Staff Report monterey avetow" of
MEETING DATE: 11/03/15
ITEM NO:
SOS caj�s COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION Z -15 -001. PROJECT LOCATION: 485 MONTEREY
AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: BLACK REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC.
APPLICANT: MICHAEL BLACK
CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM O TO R -1D. APN 410-
16 -026.
RECOMMENDATION:
After opening and closing the public hearing, and asking the Clerk Administrator to read the title
of the proposed ordinance, it is recommended that the Town Council:
1. Move to introduce an Ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos effecting a zone change from O to
R -1D for the property located at 485 Monterey Avenue (Attachment 5 Draft Ordinance) and
make the required findings that the zone change is consistent with the General Plan and its
Elements and that the zone change is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (Section 21083.3); and
2. Move to waive the reading of the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to rezone a 9,000 square foot parcel from O (Office) to R -1D (Single - Family
Residential, Downtown). The property is bordered by properties with R -1D and O zoning designations.
Properties along Monterey Avenue and Andrews Street, including the subject parcel, have a General
Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (5 -12 units per acre). The subject parcel contains a
single -story medical office building built in the 1960's.
PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON
Planning Manager
P/��z
Reviewed by: LXLAssistant Town Manager Town Attorney
N: \DEV\TC REPORTS\ OMMonterey 485_TC 11- 03- 15.doc
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 485 MONTEREY AVENUE /Z -15 -001
OCTOBER 23, 2015
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
The applicant is requesting to rezone one parcel from O to R -1D. The applicant has concurrently
applied for an Architecture and Site Application to demolish the medical office and construct a
new single - family dwelling. At the October 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, Planning
Commission continued the Architecture and Site Application to the November 11, 2015 hearing
date and directed the applicant to address architecture and site design. Approval of the
Architecture and Site Application will be dependent upon the approval of the zone change
application.
The subject office zoned parcel is surrounded to the north, south and west by R -1D zoned parcels
and residential uses (see Exhibit 7 of the Attachment 3). Three of the office zoned parcels have
Conditional Use Permits for residential uses and contain two -story single - family residences. The
existing office use is among the surrounding residential parcels. There are office zoned parcels
located to the south of the subject property with office uses. The proposed zone change would
down zone the use and be compatible with the neighborhood. The zone change would bring the
property in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation as discussed in the report
to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3).
B. Planning Commission
On October 14, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the zone change.
Verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are provided in Attachment 2.
CONCLUSION:
The zone change would be beneficial to the neighborhood since development of a single - family
residence on the subject property would enhance the surrounding residential neighborhood and, with the
zone change, match the setbacks required on the adjacent properties. In addition, replacing the existing
office uses with a single - family residence would reduce the traffic impacts and parking requirements.
The proposed zone change complies with the goals and polices within the General Plan. The zone
change with the recommended condition of approval (Attachment 5) would make the property consistent
with the proposed zoning and existing General Plan Land Use designation. The Planning Commission
and staff recommend Town Council approve the zone change application.
ALTERNATIVE:
Instead of the action recommended, the Council may deny the Zone Change Application (motion
required).
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 485 MONTEREY AVENUE /Z -15 -001
OCTOBER 23, 2015
PUBLIC COMMENT:
To date the Town has received two written public comments regarding the subject application. Both
public comments are in support of the rezone application (see Attachment 3, Exhibit 14 and Attachment
4, Exhibit 18).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This is a project as defined under CEQA but is statutorily exempt under Section 21083.3. A Notice of
Exemption will not be filed.
Attachments:
1. Required Findings
2. October 14, 2015 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
3. October 14, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (does not include Exhibits 15, 16, and 17 -
Neighborhood Streetscape, and Development Plans)
4. October 14, 2015 Planning Commission Desk Item
5. Draft Ordinance (including Exhibit A)
Distribution:
cc: Michael Black, Black Real Estate Investments LLC, 15651 Glen Una Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Elizabeth Wiersema, Studio Three Design, 1585 The Alameda Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95126
TOWN COUNCIL — November 3, 201 S
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
485 Monterey Avenue
Zone Change Application Z-15 -001
Requesting approval to rezone a property from O to Rl -D. APN 410 -16 -026.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Black Real Estate Investment LLC
APPLICANT: Michael Black
FINDINGS:
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The zone change is Statutorily Exempt according to Section 21083.3 of CEQA as
adopted by the Town, in that it is compatible with the existing general plan and the
adopted EIR for the existing General Plan.
Required consistency with the Town's General Plan:
■ That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements in
that the proposed zoning is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use
designation.
N: \DEV\FINDINGS\2015\MONTEREY485- RZ.DOCX
ATTACHMENT 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Community Development
Director:
Planning Manager:
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by:
Kendra Burch, Chair
Mary Badame, Vice Chair
Charles Erekson
Melanie Hanssen
D. Michael Kane
Tom O'Donnell
Joanne Talesfore
Laurel Prevetti
Joel Paulson
Robert Schultz
Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337 -1558
ATTACHMENT $
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR BURCH: All right, we are now going to move
on to Item 2. This is a zone change application, Z -15 -001,
and an Architecture and Site Application, 5 -15 -018,
requesting approval to rezone a property from O to R -11),
demolish an existing office building, construct a new
single - family residence, construct an accessory structure
with reduced setbacks, and obtain a Grading Permit. This is
APN# 410 -16 -026.
Are there any disclosures from any Commissioners
on this item? And has everyone had an opportunity to view
the site? Great.
Ms. Walters, I understand you'll be giving us our
report this evening.
ERIN WALTERS: Yes, good evening, Planning
Commissioners.
This property is located at the corner of
Monterey Avenue and Andrews Street, and the surrounding
neighborhood includes single - family homes and a few
duplexes and multi - family homes. There are office buildings
down the street on Monterey Avenue.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Applicant proposes to rezone the property
from an office to an R -1D. The R -1D zoning is compatible
with the surrounding zoning, and you can see that in
Exhibit 7. The shaded square is the subject site. This
would make the property consistent with the General Plan
designation of medium - density residential, which is also
seen in Exhibit 8. Again, the shaded square is the subject
Isite.
The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing
medical office building and construct a two -story Craftsman
style home and a detached garage. The Applicant has worked
with Staff and the consulting architect to modify the
initial proposed project to reduce the scale and mass and
to get an architecture that fits more within and is
compatible with the neighborhood.
Materials for the proposed house include cedar
shingle siding, stone veneer, composition roof, and a wrap-
around front porch with a standing seam metal roof. You can
see this display behind you on the materials board, as well
as attached in your Staff Report.
The proposed project meets zoning standards, and
it's not the largest home in the immediate neighborhood.
The Applicant has reached out to their
surrounding neighbors. The adjacent neighbor to the south
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1as provided a letter of support, and that's attached in
:he Staff Report. The neighbor to the west, or to the rear,
Df the project has contacted Staff this last week with
luestions, and tonight you were provided a Desk Item that
attaches her emails and addresses her concerns and support
Df the project.
Three of the concerns of the project are that
there is an existing 14" diameter redwood tree located to
the rear of her property. Staff reviewed with a consulting
arborist, as well as applied the existing Conditions of
Approval, which would require the Applicant to provide
adequate tree protection measures to that tree.
The neighbor also wanted clarification on a
reduction of a fence height between the two properties.
That is due to the Town's traffic view area requirement, so
she spoke with the Applicant and discussed that and was
satisfied with that discussion.
The neighbor also expressed concern regarding
drainage for the site. The neighboring properties have
experienced flooding in the past due to heavy rains, and in
order to address this, Planning Staff and Engineering
worked together to include two additional Conditions of
Approval. One would require a drainage study to be prepared
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by the Applicant. Staff has attached that modified
Condition of Approval in Exhibit 19.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the proposed project for the zone
change and Architecture and Site Application to the Town
Council with modifying conditions that, again, are found in
(Exhibit 19.
This completes Staff's presentation. I'm happy to
answer any question you might have.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. I want to make sure that
the questions that we now ask of Staff are directly related
to the report just given, or any procedures. Additional
questions of Staff about other items in the application we
will hold until after the public portion of the hearing. So
do we have any questions? Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: (Inaudible).
CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSONER HANSSEN: You mean her verbal report,
the one that she gave us?
CHAIR BURCH: Yeah, the verbal report that she
gave, which is the report that is in our packet. The Vice -
Chair and I have had some discussions with Staff, and what
we're going to be working towards is the questions for any
of the Staff giving a presentation need to be limited to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1011412015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that report or any procedural questions moving forward. All
Dther questions we're going to hold until we've given the
kpplicant a chance to speak and we've heard public comment.
COMMITTEE MEMBER SAYOC: So if we have a question
that's in the report and she did specifically mention it,
we can ask it now?
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, absolutely, because it is a
part of the Staff Report.
COMMISSONER HANSSEN: Then I do have a question.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay, Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSONER HANSSEN: Thank you. I was glad to
see this application, because I know that a lot of times
we've seen a CUP as a replacement for a zoning change, and
it does appear that based on the maps and the things that
were presented that most of the General Plan designations
for that area are all residential.
My question was about is this the first time that
we've actually had a zone .change for that particular
(neighborhood? I thought there was mention in the report
about some other sites that had been zoned as office,
General Plan designation of residential, but became
residential because of a CUP.
ERIN WALTERS: Yes, that's correct. The three
properties are located directly across the street on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
2
I Monterey and in 1997 were approved through a CUP process to
2 allow residential, even though the existing zone was
3 office, so that did occur in 1997 for those three
4
properties. The three properties across the street do have
s
CUPs to allow residential on that zone.
6
COMMISSONER HANSSEN: And I had a second
7
question. It was about the Architecture and Site
8
9 Application. Although it complies, assuming that the zone
10 change is approved, there would be an additional request
11 'for reducing the rear setback by 2' from what would be
12 allowed if it were in fact zoned as residential, is that
13 correct?
14 ERIN WALTERS: Right. The request by the
15 Applicant is to reduce the accessory structure's rear
16 setback to 3'. That is something that is in the code that
17 can be applied for, and be examined to determine if that's
18 appropriate and compatible with the surrounding
19
neighborhood.
20
COMMISSONER HANSSEN: And the accessory structure
21
is the garage?
22
ERIN WALTERS: That's correct.
23
24 COMMISSONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
zs CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? Commissioner
Kane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER KANE: Specific to your report, my
luestion is do you know that I think you and Staff should
De complimented for the response you gave to the letter
from the citizen, Ms. Page? She apparently brought up three
3ood points, and the Town responded with a lot of
substance: that you would look at the drains, you'd look at
the tree, and you'd look at the fence. I don't think we
always see that, so I was impressed, and do you know I
appreciate it?
ERIN WALTERS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I made it a question.
CHAIR BURCH: That was a good comment. Do we have
any other questions for comments? Seeing none, thank you.
All right, we're now going to open the public
portion of the public hearing and give the Applicant an
opportunity to address the Commission for up to ten
minutes. I know that I have your card, Mr. Black, and I
assume you are all... No, you're the neighbor. So the ten
minutes will be for both of you, so please just make sure
that you both take the time to introduce yourself so it's
on record.
MICHAEL BLACK: Hi, Commissioners. Thank you very
much for having us. I'm the Applicant, Michael Black, and I
as well want to thank Erin and the rest of Staff for a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thorough Staff Report. We're here to answer any questions,
and right now I'm going to hand it over to my architect to
go through the project.
BESS WIERSEMA: Good evening, Commissioners.
Thank you for your time.
I just prepared a quick process so you can
understand what we went through for the project. It's two -
parted. As you know, we have the zoning change, and we also
have the Architecture and Site Application.
CHAIR BURCH: For the record, will you state your
(name?
BESS WIERSEMA: I'm sorry. Bess Wiersema,
Studio3. I apologize.
As you know, we're here for a rezoning. This was
bright to us by the Planning Department. They requested
that instead of a CUP, which the three properties directly
across the street had, that to be more conforming with the
General Plan that we would rezone from office to an R -1D.
You've seen all of these reasons in your previous Staff
Report; I think they're pretty straightforward. The project
then moves forward with an R -1D proposal in terms of
setbacks, et cetera, compared to office.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
If you've got any questions about these, I'm
happy to answer them after, but again, the Staff Report was
very thorough on the logic behind rezone versus a CUP.
As a reminder, we are the property that's
highlighted right here, on the corner. Those three
properties that you see across the street are the three
properties that while they're showing up on Erin's previous
diagram as office, are indeed residential houses on them.
This is just a quick analysis also of square
footage and FAR that was conducted to be sure that we met
the design guidelines. A little error on our allowed side;
I believe it's 2,862 is allowed and our proposed square
footage is 2,853. We are not the largest house in the
immediate neighborhood, as deemed by the Town.
We've also broken out just the detached garage,
the porch and deck areas, et cetera, so that you could
understand overall square footage.
Lot coverage, I think you've seen is also on the
plans. We do have a 32% coverage. I think the neighborhood
has up to 33% around it and immediate neighborhood
neighbors.
Just a reminder; I'm sure you've been there.
There is an antiquated office building from the sixties on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
10
I Ithe site. we are proposing obviously removing that, and a
2 Inew single - family home built in place.
3 This is just a brief analysis of the style and
4
type that exists in the neighborhood. The sources used are
5
the field guides that are commonly accepted by urban
6
planners, planning departments, et cetera. The same
7
neighbors that you saw previously, we've broken down a
8
9 neighborhood analysis in case there are any questions on
to materials or style, plate heights, et cetera. We've given
11 you the address, a picture of the house, and the housing
12 type.
13 What you basically see is that this is a
14 neighborhood —I'll just kind of click through these —that is
15 somewhat consistent in character in terms of new
16 traditional homes being more in the Craftsmen type style,
17 but definitely varied; everything from Italianate to post-
18 war ranch, to some random commercial projects tucked in
19
here or there.
20
On our site, obviously we have the corner of
21
Andrews and Monterey. The house pulled to the left side to
22
help navigate the corner setbacks.
23
24 1 The garage with the reduced side setbacks is
zs (tucked up against the back corner. One of the reasons we
want to do that is obviously it's a garage, it's a lower
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
auilding and it's kind of more in conformance with what you
see in our 1D neighborhoods right now.
And also with the clipped corner due to view and
engineering giving us that little bit of extra room at the
back of the site is nice, because we have to get out of
this additional corner setback that exists there. It is a
detached garage, lower square footage and lower heights,
roof plates.
First and second floor plans. Just show this as a
nouse.
And then we have our proposed exterior
elevations. As you probably read in the Cannon Group's
multiple reviews of the project, we started off initially
with more of a farmhouse Victorian, which is common
downtown, and it was requested the we move more into a
Craftsmen type style home to feel a little bit better in
the neighborhood.
What you see here are details that make that
statement. We do have the lower pitched roofs. We've broken
down instead of having stacked bays that existed on the
front elevation before. We've had use of mullions,
shingles, railing details, column details, et cetera, that
are consistent in character with something deemed kind of
Craftsmen. You can see the materials are continued around
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ithe whole fagade. We do have a back porch. Our garage is
very simple. Obviously a garage door faces our side street
access, and then just standard walls around the sides.
These are just examples of similar homes that
combine post, painted post, shingles, and metal roofs. Some
of them are in Los Gatos, others are just examples of the
types of material combination that we're talking about.
You saw our materials board. Unlike this that
just has the scanned images, we've got pieces of the roof,
the stone, and the shingle painted in the proposed color,
as well as images from Jeld Wen for the windows.
This is our response to Larry Cannon's comments
as we process through the project, and I think those are
important to go through from an Architecture and Site
Application standpoint.
One of the things that Larry brought up was he
didn't like the two -story projecting bay at the front,
which I'm not sure if you've seen the original proposal. So
what we've done is change that front fagade to tuck back
the back windows and the wrap- around porch.
The next one had to do with roof pitches. We
reduced those roof pitches to be more in keeping with
Craftsmen type roof pitches rather than shingle style or a
farmhouse Victorian style roof pitches, and also addresses
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
open gables and hipped roof options around the house, as
you can see on the plans.
We are requesting a 10' first floor plate height,
and that is something that we would like to keep. One of
the things that we've done to help navigate that is we
actually lowered the house by 6 ", and also then the
shifting of the roof plates to a lower roof plate lowered
the overall home to about 1' lower than the maximum allowed
height.
We also have added additional beam details and
trim details at the porch, so that it's further detailed
and has a lower look; just see straight into the house.
Again, we addressed his roof pitch comments.
Let's see, number six. Again, this just has to do
with the porch.
An element that was really important to us
architecturally, especially because this house does sit on
a corner, was to have a wrap- around porch, so we have two
street frontages that are our front. We really wanted to be
responsive to that and not have a side house that was
inappropriate for the long side of the property, so that
front porch element is a critical architectural element to
us. It's detailed very nicely, so even though the main
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
level and subsequent porch have a 10' plate height, it does
stack, wrap, et cetera, detail -wise, and drops down.
We are using a standing seam metal roof. You can
see the detail. I think Michael brought some extra pieces.
They're in the back there, I think. You can see where we've
added that detail, and that detail exists not on our main
roofs but on our accent roofs, things like the porch and
some of the gable pieces.
Siding. Larry wanted our corners mitered instead
of having trim corners; that's not a problem, we're happy
to do that.
And then windows. We do have a Jeld Wen aluminum
clad, exterior painted, wood interior window. Did you bring
a window corner? Okay. You can see a picture of a Jeld Wen
on the materials board.
Okay, I think that's it.
CHAIR BURCH: Questions? Commissioner Badame,
then Commissioner Talesfore.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: The accessory structure, at
774 square feet, to be used as a garage. Why wouldn't you
trim the size to meet the rear setback?
BESS WIERSEMA: We're allowed to have a garage
that is that big, and at this time we're not proposing a
basement, so the garage is for storage for the home as well
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item ##2, 485 Monterey Avenue
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as garage space. It typically takes about 500 square feet
to have a garage today, so the additional 200 - and - some -odd
square feet are used for storage.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Let's just continue with
the garage. What is the height of that garage?
BESS WIERSEMA: From our maximum height I want to
say that the ridge is 14'.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: About, or it is?
BESS WIERSEMA: I'm getting there. Just one
second. 14', 3.5" to be precise.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: By 2'. And what's the
length of that? The reason I'm asking the question is that
it's a very narrow lot. Well, it's actually patterned after
most of the other lots in that neighborhood, and this does
seem to run the length of a lot of the fence, but I would
like to see that elevation again with the plan on the site.
BESS WIERSEMA: So obviously this is our proposed
garage element. We have the engineering- required pull -in
space to get off the street or be able to back up; that's
what's maintained here, more than maintained actually. I'll
get you the dimension on the long wall of the garage in one
moment. 33', 8 ".
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And the width of the lot
Iis?
MICHAEL BLACK: 60'.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, so it takes up
about half of the lot.
Let's move on. Just some housekeeping pieces, and
I'm referring to Larry Cannon's August 18th design review.
I'm really disappointed that you didn't have the window
here, because he actually asked that you supply a sample
window. I think what he wanted us to see was that it
actually did replicate a wood window, and what I would like
to know is are we at a gloss finish? Are we at a non -gloss
finish? What is the finish of that window?
BESS WIERSEMA: The finish is standard factory
satin finish that you see on any aluminum clad metal
window. I believe that Larry Cannon's question came because
on our original set of plans we labeled the windows as
"metal" windows, so it came up that perhaps were they steel
sash or case windows as opposed to a typical aluminum clad,
wood interior painted window. There was a misunderstanding
about a label on the original drawings that was leading
Larry to believe that it was a steel sash window, which is
more of a commercial storefront type of window, which is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not what we're using. We're using Jeld Wen products or
equal. Colby, Jeld Wen, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: When you say "satin," I
have no idea the gloss of a satin window. I mean I know
what satin is in some cases and not others. It's just a
point that it would have been helpful, because you do have
a lot of windows.
MICHAEL BLACK: It's a standard factory window.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you. That's really
not going to help me now.
And I just wanted to check that you're using real
wood shingles, is that correct?
BESS WIERSEMA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Is that what that gray
color is?
MICHALE BLACK: It's a real wood cedar shingle
that's painted on top.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay. And then Larry's
other —and I happen to agree with him on this —is about
lowering the porch and the first floor plate height to a
uniform 9' elevation.
BESS WIERSEMA: Hold on; let me get to the
elevations. In our original submission to Larry Cannon we
had some stacked bays that gave a very vertical feel to the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
home. We also were missing things like an additional fascia
and gutter line, as well as cross beam line, that you see
on more traditional homes. What you see here is we've added
that detail in, so that when you're looking at this porch
from the front and the side, the sides and the corner, you
have a porch that is perceptively lowered based on the fact
that there are now structural elements that are visible and
clad nicely with trim.
One of the reasons we don't want to lower the
plate of the porch and the plate of the house is that we're
already set back because we're a corner, and we're applying
this wrap- around porch concept to be really responsive to
the neighborhood. If we start lowering all these pitches,
this roof pitch of the porch as it extends out, because
it's got fairly decent depth to it so that we can pull back
off that corner, it starts getting low just by geometry,
math.
What we propose to do to help bring down the
height of the building, like I said earlier, was to lower
the house a little bit than what we really wanted to, and
it also lowers the roof pitches. So we are whole foot
underneath what's allowed from a height perspective
overall.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item ##2, 485 Monterey Avenue
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: One thing, I think you
said in one of your papers here that your design is an
interpretation of a Craftsmen, I believe is what you said.
Right. It's, "consistent with a current interpretation of
the more updated Craftsmen."
The question I have, there are a couple of issues
that I've seen and maybe you can help me understand this.
You're on a corner lot, so you have a very prominent place
in that neighborhood, and you have a house that I believe
is 29', 1.5 ", and the roof that you have chosen to use with
this interpretation seems to be adding to the bulk of that.
I'm questioning how you could bring that down
further if you really were trying to design this after a
Craftsmen, because one of the outstanding features of a
Craftsmen home is the low pitched roof with the gable end,
and I don't really see that here at all, so I'm wondering
if you could help me understand.
BESS WIERSEMA: Well, I think as with all current
architecture that you've seen —I shouldn't say all —most
current architecture that you've seen, if you study the
field guide of American architecture, you'll actually find
that they're all considered new traditional with influences
of something. So it's not a real Craftsmen home, it's not a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
real shingle home; they're all hybrid interpretations or
blends of those.
I think we say it's an interpretation of
Craftsmen here because we're also using shingles to be a
little bit more traditional in some other details. Those
are materials that you do see on Craftsmen, but you also
see on shingle style homes, so perhaps we should call it a
hybrid version of Craftsmen and shingle style homes. We do
have a lowered roof pitch, the open gables. Are you
referring to the metal roof as bringing up the bulk and
mass, or you're referring to the rest of our comp shingle
roof?
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: No, I'm referring to
Larry's comment about lowering this house to the 9' floor
plate.
BESS WIERSEMA: I'm sorry; I thought your
question was about the roof.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Well, it is, and it's
about could you lower the roof any more to accommodate that
9' floor plate, or not, if it was designed this way?
BESS WIERSEMA: Let's just take a look at the
side elevation for a second. Our maximum height occurs
right here. It doesn't occur across the whole body of the
house. Pulls back from the corner, so what you're seeing
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item ##2, 485 Monterey Avenue
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
iere is actually way back in the house. I think we've
actually done a fairly good job addressing the overall bulk
and mass of the roof by pulling that back, and addressing
the corner with a lower roof at the wrap- around porch.
I think lowering the roof pitch from what it is
right now to just gain a little extra height actually
flattens out what you see for some of the roof and is
disproportionate to the walls of the home that you'll see.
I think then actually the house looks bigger, because
you're looking at a lot of vertical fagade versus something
that's pitching away, or back from you, in all directions.
You'll notice we've kind of hipped away from the corner and
the adjacent neighbor.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: It was my understanding
that Mr. Cannon was satisfied when you lowered the floor
and left the plate level at 10' based on the fact that you
had lowered the floor level, and that there were both
houses in the neighborhood that had 9' and 10'. Is that
consistent with your understanding with your last
interaction with Mr. Cannon? Was he satisfied?
BESS WIERSEMA: Yes, I believe that that was...
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
22
1
2 question.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: No, it's a simple
BESS WIERSEMA: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: A follow up to that?
CHAIR BURCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Then should I not be
referring to August 18th? Was there another meeting with Mr.
Cannon after August 18th? I should ask Staff, or whom should
I address that to? The Applicant?
ERIN WALTERS: You're right in that Larry Cannon
Group provided a last review of the project and that the
Applicant provided a response. In that time Staff had many
conversations on the phone with Mr. Cannon to address those
issues, and working with the Applicant as well. What is
summarized in the Staff Report describes that we had worked
with them, talked about it, looked at all adjacent
neighbors and existing properties, as well as the elements
that the Applicant introduced to address Mr. Cannon's
concerns.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you. That would
have been clearer if you had noted it in the Staff Report
that you had subsequent telephone conversations. Thank you.
ERIN WALTERS: Okay, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Following up on that, Mr.
Cannon still does not support the metal roof over the
porch; he wants the roofing material to match the rest of
the home.
ERIN WALTERS: In our conversation —and I
apologize for not clarifying the conversation in the
report —he said that it can go either way. There are
examples in architecture that show, as we've shown tonight,
a mix, and then there are also projects that show complete
one solid roofing material.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: But in this particular
neighborhood there is no metal roof that you know of?
ERIN WALTERS: That is correct.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Do we have any other questions of
the Applicant? Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I wanted to share my concern
regarding the garage.
Also, in the Residential Design Guidelines we
have that famous 5 -2 -2 to decide immediate neighborhood,
and special attention is given to a corner parcel. I think
it was brought out earlier that whereas it may be a very,
very fine house, it's on a very, very clear corner, and I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
felt some of the imposition of the size of the house on
that corner lot. It certainly changes the viewscape, and
the neighbors, in terms of 273 and 276, are one - stories.
I'm concerned about compatibility of
neighborhood. Now, I'm not an architect; clearly you are. I
just wish that thing were further away from the corner.
You know, the response on the garage question was
a little more ameliorating. Garages don't count in the FAR,
except in special circumstances.
JOEL PAULSON: Garages have their own FAR
calculation.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Okay, so the garage is about
twice the size of the neighbor's, that is, those who have
garages. we have reasons for having FAR standards, and I
just feel a circumvention of adhering to the square feet on
the house by about 10', and then having an almost 800
square foot garage when everybody else has got 400 square
feet —I exaggerate to make my point, but the numbers are
pretty close —I feel we're just cutting corners to create
quasi - additional FAR in the form of an 800 square foot
garage, and at the same time that that 800 square foot
garage needs a waiver on the setbacks. It's like if you
want to put a super garage in there, at least abide by the
setbacks.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm expressing my concerns to you now, because
when the mic gets closed I don't know if we can discuss it
further, but I want you to know where I'm at. I walked all
of those streets, back and forth, up and down, and that's
not a disclosure. I talked to neighbors, but I didn't
really talk about anything of substance. It's a
neighborhood in transition, and anything likely to be built
on that corner would be a great improvement, and the
neighbors are looking forward to that great improvement.
I'm looking forward to communicating with you
that those corner lots, mass and size within 2" of pushing
the envelope and then an 800 square foot garage, I need
some castor oil to get that all down. It's a bit much, and
we'll talk more about it, I suppose, but I wanted to let
you know I agreed with some of the other comments.
CHAIR BURCH: Do we have any other questions of
the Applicant? No? All right, thank you. I will now call
Brigitte Ballingall.
BRIGITTE BALLINGALL: My name is Brigitte
Ballingall; I live at 511 Monterey Avenue, and we are
indeed very excited about this proposed project.
We built our house —it was approved, it had a very
large garage, we are not on a corner —in 2007. It was a new
1construction with a full basement, and I think we almost
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
maxed out the amount of square footage that we could build,
and we have loved the neighborhood.
It is a neighborhood in transition, you're
absolutely right, and so we are very excited to see this
project come.
My only concern, and my only comments to you and
to the builder, is that I'm just concerned about
maintaining any mature trees. I think that's of a greater
impact than the mass of the house. There have been homes
that have gone up around us that changed mature trees, and
it's really changed the whole landscape of the neighborhood
more than the buildings that were constructed after the
trees were taken down.
My other concern is also the drainage. I'm not
concerned that the project is going to impact the drainage
as much as I'm concerned that the Town allows the water to
be pumped, and for many months of the year the water is in
the street, which I see as a health and safety issue. So I
would just want to comment that we would hope that the
drainage issue in that area would be improved with this
project and not go in the opposite direction. Thank you
very much.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Do we have any
questions? Commissioner Kane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER KANE: I appreciate your concern for
the trees. As part of the public record there is an
extensive arborist's report on this project that determines
which trees are going to go, and therefore are eligible for
replacement. The number of trees that are going; if those
trees were to be replaced in the same number, it would be
an encumbrance, so not all the trees are being replaced.
There will be an in lieu fee paid for the trees that are
not replaced, and the big guy in the back is being totally
protected. Were you familiar with all of that?
BRIGITTE BALLINGALL: I was not. The tree that
I'm also concerned about, which is also fairly mature, is
the tree that's on the property line. I don't know if that
impacts construction or not. I'm also sensitive to the fact
that sometimes trees need to come down, but that's my own
personal preference. I do think there has been some
significant impact to that neighborhood with the reduction
of mature trees.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Well, concerning the tree on
the property line, Erin knows which trees are which by
name, and it's an extensive report by the arborist. I
appreciate your interest in those trees.
CHAIR BURCH: Do we have any other questions? I
wanted to ask a quick question just for clarification on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the comment you made concerning drainage. I wanted to
clarify, is your concern that this project in any way will
increase drainage issues, or were you just outlining some
drainage issues that just exist in the area?
BRIGITTE BALLINGALL: I do not believe that this
project is going to add to the drainage issues. I do think
that there are drainage issues on that street. I know when
I went through my construction project we were required to
ameliorate some things that had to do with sidewalks. Not
drainage, but sidewalk and the street; we had to rebuild a
portion of the street.
I'm just hoping that if there's an opportunity to
put in additional drainage as a part of this project,
whether it's a collaboration with the Town, if it's the
Town's responsibility or the homeowner's responsibility,
that that would be taken into effect, because this is one
of the worst drainage situations I've seen in any city, but
certainly here in Los Gatos. There is a running river down
adjacent to the property that's been a concern of mine
since I moved there. Anybody who is familiar with that
street knows what I'm talking about.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, thank you. Any other
questions? No? Thank you. Our next speaker is Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
W
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I would just like to say that I support the zone
change, changing the zoning to conform to the General Plan
rather than circumventing the intent by using a CUP. So,
thank you for that, and I hope you support that.
I did not really look at the architecture, but in
reading the report the one thing that did stand out to me
was the size of the garage in comparison to the other
garages on the street; plus the fact that it is not deep
enough to do tandem parking, and therefore in a sense it's
a storage shed. If it were a separate structure, it would
be counted towards the FAR for the house, and I believe
that in the past the Commission has looked at garages that
have space other than for the parking of cars as space that
is counted towards the FAR.
That's just the comment I wanted to make,
especially given the fact that the garage seems out of
scale with all of the other garages in that neighborhood.
Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Wait. Hold on, Lee. Commissioner
Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: So Ms. Quintana, you were for
many years a Planning Commissioner; we know that.
LEE QUINTANA: Yes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER KANE: But I'm wondering, you said
something to the effect that it was not the intent to
create storage. Were you there when they wrote it, that the
garage was exempt from the FAR? Were you there when they
expressed an intent that it was for cars.
LEE QUINTANA: I was not there. I could give you
some background, but it would just hearsay, maybe. Maybe
I'll just say it.
In the past, when I was on the Planning
Commission, I did question the size of the FAR for garages,
because they seemed very large in comparison to the size
lots they could occur on, and the Planning director at the
time said to me that, well, they just sat down and in a
half an hour they just picked the number and decided that
the house FAR could be this and the garage FAR could be
that. So especially with garages, since most of them don't
max out the garage space, it just adds to the mass of the
house.
I didn't go look at this. I know the
neighborhood, but looking from the drawing, it looks like
it's a pretty massive house, and then you're adding a very
big garage.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I have my answer, thank you.
I wanted to know if you were there and could establish
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
intent of the garage, thinking that you might have been one
of the authors.
LEE QUINTANA: I know my storage space in my
garage counts toward my square footage.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, I assume there are no
other questions. No? All right, we now can have the
Applicant come back and address anything that you just
heard. You have an additional five minutes.
BESS WIERSEMA: This is the planning diagram. I
just want to point out the detached and less then 5'
setbacks that exist locally on accessory structures,
whether they are used as a garage, a storage shed, a not-
so-legal secondary dwelling, or whatever it may be that's
happening in the back yard.
So this is where we're proposing to do it, and
ours actually aligns with what's immediately behind us
pretty closely, and I'll show you that on the site plan as
well. These are all other detached garages. From a scale
perspective, something that's sitting between these two is
approximately a 400 square foot garage, just so you can
understand. We've had this one shot on a civil survey, so
we are clear on that from a scale perspective. But I'd just
like to point out that garages detached and whatever they
may be, I think that our intent proportionally...
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Let's go the site plan. Here's that garage that's
immediately adjacent to us, sits closer to probably 450 -500
square feet. Here is the garage that's immediately behind,
and you can see we're not coming out as far as they are,
although we are pushed further back. So just from a
proportion perspective, I feel like we're sitting at a
really good, responsive spot on the site, and within the
allowable FAR of the garage.
Ius.
I'm just supposed to address garage stuff, right?
CHAIR BURCH: You have five minutes to address
BESS WIERSEMA: Okay, so let's see. Commissioner
Talesfore, in response to your question about the window,
it occurred to me while sitting here that there is a window
and a sample that we had made free for a previous project
that I think you saw this evening, and that's a Jeld Wen
window as well, and that is an aluminum clad, wood window.
I can't unscrew it from the sample, because it's a life
size sample, but you can see that it has that satin finish;
it's the exact same manufacturer and is a standard clad
window you can flip around and see that it's wood on the
inside, but the same type of details. That same sheen, but
in a bronze, not black, color is what's being proposed.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
33
1
2 time.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BESS WIERSEMA: All right, thank you for your
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Looking at the garage
again, what is the width of the garage insofar as two
vehicles are concerned? What would you normally allow for
two vehicles, forgetting the present size of the width of
that garage? What is sort of the minimum size one can have
if you're going to have a two -car garage?
BESS WIERSEMA: Well, code minimum is very
different than what people's SUVs fit into. I would say in
my office I don't like to see a garage that's less than 24'
wide. To put it in perspective, a parking space at Safeway
is anywhere from 9'x18' to 10'x20', depending upon which
one you have, the kind of posts and all.
Flipping to our garage plan. Hold on.
CHAIR BURCH: While you look for that, I think,
Joel, you were going to give us some clarification on the
Town Code.
JOEL PAULSON: Sure. Town Code for a two -car
garage is 20'x20' inside clear is the minimum.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. Would you remind
me then what is the width as designed, when you get a
moment?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BESS WIERSEMA: Sure. So, 20'x20' inside clear
means that in the end we net obviously closer to 21' on the
outside, and we are at 231.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. I noticed in the
drawing, the upstairs area where it says "Attic," I don't
know, but I assume you could probably use some storage in
the attic. But the storage that you otherwise would use, is
there room in the garage, and if so, where, for storage?
BESS WIERSEMA: Let me get to the garage plan. So
you can see, here is our very simple garage. We're at 23'
wide to the outside, not the inside, and we are at 33.8'
outside dimensions, again on the long dimension. As you
know, we come in here on a driveway off the street, so the
intent is to be able to pull two cars in, have bikes, et
cetera, and then a cut - across storage that's in this
direction that's responsive to our back door, which is also
on the far side of the property, kind of down over here.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: What's the depth of that
storage?
BESS WIERSEMA: The depth of that storage? We're
at 331, so by the time we get a car in there, maybe 81.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Just so I understand, so
you might have as much as 8' when you go behind the front
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item ##2, 485 Monterey Avenue
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the car as it drives in. You might have as much as 8'
for storage or a workbench or whatever?
BESS WIERSEMA: Correct. And circulation out that
back door.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Other questions? Commissioner
Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Will parking be
available on that driveway? Can cars park in that driveway?
BESS WIERSEMA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: It will be able to
accommodate two cars?
BESS WIERSEMA: Yes. That's an engineering
requirement, that we have to be so far back.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? Commissioner
Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I'll pitch in on the
garage as everyone else has, so I don't feel left out. If
you were going to reduce the garage, you would presumably
reduce the length of the garage, not the width of the
garage, I'm assuming from your comments about needing a
certain size car to get in.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BESS WIERSEMA: If we're forced to, yes, because
we can't really reduce the width and have it work.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Right. I was sure that I
Iwas making the same assumption. So in your opinion as an
architect, if you in fact did that, would it change the
look of the garage to anyone? In other words, change the
mass and the scale of the garage from a viewpoint, from the
side street or from the neighbor, or anyone else. You would
presumably shorten it on its backside, not on it's front
side. I assume you wouldn't push it further into the
property; you would cut off the 8' of the back end of it.
So in your opinion as an architect, if in fact you did
that, would it change the feel and look of it in the
neighborhood?
BESS WIERSEMA: No.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSONER HANSSEN: To add on to the question
that was just asked, if you had to comply with the rear
setback requirement and move the garage forward, what would
that do to the rest of the design?
BESS WIERSEMA: I think that we would just end up
with unusable space on two property lines, behind the
garage and adjacent to the garage.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item ##2, 485 Monterey Avenue
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSONER HANSSEN: But that's what's required
in the Residential Design Guidelines.
BESS WIERSEMA: No, I believe we're allowed to
ask for a reduced side and rear setback for an accessory
structure, correct?
CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? No? All right,
thank you. We're going to close the public portion of this
item, and I will ask my Commissioners if you have any
questions of Staff, discussion, or if anyone wants to make
a motion? Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'd like to make a
motion. I realize that it may not go very far, but I'd
still like to make a motion.
I would like to make a motion in favor of the
project, and find that the proposed project is
categorically exempt pursuant to 15303 of the Environmental
Quality Act, see Exhibit 2; and the findings required by
our Section 2910.09030(e), also in Exhibit 2, and that
relates to the granting of approval of a demolition of a
commercial building; make the finding that the project
complies with the Residential Design Guidelines, see
Exhibit 2; make the required considerations as required by
Section 29.20.150 of the Code for granting approval of a
(Architecture and Site Application; and forward a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommendation to the Town Council to approve Architecture
and Site Application S -15 -018 with the conditions contained
in Exhibit 3, and the development plans attached as Exhibit
17. That would be my motion.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell, part of
this needs to be the rezone, so you need to include. So
could you add those findings, please?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yes, I will definitely
add those findings set forth in the October 14th Planning
Commission Staff Report at subparagraph (b), and those are
the required findings.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Will the maker of the motion
consider dividing the motion tres partes. One is the
zoning...
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible).
COMMISSIONER KANE: You know that, Tom. That one
be the zoning, another be the demo, another be the A &S?
Would there be any practicality in that to help us move
forward?
CHAIR BURCH:
Yeah,
I do
think...
COMMISSIONER
KANE:
Well,
I'm asking the maker of
the motion.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I have no problem with
doing that, but I guess I've got to understand it better
first. Would you explain to me again what you want?
COMMISSIONER KANE: Well, I've heard no objection
to the zoning; I've heard compliments on the thought
process that went into it. I've heard no objections on the
demolition. So maybe these things could progress, and I
think there's going to be discussion on the third part.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, I think there's
going to be discussion in any event, but I have no
objection to doing that, although I suppose I might break
it in two, because as stated by you, apparently there
should be no anticipated objection to the first two
matters, unless Commissioner Erekson has a problem with
that. I'm perfectly happy to do it any way my fellow
commissioners would like.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I just thought we could make
progress.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: No problem, but I'm just
saying I think you'd divide it into two now.
CHAIR BURCH: I believe Commissioner Erekson has
a comment, and unless he's about the say the same comment
as me, I'll follow up with him.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Mine is actually a
question, which is probably for the Town Attorney, but it
could be for Mr. Paulson. I was going to ask this before
any motion was made.
I'm not presuming what the pleasure of the
Commission is, but let's assume that we were going to
forward a positive recommendation for the zoning change to
the Town Council. That clearly has to be an action of the
Town Council. An Architecture and Site Application is not
required, is within the jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission, but I understand that the zoning change would
need to be made in order to allow the Architecture and Site
Application to go forward.
But could we craft a motion — assuming that we
could figure out what was right to approve with the
Architecture and Site Application, if it's what they
proposed or some changes we had to make to it; that's not
the question for the moment —where we actually approved, not
recommended, to the Town Council, to approve the
Architecture and Site Application contingent upon the
zoning change being adopted, so that the Town Council would
not then hear the Architecture and Site Application?
JOEL PAULSON: I think the short answer is yes,
that is a possibility. Staff actually explored that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1011412015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
possibility, but determined that since the zone change had
to move forward to the Council anyway, that both
applications would move forward. Should the Planning
Commission wish to separate those out and approve it with
an additional condition that obviously this is based on the
ultimate decision of the Council for the zone change, then
unless the Town Attorney has a different thought, that
would be my opinion.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: This is a very unique situation,
trying to approve an A &S before the zone change is through,
but I believe we can craft those conditions to make certain
there are no vested rights that occur until that zoning
occurred.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I was just trying to be
friendly to the Council and relieve them of some work.
CHAIR BURCH: That's very thoughtful of you.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Well then, to the maker of
the motion, let's do that. Clearly something is going to go
there, and clearly it's going to be an improvement, so
let's doing the zoning piece, and then we have one or two
separate pieces.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I will attempt to do
that, and I look forward to comments from my fellow
commissioners. But as I look to the Applicant, and I think
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioner Erekson's point is well taken, so ultimately
I'd like to do that; we'll see if I can.
The application summary says we are requesting
approval to: Rezone the property from O to R:1D; to
demolish an existing office building; to construct a new
single - family residence; to construct an accessory
structure with reduced setbacks; and obtain a Grading
Permit.
Now, I don't quite understand how the Grading
Permit fits in here, since we've heard no evidence on the
Grading Permit, so I'd ask Staff on that.
JOEL PAULSON: I would defer to page 10 of your
Staff Report, subparagraph (b), which really splits out the
zoning by itself and has just those three subparagraphs
that would accomplish the zoning recommendation.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: What does that do within
the application summary being for the Grading Permit? In
other words, Grading Permit would not be part of the
motion.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct, that would be part of the
Architecture and Site motion.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But it would be part of
a motion that we are making this evening, and I'm just
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
asking you if perhaps you can also share with me where in
our report do we discuss the Grading Permit?
