require preparation of a soil engineering report; this report will address any soil engineering constraints (including shrink- swell hazards) and specify criteria and standards in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, erosion control, and foundation design. UBC standards account for a development's vulnerability to seisnvc hazards based on its proximity to active faults and Los Gatos utilizes a different section of the UBC seismic table due its proximity to Class B faults. Therefore, compliance with applicable UBC requirements would be adequate to address regional seismic safety concerns such as groundshaking. Assuming all recommendations of the required report are incorporated into the project design, no significant impacts from soil engineering constraints would be anticipated. Due to the identified high potential for fault rupture hazards and the potential proximity of a nearby concealed fault, the following measure shall be required to reduce potential seismic hazards to a less-than- significant level: MITIGATION: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for this project to determine the surface and subsurface soil conditions at the site, as well as to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, MARCH, 2007 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION- 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. The project shall incorporate all recommendations of the investigation in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and subsurface soil conditions on the site. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Building Division of the Community Development and Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that this study is completed and all recommendations are incorporated into the project design and properly implemented during construction. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (ESA) was prepared for the project by ERAS Environmental, Inc. in January 2007. This report is available for review at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The report includes a review of historical records for hazardous materials sites in the project vicinity, an examination of historic uses known to occur at the site, an interview of the property owner, and a field survey of the project site. The ESA indicates that the project site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List, nor is the property listed in any of the regulatory agency databases reviewed and listed in the ESA report. The project site-is documented as a residential site -since the early 1948 and was used prior to that as an orchard until approximately 1955. Aerial photography indicates that all of the orchard trees were gone from the project site by 1974. Prior use of the property for agriculture could be a potential environmental concern due to the possible use of agricultural chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides during orchard operations. The report indicates that since these chemicals biodegrade over time and were not used after 1974; the potential for these chemicals to occur on the site does not appear to be a significant environmental concern. During the field survey of the project site, no hazardous materials or other chemicals were observed on the site, except small (retail) quantities of paint, discarded pesticides, and household chemicals; these will require appropriate disposal upon removal. All of these materials were observed to be stored correctly, and there was no evidence of any improper storage, usage, or disposal of hazardous materials or chemicals at the site. In addition, no other evidence of underground storage tanks, stained soils, drains or sumps, discolored pavement, or wells was observed at the site. The two existing structures on the site are proposed for demolition 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 applicant will be required to implement the following measure to mitigate other public health risks associated with lead- based paints to a less-than-significant level: MITIGATION: A state certified lead-based paint professional shall be retained to perform a lead-based paint survey of the existing structures and the recommendations of the professional shall be followed for abatement of any identified lead-based paint prior to demolition of the structures. MARCH, 2007 10 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE MITIGATION: The identified hazardous materials being stored on the site shall be carefully removed prior to demolition and grading, and legally disposed of in accordance with local, county, and state regulations. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Building Division of the Community Development will be responsible for properly implemented prior to construction., 8. Hydrology and Water Quality: The subject property borders and includes Ross Creek, a perennial "blue-line" natural surface tributary to Guadalupe River. Historically, flows in Ross Creek percolated into the valley floor and were not connected via surface flow to the Guadalupe River. Portions of Ross Creek were realigned in the 1960s and currently it is connected to the Guadalupe River via man-made channels. Within the project area, the Ross Creek channel is 8 to 15 feet wide, with a rocky/gravelly bottom and very little sediment. The stream course supports riffles and pools, overhanging vegetation, and high tree canopy, and root wads at the ordinary high water level. Directly opposite of the subject property, residences, retaining walls, fences, patios and backyard landscaping encroach upon the stream banks. At numerous locations, the stream banks have been armored with broken concrete and sack-crete. Storm Drainage. Presently, the 2.32-acre project site is generally undeveloped, with residential use limited to the southeast portion of APN 523-25-020. The project site is a gently sloping area with storm runoff draining from the property towards the north and northwest. Storm water runoff from the project site's impervious surfaces drains onto the undeveloped portion of the project site and percolates on-site. The project plans indicate that the proposed development would increase impervious surfaces on the site from the existing 5,869 s.f. (5.8 percent of the site) to 26,817 s.f. (26.5 percent). The Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan for the project indicates that the runoff flows from residences' roofs would be controlled through the installation of splash blocks and grass swales on each residential lot. Runoff flows from these impervious surfaces would be allowed to percolate on the project site, minimizing the increases in storm drainage flows from the project site. Storm drainage from project driveways and access roads would be collected through catch basins and conveyed by storm drain to a proposed bioswale that would be located immediately north of proposed Lots 1 through 3 and the proposed common area. The bioswale would be planted with native bunch grasses and permit local filtration and percolation of urban runoff volumes generated by the project. Bioswale flows would drain eastward and excess storm drainage would enter a 12-inch CMP storm drain in the northeastern corner of the site and discharge into Ross Creek. Discharge through an outfall in Ross Creek would be subject to permit. approval by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the California Department of Fish and Game. Flood Hazards. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the Town of Los Gatos do not extend to the project area. Consequently, the 100-year floodplain as defined by FEMA is not mapped or delineated for the section of Ross Creek adjoining and on the property. In order to determine the potential hazard for flooding from the 100-year storm, the project engineers prepared a 100-Year Flood Analysis for Ross Creek at the project site (dated December 12, 2006). This study is available for review at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The 100-year flood analysis for the project is based upon flow information obtained from SCVWD's Community Project Review Unit. The study presents flood flow calculations for drainage volumes and flow rates as well as mapping of flows within the Ross Creek channel for this storm event. For the Linda Avenue property, Ross Creek would convey 1,210 cubic feet per second. The depth of flow was calculated for three locations along Ross Creek at the site, The analysis concludes that the depth of water during the 100-year storm would vary from 5.6 to 4.9 feet on the stream channel and that these flows MARCH, 2007 11 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE would remain within the undeveloped area of the project site. Consequently, the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. Water Quality-. Stringent water quality regulations of the Clean Water Act have recently been triggered because the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit program has failed to protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's creeks and the South San Francisco Bay, as evidenced by such observations as violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of toxic substances, and fish consumption health advisories. These new regulations require that all discharges shall comply with Provision C.3, New and Redevelopment Performance Standards of Order No. 01-024 of the NPDES permit program. The project site is located within the Ross Creek watershed. Runoff from the site would discharge directly into Ross Creek, flow into the Guadalupe River, and eventually into the Bay. The Guadalupe River is on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments due to the presence of diazinon, a pesticide, and mercury. Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) for treatment control of pesticides are bioretention, infiltration, and media filter with adsorption/absorption as the removal process. As a condition of project approval, the Town will require: (1) preparation and submittal of interim and final erosion control plans to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department; and (2) implementation of non-point source pollution prevention measures to reduce pollutant levels in the water that will eventually discharge to Ross Creek and Guadalupe River. Since the proposed project would create more than 10,000 s.f. of impervious surfaces, the Town has determined that the C.3 numerical requirements apply to the proposed project. In order to comply with C.3 requirements, the project's drainage plans include, measures such as grass bioswales and perforated subdrains proposed together with the Town's standard conditional requirement. for splash blocking. Also, the project would comply with current non-point source requirements as well as SWPPP and erosion control portions of the NPDES permit program. Consequently, the project would have no potential adverse impacts on water resources in the project area. 9. Land Use and Planning: The Los Gatos General Plan designates the project site as "R-1, Single Family Residential and this designation allows for residential uses at densities of 0 to 5 units per net acre. Since the site is 1.9 acres (net), the General Plan would allow up to 10 dwelling units. The project applicant proposes to develop seven single-family residences at a density of 3.7 units per acre, which would be consistent with the General Plan. The project site is zoned for single-family residential uses, R-1:8 (minimum lot area of 8,000 s.f.). Since the site's net area is 1.9 acres, this zoning designation could allow up to 10 residential units. The Zoning Ordinance would allow the proposed single-family residential use and the proposed density of 3.7 units per acre would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The project applicant is requesting approval of a zone change from R-1:8 to R-1:8:PD for a seven-lot subdivision. The PD (Planned Development) designation would limit the project to seven units, as proposed, but would allow the project design to vary from Zoning Ordinance requirements such as minimum lot sizes and widths as well as overall site and lot setbacks. There are 11 existing single-family residences surrounding the project site: 1) four homes on Loma Vista Avenue; 2) two residences on Stephenie Lane; 3) two homes on Linda Avenue; 4) two residences on Rochin Terrace; and 5) one residence on Lilac Lane. The proposed project would replace the one existing residential unit with seven single-family homes. Since there would be no change in land use, no land use compatibility problems would be anticipated. MARCH, 2007 12 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION- 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE 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 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. This ordina nce 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 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 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. There are 11 existing single-family residences surrounding the project site. The closest existing homes would be approximately 25 feet from the eastern and southern project boundaries or approximately 40 feet from the closest proposed homes (Lots 1 and 5). Homes to the north (across Ross Creek) would be located at least approximately 65 feet away. At 25 feet, the ordinance noise limit (85 dBA at 25 feet) could result in maximum noise levels of 85 dBA, while at 40 feet, maximum noise levels would be 81 dBA. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds 45 to 60 dBA. To maintain such interior noise levels, exterior noise levels at the closest residences (with windows closed) should not exceed 70 to 80 dBA and this exterior noise level is used as a significance threshold or criterion. Maximum construction noise levels could periodically exceed this threshold when grading occurs along the eastern and southern project boundaries, within 25 feet of adjacent residences to the east and south. However, it should be noted that such levels of construction noise would only occur for a short period when grading equipment is operating immediately adjacent to these homes, not during the entire project construction period. Due to the proximity of these existing residences to proposed roadway and home construction, construction-related noise increases could be significant periodically, and implementation of the following measure, in conjunction with enforcement of time restrictions' and noise level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance, will be required to reduce temporary noise impacts to a less-than-significant level: MITIGATION: The proposed a six-foot high, solid wood "Good Neighbor" fence along the east side of Lot I and south side of Lot 5 shall be constructed as early as possible (prior to project grading activities if possible) to help reduce construction noise at existing adjacent residences. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Building Division of the Community Development Department will be responsible for ensuring this measure is implemented as early in the construction process as possible. Long-term noise increases associated with the project would result from increased traffic along the project roadway and Linda Avenue as well as residential activities (i.e., operation of appliances and maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers, blowers, etc.) on the project site. Traffic increases associated with the project would be minor and would not significantly or measurably increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Noise generated by project residential activities would be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residential uses and would not conflict with the existing residential noise environment in the neighborhood. 12. Population and Housing: The project would replace one existing residential unit with seven single- family homes. Existing zoning would have allowed development of up to 10 residential units, which could generate approximately 30 residents. The proposed project, with a total of six net additional MARCH, 2007 13 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION- 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE residential units, could generate approximately 16 new residents. The project's net addition of 16 persons would represent a 0.05 percent increase over the Town's current population of 28,592 (as indicated in the 2000 census) and 0.04 percent increase over the Town's 2005 population of 35,700 as projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Such increases in population also would be within ABAG's projected five percent growth rate between 2000 and 2015, and would not represent a significant increase in local or regional population. Since surrounding lands are already developed, the project would not be considered growth-inducing. 13. Public Services: Services are already provided to one existing residential unit on the project site. The project would not significantly increase demand for public services since services are already provided to the existing use on the site and other development in the project vicinity. The Santa Clara Fire Department has reviewed the proposed site plan for site access and fire flows, and the project appears to meet department specifications for emergency vehicle access. However, the Department will require provision of one public, on-site fire hydrant as well as fire service mains and/or hydrants. The applicant will be required to meet other Department requirements for minimum fire flow, hydrant location, site/building access (prohibiting on-street parking on roads less than 28 feet in width), etc. The proposed project would increase local population and therefore, would be expected to increase demand on local schools or parks. The project applicant will be required to pay school impact fees to offset potential additional service costs associated with new students generated by the proposed project. See discussion that follows below regarding the project's impact on local parks. 14. Recreation: The proposed net addition of six residential units would add approximately 16 persons to the area, and thereby incrementally increase demand for recreational facilities. The project's incremental increase is considered to be less than significant given the small size of the project, the project's proximity to existing recreational facilities such as Blossom Hill Park as well as the nearby Vasona Lake County Park. 15. Transportation and Traffic: The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) specifies that a project with a traffic impact of 19 or less additional AM or PM peak hour trips could be approved without a comprehensive traffic report if it is determined that the benefits of the project to the Town would outweigh the impact of increased traffic. However, the project would be subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee. The project would result in a net increase of 58 trips per day with five trips during the AM peak hour and six trips during the PM peak hour. According to the Town's traffic determination, traffic generated by the proposed project would represent a minor impact and no additional traffic studies would be required. Residents living along Linda Avenue would be subject to temporary construction-related traffic increases. The proposed grading plan indicates that approximately 266 cubic yards of material would be exported from the site, generating a total of approximately 22 trucks. Such an increase in truck traffic over the entire grading period would be less than significant. The proposed project would include the extension of Linda Avenue as a private street. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has conducted a development review of the project plans and provides specific design requirements for the proposed private access road. The Town and Fire Department will review the proposed private roadway design to ensure that it conforms with their respective requirements. 16. Utilities and Service Systems: Utilities are currently provided to existing development on the project site. Utilities and service system operators indicated that no major off-site utility improvements are expected to be required. The project applicant will be required to install one public fire hydrant on-site, and other utilities (electrical, gas, telephone, cable TV, storm drainage facilities) will be upgraded as necessary. MARCH, 2007 14 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 15881 LINDA COURT AND 15950 STEPHENIE LANE 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. (in 0 Date u Lortz, ire or of Community evel ment MARCH, 2007 15 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 15881 Linda Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-06-050 Requesting approval to demolish a single family residence on property zoned R-1:8. PROPERTY OWNERS: Jennifer Den Daas APPLICANT: Linda Court Partners TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: The approval of this application is contingent upon the adoption of the Planned Development for the subject site and no permits shall be issued until such time. 2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL. The Architecture and Site application will expire two years from the date of approval unless the approval is used before expiration. Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. 3. RECYCLING. All wood, metal, glass and aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting type and weight of material, shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Towns demolition inspection. Building Division 4. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Contact Town of Los Gatos Building Counter technicians for demolition requirements and complete the process before obtaining a building permit for demolition of such work. 5. *LEAD-BASED PAINT. A state certified lead-based paint professional shall be retained to perform a lead-based paint survey of the existing structures and the recommendations of the professional shall be followed for abatement of any identified lead-based paint prior to demolition of the structures. 6. *HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. The identified hazardous materials being stored on site shall be carefully removed prior to demolition and legally disposed of in accordance with local, county and state regulations * Required as mitigation measures N:\DEV\C0NDITNS\2007\1inda 15 88 I .doc ATTAcEMNT 22 ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1:8 TO R-1:8:PD AT 15881 LINDA AVENUE AND A PORTION OF 15950 STEPHENIE LANE THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning at 15881 Linda Avenue and a portion of 15950 Stepheme Lane as shown on the map which is attached hereto marked Exhibit A and is part of this Ordinance from R-1:8 (Single Family Residential, 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre), to R-1:8:PD ((Single Family Residential, 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Planned Development). SECTION II The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements: 1. Demolition of a single-family residence and a nonpermitted second dwelling unit; 2. Construction of seven single family residences; and 3. Landscaping, streets, parking, open space and other site improvements shown and required on the Official Development Plan. ATTACHMENT 23 f k; 4. Uses permitted are those specified in the underlying R-1 (Single Family Residential) zone by Sections 29.40.385 (Permitted Uses) and 29.20.185 r' (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, as those sections exist at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future, subject to any restrictions or other requirements specified elsewhere in this ordinance including, but not limited to, the Official Development Plan. However, no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this Ordinance, or by Conditional Use Permit. SECTION III COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan specifically shows otherwise. SECTION IV Architecture and Site Approval is required before the demolition of the single family residence and construction work for the new dwelling units, whether or not a permit is required for the work and before any permit for construction is issued. Construction permits shall only be in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130 of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION V The attached Exhibit A (Map) and Exhibit B (Development Plans, 30 sheets), arc part of the Official Development Plan. The following must be complied with before issuance of any grading, demolition or construction permits: 2 TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: (Planning Division) I. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED. The Official Development Plans and this ordinance establish the allowed uses and intensity of development. The Official Development Plans are conceptual in nature such that minor deviations may be approved through the Architecture and Site approval process if necessary to achieve architectural excellence. The Development Review Committee shall be the deciding body of the Architecture and Site applications. 2. BMP. Prior to final occupancy of each unit, the applicant shall pay the Below Market Price (BMP) as established by Town Council Resolution. 3. HOUSE SIZE. The footprint and size of each house shall be determined during the Architecture and Site approval process. 4. LANDSCAPE PLAN. A final landscape plan shall be submitted during the Architecture and Site approval process. 5. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a Building, Grading or Encroachment Permit. 6. RECYCLING. All wood, metal, glass, and aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting type and weight of material, shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection. 7. *ARCHAELOGICAL. In the event archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50 meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Director of 3 Community Development shall be notified and an archaeologist shall be retained to 8 9 10 examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. *NATIVE AMERICAN REMAINS. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall immediately be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains were Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who would attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. *ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND. If the Director of Community Development finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provision for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program must be prepared and submitted to the Director of Community Development for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. *FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT. A final report shall be prepared at the applicant's cost when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report shall include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. 4 11. *NESTING. If land clearing, grading, tree and brush removal, tree trimming or demolition activities are to occur during nesting season (i.e., between February 1 and August 15), a preconstruction survey for nesting migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist from one to four weeks prior to the initiation of work. In no nesting birds are observed, work may proceed. If work is delayed more than four weeks from the date of the survey, and it is still within the nesting season, the pre-construction survey shall be repeated. 12. * ACTIVE NESTS. If occupied active nests of a migratory bird species are identified, a suitable buffer shall be established around the nest tree. Work within the buffer zone shall be prohibited until August 15th or until the young have fledged, as determined by the project biologist. The dimensions of each buffer zone shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with the CDFG. Buffer zones vary depending on the species and site topography, with passerines typically requiring 75 to 100 feet and raptors 200 to 500 feet. 13. *TREE REMOVALS - CDFG. To comply with the California Fish and Game Code, the project proponent shall consult with the CDFG prior to removal of the following trees: Tree#' Species DBHZ 61 coast live oak 14 63 black walnut 5 65 coast live oak 8 66 coast live oak 5.5 69 willow 7 78 willow 8 94 coast live oak 16 ' For tree locations, please refer to Sheet L-2 of project plans 2 Diameter at breast height s The following measures shall be implemented to ensure restoration and enhancement of the riparian habitat on Ross Creek: a. Remove the non-native trees from within the riparian corridor, which have been identified by the project's arborist and accepted by the Town's Consulting Arborist. b. Remove the cape ivy from within the riparian corridor. c. Incorporate non-native species management into the Homeowners Association Codes, Covenants & Restrictions. This will include on-going eradication of cape ivy and follow up removal of non-native tree and shrub re-sprouts. d. Install native riparian tree and shrubs species in gaps within the riparian corridor and within the riparian setback (Figure 2 of the Riparian Enhancement Plan). Special care must be taken to not plant trees within the 10-foot wide sanitary sewer easement, which runs through the existing riparian corridor. The proposed riparian trees on Sheet L-1 of the Landscape Plan are acceptable species to be planted in this area. If California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) is included in the final planting plan, special care should be taken to confirm that the trees are NOT propagated from California sycamores that have hybridized with the London plane tree. Additional shrub species that could be added to the final planting plan include, coffeeberry (Rhamnus califomica), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), California blackberry, (Rubus ursinus), and California rose (Rosa califomica). 6 e. All street and outdoor residential lighting will be directed downward or away from the riparian corridor. f. Install a split rail fence along the proposed garden walls to discourage human intrusion within the riparian corridor. g. As shown in the Landscape Plan, incorporate bioswales for water treatment prior to discharge into the creek. The bioswales will be located outside the 10- foot wide storm sewer easement (Figure 2 of the Riparian Enhancement Plan). The bioswales will be vegetated with native bunch grasses and will have outfalls designed in accordance with Design Guide 12 - Outfall With Rock Slope Protection, of the Santa Clara Valley Water District's Water Resources Protection Manual. 14 15 16 *REPLACEMENT TREES IN CORRIDOR. To the extent feasible, replacement plantings (in accordance with the Town of Los Gatos' Tree Protection Ordinance) shall be placed within the riparian corridor and consist of native species. *NON-NATIVE REMOVALS. The project proponent shall remove existing invasive non-native plants within the riparian corridor. Specifically, Tasmanian blue gum (tree #92), silver wattle (trees #80 and 87) cherry plum (tree #68), Japanese privet (tree #83), and Peruvian pepper (tree #67). *CONSTRUCTION NEAR RIPARIAN HABITAT CORRIDOR. All construction related activities shall avoid the riparian habitat corridor, to the maximum extent feasible. Riparian habitat shall be designated as a sensitive area and clearly shown on construction plans. Orange construction fencing shall be installed prior to issuance of a grading or 7 building permit, wherever there is a risk of vehicles or equipment accidentally impacting riparian vegetation. All access/travel routs, staging areas, and equipment maintenance areas shall be located outside of riparian habitats. 17. *REPLANTINGS IN CORRIDOR. Only native tree and shrub species indigenous to western Santa Clara may be planted within the riparian corridor. All proposed plantings shall be reviewed and accepted by CDFG and SCVWD. 18. * INVASIVE PLANTS. The project sponsor shall avoid planting ornamental species reported by the California Invasive Plant Council to have the potential to be invasive. Species on this list that can spread by windborne seed shall be prohibited from use in landscaping and shall be noted in the CC&R's. 19. *ARBORIST REPORT. The applicant shall implement the 29 recommendations provided by the Town's Consulting Arborist, Arbor Resources, in the report dated February 5, 2007. These recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. 20. BLUE OAK TREE. During the Architecture and Site approval process, the applicant shall work with the Town's Consulting Arborist, at the applicant's expense, to reassess the condition of the Blue Oak tree and to evaluate whether or not the tree can be saved and that it will not be a hazard. 21. *MINIMIZE VISIBILITY. One of the following measures shall be required to minimize the visibility of the proposed house on Lot 1 from the existing house at 15900 Rochin Terrace. The measures are in order of preference. If the first measure is determined to be not feasible, the next measure is required and so on. 1) Reconfigure the design of the residence proposed for Lot 1 to accommodate a buffer landscape strip along the eastern s edge of the building envelope for this lot. 2) Adjust the site plan layouts of Lots through 3 to provide sufficient area for buffer landscape plantings along the eastern Lot 1 property line; or 3) Offer to plant buffer landscaping on the adjoining property owner's lot to the east (15900 Rochin Terrace). 22. *GOOD NEIGHBOR FENCE. The proposed six foot high, solid wood "Good Neighbor" fence along the east side of Lot 1 and south side of Lot 5 shall be constructed as early as possible (prior to project grading activities if possible) to help reduce construction noise at existing adjacent residences. 23. CC&R's. CC&R's shall include a statement regarding the responsibilities of living next to a riparian corridor and the limitations of the rear yards for Lots 1 through 4. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and accepted by the SCVWD. 24. DEED RESTRICTION. Prior to final occupancy, deed restrictions shall be recorded for Lots 1 through 4 at the applicant's expense, which discuss the responsibilities of living next to a riparian corridor and the limitations of the 30 foot setback for Lot 4. 25. FENCING. Prior to final occupancy, a low open design fence shall be installed on top of the garden walls along the creek. The final fence designs shall be reviewed during the Architecture and Site approval process. 26. TREE REPLACEMENTS ALONG CREEK. During the Architecture and Site approval process, the applicant shall work with Town staff, SCVWD and CDFG to determine the location, size and species of native trees and shrubs that can be planted in the riparian corridor and buffer zone to create a new screen. 27. GARAGES. The garages on Lots 1 and 2 shall be designed during the Architecture and Site approval process to be deeply recessed. 9 28. RELOCATION OF REAR PROPERTY LINES. During the subdivision application process, the rear property lines of the properties along the creek shall be aligned with the proposed garden walls. The portion beyond the walls shall be incorporated with the common area parcel. 29. GARDEN WALLS. The proposed garden walls along the creek shall be less than four feet in height and shall be located along the property line for the parcels adjacent to the creek. The garden walls shall be extended along the entire length of the properties along the creek. The side property line fence shall cease at the garden wall and shall not extend beyond the property towards the creek. The stairs beyond the garden walls shall also be eliminated. These modifications shall be shown on the plans for the Subdivision and Architecture and Site applications. 30. WILLOW TREES. Trees #70, 74, 75, 77, 79 and 90 shall not be removed unless CDFG, RWQCB and a biological consultant determine otherwise. (Building Division) 31. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the seven proposed dwelling units and the demolition of any structure(s). 32. CONSTRUCTION PLANS: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans submitted for a building permit. 33. SIZE OF PLANS: The maximum size of construction plans submitted for building permits shall be 24" x 36". 10 34. 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) 35. 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. 36. *LEAD-BASED PAINT. A state certified lead-based paint professional shall be retained to perform a lead-based paint survey of the existing structures and the recommendations of the professional shall be followed for abatement of any identified lead-based paint prior to demolition of the structures. 37. *HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. The identified hazardous materials being stored on site shall be carefully removed prior to demolition and grading, and legally disposed of in accordance with local, county and state regulations. 38. HOUSE NUMBERS: The developer shall submit requests for additional house numbers prior to the building permit application process. 39. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residences shall be designed with adaptability features for single-family residence per Town Resolution 1994-61. a. Wooden backing (no smaller than 2" x 8") shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers and bathtubs located at 34" from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32" wide on accessible floor. C. Primary entrance shall have a 36" wide door including, a 5"x5" level landing, no more than I" out of plane with the immediate interior floor level, with an 18" clearance. 40. 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. 41. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector upon foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and the building pad elevation and on-site regaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. Pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations 42. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF- 1R and MF-1R. 43. 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. 12 44. 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. 45. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program specification shall be part of the plan submittal. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter. 46. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development Department b. Parks and Public Works Department c. West Valley Sanitation District: 378-2407 d. Santa Clara County Fire Department: 378-4010 e. * Santa Clara Valley Water District f. California Regional Water Quality Control Board g. *California Department of Fish and Game h. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i. Los Gatos Union School District Note: Obtain the school district form from the Town Building Service Counter after the Building Division plan check has approved the plans. 13 TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS: (Engineering Division) 47. BIO-SWALE - Bio swales shall be located outside of the riparian buffer zone. 48. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The Applicant shall enter an agreement to construct public improvements in accordance with Town Code §24.40.020. 49. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. The applicant shall supply suitable securities for all public improvements that are a part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100% (performance) and 100% (labor and material) prior to issuance of any permit. Applicant shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying the cost of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. 50. *GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. Geotechnical investigations shall be conducted for this project to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. The project shall incorporate all recommendations of the investigation in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and subsurface soil conditions on the site. 51. GRADING PERMIT. A grading permit is required for site grading and drainage. The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a 14 table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. 52. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall: a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters; b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval, and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction. 53. RETAINING WALLS. A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process. 54. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils report shall be submitted with the grading permit application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 15 55. 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. 56. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing should be documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the applicant's soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 57. CERTIFICATE OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. A Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final map. Two copies of the legal description for each new lot configuration, a plat map (8-'/a in. X 11 in.) and two copies of the legal description of the land to be exchanged shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department for review and approval. The submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports less than 90 days old and the appropriate fee. The certificate shall be recorded before any permits may be issued. 58. DEMOLITION. Existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map. 16 59. FINAL MAP. A final map shall be recorded. Two copies of the final map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department for review and approval. Submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports and appropriate fee. The map shall be recorded before any permits are issued. 60. UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW. Letters from the electric, telephone, cable, and trash companies indicating that the proposed improvements and easements are acceptable shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. 61. DEDICATIONS. The following shall be dedicated on the final map. The dedications shall be recorded before any permits are issued. a. Linda Court. A 22-foot private street right-of-way with a 36-foot radius cul-de- sac. b. Public Service Easement (PSE). Five (5) foot wide, next to the Linda Ct. right-of- way. c. Ingress-egress, storm drainage and sanitary sewer easements, as required. d. Sanitary Sewer Easement. Ten (10) to twelve (12) feet wide, as shown on the tentative map. e. Emergency Access Easement. Twenty (22) feet wide, from the end of the public road over the entire Linda Ct. Private right of way. f. Riparian Parcel. The Riparian Parcel, identified on the Tentative map as Conservation Easement, shall be dedicated in fee to the Town and a flood control and maintenance easement shall be dedicated to SCVWD. g. The trail easement shown on Sheet C-5 at the east side of Lot 1, shall be eliminated from the final plans. 17 62. JOINT TRENCH PLANS. Joint trench plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to issuance of any permit. 63. ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES. The applicant shall submit a 75-percent progress printing to the Town for review of above ground utilities including backflow prevention devices, fire department connections, gas and water meters, off-street valve boxes, hydrants, site lighting, electrical/communication/cable boxes, transformers, and mail boxes. Above ground utilities shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to issuance of any permit. 64. PRIVATE EASEMENTS. Agreements detailing rights, limitations, and responsibilities of involved parties shall accompany each private easement. The easements and associated agreements shall be recorded simultaneously with the final map. 65. CC&R's. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney, Community Development Department, and Parks and Public Works Department prior to recordation of the final map. 66. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The following improvements shall be installed by the developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. a. Drive. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, tie-in paving, signing, striping, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, as required. 18 b. Restripe/Community Benefit. The applicant shall re-stripe the Blossom Hill Road intersection with Linda Avenue and Old Blossom Hill Road. The striping shall provide left turn pockets for both eastbound Blossom Hill Road traffic turning left on Linda Avenue, and for westbound Blossom Hill Road traffic turning left on Old Blossom Hill Road. 67. SITE LIGHTING. Lighting photometrics shall be provided and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the approval of the Tentative Map. 68. DESIGN CHANGES. The Applicant's registered Engineer shall notify the Town Engineer, in writing, at least 72 hours in advance of all differences between the proposed work and the design indicated on the plans. Any proposed changes shall be subject to the approval of the Town before altered work is started. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final "as-built" drawings. 69. INSURANCE. One million dollars ($1,000,000) of liability insurance holding the Town harmless shall be provided in a format acceptable to the Town Attorney before recordation of the map. 70. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE. The developer shall pay a proportional the project's share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the request of Certificate of Occupancy is made. the fee shall be paid before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project using the current fee schedule is $5,742 per each new home. The credit for the existing home will be pro-rated across each new home. The final 19 fee shall be calculated form the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time of the request for a Certificate of Occupancy. 71. FUTURE STUDIES. Any post project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed by Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the applicant. 72. PLAN CHECK FEES. Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to submittal of plans to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. 73. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any Permit or recordation of the Final Map. 74. 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 any permits are issued. 75. SCVWD. A Santa Clara Valley Water District permit for all work within their jurisdiction shall be obtained prior to issuance of any Town permits. 76. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD. Any necessary permits from the Regional Water Control Board shall be provided prior to issuance of any permits. In the event that no permit is required from this agency, a letter stating as much shall be provided. (This condition is intended to address the storm drain outfall). 77. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. Any necessary permits from the Army Corps of Engineers shall be provided prior to issuance of any permits. In the event that no permit is required from this agency, a letter stating as much shall be provided. (This condition is intended to address the storm drain outfall). 20 78. TREE REMOVAL. Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to issuance of a grading permit. 79. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. 80. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. 81. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection. 82. SURVEYING CONTROLS. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes. 21 83. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. Construction access shall be provided from Linda Avenue. No access will be allowed via Stephenie Lane. 84. 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 stabilizingibuilding 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. 85. DUST CONTROL. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, 22 parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 86. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer 15.40.070). 87. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. 88. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. A storm water management shall be included with the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as defined in the amended provisions C.3.d. of Order No. R2-2005-0035 of the amended Santa Clara County NPDES Permit No. CAS029718. The plan shall delineate source control measures and BMP's together with the sizing calculations. The plan shall be certified by a professional pre-qualified by the Town. In the event that storm water measures proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those certified on 23 T j the Building/Grading Permit, the Town may require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of the Building Permit. The applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility. 89. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS. The homeowner's association shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the storm water filtration devices required to be installed on this project by Town's Storm Water Discharge Permit No. CAS029718 and modified by Order No. R2-2005-0035. The agreement will specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the homeowner's association and will specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement will also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded prior to release of any occupancy permits. 90. 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. 91. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. 92. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, 24 777 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. 93. DRIVEWAY APPROACH. The developer shall install one Town standard residential driveway approach at each new driveway. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. 94. 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) Swimming Pool, Layer: SWIMMING-POOL; e) Tennis Court, Layer: TENNIS-COURT; f) Property Line, Layer: PROPERTY-LINE; g) Contours, Layer: NEWCONTOUR. All as-built digital files must be on the same coordinate basis as 25 the Town's survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher. 95. 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. 96. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE. Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec. 6.50.025). The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve, as defined section 103(e) of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section 6.5 of the Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition. Evidence of West Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 97. CONSTRUCTION NOISE. Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) 26 feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 98. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division. 99. SITE SUPERVISION. The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 100. HAULING OF SOIL. Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the Town Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 101. UTILITY SETBACKS. House foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient distance to allow excavation of the utility without undermining the house foundation. The Town Engineer shall determine the appropriate setback based on the depth of the utility, input from the project soils engineer, and the type of foundation. 27 102. MAINTENANCE ACCESS. The applicant shall propose maintenance access improvements for the Town Engineer to review, comment on, and approve. The Engineering Division shall approve the surface materials over each public easement. 103. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, construction trailer, and proposed outhouse locations. All construction staging and parking shall occur on-site. (Parks and Forestry Division) 104. WATER EFFICIENCY. This project is subject to the Town's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 26, Article IV of the Town Code. A fee as established by Town Council resolution shall be paid when the landscape, irrigation plans and water calculations are submitted for review prior to the issuance of building permit. 105. NEW TREES. All newly planted trees are required to be double staked to Town standards. 106. GENERAL. All newly planted trees shown on the plan are specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on the site. 107. IRRIGATION. All newly planted landscaping shall be irrigated by an in-ground irrigation system. Special care shall be taken to avoid irrigation which will endanger existing native trees and shrubs. 108. 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 28 fencing around the existing trees and other required tree protection measures identified in this ordinance. Such fencing is to be installed prior to, and be maintained during, construction. The fencing shall be a five foot high chain link attached to steel poles driven at least 18 inches into the ground when at the 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. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 109. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. Required fire flow for this project is 1,000 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. 109. FIRE HYDRANTS. Provide one public fire hydrant at a location to be determined by the Fire Department and the San Jose Water Company. Hydrant(s) shall have a minimum single flow of 1,000 GPM at 20 psi residual, with spacing not to exceed 500 feet. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall provide civil drawings reflecting all fire hydrants serving the site. To prevent building permit delays, the developer shall pay all required fees to the water company ASAP. 110. HYDRANT INSTALLATION. Fire hydrants shall be installed and located along the new or replacement water main installation(s), at a maximum spacing of 500 feet. Provide hydraulic calculations to show that the required fire flow will be provided. 111. TIMING OF REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY HYDRANTS. Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested and accepted. 29 f t 112. FIRE ACCESS ROADS. The applicant shall provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet six inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. 113. ROADWAY TURNAROUND. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. Cut-de-sac diameters shall be no less than 72 feet. 114. FIRE LANE MARKINGS. The applicant shall provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per fire department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6. 115. PARKING ALONG ROADWAYS. The required width of the fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in any manner and parking shall not be allowed along roadways less than 28 feet in width. Roadway widths shall be measured curb face to curb face. 116. TIMING OF ROADWAY INSTALLATIONS. Required access roads, up through first lift of asphalt, shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start of construction. Bulk combustible materials shall not be delivered to the site until installation is complete. During construction, emergency access roads shall be maintained clear and unimpeded unless alternative solutions are approved by the Fire Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall contact the Fire Department to discuss their plan for maintaining the emergency access road during 30 construction. Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed. 117. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. *Required as Mitigation Measures 31 SECTION VI This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , 2007, 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: ATTEST: CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\ORDS\hnda 15881. l .doc MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 32 67393 15881 Linda Ave/15950 Stephenie Lane I T 0--XWt'Nx-,' 0-X--Fz-" LI-jOS GAT 0-M I Application No. Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance. Zone Change from to~ tl: 0 Prezoning to :r by Planning Commission date Approved by Town Council date Ord. _ _ Town Clerk Mayor EXHI~IT A 11ON 1 S'1R I C ja £E+8(1(aE i ,F!IiSi STIIIt (I 1 0,17 SAN CA 95 11 08) 288-5BM FAX (408) 993-8728 December 5, 2007 The Honorable Barbara Spector, Mayor, and Los Gatos Town Council Members Town Council Chambers, 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Ross Creek Report Dear Mayor Spector and Town Council Members: I was asked to perform an evaluation of Ross Creek and the impacts of the proposed development project between Stephanie Lane Linda Ave., on the south side of the creek, by a number of area residents. Enclosed is a copy of my report for your information. Cordially, D 20, OWN C -CAS GA--'' ATTACEMENT 24 Wii Nf)RIH P1 W _-T f OFF !C- 888 _ L M. 2014SAf I l ?SL, CA 95112 FAX (408) 99S-8728 November 30, 2007 ROSS CREEK at STEPHANIE LANE & LINDA AVE. Ross Creek in the vicinity of Linda Ave. in Los Gatos was evaluated by the undersigned using maps, published reports and drawings, hydrology data, aerial photos, and information collected from a number of field surveys. During the course of this effort, a lot of inaccurate, inconsistent or conflicting information was uncovered relating to the creek, its riparian zone and hydrology. Although the creek is still in a quasi-natural condition in this location, it has been severely altered over the years by human activity, especially upstream and downstream of the site and it is still adjusting to these impacts. As a result, geomorphic field indicators are inconsistent, making it very difficult to visually determine the location of the bankfull elevation, floodplain widths and flood flow boundaries. Therefore, obtaining valid stream flow, rainfall and drainage area data are especially important. The following sections document the results of my surveys and evaluations. They also document and discuss the inaccurate and inconsistent information uncovered, provide a plausible explanation for many of the inconsistencies and identify the most accurate information. MAPS Available historic maps dating back to the late 1700's were reviewed, along with more current maps, in an effort to determine the size of the Ross Creek drainage area at Linda Ave. and to try to determine just how much the stream channel has been altered. The watershed drainage size is important, as is the landscape form and the amount of development in the watershed, because these factors largely determine how much runoff can be expected in storm events. The average amount of rainfall an area receives is also a determining factor. Maps reviewed included maps published by Thompson & West in the early 1770's, the 1890 and 1929 Santa Clara County maps, as well as more current USGS and Santa Clara Valley Water District maps. Unfortunately, the historic maps do not clearly show the mid and lower segments of Ross Creek and it is known that it did not enter the Guadalupe River in its present location. Numerous accountings over the years indicated that Ross Creek once entered the Guadalupe River further to the north, perhaps as far north as the Willow Glenn area. In the 1950's it reportedly entered the Guadalupe River in the area where Lincoln Ave currently meets Almaden Expressway. Presently, it enters the Guadalupe River not far downstream of Branham Ave. The Santa Clara Valley Water District was requested to provide information regarding the creek's realignment and channelization in early September but this information has not been received as yet. The Thompson & West maps seem to show that the creek was diverted as far back as the mid 1700's to provide water for the numerous vineyards that used to populate the area to its north along Branham Ave. However, it is believed that the creek's actual confluence point with the Guadalupe River may have been moved several times, the most recent being when Almaden Expressway was constructed and the Guadalupe River was also relocated to accommodate that roadway. The historic maps do show the headwater stream segments of Ross Creek but once the streams reach the more highly developed areas the channels are no longer clearly identified on most maps. The USGS topographic map, Attachment I - A, clearly shows the creek downstream of Blossom Hill Road and some of its upstream tributaries. It shows one tributary of the creek, believed to be Short Creek starting along Shannon Road flowing west then turning north towards Blossom Hill Road. It shows the tributary known as East Ross Creek starting in the hills south of Kennedy Road and another unnamed branch starting in the hills east of Kennedy Road and flowing along it from east to west, intersecting it just to the north of Kennedy Road, then flowing west a short distance before turning north. It does not show the main channel of Ross Creek or Short Creek intersecting East Ross Creek. The map shows the above creek channels as dashed blue lines down to a location just upstream of Camino Del Cerro, less than a half mile downstream of Linda Ave. The creek is shown as a purple line further downstream. On USGS maps, dash blue lines indicate the streams are intermittent, flowing only a portion of the year. It is believed the purple line signifies a channelized or urbanized stream. Ross Creek in the area of Linda Ave. is actually a perennial stream according to area residents, as many have stated they have never seen it dry. Since the 2007 water year, was reportedly one of the driest on record, one would certainly expect to see an intermittent stream dry during the dry season. This was not the case. Ross Creek flowed continuously, at least from Blossom Hill Road to Camino Del Cerro during the driest months of this very dry year and the stream's pools and riffles supported hundreds of fish and crayfish. The SCVWD stream jurisdictional map, Attachment I - B, shows Short Creek running only about a half mile upstream of Blossom Hill Road along Short Road and then Shannon Road. The USGS map shows it running about a mile further east, along Shannon Road and this channel was verified by field observation. The SCVWD map shows a meandering East Ross Creek flowing about a mile upstream of Blossom Hill Road with the SCVWD's jurisdictional boundary at Kennedy Road. The map shows that the creek continues to run east along Kennedy Road and this channel was verified by field observation. It then branches off from the east segment following Kennedy Road eventually crossing the road and running into the hills. The south branch crosses Kennedy Road and runs south into the mountains for over a half a mile and then branches again. The lower segments of these channels were verified by field observation. The branching channels make the lower segment of East Ross Creek a third order stream and Ross Creek a forth order stream. The map shows Ross Creek as two straight lines with a 90 degree turn. It indicates that Ross Creek is a concrete U framed channel as it flows east onto the map just north of Topping Way. It is then shown as going into a 54" corrugated metal pipe, then into a 54" reinforced concrete pipe as it turns 90 degrees to the north and runs to the east of Shady View Lane into Blossom Hill Park. It is then shown going into a 60" reinforced concrete pipe. The map shows that East Ross Creek joins Ross Creek a little north of Shannon Road, where the channel is concrete U framed. It shows the combined creeks turning east going under Hillbrook Drive where they are joined by Short Creek. The creek then turns north again going under Blossom Hill Road exiting just east of Cherrystone Drive. The map indicates the creeks go under Blossom Hill Road in an 11 x 7 foot reinforced concrete box culvert. It indicates that Stream Gage Station # 21 is 2 located several hundred yards downstream, on the east side of the creek, just to the northwest of the northern end of Stephanie Lane, however, this is not the case. STREAM FLOW GAGES There are two stream flow gages on Ross Creek. Stream Gage # 21 is located about 20 yards downstream of Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos on the west side of the channel. It is identified by the SCVWD as monitoring a 1.9 mil drainage area. Stream Gage #51, is just upstream of Cherry Ave. in San Jose and it is identified by the SCVWD as monitoring a 7.61 mil drainage area. Gage # 21 is not located where indicated on the SCVWD jurisdictional map. It was most likely moved upstream since the map was published but it is unclear when this relocation took place. It is also doubtful that the drainage areas reported for the gages are accurate. It is known that East Ross Creek is about 1.8 miles long and its main stem and two of its tributaries primarily flow in a northerly direction. One of its tributaries primarily flows in a westerly direction. The three tributaries substantially increase the total stream channel length. Short Creek is also about a mile long and flows in a westerly direction before turning more northerly to intersect with Ross Creek. Ross creek is shown as flowing easterly before it turns north. The length of the main channel of Ross Creek upstream of Gage 21 is not frilly mapped on available maps but it is estimated to be over 1 mile in length. In view of the above, the drainage area monitored by the gage is most likely significantly larger than 1.9 square miles, perhaps up to twice as large. If this is the case, the drainage area monitored by Gage 51 would be larger as well. It is believed that the 1.9 mil drainage figure provided by the SCVWD may only be for the drainage area inside the SCVWD jurisdictional boundaries, but storms and the resulting stream flows do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries. Stream flow records and field bankfull indicators at the gage station, as well as Stephanie Lane and Linda Ave., seem to confirm the drainage area size is larger than documented. Both gage stations on Ross Creek are located in very poor locations. Gage Station 21 is just downstream of Blossom Hill Road. There is a grossly undersized single box culvert under the road that needs to carry the flows of Ross Creek, East Ross Creek and its two tributaries as well as Short Creek. The SCVWD jurisdictional map shows the culvert's size as 11 x 7 ft., however, the culvert's opening was actually measured as 11 x 5.6 ft. at the downstream or north side of Blossom Hill Road. The culvert's height is reduced because there is about a foot and a half of sediment built up on its bottom. About 50 feet inside the culvert it bends to the east and the sediment build-up significantly increases. There are also two outfall pipes entering the culvert just downstream of the bend, one on the east and one on the west side of the box. Flows entering the culvert at near perpendicular angles to the main water flow will create turbulence and cross currents thus reducing flow velocity and flow handling capacity. The combination of the culvert bend and the pipe outfalls are most likely causing the increased sediment buildup, as indicated by the right yellow arrow on the photo of the culvert's interior. The left yellow arrow shows the outfall pipe on the east side of the box. The sources of the outfall flows are unknown. In its current condition, the culvert's flow capacity is probably less than 400 cfs, ref. photos, Attachment II - A, which will negatively affect high flow gage station readings and accuracy. Gage Station 51 is located just upstream of an undersized twin box culvert under Cherry Ave. Not only is the culvert significantly smaller than the denuded stream channel, the left culvert is offset to the left of the main channel alignment. Debris builds up on the concrete divider between the two boxes, further decreasing capacity during storm events. As a result of the left channel offset, a strong eddy flow forms in this box and water actually flows upstream in the left culvert decreasing channel flow carrying capacity, elevating flow stage at the gage and adversely affecting gage accuracy, especially during high flow events, ref. photos, Attachment II - B. Gage 21 - Annual peak flow gage records were requested from the SCVWD for Gage 21 for the period of record. Complete flow data for water years 1947 to 2007 were provided and following are the 12 highest yearly peak flows for the period: Feb. 19, 1980 - 898 cfs Jan. 14, 1978 - 634 cfs Dec. 22, 1955 - 630 cfs Jan. 24, 1983 - 586 cfs Feb. 14, 1986 - 567 cfs Jan. 30, 1968 - 535 cfs Feb. 12, 1992 - 467 cfs Apr. 2, 1958 - 454 cfs Jan. 31, 1963 - 432 cfs Jan. 9, 1995 - 413 cfs Feb. 7, 1998 - 410 cfs Jan. 24, 1967 - 364 cfs Performing an annual peak flow frequency analysis per USGS procedures using all of the available data and plotting the results on log Pearson graph paper shows the following, also ref. Attachment III: Bankfull flow 120 cfs 20-year flow - 650 cfs 5-year flow 375 cfs 50-year flow - 875 cfs 10-year flow 525 cfs 100-year flow - 1,100 cfs Based on published regional hydrology data, the flows listed above are substantially higher than would normally be expected for a 1.9 mil drainage in our region. They are more in line with the flows expected in a 3.5 to 4 mil drainage receiving about 30 inches of rain a year, ref. Attachment IV. This supports the map information, which indicates that the drainage size given for Gage 21 is suspiciously low, given the length of the main channel its tributaries and their fan out in various directions. The undersized box culvert just upstream of the gage station with a cross sectional area of less than 62 ft2, due to sediment build-up, also affects gage accuracy at higher flows. Peak flows of larger storms are likely reduced in size, as the culvert would be unable to pass flows greater than 400 to 500 cfs. Higher flows would back-up likely causing flooding in upstream areas. Gage 51 - Annual peak flow gage records were requested from the SCVWD for gage 51 for the period of record prior to 1957 and from 1999 to 2007 in September but only the records from 2000 to 2007 have been provide to date. Peak flow records from 1957 to 1998 were already on file. The 12 highest yearly peak flows for the 1957 to 2007 period are as follows: Feb. 19, 1980 - 2400 cfs Jan. 30, 1968 - 1670 cfs Jan. 15, 1979 - 1080 cfs Jan. 14, 1978 - 2160 cfs Feb. 14, 1986 - 15 10 cfs Dec. 16, 2002 - 1010 cfs Feb. 12, 1992 - 1930 cfs May 16, 1996 - 1440 cfs Jan. 24, 1983 - 1900 cfs Feb. 3, 1998 - 1170 cfs Mar. 31, 1982 - 1740 cfs Oct. 19, 2004 - 1120 cfs 4 Performing an annual peak flow frequency analysis per USGS procedures using all of the available data and plotting the results on log Pearson graph paper shows the following, also ref. Attachment III: Bankfull flow 550 cfs 20-year flow - 2000 cfs 5-year flow 1200 cfs 50-year flow - 2600 cfs 10-year flow 1700 cfs 100-year flow - 3000 cfs Based on published regional hydrology data the flows listed above are substantially higher than would normally be expected for a 7.6 mil drainage receiving about 30 inches of rain per year. They are more in line with the flows expected in a 10 to 12 mil drainage, ref. Attachment IV. This supports the belief that the drainage size given for Gage 21 is too low, which in turn impacts the drainage area size of Gage 51. The undersized, offset, dual box culvert just downstream of the gage station, which affects stream flows and backs them up also elevates the gage station's high flow readings. The other factor contributing to higher flows at this station is believed to be the high amount of impervious surfaces in the area and immediately upstream and the resulting flash discharge from storm drains into the straightened denuded channel. It is well documented that as impervious surfaces from development increase, runoff increases by 30 to 55 (NRCS). The loss of adequate riparian areas is one of the leading factors contributing to increased pollution laden flash runoff, stream bank erosion and increased flood damage. RAINFALL DATA When addressing stream flow issues it is important to know how much rainfall is producing the runoff observed in the streams. Unfortunately, as can be seen in the table below, there is a lot of inconsistency between the amount of rainfall and stream flows, which raises additional doubt about the accuracy of the stream gage data. The rainfall data were obtained from Los Gatos Rain Gage # 11506: Gage Gage Month/ Day Rain Day Rain Day Rain Day Rain Day Rain Period Total 21 51 flow flow Year in. in. in. in. in. days in. cfs cfs Feb./1980 15 1.22 16 1.76 17 1.14 18 1.28 19 3.9 5 9.3 898 2400 Jan./1978 4 0.8 5 2.56 9 1.36 13 0.6 14 2.56 10 7.88 634 2100 no Dec./1955 18 0.87 19 6.22 20 1.9 21 0.29 22 1.9 5 11.2 630 data Jan./1983 18 1.05 19 0.12 22 2.34 23 01 24 2.84 7 6.45 586 1900 Feb./1986 12 0.56 13 0.91 14 3.08 3 4.55 567 1510 Jan./1968 29 1.45 30 5.56 2 7.01 535 1670 Feb./1992 9 0.16 10 1.7 11 1.4 12 2.55 4 5.81 467 1930 no Apr./1958 30 0.91 1 3.13 2 2.76 4 6.8 454 data Jan./1963 29 0.12 30 4.5 31 5.37 3 9.99 432 376 Jan./1995 7 1.56 8 0.84 9 2.05 3 4.45 413 910 Feb./1998 2 1.73 3 3.15 6 2.48 7 2.11 6 9.47 410 1110 Jan./1967 21 4.04 22 1.08 24 1.85 4 6.97 364 241 no Mar./1982 28 025 29 0.89 30 0.26 31 2.85 4 4.25 data 1740 5 The numbers on the above chart that are most suspect are highlighted in yellow. It is very odd that 9.3 inches of rain in a 5 day period produced the highest recorded flow on both stream gages yet about 10 inches of rain in 3 days produced less than half the flow on gage 21 and less than a fifth of the flow at gage 51. It is also veiy odd that 11.2 inches of rain in five days produced significantly lower flows than the record high flow. It is even more puzzling that 8.5 inches of rain on Dec. 23, 1955, the highest amount of rainfall recorded in a single day by the rain gage, did not even result in a significant flow on the Ross Creek stream gages. The rainfall from the Dec. 19 to Dec. 23, 1955 storms totaled 18.79 inches, the largest amount of rain documented in a 5 day period in over a 100 years of rain gage records. The second largest storm event occurred from Jan. 11 to Jan. 14, 1911 when 4 days of rain produced 16.15 inches of rain, 6.15 inches falling on Jan. 14`h. There was only one gage on area streams at that time; it was on Coyote Creek in Morgan Hill and it recorded the highest flow ever recorded on area streams, 25,000 cfs. The reason the 1955 storms did not produce record flows on all our larger streams, which had stream gage stations by that time, is they were reservoir controlled. Since the storms hit very early in the season the reservoirs were all fairly empty, so virtually all of the runoff in the upper watershed areas was captured and never made it to the lower stream segments. AERIAL PHOTO A Google Earth photo of Ross Creek downstream of Blossom Hill Road shows a well defined stream/riparian corridor, Attachment V. In the area around Stephanie Lane and Linda Ave. the photo shows the riparian corridor- to range from about 70 to 110 feet wide. The photo also shows a vegetation line running in a west northwesterly direction from Linda Ave. towards the creek, just to the northeast of the red roofed house sitting in the middle portion of the two open fields. It appears as if the driveway to the house runs along or through the vegetation stand. This vegetation stand probably defines an ephemeral channel or drainage area. FIELD SURVEYS Field surveys show that the outer edge of the riparian vegetation line seen running along the creek in the Google Earth photo corresponds closely with the top of the floodplain area. There should be at least a 25 foot buffer from the outer dripline of the vegetation for passive activities, such as trails or recreational areas and a minimum 50 foot buffer for any structural development. The land significantly slopes towards the creek north of Blossom Hill Road, so all runoff from the upslope land and impervious surfaces reaches the creek rather quickly. The riparian area serves to slow down and infiltrate the runoff, thus reducing flash runoff and peak flows and replenishing ground water supplies. It also filters out pollutants before they reach the creek. These are critical functions that should not be compromised. There is presently a small concrete catch basin at the northwest end of Linda Ave with a grated drain crossing the driveway of the red roofed house shown in the Google Earth photo. A drain pipe enters the concrete catch basin from the west but its origin is unknown. The drain exists on the east side of the box and runs across the driveway, which has a slotted grate across it. On the east side of the driveway the drain enters an underground pipe and exists about twenty feet to the northeast into an ephemeral ditch that runs down the vacant property towards the creek, ref. photos Attachment VI - A. Ross creek shows clear evidence that it is incising (downcutting) in the project area between Linda Ave. and Stephanie Lane. Concrete sacks, concrete rubble, as well as rock and wood armoring have been placed along a good portion of the northern bank and this armoring is being undermined in many places by the downcutting channel. Many of the houses on the north side of the creek have been built far too close to the creek channel, right to the edge of the riparian zone. In many locations there is little to no riparian setback or buffer and this is negatively impacting the channel and has resulted in bank armoring. Armoring channel banks will further degrade creeks causing them to continue downcutting, then laterally cut because of increased turbulence, flow velocity and shear stress. There is evidence of active channel headcutting upstream of Linda Ave. near Bldg. Site # 1. Another factor degrading the creek is the channel straightening that has taken place, both upstream of Blossom Hill Road and starting less than a half mile downstream of Linda Ave. This has increased the channel's slope and such action has been proven to cause increased erosion and headcutting. The totally armored channel for some distance upstream of Blossom Hill Road also deprives downstream segments with an adequate sediment supply, which also leads to greater channel erosion and downcutting, as sediment lost downstream is not being replaced. In addition, undersized road crossing culverts, like the one at Blossom Hill Road, cause channel instability because they block proper sediment transport and deny floodplain relief thus causing upstream deposition and flooding and accelerated flows, erosion and downcutting downstream, ref, photos in Attachment VI - B. Aquatic Habitat Survey - Ross Creek is a quasi natural perennial channel from Blossom Hill Road to upstream of Camino Del Cerro, downstream of Linda Ave. It has a low flow at all times, according to area residents. USGS and SCVWD maps show East Ross Creek to be a 3rd order stream making Ross Creek a 4th order stream. The creek has good aquatic habitat complexity with small meanders and alternating riffles, runs, glides and pools, with some undercut banks and woody debris. All of the pools, some over 2 ft deep, were full of fish, which were identified as California Roach of all sizes ranging from less than an inch long to almost 4 inches long, ref photos Attachment VI - C. According to fish reference books, 4 inches is the maximum length reached by CA Roach. The riffles and pools also contain Louisiana crayfish of all sizes. The water temperature was measured at 64 degrees F on September 9th at about 3 PM, 58 degrees F on October 28th about 2 PM and 56 degrees F on Nov. 4th about 2PM. A quick insect survey was also conducted in a riffle and pool area upstream of Linda Ave. and a fair number of insects were noted. In the pool, numerous insects were noted swimming on the water's surface and sitting on the top of leaf matter floating on the water. In the riffle, various sizes of the following macroinverterbrates were found along the bed of the stream: aquatic earthworms, crane fly larva, damselflies and grilled snails. In view of the above, it is felt that the stream, in the survey area could support other types of fish including freshwater trout or juvenile anadromous salmonids, as well as amphibians. It is also a critical source of water for terrestrial and avian wildlife. Deer droppings and many birds were observed along the creek corridor during the surveys. 7 Channel Cross Section Surveys Three channel cross section surveys were performed, one just downstream of Stephanie Lane at Bldg. Site #4, one upstream of Linda Ave. at Bldg. Site #1 and one just downstream of the northern leg of Linda Ave., a short distance downstream of the project site. The cross section surveys contain important channel configuration information. The cross sections show the shape and area of the active channel and the shape and area of the active floodplain. The active floodplain is normally inundated by channel overflows or floodwaters, to some degree, at least once a year on rural streams and far more frequently on urban streams. The active channel and floodplain will normally contain all of the flows of the more frequent storm events. The active channel and its floodplain area may or may not contain flows from very large, infrequent storm events, such as the 50-year or larger event. Normally, flows from very large infrequent events spill out of the active floodplain corridor and onto a low terrace, which is often identified as the 100-year floodplain but is more accurately defined as a flood prone area, as terraces are actually abandoned floodplains. The bankfull channel capacity can normally be determined by performing a peak flow frequency analysis using gage station data. It can also be determined from channel cross sectional data and flow velocity measurements or estimations, provided the bankfull channel elevation can be determined via field indicators. This can be done fairly easily on stable streams but it is more difficult on unstable or incising streams, as the channels are in transition and the field indicators are inconsistent. One of the main indicators of the bankfull channel elevation is a significant change or break in channel slope, another is a mature tree line. Trees and perennial vegetation normally grow on a floodplain but do not grow in an active channel. The bankfull channel configuration and dimensions, as well as the active floodplain dimensions are critical because they have a large influence on channel stability. Stephanie Lane - The cross section survey just downstream of Stephanie Lane, building Site #4, Attachment VII - A, shows an unstable, incising channel and the accompanying photos support this observation, Attachment VII - B. The channel in this area turns in a more easterly direction, so higher velocity flows hit the left, northerly bank. Most likely as a result of past erosion problems, the left side of the channel has been armored with concrete sacks, which are now being undermined by channel incision. The right side of the channel has natural banks. The current bankfull flow level is shown in the cross section as the solid blue line at about the 314 ft. elevation. This is within the incising channel, so there is no floodplain connection/relief for above bankfull flows. The dashed blue line, at about the 315.5 ft. elevation, is where field bankfull indicators are located, the mature tree line, the break in slope and the start of the floodplain. Field evidence shows that the stream has downeut as much as 2 ft. in this area in recent years. This is enlarging the channel and disconnecting it from its floodplain, which will lead to further instability. The downeutting will likely continue, and the left bank will eventually fail, especially if measures are not taken to correct the problems noted in the above sections, namely reducing flash runoff from new and present development, fixing the undersized culvert at Blossom Hill Road, restoring the channelized upstream segments to more natural conditions and providing some natural grade control to try to better isolate the natural stream segment from the up and downstream channelization effects. The active or bankfull channel is currently about 17 ft. wide, running from about the 6 ft. to the 23 ft. point on the corridor cross section plot and it has a cross sectional area of about 32 ft'. It has a maximum depth of 4.0 ft. and an average depth of about 2 ft. A 32 ft' channel should be able to handle a 180 cfs flow but the analysis of the peak flow data from Gage 21 shows the bankfitll flow at the gage to be about 120 cfs. It is believed that several factors are contributing to this disparity. The undersized culvert just upstream of the gage station is likely resulting in inaccurate high flow readings. According to rain gage data, larger storm events often produced lower flow readings than much smaller storms, which is highly suspect. Gage 21 did not even record a high flow reading when the largest storm on record dumped 8.5 inches of rain in one day on the area after 4 days of record rainfall, reference the Stream Gage 21 and Rainfall Data sections of the report. Stephanie Lane is also about .4 of a mile downstream of the gage, so the drainage area is larger and bankfull flows should be about 30 - 40 cfs higher- than recorded at the gage. The apparent stream incision that is taking place downstream of Stephanie Lane is another contributing factor, as it has increased the channel cross sectional area by about 10 ft.'. This in turn has increased the active channel's flow carrying capacity by about 50 efs. It is estimated that the drainage area at the cross section site is actually about 4 to 4.5 mil. According to published regional flow data, a 4 to 4.5 mil drainage in our region should produce a 180 - 200 cfs flow, ref. Attachment IV, which is more in concert with the field indicators. If the recent channel incision were repaired by filling the channel up to the brown dashed line, it would return the bankfull level to the point shown by the blue dashed line. This would allow above bankfull flows to access the floodplain, reducing channel velocity and shear stress. Providing above bankfull flows with floodplain relief is an essential component for a stable channel. The survey shows the active floodplain at the cross section site on the south side of the stream to be about 39 ft. wide, running from the 23 ft. to the 63 ft. point on the cross section plot and is indicated by the yellow line at about the 318.8 ft elevation. The area under the line is about 170 ft', so it should contain the more frequent flood flows, tip to about the 50- year event. The cross sectional area extending out to the 70 foot point, an elevation about 319.8 ft. should contain flows up to the 100-year flood. It is very clear that riparian vegetation is growing in the area out to the 70 ft. mark so it should be considered the "top of bank" point. The outer- edge of the riparian drip zone, as shown on the Google Earth photo and the cross section area photos extends even further upslope, to at least the 75 ft. mark, so a 25 ft. setback for passive uses and a 50 ft building setback should be measured from this point. Also shown on the cross section is a green line identifying the 10-year flood level, at an elevation of about 317.8 ft and extending out to the 50 ft. mark. The triangular hump shown at the 34 ft. point is a large pile of brush and downed trees. It is unclear if this material was cut and piled in the area, or if downed dead material was piled in the area or just collected there, but the pile did not seem to be natural. The cross section also shows a magenta line at about the 316.2 ft. elevation, this is the approximate level of the October 19`h 2004 storm, a 4.5 year event, based on photo documentation and cross section measurement taken downstream of Linda Ave. Upstream of Linda Ave. Building Site #1 - The cross section survey upstream of Linda Ave. at Building Site #1, Attachment VIII - A, also shows an incising channel, ref. photos in Attachment VIII-B. The channel is relatively straight in this segment and there is evidence of substantial headcutting about 50 feet upstream of the cross section location. Most of the properties along the north side of the creek have armored banks while the southern bank is natural. 9 The current bankfull flow level is shown by the solid blue line at the 310 ft. elevation. This is within the incising channel so there is no floodplain connection/relief for flows above bankfull. The dashed blue line, at about the 311 ft. elevation shows a break in slope on the left but this is an artificial break created by a property owner's lower deck along the north bank. Field evidence shows that the stream has downcut at least 3 ft. in this area in recent years so this is enlarging the channel and disconnecting it from its floodplain, which will lead to further instability. There is an active I to 2 ft. headcut about 50 ft. upstream of the cross section area and this will continue migrating upstream. Channel downcutting will likely continue and the banks will eventually fail and collapse. If the recent channel incision were repaired by corrective measures that would allow the channel to fill up to the brown dashed line, it would return the bankfull level to the point shown by the blue dashed line. This would allow above bankfull flows some relief along the north bank. However, in order to provide for a more stable channel the right bank will need to be more gradually sloped back to provide additional relief. The survey shows that the active floodplain is at the 314.8 ft. elevation and it extends out to 66 ft. mark on the cross section, as indicated by the yellow line. This is the area that should contain the more frequent flood flows, up to about the 50-year event. The cross sectional area extending out to the 78 foot point, at an elevation about 315.4 ft. should contain flows up to the 100-year flood. It is very clear that riparian vegetation is growing in the area out to the 78 ft. mark so it should be considered the "top of bank" point. The outer edge of the riparian drip zone, as shown on the Google Earth photo and the cross section area photos extends even further upslope, to at least the 84 ft. mark, so a 25 ft. setback for passive uses and a 50 ft building setback should be measured from this point. The cross section survey shows a green line identifying the 10-year flood level, at an elevation of about 313.7 ft., extending out to the 38 ft, point. The two triangular humps shown at the 42 and 56 ft. points are large piles of brush and downed trees. It is unclear if this material was cut and piled in the area, or if downed dead material was piled in the area, as the piles were too structured to be a natural occurrence. The cross section also shows a magenta line at about the 312 ft, elevation, this is the approximate level of the October 19th 2004 storm, estimated to be about a 4.5 year event. It is known that this storm flow was at least a foot above the left bank slope break, at the 310.8 ft. elevation, because the property owner stated that lawn furniture, which was sitting on the narrow deck in that location was washed away by the storm flows. Downstream of Linda Ave. - The cross section survey just downstream of the northern leg of Linda Ave., Attachment IX - A, shows what appears to be a more stable but slightly incised active channel. The channel is relatively straight in this segment. The left side of the channel, northern bank, in the cross section area is step terraced and armored with concrete rubble/rock slabs but the right side, southern side of the channel, has natural banks. The current bankfiill level is shown in the cross section by the solid blue line at about the 309 ft. elevation. This is within the incising channel so there is little floodplain connection/relief for above bankfull flows, although there is a small break in slope at about the 308.5 ft. elevation. The blue dashed line, at about the 309.8 ft. elevation shows a more substantial break in slope on both the left and right banks. The left side break is due to an armored bank terrace but this may provide enough relief to keep the channel stable if some corrective measures are taken to reverse the one to two foot downcut that apparently took place in recent years and will only continue to worsen if left unchecked. 10 The active floodplain at the cross section site is about 55 ft. wide, running from the 2 ft. to the 57 ft. point on the cross section plot, at an elevation of about 312.8 ft. This active floodplain zone is the area that will be inundated to some degree by the annual and larger flood flows. The cross sectional area of the active floodplain corridor in this segment, as shown under the yellow line is about 158 ft', so it will only have the capacity to contain flood flows up to about the 50 year event. The corridor cross section area presently does not have the capacity to contain larger flood flows. Larger flows will continue to encroach onto the property on the south side of the corridor until they reach the top of the north bank and start overflow it. Once this occurs, flows will spread out quickly to the northeast and into the surrounding neighborhood, as the land generally slopes down in the northeasterly direction. As a result of this overflow, the 100-year flood flow level elevation may be slightly lower then shown by the orange line. Because of the reduction of the corridor cross sectional area downstream of Linda Ave. any increased runoff from development upstream will increase the risk of further destabilizing the stream channel and will significantly increase the risk of infrastructure damaging flooding from the 40-year and larger storm events on both sides of the creek downstream of Linda Ave. The green line on the cross section shows the level of the 10-year flow at an elevation of 312.3 ft. The magenta line shows the flow level of the October 19, 2004 storm, approximately a 4.5 year event. The flow level for this storm, at this location, is known because it was both observationally and photo documented by area residents, ref. Attachment X. WESTFALL ENGINEERING CHANNEL INFORMATION Channel cross section information provided in the Westfall Engineering, Inc. site development plans was reviewed and it does not come close to reflecting the cross section configuration or the elevation of the present creek channel and its floodplain. It also does not accurately project flood flow elevations. Bldg. Site 4 Channel Dimensions - The Westfall Lot 4 channel diagram shows a symmetrical channel with a bed elevation of 313 ft. and a bottom width of about 15 ft. It shows a ten-year flow depth of 3.8 ft. (elevation 316.8 ft.) and surface width of about 45 ft. It shows the 100-year flow depth as 5.2 ft. (elevation 318.2 ft.) and a surface width of about 65 ft. Actually the channel at Lot 4 is not symmetrical. The left, north, bank is almost vertical, while the right bank is irregular and varies in slope. The true channel bed elevation was measured at 310.2 ft. and has a pronounced narrow thalweg, which is only about a foot wide. The true ten year flow maximum depth is about 7.5 ft. (elevation 317.8 ft.) with a channel surface width of about 45 ft. and mean depth of 2.5 ft. The 100-year flow maximum depth is about 9.4 ft (elevation 319.7 ft.) with a surface width of about 66 ft. and mean depth of 3.4 ft. Bldg. Site 3 Channel Dimensions - The Westfall Lot 3 channel diagram shows a symmetrical channel with a bed elevation of 310 5 ft and a bottom width of about 15 ft. A channel cross section survey was not performed in this area but it is clear from visual observation that the channel is not symmetrical. It is also very unlikely that the bed elevation is at 310.5 ft since it is .3 ft lower a good distance upstream at Bldg. Site 4. Bldg. Site 1 Channel Dimensions - The Westfall Lot 1 channel diagram shows a symmetrical channel with a bed elevation of 309 ft. and a bottom width of about 20 ft. It 11 shows the 10-year flow depth to be 3.6 ft. (elevation 312.8 ft) and a surface width of about 25 ft. It shows the 100-year flow depth to be 4.9 ft (elevation 313.9 ft.) with a surface width of about 38 ft. Actually the channel at Lot 1 is not symmetrical. The lower left, north, side of the channel is armored and vertical. The upper portion is steep sloped and irregular. The true channel bed elevation was measured at 307 ft. The thalweg is about 7 ft wide and the right side of the channel has a gradual slope near its bottom but then becomes very steep until the floodplain elevation is reached. The 10-year maximum flow depth is actually about 6.6 ft (elevation 313.8 ft.) with a surface width of about 36 ft. and mean depth of 3.4 ft. The 100- year maximum flow depth is 8.3 ft (elevation 315.3 ft) with a surface width of about 75 ft and mean depth of 2.75 ft. HYDROLOGY In view of the problems discussed above regarding gage station data and the fact that Stephanie Lane and Linda Ave. are about .4 to .5 miles downstream of the gage station, a larger- drainage area, the flow at these locations will be higher than at the gage. Based on the gage data, it is estimated that the various flows will be as follows in the project area: Bankfull flow 180 cfs 20-year flow - 825 cfs 5-year flow 450 cfs 50-year flow - 1,100 cfs 10-year flow 675 cfs 100-year flow - 1,375 cfs Attachment X contains numerous photos of Ross Creek taken by an area resident during storms in 2004 and 2006. The photos were taken looking southwest from the northern bank of the creek, just east of the northern leg of Linda Ave. They show the area where the cross section was surveyed downstream of Linda Ave. Gage station records would normally indicate the approximate volume of flow during the events and the flows could be compared to the cross section data for validation. The approximate return interval of the event could then be obtained from the adjusted gage station peak flow frequency analysis plot. Unfortunately Gage 21 only recorded a 126 cfs peak flow for the Oct. 19, 2004 storm, an unrealistic figure based on event photos and Gage 51 data, so a more indirect method of flow estimation was necessary. Gage 51 recorded a 1,120 cfs peak flow for the Oct. 19`h storm, which is about a 4.5 year event per flood frequency analysis for that gage. Photos of the event show flow levels close to reaching the chain link fence on the south bank of the creek, at the site where the cross section was performed, downstream of Linda Ave. The channel/corridor cross sectional area up to the fence-line was measured/calculated at about 68 ft'. At an average flow velocity of 5 ft/sec. the flow volume would be 340 cfs and at a velocity of 6 ft/sec the flow would be 408 cfs. According to the annual peak flow frequency analysis performed for Gage 21, a 350 to 400 cfs flow would be about a 5 year event at the gage. Because the drainage area at Linda Ave. is larger than at the gage, the return interval for the storm would be closer to 4.5 years. In view of the above, it is estimated that the peak flow for the Oct. 19 2004 storm, in the project area was between 350 and 400 cfs, a 4.5 year event, which is in concert with the flow interval recorded at Gage 51. Moderate size storm flow velocities in quasi natural channels with moderate size floodplains tend to fall in the range of 4.5 to 6.5 ft/sec. It is very clear that the Oct. 19, 2004 storm was no where close to a 100-year event, as the developer claimed, when the photos where shown at the Los Gatos Planning Commission meeting in August. 12 DEVELOPMENT PLANS Photographs of the topographic map and development plans for a proposed development on the land between Stephanie Lane and Linda Ave. on the southern side of the creek were reviewed. The plans show a bioswale and storm drain pipes in the riparian area, on the floodplain, just downstream of Bldg. Site 4. The plans show no riparian setback or buffer zone. They show the Bldg. 4 footprint starting less than 10 ft. upslope from the edge of the floodplain and just at the outer edge of the riparian zone dripline. The plans and topographic map also seem to show what is being called "Top of Bank" as the top of the active channel bank. This is not the "Top of Bank." The "Top of Bank" is the top of the corridor bank that will contain active channel and active floodplain waters. The placement of any type of infrastructure on the active floodplain is a violation the Santa Clara County Water Resources Protection Collaborative's (WRPC) Guidelines and Standards. The WRFC G&S's define "Top of Bank" as follows: "Top of bank designates a stream boundary where the majority of normal discharges and channel forming activities take place. The top of bank boundary will contain the active channel, active floodplain and their associated banks." (WRPC G&S 2G, page 2.15). Not only must all construction be kept off the active floodplain and outside of the riparian area, the Guidelines and Standards recommend a riparian setback buffer and require a building setback from the top of bank for slope stability protection. At Bldg. 1 Site, the development plans show a bioswale and retaining wall within the floodplain area at the 315 ft elevation. The plans show the "Top of Bank" at the 312 ft. elevation at the channel cross section site, which is about 3.5 ft. below the field measured top of floodplain elevation. At the eastern property boundary, the plans show the Top of Bank at 310 ft., which is actually within the lower part of the incised active channel. How is this possible? The placement of bioswales on the floodplain will not only negate their usefulness, it will degrade the riparian area, decrease the corridor's cross section and compromise the floodplain's function. The placement of retaining walls on the floodplain will reduce the floodplain's size and the corridor's cross section thus elevate flood flow depths and redirect flows in the area as well as downstream, increasing the risk of out of corridor and infrastructure damaging flooding. This is a violation of the WRFC G&S's and likely a violation of both local government and FEMA codes. CONCLUSIONS Ross Creek in the area of Stephanie Lane and Linda Ave. is a quasi natural stream that shows signs of instability. It has been degraded by past human activities but is still a viable stream supporting fish and wildlife. It is a critical community asset that needs and deserves to be protected. In order to prevent further degradation of the creek and protect its beneficial uses and water quality, new environmental and stream protection standards need to be fully adopted and stream stewardship goals need to be embraced. Riparian and active floodplain zones must be fully protected and infrastructure encroachment in these areas must be prohibited. Increased flash discharge from all new development projects needs to be prohibited. Present development should be encouraged and even provided with incentives to decrease storm runoff from their properties. In order to improve conditions along this stretch of Ross Creek some rehabilitation efforts are essential. The undersize culverts at road 13 crossings need to be fixed and failing bank armoring needs to be removed. Channel downcutting needs to be reversed and high velocity flows need to be redirected away from the north bank using log or rock vanes and more natural bank stabilization methods need to be implemented. The rehabilitation effort needs to address the channelization that has taken place upstream of Blossom Hill Road. The creek should be removed from its confining pipes and concrete culvert and a natural channel should be constructed. There is plenty of room to daylight the creek for at least a good distance upstream of Blossom Hill Road, as it runs along the edge of Blossom Hill Park in pipes and a concrete culvert. Daylighting this segment of the creek will create wild and aquatic life habitat, improve water quality, decrease the risk of infrastructure damaging flooding and greatly increase neighboring property values. Natural floodplains reduce high flow erosive forces and peak flows, and filter and percolate water, thus replenishing the ground water supply. It is unclear what impacts a changing climate will have on the amount of precipitation we receive. Most experts seem to be predicting that the storms will be larger and more intense. If this is the case, stream channels/corridors will need to increase in size to handle the increased flows and floodplains will need to be larger to handle larger flood flows. This makes it even more important to protect stream corridors and floodplains and provide adequate buffers so streams will have enough room to flood and wiggle a little, without causing structural damage. If the proposed development project is allowed disregard riparian area/floodplain buffer zone recommendations there will be significant adverse environmental impacts. If the project is allowed to actually encroach into the riparian zone and onto the floodplain, altering its size, as the current plans show, the consequences will be severe. If flash runoff from project related impervious surfaces is not retained on site, outside of the riparian/floodplain area, there will be negative impacts to the creek, increased flood risk, and accelerated erosion. The project, as proposed, will reduce the stream corridor area and will certainly increase flood elevation levels along the north side of the creek, as well as downstream, thus further destabilizing the creek and increasing flood damage risk. It is unclear how the proposed project intends to address the storm runoff that currently runs onto the site from impervious surfaces upslope and the catch basin on the northeast side of the project site. It is unclear how much runoff currently flows into the project area from uphill locations for various size storm events. Currently, this run-off is largely percolated on-site in the vacant land that dominates the property. It is unclear how much runoff will be produced by the proposed project for various size storm events. It is unclear how the proposed development project will handle these flows and prevent them from flash discharging directly into the creek. Allowing this flow to directly discharge into the creek will certainly degrade the creek channel and water quality and elevate flood flows downstream. In view of the above and because plans for the proposed project between Stephanie Lane and Linda Ave. show the following: inaccurate creek and corridor cross sectional information, flow capacities and flood flow elevations; bioswales/flood walls either on the active floodplain or in flood prone area; building structures right next to the floodplain/riparian zone, with very little to no set back, contrary to the requirements/recommendations of the WRPC Guidelines and Standards for riparian vegetation and bank slope protection, there 14 needs to be an more comprehensive independent study and evaluation of potential project environmental and infrastructure impacts. It is strongly recommended that an Environmental Impact Report be required for the project to address all issues identified above. Ross Creek neighbors and all concerned citizens should also join together to pressure town officials and the SCVWD to implement projects to restore the degraded, denuded, channelized segments of the creek to a more natural state for the benefit of all citizens, as well as wild/aquatic life, in accordance with the SCVWD's "Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Program," which property owners have been paying for since 2001. t Lawrence M. Johmann, P.E. President 15 QUALIFICATION INFORMATION Lawrence M. Johmarm (Lary) November 20, 2007 Mr. Johmann is currently President of the Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District (GCRCD) and is serving on the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara County Creeks Coalition. He served as an Associate Director of the Evergreen Resource Conservation District, now the Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District from 1992-1994, then served on its Board of Director's from 1995 to 1998, including one-year as VP and one year as President. From 1999 to 2002 he again served as an Associate Director and consultant to the GCRCD, was reappointed as a Director in 2003 and was elected President again in 2005. Larry represents the GCRCD on the Santa Clara Basin's Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) Core Group and the WMI's Watershed Assessment and Monitoring, Land Use and Communications and Outreach Subgroups. He was a member of the WMI's Work Group 1, and the Stream Stewardship Workgroup and was also the Guadalupe River Watershed Assessment Team co-captain. He represents the GCRCD on Santa Clara County's Water Resource Protection Collaborative and was a member of its Guidelines and Standards working subgroup. He also represents the GCRCD on the Downtown Guadalupe River Flood Control Project's Adaptive Management Team, the Guadalupe Watershed Integrated Work Group, the Coyote Watershed Integrated Work Group and the Fishery and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort. He is a member of Silichip Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Group and Friends of Coyote Creek and has been monitoring sahnonids and collecting stream data on the Guadalupe River- and Coyote Creek for the past 15 years. He also served on the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's Municipal Regional Permit Monitoring Workgroup. He has worked on stream monitoring and restoration projects on Wolf Creek, the east and west forks of the San Juan River, and the Wimanuehie River in southern Colorado. He consulted on pilot restoration projects on Turner and Mill Creeks in Covelo, CA and was Project Manager/Principal Investigator on a CALFED Grant funded Stream Assessment & Monitoring Program in the Upper Guadalupe River Watershed for the GCRCD. Mr. Johmann retired from Lockheed Martin Space Operations Co. holding the position of Systems Staff Engineer in the Technical Operations Group. He was employed with Lockheed Martin and Lockheed Corporation heritage companies for over 30 years, including over 6 years at Lockheed Missiles & Space Company's Advanced Technology Center (Research and Development Division in Palo Alto) and 15 years at Lockheed Electronics Company). He performed Systems Engineering, Systems Test Engineering, Test Engineering, Product Assurance, Quality Engineering, Reliability and Product Safety functions over this time span. He served for over 10 years on Lockheed Corporation's Quality Technology Committee including two- year terms as Vice Chairman and Chairman. He also served for over 15 years in various American Society for Quality elected officer positions including: vice chairman, chairman and regional councilor for the Society's Electronics & Communications Division, and Vice Chair and Chairman of the Princeton N.J. Section. Education 2 yrs. - Natural Science (pre-med.) Niagara University, Niagara Falls, NY - 1962. 1 yr. - Electronic Communications & Cryptographic Systems Repair, U.S. Air Force - 1964 AAS - Electronics Engineering Technology, Ocean County College, Toms River, NJ - 1973 BS - Manufacturing Engineering Technology, Newark College of Engineering, Newark, NJ - 1977 Cert. - Lockheed Management Institute, Fairleigh Dickerson Univ., Madison, NJ - 1981 MS - Engineering Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ - 1985 Applied Fluvial Geomorphology D. Rosgen - Wildland Hydrology, San Jose, CA 1995, 1996, 1997 River Monitoring and Restoration - D. Rosgen - Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO 1998 River Design - D. Rosgen - Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa, CO 1999 Stream Investigation, Stabilization and Design Workshop - Dave Derrick (USACoE), San Jose CA 2002 Intermediate Fluvial Geomorphology - Dr. B. Annable, Dr. C. Watson - San Jose, CA 2004 Hydrologic & Geomorphic Processes in Stream Restoration - G&R Kamrnan - San Jose, CA 2005 California Registered Professional Engineer #5457 American Society for Quality (ASQ) - Elected Fellow ASQ Certified: Quality Engineer (E-5367), Reliability Engineer (R-1223) Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME), Certified Manufacturing Engineer (1804939) U.S. International Standards Organization Registrar Certified ISO 9000 Lead Quality Auditor (96206105) 16 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment I A - USGS Topographical Map Attachment I B - SCVWD Stream Jurisdictional Map Attachment II A - SCVWD Stream Flow Gage # 21 and Vicinity Photos Attachment II B - SCVWD Stream Flow Gage # 51 and Vicinity Photos Attachment III - Annual Peak Flow Frequency Analysis for Gage Stations 21 & 51 Attachment IV - Regional Drainage Area/Bankfull Discharge Curves Attachment V - Google Earth Aerial Photo of Survey Area Attachment VI A - Development Site Photos Attachment VI B - Creek Channel Downcutting Photos Attachment VI C - Fish & Aquatic Habitat Photos Attachment VII A - Stephanie Lane, Bldg. Site #4 Cross Section Data Attachment VII B - Stephanie Lane, Bldg. Site #4 Cross Section Photos Attachment VIII A - US Linda Ave., Bldg. Site #1 Cross Section Data Attachment VIII B - US Linda Ave., Bldg. Site #1 Cross Section Photos Attachment IX A - DS Linda Ave., Cross Section Data Attachment IX B - DS Linda Ave., Cross Section Photos Attachment X - Channel/Storm Flow Photos 17 ATTACHMENT I -A USGS Topo Map I ATTACHMENT I - B 2 ATTACHMENT II - A 'Oft ww„ Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. 7ohmann September 9, 2007 Looking upstream towards Blossom Hill Rd. from SCVWD Stream Gage 21. Arrow shows undersized culvert. Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. 7ohmann September 9, 2007 SCVWD Stream Gage 21 - Blossom Hill Rd. ATTACHMENT II -A ~t3k}iiTM p _ r JT4 7y 4 ...rf ~ n Y dd' ff'"` r ` <4~' d Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo 0 L.M. 7ohmann September 9, 2007 Looking upstream at the undersized Blossom Hill Rd. Culvert. ~ Mrt}~r u rk a,- , Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo 0 L.M. 7ohmann September 9, 2007 View inside Blossom Hill Rd. culvert. Left arrow shows the east outfall, right arrow shows sediment pile where the culvert turns eastward, the west outfall is shown at photo center. 4 ATACHMENT II - B IWAI*i f i . Ross Creek - San Jose, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann November 1, 2003 View upstream from Cherry Ave. at SCVWD Stream Gage 51 _ i Ross Creek - San Jose, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann November 1, 2003 View downstream towards Cherry Ave. from SCVWD Stream Gage 51, at offset left culvert box. The culverts are undersized with less than half the flow capacity of the channel. 5 ATTACHMENT II - B Ross Creek - San Jose, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann November 9, 2003 View upstream at Gage Station 51 from the Cherry Ave Bridge at moderate flow. The left arrow shows downstream flows being vectored toward the south bank by upstream eddy flows, right arrow, created by and in the offset, north side culvert box. m' ,t'1 3 ++.aa w ?fe I C k Mi = ((t'' } Yr ~ is ( tr ~ t Ross Creek - San Jose, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann November 9, 2003 View downstream at the Cherry Ave Culvert at moderate flow. The right arrow shows downstream flows being vectored toward the south bank by upstream eddy flows, left arrow, created by and in the offset, north side box. Note the debris pile on the box divider wall. 6 ATTACHMENT III I~' 4111 a . , i i t t. a t = ~ ~ I is I I II { I ! I i ( H m ri C} . ! I I I I f l l , P l. l i7 U;~e I,. 1{ 7 I T, I 7 Y L n i i I r n f i . I I - I I I ~ ~ I I I I i I i I ~ { ! I I ; Ann ma) FE AK F tit nrv .4 w aY I { ! ! I Sr / i Name:. i s nor ,nrRa.c s - m r 2 1 5 L .o - I .1L7 4 C. 39 8Q r11 $5 a Annual Peak Flow Frequency Analysis - Steam Gage 21, Blossom Hill Rd. Los Gatos, CA 7 ATTACHMENT IV 5000 1000 C O U N 500 m Q w o= Q U 100 U) O J J 50 Y z a m EiSxre 5.7 Bankfull discharge as a function of drainage area for several regions in the united States. Leopold 1994 8 10 2 5 1 5 10 50 100 500 DRAINAGE AREA: square miles ATTACHMENT V Google Earth Photo r s~y ~ yr ➢ ` 9 ATTACHMENT VI - A rr . 4 a P .Z Linda Ave. Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. 7ohmann September 9, 2007 View of the catch basin and driveway drain at the northern end, southern leg, of Linda Ave. ATTACHMENT VI - A t,~ q F ally S A ti 1j h rr r r~~ 1 Linda Ave. Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann September 9, 2007 View of the drainpipe outlet from the catch basin and driveway drain, on the property at the northern end, southern leg of Linda Ave which then runs downhill towards Ross Creek in an ephemeral channel on the property. ~ S st , y~4' f 1 c ~,i. I 77 ~ = 1 ~s•Tp A,., n, 'y ?F ~"tg4FSr1 y~, .f ~.4 'i~.~/;, AjFp } Y i ~ t F Ross Creek Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann September 9, 2007 View east near Linda Ave. along the edge of the riparian area/top of the floodplain bank. There is no riparian buffer, some building mock-up braces are actually in the riparian zone, below the top of bank. There needs to be a minimum 50 buffer from the riparian zone. 2 ATTACHMENT VI - B Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann September 9, 2007 View across the creek at the north bank near Longwood Drive at concrete sack armored bank that is being undercut, arrows, and is starting to fail. Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann September 9, 2007 View downstream towards the north bank just downstream of Linda Ave. at a concrete rubble/rock wall. ATTACHMENT VI - C ~ ~v r i ~ i ti 1 y lK . f Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. 7ohmann September 9, 2007 View upstream just west of Linda Ave. at a section of the creek with natural banks. 4 ATTACHMENT VI - C Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann September 3, 2007 A bucket of various sized California Roach caught in one of the pools near Longwood Drive in about 5 minutes. A small Louisiana crayfish is shown in the hand. } ~'t 4 V L,. Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. 7ohmann September 3, 2007 A bucket of various sized California Roach caught in one of the pools near Longwood Drive in about 5 minutes. The large fish in the center measured about 3.75 inches long. ATTACHMENT VI - C Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo Roger Castillo September 3, 2007 One of many California Roach caught in one of the pools near Longwood Drive. The fish measured about 3.75 inches long. Y f Y _yt -XI w J M,. ~ ~ } ~ r t. tl . a> c ii Y g Ar Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. 7ohmann November 4, 2007 Arrows show several small fish, California Roach, swimming between a riffle and a pool about 100 yards upstream of Linda Ave. 6 ATTACHMENT VII -A 7 8 ATTACHMENT VII - B zi t Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo O L.M. Johmann September 9, 2007 View across the creek at the north bank near Longwood Drive at concrete sack armored bank that is being undercut and is starting to fail. Arrow shows cross section location. Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann September 3, 2007 View downstream at the Stephanie Lane cross section site, the red flags show the break in slope area, which is the top of the active channel bank and the beginning of the floodplain. 9 ATTACHMENNT VII - B Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann September 3, 2007 View towards the south at the Stephanie Lane cross section site, the red flags show the break in slope area, which is the top of the active channel bank and the beginning of the floodplain. Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann September 3, 2007 View southeast at the Stephanie Lane cross section site. The photo shows the steep hill slope of the proposed development site. The top of the floodplain bank is in the area of the red arrows. There is no floodplain or riparian setback zone. 10 ATTACHMENT VIII - A ATTACHMENT VIII -A b: 12 ATTACHMENT VIII - B i x ti; i i 4 sir i f' e ~~s it t f a'; rr ` r f 11. { ( n .fi r < r ~~_-yea y 4µJ• € +,~fr~~. F rF~ Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann November 4, 2007 View northwest towards Bldg. Site 1 and the riparian/floodplain area. Riparian vegetation can be seen touching the building forms in the left center of the photo. There is no setback from the riparian/floodplain area, red arrows. Yellow arrows show cross section site. r 4 k6 Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann October 28, 2007 View to the north looking towards the creek on the floodplain upstream of Linda Ave. at the Bldg. Site 1 cross section location. The photo was taken from the top of the floodplain bank. 13 ATTACHMENT VIII - B Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann October 28, 2007 View to the north looking towards the creek on the floodplain upstream of Linda Ave. at the Bldg. Site 1 cross section location. N j W: r ,474 A* `'d A La' ~q Spy *~Y sR r &w t % < i Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. Johmann October 28, 2007 View to the north looking towards the creek on the floodplain upstream of Linda Ave Bldg. Site 1 cross section location. at the 14 ATTACHMENT VIII - B Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. 7ohmann October 28, 2007 View to the west from downstream of the cross section location, yellow arrows, at the Bldg. Site 1, upstream of Linda Ave. An active headcut can be seen upstream, red arrow. Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. 7ohmann November 4, 2007 View to the west from upstream of the cross section at the Bldg. Site 1, upstream of Linda Ave. An active headcut can be seen upstream, red arrow, at the base of a north bank retaining wall. There is about a 2 ft. bed elevation change between the yellow arrows. There is a large pool at the bottom of the photo, which is over 2.5 ft deep and is full of small fish. 15 ATTACHMENT IX - A RIVER: LOCATION: DATE: WEATHER: ENGR: EQUIP: Cross Section Tyne: A,Sum,d RM Ele uPipn (R): Larser Height above 6P,1 (R):} Horizontal Vertical Water Depth Dist. (X) Height (Y) (feel) (feet) (feet) Current Velocity AVG MAX (foot/son) Elevation (feet) O.U00 5.190 2.000 5.210 3.000 8.230 4,000 8.360 5.000 8.440 6.000 8.320 7.000 9.740 8.000 11,100 9.000 17.960 0.00(7 10,000 12.090 0:140 I 1,000 12.050 0100 12 000 12140 0.180 13.000 12.040 0100 14.000 114920 O.OW 15.OW 11.960 0.000 16.OW 11.980 0.010 17.000 10.910 0.000 18.000 9.750 19.000 9.370 20:000 9.080 21.000 £3.510 22.000 8.590 23.000 8.020 24.000 7.MO 25.000 7.640 26.000 7.3917 27.000 7.030 28,000 7.010 30.000 6.900 3? 000 6.980 34,000 6.690 36.000 6.740 38.OW 6.680 40.000 6.540 42000 6.410 44.000 6.580 46.000 6.550 48.000 6.390 ,50 000 6.180 52.000 5.1380 54. E S35.530 55.000 5.500 57.000 5.450 59-000 5.210 80,000 5175 312-1 O 312.930 309.910 309.780 309.700 309.820 308.400 307.040 306.180 306.050 306.090 306.000 306A00 00 306.220 W6 180 306.160 307.230 308.390 308.770 309.060 309.630 309.55 310.120 310.490 310,500 310.750 311.110 311.130 311240 311,160 311.450 311,400 311.460 311.600 311.730 311.560 311.590 311.750 311.960 312 .2.60 312,610 312 640 312690 312.930 312,965 Notes LeR Water's Edge 16 Edge of Channel ATTACHMENT IX - A ■ ( ) UOIJeA@13 0 C7 LO (D I;t C) CD IT- CD C~ f~ 75- w}mJ c O N 17 ° ® LO CY) ATTACHMENT IX - B R r n ?rs~ r r }N J d'_. j., yb,.' fK! P9a<'. 4 1'f L t sir ; ~ s ~5 v r a'F~c AUMMMMAran Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA ' Photo © L.M. 7ohmann September 9, 2007 View downstream at the Linda Ave. cross section site STS . r, gV' J,~S a 4 l ,IF*rs rCd ..r r• t 3~0 Na +y 6'it.. k ~c . 18 Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo © L.M. 7ohmann September 9, 2007 View south at the Linda Ave. cross section site. ATTACHMENT X s' Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo Leanne McWaters January 27, 2006 Low flow, looking upstream towards Linda Ave and the cross section location, arrows. . . s 4 tv~ i r _ ~ ' ¢ x d Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo Leanne McWaters March 12, 2006 Moderate flow, looking upstream from downstream of Linda Ave and the cross section location, arrows. Flow is estimated to be nearing bankfull , about 175 cfs. 19 ATTACHMENT X Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo Leanne McWaters April 4, 2006 Moderate flow, looking upstream from downstream of Linda Ave and cross section location, arrows. Flow is estimated to be slightly over bankf ill at 250 cfs. Koss Creek - Los Uatos, CA Photo Leanne McWaters April 5, 2006 Low flow, looking upstream from downstream of Linda Ave and the cross section location, arrows. Flow is estimated to be about 75 cfs. 20 ATTACHMENT X Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo Leanne McWaters October 19, 2004 Flood flow, looking upstream from downstream of Linda Ave and the cross section location, arrow. Flow is estimated to be about 375 cfs, about a 4.5 year event Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo Leanne McWaters October 19, 2004 Flood flow, looking upstream from downstream of Linda Ave and the cross section location, arrow. Flow is estimated to be about 375 cfs, about a 4.5 year event. 21 ATTACHMENT X Ross Creek - Los Gatos, CA Photo Leanne McWaters October 19, 2004 Flood flow, looking upstream from downstream of Linda Ave and the lower cross section location, red arrows. Flow is estimated to be about 375 cfs, a 4.5 year event. The water level has reached the fence-line of the property on the southern bank, yellow arrows, at an elevation of about 311.2 ft. 22 RECEIVED DEC 1 0 2007 TOWN OF LOS GATOS BUILDING DIVISION Re: PD-05-02 and S-06-05 Proposed subdivision at Linda Ave. Dear Council members: The Planning Commission would tike to conduct the site and architecture instead of Development Review Committee. Conceptual building elevations are required as part of the PD. Several years ago, staff directed us to provide detailed architectural plans so that the site and architecture review could be done at DRC level. The detailed plans were reviewed by the Towns consulting Architect and comments were made. We are in agreement with the consulting architect's comments and conditions. According to the staff report dated August 22, 2007, page 4, item 7; "The Commission should state any outstanding architectural issues which need to be addressed." "if the majority of the Commission concurs with these outstanding issues, they will be forwarded to the Town Council. Council will make the determination if the issues will be directed to the DRC or to the Commission. The Commission had five issues that could be related to site and architecture review. 1. Create sufficient vegetation screening between the house on Lot one and the easterly property line. 2. The garage doors on lot one and two must be deeply recessed. 3. Relocate the westerly bio swale outside the drip ELH line of the existing riparian trees. 4. Limit the impervious surface in the rear yards of PROPERTIES the lots one through four. 0 399-44 McElroy Properties, Inc - 214 Almendra Avenue • Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408-399-4460 ATTACH ENT 25 5. Move the rear property lines of lots one through four from the top of bank to the proposed garden walls. The above issues will be discussed herein. These issues are minor and I believe can be more efficiently accomplished at DRC. Consider that the process to date has been one and one half months to two months between meetings. Also, one Commissioner must recuse himself because of a possible conflict and the County opposition would take up hours of public testimony time in an effort to obstruct the process. Therefore, we are asking the Council to have site and architecture review to take place at DRC. Move the rear property lines of lots one through four from the top of bank to the proposed garden walls that are to be less than four feet tall. The rear property line as currently proposed has been at the top of the bank for nearly three years. There has been no conflict with any of the authorities including CDFG, SCVWD, BAWQCB, H. T. Harvey and Associates, Wood Biological, Geir and Geir. Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission and the Planning Staff did not object to this location. Sometime between the last two Planning Commission meetings, staff had a meeting and came up with the idea that by moving the rear property line up 20 feet to the garden terrace wall it would accomplish two things. They think that it would make it clear to the home owners that this area between the garden watt and the top of bank can not be improved and the homeowners association would be responsible for maintenance of the area. There are some side effects that also occur. The 20 foot strip of land becomes owned in common with seven families. The area becomes sort of "public" unfenced and accessible to all who lives in the area and their friends. The neighbors and the Planning Commission stated loud and clear when I proposed a creek side trail that they did not want the area "open" and they wanted a standard subdivision. Also according to Wood Biological, this "legal description" change does not improve the value of the riparian. The original proposed property line will and has always had the homeowner association responsible for maintenance of the 20 foot strip of land. The CC&Rs will spell it out clearly and there will be a deed restriction. There is also a building set back as in every subdivision. With the top of bank as the rear property line, the 20 foot strip of land adjacent the creek will have three foot high side fences where only the individual property owners will have access instead of the entire neighborhood and their friends. In other words, the area will be less touched by humans. Limit the impervious surface in the rear yard of lots one through four to pedestrian traffic circulation. At the October 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, I believe as a compromise to gain support for the motion the above reference add on was placed in the motion. Let's look at exactly what this "add on" accomplishes and at what expense. Wood biological would tell you that it will not improve the ecological value of the riparian. All of the other measures that we are taking will bring the ecological value of the riparian to the maximum that it can be. Look at lot # 1 for example. Lot #1 home is 60 to 85 feet from the top of bank. There is a 25' building set bank from the rear property line at the top of bank. It is an unfair burden to place upon that homeowner to limit his use of the rest of his back yard when there is no reason. There are no limits such as this placed upon any other homeowner along this stretch of creek. Therefore we ask that the Town Council to not impose this restriction upon the homeowners. There must be sufficient screening on the east property line of lot one. Please see exhibit A and B. The home on lot 1 sits back from the property line by twelve feet. The adjacent house is over 25 feet from the property line and has the two car garage doors facing the subject property. There will be a small retaining wall on the property line and a six foot fence. The fence will be alternating solid and green screen, which is an open fence designed to act as a trellis. Parallel to and three feet from the property line, is a sewer line. The sewer line easement lies five feet on both sides of the actual sewer. Any type of shrubs or plants for screening can be planted in the first eight feet from the fence except trees. The trees will have to be planted in the four feet closest to the house. The homes on lot one and two must have the garage doors deeply recessed. The Town's consulting architect, Cannon Design Group, suggested that the garage doors on the homes of lots one and two be deeply recessed in order to create texture and shadow. Our designer has already completed the changes. Relocate the westerly No swale outside the drip line of the existing riparian trees Staff made the suggestion to move the westerly bio swale outside the drip line of the existing riparian trees. Our civil engineer will be completing the task. Siinncwe~ly, Terry McElroy Re: PD-05-02 and S-06-05 Proposed subdivision at Linda Ave. The validity of the county resident's opposition to the proposed project. We have documentation showing that most of the adjacent neighbors and hundreds of Los Gatans are in favor of the Linda Court project. There are a few county residents, however, that oppose the project. The basis for the opposition has included setbacks, density, flooding, environmental concerns, trees, neighborhood compatibility, birds, fish, privacy and so forth. They have used our general plan, zoning ordinance, tree ordinance, the new collaborative for guidelines and standards for development near streams, City of San Jose's policies and Santa Clara County's policies and even the State of Georgia literature to support their argument of opposition. A report by an arborist was submitted as a last minute obstruction in the middle of a Planning Commission meeting that called out flooding issues, fish issues, environmental issues and setback issues among others. The author was not properly licensed to comment on any of the issues except for condition of trees which she did not comment on. All of the above referenced issues were reviewed and rereviewed by the Town of Los Gatos Planning, Wood Biological, Geier and Geier, CDFG, BAWQCB, SCVWD, H. T. Harvey and Associated, Westfall Engineers, Town of Los Gatos Public Works, Town of Los Gatos Attorney and Law Offices of Stanford Attwood and found absolutely no validity to even one item. McElroy Properties, Inc • 214 Almendra Avenue - Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408-399-4460 These county NIMBYs respond by telling Public Works that The Town is irresponsible unless they do things their way. The county opposition has had the floor almost 120 minutes during the first two planning commission meetings while the proponents spoke for only 30 minutes. Public testimony was completed with the exception of the proponent's rebuttal including responding to the newly submitted opposition arborist report by Jigour. At the end of the second meeting, the Commission made it clear that the public portion of the hearing is open only for the proponent's rebuttal and the Town's analysis of the Jigour report. During the third planning commission meeting, the county NIMBYS wanted to take more public hearing time even though the commission closed that portion of the hearing. They subsequently filed a complaint with the District attorney. Since the October 10 Planning Commission meeting, one of the ring leaders has been appearing at other Planning Commission meetings for verbal communications. He has been misquoting policies and general plan sections just as he did for the last three years in an effort to get the Planning Commission to reopen the file and the public hearing because he wants to continue arguing. The County NIMBYs goal is continue to obstruct the project by taking as much time as possible so that the Town Council will not have time enough to make a decision. They will try to make you think that every agency, department and Town consultant is wrong in their findings and the County people are right. Sincerely, Terry McElroy Simplified chronological order of the development of the Preserve at Ross Creek August 10, 2005 CDAC The proposal: 11 single family residences including one BMP, two small parks and an eco trail. July 12 2006 Study session The proposal: Nine single family residences including two small parks and an eco trail. Direction: Remove parks, trail, BMP and rear fences. Reduce intensity and density. PD is preferred with standard subdivision and private street. July 11, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting The proposal: Seven single family residences, no parks or trails, standard subdivision with a private street. PC action: continued August 22, 2007 Planning Commission Meeti11g Proponent's presentation time is 31 minutes. Opponent's presentation time is 120 minutes. Opponent also submits a baseless invalid arborist report. PC action: PC closes public portion of meeting, asks staff to review and comment on report at next meeting. October 10, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting CDFG, Wood Biological, Geier and Geier Consultants speak in support of project and discredit the opposition's report. RWQCB submits email in support of project. PC action: Planning Commission recommends approval 5 to 1 vote. MOW AE NO 0-Y PROPERTIES 399-4460 McElroy Properties, Inc • 214 Almendra Avenue • Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408-399-4460 Page 1 of 1 Sandy Baily - RE: Linda ave From: "David Crites" <david.crites@worldnet.att.net> To: "'Sandy Baily"' <SBAILY@losgatosca.gov> Date: 12/11/2007 3:37 PM Subject: RE: Linda ave Hi Sandy - I've reviewed Terry McElroy's letter stamped "received 12-10-2007". I'd like to offer these comments for the record: 1. It makes sense for the PC to handle the site and architecture reviews. This is a complex and controversial project. Neighborhood input should be encouraged. 2. 1 want to clarify that the neighbors DO want an open, un-improved riparian zone. The neighborhood opposed the creek trail because it threatened the integrity of the active channel, required the removal of trees along the bank, went nowhere, and was a smoke-screen for encroaching on the riparian zone. What the neighborhood wants is a natural, un-improved riparian area that is open to everyone to view and enjoy as required by the G&S, in-fill policy, and the general plan. 3. The aesthetic impact on my property is addressed with a deferred mitigation. The developer indicates in this letter that he believes mitigation #21 is not feasible. 4. The entire site plan needs to be re-considered in light of the new top-of-bank report. Regards, Dave Crites file: //C: \Documents and S ettings\sbaily. LOS GATOS CA\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrp ATTACHMENT 26 DEL Y. 2007 Town of Los Gatos Attorney, Planning, Public Works P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, Ca. 95031 RE: Johmann report on Linda Ave. To Whom It May Concern: I-OWN OF LOS GATO~ I am asking that the Town of Los Gatos call out the above captioned report as unacceptable and illegal for the following reasons: 1. The report was written by a political activist, quality control engineer who is unlicensed to do surveying, hydrology and civil engineering. This makes the report illegal, unreliable and unrepresented. 2. The opposition has a history of producing last minute invalid, baseless documents in order to obstruct the proposed project. The report is written in a similar fashion as the previous Verna Jigour report. 3. The report uses assumed benchmarks for each section. He uses a different benchmark for each section. You can't tie the sections to each other much less to the Westfall sections. 4. The sections are inaccurate as evidenced by the attached photos. The photos do support the Westfall sections. 5. There are no calculations on how Johmann obtained the higher water volume. However, even if we were to use these manufactured higher water volume figures, it does not make a difference. The homes are way above the flood plain. b. The report contradicts CDFG, BAWQCB, SCVWD, Town of Los Gatos Public Works, Town of Los Gatos Planning Department and every Town consultant. They can't all be wrong and the County people right. Sipce ely, Terry McElroy ME _LR My PROPERTIES 399-4460 McElroy Properties, Inc • 214 Almendra Avenue - Los Gatos, CA 95030 - 408-399-4460 ATTACHMENT 27 ■ h, t d ■ b G U ~ u iWa,~xL~ MO w CPO r V O 41 . M C CJ L J y W.:R7v')P N COD ATTACHMENT VIII - A C.> C' J r- n cry c~ C0 yhi alms mow" 0 GJ r fi (j Cd rn < ss~asa ask: c~a 0 c, L~ J C~ 12 ATTACHMENT VII -A 00 1 ~ ~ t : : U Sa t~^W,+f ) o , i C2 } - , E! s U ~ t I y a t uawwow 1 L } t ~ T- I ~ 1 t Ii s Lam) ~J s.f 7 Q t .~3 :i CrJ CY,) CT) C{) ; ~ i 8 December 12, 2007 DEC "t Z007 I-OWN OF LOS GATOI Honorable Mayor Barbara Spector, "f Vice Mayor Wasserman, and Town Councilmembers Town of Los Gatos Town Council Chanbers, 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Linda Court Project Dear Madam Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, and Honorable Councilmembers: This letter provides brief comments in support of the project at Linda Court that you are now considering. My wife Susan and I are principal owners of this project through StiteGarnMac, LLP. We have worked on this project with the Town Planning Commission and Town staff for the past three years, writing numerous documents and providing personal testimony on many occasions. We have also met with countless stakeholders, including over a dozen governmental agencies and all of the adjacent neighbors, to add their requested enhancements, mitigate their concerns, and incorporate many unique environmental and developmental design features. We are happy to have won the support of every resident of the Town of Los Gatos that lives adjacent to this property, as well as over a hundred other Town residents, and every pertinent oversight agency that has been consulted, including the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Unfortunately, there is still a small "not-in-my-hack-yard" ("nimby") opposition group, led and represented by three neighbors, the Engins, the Orions, and the Crites, all located in the nearby unincorporated county pocket. Over the years they have publicly accused us of many serious violations, ecological and environmental damages, CEQA violations, personal conflicts of interest, and other misdoings, and they have provided a long and changing list of objections to this project. They sometimes produce unusual supportive documents, apparently prepared by unqualified people who are willing to provide illicit expert services without license or competence to do so in the State of California. Each time this has been done, the county neighbor objections have been found by qualified experts and stakeholder agencies to be without merit. This is because their objections are not about any violations, or the environment, or the community. Their objections are made in order to fulfill only one goal, which is to continue their personal enjoyment of our property as their own private open space, at our very great expense. The county neighbors have recently submitted the written opinions of Mr. Larry Johrman, an associate of Ms. Verna Jigour. Ms. Jigour supplied the county neighbors with their last written opinion on this case. Ms. Jigour's report, which contained many pages of warnings about inaccuracies and oversights on our project, was found to be without any merit. The only result was prolonged delay and significant cost to our families, which appears to be the primary purpose of these submittals. Mr. Johrman's report contains recycled arguments taken directly from his colorful past, where he provided voluminous vocal protests and objections to the environmental award-winning programs of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. ATTACHMENT 28 ® Page 2 December 12, 2007 A brief review of Mr. Johrman's comments reveals that he has modified and exaggerated real data, without any acceptable technical basis, in order to support the wildly speculative arguments he makes in favor of further postponement of the project. Like Ms. Jigour, Mr. Johrman never consulted us. This is not the practice one would expect of person who is a licensed, competent expert in this field, which is exactly the reason for the California license process. In fact, just as Ms. Jigour is not licensed or competent to provide such opinions in the State of California, Mr. Johrman is not either. Mr. Johrman is a professional "quality engineer", a discontinued title which was briefly granted in California strictly for database and software applications. This title is not a license, and has absolutely nothing to do with civil engineering, hydrogeology, and land surveying, all of which are severely misrepresented in this document. The Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors specifically prohibits the use of the "PE" title on documents such as this by "quality engineers" like Mr. Johrman. They consider such misrepresentation to be dangerous and fraudulent. This material will be forwarded for enforcement. We should also mention that we understand that the county neighbors have threatened to take legal action against the Town and us if this project is approved. We hope that does not occur, for we believe that such action could be financially and emotionally draining to all of the people and entities that have been involved. Such action rarely produces any winners. We have found it necessary to prepare for that action, and we stand ready to assist the Town in the unfortunate event that this becomes necessary. We hope that the opinions of the many trusted and qualified experts that have assisted us with this project, those of stakeholder agencies, and the tremendous support we have gained from Town residents including neighbors and many of our own Linda Court project owners, is helpful. We have worked diligently to study and understand the expectations of the Town Council and staff for such projects and to ensure that our design is capable of meeting your conditions for approval. All of our designs have had the preservation and renovation of the native Ross Creek riparian habitat as a top priority. This proposal has been so carefully qualified, reviewed, vetted, and enhanced by so many trusted experts, stakeholders and agencies that we hope you can support it in that light, with limited modification, and allow us to finally move forward with this beautiful new project in the Town of Los Gatos. Thank you for your dedicated service to our community. Sincerely, (Originals signed by) Erin Ganwr Susan Garner Erin Garner, PG, CHG and Susan Garner, PG, CEG StiteGarnMac, LLP ATTACHMENT VII -A ~n V fV~ V Y C> ~Q .4 i DEC 12 2007 TOWS! OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION ATTACIMNT 29 c 0 L c~ ca 2 c~ ~L NQ L.L (12/12/2007) Sandy Baily- 15881 Linda Ave and 15950 Stephenie Lane Page 1 From: b j <bjuan 1 68@yahoo.com> To: <sbaily@losgatosca.gov> Date: 12/12/2007 4:11 PM Subject: 15881 Linda Ave and 15950 Stephenie Lane Sandy, We received the notice of public hearing on the change of zone on the above two parcels. Our property is nearby the planned development and we object to the zoning change. Please forward our objection to the authority. Thanks for your help. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ATTACHMENT 30