Attachment 10-13RESOLUTION 2016-___
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO THREE LOTS, CONSTRUCT THREE
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND REMOVE LARGE PROTECTED TREES
ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:10
APN: 523-42-017
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: M-15-001
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011
PROPERTY LOCATION: 15975 UNION AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNER: BETCHART UNION AVE JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: GARY KOHLSAAT, ARCHITECT
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2016 and March 9, 2016, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and considered a request to demolish an existing single-family residence,
subdivide one lot into three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large
protected trees on property zoned R-1:10. The Planning Commission denied the applications.
WHEREAS, the appellant has filed an appeal of the decision of the Planning
Commission denying demolishing an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into
three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees.
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on May 3,
2016, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.
WHEREAS, Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the
appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Town Council
considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning
Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for
their meeting on May 3, 2016, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared
concerning this application.
ATTACHMENT 10
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.
WHEREAS, Council finds as follows:
A. The Council could not make one or more of the following, in accordance with Town
Code section 29.20.300:
1. Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning
Commission; or
2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was
not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify
or address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying a request to
demolish an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into three lots, construct three
new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees on property zoned R-1:10 is
denied.
2. The Town Council hereby adopts the required findings to deny the Subdivision
Map Act set forth in the document attached as Exhibit A.
3. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los
Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time
limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or
such shorter time as required by state and federal Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos, California, held on the 3rd day of May, 2016, by the following vote:
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\RESOS\2016\Union15795_DenyAppeal.docx
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR– May 3, 2016
15975 Union Avenue
Subdivision Application M-15-001
Architecture and Site Applications S-15-009 through S-15-011
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into
three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees
on property zoned R-1:10. APN 523-42-017.
PROPERTY OWNER: Betchart Union Ave Joint Venture Partnership
APPLICANT: Gary Kohlsaat, Architect
FINDINGS
.
Required findings to deny a Subdivision application:
■ As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act the map shall be denied if
any of the following findings are made:
a. That the proposed map is not consistent with all elements of the General Plan.
b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with all
elements of the General Plan.
c. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed development.
d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
e. That the designs of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat.
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely cause serious public
health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
EXHIBIT A of Attachment 10
ATTACHMENT 11
RESOLUTION 2016-___
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO THREE LOTS, CONSTRUCT THREE
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND REMOVE LARGE PROTECTED TREES
ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:10
AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION
APN: 523-42-017
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: M-15-001
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011
PROPERTY LOCATION: 15975 UNION AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNER: BETCHART UNION AVE JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: GARY KOHLSAAT, ARCHITECT
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2016 and March 9, 2016, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and considered a request to demolish an existing single-family residence,
subdivide one lot into three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large
protected trees on property zoned R-1:10. The Planning Commission denied the applications.
WHEREAS, the appellant has filed an appeal of the decision of the Planning
Commission denying demolishing an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into
three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees.
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on May 3,
2016, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.
WHEREAS, Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the
appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Town Council
considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.
Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for
their meeting on May 3, 2016, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared
concerning this application.
WHEREAS, Council finds as follows:
A. One or more of the following, in accordance with Town Code section 29.20.300:
1. Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning
Commission; or
2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was
not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify
or address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying a request to
demolish an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into three lots, construct three
new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees on property zoned R-1:10 is
granted and the applications are remanded to Planning Commission for further consideration.
2. The decision does not constitute a final administrative decision and the
application will be returned to Planning Commission for further consideration.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos, California, held on the 3rd day of May, 2016, by the following vote:
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\RESOS\2016\Union15795_RemandAppeal.docx
RESOLUTION 2016-___
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND APPROVING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO THREE LOTS, CONSTRUCT THREE
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND REMOVE LARGE PROTECTED TREES
ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:10
APN: 523-42-017
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: M-15-001
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011
PROPERTY LOCATION: 15975 UNION AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNER: BETCHART UNION AVE JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: GARY KOHLSAAT, ARCHITECT
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2016 March 9, 2016, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and considered a request to demolish an existing single-family residence,
subdivide one lot into three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large
protected trees on property zoned R-1:10. The Planning Commission denied the applications.
WHEREAS, the appellant has filed an appeal of the decision of the Planning
Commission denying demolishing an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into
three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees.
WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission based on
his belief that the Planning Commission erred in its decision because their interpretations of the
items (b), (c) and (d) of the findings required per the State Subdivision Map Act Section 66474
were subjective, arbitrary, or inconsistent with the facts; and
WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on May 3,
2016, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.
ATTACHMENT 12
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.
WHEREAS, Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the
appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Town Council
considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning
Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for
their meeting on May 3, 2016, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared
concerning this application.
WHEREAS, Council finds as follows:
A. The Council made one or more of the following, in accordance with Town Code
section 29.20.300:
1. Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning
Commission; or
2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that
was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission;
or
3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to
modify or address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or
decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying a request to
demolish an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into three lots, construct three
new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees on property zoned R-1:10 is
granted and Subdivision application M-15-001 and Architecture and Site applications S-15-009
through S-15-011 are approved.
2. The Town Council hereby adopts all findings, considerations and conditions of
approval set forth in that documents attached as Exhibits A and B.
3. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los
Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time
limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or
such shorter time as required by state and federal Law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Los Gatos, California, held on the 3rd day of May, 2016, by the following vote:
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\RESOS\2016\Union15795_ApproveAppeal.docx
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR– May 3, 2016
15975 Union Avenue
Subdivision Application M-15-001
Architecture and Site Applications S-15-009 through S-15-011
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into
three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees
on property zoned R-1:10. APN 523-42-017.
PROPERTY OWNER: Betchart Union Ave Joint Venture Partnership
APPLICANT: Gary Kohlsaat, Architect
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project 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 and Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions.
Required finding for the demolition of a single-family residence:
■ 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 maintained as the single -family residence will be
replaced.
2. The existing structures have no architectural or historical significance, and are in poor
condition.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The economic utility of the structures was considered.
Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
■ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes
not in hillside residential areas.
Required findings to deny a Subdivision application:
■ As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act the map shall be denied if
any of the following findings are made: None of the findings could be made to deny the
application.
a. That the proposed map is not consistent with all elements of the General Plan.
b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with all
elements of the General Plan.
EXHIBIT A of Attachment 12
c. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed development.
d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
e. That the designs of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat.
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely cause serious public
health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & 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.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – May 3, 2016
15975 Union Avenue
Subdivision Application M-15-001
Architecture and Site Applications S-15-009 through S-15-011
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into
three lots, construct three new single-family residences, and remove large protected trees
on property zoned R-1:10. APN 523-42-017.
PROPERTY OWNER: Betchart Union Ave Joint Venture Partnership
APPLICANT: Gary Kohlsaat, Architect
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 February 19, 2016. 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. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations made by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC and Deborah Ellis, MS,
identified in the Arborist reports, dated as received February 10, 2015 and April 3, 2015,
respectively, 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.
7. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees
and shall remain through all phases of construction. Fencing shall be six foot high cyclone
attached to two-inch diameter steel posts drive 18 inches into the ground and spaced no
further than 10 feet apart. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction
plans.
EXHIBIT B of Attachment 12
8. REPLACEMENT TREES: New trees shall be planted to mitigate the loss of trees being
removed. The number of trees and size of replacement trees shall be determined using the
canopy replacement table in the Town Code. Town Code requires a minimum 24-inch box
size replacement tree. New trees shall be double staked with rubber ties and shall be
planted prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits.