JOEL PAULSON: I will look to the project
planner, but the Grading Permit is part of the Architecture
and Site Application, but I'll let Ms. Walters.
ERIN WALTERS: Yes, it's just a part of the
Architecture and Site Application. At a certain point, if
an applicant cuts and fills over 50 cubic yards on a site,
then they have to apply for a Grading Permit. Actually, a
Grading Permit is issued through Public Works, but we take
it through the Architecture and Site Application first.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Does this indicate that
it's going to be more then 50 cubic yards, or not?
ERIN WALTERS: I can look up the numbers.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'd just like to know
what it is we're being asked to do, and it's not clear. So
while you're looking it up, I would like to try to parse
the motions now, as suggested.
Commissioner Erekson has suggested that we
consider a motion on the Architecture and Site approval,
subject however to the rezoning, which can only occur if,
as, and when the Council does that. I would make that
motion, make one motion, concerning the Architecture and
Site approval, but before I do that, because that's the one
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think we'll want to discuss, I would make the motion now
to rezone the property from O to R:1D; to demolish the
existing office building; to construct a single - family
residence without approving the Architecture and Site
Application at the moment; and to construct an accessory
structure, again, without approving at the moment the ASA
part of that, which is the design.
And I'm waiting to hear on the Grading Permit.
ERIN WALTERS: Sure, thank you. I have that
information. The total cut for the site is 33 cubic yards,
and the fill is 19. When you add it together, it is 52
cubic yards, and so our threshold is 50 cubic yards.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I take it Staff has no
objection to the issuance of that Grading Permit?
ERIN WALTERS: None at all.
COMMISSIONER OIDONNELL: Okay. So included in the
motion then would be for the issuance of the Grading
Permit.
The only thing I tried to leave out of this is
the Architecture and Site approval, which I think everybody
may want to discuss. So the first motion I'm making, if
it's at all clear —might be surprised —is as to all those
other matters, and the findings for those mattes would be
the same findings that I previously indicated, including
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one brought to my attention by our Chair, which I think
then would cover the necessary findings.
CHAIR BURCH: It does. I don't know which one of
us want to jump in on this. Essentially it's my
understanding from what we've been saying over here is
there is going to be one motion specifically for the
rezoning, and all you need for the rezoning motion, which
is a recommendation to Council, are these three findings.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay.
CHAIR BURCH: That is standalone. That doesn't
include the demo or anything; that's a simple rezone. The
other items are all wrapped into this Architecture and Site
Application, so if you want to go ahead a make a motion.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, I have a question.
The question I have though, and I appreciate your advice,
is I don't know that we have any problem with the
demolition. We don't have a problem with much of anything,
I don't think, except the design of the two buildings.
CHAIR BURCH: Right.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The only discussion I've
heard is that. So you're telling me, I think, one could not
lump together everything but the design of the two
structures? Then I'll follow the Chair's helpful
suggestion, so that we only need the three findings we
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
previously identified, and the motion does not include
anything to do with the Architecture and Site Application.
CHAIR BURCH: Correct. Commissioner Badame.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I would second that motion.
CHAIR BURCH: Is there any additional discussion
on the motion that is being made to recommend approval for
the rezoning? No? All in favor? All right, that passes
unanimously.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'd like to make the
second motion, which relates to the Architecture and Site
approval, because this is the one I think want to discuss,
but it might be helpful to discuss it by making the motion,
assuming I can get a second, in which case we can discuss
it, amend it, whatever we want to do.
The motion that I would make now would be for the
approval of the Architecture and Site Application, which
would include the demolition of the existing building; the
construction of a single - family residence; the construction
on the accessory structure with reduced setbacks; and I
assume the issuance of the Grading Permit as described to
US.
The findings there I think are the findings which
are set forth in the report which we all have, and those
are set forth on page 11, and that's 1 -5. Hopefully that's
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enough at least to start the process moving, so if we can
get a second, we could discuss it. If not, we can do
something else.
CHAIR BURCH: Before we do have discussion, Joel
said that there's a change that we need to make in that.
JOEL PAULSON: On page 11 it references the
conditions contained in Exhibit 3, and we have a revised
set of conditions to deal with some drainage concerns as
Exhibit 19, so let the record reflect that would be your
motion.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible) called it to
our attention earlier today by email, and we subsequently
got it this evening too, yes.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: All right. Do we have a second, or
continued discussion? Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I'll second it to
facilitate the discussion.
CHAIR BURCH: All right. And do we have any
discussion, or do we want to take a vote? Commissioner
Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I'll say it again. Something
is going to go on this property, and we have the skill to
elongate things for weeks and weeks, and months and months,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
"-I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
land I wanted to see from Counsel why we can't separate out
the demo, so that something can start to get done?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: The grading and demo is part of
the A &S; it's part of that application. It's not a separate
Demolition Permit. There might be other issues and we worry
about if it was just going to be demolition without a
Irebuild.
A good example of that is if you were to grant a
Demolition and Grading Permit, and then the rezone didn't
happen and a demolition and grading occurred. We have other
issues that we're concerned about with an empty lot there
with nothing built on it, with grading issues or other
issues that we wouldn't look in, because we know a building
was going to be built there. And that's why we included it
in the A &S. It wasn't separated out for this application.
COMMISSIONER KANE: So you've answered my
question. There's nothing we can do to facilitate some
progress on this project; it's all or nothing.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Right. You have to get a rezone.
COMMISSIONER KANE: All right.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I just suggest to my
colleague, Commissioner Kane, my reason for separating the
two was to allow for the project potentially to go forward
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
faster, because sometimes it's challenging for the Staff or
the Town Manager's Staff to get items agendized for the
Council. This would allow it to be agendized for the
Council where even if —and I'm not suggesting we'll do this —
we were to continue the Architecture and Site Application
to a future meeting tonight, that stays with us and isn't
held up by the agendizing for the Town Council.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I agree with you. That's why
I wanted to break it into three parts 20 minutes ago, but I
guess we can't.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The question I have is
if we decide the A &S after approves the zoning, the A &S is
appealable, as I understand it. Now it would be appealed to
the Council. I just point that out; I wouldn't change my
agreement with your proposal. The Council can be involved
in both of these, depending on whether there's an appeal.
CHAIR BURCH: I believe that if we were to take
apart the A &S application I think that we all feel fine
with the demo and the grading, so I thing what we need to
do is —we do have a motion and a second — discuss within that
motion are there items that perhaps we would like to add to
that? Are we looking for some modifications to the
architectural portion? I would be looking to my fellow
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
commissioners for some thoughts on those particular items.
Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Sure, I'll start. Why
not? And by the way, I agree with that bifurcating of the
motion. Thank God we had that in there, because if any
neighborhood in our Town is in transition, this is the one.
It's an interesting neighborhood, because some of
those office buildings probably will stay for a very long
time. Some of them, you don't even know they're there
because of all the tree coverage that is there, and somehow
it seems to not bother us.
But the one thing that you cannot mistake about
this neighborhood is its scale. It is obvious, and it is in
conformity to each other. It presents a wonderful harmony
on that street. The buildings, I checked and the height of
all of those homes, the shortest home is at 21', and the
tallest home is at 26'. This structure would be coming in
at 29', 1.5 ". It would be even taller than the apartment
building across the street from it.
Now perhaps it wouldn't bother me so much, except
that it's on a corner lot. It is the predominant lot in
that neighborhood, and it really sets the tone. What I look
at when I see this is the complexity of the roof forms,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
.Item ##2, 485 Monterey Avenue
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which really add to its mass, which is why I brought that
up.
If it's an interpretation of a Craftsmen, if it's
a new transitional current Craftsmen interpretation, one of
the elements of a Craftsmen that stands out is its gable
ends. What I was trying to get at was that if the roofs
could somehow be lowered or made less complex, perhaps we
had a chance of not recognizing that this would be the
tallest house in the neighborhood, but I can't.
And so because of that, I have an issue, and I
would like to see this possibly come back with some
expiration of that roofline and bringing it down. We have
these Residential Guidelines for something. People worked
long and hard on this, and it means a lot to me. That's my
comment for now.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: To add to that, I can't make
the finding for the exception to the rear setback on the
garage, the accessory structure at 774 square feet. You're
required with new construction to bring the building, the
application, to current code, and although there might be
older homes in the neighborhood that do have a reduced
setback, they were built long ago.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
I
21
22
23
24
25
I cannot make the finding, the compelling reason,
to make an exception on that rear setback for the garage.
CHAIR BURCH: Any other comments? I'll share my
comments.
I agree with my two fellow commissioners. I would
like to see some type of reduction in the massing on the
corner, hopefully through the working on the roof; but
mostly the rear setback with the garage, I'd like to see
that revisited and make sure that it does meet the Town
guidelines. Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I was trying to understand
Commissioner Talesfore's concern. If I look at the chart on
page 8 of the Staff Report, there are five single - family
homes in that chart, of which four are two - story. Does
Staff know what the heights of those are? Is there a
significant height difference between those four and the
proposed height of this one?
VICE CHAIR BADAME: It's about 5'.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: About 51. Exhibit 15 has
the streetscape with the dimensions, and Studio3 Design
provided this.
on that?
CHAIR BURCH: Ms. Walters, did you have something
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ERIN WALTERS: Yes, it's Exhibit 15. The house is
located on the west side of Monterey Avenue. Number one
shows it 26' in height. It does have the same plates, and
this house is being measured because it's being lowered, so
it's very similar to that house that's one over.
COMMISSIONER KANE: What's the address?
ERIN WALTERS: That's a great question. Let me
grab that.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: It's called number 1 on
Exhibit 15.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Yeah, I'm working on this
chart.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I know, but if you look
at it, you can see it, Exhibit 15.
ERIN WALTERS: I don't have them all memorized.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I'm okay. Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: I'm not sure I follow. You're
saying notwithstanding the height as shown, 29.5' is
similar to 26' because why?
ERIN WALTERS: Actually I did just find the
address; it's 461 Monterey Avenue. That was a remodel of an
existing home. As the Applicant described, and is described
in the report, they have lowered the foundation to be
lower, so they're measuring from a lower elevation than
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this house on 461 Monterey, but they have the same plate
heights.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think you said they're
measuring from the foundation?
ERIN WALTERS: They're measuring from below
grade, so at the crawl space.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So the 26' you're
assuming is being measured from grade?
ERIN WALTERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And the 29' is being
measured from below grade?
ERIN WALTERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: By 6" below grade?
ERIN WALTERS: I believe so. That's what it said
in the report.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So instead of being 29',
1.5 ", it would be 281- whatever.
ERIN WALTERS: And you can see in the attachment,
27', 7.5" from grade.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, so it's roughly
1.5' higher than 461 Monterey?
ERIN WALTERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item ##2, 485 Monterey Avenue
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BURCH: All right, do we have any other
questions of Staff, or comments? Otherwise, we do have a
motion and a second. Yes, Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me just say this: I
put this motion out so we could see where we are. If enough
of us are not comfortable with this, then I would be happy
to withdraw the motion, because I'm not doing this just to
lose, go down in flames or something. If in fact the
majority of the Commission wants to do something else, I'm
not going to beat a dead horse.
But so far I guess I've heard from three people,
so clearly if I hear from one more person, I withdraw the
motion and we ought to do something else.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell, how
are you? No, I'm in support of the other concerns.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. Because I've heard
differing views on this. Can I withdraw the motion if I get
the seconder to agree?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, so I would
like to withdraw the motion, and I think Commissioner
Erekson, he's the second, if he concurs with that.
CHAIR BURCH: Do you agree with that,
Commissioner Erekson?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: An alternative would be to
ask fellow commissioners to propose amendments to the
motion to address their concerns.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That's true. Let me just
say this. I have heard —and I may be wrong —but what I'm
hearing is that enough of my fellow commissioners would
like a redesign. I don't know how we can prove something is
subject to a redesign until we get a chance to look at the
redesign. So I'll ask you once again, and it's up to you.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I don't have any problem.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. So if that's
(inaudible) it's not complex, I don't think, at the moment.
I think you're asking for a redesign, and that would be
that we move to continue this matter to a date certain...
CHAIR BURCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: ...asking the Applicant,
based on what they've heard this evening, to deal with two
issues. One is the bulk and mass, particularly the height I
suppose, of the proposal. And secondly, dealing with the
garage, and we've heard different things on the garage.
Now, obviously the Applicant doesn't have to do
anything. This is the request of the Planning Commission,
and whatever the Applicant does is up to the Applicant.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item ##2, 485 Monterey Avenue
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The motion is simply that we continue this to a
date certain, and I'll ask for some directions on a date
certain, so that the Applicant, after having heard the
discussion this evening, can decide whether the Applicant
wishes to resubmit to address some or all of those issues.
That would be the motion.
CHAIR BURCH: All right. Do we have a second for
the motion? Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: A question first.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KANE: If we give guidance on the
redesign and a date certain, Mr. Paulson, how would that
effect appeal rights? Would that slow the process down? Can
they go forward and request an appeal? What would happen?
JOEL PAULSON: There are no appeal rights,
because you haven't taken an action.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I'll second your motion and
see what happens.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me say this: The
reason I think it's important that we do it is the Planning
Commission exists to deal with these kinds of issues. It is
true that under many circumstances the final decision is in
the hands of the Council, but I think we ought to do our
work, and our work is...
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Very frankly, I would have approved this this
evening, so we have a wide variety of opinions, but it's
clear to me that we have at least four people who are not
happy with this, and I think therefore the motion will help
everybody, and if at the end of the day they submit
something that we still don't like, then I think you're
probably right, we should just send it along.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I still second the motion,
land we look for a date certain if we get the vote.
CHAIR BURCH: Right. Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I'm fine with us
(continuing and can support the motion. I think we need to
be clear about the direction that we're giving to the
Applicant in fairness to them.
I heard two different concerns with the garage —
one was the size of the garage, and the other was the
reduced setback —which are not related to each other;
they're two separate issues. If I were the Applicant, I
wouldn't know which of those we were not moving forward on
the basis of the garage.
The other issue, I think, is the perception by
some members of the Commission that it's out of scale in
the neighborhood; that's a summary of it. I don't know if
that's an accurate articulation of the concerns, because
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they can't redesign if they don't know what the direction
Fx�
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Could I just say that I
think that is accurate, but I do think the setback does
influence the size of the garage, because unless you move
the garage, if you increase the setback from 3' to 5'
you're going to impact the wrong size of the garage. I
don't like impacting the width; that doesn't make any sense
to me.
But they are connected insofar as if you increase
the 3' to 5' you're either going take it away from the size
of the garage as proposed, or you're going to move the
garage. Either one can do, but I'm just saying they
conceptually are related.
I don't know if it's worth our while to sit here
tonight and go through precisely... It's fairly clear to me
there are a number of people who think the garage is too
big, period. There are some, and I don't know how many, but
I know that one of my fellow commissioners is particularly
concerned in addition to that with the setback, but I don't
know that it's worthwhile to poll that.
So I would like to stay with the same motion. I
personally, if I were sitting in the chair of the
Applicant, there's a lot of direction here. It may not be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
We
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
direction they want to take, and it may not be direction
they need to take, but it is direction.
CHAIR BURCH: All right. So we have a motion and
a second. Any further discussion? We need to determine a
date certain, so if there's no more discussion I'm going to
open the public portion of the hearing again to ask the
Applicant that based on this, as we look at dates, to
determine a date together that would work with. Mr.
Paulson.
JOEL PAULSON: November 11th would be the first
opportunity, so I would just look to the Applicant to see
if they believe they are able to make those changes by the
11th. Should they not be able to make those changes by the
11th, then we would just continue it again, but the 11th
would be the soonest opportunity.
BESS WIERSEMA: Can we have the 28th
JOEL PAULSON: No.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, so the 11th. I'm going to
reclose the public portion then.
And so we have a motion. We have a date certain,
that the item will be continued to November 11th. All in
favor? Passes unanimously.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
I01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Paulson, since we did have a two -part motion
here, one was referring approval, and the continuance, so
there are no appeal rights to this?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 10/14/2015
Item #2, 485 Monterey Avenue
62
.I,%—
IN of TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 14, 2015
PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters, Associate Planner
ewaltersLa)los atg osca.gov
APPLICATION NO.: Zone Change Application Z -15 -001
Architecture and Site Application S -15 -018
ITEM NO: 2
LOCATION: 485 Monterey Avenue (southwest corner of Monterey Avenue
and Andrews Street)
APPLICANT/
CONTACT PERSON: Michael Black
PROPERTY OWNER: Black Real Estate Investment LLC
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to rezone a property from O to R -1D, to
demolish an existing office building, construct a new single -
family residence, construct an accessory structure with reduced
setbacks, and obtain a grading permit for property zoned O.
APN 410 -16 -026.
DEEMED COMPLETE: September 8, 2015
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: Rezoning applications are
legislative acts and are therefore not governed by the Permit
Streamlining Act. Architecture and Site Application: March 8,
2016.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the proposed zone change and
Architecture and Site Application to the Town Council.
PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential, 5-
12 dwelling units per acre
Zoning Designation: Office, O
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan
Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 9,000 sq. ft.
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use
Gener ............ ...... _ - .... - . ............ _
Zonin............
g
North Residential
__._.._... _�......;..._......_..._....... - -- .......
Medium Density Residential
.,..
R -1D
East Residential
. . ............._.._........;.._._._........_......_...........................__._._._._....._...._._.._.............._....._........_..._................._............_....................-................................................................
............................. ...... . ........... . .... ..._ ........... ......._ .......................
' Medium Density Residential
:..................................................
O
South Residential
._.._......_.._._._.............._........_...._ ................. .__.............._.._._....._._ ._. _:.
Medium Density Residential
..................
............................... .
R -1 D
West Residential
_.._..............................................._ ............. ...................................................................
Medium Density Residential
...............................
R -11)
ATTACIOKNT 3
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, S -15 -018
October 14, 2015
CEQA: The zone change is Exempt (Statutory) according to Section
21083.3 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the
Town because the project is consistent with the General Plan and
an EIR was certified with respect to the General Plan.
The Architecture and Site application is Categorically Exempt
pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303; New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
FINDINGS: ■ As required by Section 21083.3 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town that the zone change is
Statutorily Exempt.
• As required, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
the Architecture and Site application is Categorically
Exempt, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
• That the zone change is consistent with the General Plan.
• That the project is consistent with the Residential Design
Guidelines.
CONSIDERATIONS: ■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
Architecture and Site applications.
ACTION: Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of
the proposed zone change and Architecture and Site application.
EXHIBITS: 1.
Location Map
2.
Findings and Considerations
3.
Recommended Conditions of Approval (10 pages)
4.
Draft Ordinance (two pages), includes Exhibit A
5.
Project Data Sheet (one page)
6.
Project Description and Letter of Justification (two pages),
received August 28, and September 8, 2015, respectively
7.
Project Zoning Map (one page)
8.
Project General Plan Map (one page)
9.
Architectural Consultant Reports, received April 20, 2015
(five pages), June 3, 2015 (six pages), and August 19, 2015
(six pages).
10.
Applicant's Response to the Consulting Architect's Report,
received August 28, 2015 (one page)
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, 5 -15 -018
October 14, 2015
11. Materials, received August 28, 2015 (one page)
12. Consulting Arborist's Reports, received March 31, 2015 (26
pages), May 19, 2015 (four pages), and August 24, 2015
(three pages)
13. Applicant's Responses to the Consulting Arborist's Report,
received July 28, 2015 (one page) and August 28, 2015 (one
page each)
14. Letter of Support, received September 3, 2015 (one page)
15. Neighborhood Streetscape, received September 8, 2015 (one
page)
16. Previous Submittals - Elevations, received March 5, 2015
(two pages), May 11, 2015 (two pages), and July 28, 2015
(two pages).
17. Development Plans, received September 17, 2015 (15 pages)
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to rezone a 9,000 square foot parcel from O (Office) to R -1D (Single
Family Residential, Downtown). The property is bordered to the north, south, and west by
properties with RA D zoning designations (see Exhibit 7). Four properties to the east of the
�-- subject property are zoned O and consist of three single - family residences and one office
building. Properties along Monterey Avenue and Andrews Street, including the subject parcel,
have a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (5 -12 units per acre) (see
Exhibit 8). The parcel contains a single -story medical office building that was built in the 1960s.
The applicant proposes to demolish the office building and construct a two story single - family
residence with a detached garage.
Initially the applicant applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a residential use in an
Office zone. In 1997, the three properties located across the street from the subject property on
Monterey Avenue were approved through a CUP application process to allow residential uses.
However, after recent feedback from the Planning Commission on the preference to rezone non-
residential properties to make them consistent with their General Plan designation staff
encouraged the applicant apply for a rezone of the property. The applicant modified their
application and is requesting to rezone the property.
The applicant is also requesting approval of an Architecture and Site Application for a new two -
story residence.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, S -15 -018
October 14, 2015
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The project site is 485 Monterey Avenue which is located at the southwest corner of
Monterey Avenue and Andrews Street (see Exhibit 1). The surrounding properties include
numerous single - family residences with a couple of duplexes, and multi - family buildings.
There are a couple of office buildings to the south on Monterey Avenue.
B. Project Summary
The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel from O to R -113. The applicant is also
requesting to demolish the existing commercial building and construct a new two -story
2,853- square foot house and a 774 - square foot detached garage with reduced setbacks (see
Exhibit 5).
ANALYSIS:
A. Zone Change
The subject office zoned parcel at the corner of Monterey Avenue and Andrews Street is
surrounded to the north, south and west by R -1D zoned parcels and residential uses. To the
east of the subject parcel there are four office zoned parcels (see Exhibit 7). Three of the
office zoned parcels have Conditional Use Permits for residential uses and have two -story
single- family residences. The existing office use is among the surrounding residential
parcels. There are office zoned parcels located to the south of the subject property with
office uses. The proposed zone change would be compatible with the neighborhood. The
zone change would also make the property consistent with the General Plan (as discussed
below).
Single - family residences are permitted in office zones with a Conditional Use Permit.
However, the allowed setbacks for the office zone are not consistent with the residential
setbacks allowed in the surrounding residential zones.
Single - Family Residential Setbacks
Zone
Front
Side
Rear
R- I D
15 feet
5 feet
20 feet
O
25 feet
10 feet
20 feet
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001. S -15 -018
�- October 14, 2015
If the zone change is approved, the existing office building will become non - conforming
which is permitted by the Town Code for zone changes. Pursuant to Town Code Section
29.10.200(a), the nonconforming UBC Type 5 office building is older than 25 years, and
therefore is required to conform with the rules of the new zone if the zone change is
approved. The building is not occupied, and, therefore pursuant to Town Code Section
29.10.190, if the office use is discontinued for 30 consecutive days following the approval
of the zone change, the use is not permitted to be resumed. Staff has included a condition
of approval requiring the applicant to make the building conform to the zone within one
year of approval of the zone change and will not issue any business license for an office use
to ensure the use is discontinued.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing office building and construct a single -
family home which requires Architecture and Site approval.
B. Architecture and Site Application
The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,853- square foot two -story single - family
residence. The project includes a detached 774 - square foot two car garage with three foot
setbacks. The proposed detached garage setbacks are compatible with other detached
garage setbacks in the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has provided a letter of
justification for the proposed rezone, construction of the two -story residence and other
aspects of the applications (see Exhibit 6).
The applicant is proposing a two -story craftsman style home (see Exhibit 15 and 17). The
proposed residence is a maximum height of 29 feet, 1.5 inches. Materials would consist
of shingle siding, stone veneer, a composition roof, a wraparound front porch with a
standing seam metal roof and wood porch columns with a stone base (see Exhibit 11). A
color and materials board will be displayed at the meeting.
The Consulting Architect initially reviewed the proposed plans, visited the site and
determined the proposed two -story Victorian Farmhouse style was not compatible in
massing or scale with the two story homes in the surrounding neighborhood (Exhibit 9).
The applicant worked with staff and the Consulting Architect's recommendations to
propose a new design that would be compatible with the neighborhood and meet the
Town's Residential Design Guidelines. Including the initial design, the Consulting
Architect reviewed three different design iterations provided by the applicant (see Exhibit
16). The Consulting Architect prepared a report addressing each of the design proposals
and provided recommendations (see Exhibit 9).
The applicant responded to the Consulting Architect's final recommendations in writing
(see Exhibit 10). The following outlines the Consulting Architect's recommendations and
the applicant's response in italics.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, 5 -15 -018
October 14, 2015
1. Lower Porch and First Floor Plate Height
The Town's Consulting Architect believes the porch and first floor plate height
should be lowered to a uniform nine -foot elevation.
The applicant states that the most current two -story projects have a nine foot first
floor and a nine foot second floor plate height. The proposed design of a 10 foot first
floor and eight foot second floor plate height would still have the same overall
building height. The applicant reduced the finished floor level by 6- inches, lowering
the overall house on the site, and within the allowable maximum height (see Exhibit
17). Details such as the broader wrapped entry porch, heavy column base, upper
level bay window seat bump outs that are not stacked on the first floor bays all help
reduce the overall bulk and mass and anchor the house to the site. The roof pitch has
been reduced to provide a more consistent look with other "Craftsman " styled homes
in the neighborhood.
Based on the context of the neighborhood which includes a mix of homes with 9 feet
floor plates and 10 foot floor plates, and the applicant lowering the finished floor
level both the consulting architect and staff are able to support the proposed porch
and first floor plate height.
2. Roofing Material
The Town's Consulting Architect recommends matching the front porch roofing
material, standing seam metal, to the other main house composition roofing.
The applicant states the current design proposes a metal roof detail at the porch
areas only, drawing attention to the lower and more transparent element. The design
detail is consistent with current interpretation of a more updated "Craftsman "
aesthetic. The change in materials lends further character for the home, separating it
as custom rather than spec in nature by the use of more robust and unique materials
(see Exhibit 17).
Staff can support the combination of roof materials as the use of roof materials and
mixes of roof materials are consistent with the architectural style selected.
3. Siding
The Town's Consulting Architect recommends utilizing mitered shingles at all
corners to soften the appearance of the large house.
The applicant modified the design to incorporate the use of mitered shingles (see
Exhibit 17).
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, 5 -15 -018
October 14, 2015
4. Windows
The Town's Consulting Architect recommends the applicant providing a sample of
the window, and examine the details to ensure that the divided panels are consistent,
or equal to, the photo example provided on page 48 of the Residential Design
Guidelines.
The applicant provided that the windows incorporate a simple mullion pattern at the
top of the windows only, again lending a more custom look and giving the building
some detail. The windows will be aluminum clad exterior /painted wood interior (see
Exhibit 11).
After the applicant provided a sample both the Consulting Architect and staff found
the proposed windows to meet the Residential Design Guidelines and the high quality
of the building materials.
C. Neighborhood Compatibility
Based on the Town and County records, the residences in the immediate neighborhood
range in size from 1,010 to 2,860 square feet. The FAR ranges from 0.11 to 0.33. The
applicant is proposing a 2,853 square foot home (not including the garage square footage)
on a 9,000 square foot parcel. The maximum allowed square footage for the lot size is
2,862 square feet.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 8
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, S -15 -018
October 14, 2015
The Neighborhood Analysis table below reflects the current conditions in the immediate
neighborhood.
Address
House SF
Garage SF
Lot Size SF
House FAR
Stories
461 Monterey Ave.
2,767
480
9,000
0.31
2
Single Family
477 Monterey Ave.
1,010
0
9,000
0.11
1
Single Family
480 Monterey Ave.
2,860
441
9,000
0.32
2
Single Family
482 Monterey Ave.
2,410
441
7,405
0.33
2
Single Family
484 Monterey Ave.
2,408
441
7,405
0.33
2
Single Family
500 Monterey Ave.
2,842
0
9,000
0.32
1
Duplex
501 Monterey/
306 Andrews St.
3,470
0
9,000
039
2&1
Multi-Family
370 Andrews St./
470 San Benito
5,348
0
9,000
0.59
1&2
Multi-Family
500 San Benito
1,742
360
9,000
0.19
1
Duplex -
485 Monterey Ave.
1,506
0
9,000
0.17
1
(E) Office
485 Monterey Ave.
2,853
774
9,000
0.32
2
(P) Single-Family
*The shaded properties are duplex and multi family residences and are a different
housing type than the proposed single-family project.
At 2,853 square feet, the residence would be the second largest single - family house based
on square footage and the third largest single - family house based on FAR in the
immediate neighborhood.
D. Tree Impacts
The existing site has 12 protected trees as defined by the Town Code. Per the Consulting
Arborist's report dated March 31, 2015, "most of the trees are not in good condition and
no tree has better than a "Fair /Good" preservation suitability. Several of the trees are
causing significant pavement damage" (see Exhibit 12). Initially the applicant had
proposed to incorporate three of the existing trees into the proposed site plan and
--.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 9
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, 5 -15 -018
October 14, 2015
landscape plan. However, upon further review of the Consulting Arborist's report, the
condition of the existing trees, the allowable building envelope on this parcel, and the
site constraints the applicant has proposed to remove all trees from the site (see Exhibit
13).
The applicant will provide tree replacement pursuant to the Town Code requirements
(Exhibit 3). The Consulting Arborist recommends in the report dated August 23, 2015
that not all of the replacement trees be planted on the small project site. The intent is not
to overcrowd the site with trees. The Consulting Arborist recommends a licensed
landscape architect be hired to select appropriate tree species and placement for the site.
In -lieu fees will be required for any required replacement trees that cannot be
accommodated on the site.
E. General Plan
The proposed project conforms with the existing General Plan Designation of Medium
Density Residential (5 -12 dwelling units per acre).
The goals and policies of the 2020 General Plan applicable to this project include but are
not limited to:
• Goal LU -6 — To preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in
residential neighborhoods.
• Policy LU -6.5 — The type, density, and intensity of new land uses shall be consistent
with that of the immediate neighborhood.
F. CEQA Determination
The zone change is Statutorily Exempt according to Section 21083.3 of CEQA as adopted
by the Town, which exempts projects that are consistent with the General Plan where an
EIR was certified with respect to the General Plan, and there are no effects on the
environment peculiar to the parcel or new information that shows impacts will be more
significant than shown in the EIR.
The Architecture and Site application is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted
Guidelines for the Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Section
15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
At this time, the Town has received one public comment. The applicant has provided a letter of
support from the property owner of 477 Monterey Avenue, the neighboring property to the south
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 10
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, 5 -15 -018
October 14, 2015
(see Exhibit 14). The applicant sent a letter describing the project and a copy of the proposed
plans to surrounding neighbors.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Summary
The zone change would be beneficial to the neighborhood since development of a single -
family residence on the subject property would enhance the surrounding residential
neighborhood and, with the zone change, match the setbacks required on the adjacent
residential properties. In addition, replacing the existing office use with a single - family
residence would reduce traffic impacts, parking requirements and provide an additional
housing unit.
The proposed zone change would also make the property consistent with the General Plan
land use designation for the subject site and complies with the goals and policies within the
General Plan as noted above.
The proposed Architecture and Site application meets all zoning requirements and complies
with the Residential Design Guidelines. The proposed residence is well designed, is an --�
appropriate size for the lot, and would be compatible with the surrounding homes in the
immediate neighborhood.
Staff recommends that the applications be forwarded to the Town Council with a
recommendation of approval as outlined in the recommendation sections below.
B. Rezone Recommendation
If the Commission finds merit with the proposed zone change, staff recommends the
Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Find that the proposed project is Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section 21083.3 of
the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town (Exhibit 2); and
2. Find that the proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan (Exhibit 2),
and
3. Forward the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit 4) to the Town Council with a recommendation
of approval with the recommended conditions of approval in Exhibit 3.
If the Commission has concerns with the zone change application, it can forward a
recommendation to deny the application to the Town Council.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 11
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, S -15 -018
~" October 14, 2015
C. Architecture and Site Application Recommendation
If the Planning Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should:
1. Find that the proposed project is categorically exempt, pursuant to Section 15303 of
the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Town (Exhibit 2); and
2. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town
Code for granting approval of a demolition of a commercial building (Exhibit 2);
and
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines
(Exhibit 2); and
4. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town
Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 2); and
5. Forward a recommendation to Town Council to approve Architecture and Site
Application S -15 -018 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and development
plans attached as Exhibit 17.
If the Commission has concerns with the proposed project, it can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
2. Approve the application with additional and /or modified conditions; or
3. Forward a recommendation to deny the application to the Town Council.
repared by:
Erin M. Walters
Associate Planner
LRP:EW:cg
ellvz 10
Approved by:
Laurel R. Prevetii
Town Manager /Community Development
Director
cc: Michael Black, Black Real Estate Investments LLC, 15651 Glen Una Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Elizabeth Wiersema, Studio Three Design, 1585 The Alameda Suite 200, San Jose CA 95126
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2015Vv1onterey485.docx
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
WAN'
485 Monterey Avenue
EXHIBTT 1
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
W
'1
',
PLANNING COMMISSION — October 14, 201 S
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
485 Monterey Avenue
Zone Change Application Z-15 -001
Architecture and Site Application S -15 -018
Requesting approval to rezone a property from O to R -11), to demolish an existing office
building, construct a new single - family residence, construct an accessory structure with
reduced setbacks, and to obtain a grading permit for property zoned O. APN 410 -16 -026.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Black Real Estate Investment LLC
APPLICANT: Michael Black
FINDINGS:
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The zone change is Statutorily Exempt according to Section 21083.3 of CEQA as
adopted by the Town, in that it is compatible with the existing general plan and the
adopted EIR for the existing General Plan.
■ The architecture and site application is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section
15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Required consistency with the Town's General Plan:
■ That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements in
that the proposed zoning is consistent with the existing General Plan designation.
Required findings for demolition:
■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single
family residence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be increased by one housing unit;
2. The structure has no historic significance;
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure due to its current
condition; and
4. The economic utility of the structure is limited due to its condition.
Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
■ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single - family
homes not in hillside residential areas.
x.11:
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
CONSIDERATIONS:
Required considerations in review of Architecture and Site applications:
■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2015\MONTEREY485.DOCX
PLANNING COMMISSION — October 14, 201 S
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
485 Monterey Avenue
Zone Change Application Z-15 -001
Architecture and Site Application S -15 -018
Requesting approval to rezone a property from O to R -11), to demolish an existing office
building, construct a new single - family residence, construct an accessory structure with
reduced setbacks, and to obtain a grading permit for property zoned O. APN 410 -16 -026.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Black Real Estate Investment LLC
APPLICANT: Michael Black
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions
of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved and noted
as received by the Town on September 17, 2015. Any changes or modifications to the
approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the
Development Review Committee, the Planning Commission, or Town Council, depending
on the scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to
Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down
directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights
shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. The
lighting plan shall be reviewed during building plan check.
4. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
5. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be
removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
6. REPLACEMENT TREES: Replacement trees shall be planted for trees being removed.
The number and size of new trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table
in the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. Required trees shall be planted prior to final
inspection.
7. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations made by Deborah Ellis, MS., identified in the Arborist's reports dated as
received March 31, 2015, May 19, 2015, and August 24, 2015, on file in the Community
Development Department. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations
have or will be addressed. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building
permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable.
8. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at
the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall
remain through all phases of construction. Refer to tree fencing requirements and other
protection measures identified in the Arborist's reports dated as received March 31, 2015,
May 19, 2015, and August 24, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department.
Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans. EXMIT 9
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
9. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet
the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient --�
Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee
schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation
plans are submitted for review.
10. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION: Prior final occupancy front yard landscaping must be
installed.
11. ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement,
at their cost, the recommendation made by Cannon Design Group, identified in the
Architectural Consultant reports, dated as received April 20, 2015, June 3, 2015, and
August 19, 2015 on file in the Community Development Department. A Compliance
Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit
application detailing how the recommendation has or will be addressed. This
recommendation must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to
issuance of a building permit
12. SALVAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit,
the developer shall provide the Community Development Director with written notice of
the company that will be recycling the building materials. 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 the type and weight of materials, shall be submitted to the Town prior to
the Town's demolition inspection.
13. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
14. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires
that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
15. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum, in compliance with standard Town
practice, shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit detailing how the
conditions of approval will be addressed.
Building Division
16. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit shall be required for the demolition of the
existing office building and a Building Permit shall be required for the construction of the
new single- family residence and a separate Building Permit for the detached garage.
Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary.
17. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue -lined in full on
the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of
Approval will be addressed.
18. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24" x 36 ", maximum
size 30" x 42 ".
19. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Obtain a Building Department Demolition Application
and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District Application from the Building
Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has been completed, all signatures
obtained, and written verification from PG &E that all utilities have been disconnected,
return the completed form to the Building Department Service Counter with the air
District's J# Certificate, PG &E verification, and three (3) sets of site plans showing all
existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG &E. No
demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.
20. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with
the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineering specializing in soils mechanics.
21. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or
land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection.
This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils
report, and that the building pad elevation and on -site retaining wall locations and
elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical
controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the
following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining Walls
22. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be
designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-
61:
a. Wood backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls at water
closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34- inches from the floor to the center of the
backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.
b. All passage doors shall be at least 32- inches wide on the accessible floor.
c. Primary entrance shall be a 36 -inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no more
than 1/2 -inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18 -inch
clearance at interior strike edge.
d. Door buzzer, bell, or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
23. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance
Forms must be blue - lined, i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
24. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information
on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town
of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater
valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12- inches
above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
25. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase
11 approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 -feet
of Chimney.
26. FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly.
27. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704,
the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The
Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled -out and signed by all requested
parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building
28. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (2406) shall be part of the plan
submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division
Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blue Print for a fee or online at
www.losgatosca.gov/building.
29. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development — Planning Division: Erin Walters at (408) 354 -6867
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Mike Weisz at (408) 354 -5236
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378 -4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378 -2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school
district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit
issuance.
f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771 -6000
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
11
Engineering Division
30. 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 an encroachment permit is issued. The developer's
representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to
maintain the public right -of -way according to this condition may result in the Town
performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
31. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right -of -way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction
security. It is the responsibility of the applicant/developer to obtain any necessary
encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited
to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E), AT &T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District,
California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be
submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to releasing any permit.
32. 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.
33. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The developer shall repair or replace
all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because
of the developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement
markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the
original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the
direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24
Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk - through with the Engineering
Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
34. STREET /SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street
and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on
works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe
manner may be required.
35. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of
any Permit.
36. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for
review and approval.
37. GRADING PERMIT: Grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work
except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Grading Ordinance. 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 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.
38. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conform to existing pavement on Andrews Avenue shall be
constructed such that existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed
39. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to
issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
40. PAD CERTIFICATION: A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating
that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be
provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the structure.
The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation placement.
41. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated on the parcel map by separate
instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued:
a. Monterey Avenue and Andrews Street: A chord of a 10 -foot radius at the intersection.
42. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the
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.
43. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnical investigation shall
be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub - surface conditions at the site
and to determine the potential for 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. All recommendations of the investigation shall be
incorporated into project plans.
44. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's engineers shall prepare
and submit a design -level geotechnical /geological investigation for review and approval by
the Town. The applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans
to ensure that designs for foundations, 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.
45. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all
excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to
placement of concrete and /or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated in the design -level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in
the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction
observation and testing should be documented in an "as- built" letter /report prepared by the
applicants' soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy
permit is granted.
46. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility
services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines
underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television
service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from
any and all utility service providers. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply
approval for final alignment or design of these facilities.
47. TRENCHING MORATORIUM: Trenching within a newly paved street will be allowed
subject to the following requirements:
a. The Town standard "T" trench detail shall be used.
b. A Town approved colored controlled density backfill shall be used.
c. The total asphalt thickness shall be a minimum of 3- inches or shall match the existing
thickness, whichever is greater. The final lift shall be 1.5- inches of half inch medium
asphalt. The initial lift(s) shall be of three quarter inch medium asphalt.
d. The Contractor shall schedule a pre - paving meeting with the Town Engineering
Construction Inspector the day the paving is to take place.
e. A slurry seal topping may be required by the construction inspector depending his
assessment of the quality of the trench paving. If required, the slurry seal shall extend
the full width of the street and shall extend 5 -feet beyond the longitudinal limits of
trenching. Slurry seal materials shall be approved by the Town Engineering
Construction Inspector prior to placement. Black sand may be required in the slurry
mix. All existing striping and pavement markings shall be replaced upon completion of
slurry seal operations. All pavement restorations shall be completed and approved by
the Inspector before occupancy.
48. SIDEWALK REPAIR: The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards
any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. Sidewalk repair shall
match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard -�
Details. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction
Inspector during the construction phase of the project.
49. CURB AND GUTTER: The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards
any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. New curb and
gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits of curb and gutter repair
will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction
phase of the project.
50. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The developer shall install one (1) Town standard residential
driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard
Details.
51. CURB RAMPS: The developer shall construct one (1) curb ramp in compliance with ADA
Standards.
52. THRU -CURB DRAIN: The developer shall remove the existing thru -curb drain in the right
of way and replace the curb, gutter and sidewalk as necessary.
53. FENCING: Any fencing proposed within 200 -feet of an intersection shall comply with
Town Code Section §23.10.080.
54. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements,
including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Section
23.10.080, 26.10.065, 29.40.030.
55. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from
the Town Engineer.
56. 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. Coordination with other significant
projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other
loose debris.
57. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities
shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty -five (85) dBA at twenty -five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located
within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to
twenty -five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of
the property plane shall not exceed eighty -five (85) dBA.
58. 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, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and
proposed outhouse locations.
59. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West
Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
reused. Sanitary Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line or
location specify by the Town.
60. 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 Building Official. 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 in the
Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional
operation condition. Evidence of West Sanitation District's decision on whether a
backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
61. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The applicant is responsible for ensuring
that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures
are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed
for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and /or
operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction
activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the
construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work
orders.
62. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate the following measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. -�
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
63. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that
paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and
by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present
and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be
watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or
apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration
of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street
sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a
day. Watering associated with on -site construction activity shall take place between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late- afternoon watering to
minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this
construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to
the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind
speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose
debris shall be covered.
64. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements
of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction
Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the ABAG Manual of Standards for
Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance
and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the —�
Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
65. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected
to public storm system shall be stenciled /signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING - Flows
to Bay" NPDES required language. On -site drainage systems for all projects shall include
one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.
These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from
impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to
be used they shall be placed 10' minimum from adjacent property line and /or right of way.
66. 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.
67. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a
person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of
goods and /or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an
encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent public right -of-
way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and
debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and
materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment
permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all
working hours. Failure to maintain the public right -of -way according to this condition may
result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
68. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be
covered.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
69. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be
installed in one- and two - family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and two - family
dwellings and in existing one- and two - family dwellings when additions are made that
increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one -time addition
to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area.
NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible
for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification
or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C -16)
Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application
and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their
work.
70. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from
contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the
applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying
the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such
requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water -based fire protection
systems, and /or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be
physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of
the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under
consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of
the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the
applicant(s).
71. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with
applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification Sl-
7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the
project.
72. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address
numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers
shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or
alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a
minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road
and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or
means shall be used to identify the structure.
N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2Ol5Nonterey485.docx
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM O TO R -11)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 485 MONTEREY AVENUE
(APN: 410 -16 -026)
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Zoning Map of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning on
property located at 485 Monterey Avenue (Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Number 410 -16-
026) as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, from O (Office) to R -1D (Single Family
Residential Downtown). The following condition must be complied with before issuance of any
grading, or construction permits:
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
(Planning Division)
1. CONFORMANCE WITH ZONE. The existing nonconforming office building shall
conform to the new zoning requirements within one year of adoption of the zone change.
iExm T 4
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
SECTION II
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos on _, 2015, 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 '2015.
This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:\DEV\ORDS\2015\Monterey485.docx
G�
ON
J/ .0
�Q
02
i
485 ;Monterey
S11
Avenue
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Application No. Z -15 -001 A.P.N. #410 -16 -026 "
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
® Zone Change From: O To: R -1 D
❑ Prezonin
Forwarded by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council Date:
Clerk Administrator
Date:
Ord:
Mayor MIBIT A
of Exhibit 4
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
�1.
�1-.
-Yuvlff 107
dlipuotlua;uj
agvd smi
485 Monterey Avenue - PROJECT DATA
EXISTING
PROPOSED
REQUIRED/
CONDITIONS
PROJECT
PERMITTED
Zoning district
Office
R -1 D
Rezone
Land use
Medical Office
Single Family
Architecture and Site
Application
General Plan Designation
Medium Density
Same
-
Residential
Lot size
• square feet
9,000 s.f.
Same
5,000 sq. ft. minimum
Exterior materials:
• siding
Painted Brick and
Cedar Shingles,
-
Stucco
Stained
• trim
Wood
Wood
-
• windows
Aluminum
Aluminum Clad/Wood
-
Interior
• roofing
Gravel
Composition
-
Asphalt/Metal
Standing Seam Roof
Building floor area
• first floor
1,506 sq. ft.
1,709 sq. ft.
• second floor
0 sq. ft.
1,144 sq. ft.
• countable attic
0 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft.
• total
1,506 sq. ft.
2,853 sq. ft.
2,862 sq. ft. maximum
0.32 FAR
0.32 FAR
• garage
0 sq. ft.
774 sq. ft.
776 sq. ft. maximum per
15% accessory structure
coverage
Setbacks (ft.):
• front
9 ft.
16 ft. -6 in.
15 ft. minimum
• rear
79 ft.
71 ft. -6 in.for main
20 ft. minimum for main
residence
residence
3 ft. for accessory
5 ft. min. for
structure
accessory structure
3 ft reduced setback
requested
• street side
4 ft.
13 ft.- 8 in.
10 ft. minimum
• side
27 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft. minimum
Maximum height (ft.)
15 ft.
29 ft- 1 -1/2 in.
30 ft. maximum
Parking
9 surface spaces
2 garage spaces
2 spaces minimum
Sewer or septic
Sewer
Sewer
-
EXHIBIT 5
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
OR
L.
-yuv1g tfn
d'jlvuogualul
agvd m"I L
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
334 Santana Row, #225, San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 219 -4421 • Fax (408) 354 -7415
License # 934939
485 MONTEREY AVENUE, LOS GA TOS RECEIVED
Proposed Project AuG 2 8 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Dear Staff, PLANNING DIVISION
The following is a description of the proposed project at 485 Monterey Avenue in Los Gatos. We
propose to rezone the existing medical office to single family residential. Single family residential is
consistent with the General Plan. The plans are to demolish the existing medical building, parking lot,
hardscape and existing landscape.
Our proposed project consists of a custom two story home that includes a two -car detached garage.
The updated craftsman design is consistent with the existing neighborhood as we will be using shingle
siding, exterior stone veneer and a large wraparound porch. The second story setbacks and front porch
are used to reduce the sizing of the home.
�-- The landscape plans show an inviting front yard focusing on the wraparound porch. Along Andrews
Street the 6 foot fence is setback to allow for a planting strip between the fence and sidewalk. We feel
this landscape will increase the visibility to the street and provide an inviting portrait to the
neighborhood.
Our goal is to transform the current dilapidated medical office into a beautiful new home for the
surrounding neighborhood. Please feel free to call or email me with any questions. I can be reached at
408 - 219 -4421 or michael ,peninsulabuildersinc.com.
Sincerely,
Michael Black
www.peninsulabuildersinc.com
EXMIT 6
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
This Page -�
Intentionally
Left Blank
P B D
`- PENINSULA BUILDERS S DEVELOPMENT
485 MONTEREY AVENUE, LOS GA TOS
Letter of Justification
Town of Los Gatos
Planning Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Staff,
RECEIVED
SEP 0 8 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
The property at 485 Monterey Avenue is currently a vacant medical office built in 1960. The parcel
has been identified in the General Plan as Medium Density Residential. We have submitted plans for
a rezone of the parcel from Office to Residential. The plans include the design of a single family
house with a detached garage. We have decided to apply for the rezoning of this parcel as we agree
with the General Plan and believe the best use for this property is a single family home. Our desire
to build a single family home in this residential neighborhood is a great opportunity to transform
this prominent corner. The current office building, parking lot and existing landscape are proposed
to be demolished. Bess Wiersema, from Studio 3 Design, has designed the new proposed home to
conform to the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed craftsman style home is highlighted with shingle siding and a wraparound front
porch. We have updated the design to include a metal roof detail at the front porch only, drawing
attention to this lower and more transparent element. This design detail is consistent historically
with a "shingle siding" and the current interpretation of a more updated craftsman style. The change
in materials lends to further character of the home separating it as a custom design. We are also
proposing a 10 -foot first floor and 8 -foot second floor plate height. Most current two -story projects
have a 9 -foot first floor and 9 -foot second floor plate height which means we still have the same
overall building height. The desire to have the 10 -foot first floor plate is to allow more natural light
into the house which will lend to using less electricity throughout the day. We have large front and
rear porches as well as a second story setback around the entire house which creates shadows at
most parts of the day. We have revised the grading plans and have lowered the house finish floor
elevation by 6 inches to help with any concerns. Details such as the wraparound entry porch, wood
columns with stone base, and upper level bay window bump outs all help to reduce the overall bulk
and mass of the first floor height. The roof pitch has also been reduced to provide a more consistent
look with other craftsman styled homes in the area.
We believe the proposed home will be a great addition to the neighborhood.
Regards,
'I- Michael & Jennifer Black
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
485 MONTEREY AVENUE ZONING MAP
r
ry�RSr
CO
02'
AO
2
Town Boundary
R -1 (Single - Family Residential)
R -1 D (Single - Family Residential Downtown)
Subject Site
O (Office)
C -1 (Neighborhood Commercial)
EXHMI . 7
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
485 MONTEREY AVENUE GENERAL PLAN MAP
sr
CO
ws sr
Q-
�o
441-
-441
moo=
A
COT
2
Town Boundary Subject Site
Medium Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial
�hHi$IT 8
10/14/15 PC Staff Deport
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
.N%_1
CDG
CANNON
DESIGN
GROUP
April 20, 2015
Ms. Erin Walters
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 485 Monterey Avenue
Dear Erin:
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
RECEIVED
APR 2 0 2015
TOWN
LANNING DIVISION
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is located in an established neighborhood of single family homes. It also includes a couple of office buildings to
the south. Most homes are one -story in height or have second floors embedded within the roof form.
Photographs of the neighborhood are shown on the following page.
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
EXHMff 9
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
House to the immediate left
House to the immediate rear
Nearby house across Monterey Avenue
Nearby two -story home to the left on Monterey Ave.
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
April 20, 2015 Page 2
Existing building on the site
House immediately across Monterey Avenue
,Nearb) house acuo» monterey Avenue
Nearby one -story home across the intersection
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
April 20, 2015 Page 3
Concerns and Recommendations
In general, the proposed home design is well done. The front and side elevations facing the two comer streets are shown below.
Proposed Monterey Avenue Front Elevation
Proposed Thurston Street Side Elevation
However, both Town staff and I believe that the bulk of the house would be very much out of character with the
other homes nearby. Those homes are either one -story in height, have significant second floor setbacks or have
the second floor embedded within the roof form.
Recommendation: Request the applicant to provide a design that is more sympathetic to the immediate neighbor-
hood.
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
April 20, 2015 Page 4
The recommendations below are related to the current design and may not be relavant to a revised design as recom-
mended above.
2. The proposed metal roofs at the entry porch and on the rear of the house are very much out of character for this
neighborhood.
Recommendation: Utilize the same roofing material as proposed for the remainder of the house. While using that
material for all roof surfaces would provide the most visual unity for the house, the use of metal roofing at bay
windows would be acceptable.
Recommended Front Elevation Changes
3. The porch roof is missing the traditional beam above the columns.
Recommendation: Add a wood beam at the entry porch,
Match main
roofing material
—Add beam
4. The upper arched window at the Master Bedroom on the rear elevation is large, and is crowding the soffit of the
gable roof.
Recommendation: Reduce the size of the arched window to allow more room between the window and the gable
eaves.
Recommended Rear Elevation Changes
window to
crowding
eves
vain
material
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR , CA. 94939
it
Pol
::�pIp1I mum"
Llg
Psltaoe1111=®s�zlal'1��
jp■
��1
O,
�®
li��
�'irliiiiW7PiW"
Maw
�wl�bl��majaA
.uum,cnw
I�mn��o
mm�,�m w��
Recommended Front Elevation Changes
3. The porch roof is missing the traditional beam above the columns.
Recommendation: Add a wood beam at the entry porch,
Match main
roofing material
—Add beam
4. The upper arched window at the Master Bedroom on the rear elevation is large, and is crowding the soffit of the
gable roof.
Recommendation: Reduce the size of the arched window to allow more room between the window and the gable
eaves.
Recommended Rear Elevation Changes
window to
crowding
eves
vain
material
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR , CA. 94939
it
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
April 20, 2015 Page 5
5. I did not see any information regarding the height or design of the side fence along Thurston Street. It appears
�- to be placed at the sidewalk line. Unless the fence is low and open, it would not enhance the pedestrian experi-
ence along Thurston Street.
Recommendation: Set the fence back from the sidewalk edge, and add landscaping at its base.
If it is to be a tall fence, design the fence with an open top and finished posts.
(See example photos below)
Erin, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
CQG.
CANNON
DESIGN
GROUP''
June 3, 2015
Ms. Erin Walters
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 485 Monterey Avenue
Dear Erin:
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
RECEIVED
JUN 0 3 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I reviewed the new design drawings, and the architect's cover letter to staff My comments and recommendations are as
follows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is located in an established neighborhood of single family homes. It also includes a couple of office buildings to
the south. Most homes are one -story in height or have second floors embedded within the roof form.
Photographs of the neighborhood are shown on the following page.
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA. 94939
TEL: 415.331.3795
CDGPLAN @PAC13ELL.NET
House to the immediate left
House to the immediate rear
Nearby house across Monterey Avenue
Nearby two -story home to the left on Monterey Ave.
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
June 3, 2015 Page 2
Existing building on the site
House immediately across Monterey Avenue
Nearby house across Monterey Avenue
Nearby one -story home across the intersection
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
June 3, 2015 Page 3
Issues and Concerns
The changes made to the design since my review in April are positive. However, I agree with staff that the bulk of the
house would still be very much out of character with the other homes nearby. I appreciate the desire of the applicant to
design the house in a style that is different from the Craftsman Style homes nearby, but the Town's Residential Design
Guidelines, while recognizing the benefits of architectural diversity, asks applicants to look at both older and newer
homes which have been designed with sensitivity to their surroundings. A number of elements of the new design are
working against the integration of the home into this immediate neighborhood including:
• The two -story tall bay window at the front of the house.
• The steep roof pitches which would increase the home's bulk and mass.
• awkward roof conditions created by the gable and hip roofs combination.
• Tall first floor ceiling heights.
• Awkward roof transitions on the north side of the house.
Two-story projecting
bay window creates
strong vertical mass
out of keeping with
the immediate
neighborhood
Steep roof pitches creates
large mass not common to
the immediate neighborhood
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
June 3, 2015 Page 4
Recommendations
Staff and the Planning Commission may decide that substantial changes are required to bring the proposed design into
greater harmony with the immediate neighborhood. However, I looked at what I feel are the minimum changes that
would assist in bringing the design into better harmony with its surroundings without making significant changes to the
interior living space of the home. My recommendations include the following.
1. Limit the bay window height on the front elevation to reinforce the first floor eave line.
2. Reduce the roof pitch from 8:12 to no more than 6:12. An argument could be made to further reduce all roof
pitches to that of the porch which is 5:12, but I believe that the 6:12 pitch shown on the elevation diagrams
below would be acceptable.
3. Simplify the roofs at the second floor pop outs. While the simplification shown on the elevation diagrams below
would, I believe, be helpful, the design would be better and more visually unified without the pop outs.
Simplify roc
Reduce roof pitch L
6:12 shown here 1
Limit bay window
height to reinforce
first floor eave line
"fy roof
4. Extend the front porch further along the north side elevation to reinforce the first floor eave line, and give the
house more presence on that street frontage.
extena porcn - --
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
June 3, 2015 Page 5
5. Check on -site conditions to better evaluate potential adverse privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors related to
windows on the south facade of the house and to potential impacts of the second floor deck on neighboring
homes to the south and west of this property. The applicant should provide a diagram to illustrate the location of
their proposed windows relative to the windows and outdoor private spaces of the homes to the south and west.
Simplify roof
Consider eliminating
pop out bay
on -site conditions
rmine If additional
res are needed to
visual privacy for
ors to the side and
If staff feels that there is substantial potential for privacy intrusions from the south facing windows, a condition
of approval could be established to require the windows on that facade to have sills located above interior eye
level. Since both of the bedrooms with windows on the south facade have significant windows on the front or
rear of the house, requirements for light, air and emergency window exiting could be satisfied.
The rear second floor deck issue presents more of a challenge. To eliminate it totally would result in a roof that
would extend up to the eave line, blocking out all windows on the rear elevation, as shown on the diagram below.
To keep windows on this facade would require either a flat roof in the deck area or the extension of the Master
Bedroom rear wall outward to approximately the line of the Master Bath. Since the deck would be mostly providing
visual exposure to rear or side yards, an alternative approach could be to evaluate the existing landscaping, and add
additional evergreen buffer landscaping to the side and rear of the lot, as needed.
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
June 3, 2015 Page 6
6. Set the taller fence back from the sidewalk edge, and add landscaping at its base. Also, design the fence with an
open top and finished posts similar to other Los Gatos fences shown in the photos below.
Erin, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
--1111
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
CPG
CANNON
DESIGN
GROUP
August 18, 2015
Ms. Erin Walters
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 485 Monterey Avenue
Dear Erin:
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
RECEIVED
AUG 1.9 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I have previously reviewed this project twice, and provided comments to staff. I reviewed the new design drawings and
the applicant's cover letter to staff. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is located in an established neighborhood of single family homes. It also includes a couple of office buildings to
the south. Most homes are one -story in height or have second floors embedded within the roof form.
Photographs of the neighborhood are shown on the following page.
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA . 94939
TEL: 415.331.3795
CDGPLAN @PACBELL.NET
House to the immediate left
House to the immediate rear
Nearby house across Monterey Avenue
Nearby two -story home to the left on Oonf ere Ave.
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
August 18, 2015 Page 2
Existing building on the site
House immediately across Monterey Avenue
Nearby house 1lontere�, <1�enue
Nearby one -story home across the intersection
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
August 18, 2015 Page 3
June Review Issues and Concerns
The changes made to the design since my reviews in April and June are helpful in improving the home's fit within this neigh-
' boyhood. The issues identified in my June letter and the applicant's design responses are summarized below.
Issues Identified
• The two -story tall bay window at the front of the house.
• The steep roof pitches which would increase the home's bulk and mass.
• Awkward roof conditions created by the gable and hip roofs combination.
• Tall first floor ceiling heights.
• Awkward roof transitions on the north side of the house.
The changes that have been made in the design have reduced the overall height and bulk of the structure, and have
simplified many of the awkward roof relationships of the earlier design. The elevations reviewed for the June letter are
shown below along with the current revised elevations.
Two -story projecting
bay window creates
strong vertical mass
out of keeping with
the immediate
neighborhood
.: I m twSUG^w
FRONT ELEVATION
has creates
common to
neighborhood
tievisea aesign
June Issues
NORTH ELEVATION
Revised design
June Elevation
REAR ELEVATION
Revised design
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR. CA. 94939
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
August 18, 2015 Page 4
June Elevation
SOUTH ELEVATION
Remaining Concerns and Recommendations
Revised design
1. The applicant resolved the awkward porch and first floor eave height transition by raising the earlier 8 -foot porch
plate height to match the 10 -foot first floor plate height. This would, in my judgment, be out of scale with the
immediate neighborhood.
Recommendation: Lower the porch and first floor plate height to a uniform 9 -foot elevation.
2. The roofing material for the front porch has been changed to metal. This does not seem to be in keeping with
the other homes in the immediate neighborhood, and has been discouraged in the past for homes where it would
be the exception to the predominant roof materials nearby.
Recommendation: Match the porch roofing material to the other main house composition roofing.
3. The drawings which I reviewed called for wood shingle siding, which would be appropriate for a house of this
size so long as real wood shingles are used rather than manufactured composite shingles. There have been many
high quality homes with wood shingles constructed in Los Gatos over the past few years. Most have applied tradi-
tional high quality details. I noted that the elevations show corner boards, rather than mitered shingles.
Recommendation: Utilize mitered shingles at all corners to soften the appearance of this large house. See one
Los Gatos example ion the photo below.
Mitered shingle corners
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
I-
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
August 18, 2015 Page 5
4. The casement windows show divided panes at the top of each window. I believe that you told me that the ap-
plicant is proposing metal windows.
Recommendation: Request the applicant to supply a sample window, and examine the details to ensure that the
divided panes are consistent with, or equal to, the photo example provided on page 48 of the Residential Design
Guidelines.
Erin, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
485 Monterey Avenue
Design Review Comments
August 18, 2015 Page 6
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
August 26, 2015 RECEIVED
Mr. Larry L. Cannon AUG 2 P2015
Cannon Design Group
700 Larkspur Landing Circle TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Larkspur, CA 94939 PLANNING DIVISION
Re: 485 Monterey Avenue
Zoning Change Application: Z -15-001
Arch & Site Application: S -15 -018
Dear Mr. Cannon:
Studio 3 Design has reviewed the above referenced planning comments (dated 8.18.2015). The following is an
itemized response letter addressing the comments.
Remaining Concerns and Recommendations:
1. First floor /Porch plate height — Most current two -story projects have a 9 -foot first floor and 9 -foot second
floor plat height. The proposed design of a 10 -foor first floor and 8 -foot second floor plate height would
still have the same overall building height. The finished floor level has been reduced by 6" as well,
lowering the overall house on the site, and well within the allowable maximum height. Details such as the
broader wrapped entry porch, heavy columns at the base, upper level bay window seat bump outs that
are not stacked on first floor bays all help to reduce the overall bulk and mass and anchor the house to
the site. The roof pitch as also been reduced to provide a more consistent look with other "Craftsman"
styled homes in the neighborhood.
2. Roofing Material — The current design proposes a metal roof detail at the porch areas only, drawing
attention to this lower and more transparent element. This design detail is consistent historically with a
"Shingle Style" inspired aesthetic, and is also consistent with current interpretation of a more updated
"Craftsman" aesthetic as well. The change in materials lends further character to the home, separating it
as custom rather than spec in nature by the use of more robust and unique materials.
3. Siding — The use of mitered shingles will be incorporated as part of the design. The exterior elevations
have been revised, eliminating the corner boards.
4. Windows - The windows on the house incorporate a simple mullion pattern at the top of the windows
only, again lending a more custom look and giving the building some detail. The windows will me
aluminum clad exterior / painted wood interior,leldWen type or similar.
If you have questions or require additional information, please contact our office at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Bess Wiersema
Principal + Owner
STUDIOTHREEDES''GN SIT 10
N
This Page -�
Intentionally
Left Blank
--IN
BLACK RESIDENCE
485 MONTEREY AVENUE
RECEIVED
AUG 2 8 2015
LOS GATOS, CA 95030 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
MATERIALS BOARD STUDIO THREE DESIGN
s- i5 -drf�
ROOFING
COMP. ASPHALT
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
SIDING
CEDAR SHINGLES
(STAINED)
1
WINDOW TRINE
COLOR
WHITE
WHITE EXTERIOR
WOOD TRIM
(WOOD INTERIOR)
STONE VENEER
STACKED STONE
EXHIBIT 1 1
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
,.-,
.-,*N
0
#1
ro
n
�I
� y"C
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
ARBORIST REPORT
Project Address:
485 Monterey Avenue
Los Gatos, California
Property Owner:
Michael Black
Prepared fear:
Erin Waiters
Community Development Department, Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Prepared by:
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Board Certified Master Arborist WE -04578, International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022, American Society for Horticultural Science
MARCH 31, 2015
Report History: This is my first report for this project.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725 -1357. decoliftocbell.net. http: / /www.decoh.corn.
MAR 31 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
ExmiT 1 2
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Hortieulturlst
Sem*e xiea 1984
Table of Contents
TREEMAP ................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................2
SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................
TheProject
..............................2
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
TheTrees .......................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................2
TheTrees & the Project ..............................................................................................................................................................................
..............................2
PlansReviewed ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................2
Table1 Summary Tree Table ...................................................................................................................................................................
..............................3
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................................................................
..............................4
APPENDIX...............................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................6
Table2 Complete Tree Table ..................................................................................................................................................................
..............................6
Explanationof Tree Table Data Columns: .......................................................................................................................................................................
9
SupportingInformation
.............................12
....................................................................................................................................................................
Purpose& Use of Report .......................................................................................................................................................................
.............................12
Methodology..........................................................................................................................................................................................
.............................13
Observations.........................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................
TreeProtection Distances ....................................................................................................................................................................
.............................14
3 to 5 x DBH ......................... ...............................
OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) .........
Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions
14
14
15
TreePhotos ............................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................18
Assumptions& Limitations .................................................................................................................................................................... .............................21
Glossary................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................23
Cover photo: The project site from the intersection of Monterey Avenue (left) and Andrews Street (right). Most of the 12 trees on the site
are labeled. All photos in this report were taken by D. Ellis on March 24, 2015. The large coast redwood at far left on neighboring property
does not overhona the two iect site.
I PC Box 3714. Saratoga, LA 95070. 408 -725 -1357. decoh"cbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com. I
TREE MAI
Or 1
�c
3=
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst S Horticulturis,
b b
Setwice since 1984
--
'
-- -1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ ,
i 7 .��
S . ? 1 1 T TT-i I i!
Overhanging canopy of south
neighbor's Australian willow
tree
A. 9 X \
Leaen 10
..�,.,
* (Read about tree)
X Rem" SITE PLAN
Nam,
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decahilPipacbell.net. http: / /www.decoh.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 1 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist S Hortiaulturis
SUMMARY
.Servire sews 1984
THE PROJECT
An existing office building will be demolished and replaced with a new two -story, single - family home and detached garage.
THE TREES
There are 12 protected trees on the project site. Most of the trees are not in good condition and no tree has better than "Fair /Good"
preservation suitability. Several of the trees are causing significant pavement damage. The most notable tree on site is the very large
evergreen ash, tree HP.
THE TREES & THE PROJECT
Only four of the existing trees ( #e, a, a and 12) are shown to be removed on the site plan, but in reality all but three trees r#
3) will need to be removed. Existing tree trunks are shown on the plans, but these trunks are often just a few feet away from a proposed
building. From both a root and canopy preservation standpoint, this will not work. A summary of all trees is provided in Table 1 on page
3 and a more detailed description of all trees is provided in the Complete Tree Table on page 6. This table also lists recommended root
protection distances in case the site layout will be redesigned to save some of the trees. The best tree on site is large evergreen ash
en #!�, and this is the only tree that I would consider redesigning the project to save. Most of the other trees are not worth redesigning
around. In the long term it will be better to remove these trees and replace them with more sustainable new landscaping; most
importantly drought tolerant landscaping.
PLANS REVIEWED
• Proposed Site Plan. Sheet A 1.3. Studio 3 Design, March 3, 2015
• Building Elevation and Sections. Same above, Sheet A 3.1 -3.3, 4.1
I For the purpose of this project, a protected tree in Los Gatos as defined in the Los Gatos division 2 Tree Protection Section 22-119960, 0960 12!3/2010 the
Scope of Protected Trees is any tree with a 4 -inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision
approval is required. Town Street trees of any size are protected. Fruit trees less than 18 inches in trunk diameter are exempt.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decah @pocbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 2 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Semke since 1984
TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 3 of 24
Common Name
preservation Expected Construction
Action
Reason
piglossy
P3,4
Suitabliity impact
privet
Fair
Low /Moderate?
Debatable
ree not shown on plan
j 2
Ired maple
1 10
Fair /Poor
Isevere
Remove
Construction
3
jash
1 13
jPoo r
IS evere
Remove
Construction
4
lash
12
Fair
Moderate
Debatable
Species, Opportunity for better screening landscaping in
his location.
5
Ired maple
1 6
lFair
IModerate
IDebatablelSarne
as above
6
Isweet gum
1 16
IFair
Severe
lRemove
1construction
! 7
Is weet gum
1 12
IFair
Isevere
lRemove
Construction
8 Isweet
gum 1
15
Fair
Severe
Remove
Construction
9 levergreen
ash
30
fair /Good
Isevere lRemove
lConstruction
30
Colorado blue
F 8
Fair
Severe
Remove
Construction i
spruce
i
11
European white
8,8,9
Fair
Severe
Remove
Construction
birch
12 Icrape
myrtle
7
Fair(Good
Severe lRemove
Construction j
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 3 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Sertnce since 1984
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Existing trees to be saved or removed should be numbered on all stie -based plans to match the tree tag numbers that are used In this
aubodst report.
2. If any of the trees on the project site are saved, they must be allotted the minimum root protection distances listed in the Complete Tree
Table, plus any other considerations that are noted for that tree. Tree canopies must also be preserved in total or with only a minimum
amount of pruning for construction clearance. Tree canopies are generally much larger than are shown on the plans - please
accurately show all existing tree canopies on the plans. In addition if any trees may remain, story posts must be erected first, so see if it
will really be possible and practical to retain the tree.
3. For those trees that will be retained on the site, follow the Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions, included in this report on
pages 15 through 17. A separate copy of these Directions is enclosed and must be incorporated into the project final plans. Additional
tree protection information is also available from Deborah Ellis if necessary.
4. Neighboring trees: whose canopies overhang the project site must receive tree protection in the same manner as existing trees to
remain on the project site: for example tree protection fencing and signage. The general contractor shall fence off the dripline of this
tree as much as possible in order to avoid damaging branches and compacting the soil beneath the canopy. If pruning is necessary in
order to avoid branch breakage, the general contractor shall hire a qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary
construction clearance pruning. Neighboring trees that require protection are: one Australian willow tree on the south perimeter
of the site. The canopy of this tree overhangs the project site by about 10 feet.
S. The Arborist should review all site -based plans for this project: I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on page 1. Additional
improvements on plans that were not reviewed may cause additional trees to be impacted and /or removed. Examples of important
plans to review are: the Existing and Proposed Site Plan, Demolition, Construction Staging, Erosion Control, Grading & Drainage,
Underground Utilities, Landscaping & Irrigation, Building Elevations & Sections, Roof Plan and Construction & Landscape Details showing
improvements that may impact trees. Therefore the tree dispositions (Save, Remove or Debatable) listed in this report may change if
and when additional plans for this project are reviewed, or if plans that I have reviewed are revised. Plans reviewed by the arborist
should be full -size, to -scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements. Scale
should be 1:20 or 1:10.
F PO Box 3714 Saratoga CA 95070 408- 725 -1357 decah(Ppacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com, i
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 4 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
As a part of the design process, try to keep improvements (and any additional over - excavation or work area beyond the
Improvement) as for from tree trunks and canopies as possible. 5xDBH;l or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be used
as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum
distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk on for root protection. Farther is better, of course. For
disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 5xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must
also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around
improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans!
New landscaping and irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than any other type of construction. The same
tree root protection distances recommended for general construction should also be observed for new landscaping. Within the root
protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4 -inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips
or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface. The environment around existing trees should be changed very carefully or not
at all - please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around existing trees and /or have me review the landscape and
irrigation plans for this project.
The landscaping shown on the Site Plan (sheet A 1.3) is too sketchy. Provide a complete landscape and irrigation plan developed by a
licensed landscape architect. Otherwise the large unspecified area between the garage and the house is likely to be filled in with an
irrigated lawn, which is not advisable from a current drought and water conservation standpoint. Incorporate new screening
vegetation along the south perimeter as a replacement for trees #2 through #9. It will be difficult however, to plant screening
material, while still allowing access between the property line /fence and the house and garage. Can these structures be moved
farther from the property line?
9. Construction or landscaping work done underneath the dripline of existing trees should preferably be done by hand, taking care to
preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first encountered, when
those roots must be removed. A qualified consulting arborist (the project arborist) should be hired to monitor tree protection and
supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees. This also applies to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the
work site.
3 & 5xDBH: See a e 14 for an a lanation of these calculations which are used to estimate root erotection distances for trees.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decah @pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 5 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MIS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
SetTke since 1984
10. General Tree Maintenance:
a) The root collar and lower trunk of evergreen ash #9 was obscured from view by ivy. This ivy should be removed including a
minimum radius of 12 inches around the trunk. I should then re- evaluate this tree if it may remain.
b) Do no unnecessary pruning fertilization or other tree work. Pre - construction pruning should be limited to the absolute minimum
required for construction clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide such pruning.
APPENDIX
TABLE .2 COMPLETE TREE TABLE
This Table is continued through page 8. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 9 tol2.
TREE ROOT
IcONDITION PROTECTION
DISTANCES
ree
Species
P &
Trunk
Diam.
Size
m
Preservation
Construction
Action
Reason
Notes
_
=
ns
#
common
@aft,
Suitability
Impact
CO
CL
O
1
Ligustrum
3,4
14'10
90
60
Fair
Low /Moderate?
Debatable
Tree not shown
Construction: this small tree could
3
4
5
on plan
probably be saved but the proposed
;
lucidum,
driveway location and treatment of the
glossy leaf
area in which this tree is located are
privet
not shown on the plans.
2
Acer rubrum,
10
5'35
80
50
Fair/Poor
Severe
Remove
Construction
Construction: trunk is less than 12
3
4
7
inches from proposed garage wall.
red maple
Condition: tree leans about 10
degrees toward east (and the
a
proposed garage); also into adjacent
ree #2.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357, decah @pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 6 of 24
l
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
('a"4— '4— YOQA
Tree
#
Species
S
Common
Trunk
Dlam.
Size
CONDITION
Preservation
Suitability
Expected
Construction
Action
Reason
Notes
TREE ROOT
PROTECTION
DISTANCES
3
d
w
9
Name
@aft.
C
2)
Impact
Condition: roots are causing pavement
=
mC
=
N
a.
damage. Lower trunk has car impact
M
Mm
~o
U)
mechanical wound and bleeding
1
3
Fraxinus
13
55'3O[g7
Poor
Severe
Remove
Construction
Construction: trunk is less than 12
3
5
6
15
species,
75
70
Fair
Severe
Remove
Construction
Construction: within proposed house.
4
inches from proposed garage wall.
11 i
ash
1
Condition: roots are causing pavement
1
Condition: large mistletoe clumps in
damage.
canopy.
9
evergreen ash
IV AV rdll rvwueia[e ueoaiaeie species, -ons ruction: 'Moderate" construction 13 5 6 i
Opportunity for impact is due to removal of existing
better screening asphalt pavement close to tree and {
landscaping in unspecified relandscaping of area.
j I his location.
5 Ired maple 1 6 120*181 85 1 60 lFair IModerate Debatable Isame as above lCon striction: same as above. T 3 1 4 1 5 I
6 Liquidambar 16 80 *40 80 70 Fair Severe Remove Construction Construction: within proposed house. 4 7 12 i
j styraciflua, Condition: roots are causing 1
American significant pavement damage.
sweet gum j
j (sweet gum)
7
sweet gum
12
50 *35
70
60
Fair
Severe
Remove
Construction
Construction: within proposed house.
3
5
9
Condition: roots are causing pavement
damage. Lower trunk has car impact
mechanical wound and bleeding
1
canker.
8
sweet gum
15
60 *40
75
70
Fair
Severe
Remove
Construction
Construction: within proposed house.
4
6
11 i
1
Condition: roots are causing pavement
1
damage.
9
evergreen ash
30
60 "45
85
60
Fair /Good
Severe
Remove
Construction
Construction: 2 -story house is 2 to 3.5
7
12
22
feet from trunk. This will not work for
obvious reasons.
Condition: topped at 30 feet but some
a
crown restoration pruning has been
j
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95470. 408 -725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net.
http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015.
Page 7 of 24
Deborah Ellis, 11AS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
,Semice since 1984
End of Table
PO Box 3714 Saratoga CA 95070 408- 725 -1357 decah@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 8 of 24
TREE
ROOT
CONDITION
PROTECTION
DISTANCES
Tree
Species
&
Trunk
Diam.
Size
Preservation
Expected
Construction
Action
Reason
Notes
=
_
m
/t
Common
�3ft.
c
Sultability
Impact
o
G
CL
Name
rn
'>
X
O
2
eh
performed71vy covers l ower trunk and
hides from and evaluation.
10
Picea pungens
8
22'12
80
60
Fair
Severe
Remove
Construction
Construction: house is 5 feet from
3
4
5 I
'Glauca',
trunk. This will not work from a
Colorado blue
canopy or work and access
standpoint.
11
spruce
Betula
8,8,9
5 "30
80
60
Fair
Severe
Remove
Construction
Construction: corner of house is 6 to 7
4
7
17
endula,
et from trunks, and not all trunks are
i
European
shown. The canopy of this tree is
?
much larger than is shown on the plan
ite birch
and construction of the house will
remove too much of it. Better to
remove the tree and relandscape with
more drought tolerant landscaping
anyway.
Condition: 3 trunks planted about 18
inches apart function as a single tree.
The canopy of this tree is much larger
than is shown on the plan.
12
7
25'20
80
70
Severe
Remove
Construction
Condition: the adjacent large sweet
3
4
5
ILagerstroemia
indica,
1
1
JFair/Good
gum tree is beginning to overgrow this
1
1
- --
crape myrtle
��-
-- _ --
– _ —___.
crape myrtle. _— -- --
_
—
End of Table
PO Box 3714 Saratoga CA 95070 408- 725 -1357 decah@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 8 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service .since 1984
EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS;
1) Tree Number (the field tag number of the existing tree). Each existing tree in the field is tagged with a 1.25 inch round aluminum number tag that
corresponds to its tree number referenced in the arborist report, Tree Map, Tree Protection Directions and any other project plans where existing trees
must be shown and referenced.
2) Tree Name and Type:
Species: The Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Quercus aggrifolia where Quercus is the Genus
and agrifolia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most current
edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (201.2) Sunset Publishing Corporation. The scientific name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree
Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used.
3) Trunk diameter (at 3 feet above the ground). This is the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos, in lieu of DBH'. For
multi -trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks.
Examples: an "I8" in the Diameter column means that the tree has a diameter of 18 inches at 3 feet above the ground. "18, 7, 5" means that
this is a multi -trunk tree with trunk diameters of 18, 7 and 5 inches at 3 feet above the ground.
4) Size: tree size is listed as height x width in feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes.
5) Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which is rare —
like a supermodel in human terms). A 60 is "average" (not great but not terrible either). There are two components to tree condition — vigor and
structure, and each component is rated separately. Averaging the two components is not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a valid
reason to remove a tree from a site -- even if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking for each separate component:
100 is equivalent to Excellent (an 'A' academic grade), 80 is Good (B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 is Poor (D), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 is Dead.
6) Relative to the scope of work for this report tree Condition has been rated but not explained in detail and recommendations for the management of tree
condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Deborah Ellis for additional information on tree condition and specific recommendations
for the general care of individual trees relative to their condition.
DBH is tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height ", measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is the forestry and arboricultural standard measurement
height that is also used in manv tree - related calculations.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725 -1357. decah @pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 9 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
,Service sine¢ 1984
7) The Condition of the tree is considered relative to the tree species and present or future intended use of the site to provide an opinion on the tree's
Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. "is this tree worth keeping on this site, in this location, as explained in Table 3 below. This is based upon the scenario
that the tree is given enough above and below - ground space to survive and live a long life on the site. Ratings such as "Fair /Good" and "Fair /Poor' are
intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the same as the Condition Rating because (for example) some trees with poor
condition or structure can be significantly improved with just a small amount of work — and it would be worthwhile to keep the tree if this were done.
T bl 3 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation
PO Box 3714 Saratoga CA 95070 408- 725 -1357, decahepacbeli.net. http : / /www.cecan.com. i
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 10 of 24
a e
Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide
multiple functional and aesthetic benefits to the environment and the users of the
Excellent
site. These are great trees with a minimum rating of "Good" for both vigor and
structure. Equivalent to academic grade W.
These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition flaws that can
be improved with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relatively good
Good
condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the
environment and the users of the site. These are better than average trees
equivalent to academic rade'B'.
These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or
may not be possible to improve with treatment. These are "average" trees — not
great but not so terrible that they absolutely should be removed. The majority of
trees on most sites tend to fall into this category. These trees will require more
Fair
intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than
trees in the "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for
preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. Equivalent to
academic grade 'C'.
These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be
reasonably improved with treatment. These trees ran be expected to decline
regardless of management. The tree species themselves may have characteristics
Poor
that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas. I
do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas
where peo2le or property will be present. E uivalent to academic grade 'U.
These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to risk
or other issues. In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas, dead trees
Nona
are beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants including
decomposers. Equivalent to academic rade'F'.
PO Box 3714 Saratoga CA 95070 408- 725 -1357, decahepacbeli.net. http : / /www.cecan.com. i
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 10 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturis-
Service since 1984
8) Action (Disposition):
a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures.
b) Remove: this recommendation is based upon tree condition, preservation suitability, expected impact of construction, poor species for the site or
any combination of these factors.
c) Debatable: there is a problem with potentially retaining this tree. Find out why in the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table.
Examples are:
• The tree is shown to be saved (and may be a desirable tree to save) but Proposed construction is too close or is uncertain and may cause too
much damage to retain the tree. Design changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that it can be saved.
• Further evaluation of the tree is necessary (e.g. the tree requires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey
and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess
tree stability from the roots, or tissue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis.
• Condition: the tree is in "so -so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove the tree as it stands now. In
some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the information provided in this report as well as the
owner's own preferences.
• Species: the tree may be a poor species for the area or the intended use of the developed site.
• Uncertain construction impact
• Other (as explained for the individual tree)
9) Reason (for tree removal or to explain why a tree is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain "). Multiple reasons may be provided, with the most significant
reason listed first. Reasons can include but are not limited to:
• Construction (excessive construction impact is unavoidable and it is not worthwhile to try and save the tree)
• Condition (e.g. poor tree condition — either vigor, structure or both)
• Landscaping (the tree is being removed because it does not fit in with or conflicts with proposed new landscaping)
• Owner's Decision (for some reason the owner has decided to remove this tree)
• Species (the tree is a poor species for the use of the site)
• Risk (the tree presents moderate to excessive risk to people or property that cannot be sufficiently mitigated)
10) Notes: This may include any other information that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within the scope of work for this
report, such as a more detailed explanation of tree condition or expected construction impact.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 1 1 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturis!
Service .since 1984
11) Tree Protection Distances (Seepage 14).
a) Root Protection:
i) 3 and 5xDBH: Both the 3 and 5xDBH distances are listed for each tree. For multi -trunk trees 100% of the DBH of the largest trunk is added to
50% of the DBH for all other trunks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tree Protection Distance calculations. For
practical purposes, the minimum 3xDBH distance listed is 3 feet and the minimum 5xDBH distance is 4 feet. If disturbance cannot be kept at
least 3 feet from the trunk of a tree, the tree should normally be removed.
ii) OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): This is calculated as per the text, Trees & Development Matheny et al., International Society of
Arboriculture, 1998. This method takes into account tree age and the particular tree species tolerance of root disturbance. Because it may not
be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for trees on many projects due to crowded site conditions, the Arborist may omit this
requirement and list only the 3 and SxDBH distances.
b) Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT
This survey and report was required by the Town of Los Gatos as a part of the building permit process for this project. The purpose of
the report is to identify and describe the existing protected trees on site - - their size, condition and suitability for preservation. The
audience for this report is the property owner, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authorities
concerned with tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is to preserve the existing protected trees on site that are
in acceptable condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site.
METHODOLOGY
I performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees on March 24, 2015. Tree characteristics such as form, weight distribution, foliage
color and density, wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation
procedures were taken from:
• Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
Po Box 3714 Saratoga CA 95070 408 - 725 -1357. decah @pccbell.net. http: / /www.decon.cam. I
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 12 of 24
f
Deborah Ellis, INIS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service .since 1984
®
Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA), 1992.
The above references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations.
I measured the trunk diameter of each tree with a diameter tape at 3 feet above the ground, which is the required trunk diameter
measurement height of the Town of Los Gatos. Trunk diameter was extrapolated to DBH (diameter at breast height, 4.5 feet above
the ground) because DBH is also used calculate tree protection distances and other tree - related factors. The DBH figure is not
included in the Tree Tables, but I have used it to estimate construction impacts to trees. Trunk diameter was rounded to the nearest
inch. I estimated the tree's height and canopy spread. Tree Condition (structure and vigor) was evaluated and I also recorded
additional notes for trees when significant. Tree species and condition considered in combination with the current or (if applicable)
proposed use of the site yields the Tree Preservation Suitability rating. The more significant trees (or groups of trees) were
photographed with a digital camera. Some of these photos are included in this report, but all photos are available from me by
email if requested.
OBSERVATIONS
SITE CONDITIONS
There is an existing, unoccupied one -story commercial building on the site; also a parking lot and some landscaping that is typical for
the area. The site is fenced off for demolition and construction, although no work has begun yet. Site topography is mainly level.
Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to partly shaded, depending upon proximity to other trees. Trees #1 through #5 do not
appear to be irrigated on the project site although they may receive some irrigation from adjacent neighboring property. Trees #s
through #12 do appear to be irrigated via sprinklers, although the irrigation system is probably turned off now.
PO Box 3714, 5arotogo, CA 95070. 408 - 725 -1357. decah @pacbell.net, http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 13 of 24
c�
C
N_
ll!
t
d
r-1
L
4
M
z
M
yJ
G
°
S
e!f
n
t
°
J3
a
m
w
q
O
U
o u
vi N i ° o o E a v f t E N
° O
c u Y L o k o u L E N L
c° N d 2 u L d 3 p
.3- 2 d
Cf
N d o o L
O y w d �- d S N N 0♦ L L d 'L r p
jc 0 O U
y O N L U c? Va-
d o E c° v
O_ N N U d O
yy� o
-dp
p p.
° ° O d
Q �- N L C d d L j f• E�• y L f O� L� f
Co W
N♦ S u V O N O N N E Q d O N Q pi O �• }
S
0 L d 0 —
d E d
c'o p d •c a d c E d- p
d L W Y C '� c L U OI Q E f C L 1 L U L O C V
W +
Q L d NC o _ 'N U UN V 41vp I1 �1 ♦ L i p t L ° C p W ` u a
E E U � - L yy uO
o Z Y .0
0
M.�
U O }`J O f O L N
C N d d u n
o E c v a
p J N c om L Jp u
o y .E e m °` '^ o J E vdi YL
3 E L L E O N i L l- o
r E N F o O
0 d O
to
Y= ° d d N L 0 °u LLI c — ° r 3 c N O B 6 t To . i u C s
o d 0 L W c< U d
Z
o
N1JI� O } 3 C Sp O M
U} L w
0 0 0 u? L U O o N C O F X° •O O L
Q `L in o
N •d 8 O N y 3 G L C L I�
O L D d ~ L d N E 3 0 N
`o °c c s S'. 'a c c° d 'N `n .N- W i c
L f- ° L °1 E 4� S b i- v ~° }}Y o° UJ m L m y c L C m d Ca
Cl 6d �- - V L d 0 .E C O L E CN oi4 M
X yy V an d L O N L l w L
♦ O N O O M L G O L w t °� L
d dO L d L L J d p u E d c d° d u t • °' _
c c o S o
ca
Wi U d 0 E V C N O d N d 5 r C i` ia- c p
m d w L m d d =°° N+ V} u t r N r u 0 In V
�' w ~ c v m o o w !^ c o
V X E 'o' m a i v E c« 'S E• o w
w N_ O vNI 44 y Vyy L
Y ° d NN ~ d° O" O O d d% d c N y
L C O d d • w l N H v O 2
,Q,`f g a c }`` ti w o m w oy i E h1
gL
LjI F— o> 4Z 0
�• •' 10
�� Q
Deborah Ellis, IVIS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
LOS G,A►TOS GENERAL TREE PROTECTION DIRECTIONS
Note that the following is excerpted from Division 2 (tree Protection) of the Los Gatos Town Code and does not constitute the complete
Division 2 text. The owner /applicant is responsible for implementing all pertinent requirements of the Code relative to tree protection.
August 7, 2014
Sec. 29.10.1000 New Property Development
(1) The final approved Tree Preservation Report shall be included in the building permit set of development plans and printed on a
sheets titled: Tree Preservation Instruction (Sheet T -1, T -2 etc.). These Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil, demolition,
utility, landscape, irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur.
(3 b ) The site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be removed However, the plans do not constitute approval to
remove a tree until a separate permit is granted. The property owner or applicant shall obtain a protected tree removal permit, as
outlined in section 29.10.0980 for each tree to be removed to satisfy the purpose of this definition.
(3.e.) Protective fencing inspection: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, the applicant or contractor shall
submit to the building department a written statement verifying that the required tree protection fence is installed around street trees
and protected trees in accordance with the Tree Preservation Report.
Ma.) An applicant with a proposed development which reauires underground utilities shall avoid the installation of said utilities within
the dripline of existing trees whenever possible. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boring,
air -spade excavation or by hand, taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the dripline of existing
trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or consulting arborist.
Section 29.10.1005 Protection of Trees during Construction
a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following:
1) Size and materials: A five (5) or six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two -inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be
driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than 10 -foot spacing. For paving area that will not be
demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base.
K
a PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net, http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 15 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturtst
ki
Sen4ce. since 1984
2) Area type to be fenced. Type is Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone
(TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist". Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence
around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as
downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2 -inch wooden
boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches.
3) Duration of Type 1, 11, 111 fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place
until final landscaping is required. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree
protection fence.
4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11 -inch sign stating: "Warning —Tree Protection Zone -this
fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025 ". A template sign has been provided to
be used on the project site.
b) All persons shall comply with the followina precautions:
1) Prior to the commencement of construction, Install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an
approved arborist report, around any tree and /or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and
prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any
way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction.
2) Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the director.
3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or In drainage channels,
swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree
4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.
5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to
be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the
health of the trees to be preserved.
7) The director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that
proper treatment may be administered.
" If it is not possible to place Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the dripline due to the constriction, then place the fencing as far from the trunk as possible,
including as much of the dripline as possible, while still allowing for enough room to build improvements. If this happens to be within all or some of the dripline, then
so be it. But the contractor must try to fence off as much area under the canopy as possible, do not be irresponsible about this. -
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decah @pacbell.net. http: / /www.decoh.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015, Page 16 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturis
.Service since 1984
Section 29.10.1010 Pruning and Maintenance
All pruning of protected trees shall be consistent with the current edition of Best Management Practices - Tree Pruning, established by
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For developments, which
require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected
trees including cabling, and fertilizing if specified.
1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pies or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall
obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree (e.g.
cable TV /fiber optic trenching, gas, water, sewer trench, etc.)
2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1) - Pruning, Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning is
prohibited.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 - 725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 17 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist 8 Horticulturist
S'ertice since 1984
TREE PHOTOS
Glossy privet #I at the northwest
corner of the site. This small tree may be
able to remain.
#2 red maple, leaning toward the
proposed garage and also into adjacent
ash tree #3.
#4 ash. In the background: (right)
south neighbor's Australian
willow overhangs the site by 10 feet.
The partial canopy of large evergreen
ash #9 is at left.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 - 725 -1357. decah @pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 18 of 24
Sweet gums #6, Z and 8 with crape
myrtle #12 in the background at left,
outside the perimeter construction fence.
Close -up of pavement damage caused by the
roots of sweet gums #6, T and 8.
Deborah Ellis, IMS
Consulting Arborist S Horticulturist
Sawice since 1.984
Colorado blue spruce #10 with
evergreen ash #9 in the background.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 19 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturis
t
,Service since 1984
Left: large evergreen ash #9, along the south perimeter near
Monterey Avenue. Right: European white birch #11,
northeast corner of the site at the corner of Monterey Avenue
(right) and Andrews Street.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decah @pacbell.net, http: / /www.decoh.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 20 of 24
l
Deborah Ellis, MIS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Mir
Service since 1984
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS
1. Tree locations were provided by an unknown party and are shown on the Tree Map on page 1 of this report. The tree map is a
reduced partial copy of the Proposed Site Plan that I was given. Tree trunk locations are assumed to be accurate but should be
verified in the field. Most tree driplines shown on the plan do not appear to be accurate.
2. The Condition Ratings for deciduous trees that are out of leaf (because they have shed their leaves for winter dormancy) are
estimated. More accurate condition ratings for these trees can be obtained after they have fully leafed out (usually mid -May
through September). Deciduous trees on this site that were completely leafless or close to this point are the red maples, ash trees
(with the exception of evergreen ash #9) and crape myrtle # 12.
3. A Basic Evaluation of the subject trees described In this report was performed on March 24, 2015 for the purpose of this report. A
basic evaluation is a visual evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing into the tree or performing detailed tests such as
extensive digging, boring or removing samples. This is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that
additional, more detailed examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary.
4. Trees on neighboring properties were not evaluated. They were only viewed cursorily from the project site. I did not enter the
neighboring property to inspect these trees up close,
5. Any information and descriptions provided to me for the purpose of my investigation in this case and the preparation of this report
are assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. I assume no
responsibility for legal matters in character nor do I render any opinion as to the quality of any title.
6. The information contained in this report covers only those Items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the
time of inspection.
7. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
8. Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not imply right of publication for use for any purpose by any person other than to
whom this report is addressed without my written consent beforehand.
9. This report and the values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a
specified value or upon any finding or recommendation reported.
10. This report has been prepared in conformity with generally acceptable appraisal /diagnostic /reporting methods and procedures
and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting
Arborists.
11. My evaluation of the trees that are the subject of this report Is limited to visual examination of accessible Items without dissection,
excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants
or property in question may not arise in the future.
12. 1 take no responsibility for any defects in any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has been climbed and examined from
above the ground, and as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 - 725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah. com
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. .e ��� ����� page 21 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree. Likewise, root collar excavations and
evaluations have not been performed unless otherwise stated.
13. The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein, should
some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee
that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a
tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die.
Because there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious
defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate
detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with
trees, particularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable.
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good
faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
wwt� btl�
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE -457B
I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
levc,13
e
Enclosures:
w Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions (to be included in the final project plan set)
Los Gatos Tree Protection Sign template (to be placed on tree protection fencing)
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 22 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
GLOSSARY
1. Arborist, Protect. The arborist who is appointed to be in charge of arborist services for the project. That arborist shall also be a qualified
consulting arborist (either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board - Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting
Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist) that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required. For most
construction projects that work will include inspection and documentation of tree protection fencing and other tree protection procedures, and
being available to assist with tree - related issues that come up during the project.
2. Arborist, Qualified Consultina: must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board - Certified Master Arborist or an American
Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work
required.
3. Canker: an area of dead bark. A localized lesion on a stem or branch, often sunken in appearance, commonly associated with a wound, decay
or death of internal tissues. Cankers often extend beyond the extent of an original infection or wound, killing surrounding previously healthy
tissue. If decay is present and spreads into the wood, a very weak area is created because both the inner and outer growth rings are affected.
Intemal decay can sometimes spread outward killing bark and new wood tissue — this is called a canker rot.
4. Crown Restoration pruning: selective pruning to redevelop structure, form and appearance of severely pruned, vandalized or damaged trees.
This includes improving the structure of trees that have been topped. In many cases this reparative pruning should be gradual and repeated
over several years (e.g. 3 years). The natural structure of the tree may never be completely restored depending on the severity of the damage.
It may be beneficial to retain some or all epicormic sprouts that develop during this period; especially initially, to restore some of the lost food -
manufacturing capacity of the tree while it is undergoing the restoration process.
5. Dri line: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the
dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree
protection zone ".
6. Mistletoe is a parasitic plant that reproduces by seeds covered with a sticky material and usually spread by birds. There are several species of
mistletoe that attack different species of host plants, mainly trees. An otherwise healthy tree can tolerate a few mistletoes, but individual
branches on the tree may be killed. Plants infected with mistletoe can suffer from reduced vigor or become stunted.
7. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination: The root collar (junction between trunk and roots) is critical to whole -tree health and
stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools, water or pressurized air). The area is then examined to
assess its health and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. Decay assessment of the large roots
close to the trunk (buttress rootsl involves additional testing such as drilling to extract interior wood with a regular drill, or the use of a resistance -
recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavities. It is important to note that root
decay often begins on the underside of roots, which is not detectable in a root collar excavation unless the entire circumference of the root is
excavated and visible. Drill tests may detect such hidden decay. (Vote that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire portion of the
root system that is responsible for whole -tree stability. Decayed roots that are inaccessible (e.g. underneath the trunk) can be degraded to the
extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations appear to be sound.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 - 725 -1357. decay@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com. u
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015.
Page 23 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturtst
Seance stwx 1984
8. Topped (Topping) is the practice of indiscriminately cutting back large diameter branches of a mature tree to some predetermined lower height;
to reduce the overall height of the tree. Cuts are made to buds, stubs or lateral branches not large enough to assume the terminal role.
Reputable arborists no longer recommend topping because it is a particularly destructive pruning practice. It is stressful to mature trees and may
result in reduced vigor, decline and even death of trees. In addition, branches that regrow from topping cuts are weakly attached to the tree and
are in danger of splitting out. Large topping cuts may have significant decay associated with them, which weakens the branch as well as the
attachment of any secondary branches attached nearby. Topping may be useful however, for immediately reducing the risk of a high risk tree
that will soon be removed.
9. Tree Service, Qualified: A tree service is a company that performs tree pruning and tree removals as their main business. A Qualified Tree
Service is a tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture)
Certified Arborist and acts in a supervisory position on the job site during execution of the tree work. The tree service shall have a State of
California Contractor's license for Tree Service (C61 -1349) and provide proof of Workman's Compensation and General Liability Insurance.
The person(s) performing the tree work must adhere to the most current of the following arboricultural industry tree care standards:
• Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. 2008. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826 -3129.
217 - 355 -9411
• ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. 2008 Edition. Ibid. (Covers tree care methodology).
• ANSI Z133.1 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations. 2006 Edition. Ibid. (Covers safety).
PO Box 3714, 5aratogo, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. h"p: / /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31, 2015. Page 24 of 24
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Erin Walters
Community Development Department, Town of Los Gatos RECEIVED
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030 MAY 19 2015
May 19, 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
485 Monterey Avenue - Arborist Report #2
Arborist Report History for this project: my first report is dated March 31, 2015.
Dear Erin:
I have reviewed the revised plans for this project, dated April 29, 2015 except for the Grading &
Drainage Plan which is dated May, 2015. 1 also reviewed the letter from Michael Black of PDB
(Peninsula Builders & Developers) 485 Monterey Ave - Arborist Compliance (no date, marked as
received by Los Gatos Planning Division, May 1, 2015).
In the current plans, trees #2, 3, 6, 7, 8, g, 10 and 12 are shown to be removed on the
proposed site plan, but tree #12 (7" crape myrtle, incorrectly labeled as a duplicate #9 on the Site
Plan) is shown to remain on the Grading & Drainage Plan. Based upon the plans, it appears that
tree # 12 can remain unless I am missing some information. Trees #4, 5 and 11 are shown to be
saved on all plans.
Tree #1 (3 & 4" glossy privet) is not shown on the grading plan but is shown to be saved on the site
plan. Trees #4 and S (12" ash and 6" red maple) are one foot from the centerline of proposed
storm drain pipe. This pipe must be moved farther from the trees so that trenching will not come
closer than 5 feet from the edge of the trunks of these trees. For tree #11. (8, 8 and 9" European
white birch) distances to improvements seem reasonable.
19.1.... e. -J _ - a•___e
Below and cvnrinuing
on Tne nexT
page Is an updated Summary Tree Table:
Trunk
Tree
Common Diam.
Preservation
Expected
#
Name (in.
Suitability
Construction Action Reason
@3ft.)
Impact
1
glossy privet
3,4
Fair
Low /Moderate?
Save
Tree not shown on grading plan.
2
----]
red maple
10
Fair /Poor
Severe
Remove
Construction
73 Tash
13
Poor
Severe
Remove
Construction '
r4
12
Fair
Severe
�Re move or
Construction
�
I
de sign
r5
--
red maple
6
Fair
_`.
Severe
rem ve or
Construction
ign
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 - 725 -1357, decoh@pacbell.net, http: / /www.decah.corn.
Page 1 of 4
Deborah Ellis, N65
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
co,4— HHfY 19Rd
Summary Tree Table (contmuea trom Tne previous page)
Trunk Expected
free Common Diam. Preservation Construction Action Reason
# Name (in. Suitability Impact
r6 (sweet
gum 1
16 JFair
Isevere
Fair
(Remove
evere
evere
evere
Severe
-- 1
lConstruction
!
Construction
7
sweet gum
12
Remove
8
weet gum 1
15
Fair
Remove
Construction
Construction {
i
--
Construction
I
9
evergreen
ash
30
Fair /Good
Remove
Remove
10
Colorado
blue ado
8
T-
- - - -�
Fair
11
European
hite birch
8,8,9
Fair
evere
Remove
Construction
I
12
crape myrtle
7
Fair /Good
Low /Moderate
Uncertain
ree shown to remain on grading
plan, but show to be removed on Site,
Recommendations:
1) Tree # 1., 3 & 411 glossy privet: if this tree is to remain, include it on the grading plan or show
it to be removed. It is a protected tree.
2) Tree #4, 12" ash and tree #5, 656 red Maple: move storm drain pipe so that there will be
no excavation closer than 5 feet from the edge of the base of the trunks of these trees.
3) Tree #12, 7" crape myrtle: determine whether or not this tree will be saved or removed.
Re- number this tree on the Site plan; it is tree # 12, not duplicate tree #9.
4) Item #3 in PDB letter: "Trees to remain shall have protective tree fencing during construction."
Comment from D. Ellis: the trees shall also have tree protection before demo begins at the site.
In addition, as is stated in the Recommendations section of my first arborist report for this project
dated March 31, 2015, the Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions must be
incorporated into the final plans for this project. Tree protection fencing and other tree
protection measures must be as per those Directions.
5) The following applicable items from the Recommendations of my previous report are repeated
below so that they are not forgotten:
a) Neighboring trees: whose canopies overhang the project site must receive tree protection in
the same manner as existing trees to remain on the project site; for example tree protection
fencing and signage. The general contractor shall fence off the d6pline of this tree as much
as possible in order to avoid damaging branches and compacting the soil beneath the
PO Box 3714 Saratoga CA 95070. 408 - 725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decoh.com. )
Page 2 of 4
WQ
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
canopy. If pruning is necessary in order to avoid branch breakage, the general contractor
shall hire a qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary construction clearance
pruning. Neighboring trees that require protection are: one Australian willow tree on
the south perimeter of the site. The canopy of this tree overhangs the project site by about
10 feet.
b) The Arbodst should review all site -based plans for this project: I have reviewed the plan
sheets listed in my previous report and on page 1 of this current report. Additional
improvements on plans that were not reviewed may cause additional trees to be impacted
and /or removed. Examples of important plans to review are: the Existing and Proposed Site
Plan, Demolition, Construction Staging, Erosion Control, Grading & Drainage, Underground
Utilities, Landscaping & Irrigation, Building Elevations & Sections, Roof Plan and Construction
& Landscape Details showing improvements that may impact trees. Therefore the tree
dispositions (Save, Remove or Debatable) listed in this report may change if and when
additional plans for this project are reviewed, or if plans that I have reviewed are revised.
Plans reviewed by the arborist should be full -size, to -scale and with accurately located tree
trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements. Scale should be 1:20 or
1:10.
c) As a part of the design process, try to keep improvements (and any additional over -
excavation or work area beyond the Improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as
possible. 5xDBH1 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be used as the
minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be
considered the absolute minimum distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one
side of the trunk only for root protection. Farther is better, of course. For disturbances on
multiple sides of the trunk, then SxDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better
here. Tree canopies must also be taken into consideration when designing around trees.
Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around improvements as you locate
those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown
on the plans!
d) New landscaping and irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than
any other type of construction. The same tree root protection distances recommended for
general construction should also be observed for new landscaping. Within the root
protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4 -inch depth of coarse
organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil
surface. The environment around existing trees should be changed very carefully or not at
all - please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around existing trees
and /or have me review the landscape and irrigation plans for this project.
e) The landscaping shown on the Site Plan (sheet A 1.3) is too sketchy. Provide a complete
landscape and irrigation plan developed by a licensed landscape architect. Otherwise the
large unspecified area between the garage and the house is likely to be filled in with an
For an explanation of the 3 & SxDBH root Protection distances see page 14 of my previous arborist report
for this project dated March 31, 2015.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, LA 95070. 406- 725 -1357. dewh@pacbell.net. http: / /www.decoh.cotn.
Page 3 of 4
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Serme since 1984
irrigated lawn, which is not advisable from a current drought and water conservation
standpoint.
Construction or landscaping work done underneath the dripline of existing trees should
preferably be done by hand, taking care to preserve existing roots in undamaged condition
as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first encountered, when those
roots must be removed. A qualified consulting arborisi (the project arborist) should be hired
to monitor tree protection and supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees. This also
applies to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the work site.
♦s»rs•x » »» » »rs»»» » + » » » »•a »a»s»
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that
this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again.
Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE -457B
%; Izca
kjoq *8"�
I PO Box 3714, Sorotoqo, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. decohLiDpacbell.r¢t. http: / /WWW.deCOh.COM. J
4of4
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting A,rborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Erin Walters
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street RECEIVED
Los Gatos, CA 95030 2——' J I
AU� 2 4 2015
August 23, 2015 Z — I e""
TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
PLANNING DIVISION
485 Monterey Avenue; Tree Issues relative to the third Town review of this project
Dear Erin:
This is my third report for this project. In your letter to me dated August 12, 2015, 1 was asked to
review the July 24, 2015 Plan set submittal and comment on the protection of neighboring trees. I
understand that all existing trees on the project site will be removed. The project site is small and the
proposed house and hardscape will take up much of the lot. I recommend that all of the
replacement trees not be planted on the project site and instead an in -lieu payment be provided
to the Town for the remainder of the trees not planted on the site. This is important to assure that the
site does not become overcrowded with trees. I recommend that a licensed landscape architect
be hired to select appropriate tree species and placement for the intended use of the site.
Sheet L -1.0 proposes retaining trees #4 and 5 on the planting plan, but this is not consistent with the
proposed removal plan. My recommendation therefore, is to remove trees #4 and 5 from the
planting plan.
The protection of neighboring trees:
Neighboring tree canopies are not accurately shown on the project plans. It is easier to see these
trees on an aerial map of the site, which I have included on page 3. Tree protection fencing and
signage, as per the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance, should be placed at the edge of
the dripline of any neighboring tree canopies overhanging the site. If the contractor feels that it is
not possible to place the tree protection fencing at this location, then the Town should be
contacted so that they may send their consulting arborist to meet with the architect and /or
contractor at the site to agree upon an alternative solution. I have drawn in tentative tree
protection fencing locations for these neighboring trees on the aerial map on page 2.
Likewise there should be no soil disturbance on the project site within the dripline of the tree or a
minimum of 6 feet from the edge of the trunk of the neighboring tree. This means that some of the
drainage running along the perimeter of the property must be moved farther from the fenceline. If
the contractor feels that this is not possible, then the Town should be contacted so that they may
send their consulting arborist to meet with the architect and /or contractor at the site to agree upon
an alternate solution.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 - 725 -1357. decah@pocbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Page 1 of 3
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturis
Aerial Map of Site, and Tentative Neighbor Tree Protection Fencing
t
Service since 1984
PO Box 3714 Saratoga CA 95070 408 -725 -1357. decah @pacbell.net. http: / /www.decoh.com.
Page 2 of 3
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that
this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again.
Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Lkt'4� bl�
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE -4578
I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
O
i�
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408- 725 -1357. -decch@pocbell.net. http: / /www.decah.com.
Page 3 of 3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
NMED
PENINSULA BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT
388 Santana Row, #1123, San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 219 -4421 • Fax (408) 354 -7415
Ms. Erin Walters
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 485 Monterey Ave — Arborist Response
Dear Erin,
Below is the Arborist Compliance based on Deborah's recommendation's.
ARBORIST RESPONSE
RECEIVED
JUL 28 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
-1C!�-cz:) 1
-- IS -Olga
After further discussion regarding the existing trees onsite, we have come to the conclusion that we
would like to remove all trees on this site. Grading and site plan are consistent with the removal of all
existing trees.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 408 - 219 -4421.
Regards,
Michael Black
EXMIT 1 3
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
NMED
PENINSULA BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT
388 Santana Row, #1123, San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 219 -4421 • Fax (408) 354 -7415
Ms. Erin Walters
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 485 Monterey Ave — Arborist Response
Dear Erin,
Below is the Arborist Compliance:
ARBORIST RESPONSE
RECEIVED
AUG 2 8 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Replacement Trees: We agree with Deborah and plan to pay an in -lieu payment for trees that are not
planted on site. We do not want to crowd the site with replacement trees.
Sheet L -1.0: Tree #4 and #5 are removed from plans.
Neighbor Tree Protection: Tree protection fencing and signage, as per the Town of Los Gatos Tree
Protection Ordinance, will be placed at the dripline of any neighboring tree canopies overhanging the
site. If tree protection is unavailable, we will contact the town for arborist monitoring and a new
solution. Also, there shall not be soil disturbance within 6 feet of any trunks of neighboring trees.
Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 408 - 219 -4421.
Regards,
Michael Black
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PB D RECEIVED
PENINSULA BUILDERS 6 DEVELOPMENT SEP 03 2015
388 Santana Row, #1123, San Jose, CA 95128
(408) 219 -4421 • Fax (408) 354 -7415 PLAN OF LOS
DIVISI OS
PLANSION
485 MONTEREYA VENUE LOS GA - s--�
Tos
Neighbor Awareness Form
To: Homeoumers adjacent to 489 MontereyA venue.
I /We the neighbors of the proposed project at 485 MONTEREY AVENUE, LOS GATOS have
reviewed the proposed residential single family house as shown on the design plan sheets that are dated
AUGUST 26� 2015
(3, We state herewith that we understand the plans described above and:
Support This Project
( ) Have the following concerns with the project:
I/ a live at
an
-a r f�
Date
Thank you for taking the time to review our proposed project. Please feel free to contact us at (408) 219-
4421 or michael @peninsulabuildersinc.com.
Sincerely,
Michael and Jennifer Black
EXHIBIT 1 4
10/14/15 PC Staff Report
Kunlg 107
djjvuopua ;ul
affni mlyl
t we f
.. TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
�' cos s�toS Meeting Date: October 14, 2015
PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters, Associate Planner
ewalters(a)1os atg osca.gov
APPLICATION NO: Zone Change Application Z -15 -001
Architecture and Site Application S -15 -018
ITEM NO: 2
DESK ITEM
LOCATION: 485 Monterey Avenue (southwest corner of Monterey Avenue
and Andrews Street)
APPLICANT/
CONTACT PERSON: Michael Black
PROPERTY OWNER: Black Real Estate Investment LLC
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to rezone a property from O to R -11), to
demolish an existing office building, construct a new single -
family residence, construct an accessory structure with reduced
setbacks, and obtain a grading permit for property zoned O.
APN 410 -16 -026.
EXHIBITS: 1 -17. Previously received with October 14, 2015 Staff Report
18. Email from Wendy Paige, received October 9, 2015
19. Revised Conditions of Approval
REMARKS:
Last week staff was contacted by Wendy Paige, property owner of 307 Andrews and 470 San
Benito Avenue, which is the property located behind the subject property. Ms. Paige is unable to
attend the October 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting as she is out of the country. Ms.
Paige has provided an email (Exhibit 18) summarizing her support of the project and
highlighting three areas of concern. Ms. Paige has been in communication with staff and the
project property owner, Michael Black, regarding the project and her concerns.
The following summarizes her concerns and staff's response:
1. Redwood Tree - There is an existing healthy 14 -inch diameter redwood tree located at the
southeast corner of neighbor's property (307 Andrews Street) which is located behind the
subject property. The neighbor would like to make sure it is protected during
construction.
�- Staff's Response: The Town's Consulting Arborist has included tree protection measures
for this tree as well as other trees which are located on adjacent properties. The Town's
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001, 5 -15 -018
October 14, 2015
Consulting Arborist recommends tree protection to include no soil disturbance within a
minimum of 4 feet from the edge of the trunk of the neighboring tree. The applicant will
reflect locations of the neighboring trees on the building plans per the Town's Consulting
Arborist's recommendations.
2. Shared Fence - The project requires a fence height reduction along a portion of the
northern property line of 485 Monterey.
Staff Response: A portion of the existing fence must be reduced to 3 ' -0" in order to meet
the Town's traffic view area requirement. Ms. Paige has discussed the fence reduction
with the applicant and does not oppose the fence modification. The applicant has offered
to pay for the fence modification.
3. Site Drainage - The neighbor has concerns regarding drainage at the southwest corner of
the subject property.
Staff Response: Engineering reviewed the drainage plan to make sure it is adequate to
address the ou flow. An existing 6" storm drain pipe which conveys pumped drainage
from the neighboring lots outfalls onto the subject property just inside its southwestern
corner. The off -site drainage then runs across the existing surface parking lot and is
discharged into the Andrews Avenue public right -of -way via a thru -curb drain. As part
of the proposed improvements, the applicant will connect to the existing pipe with a
storm drain structure and divert the drainage through a piped system around the new
detached garage. A bubble -up drywell /energy dissipater structure has been proposed in
the rear yard and would discharge any excess drainage into the same public right -of-
way. After discussions with the adjacent property owner, the following conditions have
been added to ensure that this existing drainage is sufficiently addressed and conveyed
through the property, and that this proposed development does not negatively affect the
neighboring property.
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval be added to address drainage:
• DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the following
drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer: A
drainage study of the project including diversions, off -site areas that drain onto
and /or through the project, and justification of any diversions; a drainage study
evidencing that proposed drainage patterns will not overload existing storm
drains; and detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading, in
conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems including applicable swales,
channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding, will
allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be
expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 -year flood.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3
485 Monterey Avenue /Z -15 -001 S -15 -018
October 14, 2015
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to issuance of any grading/improvement
permits, the applicant shall: a) design the necessary provisions for the proper
conveyance of surface drainage, including those needed for any and all off -site
areas that drain onto and /or through the project; and b) design all necessary storm
drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control
and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide recorded copy of any required
easements to the Town.
Staff has attached revised conditions of approval (Exhibit 19).
Prepared by:
Erin M. Walters
Associate Planner
LRP:EW:cg
N: \DEV\PC REPORTS \2015\Monterey485- Deskltem.docx
Ow-
AV y:
Lrevetti
Town Manager/ Community Development
Director
--111
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Erin M. Walters
From: Wendy Paige <wendy @paigelaw.com>
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 4:15 AM RECEIVED
To: Erin M. Walters
Subject: RE: 485 Monterey Ave OCT 09 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATO
Erin PLANNING DIVISION
z-tf�-0oI
Again many thanks for your timely responses and help. Could you let the arborist know that
he /she can have access through the gate at 307 Andrews to inspect the old growth redwood
tree.
I would like my comments below to be included in the Addendum provided to the Planning
Commission this evening, Friday Oct 9:
Items raised :re 485 Monterev Ave by Wendv Paiee adiacent neighbor at 307 Andrews /470 San
Benito Ave: Please know that we are very happy to have this property being developed in
such a lovely manner. I have spoken with Mike Brown about the items below and believe
there are no issues other than these items be appropriately addressed. I would like to
commend Erin Walters and Mike Weisz who have been so helpful, proactive and available to
us regarding this development. I would have personally appp�red at this meeting of the
Planning Commission had I not been out of the country.
1. Old growth redwood tree at the southwest corner of 307 Andrews St (northwest
corner of 485 Monterey) to be protected during the construction. Erin Walters has
agreed to bring this to the attention of the Town Arborist for guidance re appropriate
digging methods, and Mike Brown the owner has agreed.
2. Fence reduction along the north border of 485 Monterey, Mike Brown has agreed to
pay for the required changes.
3. Drain at the northwest corner of 485 Monterey, the Town Engineer, Mike Weisz has
agreed to review the plan to be sure it is accurate and adequate to address the
outflow.
Many thanks Erin. I will be travelling today but will try to reach you.
Kid regards,
Wendy — - — EXHMrr 19
10%14/15 PCDesk Item
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION — October 14, 201 S
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
485 Monterey Avenue
Zone Change Application Z-15 -001
Architecture and Site Application S -15 -018
Requesting approval to rezone a property from O to R -11), to demolish an existing office
building, construct a new single - family residence, construct an accessory structure with
reduced setbacks, and to obtain a grading permit for property zoned O. APN 410 -16 -026.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Black Real Estate Investment LLC
APPLICANT: Michael Black
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions
of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved and noted
as received by the Town on September 17, 2015. Any changes or modifications to the
approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the
Development Review Committee, the Planning Commission, or Town Council, depending
on the scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to
Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down
directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights
shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. The
lighting plan shall be reviewed during building plan check.
4. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
5. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be
removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
6. REPLACEMENT TREES: Replacement trees shall be planted for trees being removed.
The number and size of new trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table
in the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. Required trees shall be planted prior to final
inspection.
7. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations made by Deborah Ellis, MS., identified in the Arborist's reports dated as
received March 31, 2015, May 19, 2015, and August 24, 2015, on file in the Community
Development Department. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations
have or will be addressed. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building
permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable.
8. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at
the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall
remain through all phases of construction. Refer to tree fencing requirements and other
protection measures identified in the Arborist's reports dated as received March 31, 2015,
May 19, 2015, and August 24, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department.
Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans. EXHIBIT 1 9
10/14/15 PC Desk Item
9. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet
the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee
schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation
plans are submitted for review.
10. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION: Prior final occupancy front yard landscaping must be
installed.
11. ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement,
at their cost, the recommendation made by Cannon Design Group, identified in the
Architectural Consultant reports, dated as received April 20, 2015, June 3, 2015, and
August 19, 2015 on file in the Community Development Department. A Compliance
Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit
application detailing how the recommendation has or will be addressed. This
recommendation must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to
issuance of a building permit
12. SALVAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit,
the developer shall provide the Community Development Director with written notice of
the company that will be recycling the building materials. 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 the type and weight of materials, shall be submitted to the Town prior to
the Town's demolition inspection.
13. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
14. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires
that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
15. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum, in compliance with standard Town
practice, shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit detailing how the
conditions of approval will be addressed.
Building Division
16. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit shall be required for the demolition of the
existing office building and a Building Permit shall be required for the construction of the
new single - family residence and a separate Building Permit for the detached garage.
Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary.
17. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue -lined in full on
the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of
Approval will be addressed.
18. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24" x 36 ", maximum
size 30" x 42 ".
19. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Obtain a Building Department Demolition Application
and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District Application from the Building
Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has been completed, all signatures
obtained, and written verification from PG &E that all utilities have been disconnected,
return the completed form to the Building Department Service Counter with the air
District's J# Certificate, PG &E verification, and three (3) sets of site plans showing all
existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG &E. No
demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.
20. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with
the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil
engineering specializing in soils mechanics.
21. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or
land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection.
This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils
report, and that the building pad elevation and on -site retaining wall locations and
elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical
controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the
following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining Walls
22. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be
designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-
61:
a. Wood backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls at water
closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34- inches from the floor to the center of the
backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.
b. All passage doors shall be at least 32- inches wide on the accessible floor.
c. Primary entrance shall be a 36 -inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no more
than 1/2 -inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18 -inch
clearance at interior strike edge.
d. Door buzzer, bell, or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
23. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance
Forms must be blue - lined, i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
24. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information
on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town
of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater
valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12- inches
above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
25. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase
II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 -feet
of Chimney.
26. FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly.
27. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704,
the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The
Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled -out and signed by all requested
parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building
28. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (2406) shall be part of the plan
submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division
Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blue Print for a fee or online at
www.losgatosca.gov /building.
29. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development — Planning Division: Erin Walters at (408) 354 -6867
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Mike Weisz at (408) 354 -5236
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378 -4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378 -2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school
district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit
issuance.
f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771 -6000
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
30. 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 an encroachment permit is issued. The developer's
representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to
maintain the public right -of -way according to this condition may result in the Town
performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
31. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right -of -way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction
security. It is the responsibility of the applicant/developer to obtain any necessary
encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited
to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E), AT &T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District,
California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be
submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to releasing any permit.
32. 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.
33. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The developer shall repair or replace
all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because
of the developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement
markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the
original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the
direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24
Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk - through with the Engineering
Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
34. STREET /SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street
and /or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on
works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe
manner may be required.
35. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of
any Permit.
36. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for
review and approval.
37. GRADING PERMIT: Grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work
except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Grading Ordinance. 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 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.
38. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conform to existing pavement on Andrews Avenue shall be
constructed such that existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed
39. DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the following drainage
studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer: A drainage study of the
project including diversions, off -site areas that drain onto and/or through the project, and
justification of any diversions; a drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage patterns
will not overload existing storm drains; and detailed drainage studies indicating how the
project grading, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems including applicable
swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding, will
allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected
from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 -year flood.
40. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to issuance of any grading/improvement permits, the
applicant shall: a) design the necessary provisions for the proper conveyance of surface
drainage, including those needed for any and all off -site areas that drain onto and /or
through the project; and b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a
satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c)
provide recorded copy of any required easements to the Town.
41. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to
issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
42. PAD CERTIFICATION: A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating
that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be --�
provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the structure.
The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation placement.
43. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated on the parcel map by separate
instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued:
a. Monterey Avenue and Andrews Street: A chord of a 10 -foot radius at the intersection.
44. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the
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.
45. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnical investigation shall
be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub - surface conditions at the site
and to determine the potential for 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. All recommendations of the investigation shall be
incorporated into project plans.
46. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's engineers shall prepare
and submit a design -level geotechnical /geological investigation for review and approval by
the Town. The applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans
to ensure that designs for foundations, 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.
47. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all
excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to
placement of concrete and /or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated in the design -level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in
the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction
observation and testing should be documented in an "as- built" letter /report prepared by the
applicants' soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy
permit is granted.
48. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility
services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines
underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television
service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from
any and all utility service providers. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply
approval for final alignment or design of these facilities.
49. TRENCHING MORATORIUM: Trenching within a newly paved street will be allowed
subject to the following requirements:
a. The Town standard "T" trench detail shall be used.
b. A Town approved colored controlled density backfill shall be used.
c. The total asphalt thickness shall be a minimum of 3- inches or shall match the existing
thickness, whichever is greater. The final lift shall be 1.5- inches of half inch medium
asphalt. The initial lift(s) shall be of three quarter inch medium asphalt.
d. The Contractor shall schedule a pre - paving meeting with the Town Engineering
Construction Inspector the day the paving is to take place.
e. A slurry seal topping may be required by the construction inspector depending his
assessment of the quality of the trench paving. If required, the slurry seal shall extend
the full width of the street and shall extend 5 -feet beyond the longitudinal limits of
trenching. Slurry seal materials shall be approved by the Town Engineering
Construction Inspector prior to placement. Black sand may be required in the slurry
mix. All existing striping and pavement markings shall be replaced upon completion of
slurry seal operations. All pavement restorations shall be completed and approved by
the Inspector before occupancy.
50. SIDEWALK REPAIR: The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards
any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. Sidewalk repair shall
match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard
Details. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction
Inspector during the construction phase of the project.
51. CURB AND GUTTER: The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards
any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. New curb and
gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits of curb and gutter repair
will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction
phase of the project.
52. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The developer shall install one (1) Town standard residential
driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard
Details.
53. CURB RAMPS: The developer shall construct one (1) curb ramp in compliance with ADA
Standards.
54. THRU -CURB DRAIN: The developer shall remove the existing thru -curb drain in the right
of way and replace the curb, gutter and sidewalk as necessary.
55. FENCING: Any fencing proposed within 200 -feet of an intersection shall comply with
Town Code Section §23.10.080.
56. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements,
including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Section
23.10.080, 26.10.065, 29.40.030.
57. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from
the Town Engineer.
58. 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. Coordination with other significant
projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other
loose debris.
59. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities
shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty -five (85) dBA at twenty -five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located ...�
within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to
twenty -five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of
the property plane shall not exceed eighty -five (85) dBA.
60. 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, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and
proposed outhouse locations.
61. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West
Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
reused. Sanitary Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line or
location specify by the Town.
62. 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 Building Official. 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 in the
Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional
operation condition. Evidence of West Sanitation District's decision on whether a
backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
63. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The applicant is responsible for ensuring
that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures
are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed
for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and /or
operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction
activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the
construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work
orders.
64. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate the following measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
65. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that
paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and
by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present
and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be
watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or
apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration
of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street
sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a
day. Watering associated with on -site construction activity shall take place between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late- afternoon watering to
minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this
construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to
the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind
speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose
debris shall be covered.
66. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements
of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction
Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the ABAG Manual of Standards for
Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance
and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the
Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
67. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected
to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING - Flows
to Bay" NPDES required language. On -site drainage systems for all projects shall include
one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.
These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from
impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to
be used they shall be placed 10' minimum from adjacent property line and/or right of way.
68. 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.
69. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a
person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of
goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an
encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent public right -of-
way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and
debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and
materials on the sidewalk and /or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment
permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all
working hours. Failure to maintain the public right -of -way according to this condition may
result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
70. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be
covered.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
71. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be
installed in one- and two - family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and two - family
dwellings and in existing one- and two- family dwellings when additions are made that
increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one -time addition
to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area.
NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible
for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification
or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C -16)
Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application --�
and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their
work.
72. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from
contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the
applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying
the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such
requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water -based fire protection
systems, and /or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be
physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of
the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under
consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of
the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the
applicant(s).
73. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with
applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-
7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the
project.
74. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address
numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers
shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or
alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a
minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road
and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or
means shall be used to identify the structure.
N:\DEV\ CONDITIONS \2015\Monterey485.docx
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM O TO R -11)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 485 MONTEREY AVENUE
(APN: 410 -16 -026)
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Zoning Map of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning on
property located at 485 Monterey Avenue (Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Number 410 -16-
026) as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, from O (Office) to R -1D (Single Family
Residential Downtown). The following condition must be complied with before issuance of any
grading, or construction permits:
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
(Planning Division)
1. CONFORMANCE WITH ZONE. The existing nonconforming office building shall
conform to the new zoning requirements within one year of adoption of the zone change.
ATTACHMENT 5
SECTION II
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos on November 3, 2015, 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 November 17,
2015. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N: \DEV \ORDS\2015\Monterey485.docx
V�
'QO
��z
zg�
, [W 4
Al b4*11h,
T
.s�
os, ,
S,9 .
P
e 485' onterey Avenue
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Application No. Z -15 -001 A.P.N. #410 -16 -026 "
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
® Zone Change From: O To: R-11)
❑ Prezonin
Forwarded by Planning Commission Date: October 14, 2015
Approved by Town Council Date: Ord:
Clerk Administrator Mayor EXHIBIT A
of Attachment 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank