16�pW N 0
I 'W w
SOS G AtdS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: July 29, 2013
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 08/05/13
ITEM NO. 1
ADOPTION OF A REVISED HEIGHT POLE AND NETTING POLICY
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached resolution (Attachment 7) adopting a revised Height Pole and Netting
Policy.
BACKGROUND:
On June 4, 2012, the Town Council reviewed the Planning Commission Height Pole and Netting
Policy. The Council provided direction to staff to further evaluate alternatives to the installation
of story poles on properties where poles are infeasible or unsafe, and to develop exception
procedures.
At a September 4, 2012 Study Session the Council directed staff to revise the existing Policy to
include the following:
a. Procedures for allowing alternative methods to illustrate building height and location in
cases where installation of story poles is infeasible or unsafe.
b. Standards and specifications for the preparation of photo - simulations and models.
C. Standards for project information signs that will be posted on properties where a
development project is proposed.
d. Process for requesting an exception to story poles.
The Council also indicated a desire to establish an online development activity report to provide
project information, status (including any scheduled public hearings), graphic illustrations, staff
contact information, etc. for pending and recently approved projects.
The Council also asked staff to provide information on possible design changes to the current
public hearing notification cards that are mailed to residents prior to a public hearing.
PREPARED BY: Sandy L. Baily, Director of Community Development
1
Reviewed by: A2 Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
N:\DEV\TC REPORTS\2013 \StoryPoles Policy,8- 5- 13.doc Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Height Pole and Public Notice Policy
July 29, 2013
On April 1 2013, the Council considered a draft Height Pole and Netting Policy, and discussed
changes to the public hearing notice cards and establislunent of an online notification report for
pending, recently approved and projects under construction. The Council continued the matter
with specific direction to revise the policy as discussed below.
The Council also asked staff to provide any public comment related to this topic.
DISCUSSION:
The Height Pole and Netting Policy has been revised based on Council direction provided at the
April 1, 2013 meeting (see Exhibit A of Attachment 7). New text is shown in bold and deleted
text is shown with a strikeout. The Council directives and action(s) taken are as follows:
1. Strengthen the review process for granting exceptions, specifying that some form of poles
and netting is required for all projects required to install story poles.
The following changes were made to section G. (Exceptions):
• Criteria revised to require story poles and netting to be included in some form when
an exception is requested (page 3).
• Town Council review is required for any requested exception (pages 3 -4).
• Written notice of any requested exception will be sent to property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the project site (page 4).
• Any requested exception will be posted on the Town web -site under "What's New
in the online development activity report once that has been established and in agenda
posting locations at Town Hall and the Library (page 4).
2. Establish an online project summaiy (development activity report), which staff will bring
back as part of the budget.
A line item was added to the current budget for the design and implementation of an online
development activity report, and was approved with the adoption of the budget for fiscal
year 2013 -14. Staff is in the preliminary stage of developing a work program for this task.
3. Strengthen public notification cards — include graphics for large projects, if possible,
The color of the public notice cards will be changed once the remaining stock of buff
colored card stock is used. Staff estimates that the existing stock will be depleted in two to
three months. Staff is researching color options with other vendors as the Town's current
vendor has limited color options for the preferred card stock weight. Staff will contact the
Los Gatos Weekly Times and will post an announcement on the web -site under "What's
New" when the notice card color change is implemented.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Height Pole and Public Notice Policy
July 29, 2013
Staff is also investigating ways of adding a graphic to the notice cards so that a building
elevation or perspective of the proposed project can be added to the notice cards.
In the interest of cost savings and staff efficiency, it is recommend that the notice cards be
kept at the current 51/2" x 81/2" size and not increased in size. Currently one sheet of
cardstock yields two notice cards. If the size of the cards is increased it will result in a
large amount of wasted paper, as each sheet would need to be cut and only one notice card
could be generated from each sheet of card stock.
4. Sorne type of on -site physical representation. is required.
As noted above, section G. was modified to require story poles and netting to be included
in some form and /or on -site representation when an exception is requested (see page 3.).
5. Eliminate signage requirement for° single family ho7ves unless it is a sign indicating where
to view the proposed plans.
Sign criteria modified to not require a posted sign for additions to single family residences
and to specify that signs for new single family homes are required only to provide notice of
the public hearing date and that plans are available for review at the Community
Development Department (page 5).
6. Eliminate conflicting language describing the roof area that is required to be shown with
netting.
Language was revised in sections C and D to use the same term (rooflines) that is used in
the current policy.
Additionally, the following revisions were made to the policy:
• As directed by Council, certification requirement moved to section C (page 2).
• As directed by Council, language added indicating that the deciding body will take
the density of a project into account when considering a requested exception (page 3).
• As directed by Council, built to -scale models were added as an alternative to full
story poles (page 4).
• A graphic has been included in the policy showing sample poles and netting (page
• An exemption for one -story accessory structures was added to remain consistent with
current practice (page 1)
• Grammatical changes were made.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Height Pole and Public Notice Policy
July 29, 2013
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Two members of the public spoke at the April 1, 2013 Council meeting. John Shepardson
commented that story poles should be verified by a licensed surveyor or engineer. Lee Quintana
commented that partial installation of poles and netting does not accurately reflect the proposed
density of a project, and the use of cranes in -lieu of story poles does not provide a good sense of
mass and scale. In addition, both parties submitted written comments. Mr. Shepardon's written
comments were provided to the Council on April 1, 2013, as a desk item (see Attachment 4).
Ms. Quintana's commments were submitted at the April 1, 2013 Council meeting (see Attaclunent
5). No additional public cornrnents have been received since the April 1 Council meeting.
CONCLUSION:
The draft Height Pole and Netting Policy has been revised based on Town Council direction
provided at the April 1, 2013 meeting. The combination of story poles, project identification
signs, new public notification cards and the online development activity report will serve to
better inform the community of proposed land use applications. The revised policy also
standardizes the procedures for exceptions to the installation of complete story poles. Staff
recommends the Town Council adopt the resolution, including Exhibit A, Height Pole and
Netting Policy for Additions and New Construction (Attachment 7).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This action is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fiscal impacts related to implementation of the revised policy. The approved
budget for the design and implementation of an online development activity report is $30,000.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments 1 -3 (,previously received with the April 1 2013 Town Council Staff Report):
1. Draft Resolution Implementing the Town Council Height Pole and Netting Policy
2. September 4, 2012 Town Council Study Session Minutes
3. City of Cupertino Development Activity Report
Attaclunent 4 (previously received with the April 1 2013 Town Council Desk Item):
4. Email from John Shepardson (two pages), received April 1, 2013
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Height Pole and Public Notice Policy
July 29, 2013
Attaclunent 5 (previously received at the April 1 2013 Town Council meeting):
Comments from Lee Quintana (three pages), submitted at April 1, 2013 Council meeting.
Received with this Report
6. April 1, 2013 Town Council Minutes Excerpt (two pages)
7. Draft Resolution Implementing the Town Council Height Pole and Netting Policy for
Additions and New Construction
Distribution:
John. Shepardson, Esq., 59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite Q, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
TC:SA:ct
N; \DEV \TC REPORTS\ OMStoryPoles Policy- 080511doc
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
RESOLUTION 2013 -
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTING THE REVISED HEIGHT POLE AND NETTING POLICY
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos is committed to providing
information and opportunities to encourage community members to follow development activity in
their neighborhoods and to actively participate in the land use development review process; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the placement of story poles and project
identification signs are extremely helpful and important during the course of the Town's review of
applications for new development; and
WHE RE, story poles enhance understanding of the project and potential impacts for
Town residents, staff, advisory bodies, and the decision making bodies; and
WHEREAS, story poles and project identification signs also provide a visual notice to the
community of a forthcoming land use public hearing; and
WHEREAS, following a study session on proposed revisions to the Height Pole and Netting
Policy, the Town Council directed a number of revisions to the policy, including formalizing the
process for approving exceptions to the installation of story poles, incorporating standards for visual
simulations, and adding the requirement for project identification signs,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos does hereby adopt the revised Height Pole and Netting Policy attached as Exhibit A.
ATTAGF1 ;14T 1
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, held on the 1 st day of April, 2013, 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
NADPV\RES0S\2013 \Slott' Pole Policy Resolution.41 -11doc
Exhibit A
Height Pole and Netting Policy
For Additions and New Construction
7, Purpose:
It is a policy of the Town of Los Gatos Town Council to have story poles and project
identification signs installed on the sites of an active development application. The
placement of story poles is extremely helpful and important during the course of Town's
review of applications for new development. Proper and accurate placement of story
poles demonstrates the planned rooflines and heights and some indication of the potential
massing of the proposed structure, Story poles enhance understanding of the project for
Town residents, staff, advisory bodies, and the decision malting bodies, Story poles also
provide a visual notice to the community of a forthcoming land use public hearing.
Project identification signs present both written and graphical information that will
further communicate the proposed project to the community as well as provide the public
review dates and hearings for the development application.
This policy is for the benefit of the Town and community and is not intended to create a
requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
11, Height Poles and Netting:
Height story poles and netting shall be used for the following types of Community
Development Department, Planning Division land use applications:
New residential and non - residential buildings.
Residential second story additions.
Nonresidential additions exceeding 100 square feet.
The terms height poles and story poles are used interchangeably,
A. Procedure:
When it is determined that story poles are required, the applicant's engineer, architect
or building designer may be required to prepare a "Story Pole Plan" to indicate the
locations where the poles will be installed. The Story Pole Plan shall be approved by
the project planner prior to the placement of the poles on the site, Once approved, the
applicant shall inform the project planner when the placement of the story poles is
complete and submit photographs showing installation. The story poles shall be
installed consistent with the following requirements:
EXHIBIT A
Of Attachment 1
Residential; The height poles and netting shall be installed prior to the neighborhood
notification process and shall remain in place until the project has been acted upon,
including any appeals.
Projects that Require PlanniIng Commission or Town Council Action: The height
poles and netting shall be installed prior to the public noticing of the matter and shall
be kept in place until the project has been acted upon and the appeal period has
ended. If the project is appealed, the height poles and netting shall remain until the
appeal has been acted upon.
B. Timing
Public notioes will hot be mailed and /or notification shall not be adveili.sed until a
Story Pole Plari has been approved by Town staff, the height poles and netting have
been installed, and photographs have been submitted to Town staff, as required in
Section II.A.
C. Location and Number
The number of story poles may vary with each specific project, At the discretion of
the project planner, story pole locations shall adequately demonstrate the projected
height, mass, and bulls of the project requiring review. At a minimum, story poles
will be placed at all outside building corners and along the prominent roof ridges of
the structure(s), Trees may not be "flagged" or used as a substitute for the erection of
story poles. After the placement of the story poles on -site, the applicant shall provide
the project planner with photographs of the story poles taken from a variety of
vantage points. The vantage point from where the photograph was taken shall be
indicated on each photograph.
D. Materiars:
The material of the story poles shall be indicated on the Story Pole Plan. Story poles
shall be constructed of.2 "x4" lumber or other sturdy building material acceptable to
the project planrier, Telephone poles; mechanical equipment, such as cranes; or other
materials may be acceptable for higher structures if the Community Development
Director determines that the material will adequately portray the height, bulk, and
mass of the structure(s) and withstand the wind and 'weather. At least two feet (2')
wide orange woven plastic snow fencing (netting) must be erected to represent the
rooflines and project structure /addition height. Netting must be supported by height
poles that are strong. enough to accurately maintain the outlines of and height of the
structure(s). One of the height poles on each elevation ifiust be clearly marked and.
labeled in five foot (S') incitements measured from egisting or finished grade,
whichever creates a higher profile, and consistent with approved Story Pole Plans on
file at the Community Development Department.
E. Story pole Plan and Public Safety:
All story poles shall be placed, braced and supported to ensure the health, safety and
general welfare of the public. The Story Pole Plan shall include the methods used to
secure the poles. Applicants shall sign an agreement that holds the Town harmless
for any liability associated with the construction of, or damage caused by the story
poles. If at any time, the Town determines the story poles to be unsafe, they shall be
repaired and reset immediately by the project applicant or, at the Town's discretion,
removed. Depending on the scope of the poles, the applicant may be requested to
verify with the Building Division of the Community Development Department that
no permits and /or inspections are required for the poles.
The Story Pole Plan shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor, civil engineer, architect,
or building designer to certify the height and position of the poles accurately
represent the height and location of'the proposed structure(s),
F. Exceptions:
In the event there are justifiable reasons why the story poles cannot be accommodated
on the project site, the applicant shall submit a letter to the Community Development
Director no later than 45 days prior to the required installation date, clearly
articulating the reasons why an exception to the Story Pole requirement is not
feasible. Requests for an exception and alternative plan will only be considered if the
applicant can clearly demonstrate to the Town, and the Town agrees, that the
installation of the story poles would: (1) cause a threat to public health and safety or
(2) would impair the use of existing structure(s) or the site to the extent it would not
be able to be occupied and the business or residential use would be infeasible.
Plamaed Development applications with multi commercial structures and /or
residential units may also request to erect story poles on the locations where the key
structures will be placed. The story poles shall be installed on all corner structures
and the structures with the greatest height and mass. An exception to providing story
poles for all structures in a Planned Development application with multi commercial
structures and /or residential units shall follow the same procedures as outlined below,
The Town Manager will review all justifiable requests for an exception to the Story
Pole requirement within 14 days of receipt of the request. Within 10 days of the
Town Manager's decision, the Mayor or two Council members may request that the
Town Manager's decision be placed on the next available Town Council agenda for
review and to affirm, deny, or modify the Town Manager's decision. If no request
from Council is received during this period, the Town Manager's determination will
be communicated to the applicant. All approved exceptions will be posted on the
Town's Web site under What's New!".
If an exception is approved, the applicant will be required to demonstrate the
proposed structure height and mass alternative means as outlined in Section I1,0,
G. Alternatives: If an exception is granted to the Story Pole requirements, the applicant
shall provide digital imagery simulations, computer modeling or other - visual
techniques ita -lieu of the Story Pole requirements. The simulations may either be
prepared by the applicant for technical review by the Town's consultant or the
applicant may elect to have the Town's consultant prepare the materials. In either
case, the applicant shall be responsible for all technical review(s), materials and cost
of the Town's evaluation and /or preparation process. To ensure accuracy, visual
simulations shall comply with the following standards:
Establishing accuracy of the visual simulation: The applicant shall demonstrate
that the dimension and scale of the visual simulation and project setting are
equivalent, This is accomplished by examining screen views of the model in plan
and elevation views for accurate scaling. The visual simulation must also include
reference objects cot - responding to known objects in the simulated scene, such as
buildings, curbs, utility poles, trees, or any other reference points visible in the
simulated scene, whose location is known from surveys or, at a minimum aerial
imagery, There shall be a minimum of two reference objects outside of the
project in different parts of the photo frame.
Establishing the equivalence of the virtual and actual camera focal setting:
The camera lens focal setting or angle of view for each simulation base photo
shall be stated. The camera model' shall be provided since the angle of the focal
view varies with different cameras. The preparer of the photo simulations shall
provide the manufacturer specifications indicating the 35 nim film SLIT lens
correspondence, or other means to calculate the angle of view.
Depict the accurate location of the photo and establish the correspondence of the
virtual camera with the visual simulation: The photo location shall be indicated
accurately on a map or aerial - photo, and the correspondence within the visual
simulation should be demonstrated. Simulated views should not employ
cropping, or if they must, the original, uncropped rendered image shall be
provided, Once the images are cropped, it is impossible to validate their
accuracy.
• Other Information: The Town's consultant may require other information to
assess the accuracy of the visual simulation.
H. Removal:
Once a final action has been taken and the appeal period is over, the height poles and
netting shall be removed at the applicant's expense within 30 days. If not removed,
the height poles and netting will be considered rubbish and will be in violation of
Section 11.10.020 of the Town Code and the matter will be forwarded to Code
Compliance for enforcement action.
III. _ Project Identification Signs:
All development applications that must comply with the story pole and netting
requirements shall also provide project identification signs on the development site
consistent with the following requirements,
A. Timing:
Public notices will not be mailed and /or notification shall not be advertised until
project identification sign(s) have been installed, The location of the project
identification sign(s) shall be shown on the Story Pole Plan. The applicant shall
submit a signed declaration confirming that the project identification sign(s) were
installed. The applicant shall also submit a photo showing the on -site sign(s) installed
on the subject property prior to the distribution of the public notices,
B. Size:
® Single Family Residential Second Story Remodels or New Residential Structures:
One, 2'x2' sign placed on the street frontage, The top of the sign shall be five feet
(5') from existing grade and visible from adjacent streets,
Commercial /Industrial Remodels or New Construction; One 4'x8' sign on each of
the property frontages that are visible to surrounding public rights of ways,
including pedestrian trails such as the Los Gatos Creek Trail, The top of the signs
shall be six feet (6) from existing grade, The Community Development Director
may require additional signs for development sites that have large frontages,
Downtown (C -2 Zone) Remodels or New Commercial Development; One 2' by
3' vertical sign constructed of metal frame with water resistant laminated face, In
cases where it is infeasible to install a free - standing sign, the posting of a durable,
all weather sign on or inside the window of a building is permitted, provided the
sign is visible from public locations outside the building, Requests for an
exception to the free -- standing sign requirements shall be made to the Community
Development Department in writing no .less than 30 days prior to the public
hearing for the project,
C. Number and Placement of Signs:
With one exception, on -site signs shall be placed on each street frontage of the site.
The exception is for permits related to an individual new single family dwelling or
second story addition. In this case, only one sign on the street frontage is required,
The Signs shall be oriented towards the street, within one foot (P) of the front
property line or two feet (2') of the back of the sidewalk,
D. Materials:
Signs shall be constructed of durable materials, such as foam core or plywood, and
shall be laminated during the rainy season (October tluough April). The sign colors
shall be a white background with black printing, and color graphics (excluding single
family, which may have black and white graphics). As noted under Section III.B.,
signs in the Downtown C -2 Zone shall be constructed of higher grade materials,
including a metal frame and a plastic or laminated poster board face.
I;. Sign Content:
Up to 75% of the overall sign area must be used to provide a general description of
the project; including number of residential units or commercial buildings and square
footage; a color perspective drawing or fluee- dimensional image photographic
simulation and the name and contact information of the project applicant, Single
family new construction or second story remodel projects are not required to provide
a rendering on the sign. The public notice portion of the sign message must constitute
25 percent of the overall sign area and notify the community of the public hearing
date and time and contain the following message "For more information about this
project, please contact the Town of Los Gatos Planning Division at 110 E. Main
Street, Los Gatos, (408) 354 -6872. The project address and application number shall
be included on the notice.
F. Duration of Sign Posting:
Project identification signs shall be placed on site consistent with the timing on
installation of the story poles (See Section IIR) and shall be removed within 30 days
of the final actions (See Section HE.),
G. Maintenance:
The applicant is responsible for replacement of any missing, damaged or vandalized
signs within five days. of request by the Town. The Town may cease processing of
the application if the signs are not replaced and /or maintained.
NADEW UZANNE \s toryPotes\HeightPolePol icy- Pi na1032213,docx
Council /Agency Meeting 9117112
Item ##1
MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL /PARKING AUTHORITY/
SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING
SEPTEMBER 4, 2012
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Special Meeting on Tuesday,
September 4, 2012 at 5;45 P.M.
STUDY SESSION CALLED TO ORDER AT 5:45 P.M.
Discussion Topics
1. Height Pole and Netting Policy Consideration of modifications to and
implementation of the Height Pole and Netting Policy
Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report.
Council Questions
Questioned whether staff contacted any consultant who does this work and who is
familiar with unique features of Los Gatos.
Questioned the function of the cranes.
Questioned when signs regarding public hearings would be posted.
Questioned whether Town staff posts notices about incoming applications prior to
the time they are placed on an agenda.
- Questioned the time requirement to remove story poles.
- Questioned how the Town Manager's exception would work.
- Questioned whether there could be a menu of acceptable exceptions.
- Commented that cranes and balloons do not provide good representations for
projects,
- Commented that this is an amendment to policy and not a new policy.
Ms, Rooney
- Commented that staff will contact companies that specialize in this work, and other
communities have similar unique features.
- Commented that cranes would hold netting to show four corners of a building
- Commented that most jurisdictions would not require signs for single family
remodeling projects but would for unique larger projects.
- Commented that currently there is no notice to residents before an item is placed on
an agenda.
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 2
Study Session Item 41 — Continued
- Commented that there should be graphical representations, which would also help
to develop an electronic database of projects;. however, there are technological
challenges to overcome.
Commented that story poles should be removed 30 days after a hearing, and this is
enforced through a condition of approval.
Greg Larson, Town Manager
- Commented that Town staff could contact consultants before implementing
documents are brought back before Council.
- Clarified that the Town Manager would give notice to the Council, within the limits of
the Brown Act, before finalizing an exception to the policy and that any exception
granted would be posted.
Greg L- arson, Town Manager, presented the staff report,
Council (discus on
- Commented t t staff should develop an outreach communication ol.
- Requested clarific ion about 'a statement in the staff report re ding the staff's
training and educatio egarding,code enforceM" ent.
Commented that the To staff Is s doing a good job of c e enforcement and
expressed support for staff's commendations,
Commented that, under certain ditions, the P nnin,g Commission should hear
code enforcement Issues related to P viol ons.
- Commented that temporary suspension enforcement,fo.r_.up to 90 days is .a
sensitive judgmerit ca(I, based on th'e pe o violation and how easy or difficult it
would be to abate the violation,
- Commented that enforcement ould be suspende for only up to 60 days.
- Requested clarification th compliance with a current P would be required
before any CUP modifi tion is granted.
Mr. Larson
- Commente at since 2008, there has been no dedicated code, enfo ement
officer, d code enforcement tasks have been smaller parts,.of many .pe le's job,
- Co ented that staff has handled enforcement matters well..
mmerited that health and safety issues are in the hands of the Building Offici ,
per state law.
Page 2
.. -. ....... ..a,.....ui.,?3 >ti, ray use, wM, tw :wu..:........- n,.,.:..�....... .... ..
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENT 3
Winter 2013
INDEX
COMMERCIALPROJECTS ................................................................ ............................... 3
APPLECAMPUS 2 ............................................................................................... ...............................
3
SAICHWAY STATION ........................................................................................ ...............................
4
MCDONALD'S REMODEL AND EXPANSION ..................................................... ..............I................
5
APPLECAFETERIA ............................................................................................. ...............................
6
HOMESTEADSQUARE .......................................:................................................ ...............................
7
ONE RESULTS WAY OFFICE CAMPUS REDEVELOPMENT ................................ ...............................
8
TANTAU RETAIL AND PARKING GARAGE ....................................................... ...............................
9
CUPERTINO VILLAGE ...................................................................................... ...............................
10
CUPERTINO CROSSROADS BUILDING PADS ................................................... ..........................I....
11
WESTERN ATHLETIC CLUB / SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY ........................ ...............................
12
ALOFT CUPERTINO HOTEL ............................................................................. ...............................
13
MIXEDUSE PROJECTS ....................................................................... .............................14
BILTMORE ADJACENCY ................. . ....... .......................... ...............................................................
14
THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER ....................................................................... .........,.....................
15
MAIN STREET CUPERTINO .............................................................................. ...............................
16
UNION 76 CONVENIENCE MARKET EXPANSION /REMODEL & OFFICE BUILDING ......................
17
ROSE BOWL MIXED USE PROJECT ................................................................... ...............................
18
RESIDENTIALPROJECTS .................................................................. .............................19
RAINBOW SUBDIVISION ................................................................................... ...............................
19
BOLLINGER ROAD SUBDIVISION ..................................................................... ...............................
20
CLEO AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ..................................................... ...............................
21
MCCLELLAN RD SUBDIVISION ....................................................................... ...............................
22
FOOTHILL BLVD LIVE/ WORK .......................................................................... ...............................
23
CITYPROJECTS ............................................................. ............................... 24
MARYAVENUE DOG PARK ............................................................................. ............................... 24
GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE ...................................................................... ............................... 25
PROTECTEDTREE ORDINANCE ....................................................................... ............................... 26
-2-
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS
Under Review
Apple Campus 2
Location: Located in the north eastern quadrant of the City roughly bounded by N. Wolfe Rd, E. Homestead Rd, N. Tantau Ave & I-
280. Project site includes properties on the east side of N. Tantau Ave on both sides of Pruneridge Ave up to I -280.
Developer: Apple Inc.
Architect: Foster and Partners
Project Manager: Piu Ghosh
Application Summary:
• Architectural and Site Approval to allow the construction of a new office campus for Apple Inc.
• Development Agreement for the development of a new office campus for Apple, Inc.
• Development Permit to allow the demolition of approximately 2.65 million square feet of office and industrial buildings to allow
the construction of a new office campus comprising of approximately 2.82 million square feet of office and amenity space, a 1000 -
seat auditorium, a corporate gymnasium, a parking structure and an onsite energy generation facility on an approximately 159
acre site for Apple Inc.; the project also consists of approximately 300,000 square feet of research facilities on an approximately 17
acres site and a request of up to 300,000 square of office development potential for future development within the project site
• General Plan Amendment to modify the Circulation Element with regard to bikeways and circulation; and to modify the Land
Use /Community Design Element, with regard to Historical Resources, Park Areas and park Access, of the General Plan for the
development of a new office campus for Apple, Inc,
• Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of approximately 3,450 trees and the replanting of at least 6,000 in conjunction with a
proposed office campus for Apple, Inc.
• Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 1000 seat auditorium at a new campus located on an approximately 159
acre site for Apple Inc. and its associated parking located on separate parcels
• Rezoning of approximately 1.2 acres from Public Recreation (PR) and approximately 7.7 acres from Planned Industrial and
Residential (P(MP,Res)) to Planned Industrial (P(MP))
Project Data:
Residential
N/A
Commercial
Lot Size:
175 acres (not including area of Pruneridge Avenue proposed to be vacated)
Type:
Office, R &D, Corporate Auditorium, Gymnasium, Energy Generation and associated parking
Size:
Phase 1: 2.8 million s.f.,1000 -seat auditorium and 9,240 parking spaces;
Phase 2: 600,000 s.f.,1,740 spaces;
Height:
60 feet
Status:
Environmental Review currently under way. Notice of Preparation circulated on August 19, 2011. Scoping meeting held on
September 8, 2011. Draft EIR expected to be released in late Spring 2013.
Project resubmittal received November 2012. Project under staff review.
Visual:
Back to TOC
Approved But Not Built
Saich Way Station
Location: 20803 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Located on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and Saich Way,
Developer: Borelli Investment Company
Architect: PCGA Architects
Project Manager: George Schroeder
Application Summary:
• Development Permit to allow the demolition of 11,610 square feet of existing commercial space and the construction of 15,377
square feet of new commercial space consisting of two new commercial building pads -7,000 and 8,377 sq. ft.
• Architectural and Site Approval for the two new commercial building pads and associated site improvements
• Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 13 trees in conjunction with the development project
Project Data:
Lot Size: 1.29 acres
Type: Retail /Restaurant Buildings
Size: 15,844 square feet total -- Building 1- two tenants and Building 2- five tenants
Height: Building 1- 27 feet; Building 2- 28 feet
Status:
• Project submittal received on October 15, 2012
• The Planning Commission approved the project on January 8, 2013 with the provision that the existing parallel parking and bus
stop location on Saich Way be retained.
• The Planning Commissions approval was appealed by two Cupertino residents on January 18, 2013.
• On February 19, 2013, the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's approval of the project with
additional modifications requiring significant changes to the site plan prior to building permit issuance. The applicant was given
direction to return to the Council if all of the required modifications are not met.
Visual:
Perspective of
Perspective of Building 2 looking southeast f vin the rear of the site
11
Back to TOC
Under Construction
McDonald °s Remodel and Expansion
Location: 10990 North Stelling Road. Located on the southeast corner of Homestead and Stelling Road.
Developer: McDonald's USA, LLC
Architect: Stantec Architecture, Inc.
Project Manager: George Schroeder
Application Summary:
• Development Permit to allow a 761 square foot addition to an existing 3,595 square foot drive -thru restaurant
• Architectural and Site Approval to allow fagade modifications for the expansion of an existing drive -thru restaurant and
associated site improvements
• Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of four trees in the parking lot
Project Data:
Commercial:
Size: 761 sq ft
Lot Size: .49 acres
Height: 23 feet
Status:
• The Director of Community Development approved the project at the August 9, 2012 administrative hearing
• The project began construction in February 2013 and is anticipated to be completed in May 2013
Visual:
shopping center (east)
elevation
Stelling Road (zoest) elevation
iozvling alley parking lot (south) elevation
Homestead Road (north) elevation
Back to TOC
Approved But Not Built
Apple Cafeteria
Location: 20625 Alves Dr. Located on the northeast corner of Bandley Dr & Alves Dr.
Developer: Apple Inc.
Architect: Foster + Partners
Project Manager: Simon Vuong
Application Summary:
• Development Permit to allow the demolition of an approximately 4,000 square feet former restaurant and to allow the
construction of a new 24,000 square foot cafeteria and underground parking for Apple employees
• Architectural and Site Approval to allow the construction of a new cafeteria building
Project Data:
Residential
N/A
Commercial
Size:
24,000 sq ft
Lot Size:
.SS acres
Type:
Commercial
Height:
34 feet
Status:
• A revised project submittal was received on July 25, 2012
• Planning Commission approved the revised cafeteria project on September 11, 2012
• Preliminary building permit submittal received and under review.
Visual:
Rendering of cafeteria
Back to TOC
-6-
Approved But Not Built
Homestead Square
Location: 20620, 20580 & 20680 Homestead Road (PW Market & Rite Aid Shopping Center)
Developer: Sobrato Development Company (formerly FBJ Homestead Associates, LLC)
Architect: Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners
Project Manager: Gary Chao
Application Summary:
Architectural and Site Approval and Use Permit to allow the demolition of 95,666 square feet of existing commercial space and the
construction of 146,458 square feet of new commercial space consisting of four new commercial satellite buildings and three ne -,v
major tenant spaces in an existing shopping center. The approval also allows a 24 -hour drive- through pharmacy and a second
drive- through at one of the satellite buildings to operate from 6:00 a.m, to 11:00 p.m. A Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal
and replacement of up to 124 trees is part of a proposed development application.
Project Data:
Residential N/A
Commercial
Lot Size: 654,663 s.f:
Type: Commercial Retail
Size: Existing: 153,000 s.f./New Construction: 50,792 s.f. /Total after Demo & Construction: 203,792 s.f.
Height: One story commercial buildings
Status:
• The original application was approved by City Council on May 4, 2010.
• Property sold to Sobrato Development Company in November 2010.
• Major modifications to site and architecture of project approved by the Planning Commission on October 11, 2011.
• Construction of Rite Aid building completed September 2012.
• Additional site modifications approved administratively on October 18, 2012.
• 24 -hour operations for Safeway approved on December 11, 2012.
• Public Art approved by Fine Arts Commission on December 18, 2012.
Visual:
Back to TOC
-7-
Approved But Not'Built
One Results Way Office Campus Redevelopment
Location: Northwest corner of Bubb Road and McClellan Road
Developer Embarcadero Capital Partners, LLC
Architect: Korth and Sunseri Hagey Architects
Project Manager: Colin Jung
Application Summary:
Architectural and Site Approval to demolish five buildings and construct three new, 2 -story office buildings with a net addition of
15,500 square feet and a 2 -level parking garage and landscape improvements.
Project Data:
Residential
N/A
Commercial
Lot Size:
19.8 acres
Type:
Office/Industrial buildings and parking structure
Size:
155,500 square feet
Height:
Office 19 feet; Garage 10 feet.
Status:
• The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the project on August 26, 2008.
• The City Council reviewed and approved the project on September 16, 2008.
• The applicant filed an amendment to the project approvals to extend the expiration dates for five years, phase construction,
clarify conditions of approval, and modify the traffic /signal improvements condition.
• City Council, on July 21, 2009, approved the 5 -year extension of the expiration dates to July 21, 2014 for the planning permits,
allowed construction phasing flexibility, and accepted the voluntary payment of $200,000 toward area traffic improvements and
pedestrian safety in -lieu of widening McClellan Road.
• Tenant Improvement permits for Building 6 were issued in December 2009 & May 2010 and are complete.
• Project is on hold as Apple, Inc. has leased all of the existing buildings for seven years and is performing tenant improvements.
Visual:
1
IFS -:•- '�"L'+*.' J.-.�"` a�:��: �`
�( k,
u
.i
Approved Site Plan
Building B/C Drop -Off Area - Perspective
Back to TOC
;� ,ls.x f 4 . •� e�+Y '8''jrt 4 �tl �4' W
_ 'ft 1iE.yi
LL
}0 VYHI : =J�
¢� � , r "$' �t�.���d. b'd{SA'�,yilp:'"t- +P,r"'y — •,} -
r�•
4_"
1
IFS -:•- '�"L'+*.' J.-.�"` a�:��: �`
�( k,
u
.i
Approved Site Plan
Building B/C Drop -Off Area - Perspective
Back to TOC
Approved But Not Built
Tantau Retail and Parking Garage
Location: Northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Tantau Avenue
Developer: Chang Architecture & Planning
Architect: Chang Architecture & Planning
Project Manager: Aki Honda Snelling
Application Summary:
• Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to construct a 10,582 square foot retail building and one -level parking garage on
an existing office site.
• Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a front yard setback.
• Tentative Map to subdivide a 9.4 acre site into two parcels, approximately 1 acre and 8.4 acres respectively.
• Tree Removal Permit for tree removal and replanting in conjunction with a proposed 10,582 square foot retail building and one -
level parking garage on an existing office site.
Project Data:
Residential
Lot Size:
N/A
Commercial
Lot Size:
9.4 acres
Type:
Retail Building and Parking Garage
Size:
Retail: 10,582 square feet, Garage: 26,500 square feet
Height:
Retail: 31 feet, Garage: 14 feet
Status:
• Approved by the City Council on August 21, 2007.
• Change of ownership to Rocktino Fee LLC.
• On June 16, 2009, the City Council consented to a one year extension of the approvals to expire on August 21, 2010.
• On December 7, 2010, the City Council approved a 3 -year extension of the approvals to expire on August 21, 2013, with a
condition requiring an additional contribution for enhanced pedestrian or intersection improvements.
Visual:
r Y
j .
rx��x
N
e:'t
k5"i 81V�"rt"` -xrl- :3'gvf� �+R�i sv ,assi k n,'f.' .:uS'Sa'm•®
i4 r ,rT` 1 t ,�„� 4 trf- -1 t l ..._,;. -, -# h�,
Conceptual Rendering of Proposed Retail Buil ding
W
Back to TOC
Approved But Not Built
Cupertino Village
Location: Southwest corner of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road
Developer: Kimco Realty
Architect: MCG
Project Manager: Simon Vuong
Application Summary:
Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to construct two, one -story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a two
level parking structure.
Project Data:
Residential N/A
Commercial
Lot Size: 12,5 acres
Type: Retail Building and Parking Structure
Size: Retail: 24,455 square feet, Garage: Approx. 54,000 square feet (footprint)
Height: Retail: 22 feet, Garage: 15 feet
Status:
• The project was reviewed by Planning Commission on November 13, 2007, January 8, 2008, and March 25, 2008.
• The applicant hosted three neighborhood meetings on July 11, 2007, November 8, 2007, and December 13; 2007.
• The City Council considered this project on April 1, 2008 and April 15, 2008. The Council adopted the mitigated negative
declaration and approved the project with nunor amendments.
• The Design Review Committee approved the final Architectural and Site details on August 7, 2008.
• City Council approved a one -year extension of the entitlements to August 11, 2011.
• In August 2011, Kimco applied for a Modification to the Use Permit & Architectural Site Approvals for another extension.
• Planning Commission denied the extension on a split decision on October 11, 2011.
• City Council approved a two year extension on November 1, 2011, set to expire November 1, 2013.
• Building permits are expected to be submitted late Summer /early Fall 2013.
Visual:
PEDESTRIAN GATEWAY
Pedestrian Gateway at rear of property
M
Back to TOC
Complete
Cupertino Crossroads Building Pads
Location: 20750 and 20682 Stevens Creek'Boulevard (Crossroads Shopping Center)
Developer: Byer Properties
Architect: Kahn Design Associates
Project Manager: George Schroeder
Application Summary:
• Development Permit to allow the construction of two new retail building pads; 8,136 square feet and 5,086 square feet
respectively; and demolition of an existing 4,930 square foot restaurant building for a net square footage increase of 8,292 square
feet.
• Architectural and Site Approval for two new retail building pads and associated site improvements, including, but not limited to
parking lot re- orientation, lighting, landscaping, and street frontage improvements consistent with the Heart of the City Specific
Plan.
• Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow a 26 foot front setback for a new 5;086 retail pad building where a 35 foot
front setback is required.
• Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of 79 trees within an existing shopping center parking lot in
conjunction with the proposed new development.
Project Data:
Residential
N/A
Commercial
Lot Size:
5.44 acres
Type:
Retail/Restaurant Buildings
Size:
8,011 square feet (Building E- 3 tenants); 5,086 square feet (Building F- Islands)
Height:
Building E- 27 feet; Building F- 26 feet
Status:
• The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on July 27, 2011.
• The Planning Commission considered this project on August 9, 2011 & recommended approval of the project, with amendments.
• The City Council approved the mitigated Negative Declaration and project on September 6, 2011 with minor amendments.
• The City Council decision was appealed for reconsideration at the November 15, 2011 City Council meeting. The reconsideration
request was denied, and the project approval withstood.
• Minor site and architectural changes to Building E were approved by the Design Review Committee on February 2, 2012.
• The project construction was completed in early 2013, and Building E's tenants are anticipated to open in Spring 2013.
Visual:
Building E Rendering and Construction Photo
Back to TOC
Complete
Western Athletic Club / Sears Roebuck & Company
Location: 10101 North Wolfe Road
Developer:
Architect:
Project Manager: Piu Ghosh
Application Summary:
• Architectural and Site approval for fagade, landscaping, parking lot and sidewalk enhancements, including a new trash
enclosure to service an on -site cafe, inside a new health club facility.
• Use Pernut to allow anew health club to open at 5:30 am on weekdays and at 6:30 am on weekends.
Project Data:
Residential N/A
Commercial
Lot Size:
Type: Commercial Retail
Size: Existing:
Height:
Status:
• The Project was approved by the Planning Commission on May 24, 2011.
• Building Permits were issued in August & September 2011.
• Construction is complete.
Visual:
Project Rendering
Back to TOC
-12-
r"
a
Under Construction
Aloft Cupertino Hotel
Location: 10165 North De Anza Boulevard at Alves
Developer. Shashi Corporation
Architect: RYS Architects
Project Manager: Colin Jung, AICP
Application Summary:
Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to demolish a service station /carwash and construct a 4- story, 123 -room hotel that
includes a dining area, swimming pool, fitness center, lounge and conference facilities above a one level underground parking
podium.
Project Data:
Residential
N/A
Commercial
Lot Size:
34,646 square feet
Type:
Hotel
Size:
84,410 square feet, 123 rooms
Height:
45 feet, 4- stories
Status:
• Planning Commission recommended approval of the project on January 13, 2009,
• City Council approved the project on January 20, 2009 with the Planning Commission's recommendations and with additional
screening along the east side of De Anza Boulevard.
• City Council approved an extension of the entitlements to January 20, 2012.
• In November 2010, City Council approved a modification to the use permit consistent with Planning Commission's
recommendations, with minor amendments.
• In March 2011, the Design Review Committee approved some minor design changes,
• The hotel opened under a temporary occupancy permit issued in late December 2012. The applicant is completing the final
exterior improvements needed to obtain final occupancy approval.
• The hotel is the first Aloft Hotel in Santa Clara County. Aloft is part of the Starwood Hotels & Resort Group.
Visual:
Back to TOC
-IJ-
MIXED USE PROJECTS
Bilthnore Adjacency
Approved But Not Built
Location: 20030 Stevens Creek Blvd. Located around the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd & Blaney Ave.
Developer; Prometheus Real Estate Group
Architect: Christiani Johnson
Project Manager: Simon Vuong
Application Summary:
• Development Permit to allow the demolition of approximately 21,000 square feet of commercial space and to allow the
construction of 90 new apartment units and a 7,000 square foot commercial building
• Architectural and Site Approval to allow the construction of a new apartment complex and commercial building
• Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of approximately 53 trees.
Project Data:
Residential
Lot Size:
13 acres (includes existing Biltmore Apartment site)
Type:
Residential (Apartments)
Units:
80 .
Density:
24.22 du /gr. ac. (for Biltmore Adjacency)/ 17.34 du /gr. ac, ( Biltmore Apartments)
Height:
36 feet
Commercial
Size
7,000 square feet
Lot Size:
3 acres
Type:
Commercial
Height:
About 34 feet
Staters:
• Project submittal received October 26, 2011. Traffic study, arborist report, and architectural comments currently under review.
Initial study currently in progress. Project under staff review.
• Planning Commission approved application on May 8, 2012,
• City Council continued the project during the June 4, 2012 meeting.
• Applicant returned to City Council with the revised project on September 18, 2012.
• City Council approved the project, with a reduction of 10 units, for a total of 80 units approved.
. Demolition permit currently under review; building permits expected Spring 2013
Visual;
14
Approved But Not Built
The Oaks Shopping Center
Location: North of Stevens Creek Boulevard, east of HV" 85, west of Mary Avenue
Developer: Sand Hill Properties Inc.
Architect: ARC Inc. Architects
Project Manager: Colin Jung
Application Summary:
• Use Permit & Architectural and Site Approval to demolish a theater and 2,430 square feet of commercial space and construct a 4-
story, 122 -room hotel, a 3 -story 51,000 square foot mixed use retail /office /convention center building over an underground
parking podium and site improvements in two phases at an existing shopping center;
• Tentative Map to subdivide an 81 net acre parcel into 2 parcels of 3.0 and 5.1 acres in size, with one parcel to be further
subdivided into two commercial condominium units and a common area lot;
• Exception to the Heart of the City to reduce one side -yard setback 15 feet for the proposed building.
• Tree Removal request to remove and replace approximately 47 trees that are part of an approved landscape plan for an existing
shopping center.
Project Data:
Residential
N/A
Commercial
Lot Size:
8.1 acres
Type:
Hotel, Mixed Use (retail /office /convention center)
Size:
Hotel: 122 rooms, Mixed Use: 56,194 sq. ft.
Height:
Hotel: 4- story, Mixed Use: 3 -story
Status:
• The Planning Commission reviewed the project on May 27, 2008 and June 10, 2008 and recommended approval.
• The City Council approved the project on September 2, 2008,
• Final Map was approved by the City Council on May 4, 2010.
• City Council approvals expire September 2, 2012.
• On November 16, 2010, City Council approved a Master Entertainment Permit for the Oaks Shopping Center, consistent with the
Planning Commission's recommendation.
• The Director of Community Development issued an extension of the permits extending the expiration date to Sept. 2, 2014.
Visual:
Rendering of Mixed Use proposal
-15-
Rendering of proposed Marriott Residence Inn
Back to TOC
G.Su*
iwusm:
apW[C*
Approved But Not Built
Main Street Cupertino
Location: North side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Finch Avenue and Tantau Avenue
Developer: Sand Hill Property Company
Architect: Ken Rodrigues and Partner Inc.
Project Manager: Stephen Rose
Status:
• City Council certified the Final EIR, including the Mitigation, Monitoring & Reporting Program & Statement of Overriding
Considerations and approved the project on January 20, 2009
• On December 5, 2011, Sand Hill Property Company (operating as 500 Forbes, LLC) submitted applications for a Modification to
the previously approved project.
• On May 15, 2012, the City Council approved the Modification application
• On August 2, 2012, applicant submitted for another Modification to the Master Use Permit, to modify the Master Use Permit to
remove the age - restriction requirement on the apartment complex and for additional modifications to the site.
• On September 4, 2012, the City Council approved the Second Modification application, and associated architectural and site
approval and tentative map applications for:
- 260,000 square feet of office
- 180 room hotel (Marriott Residence Inn)
- 130,500 square feet of retail space, including a maximum of 52,600 square feet of restaurant use
- 120 market -rate loft -style studio and one - bedroom apartment complex (some units that are live /work)
- 0.75 acre park, including a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer along the western perimeter of the development site adjacent to
the Metropolitan at Cupertino mixed -use development
- 0.80 acre town square
- 5 -level parking garage with two levels of underground parking
- Tentative Map to subdivide the site into six (6) lots
On January 15, 2013, the City Council approved architectural and site refinements to the interior and exterior of the hotel.
NO
Approved But Not Built
Union 76 Convenience Market Expansion /Remodel & Office Building
Location: Southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bubb Road, 21530 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Developer: BP Cupertino Union, LLC
Architect: David Elliott, David Elliott & Associates
Project Manager: Colin Jung
Application Summary:
• Use Permit to allow the conversion of existing gasoline station service bays to a convenience market, to allow late evening hours,
and to allow concurrent sales of gasoline and alcohol;
• Architectural and Site Approval for a 527 square foot expansion /remodel of an existing gasoline service station building to allow
a convenience market and a new 2,580 square foot office building. Improvements include building facade, landscaping and
parking lot changes
Project Data:
Residential N/A
Commercial
Lot Size: 0.773 acre
Type: Convenience Market, Offices
Size: Convenience Market: 2,221 sq. ft.; Offices: 2,580 sq. ft.
Height: Convenience Market: 17 ft.; Offices: 17 sq. ft.
Status:
• The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the project on May 22, 2012,
• The applicant submitted building plans for the convenience market portion of the project in Sept. 2012 and is still working on
the plan revisions.
Visual:
Back to TOC
-17-
Approved But Not Built
Rose Bowl Mixed Use Project
Location: Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and 1 -280
Developer: Evershine
Architect: MBH
Project Manager: Gary Chao
Application Summary:
• Tentative Map for 204 residential condominium units on an approximately seven -acre parcel (Rosebowl).
• Architectural and Site Review for a previously approved Use Permit for 204 residential units, 120,000 square feet of new retail
space and a parking structure
Project Data:
Residential
Lot Size:
7.47 acres
Type:
Residential/Retail
Units:
204
Density:
27 dwelling units /acre
Height:
45 -60 feet
Commercial
Type:
N/A
Size:
N/A
Height:
N/A
Status:
• Approved by the City Council on March 15, 2005.
• Site sold to Evershine Group in September 2007.
• Letter from Evershine informing of redaction in total retail square footage based on financial and tenanting feasibility. City
Council reviewed Evershine's plans, which are substantially the same as the original approval, in March 2008. Ground Floor
presentation remains the same.
• Foundation & podium work are nearing completion.
• Preliminary plans for the super- structure are currently being reviewed by.the City.
Visual:
Rendering of approved retail /residential project on east side of Wolfe Road
-18-
Site Photo
Back to Toc
t
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
Complete
Rainbow Subdivision
Location: 21185 Rainbow Drive (NW Corner of Rainbow Drive and Charsan Lane)
Developer: McClellan Development
Architect: Van Tilburg, Banvard, & Soderbergh
Engineer. Westfall Engineers
Project Manager: George Schroeder
Application Summary:
• Tentative Map to subdivide a 0.67 gross acre parcel into 3 lots ranging from 6,550 to 6,797 square feet.
• Two -Story Permit applications for the three new homes are forthcoming
Project Data:
Residential
Lot Size:
0.67 gross acres (0.50 net acres)
Type:
Single - Family Detached Residential
Units:
3
Density:
4.47 units/ gross acre
Height:
2 stories (28 feet or less)
Status:
• The subdivision application was approved at the March 8, 2012 administrative hearing.
• The Two -Story and Minor Residential Permits for the new homes were approved on May 24, 2012
• The project was completed in February 2013
Back to TOC
19
Approved But Not Built
Bollinger Road Subdivision
Location: Westerly Terminus of Bollinger Road
Developer: McClellan Development
Architect: Jim Yee of Van Tilburg, Banvard & Soderbergh, AIA
Project Manager: Colin Jung, AICP
Application Summary:
• Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 1.14 acre parcel into five single- family residential lots ranging in size from 7,040 to
11,096 square feet.
• Variance to allow reduced lot widths for four of the five new lots that do not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet.
• Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration.
Project Data:
Residential
Lot Size:
1.14 acre
Type:
Single - Family Detached Residential
Units:
5
Density:
4.39 traits /gross acre
Height:
2 stories, height TED
Status:
• Planning Commission reviewed plans and recommended approval of project on March 27, 2012.
• The City Council approved subdivision on April 17, 2012.
• Petition for Reconsideration of the project was filed on April 27, 2012.
• Petition for Reconsideration hearing was granted and project was re -heard by the City Council who upheld its decision to
approve the project on May 15, 2012.
• Two -story planning permits were submitted for the proposed dwellings on October 17, 2012 and approved in January 2013.
• City staff is currently checking the building permit plan submittals.
x
YV'ti
wrt
i'+is 'r�iYsao
iY 11ICF.4YE uCuU 1 ��
_....... 2....v ._........k _
\ti.. °,TFN TEN ATI NAP
DtI �wm
- — � ' -� .....,.. ,- +� .mgr a• LLfNGEh kJ1D LL�ERTfYA7
Visual:
Approved Tentative Map
Back to TOC
f
Under Construction
Cleo Avenue Housing Development
Location: Terminus of Cleo Avenue
Developer: Habitat for Humanity Silicon Valley
Architect: KTGY Group, Inc.
Project Manager: Colin Jung, AICP
Application Summary:
• Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to construct a 4 -unit, small lot, detached, single- family residential development
on a vacant 0.30 -acre property.
• Tentative Map to subdivide a 0.30 -acre property into four single- family residential lots and a common area lot.
• Parking Exception to allow a parking ratio of two open stalls /dwelling, in lieu of the required 2.8 stalls /dwelling (garage and
open).
• Environmental Determination: Categorically Exempt from CEQA and NEPA.
Project Data:
Residential
Lot Size:
0.30 acre
Type:
Single- Family Detached Residential
Units:
4
Density:
13.33 units /acre
Height:
2 stories, height TBD
Status:
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project on June 14, 2011.
• The City Council approved the project on July 5, 2011.
• Final parcel map was approved by the City Council on January 17, 2012.
• Building Permits were issued at the end of January 2012.
• Project is nearing completion.
Visual:
-21-
Back to TOC
Under Review
McClellan Rd Subdivision
Location: 20840 McClellan Rd
Developer: Cheriyland, LLC
Architect: Mike Chen
Engineer. James Chen
Project Manager: Simon Vuong
Application Summary:
• Tentative Map to subdivide a 0.96 gross acre parcel into 3 lots ranging from 8,051 to 9,448 square feet, with one (1) additional lot
for a private road.
• Zoning Application to change the zoning from R1 -10 to R1 -7.5
• Two -Story Permit applications for the three new homes are forthcoming
Project Data:
Residential
Lot Size: 0.96 gross acres
Type: Single - Family Detached Residential
Units: 3
Density: 3.12 units/ gross acre
Height: 2 stories (28 feet or less)
Status:
• Application was filed on May 29, 2012. Staff has reviewed the project and provided comments.
• Project still currently undergoing environmental review and additional site characterization. No tentative dates for
Environmental Review Committee, Planning Commission, or City Council Hearing.
Visual:
Proposed Site Plan and Tentative Map
f , ,
t
Pr000sed Elevations
FER
Back to TOC
����� =-I � � € �� II:�'. Iii ICI 11 n ■ .. ....
milli II!! IniII!,� — _
-22-
f:
1.
Under Review
Foothill Blvd Live/Work
Location: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard
Developer: Tate Development
Architect: Modative
Project Manager: George Schroeder
Application Summary:
• Study Session for a proposed project to demolish an abandoned automobile service station and construct six single- family
residences including five live -work units. The project will require rezoning the property from P(CG)- Planned General
Commercial to P (CG, Res)- Planned General Commercial and Residential and a Tenative Map application to subdivide the
parcel. Other associated permits that will be required include a Development Permit, Architectural and Site Approval and Tree
Removal Permit.
Project Data:
Residential
Lot Size:
0.83 gross acres
Type:
Single - Family Detached Residential with live -work components
Units:
6
Density:
7.2 units / gross acre
Height:
2 stories
Status:
• The Planning Commission Study Session is scheduled for March 26, 2013, and the City Council Study Session is scheduled for
April 16, 2013.
• No tentative dates for the Environmental Review Committee, Planning Commission, or City Council Hearing.
Visual:
Back to TOC
-23-
CITY PROJECTS
Approved But Not Built
Mary Avenue Dog Park
Location: Corner of Villa Real and Mary Avenue (APN 326 -27 -030)
Project Manager: Colin Jung, AICP; Carmen Lynaugh.
Description: Rezoning and General Plan Map Amendment to allow a fenced, off - leashed play area for dogs and their owners on a
City-owned lot. Applications: GPA- 2012 -01, Z- 2012 -02.
Status:
• On June 19, 2012 the City Council adopted its 5 -year fiscal year 2012/13 — 2016/17 Capital Improvement Program which included
funding for the planning, design and construction of a dog park on a City -owned property on Mary Avenue. The funding
decision culminated a 4 -year effort by the City to study, inform, seek public input, evaluate and eventually select an off -leash area
on City lands.
• January 3, 2013, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a public hearing and voted 2 -1 to find the Park and Open Space
general plan designation consistent with the proposed dog park use and directed staff to forward the project to the Planning
Commission for its review and recommendations.
• January 8, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a mitigated negative declaration for the project, approval of
the rezoning and general plan map amendment on a 3 -2 vote.
• On February 5; 2013, the City Council adopted a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program, the general
plan map amendment and rezoning to allow the dog park project on a 4 -1 vote. The Council also voted on a 4 -1 vote to add
$100,000 for soil remediation and to add $50,000 for park enhancements to buffer the perceived effects of the park from the
adjacent neighbors to the north. Staff was directed to consult with the neighbors to determine what those park improvements
should be.
,,�Y� NsrAU..rr:rcfi°�x.E i
� �� ��1�)'O EX15i. tSx7J 1°.1.✓�.E � r43 _ '
LEl•D PETIOVN. PAO.i4T 60VHDMl- 1a ' H16H 0LFINCC
e M1fT mr,
M d` 2� ♦ R Z' YULE41✓�p 6Ata�,s.a P2..
:♦O rrp..
r� 6MC, LY?' 9S��rr/ /irk / rY s. J .�+•.
iwZK 6OWLelt -. �59�/�
.'�'. ,..+Y SAiu ��`''�� �° `$ 44 '�' L!✓.r.PAVIHS�. -�Y3R[
i E GL)Ktrcl tiATEf`�; :,'- '•• - . •tt'. - _ .. .
of ] _ _ - - -. y..r— —__ _ -- - FC4
si . - - - � YER GTT 6TNIDAfID"
-_ Li. F41'ATH T9 FMAW OL MNS MMAM TTP.
Back to TOC
24
Completed
Green Building Ordinance
Location: Citywide
Project Manager: Aki Honda Snelling
Description: Consider adoption of a Green Building Ordinance possibly based upon Phase II Recommendations from the Santa
Clara Cities Association's Green Building Collaboration. Application MCA - 2010 -04.
Status:
• On November 24, 2009, the Planning Comnssion recommended that the City Council adopt a Green Building Ordinance process
frarnework.
• On January 19, 2010, the City Council adopted an alternative Green Building Ordinance process framework consisting of:
- Use of up to $25,000 from the unused portion of the existing Green Building Certification fund.
- Review of Phase II recommendations.
- Limited outreach including 2 focus group meetings and 2 public hearings.
•_ On October 12, 2010, the Planning Commission held its first public hearing to consider the draft Green Building Ordinance, at
which time the Commission asked for additional information, and recommended changes to the draft ordinance. The public
hearing was continued to October 26, 2010.
• On October 26, 2010, the Commission recommended approval of the draft ordinance on a 3 -2 vote, incorporating refinements to
the draft ordinance based upon the Planning Commission's recommendations and public input.
• On November 9, 2010, the Commission reviewed the cleaned -up version of the draft ordinance as a consent item and
recommended it to be forwarded to the City Council on a 4 -1 vote.
• On February 1, 2011, the City Council conducted its first public hearing to consider the draft Green Building Ordinance as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The Council directed staff to revise the draft ordinance to be closer in line with the
Santa Clara County Cities' Association's Phase II Recommendations, with additional changes proposed by Council. The Council
also asked for additional cost/benefit analysis of incorporating green building standards.
• On May 3, 2011, the City Council decided to delay consideration and review of the draft Green Building Ordinance for one year
till May 2012 to allow the public time to review and provide comments on the draft ordinance, including the changes that Council
made to the draft ordinance at the meeting.
• On September 4, 2012, the City Council conducted the first reading and adopted the Green Building Ordinance. The second
reading was conducted on September 18, 2012. The ordinance will be known as Chapter 16.58 of the Cupertino Municipal Code,
but will take effect on July 1, 2013.
Back to TOC
-25-
Under Review
Protected Tree Ordinance
Location: Citywide
Project Manager: Simon Vuong
Description: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 14.18 (Protected Trees). Application MCA - 2012 -02.
Status:
• A Study Session to discuss the scope of the amendments was conducted on Nov. 5, 2012 with the City Council.
• Council directed staff to:
- Present ordinance amendment to protected trees chapter to remove reference to "public trees" and change the penalty from a
misdemeanor to an infraction
- Present a report regarding the following:
• Streamline the tree removal process in Rl /A1 /A/Rl -LS zones and consider inclusion of R2 zones for smaller protected trees with
required mitigation
• Review size of tree hi diameter for specimen trees - should some specimen trees have larger diameter size vs. Others
• Review the list of specimen trees to ensure that they are native
- Review whether greater penalties should be imposed for illegal removal of larger protected trees.
• Tentatively to go back to City Council on March 19, 2013 to receive further direction on changes to be considered.
note that the item will be continued to the March 19, 2013 Citv Council
The Cupertino City Council has directed staff to prepare minor amendment to Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The amendments
include eliminating references to public tars, which are now protected under Chapter 14.12 and consider changing illegal tree removal penalties from a misdemeanor
to nn infraction. The draft Ordinance will be reviewed at the March 5, 2013 City Council meeting.
Staff will also seek direction from the Council regarding further amendments to the Ordinance related to rhanging the criteria for protected trees and addressing tree
removals. Residents, business owners and interested parties are encouraged to provide their input.
Stiff will present a draft Ordinance with proposed amendments for the Council's consideration tentatively in 2011
For more information or questions, please visit SAVE THE DATE,
http•/ hvvvw .cupertino.ory /index.nsi2x?12n eg 1164 or scan the QR code below with your
mobile device. City Council
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
You may also contact Simon Vuong, Assistant Planner, nt sltnonvocuperti� 6:45 PM
(408) 777 -1356 for additional information or to send written comments. L�li Location of hearine:
cupcdino Community 1ja[],
Die agenda is subject to change. Please check tvtvrv.cripertino.oM1agetrda, 70350 Torre Avenue (neat to the tibnrry)
prior to Ae meeting for updated iuforutatiou in the event of any changes. LIVE Web Cast: ws+w.cupertino.ore/wel
Back to TOC
26
From; John Shepardson [mailto,shepardsonlaw @me.comj
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 12:01 PM
To: Council; BSpector; Joe Pirzynski; Diane McNutt; Steve Leonardis; Marc Shapiro; Marcia Jensen
Subject: Story Poles
Dear Mayor Spector and Council Members;
Here are my comments on the proposed Story Pole Policy change:
RECEIVED
2013
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
1. Multiple commercial structures and /or residential units;
- -Story Pole the units on the corners, and run netting between all the corners, so the public has a better
idea of the dimensions. The corner closest to the most frequented roadway should have poles also of
the units on each side of the corner unit, so the public gets a sense of the density that will exist
throughout the project. I don't think the public had a real sense of the density of the Honda project,
2. Online Development Activity Report- -good,
3. Hearing notice -- brighter color card stock makes sense.
4. Purpose: To provide to the maximum extent feasible, notice to the community of potential projects,
and their size, dimensions and density.
5. Poles to stay up until a final determination is made by the Town.
6. Story Pole locations shall fully demonstrate the projected height, mass and bulk of the project.
7. The Story Pole plan and actual implementation must be certified in writing by a surveyor, architect,
etc. and such certification provided to the Town.
8. Town Manager will immediately (within 3 days) alert the Town Council to any exemptions provided
to the Story Pole policy.
9. Any visuals provided in lieu of Story Poles shall be certified as reasonable, accurate and full depictions
of the proposed project, Every reasonable effort shall be encouraged to put up Story Poles or
something similar, such as cranes, etc.
10. Any projects exceeding 25 million in development costs shall be subject to Town Council vote for an
exception to the Story Pole policy.
Thank you for considering these ideas, and reviewing the policy, which I applaud Mr. Leonardis for
suggesting. I thank Mayor Spector's active interest in this issue, and I appreciate the notification of the
hearing, and work of the Staff.
I would be there tonight, however, I have pressing business, and probably will not make it.
John:)
ATTAc;3MENT 4
P.S. I humbly suggest you each walk the bridge now while the Albright cranes are up, to observe for
yourselves the impairment of view of the mountains in this "Gateway" into Los Gatos, A 2 -story project,
at 35 feet (rather 55 feet), 350K office space, with underground parking seems so much better to me.
We can develop the site well and keep the small town character, As you drive towards Santa Cruz, in
Scotts Valley, notice the commercial buildings behind the trees on the left side of Highway 17. Unless
looking for, you hardly notice the 2 -story buildings... elegant.
The savings of only going up 2- stories can allow funding for underground parking, so we keep more open
space, These ideas are all consistent with the GP. Netflix has signed on for 140K of space, and with 350K
available, there is plenty of space for them to grow into. Sixty -five foot structures may create a canyon -
like feeling, with the large Courtside buildings across the way. Do we want that, along with the
increased traffic? I noticed a lot of cars already park along the roadway in this area.
JOHN A. SHEPARDSON, ESQ.
59 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite Q
Los Gatos, CA 95030
T: (408) 395 -3701
F: (408) 395 -0112
April 1, 2013
From: Lee Quintana RECEIVED
To: Mayor Barbara Spector and the Town Council APR 1 - 2013
RE: Agenda Item #7 Height Pole and Netting Policy TOWN OF LOS GATOS
April 1, 2013 Town Council Meeting PLANNING DIVISION
The following are my comments on on Agenda Item #7
1. Concept and Purpose of Policy:
2. Exceptions vs Purpose of the Policy
3. Notification of Exemption Granted
4. Online Development Activity List
5. Public Hearing Notification Cards
1. CONCEPT AND PURPOSE OF POLICY:
® I believe the concept behind story poles /height poles is to provide the public and
decision makers with information necessary for the to independently assess the
potential visual impacts of a proposed project and to independently determine
whether or not they confer with staff's conclusion and /or any environmental
documents prepared for the project.
® It seem both counter intuitive and counter productive to exempt exactly those
projects that have potential for the greatest visual impacts (impact vistas, change a
site's character and /or impact our small town character).
® Section 1 Purpose indicates the purpose of Height Pole policy is to demonstrate the
planned rooflines and heights and to provide some indication of the potential massing
of the proposed structures. This appears to be inconsistent with Section C. Location
and Number which states ........ story pole location shall adequately demonstrate the
projected height, mass and bulk of the project..."
Height and rooflines by themselves do not adequately demonstrate visual impacts of a
proposed development. Demonstration of potential massing is also necessary.
® Without height, rooflines and massing it is not possible to adequately assess whether
a project will or will not result in visual impacts. Aesthetic/ visual imparts are part of
the items required to be covered by CEQA. If anything story poles/ height poles
need to be in place during the preparation of a Negative Declaration or EIR.
2. EXCEPTION VS PURPOSE OF POLICY
The staff report notes it has been common practice to allow large Planned
Development applications to erect story poles only for key buildings. Staff gave three
examples of the use of this common practice ( Honda and Swanson Ford sites, and
Thrash House (Bluebird Lane) to support including this practice in the revised Policy.
ATTACHMENT 5
• Selected structures for story poles: These examples also support the reverse
conclusion, Le that this practice should not be included in the Revised Policy
1. Honda Site: The story poles that were erected did not prepared me for the
homes being so closely jammed on the site.
2. Thrash House (Bluebird Lane): The story poles erected did not adequately
demonstrate mass vs open space (again how the homes seem jammed together)
or that the mountain visible in the background to the west would no longer be
visible but would be replaced by the structures approached from Kennedy Road.
• Example of cranes: The cranes placed at the Albright Office Park do not meet the
intent of the Height Poles and Netting Policy.
1. They show the height only at limited locations.
2. Cranes need to be erected at all corners of every structure, and corners
connected by netting to adequately demonstrate the mass, scale, bulk and
intensity
• It would be more appropriate to refer requests for exemptions to the Planning
Commission
3. NOTIFICATION OF EXEMPTIONS GRANTED
tl.Ifthe_Mayoror_two Cou_nci.L. members _d.o._not_ask_that__a_r_aquest_ for_an exception be
placed on Town Council agenda the public have an opportunity for input and will not
even be aware of the request until it is final.
® I request that Council consider using the What's New section on the Website when a
request is received, and when one is granted.
4. ONLINE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT
I strongly support developing a regularly updated an Online Development Activity
Report. Until that is possible, I request Council direct staff to post basic information
for new applications on the What's New section of the Web site.
In addition I request Council consider directing staff to establishing an online
Applications Received List, (in the order received) with basic project information such
as applicants name, project location, brief project description, file number and the
project planners name.
5. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CARDS
I support staffs recommendations for improving the Notice Cards.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Lee Quintana
5 Palm Ave.
cc: Mazarin Vakharia, Clerk Administrator
Greg Larson, Town Manager
Th is Page
Intentionally
Left Plank
Pulled Consent Item #3 — continued
Opened and closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Diane McNutt to direct staff, in
consultation with the Mayor, to develop a work plan item to gather
stakeholders and develop overall policies for use and accessories
for the full Civic Center campus.
Seconded by Council Member Marcia Jensen.
`JOTS: Motion passed unanimously.
Pulled Consent Item #7
Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Open the public hearing.
Mr. Shepardson
- Commented on possible additions to the height pole and netting policy.
Ms. Quintana
- Commented on possible additions to the height pole and netting policy.
Closed the public hearing.
Council Discussion
- Commented that creating a project website is a large task and applicants should
draft what should be posted for staff review.
- Commented that notification cards should have some illustration of the proposed
project.
Commented that the consulting architect should verify height of story poles, and that
story poles do not depict density.
- Commented that the online activity report should be up soon.
- Commented that the big development projects, such as Planned Development and
multi -unit commercial projects can bear the cost of notification.
- Commented that there should be signage to notify people that this is a project site
so there is no confusion.
- Commented that story poles are for notice but cannot show density and computer
graphics must accurately depict projects as do traditional models.
ATTACHMENT 6
Pulled Consent Item #7 continued
Ms. Avila
- Commented that a surveyor could do a true measurement to verify accuracy of the
height of story poles.
Council Discussion — Continued
- Commented that Council and the public should be advised on when an exception is
being considered and when it is granted.
- Commented that relevant information must be available for the public and that the
online development website will help.
- Commented that bright colored notices are better, but having building plans on the
postcards may cause confusion with other mailers.
- Commented that project identification signs are not extremely helpful.
- Requested clarification on CEQA visual impact analysis and how it relates t&!�tory
poles.
- Commented that projects must have some form of notification such as netting,
poles, cranes, etc.
- Commented that density is not realistic to show with story poles.
- Commented that graphics are helpful, so long they are verified.
Ms. Propp
- Commented that story poles are not required by CEQA.
Commented that story poles do not substitute for visual impacts studies.
Council Questions
- Questioned whether this policy replaces the old one.
Mr. Larson
- Commented that the old policy is staff level policy and this one is a Council policy 'so ,
it takes precedence.
Council Direction Summarized by Staff:
- Strengthen the review process for granting exceptions.
- Establish an online projects system, which staff will bring back as part of the budget.
- Strengthen public notification cards — include graphics for large projects, if possible.
Additional Council Direction:
Some type of onsite physical representation is required.
Eliminate signage requirement for single family homes unless it is a sign indicating
where to view plans.
6
RESOLUTION 2013 -
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTING THE REVISED HEIGHT POLE AND NETTING POLICY
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos is committed to providing
information and opportunities to encourage community members to follow development activity in
their neighborhoods and to actively participate m the land use development review process; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the placement of story poles and project
identification signs are extremely helpful and important during the course of the-Town's review of
applications for new development; and
WHEREAS, story poles enhance understanding of the project and potential impacts for
Town residents, staff, advisory bodies, and the decision making bodies; and
WHEREAS, story poles and project identification signs also provide a visual notice to the
community of a forthcoming land use public hearing; and
WHEREAS, following a study session on proposed revisions to the Height Pole and Duetting
Policy, the Town Council directed a number of revisions to the policy, including formalizing the
process for approving exceptions to the installation of story poles, incorporating standards for visual
simulations, and adding the requirement for project identification signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos does hereby adopt the revised Height Pole and Netting Policy attached as Exhibit A.
ATTACHME NT 7
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, held on the 5th day of August, 2013, 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
NADEV \RES0S\2013 \Story Pole Policy Resolution. 8- 5- 13.doe
Exhibit A
Height Pole and Netting Policy
For Additions and New Construction
I. Purpose:
It is a policy of the Town of Los Gatos Town Council to have story poles and project
identification signs installed on the sites of an active development application. The
placement of story poles is extremely helpful and important during the course of Town's
review of applications for new development. Proper and accurate placement of story
poles demonstrates the plaiuied rooflines and heights and Provides some indication of the
potential massing of the proposed structure. Story poles enhance understanding of the
project for Town residents, staff, advisory bodies,.and decision malting bodies. Story
poles also provide a visual notice to the community of a forthcoming land use public
hearing.
Project identification signs present both written and graphical information that will
further communicate the proposed project to the community as well as provide the public
ow da4e hearings dates for the development application..
This policy is for the benefit of the Town and community and is not intended to create a
requirement under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
II. Height Poles and Netting:
Height story poles and netting shall be used for the following types of Community
Development Department, Planning Division, land use applications:
New residential (excluding single -story detached accessory structures) and non-
residential buildings.
® Residential second story additions,
® Nonresidential additions exceeding 100 square feet.
The terms height poles and story poles are used interchangeably.
A. Procedure:
When it is determined that story poles are required, the applicant's engineer, architect
or building designer may be required to prepare a "Story Pole Plan" to indicate the
locations where the poles will be installed. The Story Pole Plan shall be approved by
the project planrier prior to the placement of the poles on the site. Once approved, the
applicant shall inform the project planner when the placement of the story poles is
complete and submit photographs showing installation. The story poles shall be
installed consistent with the following requirements:
EXHIBIT A
Of Attachment 7
Residential: The height poles and netting shall be installed prior to the neighborhood
notification process and shall remain in place until the project has been acted upon
incAu4i-ng -aay and the appeals period has ended. If the project is appealed, the
height poles and netting shall remain until the appeal has been acted upon.
Projects that Require Planning Commission or Town Council Action: The height
poles and netting shall be installed prior to the public noticing of the matter and shall
be kept in place until the project has been acted upon and the appeal period has
ended. If the project is appealed, the height poles and netting shall remain until the
appeal has been acted upon.
B. Timing
Public notices will not be mailed and/or noti egon application (s) shall not be
advertised until a Story Pole Plan has been approved by T^«��000�ff the project
planner, the height poles and netting have been installed, and photographs have been
submitted to Town sta the project planner, as required in Section II.A.
C. Location and Number:
The number of story poles may vary with each specific ,project. At the discretion of
the project planner, story pole locations shall adequately demonstrate the projeeted
height, mass, and bulk of the project requiring review. At a minimum, story poles
shall be placed at all outside building corners and along the prominent roof
ridgelines of the proposed structure(s) or addition. Trees may not be "flagged" or
used as a substitute for the erection of story poles. After the placement of the story
poles on -site, the applicant shall provide the project planner with photographs of the
story poles taken from a variety of vantage points. The vantage point from where the
photograph was taken shall be indicated on each photograph.
A licensed surveyor, civil engineer, architect, or building designer shall submit
written verification that the height and position of the poles and netting
accurately represents the height and location of the proposed structure(s) or
addition.
D. Materials:
The material of the story poles shall be indicated on the Story Pole Plan. Story poles
shall be constructed of 2 "x4" lumber, metal poles, or other sturdy building material
acceptable to the project planner. Telephone poles; mechanical equipment, such as
cranes; or other materials may be acceptable for higher structures if the Community
Development Director determines that the material will adequately portray the height,
bulk, and mass of the proposed structure(s) or addition and withstand the wind and
weather. At least two foot (T) wide orange woven plastic snow fencing (netting)
must be erected to represent the rooflines and --of the prej -ec4 proposed structure(s) or
addition h€i&. Netting must be supported by height poles that are strong enough to
2
accurately maintain the outlines 9 and height of the structure(s). One of the height
poles on each elevation must be clearly marked and labeled in five foot (5')
increments measured from existing or finished grade, whichever creates a higher
profile, and consistent with the approved Story Pole Plans on file at the Community
Development Department.
- .
E. Story Pole Plan and Public Safety:
Jetting to be
-feet wide
All story poles shall be placed, braced and supported to ensure the health, safety and
general welfare of the public. The Story Pole Plan shall include the methods used to
secure the poles. Applicants shall sign an agreement that holds the Town harmless
for any liability associated with the construction of, or damage caused by the story
poles. If at any time, the Town determines the story poles to be unsafe, they shall be
repaired and reset immediately by the project applicant or, at the Town's discretion,
removed. Depending on the scope of the poles, the applicant may be requested to
verify with the Building Division of the Community Development Department that
no permits and /or inspections are required for the poles.
F. Exceptions:
In the event there are justifiable reasons why the story poles cam -lot be accommodated
for all structures proposed to be constructed on the project site, the applicant shall
submit a letter to the Community Development Director no later than 45 days prior to
the required installation date, clearly articulating the reasons why an exception to the
Story Pole requirement is ne, —asibi warranted. Requests for an exception and
9
alternative plan will only be considered if the applicant can clearly demonstrate to the
Town, and the Town agrees, that the installation of the story poles would: (1) cause a
threat to public health and safety or (2) would impair the use of existing structure(s)
or the site to the extent it. would not be able to be occupied and the business or
residential use would be infeasible. Some form of poles and netting and /or on -site
physical representation of the project will be required, even if an exception is
granted.
Plazuied Development applications with multiple detached commercial structures
and /or residential units may request to erect story poles on the locations where the
key structures will be placed. The deciding body will take into account the density
of the development when considering an exception request. The story poles shall
be installed on all corner structures and the structures with the greatest height and
mass. An exception to providing story poles for all structures in a Planned
Development application with multiple commercial structures and /or residential units
shall follow the same procedures as outlined below.
The Town Manager will review all justifiable requests for an exception to the Story
Pole requirement within 14 days of receipt of the request and shall place the matter
on the next available Town Council agenda for consideration by the Council.
Alithin 10 d f• the T o v , T� 's decision, the M of two (ryn„n n'�Ti� n3 tlCr:C
r
+ +i T,�, :„ TiT. �nugc: i! s- c+ vrsrQtt- tie�� =cccc�`�i-- vzi -tz� zrc`zct —alp ro vvzz
Gouneil agenda for review and to affiriR, denyT-er_modif�, the Town Manager"s
Manager's ' rl +nrminatio will _ben unioated to the n plieant Written notice of
the exception request shall be mailed to property owners and residents of
properties within 300 feet of the project site. All requested and approved
exceptions Zvi -ll-- -shall be posted on the Town's Web site under "What's New!" in
agenda posting locations at Town Hall and the Library, and in the online
development activity report when established.
If an exception is approved, the applicant will be required to demonstrate the
proposed structure height and mass using alternative means as outlined in Section
II.H.
G. Alternatives: If an exception is granted to the Story Pole requirements, the applicant
shall provide digital imagery simulations, computer modeling, built to -scale models
or other visual teelmiques in -lieu of the Story Pole requirements. Simulations may
either be prepared by the applicant for technical review by the Town's consultant or
the applicant may elect to have the Town's consultant prepare the materials. In either
case, the applicant shall be responsible for all technical review(s), materials and cost
of the Town's evaluation and /or preparation process. To ensure accuracy, visual
simulations shall comply with the following standards:
4
® Establishing accuracy of the visual simulation: The applicant shall demonstrate
that the dimension and scale of the visual simulation and project setting are
equivalent. This is accomplished by examining screen views of the model in plan
and elevation views for accurate scaling. The visual simulation must also include
reference objects corresponding to known objects in the simulated scene, such as
buildings, curbs, utility poles, trees, or any other reference points visible in the
simulated scene, whose location is known from surveys or, at a minimum aerial
imagery. There shall be a minimum of two reference objects outside of the
project in different parts of the photo frame.
® Establishing the equivalence of the virtual and actual camera focal setting:
The camera lens focal setting or angle of view for each simulation base photo
shall be stated. The camera model shall be provided since the angle of the focal
view varies with different cameras. The preparer of the photo simulations shall
provide the manufacturer specifications indicating, the 35 mm film SLF lens
correspondence, or other means to calculate the angle of view.
® Depict the accurate location of the photo and establish the correspondence of the
virtual camera with the visual simulation: The photo location shall be indicated
accurately on a map or aerial photo, and the correspondence within the visual
simulation should be demonstrated. Simulated views should not employ cropping,
or if they must, the original, uncropped rendered image shall be provided. Once
the images are cropped, it is impossible to validate their accuracy.
• Other Information: The Town's consultant may require other information to assess
the accuracy of the visual simulation.
H. Removal:
Once a final action has been taken and the appeal period is over, the height poles and
netting shall be removed at the applicant's expense within 30 days. If not removed,
the height poles and netting will be considered rubbish and will be in violation of
Section 11.10.020 of the Town Code and the matter will be forwarded to Code
Compliance for enforcement action.
IIL Project Identification Signs:
All development applications that must comply with the story pole and netting
requirements shall also provide project identification signs on the development site
consistent with the following requirements.
A. Timing:
Public notices will not be mailed and /or neti catien application(s) shall not be
advertised. until project identification sign(s) have been installed.. The location of the
project identification sign(s) shall be shown on the Story Pole Plan. The applicant
E
shall submit a signed declaration confirming that the project identification sign(s)
were installed. The applicant shall also submit a photo showing the on -site sign(s)
installed on the subject property prior to the distribution of the public notices.
B. Size:
Si e-aia tialS en -Story Rnmedels -or New Residential Structures:
One, 2'x2' sigh placed on the street frontage. The top of the sign shall be five feet
(5') from existing grade and visible from adjeeent -the main streets- frontage. The
sign shall indicate the scheduled public hearing date and the availability of
plans for review at the Community Development Department.
Commercial /Industrial Remodels or New Construction: One 4'x8' sign on each of
the property frontages that are visible to surrounding public rights of ways,
including pedestrian trails such as the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The top of the signs
shall be six feet (6) from existing grade. The Community Development Director
may require additional signs for development sites that have large frontages.
Downtown (C -2 Zone) Remodels or New Commercial Development: One 2' by
3' vertical sigh constructed of metal frame with water resistant plastic or
laminated face. In cases where it is infeasible to install a free- standing sigh, the
posting of a durable, all weather sign on or inside the window of a building is
permitted, provided the sign is visible from public, locations outside the building.
Requests for an exception to the free- standing sign requirements shall be made to
the Community Development Department in writing no less than 30 days prior to
the public hearing for the project.
C. Number and Placement of Signs:
With one exception, on -site signs shall be placed on each street frontage of the site.
The exception is for permits related to an individual new single family dwelling Of
seeend story „dditio In this case, only one sigh on the street frontage is required.
The signs shall be oriented towards the street, within one foot (1') of the front
property line or two feet (2') of the back of the sidewalk.
D. Materials:
Signs shall be constructed of durable materials, such as foam core or plywood, and
shall be laminated during the rainy season (October through April). The sign colors
shall be a white background with black printing, and color graphics (excluding single
family, which may have black and white graphics). As noted udder Section III.B.,
signs in the Downtown C -2 Zone shall be constructed of higher grade materials,
including a metal frame and a plastic or laminated poster board face.
0
E. Sign Content:
Up to 75% of the overall sign area must be used to provide a general description of
the project; including number of residential units or commercial buildings and square
footage; a color perspective drawing, er three - dimensional image or photographic
simulation and the name and contact information of the project applicant. New single
family ne constru ction or= eeen' steFy remedel proje&ts are is not required to
provide a rendering on the sign. The public notice portion of the sign message must
constitute 25 percent of the overall sign area and notify the community of the public
hearing date and time and contain the following message "For more information
about this project, please contact the Town of Los Gatos Planning Division at 110 E.
Main Street, Los Gatos, (408) 354 -6872. The project address and application number
shall be included on the notice.
F. Duration of Sign Posting:
Project identification signs shall be placed on site consistent with the timing ofn
installation of the story poles (See Section II.B.) and shall be removed within 30 days
of the final actions (See Section II.H.).
G. Maintenance:
The applicant is responsible for replacement of any missing, damaged or vandalized
signs within five days of request by the Town. The Town may cease processing of
the application if the signs are not replaced and /or maintained.
NADEMESOMOMStory Pole Policy Resolution. 8-5 -13. [EXHIBIT A] :doex
T11 is Page
Intentionally
Left flank