9. LANDSCAPE SCREENING: Landscape screening shall be planted along all property
lines. Shrubs and tall shrubs shall be planted with larger than 5-gallon size plants for faster
landscape screening. A minimum 24-inch box size trees shall be planted, including some
along the project’s western property line, and large size trees shall be considered.
10. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan, including
landscape and irrigation plans and calculations, shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water
Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is
more restrictive. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Town’s consultant prior
to issuance of building permits. 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.
11. 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.
12. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
13. BLOSSOM HILL ROAD FENCE HEIGHT: Fence height is limited to six feet from grade
along Blossom Hill Road.
14. OTHER FENCE HEIGHT: Fence height for fences not along Blossom Hill Road are
limited to eight feet from grade and may not conflict with traffic view areas.
15. BUILDING PERMIT PLANS: The building permit plans shall include correct calculations
for allowable floor areas. The building permit plans shall be consistent between plan
sheets, including references for retaining wall and fence details, fence heights, pavers,
pipes, and chimneys. The applicant must include this information in the building permit
plans prior to issuance of building permits.
16. DRIVEWAY MATERIAL: Stamped concrete shall be used at the driveway entrance and
the garage aprons. Stamped concrete at these locations shall be shown on the building
permit plans prior to issuance and be installed prior to final of building permits.
17. 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.
Building Division
18. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit shall be required for the demolition of the
existing single-family residence and associated accessory structures and a Building Permit
the construction of each new single-family residence with attached garage. A separate plan
set is required for each lot. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and
plumbing work as necessary.
19. 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.
20. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum
size 30” x 42”.
21. 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 Quality
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.
22. BUILDING ADDRESSES: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building
Division prior to submitting for the Building Permit application process.
23. 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 Engineer
specializing in soils mechanics.
24. 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
25. 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-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.
26. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance
Forms must be blue-lined, i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
27. 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.
28. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase
II approved appliance or a gas appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be
cut within 10-feet of Chimney.
29. FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly.
30. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban High
Fire Interface Area and must comply with the materials and construction methods for
exterior wildfire exposure requirements of Section R327 of the 2013 California Residential
Code.
31. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704,
the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The
Town Special 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
32. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (24x36) shall be part of the plan
submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division
Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blue Print for a fee or online at
www.losgatosca.gov/building.
33. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development – Planning Division: Erin Walters (408) 354-6867
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Dept.: Mike Weisz (408) 354-5236
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate
school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit
issuance.
f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
34. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall
conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept
clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be
washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and 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.
35. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of
approvals listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved
development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of
approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
36. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction
security. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary
encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited
to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District,
California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be
submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department
prior to releasing any permit.
37. 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.
38. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace
all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because
of the Developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: 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. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc.
Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at
the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore.
Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering
Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The
Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before
the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
39. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the
job site at all times during construction.
40. STREET CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street 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.
41. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan
review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
42. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of
any Permit or recordation of the Parcel Map.
43. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the
approval of the Town prior to altered work is started. The Applicant’s project engineer
shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least 72 hours in advance of all the proposed
changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans.
44. PARKING: Any proposed parking restriction must be approved by The Town of Los
Gatos, Community Development Department.
45. 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.
46. 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 and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans
shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim
erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and
proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and
Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The
grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit,
issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the
building footprint.
47. DRIVEWAY: The driveways conform to existing pavement on Union Avenue shall be
constructed such that existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed.
48. 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.
49. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map (except
maps for financing and conveyance purposes only) or prior to the issuance of any
grading/improvement permits, whichever comes first, the Applicant shall: a) Design
provisions for surface drainage; 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.
50. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to
issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
51. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a
licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the
following items:
a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations.
b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes.
52. 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.
53. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement
of any site work, the general contractor shall:
a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town
Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site
maintenance and other construction matters;
b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of
approval, and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and
understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project conditions
of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction.
54. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E.
Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved
by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan
review process.
55. CERTIFIFATE OF COMPLIANCE: A Certificate of compliance shall be recorded. Two
copies of the legal description for each lot configuration, a plat map (8-½ in. X 11 in.) shall
be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department for
review and approval. The submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports less than
90 days old and the appropriate fee. The certificate shall be recorded before any permits
may be issued.
56. CERTIFICATE OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT: A Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment
shall be recorded. Two copies of the legal description for each new lot configuration, a plat
map (8-½ in. X 11 in.) and two copies of the legal description of the land to be exchanged
shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department
for review and approval. The submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports less
than 90 days old and the appropriate fee. The certificate shall be recorded before any
permits may be issued.
57. PARCEL MAP: A parcel map shall be recorded. Two copies of the parcel map shall be
submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department for
review and approval. Submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports and the
appropriate fee. The map shall be recorded before any permits for new construction are
issued. The Applicant/Subdivider shall provide the Engineering Division with an
electronic copy (in PDF format) and two hardcopies of the signed recorded map along with
a CAD drawing of the Parcel Map after it is recorded.
58. SHARED MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The Applicant/Subdivider shall record a
shared Maintenance Agreement at the time of recordation of the parcel subdivision map.
The shared Maintenance Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Town prior to recordation of the parcel map. The owners of the three properties shall be
responsible for the maintenance of all private utilities, wildland fire and buffer areas, storm
water treatment facilities (including the three bioretention ponds,and bio- treatment swale)
landscape areas, the long term maintenance the fences located on the northern boundary
line, and other common areas/facilities within the proposed subdivision. The owners of the
three properties shall be responsible for keeping the shared driveway signed, marked, free
and clear for fire department access. The property owner of Lot 2 shall keep Lot 2’s
driveway apron signed, marked, free and clear for fire vehicle turnaround with the
exception of the surface parking space. One surface space on Lot 1, and two surface spaces
at the end of the shared driveway will be shared parking and available to all property
owners and their guests.
59. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT: All sewer connection and treatment plant
capacity fees shall be paid either immediately prior to the recordation of any subdivision or
tract maps with respect to the subject property or properties, or immediately prior to the
issuance of a sewer connection permit, which ever event occurs first. Written confirmation
of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to map recordation.
60. PRIVATE UTILITIES–STREET: Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map the
Applicant/Subdivider shall place a note on the map, in a manner that meets the approval of
the Town Engineer that states: "The private streets, utilities constructed within this map
shall be owned, operated and maintained by the Developer, successors or assigns.”
61. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated on the parcel map by separate
instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued:
a. Union Avenue: A 25-foot right-of-way dedication
b. Blossom Hill Road: A 15-foot right-of-way dedication with a 36-foot radius at the
intersection with the newly-dedicated right-of-way line of Union Avenue.
c. A 3-foot wide sidewalk easement along Union Avenue.
d. A reciprocal Ingress & Egress Easement (ISE) by separate easement, recorded
concurrently with the Parcel Map.
e. Emergency Vehicle Access Easement: A 24-foot wide easement through Lots 1 thru
3, in addition to a 20-foot wide easement for turnaround, as shown on Lot 3.
62. DEMOLITION: The existing building shall be demolished prior to recordation of the
parcel map affected by this existing building.
63. 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.
64. 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. Approval of the
Applicant’s soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing
the plans.
65. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all
excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Applicant’s soils engineer prior to
placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in
the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction
observation and testing shall be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by the
Applicant’s soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy
permit is granted.
66. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological
recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation by Silicon Valley Soils
Engineering, dated November 2014, and any subsequently required report or addendum.
Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town’s consultant and
costs shall be borne by the Applicant.
67. IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall enter into an agreement to
construct public improvements that are part of the development in a form acceptable to the
Town in the amount of 100% (performance) and 100% (labor and materials) prior to
issuance of any permit. The Applicant shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying
the cost of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the
Parks and Public Works Department.
68. JOINT TRENCH PLANS: Joint trench plans shall be reviewed and approved by th e Town
prior to recordation of a map. The joint trench plans shall include street and/or site lighting
and associated photometrics. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that public street
light billing will by Rule LS2A, and that private lights shall be metered with billing to the
owners of the three properties. Pole numbers, assigned by PG&E, shall be clearly
delineated on the plans.
69. WATER DESIGN: Water plans prepared by San Jose Water Company must be reviewed
and approved prior to issuance of any permit.
70. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the
Developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil
engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful
Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building
permit or the recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by
the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
a. Union Avenue & Blossom Hill Road: curb, gutter, sidewalk, tie-in paving, signing,
striping, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, street lights, traffic signal, intersection
improvement, as required.
b. Union Avenue & Blossom Hill Road: an appropriate structural pavement section for
the half-width immediately adjacent to the project frontage of both Union Avenue and
Blossom Hill Road shall be constructed to the centerline.
71. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Applicant shall be required to improve the project’s
public frontage to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not
limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, curb ramps, traffic signal, street
lighting (upgrade and/or repaint) etc. The improvements must be completed and accepted
by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
72. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STREET LIGHT): Remove existing street light on
PG&E power pole and replace with a Town standard octaflute street light pole with LED
light fixture.
73. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (TRAFFIC): The Applicant shall construct and modify
the Blossom Hill Road/Union Avenue intersection improvements as required including,
and may not be limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt concrete pavement, pork chop
island, median island, signs, striping, traffic signal poles, conduits, and equipment, etc., as
directed by the Town Engineer. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the
Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
74. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION): The Applicant shall
upgrade existing traffic signal to current Town standards including, and may not be limited
to, the following:
a. Replace non-LED signals with LEDs
b. Replace 8” signal heads with 12” signal heads
c. Install pedestrian signal countdown heads
d. Install ADA compliant pedestrian push buttons
e. Install two video detection cameras
f. Install LED safety lighting fixture
g. Install EMTRAC fire preemption device
h. ADA-compliant pedestrian improvements including curb ramps and pork chop
islands
i. Others as applicable
The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
75. ADA COMPLIANCE: The Applicant shall be required to meet all ADA standards, which
must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any
new building can be issued. This may require additional construction measures as directed
by the Town.
76. 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. The 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. The improvements must be
completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be issued.
77. UTILITY EASEMENTS: Deed restrictions shall be placed on lots containing utility
easements. The deed restrictions shall specify that no trees, fences, or hardscape are
allowed within the easement boundaries, and that maintenance access must be provided.
The Town will prepare the deed language and the Applicant's surveyor shall prepare the
legal description and plat. The Applicant shall pay any recordation costs.
78. PRIVATE EASEMENTS. Agreements detailing rights, limitations, and responsibilities of
involved parties shall accompany any proposed private easement. Access driveway shall be
within the recorded access easement. New private access easement shall be recorded prior
to issuance of building permit. The easement(s) and associated agreement(s) shall be
recorded simultaneously with the Parcel Map.
79. 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. All necessary utility trenches and related pavement cuts shall be consolidated to
minimize the impacted area of the roadway.
d. The total asphalt thickness shall be a minimum of 3-inches, meet Town standards, 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.
e. The Contractor shall schedule a pre-paving meeting with the Town Engineering
Construction Inspector the day the paving is to take place.
f. A slurry seal topping may be required by the construction 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.
80. SIDEWALK REPAIR: The Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards
any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing
adjacent infrastructures must meet current ADA standards. Sidewalk repair shall match
existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard Details.
New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified
that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole
expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of sidewalk
repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the
construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by
the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
81. 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. All new and
existing adjacent infrastructures must meet Town standards. New curb and gutter shall be
constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos,
names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be
removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation
shall be allowed therefore. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the
Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The
improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
82. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Developer shall install one Town standard residential
driveway approach at the project’s vehicular point of entry along Union Avenue. The new
driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Plans and must be completed
and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be
issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete
identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the
Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore.
83. CURB RAMPS: The Developer shall construct all curb ramps in compliance with ADA
Standards which must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps,
logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall
be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation
shall be allowed therefore.
84. FENCING: Any fencing proposed within 200-feet of an intersection shall comply with
Town Code Section §23.10.080.
85. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements,
including but not limiting to trees and hedges, shall abide by Town Code Section
23.10.080, 26.10.065, 29.40.030.
86. FENCES: Fences between all adjacent parcels shall be located on the property
lines/boundary lines. Any existing fences that encroach into the neighbor’s property shall
be removed and replaced to the correct location of the boundary lines before a Certificate
of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Waiver of this condition will require
signed and notarized letters from all affected neighbors.
87. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT): Off-site improvement plans
shall be prepared by the Developer’s design consultants and submitted to Town Engineer
for approval prior to construction. The Applicant is required to designate necessary right of
way for the required widening. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the
Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
88. STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSPECTION FEES: The Developer shall
pay for the Town’s inspection of street lights and traffic signal related work installed by the
developer. The fees, $2,000, shall be due at time of building permit application.
89. TRAFFIC STUDY: Any development of land use that generates greater traffic impacts
than those assumed in the traffic study report may be required an updated traffic study in
accordance with Town’s traffic impact policy.
90. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The Developer shall pay the project's
proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development
within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council
resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before
issuance of a building permit. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall be
calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule and current fee schedule in effect at
the time the building permit is issued, using a trip generation rate based on a comparison of
the site’s current and proposed uses.
91. PRECONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the
project applicant shall complete a pavement condition survey documenting the extent of
existing pavement defects using a 35-mm or digital video camera. The results shall be
documented in a report and submitted to the Town for review.
92. POSTCONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY: The project applicant will complete a
pavement condition survey and pavement deflection analysis to determine whether road
damage occurred as a result of project construction and whether there were changes in
pavement strength. Rehabilitation improvements required to restore the pavement to pre-
construction condition and strength shall be determined using State of California
procedures for deflection analysis. The results shall be documented in a report and
submitted to the Town for review and approval before a Certificate of Occupancy for any
new building can be issued. The Applicant shall be responsible for completing any required
road repairs prior to release of the faithful performance bond.
93. 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.
94. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: Traffic control plan is required and must be submitted and
approved prior to issuance of any work in the public right-of-way. This plan shall include,
but not be limited to, the following measures:
a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic
disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the
area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the
coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption.
b. Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow.
All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to
coordinate the operation.
c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency
services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of
operation.
95. TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION PLAN: A Traffic Signal Modification Plan is
required and must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of any work in the public
right-of-way. This plan shall be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer.
96. 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 Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to
ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off 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.
97. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements
construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy
equipment, supplies, etc. shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays
and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize on a case-by-
case basis alternate construction hours. The Applicant/Subdivider shall provide written
notice 24 hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at
discretion of the Town.
98. 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.
99. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: Prior to the issuance of any permits, 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.
100. MAINTENANCE ACCESS: Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall
propose maintenance access improvements for the Town Engineer to review, comment on,
and approve. The Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department shall
approve the surface materials over each public easement.
101. COMMON PRIVATE DRIVEWAY: The common private driveway accessing the Project
Site shall be kept open and in a safe, drive-able condition throughout construction and in
perpetuity after construction has been completed. If temporary closure is needed, then
formal written notice shall be provided at least one week in advance of closure.
102. WVSD (WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT): Sanitary Sewer Clean-out shall be
installed for each property at the property line, or a location specified by the Town.
103. 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.
104. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities including but not limited to
clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation of land, which disturbs 1 acre or more which
are part of a larger common plan of development which disturbs less than 1 acre are
required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State Water
Resources Control Board. The Applicant is required to provide proof of WDID# and keep
a current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the construction
site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the
Parks and Public Works Department and/or Building Department upon request.
105. 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.
106. STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF: All new development and redevelopment
projects are subject to the Stormwater development runoff requirements. Every applicant
shall submit a stormwater control plan and implement conditions of approval that reduce
stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and maintenance of
treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures.
Increases in runoff volume and flows shall be managed in accordance with the
development runoff requirements in such a way that post-development flows meet or are
below pre-development flows.
107. 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 landscaping to treat stormwater.
108. LANDSCAPING: In finalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment area, it is
recommended that the landscape architect ensure that the characteristics of the selected
plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention areas in Appendix D of
the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook.
109. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and
submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A
Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects
disturbing more than one acre. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of
an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season.
Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before
installation of the final landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall
include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion
control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention
basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water
quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP
shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3
and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County NPDES MRP Permit. Monitoring for erosion
and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the QSD or QSP as required by
the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge
locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit
Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan is
required when there is a 50% or greater forecast of rain within the 48 hours, by the
National Weather Service or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and
save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from
(http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecast) and must accompany monitoring reports and sampling
test data. A Rain gauge is required on site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division
of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department will conduct
periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify
compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and
regulations.
110. 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 shall 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.
111. 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.
112. 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.
113. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: A storm water management plan shall be
included with the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as
defined in the amended provisions C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES
Permit, Order R2-2009-074. The plan shall delineate source control measures and BMP’s
together with the sizing calculations. The plan shall be certified by a professional pre-
qualified by the Town. In the event that storm water measures proposed on the Planning
approval differ significantly from those certified on the Building/Grading Permit, the Town
may require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of the Building Permit.
The Applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility.
114. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOTES: The following note shall be added to
the storm water management plan: “The biotreatment soil mix used in all stormwater
treatment landscapes shall comply with the specifications in Attachment L of the MRP.
Proof of compliance shall be submitted by the contractor to the Town of Los Gatos 30 days
prior to delivery of the material to the job site using the Biotreatment Soil Mix Supplier
Certification Statement.”
115. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Certification from the
biotreatment soils provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division
Inspection staff 30 days prior to delivery of the material to the job site. Additionally
deliver tags from the soil mix shall also be provided to Engineering Division Inspection
staff. Sample Certification can be found here:
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml?zoom_highlight=BIOTREATMENT+SOIL
116. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The owners of the three
properties shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater
treatment facilities required to be installed on this project by Town’s Stormwater Discharge
Permit and all current amendments or modifications. The agreement shall specify that
certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the owners of the three properties and
shall also specify facility maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement shall also
specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall
be recorded prior to release of any occupancy permits.
117. 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.
118. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a
person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of
goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an
encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
Department. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and
debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage
facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be
allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued. The Developer's representative in charge
shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way
according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at
the Developer's expense.
119. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: The Applicant shall
initiate a weekly neighborhood e-mail notification program to provide project status
updates. The e-mail notices shall also be posted on a bulletin board placed in a prominent
location along the project perimeter.
120. PERMIT ISSUANCE: Permits for each phase; reclamation, landscape, and grading, shall
be issued simultaneously.
121. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be
covered.
122. FUTURE STUDIES: Any post project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed
by Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Applicant.
123. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall enter into an
agreement to construct public improvements in accordance with Town Code Section
24.40.020. The Applicant shall supply suitable securities for all public improvements that
are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100%
(performance) and 100% (labor and materials) prior to issuance of any permit. Applicant
shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying the cost of the public improvements to
the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
124. UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW: Letters from the electric, telephone, cable, and trash
companies indicating that the proposed improvements and easements are acceptable shall
be provided prior to recordation of the parcel map.
125. ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES: The Applicant shall submit a 75-percent progress printing
to the Town for review of above ground utilities including backflow prevention devices,
fire department connections, gas and water meters, off-street valve boxes, hydrants, site
lighting, electrical/communication/cable boxes, transformers, and mail boxes. Above
ground utilities shall be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to
issuance of any permit.
126. PRIVATE EASEMENTS: Agreements detailing rights, limitations, and responsibilities of
involved parties shall accompany each private easement. The easements and associated
agreements shall be recorded simultaneously with the parcel map.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
127. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located within the designated
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the
provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance
shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check
with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements.
128. 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. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by LGTC.
129. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with
applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-
7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the
project. CFC Chapter 33.
130. 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. CFC Sec. 505.1
131. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS: The minimum clear width of fire department access
roads shall be 20 feet. Modifications to the design or width of a fire access road, or
additional access road(s) may be required when the fire code official determines that access
to the site or a portion thereof may become compromised due to emergency operations or
nearby natural or manmade hazards (flood prone areas, railway crossings, bridge failures,
hazardous material- related incidents, etc. Refer to SCCFD SD&S A-1 and A-6, available
on our web site www.sccfd.org in the Fire Resources and Services Section, Fire Prevention
CFC Chapter 5.
132. FIRE LANE MARKING: Detailed plans showing the location of the lanes may be
required. Fire apparatus access roads, driveways and access ways shall not be marked as
fire lanes without first obtaining Fire Department approval. Fire lanes shall be identified by
red curb marking, signage or roadway surface marking as specified in our SD&S A-6. CFC
Chapter 5.
133. DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall
be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office that requires
that the owners of the three properties be responsible for keeping the shared driveway
signed, marked, free and clear for fire department access. The property owner of Lot 2 shall
keep Lot 2’s driveway apron signed, marked, free and clear for fire vehicle turnaround with
the exception of the surface parking space.
N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2016\Union15975-appeal.docx
April 25, 2016
To : Members of Lo s Gatos Town Council
M-17-c:x::> r
5-/7 -~'1-c::>//
pi-. ', .....
,.._ L.. u..
,..j H L J 2016
Ms. Barbara Spector -Mayor, Ms . Marica Sayoc -Vice Mayor, M s. Marcia Jensen -Council Member
Mr. Steven Leonardis -Council member, Mr. Rob Rennie -Council Member
SUBJECT : Appeal of Planning Commission Denial on March 9, 2016 of Application for 15975 Union Avenue.
Subdivision Application M-15-061, Architectural and Site Application S-15-009 through S-15-011
I ask the Town Council to denv the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's motion of March 9th,2016.
MOTION : Motion by Commissioner O'Donnell to deny Subdivision Application M-15-001 and Architecture and Site
Applications S-15-009 through S-15-011 on the basis that the subdivision does not satisfy the State Subdivision
Map Act, In Particular subsections (b), (c), and (d). Motion Passed by 6 for and 1 against vote.
I have resided at 15892 Union Avenue for 43 years . My home is across Union and to the northeast of the subject
property. I have observed many changes to this neighborhood during this period, some good and some not so
good. In my opinion, this application fits the not so good category.
The Planning Commission thoroughly vetted this application and made clear findings for their denial. The applicant
has failed to address many concerns that were made by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee way back
in August 2014, as well as concern s expressed at the Planning Commission's January 27th meeting. Instead , the
applicant has made minor adjustments, but insisted in pursuing and steam rolling their initial development plan .
There are many area s of concern that make the applicant's site proposal suspect.
Traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle safety: At the present time the intersection of Blossom Hill and Union are major.
High traffic volume, speeding car s, merging traffic of two lanes to one w ithin150 feet of the corner, and no
pedestrian cros swalks within over 900 feet (Thomas Drive). In addition, there is no sidewalk beyond the first 250
feet on the east side of Union requiring pedestrians walking from east to west and toward LG Almaden Blvd to cross
four lanes of traffic to get to a walkway . These are but a few of current problems .
New Plan : The new proposal is to add a fourth lane for right turns on Union to Blossom Hill and locate a bicycle lane
between the two right hand lanes. We all support having bicycle lanes in the community but, sanity regarding safety
should prevail. A member of the Town's Bicycle Safety Committee testified at the March 9th Planning Commi ssion
that it would take a very skilled rider to be able to navigate the proposed bicycle lane plan much less expect
students from our four local school s to be able to safely maneuver with this bicycle lane plan. Once entering
Blossom Hill there is not room for continuing a lane to the east and within 100 yards to the west there are no curbs
and it becomes City of San Jose jurisdiction. Not good planning and this needs to be looked at much more carefully.
Summary: In addition to traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle safety, additional project concerns including, drainage
issues due to surface and subterranean water tables, shared driveway maintenance respon sibilities (everyone 's
re sponsibility is no one 's re spon sibility), lot den sity, code interpretations and pos sible violations, and building
heights all were fa ctored in the Planning Commiss ion deci sion.
I request that the Town Coun ci l su pport the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal.
Orville Buesing
15892 Union Avenue , ATTACHMENT 1 3
Lo s Gatos, CA 95032
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Members of the Los Gatos Town Council
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos CA 95030
Attn: Ms. Barbara Spector, Mayor
Ms. Marica Sayoc, Vice Mayor
Ms. Marcia Jensen, Council Member
Mr. Steven Leonardis, Council Member
Mr. Rob Rennie, Council Member
RECEIVED
1"'1 1-:i 2016
M-J'? -CO I
S-J~-a:::Yf--/)/ J
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial on March 9, 2016 of Application for 15975
Union Avenue. Subdivision Application M-15-061, Architectural and Site Application S-15-009
through S-15-011
Dear Town Council Members:
I encourage you to DENY the applicant's appeal of the motion of the Planning Commission of
March 91h, 2016.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner O'Donnell to deny Subdivision Application M-15-001
and Architecture and Site Applications S-15-009 through S-15-011 on the basis that the
subdivision does not satisfy the State Subdivision Map Act, in particular subsections (b),
(c), and (d)
Motion passed by 6-1 vote.
As a resident of this neighborhood in Los Gatos for almost 41 years I have been an acti ve
participant in the public review of numerous housing projects in the
Blossom Hill/Union/Panorama area. I invest the time to help the present home owners and
the future home owners that are not always well represented during this process. I have
worked in some manner with all of you except Councilman Rennie on other applications and I
am hopeful that you will deny this faulty appeal.
The project area itself is the tributary to many of the drainage issues that were documented in
the 15928 Union Avenue proposal planning process (directly North East of this project).
Additionally, this project is adjacent to a very busy intersection that is one of the East gateways
(Blossom Hill Road) into Lo s Gatos and a very busy gateway (Union Avenue) to the
neighborhood's schools, shopping center and Highway 85 . This sensitive traffic gateway also
cycles during morning commutes to bring heavier traffic East to West and South to North and in
the afternoon brings heavier traffic West to East and North to South. It should also be noted
the volume of traffic at this intersection dynamically increases as the congestion on Highway 85
increases, for again Union Avenue and Blossom Hill Road provide alternate routes for the traffic
on 85.
This project supported one ranch style house and many native trees for 60 plus years. I know it
is common for Architects and Developers to call a proposed project area an eye sore, but this
area is really a continuation of the forestry and grade that is native to that section of Blossom
Hill Road . I for one as a long time neighbor would be more critical of seeing three towering
boxy two story houses with a common driveway that would diminish the normal landscape
screening that is typically see n in a non-shared driveway project.
Reason for Denial: Area A -Los Gatos General Plan/Code Problems
I believe this three lot/house proposal is not supported by the Los Gatos General Plan . In fact I
believe the proposed plan uses two "questionable definition interpretations" and therefore is
not fully supported by the Town code or the intent of its' stated goals and words. In a meeting
with Community Director Paulson to addres s my multiple emails requests (See attachments)
that asked for the spec ific town code that supported the shared driveway concept Director
Paulson sited two definitions as the basis of all owing the shared driveway concept fo r this
project:
1) Questionable Interpretation #1. Blossom Hill Road is the frontage for lots 2 and 3.
From Los Gatos 29.10.020 Definitions
Lot. frontage means the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords
access to a lot other than the side line of a corner lot. On a corner lot either
property line on a street may be determined to be the frontage.
Blo sso m Hill Road is the Southern property line on this project but it DOES NOT afford access to
any of these three proposed lots du e to a signific ant grade change .
Que stionable Interpretation #2. Shared Driveway can be included in the lot size calculations .
From Los Gatos 29.10.020 Definitions
Lot area means the total horizontal area included within lot lines, except as
otherwise provided in the chapter, and excluding land required for public
dedication and any land determined to be riparian habitat..
Becau se share d driveways are NOT addressed in the city code , this is in vio lation s of two
Federal cases. This faulty interpretation does not address the spirit and intent of these two
federal ca ses or Lo s Gatos code Section 29,10.085 for corridor lots.
1 Loveladies Property Owners Ass'n, Inc . v. Barnegat City Service Co ., 60 N.J. Super. 491
(App. Div. 1960); (See attached)
2 Kefauver v. Zoning Bd., 151 Conn. 144 (1963). (See attached)
Los Gatos does address corridor lots in Sec. 29.10.085. which is fully compliant with the two
cases sited.
Sec. 29.10.085. ·Corridor lots.
The corridor to a corridor Jot shall not be more than three hundred (300) feet Jong nor less than twenty (20) feet
wide. The area of the corridor may not be applied toward satisfying the minimum lot area requirement. A corri dor
may not serve more than one (1) Jot. L ot frontage for a corridor Jot is an exception to the Jot frontage
requirements in all zones.
(Ord . No. 1316, § 3.10.040 , 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1 328, 8-2-76; Ord. No. 1349, 3-21-77)
PLEASE NOTE : If you do not allow the square footage of the shared driveway area in the l ot
calculations, lot 2 DOES NOT meet the 10,000 square feet zoning requirement. The simple
fact is that the only way for the Developer to SQUEEZE three lots into to this project is for the
Town to agree with both these questionable interpretations.
Reason for Denial: Area B-Safety
After attending the August 4th 2015 DRC meeting and the Planning Commission meeting of
January 29th 2016 and reviewing video of the March 9 th 2016, I have significant concerns about
safety issues due to the project's adjacency to the Blossom Hill and Union Intersection.
1) The Town has not seriously reviewed or studied the proposal or shown any on site
knowledge of the problems of the intersection/area . The traffic review
presentations to the Planning Committee were actually alarming and embarrassing .
The Town needs a better understanding with accurate statistics presented before
approval of this project. You will note in your review of previous proceedings that
even Commission members were questioning some of data that was presented by
the Town's Traffic Engineer.
2) The Developer's Consultants from Gilroy appear not to have knowledge of the
area/intersection comings and goings that would make me comfortable with their
proposal analysis and review.
3) The shared driveway: Brings safety is sue s of access, scattered project visitor parking
and is in reality a paved front yard for these three proposed homes. With the shared
driveway, the Developer gets one extra house and three homes with a FAR size
bonus. I realize the fire department has approved the design for it meets the
hammer head specifications. However, the designated hammer head resides in the
middle of the contiguous driveway with additional parking restrictions for lot 2 to
preserve the hammerhead. The shared driveway which was 24 feet at one time has
been narrowed to 20 foot minimum width design. Projected illegal parked cars are
always shown aligned parallel to the driveway, and yet the garage doors on lot
number one are perpendicular to the shared driveway! The design ignores common
sense single home driveway usage and i s very problematic for the future home
owners (and visitors) who have no voice in this process and will not fully understand
the proposal's constraints when they purchase their homes.
My observations of the proceedings and knowledge do not make me comfortable that th e
Developer, consultants or the To w n's Traffic Engineer has sufficiently done their home work
adequately for you to approve thi s proposal. As a single exa mple in the Ma rch 9 th 2016
me eting, there was a question if a guard rail would be advisable on Blossom Hill Ro ad due to
fact that potentially there would be three active play yard areas or sw imming pools built by
future hom e owners that would be adjacent to a high volume road separated by curb/sidewalk
and a wood fence. I found the Consultant's response that the code and books did not require a
guardrail to be unsettling and que stioned thi s project's commitment to safety. Additionally, this
project is adding bicycle lanes, poss ible turn lanes, and creating multiple add itional traffic
eg res s trips from the propose d development, yet it seems it has not been really thought out
completely by all the parties.
(For the record when the Blossom Hill Road/ Union Avenue intersection was redone for the
Leewood Court project, the intersection had a controlled right hand turn light from Blos som Hill
Road to Union Avenue. This right hand control light was taken out by a car acc ident and was
never replaced. This should be reviewed and possibly re-instated for safety reasons.)
Reason for Denial: Area C -Drainage .
Swales and retention pond s are today's solution to all drainage issues . Remember th ere is no
hom e owner association e ntity in this project. Swales and retention plans are not understood
by typical home owners and are not properly su pported by the Town when additional
sw imming pools are permitted or hom e owner landscape chang es are implemented an d made
in good faith. Please note again th at this area is the tributary area of drainage issues, the
swa le s and retention ponds need to have proper maintenance and understand ing for them to
be effective with the pa ss ing of time . In the absence of a HOA, the Developer an d Town are
creating pote ntial leg al is sue s that are unfair to the future home owners and unfa irly pa sse d off
as a condition of purchase.
(I am a victim of thi s approach use d on 15928 Union Avenue project, so I spea k from direct
factual experience .)
Reason for Denial: Area D -Design: Home Heights.
The Arc hitect stated he de signs only ten feet in height first floors and so metimes nine foot
instead of ten f ee t in height on second floors . The t en and nine foot floor he ights in this proj ect
for all three hom es are not a co de requirements but are usual ly what the Developer "wants" for
it's pe rceived sa le benefit to maximize the home's squ are footage pric ing. However, when
homes meet code but are physical towering over existing homes, because of grading, there
should be flexibility on the Developer's part to review the floor plate height requirements . The
Architect says they made grading adjustments by lowering the finish grade to minimize the
towering, but a good review of the story pole heights without the ma sking and distraction of
the existing forestry validates that more needs to be done. This project should be denied even
though the developer has met code for the proposal is not a good neighbor to the existing
home owners who have asked for lower home heights for view and privacy concerns.
Specifically lot 3 proposal i s the most egregious in this respect. Architects are also trained to
build and respect the site and the neighborhood, this project does not display that respect.
Summary:
This project was presented at two Planning Commission meetings and the project was denied
by a vote of 6-1. The Developer is asking for three lots/homes to make the project viable and is
stating a $800,000 expenditure in land surrender costs and necessary improvements. This
amount will likely be 10% of the gross sales for the proposed three homes in today's housing
market and would likely grow only to about 12.5% for a two home development. It is not in the
Town's charter to make questionable projects viable because of cost to sales ratios. The ·
Developer wants the maximum number of lots/homes, with a square FAR footage bonus with
excessive heights. Additionally, the Developer wants the future home owners to be burdened
by drainage maintenance and safety issues that involve such simple things as where a home
owner or visitor can park in their driveway. It is you as Council Members who are chartered to
do what is right for the Town, neighborhood and the future home owners. This project as I have
outlined is deficient in four areas: A: Town code, B: Safety, C: Drainage maintenance and
suppo rt, D: Design. The Planning Commission on March 9th 2016 made the proper findings for
the project denial. I would ask you to support them, the neighborhood, and the Town of Los
Gatos with your denial of this appea l.
Thank you,
Tom Mangano (Assoc. A IA)
112 Panorama Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Attachments:
From: Laurel Prevetti [mailto:LPrevetti @losgatosca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:22 PM
To: thomas mangano
Cc: Marcia Jensen; BSpector
Subject: RE: Code/ordinance support r equest for 15975 Union Avenue #3
Good evening,
Thank you for your email. I understand that our Planning Manager, Joel Paul son, will be meeting with
you later this week to respond to your inquiry.
We look forward to working with you and a ppreciat e your patience .
Th ank you,
Laurel
From: thomas mangano [mailto:manqano.t homa s@ q mai l.com ]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 6 :04 PM
To: Laurel Prevetti
Cc: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; 'thomas mangano'
Subject: Code/ordinance support request for 15975 Union Avenue #3
Ms . Prevetti.
Thank you for your October 5th reply but unfortunately I still have not re ceived a response as you
outlined . I am not aware if the project proposal with its ' "hybrid " approach (word as used by the
Deve loper's architect to describe the site map proposal) ha s been modified to comply with exi sting town
codes and ordinances. Clearly if the hybrid site map approach is pursued, this project should not be a
candidate for a final approval at the DRC level.
I appreciate and respect the work and work load of your staff, but I find th is project so creative to
ma xi mize the applicant's lot count and home sizes that I think it may be o ut si de the boundaries of the
gov erning town codes and ordi nances .
Because of my belief I have been trying verbally and in writing since 7 /30/15 to obtain or be po i nted to
the specific codes or ordinances that allows this proposed hybrid approach to the project's site map and
its' very favorable developer allowances .
Thank you in advan ce for addressing my request.
Tom Mangano
From: Laurel Prevetti [ma ilto:LPrevetti@ losgatosca .gov]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 1:13 PM
To: thomas mangano
Cc: Joel Paulson
Subject: RE: (T.Mangano) Code/ordinance support request fo r 15975 Union Avenue #2
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your request. We are working on a reply and should have something for you early next
week.
Thank you,
Laurel
From: thomas mangano [mailto :manqano .thomas@qma il.com]
Sent: Monday, October OS, 2015 11:54 AM
To: Town Manager
Cc: Marcia Jensen ; BSpector; 'thomas mangano'
Subject: Code/ordinance support request for 15975 Union Avenue #2
Ms. Prevetti, Los Gatos Town Manager
I am following up on my request of 8/28 that unfortunately, to date, I have not received any
response to. Can you please direct the appropriate person on your staff to address my
information request, for the developer is requesting a neighborhood meeting prior to the
next DRC meeting on this application(s) (M-15-001, S-15-009, S-15-011). The property is
located at 15975 Union and a CDAC meeting was held on August 13, 2014 with yourself and
Vice-Mayor Spector in attendance and Mayor Jensen an absence attendee. An initial DRC
meeting was also held on 9 / 4 /15 with a continuance to a date uncertain.
Thank you in advance for you addressing my information request.
Tom Mangano
From: thomas mangano [mailto:mangano.thomas@qmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 2:14 PM
To: 'Laurel Prevetti'
Cc: joaul son @lo sqatosca.gov; MMor le y@ losqatosca .gov; 'thomas mangano'
Subject: Code/ordinance support request for 15975 Union Avenue
I am requesting that the Town provide me with the Los Gatos Codes or Ordinances that
s upport the Developer's submitted plans for the 15975 Union property allowing the three
homes as proposed to 1) Share a single driveway for access 2) Be allowed to include the
"access area" to qualify the lots for minimum square footage as d e fined by Los Gatos code
Sec. 29.40.400, 3) Allow the "access area" to be placed within the set back standard areas
as defined by Los Gatos code Sec. 29.40.405.
There are two known court ruling cases that address these conditions:
1 Loveladies Pro perty Owne r s A ss'n, I n c . v. Barnegat City Service Co., 60 N.J .
Supe r. 491 (App. Div. 1 960);
2 Kefauver v . Zoning Bd., 151 Conn. 1 44 ( 1 963).
"What can a developer do if its development requires the precious square footage
contained within those easement areas to meet zoning requirements? A close reading of the
case law reveals that courts usua l ly analyze whether the developer can use t h e easement
area for its proposed use. In Kefauver, the court refused to allow use of the easement a r ea
because "the easement effectively prevents [the applicants] from using any part of the
macadamized service road as a front yard for their enterprise .... " Sometimes, this
analysis focuses on the definition of the term "l ot." In Loveladies, the ordinance defined the
term "lot" as "land o n which a main building and its accessory buildings are or may be
p laced, together with the required open spaces, the location, dimensions and boundaries of
which are shown on the records of Ocean County." Based on this defin ition, the court found
that the easement areas, which could neither be built upon nor categorized as open space,
were not part of the "lot." However, the court noted that the municipality could amend its
ordinance to specifically allow the use of such areas in calculating "lot" requirements.
Before movi ng forward with an application that includes a lot containing road
easement areas or a potential roadway dedication, a developer must closely examine the
applicabl e zoning or d i na nce, and particularly the defin ition of the term "lot," to determine if
t he ordinance perm its the use of such areas to meet yard and setback r equi rements. If it
does not, the developer shou ld not run the risk of obtaining an inval id approval by including
the area in its lot requirement calcu l ations . Even if the land use board agrees to allow the
developer to use the easement areas in its calculations, the developer should either seek a
variance or go throug h the forma l ordinance amendment process to avoid a thi rd-party
attack on the approval's validity . Although a variance request would increase the developer's
burden of proof and an ordinance amendment cou l d s low t h e development process, these
options wou l d better serve a developer seeking to protect the approval rights in its
devel opment"
Th ese two rulings stat ed that developers cou ld n ot d o as is outlined in #1, #2 and #3 above,
u n less t he jurisd ic t io n had code or ordi nances to a llo w it. In my reading of Los Gatos Code
Sectio n 29.10.085, th e co d e sectio n s u p p orts both co u rt rulings a nd th erefor e makes the
a r chitect ural drawin gs as s u b m itte d to t h e Pla nning De p a r t ment non-compliant with this
co d e.
Los Gatos Code Sec. 29.10.085. -Corridor lots.
The corridor to a corridor lot shall not be more than three hundred (300) feet long nor less than
twenty (20) feet wide. The area of the corridor may not be applied toward satisfying the
minimum lot area requirement. A corridor may not serve more than one (1) lot. Lot frontage for
a corridor lot is an exception to the lot frontage requirements in all zones.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.10.040, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1328, 8-2-76; Ord. No. 1349, 3-21-77)
The Ko hl saat & Associat e Arc h itecture letter of February 9, 2015 states "a ll three parcels
w ill have vehicular access via a twenty four foo t wide share ingress/egress easements
North to South. It should also be noted the volume of traffic iat this intersection dynamically
increases as the congestion on 85 increases, for again Union Avenue and Blossom Hill Road
become significant alternate routes for the traffic on 85.
This project supported one ranch style house and many native trees for 50 plus years. I know it
common for Architects and Developers to call ·a propose project areas an eye sore, but this area
is really a continuation of the forestry and grade that is native to that section of Blossom Hill
Road and I for one as a long time neighbor would be more critical of seeing three towering boxy
two story houses with a common driveway that would diminish the normal landscape screening
you would typically see in a non-shared driveway project.
Reason for Denial: Area A-Los Gatos General Plan/Code Problems
I believe this three houses proposal is not supported by the Los Gatos General Plan. In fact I
believe the proposed plan uses two "questionable definition interpretations" and therefore is
not fully supported by the Town code or the intent of its' stated word. In a meeting with
Community Director Paulson to addres~ my multiple emails requests that asked for the speci fic
town code that supported the shared driveway concept Director Paulson sited two defin ition s
as the basis of allowing the shared driveway concept for this project:
1) Questionable Interpretation 1. Blossom Hill Road is the frontage for lots 2 and 3.
From Los Gatos 29.10.020 Definitions
Lot, frontage means the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords
access to a lot other than the side line of a corner lot. On a corner lot either
property line on a street may be determined to be the frontage.
Blossom Hill Road is the Southern property line on this project but it DOES NOT afford access to
any of these three proposed lots due to a significant grade change . The fact is that Blossom Hill
Road does not afford access to these three proposed lots ..
2) Questionable Interpretation 2. Shared Dri veway can be used for lot size calculations .
From Los Gatos 29.10.020 Definitions
Lot area means the total horizontal area included within lot lines, except as
otherwise provided i n the chapter, and excludi ng land required for public
dedication and any land determined to be riparian habitat..
Because shared driveways are NOT addres s in the city code, this is in violations of two Federa l
cases . This faulty interpretation does not addre ss the spirit and intent of these two federal
cases or Los Gatos code Section 29,10.085.
1 Loveladies Property Owners Ass 'n, Inc. v . Barnegat City Service Co., 60 N.J . Super . 491
(App . Div. 1960); (See attached)
2 Kefauver v . Zoning Bd., 151 Conn . 144 (1963). (See attached)
Los Gatos does address corridor lots in Sec. 29 .10.085 . which is fully compliant with the two
cases sited .
Sec . 29 .10.085 . -Corri dor lots.
The corridor to a corridor lot shall not be more than three hundred (300) feet long nor less than twenty (20) feet
wide. The area of the corridor may not be applied toward satisfying the minimum lot area requirement. A corridor
may not serve more than one (1) lot. Lot frontage for a corridor lot is an exception to the lot frontage
requirements in all zones.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.10.040, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1328, 8-2-76 ; Ord. No. 1349, 3-21-77)
PLEASE NOTE: If you do not allow square feet in the lot calculations lot 2 DOES NOT meet the
10,000 square feet zoning requirement. The simple fact is that the only way for the
Developer to SQUEEZE three lots into to this project is for the Town to agree w i th both these
questionable interpretations.
Reason for Denial: Area B-Safety
After attending the August 4th 2015 DRC meeting and the Planning Commission meeting of
January 29th 2016 and reviewing video of the March gth 2016, I have significant concerns about
safety issues due the adjacency of the Blossom Hill and Union Intersection.
1) The Town has not seriously reviewed or studied the proposal or shown any on site
knowledge of the problems of the intersection/area. The traffic review
presentations were actually alarming and embarrassing. The Town needs a better
understanding then statistics before you approve this project. You will note in your
review of previous proceedings that even Commission members were questioning
some of data that was presenting by the Town's Traffic Engineering.
2) The Developer's Consultants from Gilroy appear not to have knowledge of the
area/i ntersection com i ngs and goings that would make me comfortable with their
proposal analysis and review.
3) The shared driveway: Brings safety issues of access, scattered public parking and is
really a paved front yard for these three proposed homes. With the shared driveway
the Developer gets one extra house and three homes w ith a FAR size bonus. I don't
care if the fire department approved it for it meets a hammer head specification. I
The designated hammer head resides in the middle of the contiguous driveway . It is
a poor narrow design (Cars are always aligned parallel to the driveway, even when
the garage is perpendicular to driveway!) that ignores common sense driveway
usage and is very problematic for the future home owners (and visitors) who have
no voice in this process and will not fully understand the proposal's constraints
when they purchase their homes .
My observations and knowledge do not make me comfortable that the Developer, consultants
or the Town 's Traffic Engineers has sufficiently done their home work adequately for you to
approve this proposal today. As a single example in the March 9 th 2016 meeting there was
questions if a guard rail wou ld be advisable on Blossom Hill Road , due to fact that there would
be three active play area yards or pools area in the future home owners adjacent to a high
volume road separated by curb/sidewalk and a wood fence. I found the Consu ltant's response
that the code and books did not require a guardrail to be unsettling and questioned this
project's commitment to safety. Additionally, this project that is adding bicycle lanes, po ss ible
turn lanes , and creating multiple additional traffic egres s trips from the proposed development,
yet it seems it has not been really thought out completely by all the parties.
(For the record when the Blossom Hill Road/ Union Avenue intersection was redone for the
Leewood Court project, the intersection had a contro lled right hand turn light from Blossom Hill
Road to Union Avenue. This right hand control light was taken out with by an accident and was
never replaced. This should be reviewed and possibly re-instated for safety reasons .)
Reason for Denial: Area C-Drainage.
Swales and retention ponds are today's solution to all drainage issues. Remember there is no
home owner association entity in this project. Swa le s and retention plans are not understood
by typical home owners and are not properly supported by the Town when additional pools are
permitted or home owner landscape changes are implemented and made in good faith . Plea se
note again this area is the tributary area of drainage issues, the sw ales and retention ponds
needs proper maintained and understanding for them to be effective with the passing of time.
In the absence of HOA the Developer and Town are creating potential legal issues that are
unfair to the future home owners and unfairly passed off as a condition of purchase.
(I am a victim of this approach used on 15982 Union Avenue project, so I speak from direct
factual experience.)
Reason for Denial: Area D -Design: Home Heights.
The Architect stated he designs only 10' first floor and so metimes 9' instead of 10', second
floors. Ten and nine foot floors are not a code requirement s but are usually what the Developer
"wants" for it's a perceived sale benefit for their maximum square foot asking price. However,
when homes meet code but are physical towering over existing homes, because of grading
there should be flexibility on Developer's part. The Architect says they made grading
adju stments by lowering the finish grade. This project should be denied for developer has met
code but has not been a good neighbor to the existing home owners who have asked him to
address home height specifically in the lot 3 proposal. Architects are also trained to build and
respect the site and the neighborhood, this project does not display that respect.
Summary:
As this project was presented in the Planning Commission the project was denied by a vote of
6-1 after a continuance after the January 29th 2016 meeting which I was able to speak .. The
developer is asking for 3 homes to make the project viable and is stating a $800,000
expenditure in land surrender and improvements . This amount will likely be less 10% of the
gross sales for the three homes in today's housing market. It is not in the Town's charter to
make questionable projects viable because of cost to sales ratios. The Developer wants the
maximum number houses, with a square footage bonus with an excessive height and also
wants the future home owners to be burden by drainage maintenance and safety issues that
involve such simple things as where an home owner or visitor can park in their driveway. It is
you Council Members who are chartered to do what is right for the Town, neighborhood and
the future home owners. This project as I have outline is presently deficient in 4 areas: 1: Town
code, 2: Safety, 3: drainage maintenance support, 4: Design. The Planning Commission on
March 9th 2016 made the proper findings for the project denial. I would ask you to support
them, the neighborhood, and the Town of Los Gatos with your denial of this appeal.
Thank you,
Tom Mangano (Assoc. AIA)
112 Panorama Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
along the Northerly property line". In their Jetter of April 10, 2015 they state "all three
parcels will have vehicle access via a twenty four foot wide shared ingress/egress". Also in
the April 10 letter, "shared access is a challenge", "each property will own their portion of
the easement"
With the 15928 Union developments, a similar design was proposed for the two homes on
the Panorama Way side of the project. That proposal was turned down both by the Town
Planning Commission and the Town Council upon appeal; for they felt the applicant was
creating a corridor lot. As one Council member stated (Councilman Rice). "If it looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is a duck!"
I brought this same Love ladies and Kefauver question to Planning Department Staff and the
Planning Commission in 2010 and never received an answer, however, the 15928
development went in another direction so I did not continue pursue the question. I have
brought this question again to Associate Planner Ms. Jennifer Savage on July 30, 2015 and
again have not received an answer that supports this approach, yet the project Architect of
this project builds his proposal based on "CDAC input", not supportive Los Gatos Code or
Ordinance.
I am formally asking for the foundation and supportive codes and/or ordinances that
support and allows the 15975 Union Avenue to skirt the issues (1, 2, 3) that I have stated. I
would ask that the information be provided to me prior to any future Development Review
Committee meeting where the 15975 Union property is on the agenda. I believe the code
support would be helpful to all parties, and would help me address the issues properly so
an appeal would not be necessary because of a lack of such information prior to the DRC
meeting.
Thank you,
Tom Mangano
112 Panorama Way, Los Gatos CA 95032
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank