ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
invited guests. Since this is a private residence of our guests, which it would be and historically has been, it wouldn’t be open to the public to come and go as they
please. I hope that answers your question.
CHAIR JANOFF: It does, thank you. Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I did have a follow up
question to that. I was wondering if Covia had any data from some of their other sites about the percentage of
residents that move into the community, about like how far they lived before, if they have any data about like have they moved in from the same zip code, what percent comes from farther away zip codes, etc.
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to ask Mary Mullin to
respond to this question. She’s an executive at Covia.
MARY McMULLIN: My name is Mary McMullin; I’m
Chief Advancement Officer with Covia.
Our market research has showed that typically in
excess of 60% of the residents are local within a five to ten mile radius, and it’s usually more on the five-mile radius side. The additional residents of the community, 30- 40%, come primarily for a relationship with someone local.
In other words, parents of local residents, people who
lived prior in Los Gatos who are returning in retirement,
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
or people who view this as a destination because they have a tie to the area. Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, thank you.
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for that. One last
question before we go to Commissioner Raspe.
In the public outreach recently, since the story
poles have gone up, do you hear any feedback from anyone within the immediate neighborhood? Of course they’re
concerned about the height and its impact on their
property. Have they also indicated the concern about height as it appears from the story poles or from your renderings from downtown? Have you addressed the height concerns of the downtown views?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: Yes. I will relay that some of
the comments have related not only to personal views, but also to views from other parts of town. Again, we feel like we’ve done a lot of work in balancing where that massing goes, and we understand that there are some impacts from some perspectives of the massing. But the answer is yes we have gotten such comments.
CHAIR JANOFF: But in your work in addressing
those comments, the consideration of reducing the overall height of your buildings has not been an alternative that you’ve chosen?
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
FRANK ROCKWOOD: That is correct. We have not
explored those alternatives at this time.
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. I was hoping the
Applicant could address briefly the traffic issues that we would expect from the new project, how it would vary from its predecessor, including the changes in the ingress and egress to the project, and also its impacts on fire life safety as well.
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to ask Mark Falgout to
take point on this. Mark, just a heads up, if you want, slides #50 and #51 may help provide backup on the traffic analysis.
MARK FALGOUT: Okay, if you’d like to display
those slides, that would be great, but essentially starting from an access standpoint for fire safety.
FRANK ROCKWOOD: That’s actually on #24. If you
go to slide #24, that’s the best slide to speak off of
fire.
MARK FALGOUT: Here’s the whole circulation. As I
believe everybody probably knows, the Farwell Lane does currently connect from Wood Road to Broadway as a private road, and then at the rear of the existing site there’s a dead-end road with a turnaround at the end of it, so from a
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
fire access standpoint we are looping the circulation so that Fire can circulate throughout the site, and we are going to allow emergency vehicle access from Broadway for fire and other emergency vehicles, but not regular day-today operations. In-and-outs is depicted by the blue line for where folks will come in off of Wood Road, pull into the valet, and the valet will go and park their car in the underground garage. So, the main change in circulation is simply that the site will not use Farwell Lane for
vehicular access; typically it’s just going to be emergency vehicles.
Now, we are open to should there be some reason
that the neighbors up the hill would need to use Farwell to get out in an emergency situation, that would be available for neighbors up the hill.
This looping action on the access road came out
of a lot of coordination with the Fire Department, so we’re not only looping the road, we’re also widening the road to at least 20 feet, and it’s 26 feet in many cases so that they have room to set up an aerial apparatus so that they can access the roofs to serve the site.
From a traffic numbers standpoint, we did take
some traffic counts in 2018, and when compared to the
existing site the peak daily trips will go up minimally,
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ten trips per day, which is a very small amount. But the peak hour trips will actually decrease, and the reason for that is they’re just a slightly different use from the ITE Institute of Traffic Engineer’s handbook for determining trip counts, and so the peak hour will go down because the peak times for those daily trips does adjust.
So, from a traffic standpoint the peak hour trips
will actually be decreased, and I don’t have the numbers directly in front of me, but we’re talking about
approximately less than 30 trips per peak hour, which means that’s a trip every 30 seconds, so we’re not talking about a very steady flow of traffic coming out of these things during the peak hours.
Hopefully I answered your question, but if I
missed something please, let me know and I’ll try to speak to it.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Just one follow up. It
sounds like the traffic patterns, or at least volumes,
won’t shift dramatically, but does the fact that you’re using Wood Road exclusively mean there’s going to be more traffic on Wood as opposed to what there was on Wood
previously?
MARK FALGOUT: We did not study, we didn’t take
volumes of vehicles that are coming out, but that was the
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
point where at peak hour utilizing Wood only would be
putting a car on Wood every 30 seconds, so there’s plenty of space between cars and it wouldn’t become a backup.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you very much.
CHAIR JANOFF: Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I had a follow up question.
It’s not a question about traffic; this is more about the construction phase. I realize that’s a time-limited thing, it’s not an ongoing thing, and it’s not something you’d typically worry about over the long term, but since under this proposal there would be 140,000—actually more coming out than that even—how long and how many truck loads would that be during the construction phase?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I do not know the estimated
number of truck offhand. Mark, I don't know if you do.
MARK FALGOUT: I don’t have the estimate offhand,
but I will say that the route would be from Wood Road
directly to Highway 17, even if that meant that the trucks would have to drive the wrong way on 17 and turn around in order to get to their destinations, so that we would avoid and minimize our impact on any city streets.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s good to know. I
thought of it because we had some construction on my own street, and they were putting in subterranean square
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
footage and this was only dozens of cubic yards, and it was probably two weeks of trucks every half hour, all day long, so it’s good to know that they would not be going through our streets.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for that.
Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I have a question and then a
follow up to that. I remember seeing this somewhere, I
think, but I couldn’t find it. How many of the units will be two-bedrooms and how many will be one-bedroom?
FRANK ROCKWELL: Let me pull out this slide deck.
Slide deck #41 will show you a detailed breakout of the unit types that we’re proposing. The breakout is such.
Roughly two-thirds are two-bedrooms and one-third onebedrooms. No studios. That’s in alignment with the focus group sessions that we had. It’s also in alignment with our experience. We actually had not that many two-bedroom units in the existing facility and always had a long, long
waiting list, and we’d actually have studio units that
would go vacant for years.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Can you try to shed some
light on why that is? Because it was my gut reaction that seniors are empty-nesters, they usually don’t have
roommates, they’re retired and wouldn’t theoretically need
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
a second office or anything, and so do you know why that is?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to ask Mary McMullin
to take point on that question.
MARY McMULLIN: As people age, the idea that they
want to downsize radically is actually proving false with each successive generation, so prior years when we would develop communities they would be studios or small onebedroom apartments. In reality, people as they retire and downsize today feel a two-bedroom apartment is a major
downsizing. They still want to be able to have room for family to visit. They want to be able to have an office.
They want to be able to have spare space that is not
immediately lived in all the time. Or they want to be able to construct a home to allow for leisure space, workspace, workout space, you name it, so the two-bedroom apartment has really become very standard in housing as people age, because that is really how they choose to live.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you.
CHAIR JANOFF: And a follow up question to that,
if I might. Two-bedrooms might be the standard, but 2,200 square foot, I guess that’s your penthouse. If you go back to the other slide you can see the square footage. The
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
square footage seems quite generous in terms of overall space.
MARY McMULLIN: Yes, again, it is response to
market demands. As people downsize out of a single-family house, our apartments offer anywhere from 40-80% of the space they experienced in a house prior to this. What they experience in the market as well as the focus groups and the market research has shown they want to be able to have their furniture, their treasures, their special pieces, with them. They want to be able to live in a way that
allows for entertaining and allows for visits, and so given the size of local homes, given the focus group work, given the market research, the square footage does reflect the desire of the market.
CHAIR JANOFF: And a follow up question. I think
it’s reasonable to say that there are multiple steps in a downsizing process for a senior, and it often comes to the point where they want to downsize further. They may have the two-bedroom now, but they want to go down to a onebedroom or a studio because they no longer have their spouse, or they no longer have possessions, or the ability to do the hobbies that they have. The configuration of your design looks to me as though it has minimal move-down
opportunity for seniors who might be part of the community
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
and want to move into a smaller space and stay within the community of friends and amenities that they’ve been
accustomed to. Can you speak to that?
MARY McMULLIN: We do have the opportunity for
people to move to the one-bedroom or one-bedroom with den apartments on campus. Again, something that we found in our decades of experience is that people do choose to move
down, but the numbers of people who do that is very small as a percentage of the total resident body. The preference is to stay in the apartment of origin, and then if they should choose to seek healthcare we do have the 17 care suites, which are smaller; those are studio-type homes. But we do have one-bedroom and one-bedroom with den homes that people could downside to on campus.
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Any other questions for
the Applicant? Commissioner Clark and then Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just want to dig a little
bit deeper on some of your responses about meeting market demands. In terms of it being two bedrooms to meet that and the sizing to meet that, I live in a two-bedroom, pretty big I think, apartment and it’s 900 square feet. So, I
think I’m going to ask, when you talk about it, it feels like you’re speaking to a pretty wealthy and luxury focus
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
sort of group, so what are you talking about when you talk about market desires and general community desires like that?
MARY McMULLIN: I have to say, Commissioner, this
is a fairly affluent opportunity for retirement, so given that, yes, our product size is to meet the needs of people who have owned homes in the Los Gatos area, who have had property, who have raised families in homes, and frankly, as a result of the success in general of the Los Gatos
area, those home values are very strong, and that enables people to trade the equity in their house for lifelong
security through a continuing care Life Plan community. So, yes, frankly, it is geared to a financially successful
market.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you.
CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I actually have six
questions, and I’m not sure what the order should be,
sequential or intermixed with other comments from the
Commissioners.
The one question I wanted to start with is
related to the Planned Development and height of the
buildings, which is a concern for the community. If I
counted right, on the five-story buildings there are only
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
19 units, which if they were eliminated would reduce the project by as much as perhaps 11%. I thought I saw a
comment about what’s economically feasible for this
project, and so the question is if 11% of the units were eliminated, would the project still be economically viable? FRANK ROCKWOOD: Unfortunately, it’s not kind of
black or white, what works and what doesn’t work. There are a lot of estimates that we make in the course of pursuing these projects, and some of those estimates vary as time goes on in terms of how they actually turn out, so it’s almost more of a probabilistic answer. If we eliminate one unit, two units, however many units, it goes from being viable to not being viable. No, that’s not the way we look at it does start to stress the project and makes it less likely that we’ll be able to get through the feasibility gate and get the financing and move forward. It’s a long way of saying that no, I don’t think reducing the project by a handful of units would necessarily put it in a
completely different category, but it would worsen the
probability to some degree.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Chair Janoff, I don't know
how you want to proceed with my additional questions. I’ll defer to you.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: Well, I think the discussion that
we’re having now is both informative to the commission and it’s also informative to the audience who are potential speakers, and so if you believe the questions that you have would further augment that knowledge, that the speakers would have additional information to work from, then I
would say ask the questions. If these are questions that would better be a wrap-up in terms of suggested
alternatives, then I would say let’s hold that until we hear from the public.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: From my perspective
they’ll all important and could relate to community input.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, then proceed.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The draft CEQA findings
identify 205 protected trees and eight large protected
trees that are proposed for removal based on the arborist report. My question is are all those intended to be
addressed by new plantings, or would there be in lieu fees, and if so, can you estimate the percentage of one versus the other?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to ask David Gates to
take point on this question.
DAVID GATES: Dave Gates, landscape architect on
the project team. We hired an arborist to go out and study
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the trees surrounding the building, which they did and
there was a minority report from the City arborist in
concert.
It’s an oak woodland basically, which had a lot
of invasive trees and a lot of suspect trees from a fire point of view and structural point of view, so the trees being removed are in most cases structurally damaged and fire suspect trees. There are some trees that will be
removed for construction, so those are also gone.
Our intent, to answer your question, is to put in
a lot of specimen trees, which you’re seeing in the
simulations now as a simulation with existing trees, and we will come back in and mitigate some of those views and we will bring back specimen oaks. In most cases there are
numbers in the tree report of what the mitigation costs would be for those trees. We will probably exceed that by 300-400% coming in with the specimen trees. We aren’t to that level yet, but I would guess we would be substantial in bringing in nice specimen oak trees, particularly the evergreen oaks, which will do a better job in screening.
A quick answer is we will probably exceed by
three to five times the cost of the mitigation price for the trees removed, and we’ll bring in the species in an appropriate way from a fire perspective with defensible
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
space and all the other criteria, which the species that are there now do not service well.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you for that
comment. I have a major concern about the parking at the project with active seniors. I expect that the 78 nontandem spaces in the parking structure will be mostly inadequate, and I saw that you had an alternative suggested possibly of having a valet, so that would allow 222 cars to be parked there, which would allow, I calculated, 79% of the residences to be accommodated with at least one car. I wonder if you could comment on whether the suggestion of a valet could be made as, say, part of the condition of the PD, or whether that’s something that you want to keep in a flexible state?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’d like to refer to slides #43
and #44 in responding to this question. The existing
community, and again, similar scale in terms of the number of units that were residents (inaudible) Staff, had onsite 130 parking spaces, and we actually had a valet in the
prior operation. That was insufficient. We actually had an arrangement with the Toll House to rent some of their less than 20 parking spaces there. Then we had Staff. That would actually lose the Town parking at the foot of Wood Road.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
We are looking to substantially increase the
number of parking spaces from what we had previously, and we’re looking to eliminate all the parking that would be kind of outside of the garage. We do think that this meets the requirement, and yes, in terms of valet, again, that’s something that we did previously and that’s something we anticipate doing, and we certainly would not have an issue with that being a requirement imposed on this project.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thank you very much.
On reflection, I think I’ll continue the questioning after the public input.
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Do we have any other
questions from Commissioners? Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just have one last
question. I was wondering, was any outreach done
specifically to potential residents of Los Gatos Meadows? FRANK ROCKWOOD: The short answer is yes. That
focus group that we mentioned, all of the folks that were invited to participate in that process were effectively potential residents. There’s a timing issue, so it will be some time in the best case before we would actually be able to accommodate any of those residents, but they certainly were kind of chosen based on being candidates to move into this community in this location.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, great, and like
theoretically fit the demographic. Thank you.
CHAIR JANOFF: So, it’s fair to say that it was
as much a focus group as it was a marketing meeting, it sounds like, is that correct?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to let Mary McMullin
take point on that question.
MARY McMULLIN: Hi, it’s Mary again. It is a
marketing opportunity, but first and foremost it’s a survey opportunity to make sure that we’re designing a product that is applicable in the market. There were a number of questions asked that were iterative; so when people
answered we could work off of those responses and take that into consideration with development.
We used a list of people who would financially
qualify. We could obtain a similar list for marketing. We did not retain that list of people specifically from the focus group for future marketing.
FRANK ROCKWOOD: Actually, I’d like to make one
more comment that I think will address this question.
CHAIR JANOFF: I’m sorry, Mr. Rockford, Ms.
McMullin answered my question. If there are no further
questions from Commissioners, I think it’s a good time to move on to opening it for members of the public who would
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
wish to speak. Director Paulson, do we have anyone who
wishes to speak on this matter?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. The first speaker will be
Julie.
JULIE: Hello, this is Julie. I am a neighbor of
Wood Road and I have attended almost all of the open houses at the Meadows. I’ve lived on the hill for over 30 years and I love the Meadows as a neighbor.
Very happy that the story poles have gone up so
that the neighbors and myself can see a little bit more of what’s going on. I still support the Meadows project, but I do have some items that I didn’t get in by the timeline this morning for Sean, so that’s why I’m speaking now.
The first item was that once the story poles went
up they did clearly show a bit more bulk than what we were anticipating.
The second item is that we’re very happy to hear
that they are proposing or thinking about solar, though we hope that it doesn’t add much to the height.
Third item is parking. More parking is good for
the workers, but it will add more traffic regardless of what I think any traffic study may have done. Before they closed, the workers that parked offsite walked up the road.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Fourth item, Wood Road is getting lots of
attention by people on foot and by car, especially now that the flags are up. Many are driving to the top end of Wood Road and are coming back down, turning around in people’s driveways, etc., and really adding to the traffic flow.
This is really giving us a flavor of what’s going to happen once a project takes off.
This also exacerbates the fact that there is only
a sidewalk a few feet up the road. It might be nice to have some sort of sidewalk or street marking where bikes or
people could walk safely when they rebuild and after they have successfully built. I do understand from the open
house that a sidewalk may be out of the question due to tree roots and things of that nature, but I wanted to voice my interest.
Fifth item, this also leads to my consistent
request that the Meadows community have heard me say at almost every open house meeting is the closing off of the Broadway exit to neighbors. I do understand the theory, but in the open houses they said it’s because when people go down to Farwell Lane they don’t want to hit pedestrians on the sidewalk. Well, we don’t even have a sidewalk on Wood Road, and we have to walk in the road when we’re going up and down to our houses as it is today.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
So, the three items that I have to that is that
that current Broadway exit in front of the Meadows before they closed, it saved us during the 1997 fire. My house personally burnt down during that period of time, but
traffic was able to come and go from that.
CHAIR JANOFF: I’m sorry, I need to interrupt
you, but your time has expired. Do Commissioners have any questions? Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I just wanted to ask if you
wouldn’t mind submitting your comments in writing even
though you were able to speak at the meeting tonight,
because it would be good to have that as we move forward in working with this project. Would you be able to do that? JULIE: I believe I did submit them to Sean, but
I missed the deadline at 11:00 o’clock.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, you missed the deadline.
JULIE: I think I got them in at 1:00 o’clock.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you, because
your comments are very helpful, as are all comments from the public. Thank you.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, Director Paulson, do we
have anyone else wishing to speak?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. The next speaker will be
Mr. Konrad.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
RICHARD KONRAD: I’m the current chair of the
Community Health and Senior Service Commission in Los Gatos and we recently completed a survey of service providers to deliver (inaudible), and in doing so there was a lot of concern among service providers that there are people who want to stay in Los Gatos but can’t afford it, and so I urge you to consider affordability in your actions as you go forward.
Also, I’m a member of the service committee
that’s currently doing an extensive survey of seniors in Los Gatos in January, and that data should be available soon, and it might be of use to everyone on the commission.
That’s all I have to say. Again, good luck and
let’s get affordable housing for seniors.
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Mr. Konrad. Any
questions for the speaker? I don’t see any hands raised.
Thank you very much. Director Paulson, do we have any other individuals wishing to speak?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. The next speaker will be
Andy.
ANDY GHOFRANI: Hi, this is Andy Ghofrani. I live
at 121 Wood Road on the hill directly behind the proposed development. My property has the largest visual impact by the mass of the proposed construction, and this is per the
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
admission of the developer and the last architect that I have discussed.
Per the EIR, as I understand it, 85 foot building
heights are 35 feet more than the 50-foot original
elevation, so this essentially is a 35-foot vertical
reduction in my view of town and the east hills, which is replaced by buildings across my site.
As proposed, the villas farthest from me and
closer to Town are higher then the villas in front of me. I would like to ask the building masses to be distributed more evenly to reduce the visual impact from my site. Since we live on a hill and don’t have a front yard, my front deck acts as my yard, and this has a major effect on my view, as I mentioned. Per my conversation with Mr. Rockwood and Mr. Gates, this proposed change should not be visible from the Town’s point of view, which sits at the lower
angle and won’t have an additional impact to what’s shown in the current plans.
The second comment I have is about the truck
traffic. I am in the construction business myself, so once I heard the 140,000 cubic yards of excavation volume and using ten-wheeler trucks, which carry about ten yards, that will be 14,000 trucks, and if you have the 14,000 trucks in six months you’ll have about 15 trucks an hour going
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
through Wood Road, so you have to deal with that, and I wanted Julie to hear that, too, as a neighbor. We are
neighbors and this is something new to me. Thank you.
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you very much for your
comments, and for clarifying what 140,000 square foot of dirt removal would entail in terms of truck trips. Any
other comments or questions from Commissioners? I don’t see any hands raised. Director Paulson, is there anyone else wishing to speak at this time?
JOEL PAULSON: I don’t see any other hands
raised. Let’s give it a minute. If anyone else from the public would like to speak on this matter, please raise your hand. I don’t see any other hands raised, Chair.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, then we’ll now close
the public hearing on this item and re-invite the Applicant back for three minutes. Thank you.
FRANK ROCKWELL: I do want to make one point
regarding our community outreach and regarding the
marketing question. If you could go to slide #11.
I’d like to point out that in our Letter of
Justification we have a comprehensive list of all of our communications with neighbors over the last several years.
We have been maintaining a project website since 2018. I encourage everybody and anyone that has any interest in
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
this project to go into this website. There’s the web
address, but if you just Google “Los Gatos Meadows,” this should come up. We post on this website. We have a video summary of our project proposal that really stresses the architecture. We have video on that website that talks
about this self-driving vehicle system, and we update the Frequently Asked Questions on a regular basis, and that includes contact information and links, and links to the Town’s website, etc.
About once a month we do get marketing inquires,
so we have been keeping track of real prospects, of folks that have indicated that they do want to live in this
community and want to be apprised or updated. I just wanted to get that point across.
Just one minor thing, on the sidewalk on Wood
Road I just want to clarify that as part of the draft
conditions we are obligated to install a sidewalk on Wood Road up to the entrance of our property, so I just wanted to clarify that.
That’s it. I’m going to hand it back to you.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you, Mr.
Rockwood. Do Commissioners have any additional questions for the Applicant at this time? Commissioner Barnett.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I had a few additional
points to make, or questions to ask here.
The letter of Mr. Rockwood to Vice Chair Hanssen
on January 26th, on page 13, says, “The Applicant will
either use LEED or GreenPoint rating system,” but later in that letter it indicates that there might be a choice
already of GreenPoint, and I was wondering if you had
agreed that the LEED process is more rigorous than the
GreenPoint?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’m going to let our architect,
(inaudible) Kelly address that question.
MR. KELLY: Can you repeat the question, please?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The question is whether
Covia tends to use the LEED or the GreenPoint rating
system.
MR. KELLY: The LEED rating system is actually
outpaced by your California code, because it’s much more strict than the LEED. We could use LEED; it requires
verification. But because the California code is stricter than LEED, we just usually fall back on the California
code.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, that’s very helpful.
Than one other question. There’s a point in the letter of Mr. Rockwood dated July 9, 2021 regarding the need for a
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ten-foot setback from drainage features during tree
removal, demolition, and construction activities, and the comments stated that additional information would be
provided after consultation with the project team as to whether government agency approvals would be required. I was wondering what the outcome of that was.
MR. KELLY: I’m sorry, could I ask you to repeat
the question? It has to do with…
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: A required ten-foot
setback from site drainage features during tree removal, demolition, and construction activities.
MR. KELLY: I think that was kind of a wetland
issue, staying away from a wetland condition, so Mark, I think that would be you.
MARK FALGOUT: This applies at the back of the
site. There is a drainage that runs down the hill that
drains into an existing inlet and it’s then piped off the site, and we’ve pulled back any work at least ten feet away from that in order to meet that requirement.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, so the government
agency of (inaudible) will not be necessary, correct?
MARK FALGOUT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thank you.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for those questions,
Commissioner Barnett. Any other questions for the Applicant at this time? Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I just have a follow up
question about the LEED versus the GreenPoint for our state standards. Are there any plans…
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’ve lost audio contact, so if
you could repeat that.
CHAIR JANOFF: We have lost audio as well.
Commissioner Thomas, if you can hear us, we can’t hear you.
JOEL PAULSON: It appears that she’s frozen.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right. Let’s ask the question
I think Commissioner Thomas was intending to ask, and that is… Well, actually I don’t know what she was going to ask for that matter, so let’s not put words in her mouth, and if she rejoins us then perhaps that’s a question that could be asked of Staff. If there are no other questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I just have a
question regarding the tree removals. I know that there are a variety of reasons for removing all of those different trees, but eight of the trees that you’re planning to
remove are large protected, and that’s definitely not
something that I take lightly. Those trees take 100 years
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
or more to grow, and you can’t plant a 100-year-old tree.
The reasoning I noticed for five of the eight was for
construction, so I wanted to ask what efforts you made to preserve trees? During my site visit I noticed a lot of them were incorporated into the existing facility, and did you try to do that in any way to preserve some trees?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: I’d like to speak to that, and
then I’ll also have Mark Falgout speak to that.
I just emphasize that one of the reasons we
decided to not expand the development pad was because of its impact on trees. Most of the tree removal, because
we’re keeping the same development pad it turns out—I’ll let Mark speak to it—a lot of the tree removal requirements were really being driven by fire access, so we really have a bad current situation in terms of fire accessibility.
Mark, I’ll let you speak to that.
MARK FALGOUT: Yes, we had to widen the road, but
for instance, at the back of the site we’re using the
uphill edge of the road as our limit, widening it into the site so that we’re not affecting the trees that are up the hill, and we’re not going to grade up the hill for
daylight. We’re going to build walls to really minimize the grading impact, because grading obviously is going to
impact trees.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
A major focus in the site design was how do we
preserve these trees, and quite frankly, we did the same thing on the downhill side where we did have to widen the roads to meet fire access requirements, but we’re using walls in order to minimize the grading down the hill where those two cottages are now so that we can preserve the
trees that are down there instead of impacting them.
So, there was quite a bit of thought that went
into how can we really minimize our footprint, and I think the whole idea that Frank mentioned of trying to design inside the existing footprint, as well as the way that we tried to minimize the grading outside of that footprint, speaks to that. Now, as the design progressed and our
discussions with Fire continued we did have to expand in order to make sure that we got the loop along the north edge that they were going to require.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I think I would have liked
to see some more effort to incorporate those trees that are on the property into the design, but I appreciate you
shedding light on the efforts that you made. Thank you.
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Any other questions
from Commissioners? Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Actually I have one more,
and this will be it. Apparently not required by CEQA, but I
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
am concerned about the safety at the intersection of Wood Road and the off-ramp and on-ramp to Highway 17. I was
wondering if you had considered whether any traffic
mitigation could be offered at that site, such as a
stoplight or a roundabout?
FRANK ROCKWOOD: My quick response is we
absolutely are going to contribute our fair share
contributions to any of those types of improvements. Mark, I don't know if you have anything to add to that.
MARK FALGOUT: No, I don’t think I have anything
to add.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you, that’s
appreciated.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, any other questions
from Commissioners? I don’t see any hands raised, so at this time I will now close the public hearing on this item and ask if any Commissioners have questions of Staff, wish to comment on the application, or introduce a motion for consideration? Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I have a quick question for
Staff and I’m not sure it can answered now or if it takes a little research, and specifically for our Town Attorney.
I know that Applicant’s counsel has opined that
the affordable housing laws are inapplicable to this
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
particular development, but before we proceed with that understanding I’d like get maybe a second opinion from the Town, whether there is a requirement to put affordable
housing in this development. I think it would be an
important thing to know as we proceed.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And I completely agree with the
statements made by the Applicant, that they are exempt from it.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Okay, thank you, Counsel.
CHAIR JANOFF: Any other comments, questions, or
concerns? Commissioner Tavana, then Vice Chair Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I’ll be brief here. Thank
you, Chair. I do have concerns about this Planned
Development specifically regarding building height and the sheer number of trees being removed. There are only eight large protected trees, but if you go to the tree inventory table there are a host of protected tress. While not all of them are large protected, they are rather large trees, and I just don’t know how that will look in terms of the
viewing for like a hillside perspective.
Secondly, as part of a Planned Development—I’m
going back to the 2020 General Plan—it says, “The PD
Overlay Zone is intended to ensure orderly planning and quality of design that will be in harmony with the existing
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
or potential development of the surrounding neighborhood.” So, in looking at these plans and the story poles, I don’t see how it blends with the entire surrounding neighborhood.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for those
comments. Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I have mixed feelings on
this one. Certainly there is a need for additional senior housing. We all know that there is a long waiting list at the Terraces for certain kinds of units, but on the other hand we have also seen quite a number of people come into Town and are stating to want to build senior facilities. I guess where I come out on this is I was on the Planned
Development Study Committee when we were looking at the Planned Development Ordinance, and the Applicant did
mention about providing a public benefit, so the main
public benefit I see out of this is for the most affluent people in Los Gatos in the big houses to have something that they can move down to that’s easier to step down to than something that’s smaller.
But who we’re not providing a public benefit for
is the full range of people that live in Los Gatos that might be seniors that may or may not be able to afford
those penthouse units, so it troubles me to think that’s a pretty narrow slice of the market. I think we all know that
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
57 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Los Gatos is wealthy, but we’re trying to provide housing for a wide range of people, and as Chair of the Housing Element Advisory Board and the General Plan Committee
before that, it troubles me to see that this is such a
narrow slice.
When I add that onto the fact that this is being
built in essentially the hillsides—and even though the
Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines don’t apply to this project, it was mentioned by the CDAC back when they first saw it that we have to consider it at least in the spirit of Hillside Design Guidelines—I have to ask myself would we put the tallest building in Los Gatos in our
hillsides? The answer to me says no, and so if I were to get comfortable with this proposal it would have to be less height.
Then I also wanted to comment on the cut and
fill. This is troubling, because it is desirable from a LEED perspective to do underground parking, but this is also in the hillside, so I wonder is this for the good of Los Gatos to dig into our hillsides and remove 140,000
cubic yards of soil just to get an underground parking
garage? I’m not sure that the benefit outweighs the cost of it.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
58 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
For me to get comfortable with recommending
approval of this there would have to be some changes,
definitely in reducing the height. I’m not as sure if I would stand firm on the underground parking, because I do see a benefit and a cost, but it might be nice to know what alternatives there are to architecting it in that way.
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for those comments.
Commissioner Clark
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I also have a
number of concerns.
First would be affordable housing and the lack of
willingness to try to incorporate some form of that was concerning to me, because the reality is even if you’re not required to and even if you might not profit from it, you can choose to incorporate some affordable units just so that more of the community can be welcomed and more of the needs can be met.
I also wanted to point out that 120 Staff would
be hired, and we’re already seeing people commuting from like Stockton in order to work here because of the housing shortage, and so I think it could be kind of hurting that in multiple ways.
My next concern is definitely the height. I think
it’s very interesting that there are going to be less units
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
59 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
but the buildings are going to be two stories taller, and it seems to me because height is such a concern the units could be smaller, and I also think that there could be less two-bedroom units in order to try to accommodate this,
especially because it is in the hillsides and would be the tallest building in town.
Next is benefitting of the community at large. I
agree that it doesn’t really feel like it does this,
because first, who knows how many Los Gatos residents can afford to live here or would get admitted in order to live here, and then the fact that the general public isn’t
really allowed to utilize this area, it felt to me like it is a very thin slice of the population that it would be benefitting, and it’s something that a lot of us will see every single day.
Last is like I pointed out earlier, the tree
removals. It feels like there could be more effort to
preserve some of the trees and to incorporate them into the design and that sort of thing, and in general fit is a
concerning number to remove.
Overall it feels like more luxury housing isn’t
exactly what we need, and to me that is concerning.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
60 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for those comments,
Commissioner Clark. Any other comments? Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I have a
lot of concerns too with this project. At the end of the day I know that this is just moving a recommendation
essentially to the Town Council, but we’re still required to make some findings and I just don’t think this complies with the General Plan in any way, shape, or form. Maybe not in any way, shape, or form is an extreme way to say it, but as a person who just was on the General Plan Committee and now on the Housing Element, there are fewer units, it’s not the type of housing that we’re looking to develop in Los Gatos and that we know we need, and the tree removal. Those are just three of many things that I think that do not, in my mind, comply with the General Plan.
I really tried to come into this with an open
mind and hope that I was missing something, but the
information that I’ve received tonight is not making me feel any better about it complying with the General Plan. I am curious to hear about what other Commissioners think about that, but as far as the information I have in front of me and what I’ve heard tonight, I do not feel
comfortable saying that this aligns with our General Plan.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for those comments,
Commissioner Thomas. Any other thoughts? Commissioner
Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I think with respect to
our obligation in this matter we have to distinguish the Planned Development Application and the CEQA finding, as Commissioner Raspe pointed out in his initial remarks. From the CEQA standpoint I think that the findings can be made.
From the Planned Development standpoint I share the concern about the height of the building.
With respect to the trees, although mitigation
has been proposed I think that the concern about the
traffic coming off of Wood Road is a material factor and should be considered by the Council to see if something could be done on that front, whether it needs to be in
conjunction with the Town or otherwise.
Those are my general concerns and comments.
CHAIR JANOFF: Before calling on Vice Chair
Hanssen again, I share many of the same comments as
Commissioners have weighed in with tonight.
I do believe that there is a need for senior
housing. I think that we can agree that there’s a need for senior housing. The Meadows was sorely missed when it
closed and I think we’re all welcoming something coming
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
62 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
back into that facility, but as has been said, it feels very much like luxury, exclusive housing. I understand that it’s a senior model and it does provide care, but it
provides that at high expense to the residents of Los
Gatos.
When we saw the renderings that the Applicant
provided of the views from the Town where we see the
buildings up above the tree line, it’s an alarming thing to see those heights provided in penthouse format. We’re
losing the view of our hillside from the broader public and we’re giving it to a small number of potential senior
residents, and that seems like an unfair trade to me in terms of benefit to the Town of Los Gatos, so I do have a real concern about the height.
If the Applicant were to say to the Commission
tonight that it would be willing to consider reduced
heights so we don’t see the buildings above the trees, and however they made that happen, to pencil out with fewer units or units of smaller size, I agree that so many twobedrooms seem unnecessary. You could probably take those floors that I’m recommending be taken away and redistribute those into some smaller units. Not all of them; you could still maintain your sense of luxury. So, that’s a concern.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
63 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The business model of a senior community is quite
different. I’ve looked into this extensively for my own mother in this community at large; I’m very familiar with the different models and how they work. How below market or reduced cost housing would be provided is a great question.
I don’t know it would be done, but I’m sure it could be, and that would be a further benefit to the community too.
I think from my standpoint the proposal before us
has gone a little bit too far in terms of height and luxury for a few people without the benefit to the rest of the Town. I would not be inclined to support it moving forward to the Town, but I would be inclined if the Applicant were interested in scheduling a continuation so that the
concerns of the Planning Commission that have been heard tonight can be reconsidered in a revised plan. Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m glad you made all your
comments before me. But mine was more of a process question related to what Commissioner Barnett said, so I wanted to ask our Town Attorney.
We’ve actually had this scenario in the past
where the Commission was having issues with the project, but then the EIR is this kind of a different matter. It’s sort of its own animal, and if the proper mitigation
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
measures are proposed, if it’s not necessarily related to the provability of the project, and if it were the will of the Commission to not move forward with a recommendation, is there any point in recommending approval of the EIR; I’m asking our Town Attorney that.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: When you’ve completed with your
deliberations, yes, you certainly could make the
recommendation to Council that the CEQA document is
adequate and then from there move onto your second, which would be a recommendation now that it doesn’t meet the
Planned Development requirements, and set forth those
reasons why.
The other question you can ask, you can open the
public comment for the limited issue of whether the
Applicant would even consider a continuance to try to
revise his application to see if he can meet the statements made by the Planning Commission; so that’s the other issue.
Instead of completing tonight you could ask the Applicant if he’s willing to consider making changes to the project and bringing it back, but if not and the Applicant doesn’t want to do that, or the Planning Commission doesn’t want a continuance, then it certainly could make a motion with regard to the CEQA document and then separate regarding (inaudible) the project.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR JANOFF: Follow up question. I would assume
that any changes to the proposal would not materially
affect the CEQA document, and therefore approving it would not be a problem?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: You’re only doing a
recommendation on the CEQA document. I would imagine that it would not, but we’d have to just see where that would go to if the application were changed. I envision maybe they would do something with the height requirement, but that might do something with more grading; I’m just giving an example. You might have to then reopen CEQA if there were some new environmental issues. I just don’t know at this point in time, we’d have to wait and see how that would develop.
CHAIR JANOFF: From my standpoint it seems
prudent that we wouldn’t recommend approval of the EIR in advance of a Planned Development that we could get our
approval behind, because we really wouldn’t know. If you think about it in that way, if something did dramatically change, then we would have recommended something that
wouldn’t be appropriate.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: So, if it is the will of the
Commission to reopen the public hearing to ask the
Applicant if they would be willing to undertake a
continuation in order to incorporate some of the changes that the Planning Commission has expressed concern about, I’d like to see a show of hands physical. Okay, it looks like that’s unanimous, so at this time, Director Paulson, if you would invite the Applicant back for that question, I would appreciate it.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Mr. Rockwood, you can
unmute yourself and answer this specific question as to whether or not you’re amenable to a continuance.
FRANK ROCKWOOD: Joel, I’d like to have Laura
Worthington-Forbes take point on this question. Would that be okay?
CHAIR JANOFF: That would be fine.
JOEL PAULSON: That is. One second. Ms.
Worthington-Forbes, you’re unmuted.
LAURA WORTHINGTON-FORBES: I think at this point
it would be very helpful if you could clarify what your recommendations are, and then our preference would be to provide us the ability to move forward. If you can make those recommendations we would take those into
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
67 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
consideration in tandem with moving towards a Council
hearing.
CHAIR JANOFF: Am I hearing you correctly in that
you would not be willing to take a continuance to respond back to the Planning Commission?
LAURA WORTHINGTON-FORBES: That’s correct. Our
preference would be to understand your recommendations and then consider those recommendations in tandem with the
ability to move forward to Council and address them at that time.
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Now we’ll close the
public portion of the meeting. I have a question for Staff.
So, this is a no, and if we proceed with what
sounds like a recommendation to deny the Planned
Development as proposed, then we would articulate why we’re saying no. It goes to the Town Council. If in between our recommendation of denial and the meeting before the Town Council the project materially changes, wouldn’t it need to come back to the Planning Commission anyway? We’ve had this conversation before about the reasons why it would or
wouldn’t come back to the Planning Commission. It’s usually on the matter of an appeal, so I’m asking procedurally how would that work?
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
68 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: You’re absolutely right. Our
appeal procedures do specifically state that if new
information is provided that wasn’t available to the
Planning Commission, then Council has the ability to send it back to Planning Commission; you’ve seen that happen on many occasions. This is just a recommendation, so it would be completely at the discretion of the Council. If in fact they felt like the Planning Commission needs to weigh in on the issues of a changed project, they certainly could send it back to Planning Commission, but it’s not as absolute as the ordinance as it’s relating to appeals.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for the
clarification. Just want to check in with members of the Commission. Is everyone clear on where we stand at this point? Commissioner Raspe, do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Just one quick question. I
understand how we are standing with respect to the PD. What about with respect to the EIR?
CHAIR JANOFF: Good next question. If we make a
recommendation to deny the PD we can also make a
recommendation to deny the EIR because we don’t know yet what the final form of the PD might be, or we could also say we recommend approval of the EIR if the Planned
Development that Town Council might approve will not
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
69 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
materially impact the EIR. I’m not sure which is the best way to proceed.
JOEL PAULSON: I don't know if there’s a best
way. I’ll jump in, and then if the Town Attorney has
anything additional. There are multiple options. You just laid out two of them.
Also, you can have the conversation amongst
yourselves. You’ve had this come up before where an
Applicant has stated they’re not interested in a
continuance. Obviously, it’s ultimately up to the Planning Commission, so you really have a lot of different options to move forward.
CHAIR JANOFF: Discussion for the Commission, how
people would like to proceed. Commissioner Clark, then
Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just wanted to clarify,
when we asked about their willingness to return I felt like they used the word “preference” a lot but never really said whether they would actually be willing. I wanted to point that out, because I think that there is a chance that maybe they would prefer that over outright denial.
CHAIR JANOFF: I think I asked the question, for
clarification, but does the Commission agree that it was
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
70 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
unclear? Should we reopen to make that very specific
question? Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I didn’t think it was
unclear. I think they want to take their chances with the Town Council, and that they wanted to have further
direction from us, and it might have been that they wanted to make changes to the proposal between that and now and that was why you asked your question. Since this isn’t
truly an appeal it wouldn’t apply and the Council could do whatever they wanted. But I don’t think that they have an interest in coming back to the Planning Commission; that was my interpretation.
CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Raspe, did you have a
question or comment?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Two comments. First of all,
I agree with Vice Chair Hanssen’s interpretation of what just transpired. Additionally, with respect to the EIR my thinking would be that we would do a recommendation to not approve it until we have a more definitive PD in hand. I wouldn’t want to create a living document, for instance, that exists out there separate from the PD. Just my
thought.
CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Thomas.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
71 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree. I think within our
recommendation to Town Council we can say we don’t see any material issues with the Environmental Impact Report,
right? Can we discuss that for a moment, because I’m a
little bit unclear where other Commissioners stand on that specifically?
CHAIR JANOFF: Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I meant to comment on that.
I agree 100% with Commissioner Raspe. While if the project were not to change at all from where it stands today,
certainly I have no issues with the Environmental Impact Report, which was done based on the project as it stands today as well as the alternatives that are always proposed, including no project or a lesser project and so on, but it makes no sense at all to me with the number of changes that I’m hearing from the fellow Commissioners that would be desired to make this acceptable for approval.
It wouldn’t make any sense to say that the EIR
was certifiable because we would expect the project to
change pretty substantially, and even though the changes we would be asking would probably be less impact than in the environmental report, it wouldn’t be the same, so to me it doesn’t make sense to recommend approval of one and not the other.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
72 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for that. It
sounds like we have a motion at hand. Are we making a
motion, Director Paulson?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, you’ll need to make a motion.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right. Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m not sure I heard Mr.
Paulson right, but would it be in the power of the Planning Commission to continue this matter without agreement by the Applicant?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s always at the discretion of
the Planning Commission.
CHAIR JANOFF: The only problem I see with that
is that we could continue it and they come back with the proposal unchanged and we’ve just essentially wasted a lot of time without moving it along. I heard in so many words, as Vice Chair Hanssen stated, that they’re willing to take their changes with Town Council making a determination
that’s different from the direction that we will be
recommending, so I personally would not be in favor of the Planning Commission making a unilateral decision to
continue this, but I am open to other Commissioners. If that’s the will of the Commission we could certainly do that. I’m seeing a shaking head. I don’t see any traction
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
73 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
behind that approach, so I’m still looking for a motion.
Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: I will make an attempt at
it. I’m going to make a motion to recommend denial of the Planned Development Ordinance as it’s defined in our Staff Report for the reasons that were given, not the least of which would be the height, the trees, the lack of diversity in the housing types, too much concentration in luxury, and there were some other issues mentioned by the
Commissioners. So, while project certainly has some merit, it would need to be revised to be something that we would recommend approval on.
In addition to that, because we don’t find that
the Planned Development Ordinance as proposed can be
recommended for approval, we also recommend not certifying the Final EIR because it is not based on the project that we would like to see that we think is approvable. Is there anything else I need to include, Staff?
JOEL PAULSON: No, I think you’ve incorporated
the findings for denial. If you or any other Commissioners or the seconder want to provide any additional comments related to why you’re finding the PD doesn’t meet those findings, that would also be helpful for the Council as they consider it.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
74 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: And the Council does receive
copies of our meetings, so the details of our discussion will be available to them, but I think just a quick
articulation as Vice Chair Hanssen has given is good just in case we don’t get a thorough read. Is there anything else that Commissioners would like to add to that, or do we have a second to the motion? Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would ask the Maker of
the Motion that we could add in the reduced number of units also, but the increase in really like the height of the buildings too, so just as a note that it seems problematic and doesn’t align with the General Plan.
CHAIR JANOFF: I think what I heard you say was
backward from what you intended. We have a concern with the height, and if that means reducing the number of units, then reduce the number of units or just the size?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, they are reducing the
number of units from what was previously there, but they’re making it taller.
CHAIR JANOFF: Oh, I see. Right.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Just the ratio of number of
units to the overall height and size of the buildings, and the property does not seem to be in compliance with what our town needs right now.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
75 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: All right.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: And I would even add on what
Commissioner Thomas said earlier, that the things that I was citing are things that are founded in the General Plan as well as, even though it isn’t strictly applicable, the spirit of it is in the Hillside Design Standards and
Guidelines.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. And then I second the
motion.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for that. Do
we have any discussion of the motion or comments?
Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I would recommend
underlining to the Council where there has been a point of agreement or two by the Applicant concerning first the
valet parking and… Let’s see, there was another point of agreement.
CHAIR JANOFF: I think sidewalks on Broadway.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Sidewalks on Broadway was
another one. There’s still another one.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: The traffic abatement on
Wood.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, the contribution to
the traffic control on Wood Road and Highway 17.
ITEM NO. 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #3, 110 Wood Road
76 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: Is the Maker of the Motion
comfortable with adding those?
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.
CHAIR JANOFF: And the seconder?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
CHAIR JANOFF: All right. Any other changes or
comments on the motion on the table? Seeing no hands
raised, then I’ll call the question. By roll call, please vote yes, no, or abstain. Vice Chair Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.
CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.
CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.
CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.
CHAIR JANOFF: And I vote yes as well, so the
motion carries unanimously.
ITEM NO. 9.
36 Southwood Drive | Orinda, California | 94563
www.RockwoodPacific.com
March 17, 2022
Sean Mullin
Senior Planner
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
RE: Rebuild of Los Gatos Meadows
Letter of Response to Planning Commission Comments
Dear Sean:
Thank you for your continued assistance in helping navigate the proposed rebuild of Los Gatos Meadows, a Covia non-profit community, through the Town’s planning and entitlement process.
As you know, based on our meetings with Town Staff and further consideration, we have requested the opportunity to go back to Planning Commission to address the comments made during the January 12th Planning Commission hearing. Given the action taken by Planning Commission, we understand we must proceed to Town Council at this time.
Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to provide you and the Town Council a detailed response to the comments and concerns expressed by the Town Planning Commissioners and members of the public during the January Public Hearing.
The Meadows has fulfilled the need for senior housing in Los Gatos for more than 50 years.
Our proposal offers an opportunity to rebuild a beautiful, treasured Los Gatos asset in a manner that enhances public safety and respects the character of this unique site. We are eager to extend the historic legacy of much-needed residences and compassionate, highquality healthcare services to the broader Los Gatos senior community.
Our project application together with the corresponding Letter of Justification provide comprehensive details related to all aspects of our rebuild proposal, including our extensive and ongoing community outreach and engagement with our neighbors, stakeholders and seniors. Our project incorporates the comments received during review by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC), and the Technical Project Review meetings held with Town Staff and fully complies with the Town’s 2020 General Plan and the direction proposed in the 2040 General Plan Update. Our full proposal and letter of justification are available on the Town’s website (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W).
ATTACHMENT 9
ITEM NO. 9.
Page | 2
Additional details regarding our proposal are addressed in regularly updated responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs) and informational videos on Covia’s project website (https://covia.org/los-gatos-meadows/).
The rebuild proposal as submitted represents the culmination of more than three years of community outreach and scores of meetings with stakeholders. It was calibrated finely to meet the needs of the neighbors and of the community. Our request for approval of a Planned Development Overlay permit remains unchanged, as we are confident that our project as submitted would make a significant and beneficial contribution to Los Gatos.
We are pleased to present Town Staff and Town Council with specific options for consideration to address the Planning Commissioners’ feedback while respecting the time and effort of our stakeholders to shape our design. The result is a proposal that preserves the integrity of the Project Application while staying strictly within the parameters of the Town’s Environmental Impact Report.
We are also taking this opportunity to better explain some of our key priorities and/or critical project elements that we may not have articulated well during the Planning Commission public hearing. Some of these were most notably raised by the Planning Commissioners and quite validly warrant better explanation.
The Tradeoff Between Height/Massing versus Housing
The primary theme of comments made by the Planning Commission and the public is related to the height/massing of our proposed project as well as issues related to the project’s contribution to provide appropriate housing. These issues are directly linked. The smaller we make our project; the fewer units we can provide. As the project gets smaller, several fixed upfront and on-going costs are allocated over fewer units, increasing the minimum pricing to maintain feasibility. While Covia is a non-profit organization, it is not immune from these fundamental economic forces.
With this understanding in mind, coupled with our sensitivity to the concerns raised during the Planning Commission hearing, we are offering the following options for the Town Council’s consideration that carefully balances these tradeoffs. We plan to review these options in a town hall with our neighbors prior to presentation of the project to the Council.
Option A: Select Reduction in Height and Massing
We believe that our proposal “as-is” achieves an appropriate balance between the numerous applicable factors involved.
However, herein we summarize an option (Option A) that reduces the scale of the proposed project by eliminating a floor in Villa C (loss of six units) and stepping back Villa A (loss of two units). This change would reduce visual impacts from public and private views.
Appendix A includes more details related to this option.
ITEM NO. 9.
Page | 3
We are planning to add additional flags in a contrasting color to demarcate the revised massing and height of Option A using the existing Story Poles. The new flags will be in place prior to the Town Council meeting. Besides the additional flags, a new visualization exhibit, while not included herein, will be prepared and available at the Town Council meeting.
It’s worth noting that the Town’s Consulting Architect Report (May 8, 2020) and the Draft EIR concluded, respectively, that no changes to the proposed building design are warranted and that the “impacts to the visual character of the project site associated with the proposed project would be less than significant” (Impact 5-3).
Option B: Change in Unit Mix
Several comments made during the Planning Commission meeting questioned the “luxury” positioning of the proposed project. To be clear, it is our objective to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows as a beautiful community. The proposed use and proposed target positioning of the current application does not differ from our original entitlement application secured in the late 1960s. What has changed are the expectations for senior living that have evolved markedly over the past half-century. The preferences and expectations of people born in the later part of the 1800s (the intended age cohort of the original design) differ greatly from those of the baby-boomer generation.
The unit sizes and unit mix of the proposed project is based on focus group studies with local residents and decades of Covia’s experience providing similar services to thousands of older adults. A project positioning that is not in alignment with the market is not feasible.
We believe our proposal “as-is” aligns well with current local and market preferences.
However, herein we summarize an option (Option B) that makes a modest adjustment to the proposed unit mix by eliminating the five top-story penthouse units entirely, reducing the number of two bedroom/dens by eight units, increasing the number of one bedroom/dens by one unit, and adding 12 additional one-bedroom units. This option recovers the eight units lost in the implementation of Option A, while also achieving a more diverse mix in unit size/mix. Appendix B includes more details related to this option.
Option C: Reduction in Net Off-Haul
Meeting the operational needs for the former Los Gatos Meadows site required the use of numerous surface parking spaces as well as extensive use of off-site public and private parking that compromised fire department access. Resolving this has been a major priority of our planning efforts. In response to CDAC’s recommendation, our rebuild proposal incorporates a substantial increase in the number of below grade parking spaces that would necessitate a substantial volume of soil off-hauls.
We believe our proposal “as-is” balances the trade-off between parking needs and other factors such as volume of soil removed, off-haul impacts, visual impacts, fire access and tree removal impacts.
ITEM NO. 9.
Page | 4
However, we’ve heard Planning Commission’s concerns. Herein we summarize an option (Option C) that reduces the number of parking spaces provided and the volume of soil removed by approximately 10 percent. Appendix C includes more details related to this option.
Each of these options, independently and collectively, preserve the integrity of our rebuild proposal. Further, they fall within the parameters of the EIR Project Description, corresponding impacts analysis and conclusions, as prepared by the Town’s environmental consultant. Finally, based on review by our civil engineer, we are confident that any one or the combination of Options will result in only minor modifications to the plan sets on file.
Potential Below Market Rate Housing Contribution
We are not proposing to change the existing use. The State of California specifically prohibits the imposition of rent restrictions on this use.
In the spirit of contributing to the Town’s housing goals, subject to certain conditions, we are proposing that 7 units of our proposed rebuild be subject to similar restrictions as those imposed by the Town on the Terraces of Los Gatos. Details regarding this proposal are outlined in Appendix D.
Tree Impacts
The Planning Commission review raised a concern regarding our proposed project’s impact on trees. We believe we may not have sufficiently addressed this in our communications.
Without such explanation and key context, we understand these concerns.
The decision to maintain and, in fact, slightly reduce the development pad was made to prioritize tree preservation and to keep the design consistent with the spirit of the hillside guidelines. We made a judgment call that tree preservation should be a higher priority than height and massing impacts. Accordingly, we elected not to pursue an approach that would have stepped the project up the hill any further, resulting in shorter buildings and a loss of open space and existing trees.
Given this priority, why does our rebuild proposal affect so many trees? In two words: fire access. Most of the trees affected by our project directly relate to fire access improvements including:
• Creating a drive aisle around the entire property
• Widening the access route
• Adding staging areas
• Reducing grade changes in conformance with current standards We have taken extraordinary care to work with the Santa Clara County Fire Department to design a rebuild that respects the retention of existing trees and minimizes the existing wildfire risk.
ITEM NO. 9.
Page | 5
Any rebuild on the existing development pad would be expected to trigger these requirements and would result in the loss of some trees. In the event that the property is not rebuilt, one possible scenario is that the property would be re-opened with severely compromised fire accessibility with only few improvements to wildfire risk.
Further, the new plantings as described in our rebuild proposal will provide major improvements to mitigating wildfire risk in conformance with current best practices.
Finally, please consider the long-term impact of our proposed project to the ecology of trees on our site. Our proposed project will increase the amount of open space and the number of trees, as demonstrated by Sheets LS-1 through LS-11 of our submittal.
Community Benefit
Our Justification Letter addresses community benefits related to human services, town integration, improved on-site circulation, enhanced fire access, enhanced emergency access, improved vehicle and bicycle safety, reduction of vehicle trips, and energy and healthy environment improvements (see Section V of the Justification Letter).
In addition to these benefits, we are offering to support housing objectives (see “Below Market Rate Housing” section above).
Other Questions
There were questions related to off-haul and construction traffic, PG&E lines, water pressure, pedestrian access along Wood Road, and public access over Farwell Lane. We have updated our FAQ (Appendix E) to address these questions (See Questions 11 through 20). We have been updating periodically this FAQ document. The most current version of the FAQ document is available on the Covia Los Gatos Meadows website (https://covia.org/los-gatos-meadows/).
* * *
Our current project team began our journey to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows four years ago and along the way we have had the opportunity to communicate with numerous neighbors, business leaders, community leaders and stakeholders. This project represents the culmination of their hard work and participation in our community process.
We greatly appreciate the comments provided by members of the public and Planning Commission and appreciate having the opportunity to respond in detail. Given that our request is for a PD Overlay permit, we are optimistic that any design refinements from this point forward can be addressed during the Architectural and Site review process, thereby allowing this process to continue its path forward.
ITEM NO. 9.
Page | 6
We look forward to continuing to work with you and the Town Council to provide the residents of Los Gatos with a markedly improved, beautiful and safer Los Gatos Meadows.
Respectfully,
___________________________________
Francesco J. Rockwood
Rockwood Pacific Inc. (Applicant)
On behalf of Covia Communities (Owner)
c: Chris Ichien, Vice President of Life Plan Operations, Covia Communities Attachments
Appendix A – Option A
Appendix B – Option B
Appendix C – Option C
Appendix D – Potential Below Market Rate Housing Contribution Appendix E – FAQs as of March 2022
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix A – Option A
In response to feedback on views from Main Street and neighboring properties, the design team has reduced building heights in select locations. This option includes removing a full floor from Villa C and further stepping back the upper floors of Villa A as shown in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4. The 5th floor of Villa A in the current proposal (refer to A-105A) was stepped back with a clubhouse and rooftop patio. Figure 7 below shows the reduction of the 4th floor of Villa A (previously the 5th floor) and Figure 8 shows the 5th floor further stepped back. Figures 9 and 10 below show the impact of these reductions in section with Option A in red lines and the current proposal dashed in blue. Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the reduction in Villa A, primarily impacting the public view, and Figures 13-14 illustrate the reduction in Villa C, impacting the neighbors’ views.
This will result in a reduction of 8 units, representing 14,612 gross square feet and 12,240 rentable square feet.
We are planning to add additional flags in a contrasting color to demarcate the revised massing and height of Option A using the existing Story Poles. The new flags will be in place prior to the Town Council meeting. Besides the additional flags, a new visualization exhibit, while not included herein, will be prepared and available at the Town Council meeting.
Figure 1: Current
Proposal; unit count
at top floor
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix A – Option A
Figure 2: Option A;
unit count at top
floor
Figure 3: Current Proposal; Height comparison from existing
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix A – Option A
Figure 4:
Option A;
Height
comparison
from
existing
Table 2: Summary of Proposed Buildings
Building # of
Apartments
Gross Square Feet
(GSF)
Building
Height (ft)2
Building A 46 157,0541 85.5
Building B 20 41,483 70.5
Building C 29 56,891 81.5
Building D 15 31,426 70.5
Building E 18 40,712 82
Building F 17 40,712 82
Building G 14 31,426 70.5
Building H 15 31,112 59
1 Building A GSF includes service spaces on Level G including entry/reception, fitness area, health center and several back of house areas.
2 Finished building height dimensions are to ground level (+488’).
Source: Perkins Eastman, January 2020
Figure 5: Current Proposal; Summary of Proposed Buildings
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix A – Option A
Table 2: Summary of Proposed Buildings
Building # of
Apartments
Gross Square Feet
(GSF)
Building
Height (ft)2
Building A 44 152,7951 85.5
Building B 20 41,483 70.5
Building C 23 46,538 70
Building D 15 31,426 70.5
Building E 18 40,712 82
Building F 17 40,712 82
Building G 14 31,426 70.5
Building H 15 31,112 59
1 Building A GSF includes service spaces on Level G including entry/reception, fitness area, health center and several back of house areas.
2 Finished building height dimensions are to ground level (+488’).
Source: Perkins Eastman, January 2020
Figure 6: Option A; Revised Summary of Proposed Buildings Figure 7: Villa A 4th Floor – Option A
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix A – Option A
Figure 8: Villa A 5th Floor – Option A
Figure 9: Villa A Section through elevators Figure 10: Villa A Section through lounge
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix A – Option A
Figure 11: Current Proposal View; Villa A Figure 12: Option A View; Villa A Figure 13: Current Proposal View; Villa C Figure 14: Option A View; Villa C
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix B – Option B
Option B
In order to maintain an overall unit count of 174, the penthouse units on the upper floors of Villa E and F were reduced in size and divided into multiple units, while the stepped penthouses on C, D and G were eliminated and replaced with small units.
Figure 1 below shows the unit count in the current proposal as compared to the revised mix resulting from the reduction of units in Villas A and C and the division of units in Villas B, E, F and H.
Current Proposal Option B
Totals Totals
Avg Area
in SF
Unit
Count
Total SF
of Units
Avg
Area in
SF
Unit
Count
Total SF
of Units
1 Bedroom 1,067 9 1,011 21
1 Bed/Den 1,248 48 1,231 49
2 Bedroom 1,531 66 1,510 66
2 Bed Den 1,693 46 1,703 38
Penthouse 2,267 5
TOTALS 1,493 174 259,744 1,414 174 245,974
Figure 1: Unit Mix Comparison
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix C – Option C
Option C
Reductions to the parking garage were studied in order to reduce the hillside excavation and offhaul quantities. Figure 2 shows the lower level garage reduced by the area highlighted in red, reducing parking by 15 spaces in order to eliminate approximately 10,600 CY of off-haul (per Figure 1). Figure 3 shows the ground floor parking garage reduced by the area highlighted in red, reducing parking by 4 spaces in order to eliminate approximately 2,800 CY of off-haul (per Figure 1).
As a result, total parking spaces would decrease from 200 parking spaces to 181 parking spaces.
Standard parking spaces would decrease from 77 standard parking spaces to 62 standard parking spaces. At the previous site, Covia provided valet attendants that were available from 8AM and 5PM and had posted a phone number for valet services requested outside those hours. Covia intends to continue providing a similar valet service.
Figure 1: Off-haul Analysis
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix C – Option C
Figure 2: Lower-Level Garage Floor Reduction
Figure 3: Ground Floor Garage Reduction
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix D – Potential Below Market Housing Contribution Background: The proposal to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows does not increase the number of units, residents, or on-site staff, and accordingly, the project would not affect local affordable housing conditions. Furthermore, the imposition of rent and income restrictions for the Los Gatos Meadows use category (which is proposed to remain unchanged) is prohibited by state law.
However, in the spirit of expanding community benefits of the proposed project, Covia would be willing to implement a below market rent agreement contingent upon terms generally and similarly imposed on the Terraces of Los Gatos (the “Terraces”) per Town of Los Gatos Resolution 1993-49 (the “1993-49 Resolution”) with the adjustment, exceptions and qualifications outlined herein.
Units: Unlike the “Terraces”, the proposal is a rebuild project and would not increase the number of units, residents, or staff above the current baseline conditions as reflected in our existing entitlement approval granted in 1968. We propose that units subject to this limitation be based on the number of additional units we can accommodate by having Villa buildings up to five stories versus having Villa buildings up to only four stories.
Based on our proposed project and utilizing the 20% ratio specified in the 1993-49 Resolution, this would result in 7 units being subject to the below market rate restrictions.
Proposed Project with Option B Updates
1-BED
1-BED w
DEN 2-BED
2-BED w
DEN TOTAL RATIO BMR Units
Terrace 8 4 10 8 30
2nd Level 4 15 17 10 46
3rd Level 2 14 18 11 45
4th Level 3 11 14 7 35 x 20% 7 units
5th Level 4 5 7 2 18
TOTAL 21 49 66 38 174 7 units
In the above calculation, we are assuming that we would keep similar setbacks, so accordingly, for the purpose of this calculation we utilize the unit counts on the fourth level.
Another way to get to the same result would be to: (i) calculate the total number of units for a hypothetical version of the project limited to four stories, (ii) determine the change in the number of units in comparison to the proposed version, and (iii) apply the 20% ratio to the difference.
By permitting the project to go up to five stories, the project can accommodate an additional 35 units (174 units less 139 units as outlined below). Applying the 20% ratio to this increase (and rounding up) yields 7 units.
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix D – Potential Below Market Housing Contribution Hypothetical Project
1-BED
1-BED w
DEN 2-BED
2-BED w
DEN TOTAL
Terrace 8 4 10 8 30
2nd Level 4 15 17 10 46
3rd Level 2 14 18 11 45
4th Level 4 5 7 2 18
TOTAL 18 38 52 31 139
Note that the calculations above assume the adoptions of adjustments contemplated in Option A and Option B as outlined in Appendix A and Appendix B herein respectively. It is worth repeating, the proposed project is a rebuild proposal that is not proposing to increase the number of units.
As with the terms specified in the 1993-49 Resolution, only smaller units (one-bedroom units and one-bedroom with den units) would be subject to the below market rate terms. The rent discount would only apply to the independent residential apartments and would not apply to the supporting care units.
Monthly Rent Discount: The market rate monthly service fee shall be reduced by the percentage specified below to determine the amount of the below market price monthly fee.
One Bedroom 18.2%
One Bedroom with Den 14.7%
These percentages may not be decreased.
Qualifications:
1. No Material Changes: This proposal is contingent on there being no material changes to the proposed project imposed by the Town Council (aside from those offered herein), including a minimum Los Gatos Meadows unit count of 174 units with a minimum average unit size of 1,414 square feet of useable area per unit.
2. Internal Approvals: Imposition of these limitations are subject to appropriate internal Covia approval processes.
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix E – March FAQ
Rebuild of Los Gatos Meadows
Frequently Asked Questions
March 2022
Q1: What is the Los Gatos Meadows proposal?
A1: Our proposal to rebuild Los Gatos Meadows provides innovative senior care and housing on a safe and modern campus that ensures the safety and well-being of residents, employees and neighbors. It will include sustainable, accessible and state-ofthe-art features that are aligned with the Town of Los Gatos’ long-term vision. We are committed to working closely with the community and Town leaders to ensure a transparent and thoughtful proposal review process.
Q2: What is the status of the proposal?
A2: Rockwood Pacific Inc. on behalf of Covia, the non-profit owner of Los Gatos Meadows, submitted a formal application for re-development review for 110 Wood Road to the Town of Los Gatos Planning Division on Jan. 22, 2020. The project application and all related documents, including the Draft Environmental Impact Report are available on the Town of Los Gatos website (www.losgatos.com) and at https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W.
Q3: What is the expected timeline for the rebuild proposal? A3: The project is expected to be reviewed by the Town Council in the Spring of 2022.
Preparation of construction documents and permit approvals are likely to take at least another 18 months following the Town’s action on the project. The soonest construction would start is mid-2024 and we anticipate it lasting two and a half years.
Q4: What is happening now to the buildings and grounds? A4: Since the Los Gatos Meadows facility closed Sept. 30, 2019, Covia has provided on-site property management and security, ensuring the campus remains safe from fire, trespassing, vandalism and illegal dumping. In addition, ongoing maintenance has been provided as needed. Covia has erected a perimeter fence around the main campus and has posted no trespassing signs. We do not anticipate demolishing our existing facilities until we have a permit for the rebuild proposal.
Q5: Why did Los Gatos Meadows close?
A5: In early 2019, after completion of a rigorous facilities assessment, Covia concluded that continuing operations of the 48-year-old Los Gatos Meadows facility presented too great a wildfire risk to our residents and employees. We worked closely with all our residents, their families, our employees, neighbors and the Town of Los Gatos to ensure a thoughtful and smooth closing on Sept. 30, 2019.
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix E – March FAQ
Q6: Who is managing the proposal?
A6: Covia, the long-standing Los Gatos Meadows non-profit property owner/operator with 50 years’ experience managing senior living communities, is overseeing the proposal. Covia recently affiliated with Front Porch, a non-profit family of senior communities and partnerships. The two organizations are stronger together in an evolving marketplace and have increased their ability to deliver services.
Covia has retained Rockwood Pacific Inc. to provide development management services. Other members of the team include Perkins Eastman (site planning and architecture); Kimley-Horn (planning and civil engineering); and Gates + Associates (landscape architecture).
Q7: What is the visual impact of the project on the surrounding community? A7: Covia has erected story poles on all perimeter buildings to provide the community with the anticipated visual impact of the proposal for Los Gatos Meadows. We have developed numerous visualization exhibits to assist in gauging the impact of our proposed rebuild. The visual impacts have been significantly mitigated.
Q8: Who will own and operate the proposed Los Gatos Meadows? A8: Covia, as part of its recent affiliation with the non-profit Front Porch, intends to continue to operate the proposed community and to retain full control of the property.
Q9: Are there any updates regarding the “Town Integration Plan”? A9: Yes, design and programs for the proposed community may include improved quality-of-life experiences for residents, increased accessibility to Los Gatos businesses, and fewer car trips.
Q10: Is the proposed project expected to affect the Town of Los Gatos’ Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)?
A10: No. The current and proposed use is as a Continuing Care Retirement Community. The proposal is to amend and replace an existing Planned Development.
These actions are not expected to affect the Town’s RHNA calculations.
Q11: What are the plans for Farwell Lane?
A11: The proposal would minimize on-campus interactions between vehicles and pedestrians. The current plan includes the integration of one or more electric autonomous vehicles (similar in size to a golf cart) to be used along a re-built and widened (with some portions widened from 12’ to 26’) Farwell Lane to enable the safe, convenient and alternative means of transport for residents between Los Gatos Meadows and Los Gatos retail, entertainment and civil services and reduce traffic and parking demand. The autonomous vehicles are not expected to leave the Los Gatos Meadows property.
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix E – March FAQ
Neighbors have expressed a concern regarding evacuation alternatives in the event of an emergency. Though it is a private road, Covia intends to improve and operate Farwell Lane in a manner that would permit accessible use of this route by our neighbors in the event of an emergency.
The rebuilt Farwell Lane will also a critical fire access route. The Santa Clara County Fire Department intends to utilize Farwell Lane as the primary access point to the property in the event of a fire.
Q12: What is the expected traffic impact after completion? Q12: Per the traffic analysis provided in the memorandum of Dec.10, 2020 regarding Los Gatos Meadows – Transportation Analysis, the rebuild is expected to result in a reduction in the number of peak hour trips in the mornings and evenings.
The project is expected to result in a modest increase in the number of trips on Wood Road due to the change in the use of Farwell Lane (see question above). The proposed rebuild would result in not more than an additional 30 cars per hour in or out which equates to about one car per every 2 minutes. On Saturdays, the peak hour in-bound is 39 trips.
This still equates to less than one trip per minute which is minimal. It is anticipated that the improvements to the parking conditions at Los Gatos Meadows will reduce the number of trips under prior conditions, where a visitor or staff attempts to find parking, fails and has to park at one of the off-site options.
The site further mitigates its traffic impact by utilizing electric autonomous shuttles to connect residents to downtown without impacting parking demand.
Q13: What is the expected construction traffic impact related to off-haul? Q13: The estimated net off-haul dirt volume is 144,000 cubic yards. A combination of double bottoms, end dumps, and super dump trucks are expected to be utilized for this task. The total number of expected trips is approximately 14,000. At roughly 200 loads per day, the duration of this task is approximately three months. For outbound trips, trucks are expected to turn right onto Santa Cruz Avenue and head south on CA-17 and, as appropriate, turnaround on Bear Creek Road. For inbound trips, trucks are expected to approach the site from the CA-17 exit onto Santa Cruz Ave.
The existing draft Conditions of Approval includes a requirement for Covia to rebuild the segment of Wood Road from Santa Cruz Avenue to the project.
Per the current draft of Conditions of Approval, hauling of soil shall not occur during the morning and evening peak periods (between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 4 p.m. and
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix E – March FAQ
6 p.m.) and such hauling shall be subject to a traffic control plan acceptable to the Town.
Q14: Will the project include sidewalk improvements on Wood Road? Q14: Yes. The current draft Conditions of Approval require the installation of a sidewalk connecting the project to the intersection of Wood Road and Santa Cruz Avenue and construction of the necessary retaining wall(s), potential pedestrian crosswalk and associated ADA ramps for connectivity to the existing sidewalk on the south side of Wood Road.
Q15: Will the project affect water pressure?
Q15: No. The project is not expected to affect pressure in the area. As part of the project planning process, San Jose Water Company performed hydraulic analysis and confirmed that water pressure is suitable.
Q16: Will the project result in the undergrounding of PG&E lines? Q16: The proposal does not address under-grounding of power lines. At an appropriate time, the project team intends to inquire with PG&E regarding the undergrounding of power lines and will plan to coordinate with interested neighbors on this matter.
Q17: Will the new roof be white?
Q17: No. Unlike the existing roof color, the new buildings are not expected to have white roofs. However, to address sustainability goals, the selected color is not expected to be dark. Roof color and other design attributes are expected to be addressed in a future phase of the project.
Q18: Will the project include solar panels and what would the panels look like? Q18: The current proposal does not address this level of detail. The use, placement and configuration of solar panels, as applicable, are expected to be addressed in a future phase of the project (during the architectural and site application review process).
Q19: During what hours will construction occur?
A19: Per current Town policy, all construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction is allowed on Sundays or holidays.
Q20: What are the current plans related to trails and paths? A20: We are not planning to incorporate trails or walking paths into the project based on feedback from some neighbors.
ITEM NO. 9.
Appendix E – March FAQ
Q21: How did Los Gatos Meadows engage the community through the design process?
A21: Rockwood Pacific Inc., Covia’s project manager, organized and participated in at least 15 public forums and approximately 75 meetings with community members, local businesses, neighbors, community groups and other stakeholders to gather public input to shape the project designs.
Q22: How will the project respect hillside character?
A22: Although Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines do not apply to this project, Los Gatos Meadows will be built in accordance to the spirit of the guidelines. Los Gatos Meadows steps into the hillside and increases available open space. Architects have selected natural, muted tones to blend in seamlessly with the surrounding environment.
Q23: Will the project meet green building standards?
A23: The project will exceed the California Green Building Standards Code, which is more rigorous than other independent certifications. In response to community feedback, the project will incorporate recycling, ample natural light, energy and water efficiency, and other environmentally sound practices.
Q24: How do I get information regarding pricing, units and services? A24: Information about pricing and services is not expected to be available until 2023.
Please send your name, mailing address and email address to Susan Rockwood ([email protected]) to be added to a list of interested future residents.
Q25: How can I receive updates about the Los Gatos Meadows proposal? Who do I contact if I have questions?
A25: Please visit our website - https://covia.org/los-gatos-meadows/ - to stay informed about the proposal or the Town of Los Gatos Planning Division’s website at https://www.losgatosca.gov/2393/W. Covia has retained Rockwood Pacific Inc. to assist in the management of the proposal. Please contact Frank Rockwood of Rockwood Pacific Inc. by emailing [email protected] for further details about information sessions and open houses.
###
ITEM NO. 9.
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE TOWN CODE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE
FROM R:PD TO R:PD
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
110 WOOD ROAD (APN 510-47-038)
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
The Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning on property located at 110 Wood Road (APN 510-47-038) as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is part of this Ordinance, from R:PD (Residential, Planned Development) to R:PD (Residential, Planned Development). Ordinance number 938, passed and adopted by the Town Council of Los Gatos on March 4, 1968, is hereby rescinded and replaced with this Ordinance.
SECTION II
With respect to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the Town Council finds as follows:
A. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed for the proposed development and no significant unmitigated impacts are associated with the application. The Findings of Fact are made, the Final EIR is certified, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is adopted.
SECTION III
The PD (Planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements:
1. Demolition of all existing buildings on the site;
2. Construction of a new senior living facility as shown on the Official Development Plans (Exhibit B);
3. Removal of 192 trees, including 8 large protected trees;
4. Site improvements requiring a Grading Permit; and
5. Uses permitted are those specified in the R (Residential) zones by Article IV of the Town Code as it exists at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future.
ATTACHMENT 10
Draft Ordinance: subject to
modification by Town Council
based on
deliberations and direction
ITEM NO. 9.
SECTION IV
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan specifically shows otherwise.
SECTION V
Architecture and Site Approval is required prior to submitting for Building, Tree Removal, and/or Grading Permits. Construction permits shall only be in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130 (PD Ordinance) of the Town Code.
SECTION VI
The attached Exhibit A (Map), and Exhibit B (Official Development Plans), are part of the Official Development Plan. The following performance standards must be complied with before issuance of any grading, or construction permits (mitigation measures are so noted and are flagged with an asterisk):
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS: The Official Development Plans provided are conceptual in nature. Final building footprints, building designs, colors, and materials shall be determined during the Architecture and Site approval process.
2. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
3. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL REQUIRED: A separate Architecture and Site (A&S) application and approval is required for the project. The Architecture and Site application may be reviewed by the Development Review Committee.
4. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review.
5. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: All recommendations of the 2018 project arborist report and 2020 arborist report update (HortScience Bartlett Consulting) shall be followed
6. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for trees approved for removal prior to the issuance of demolition or grading permits.
ITEM NO. 9.
7. REPLACEMENT TREES: New trees shall be planted to mitigate the loss of trees being removed. The number of trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table in the Tree Protection Ordinance.
8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits.
9. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees and shall remain through all phases of construction. Refer to the 2018 project arborist report and 2020 arborist report update (HortScience Bartlett Consulting) requirements.
Fencing shall be six-foot high cyclone attached to two-inch diameter steel posts drive 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than 10 feet apart. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans.
10. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.
11. FINAL UTILITY LOCATIONS: The applicant shall submit plans showing the final locations and screening of all exterior utilities, including but not limited to, backflow preventers, Fire Department connections, transformers, utility boxes and utility meters. Utility devices shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The plans shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for new construction.
12. PLAN INCONSISTENCY: Any inconsistencies between sheets shall be limited to whichever is more restrictive.
13. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
14. *AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-6-5a: During construction, the project contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce emissions of fugitive dust and engine exhaust DPM, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. These measures shall be included in the project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered three (3) times per day and at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;
c. Avoid tracking visible soil material on to public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with a 6 to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment prior to leaving the site;
d. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;
ITEM NO. 9.
e. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to five (5) mph; f. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
g. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points;
h. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation;
i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends beyond site boundaries;
j. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive receptors. Wind breaks should have no greater than 50 percent air porosity; k. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established;
l. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited.
Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time; and
m. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town of Los Gatos regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The air district’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
15. *AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-6-5b: Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the project developer shall prepare, and the project contractor shall implement, a demolition and construction emissions avoidance and reduction plan demonstrating a 25 percent reduction of infant/child cancer risk and a 60 percent reduction of PM2.5 exposures at the MEI to meet the air district’s risk thresholds. The plan shall be prepared prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a qualified air quality specialist, verifying the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth in this mitigation measure. The plan shall include the following measures:
a. All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment operating on-site for more than two days and larger than 50 horsepower shall, at a minimum, meet U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) particulate matter emissions standards for Tier III engines or better. Prior to the issuance of any demolition permits, the
ITEM NO. 9.
project applicant shall submit specifications of the equipment to be used during construction and confirmation this requirement is met;
b. Use alternatively fueled equipment or equipment with zero emissions (i.e., aerial lifts, forklifts, and air compressors, etc., shall be either electrified or fueled by liquefied natural gas/propane);
c. Provide line power to the site during the early phases of construction to minimize the use of diesel-powered stationary equipment, such as generators; and
d. Other demonstrable measures identified by the developer that reduce emissions and avoid or minimize exposures to the affected sensitive receptors.
16. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7-2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for woodrat middens within the development footprint and fire defensible space. These surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of construction. In the event that construction activities are suspended for 15 consecutive days or longer, these surveys shall be repeated. All woodrat middens shall be flagged for avoidance of direct construction impacts and fire defensible space where feasible. If impacts cannot be avoided, woodrat middens shall be dismantled no more than three days prior to construction activities starting at each midden location. All vegetation and duff materials shall be removed from three feet around the midden prior to dismantling so that the occupants do not attempt to rebuild. Middens are to be slowly dismantled by hand in order to allow any occupants to disperse.
Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the Town of Los Gatos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented by a qualified biologist and submitted to the Town, prior to issuance of a demolition and grading permit.
17. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7-3: Within 14 days prior to tree removal or other construction activities such as a demolition, the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed, within structures proposed for demolition, and in trees and structures within 50 feet of the development footprint. In the event that construction activities are suspended for 15 consecutive days or longer, these surveys shall be repeated. These surveys shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within and 50 feet around the project site. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed.
Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas.
If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence shall be
ITEM NO. 9.
submitted by the biologist to the Town of Los Gatos prior to issuance of tree removal and demolition permits and no further mitigation is required.
If bats or roosting sites are found, a letter report and supplemental documents shall be provided by the biologist to the Town of Los Gatos prior to issuance of tree removal and demolition permits and the following monitoring, exclusion, and habitat replacement measures shall be implemented:
a. If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), they shall be evicted as described under (b) below. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats shall be evicted as described under (b) below. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) shall be established around the roosting site within the nursery season.
b. If a non-breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a tree or snag scheduled for removal or on any structures within 50 feet of project disturbance activities, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist.
If pre-construction surveys determine that there are bats present in any trees or structures to be removed, exclusion structures (e.g. one-way doors or similar methods) shall be installed by a qualified biologist. The exclusion structures shall not be placed until the time of year in which young are able to fly, outside of the nursery season. Information on placement of exclusion structures shall be provided to the CDFW prior to construction. If needed, other removal methods could include: carefully opening the roosting area in a tree or snag by hand to expose the cavity and opening doors/windows on structures, or creating openings in walls to allow light into the structures. Removal of any trees or snags and disturbance within 50 feet of any structures shall be conducted no earlier than the following day (i.e., at least one night shall be provided between initial roost eviction disturbance and tree removal/disturbance activities). This action will allow bats to leave during dark hours, which increases their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation. c. Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If roosting habitat is identified, a Bat Mitigation and Monitoring plan will be prepared and implemented to mitigate for the loss of roosting habitat. The plan will include information pertaining to the species of bat and location of the roost, compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts, including specific mitigation ratios and a location of the proposed mitigation area, and monitoring to assess bat use of mitigation areas.
The plan will be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to the bat eviction activities or the removal of roosting habitat.
ITEM NO. 9.
Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the Town of Los Gatos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented and submitted to the Town, prior to issuance of grading and demolition permits.
18. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7-4: Prior to issuance of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits, to avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), construction activities within or adjacent to the project site boundary that include any tree or vegetation removal, demolition, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing) shall be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction occurs during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project activities.
If project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), or if construction activities are suspended for at least 14 days and recommence during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys.
a. Two surveys for active bird nests shall occur within 14 days prior to start of construction, with the final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction. Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. A report documenting survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities.
b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g. defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.
Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the Town of Los Gatos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented
ITEM NO. 9.
and submitted to the Town, prior to issuance of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits.
19. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7-5a: To avoid impacts to a the potentially jurisdictional drainage feature, a minimum 10-foot setback from the drainage shall be maintained during tree removal, demolition, and construction activities. The drainage and setback area shall be shown on all demolition and construction plans.
20. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7-5b: If disturbance will occur within ten feet of the drainage, prior to issuance of a grading permit within the project boundary, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to determine the extent of potential wetlands and waterways regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. If the USACE claims jurisdiction, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit. If the impacts to the drainage features do not qualify for a Nationwide Permit, the applicant shall proceed with the qualified biologist in obtaining an Individual Permit from the USACE. The applicant shall then retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the RWQCB to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If necessary, the applicant shall also retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the CDFW to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement.
To compensate for temporary and/or permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S. that would be impacted as a result of the proposed project, mitigation shall be provided as required by the regulatory permits. Mitigation would be provided through one of the following mechanisms:
a. A Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed that will outline mitigation and monitoring obligations for temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters as a result of construction activities. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would include thresholds of success, monitoring and reporting requirements, and site-specific plans to compensate for wetland losses resulting from the project. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for review and approval during the permit application process.
b. To compensate for permanent impacts, the purchase and/or dedication of land to provide suitable wetland restoration or creation shall ensure a no net loss of wetland values or functions. If restoration is available and feasible, a minimum 1:1 mitigation to impact ratio would apply to projects for which mitigation is provided in advance.
21. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7-6: Prior to issuance of a tree removal permit and/or a grading permit, developers shall retain a certified arborist to develop a site-specific tree protection plan for retained trees and supervise the implementation of all proposed tree preservation and protection measures during construction activities, including those measures specified in the 2018 project arborist report and 2020 arborist report update (HortScience Bartlett Consulting). Also, in accordance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, the developer shall obtain a
ITEM NO. 9.
tree removal permit for proposed tree removals on each development lot prior to tree removals and shall install replacement trees in accordance with all mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements specified in the tree removal permit(s) or otherwise required by the Town for project approvals.
22. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7-8: On-site landscaping shall be limited to drought-tolerant species, fire-resistant species, and species capable of increasing soil stability; with preference to plant species endemic to Santa Clara County.
Species from the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2020) shall be removed if present and not included in any new landscaping.
The plant palette used for on-site landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos to confirm no invasive species shall be planted. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos prior to occupancy of the residential buildings.
23. *CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-8-2: The following measure shall be included in project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit:
If paleontological resources are uncovered during demolition, grading or other on-site excavation activities, construction shall stop until appropriate mitigation is implemented, to be approved by the Community Development Director.
24. *WILDFIRE HAZARDS MITIGATION MEASURE FIRE-12-1: In order to adequately address any potential conflicts with emergency access or evacuation routes during construction, the applicant shall prepare and implement a site-specific construction traffic management plan for any construction effort that would require work within existing roadways. The traffic management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to issuance of demolition permit(s) and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of Town Public Works and County Fire Department staff.
25. *GEOLOGY AND SOILS RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-13-1: The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans, ground improvement plans, shoring design criteria from a geotechnical perspective, and supporting structural details and calculations (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, etc.,) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The project geotechnical consultant should review and approve appropriate performance testing for proposed ground improvement measures.
The results of the geotechnical plan review should be summarized by the project geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer prior to issuance of building permits.
26. *GEOLOGY AND SOILS RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-13-2: The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to:
• Site preparation and grading;
• Ground improvement;
ITEM NO. 9.
• Shoring measures and design;
• Site surface and subsurface drainage improvements; and • Excavations for foundations prior to placement of steel and concrete.
In addition, the project engineering geologist shall inspect opened excavations to confirm bedrock conditions are consistent with those anticipated.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project, including ground improvement measures and placement of engineered fill, should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to final (as-built) project approval.
Specialty/design-build consultants and contractors (shoring, ground improvement, etc.) shall also submit construction reports confirming satisfactory construction of the specific aspects of the project that they are responsible for.
27. *GEOLOGY AND SOILS RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-13-3: The applicant shall consult with Bay Area Air Quality Management District to determine permit requirements. Removal of asbestos-containing building materials is subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. Release of lead into the atmosphere is subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 11, Rule 1: Lead.
Prior to the commencement of demolition activities on the site, the applicant shall provide evidence of meeting the permitting requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.
Building Division
28. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit is required for the demolition of each individual building of the existing senior living community. A separate Building Permit is required for the construction of each new building located within the site.
29. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos as of January 1, 2020, are the 2019 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12, including locally adopted Energy Reach Codes.
30. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
31. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process.
32. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”.
33. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE: Obtain a Building Department Demolition Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District Application from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form
ITEM NO. 9.
has been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected, return the completed form to the Building Department Service Counter with the Air District’s J# Certificate, PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of site plans showing all existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.
34. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)- recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications:
a. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. b. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. All non-road diesel construction equipment shall at a minimum meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. c. Developer shall designate an on-site field supervisor to provide written notification of construction schedule to adjacent residential property owners and tenants at least one week prior to commencement of demolition and one week prior to commencement of grading with a request that all windows remain closed during demolition, site grading, excavation, and building construction activities in order to minimize exposure to NOx and PM10. The on-site field supervisor shall monitor construction emission levels within five feet of the property line of the adjacent residences for NOx and PM10 using the appropriate air quality and/or particulate monitor.
35. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
36. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed five (5) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations.
37. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils Report, and that the building pad elevations and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans.
Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
ITEM NO. 9.
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations
38. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
39. SITE ACCESSIBILITY: At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance that they serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public. At least one accessible route shall connect all accessible buildings, facilities, elements and spaces that are on the same site.
40. ACCESSIBLE PARKING: The parking lots, as well as the parking structure, where parking is provided for the public as clients, guests or employees, shall provide handicap accessible parking. Accessible parking spaces serving a particular building shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. In buildings with multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances.
41. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
42. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof assemblies.
43. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the Architect or Engineer of Record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit.
The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
44. BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blueprint for a fee or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
45. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
ITEM NO. 9.
e. Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department: (408) 918-3479 f. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
46. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities.
The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The Owner and/or Applicant and/or Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner and/or Applicant's expense.
47. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
48. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1 (Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are available for download from the Town’s website.
49. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the responsibility of the Owner/Applicant to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any permit.
50. FOR PLANTERS: The Owner and/or Applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit for the any proposed planters within the public sidewalk and/or Town’s right-of-way. The Owner and/or Applicant shall work with Parks and Public Works Department staff to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution that addresses safety and aesthetic issues. If no solution is reached, the vegetative screening requirement shall be waived. A Private Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way (formerly Indemnity) Agreement will be required if planters are proposed to be located within the Town’s right-of-way. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits.
ITEM NO. 9.
51. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (INDEMNITY AGREEMENT):
The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for all existing and proposed private improvements within the Town’s right-of-way. The Owner shall be solely responsible for maintaining the improvements in a good and safe condition at all times and shall indemnify the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must be completed and accepted by the Director of Parks and Public Works, and subsequently recorded by the Town Clerk at the Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk-Recorder, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. Please note that this process may take approximately six to eight (6-8) weeks.
52. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The property owner shall provide proof of insurance to the Town on a yearly basis. In addition to general coverage, the policy must cover all elements encroaching into the Town’s right-of-way.
53. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Owner and/or Applicant or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of any work that occurred without inspection.
54. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner and/or Applicant or their representative shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Owner and/or Applicant or their representative's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The restoration of all improvements identified by the Engineering Construction Inspector shall be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Owner and/or Applicant or their representative shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
55. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction.
56. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required.
57. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees associated with the Grading Permit shall be deposited with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the commencement of plan check review.
58. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits.
ITEM NO. 9.
59. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR: The Owner and/or Applicant shall fund a full-time public works inspector, selected by the Town of Los Gatos, for the duration of the demolition and grading operations. The Owner and/or Applicant will be charged on a time and materials basis. A deposit for the full amount, to be estimated by the Town based on the Contractor’s approved schedule, shall be paid prior to issuance of the demolition permit.
60. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Owner and/or Applicant’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans.
61. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Additionally, any post-project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Owner and/or Applicant.
62. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). After the preceding Architecture and Site Application has been approved by the respective deciding body, the grading permit application (with grading plans and associated required materials and plan check fees) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location(s), driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). Prior to Engineering signing off and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Owner/Applicant’s soils engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the grading activities were completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint.
63. GRADING ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS: Upon receipt of a grading permit, any and all grading activities and operations shall not commence until after/occur during the rainy season, as defined by Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, Sec. 12.10.020, (October 15-April 15), has ended.
64. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conform to existing pavement on Wood Road shall be constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed.
65. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, it shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner and/or Applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or permissions necessary to perform the grading herein proposed. Proof of agreement/approval is required prior to the issuance of any Permit.
ITEM NO. 9.
66. DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the following drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer: a drainage study of the project including diversions, off-site areas that drain onto and/or through the project, and justification of any diversions; a drainage study evidencing that the proposed drainage patterns will not overload the existing storm drain facilities; and detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems (including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding) will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood.
67. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits, whichever comes first, the Owner and/or Applicant shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any required easements to the Town.
68. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
69. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items:
a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes.
70. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the general contractor shall:
a. Along with the Owner and/or Applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters;
b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction.
71. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process.
72. CERTIFICATE OF LOT MERGER: A Certificate of Lot Merger shall be recorded. Two (2) copies of the legal description for exterior boundary of the merged parcel and a plat map (8-½ in. X 11 in.) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department for review and approval. The submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports less than ninety (90) days old and the appropriate fee. The certificate shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits.
73. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated by separate instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any grading or building permits are issued:
ITEM NO. 9.
a. Emergency Access Easement: Twenty (20) feet wide, located between Wood Road and Broadway.
74. SOILS REPORT: One electronic copy (PDF) of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code.
75. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans.
76. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to Town approval of a development application, the Owner and/or Applicant’s engineers shall prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical and geological investigation for review by the Town’s consultant, with costs borne by the Owner and/or Applicant, and subsequent approval by the Town. The Owner and/or Applicant’s soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. Approval of the Owner and/or Applicant’s soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by submitting a Plan Review Letter prior to issuance of grading or building permit(s).
77. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Owner and/or Applicant’s soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by the Owner and/or Applicant’s soils engineer and submitted to the Town before a certificate of occupancy is granted.
78. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazards Evaluation by Cornerstone Earth Group, dated January 17, 2020, and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town’s consultant and costs shall be borne by the Owner and/or Applicant.
79. SUPPLEMENTAL GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES: Supplemental geologic and geotechnical engineering studies shall be performed in support of the design of the infrastructure and the podium/building, and the reports and plans shall be submitted to the Town for review.
80. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: The Owner and/or Applicant shall enter into an agreement to construct public improvements in accordance with Town Code Section
ITEM NO. 9.
24.40.020. The Owner and/or Applicant shall supply suitable securities for all public improvements that are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100% performance and 100% labor and materials prior to the issuance of any encroachment, grading or building permit. The Owner and/or Applicant shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying the cost of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. An electronic copy (PDF) of the executed agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any encroachment, grading or building permit.
81. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT: A sanitary sewer cleanout shall be located within the property in question, within one (1) foot of the property line per West Valley Sanitation District Standard Drawing 3, or at a location specified by the Town. The Owner and/or Applicant shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any portion of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this activity prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
82. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the Developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of any grading or building permits or the recordation of a map. Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits.
The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
a. Wood Road: streetlights, tie-in paving, signing, striping, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, as required.
b. Remove and replace the existing pavement section along the project frontage with a traffic-appropriate engineered structural pavement section from lip of gutter to lip of gutter from the intersection of South Santa Cruz Avenue and Wood Road extending westerly to the existing fire hydrant, water tank and water pump facilities located within the latter, or alternative pavement rehabilitation measures as approved by the Town Engineer.
c. Installation of a sidewalk connecting the podium to the intersection of Wood Road and South Santa Cruz Avenue, as well as construction of the necessary retaining wall(s) and potential pedestrian crosswalk and associated ADA ramps for connectivity to the existing sidewalk on the south side of Wood Road. d. Curb and gutter along the northerly side of Wood Road along the property’s frontage.
83. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department will not sign off on a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Final Certificate of Occupancy until all required improvements within the Town’s right-of-way have been completed and approved by the Town.
84. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall be required to improve the project’s public frontage (right-of-way line to centerline and/or to limits per the direction of the
ITEM NO. 9.
Town Engineer) to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approach(es), curb ramp(s), signs, pavement, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, storm drain facilities, traffic signal(s), street lighting (upgrade and/or repaint) etc. Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits.
The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before the issuance of any grading or building permits unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
85. ADA COMPLIANCE: The Owner and/or Applicant shall be required to meet all ADA standards, which must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. This may require additional construction measures as directed by the Town.
86. UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE DRAINAGE: Water from the underground parking garage shall not be discharged onto the public street. The Owner and/or Applicant or their representative shall design a floor drainage system for the garage that collects all drainage and conveys runoff to the sanitary sewer system. Connecting said drainage system to the storm drain system is not permitted.
87. PARKING LOTS: Parking lots and other impervious areas shall be designed to drain stormwater runoff to vegetated drainage swales, filter strips, and/or other Low Impact Development (LID) treatment devices that can be integrated into required landscaping areas and traffic islands prior to discharge into the storm drain system and/or public right-of-way. The amount of impervious area associated with parking lots shall be minimized by utilizing design features such as providing compact car spaces, reducing stall dimensions, incorporating efficient parking lanes, using permeable pavement where feasible, and adhering to the Town’s Parking Development Standards. The use of permeable paving for parking surfaces is encouraged to reduce runoff from the site.
Such paving shall meet Santa Clara County Fire Department requirements and be structurally appropriate for the location.
88. UTILITIES: The Owner and/or Applicant shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. The Owner and/or Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities.
89. UTILITY SETBACKS: House foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient distance to allow excavation of the utility without undermining the house foundation.
The Town Engineer shall determine the appropriate setback based on the depth of the utility, input from the project soils engineer, and the type of foundation.
90. PRIVATE EASEMENTS: Agreements detailing rights, limitations and responsibilities of involved parties shall accompany any proposed private easement. Access driveway shall be within the recorded access easement. A new private access easement shall be recorded, and an electronic copy (PDF) of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to
ITEM NO. 9.
the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. A realigned access driveway shall be completed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit.
91. SIDEWALK REPAIR: The Owner and/or Applicant shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet current ADA standards. Sidewalk repair shall match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
92. CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR: The Owner and/or Applicant shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet Town standards.
New curb and gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
93. CURB RAMPS: The Owner and/or Applicant shall construct all necessary curb ramps to allow for the required pedestrian connectivity in compliance with ADA Standards which must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore.
94. CALTRANS APPROVAL: The Owner and/or Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining design approval(s) and construction encroachment permit(s) from Caltrans for any improvements within the Caltrans right-of-way. A copy of approved encroachment permit is required to be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to grading or building permit issuance. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before the issuance of any grading or building permits unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
95. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (TRAFFIC): The Developer shall construct improvements including and may not be limited to signage, striping, curb/gutter/sidewalk, ADA ramps and streetlights at project frontage as directed by the Town Engineer. Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town
ITEM NO. 9.
before the issuance of any grading or building permits unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
96. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STREETLIGHTS): The Developer shall replace existing street light fixture with Town-standard street light pole and fixture. Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
97. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT): Traffic improvements may be required as determined by traffic study. Construct off-site improvements as required.
Plans shall be prepared by the Developer’s design consultants and submitted to the Town Engineer for approval prior to construction. The Developer is required to designate necessary right-of-way for any required widening. Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before the issuance of any grading or building permits unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
98. STREETLIGHTS INSPECTION FEES: The Owner and/or Applicant shall pay $3,000.00 for the Town’s inspection of streetlights. The fees shall be due at time of building permit application.
99. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (TDM): The Owner and/or Applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management Plan for the Town of Los Gatos approval prior to the issuance of any building permit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to, measures such as bicycle facility provisions, shower facilities, local shuttle service, transit passes and subsidies, carpool incentive, designated car share parking, and other measures that may be required by the Town Engineer to obtain a goal of a 15% vehicle trip reduction. The TDM shall also include a TDM Coordinator and identify the requirement for an annual TDM effectiveness report to the Town of Los Gatos. 100. BICYCLE FACILITIES: Bicycle facilities including, but may not be limited to, bike lanes and bike boxes will be provided in all directions and approaches of improved streets and intersections as directed by Town Engineer.
101. TRAFFIC STUDY: Any development of land use that generates greater traffic impacts than those assumed in the traffic study report may require an updated traffic study in accordance with the Town’s traffic impact policy.
102. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: Prior to the issuance of any building/grading permit(s), the Owner and/or Applicant shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before issuance of any grading or building permit. In the event that a subdivision map, parcel map or certificate is required to be recorded the fee shall be paid prior to recordation. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time, using a comparison between the existing and proposed uses.
ITEM NO. 9.
103. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: No construction vehicles, trucks, equipment and worker vehicles shall be allowed to park on the portion of any public (Town) streets without written approval from the Town Engineer.
104. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: A traffic control plan is required and must be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of an encroachment, grading or building permit. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption.
b. Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation.
c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation.
105. CALTRANS APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS: The Owner and/or Applicant shall be responsible for submitting the proposed traffic control plans to Caltrans for approval for any work within the Caltrans right-of-way or that may affect traffic on South Santa Cruz Avenue.
106. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL: All construction traffic and related vehicular routes, traffic control plan, and applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of an encroachment, grading or building permit.
107. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION: Advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding parking restriction, lane closure or road closure, with specification of dates and hours of operation.
108. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the issuance of an encroachment, grading or building permit, the Developer or their representative shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the Developer to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control.
Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris.
109. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All site improvement construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Saturdays. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction
ITEM NO. 9.
hours. The Owner shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 110. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eightyfive (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 111. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any encroachment, grading or building permits, the Developer’s design consultant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse locations. Please refer to the Town’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information.
112. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Owner and/or Applicant shall coordinate with the Santa Clara County Fire Department to ensure that any proposed modifications to the Emergency Vehicle Access Easement that traverses the Project Site are curvilinear, allows for the Department’s equipment to travel across said easement, and meets all Department specifications. Plans shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department for approval prior to construction.
113. CALTRANS: Prior to the start of any work along or within Caltrans rights-of-way and/or easement, the Developer shall obtain necessary encroachment permits for the proposed work. A copy of approved encroachment permit is required to be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. Plans for the improvements must be approved by the Town prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. Improvements approved by Caltrans shall be constructed and installed prior to grading or building permit issuance unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer.
114. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities including but not limited to clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation of land, which disturbs one (1) acre or more which are part of a larger common plan of development which disturbs less than one (1) acre are required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State Water Resources Control Board. The Owner and/or Applicant is required to provide proof of WDID# and keep a current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the construction site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and/or Building Department upon request.
115. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner and/or Applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be
ITEM NO. 9.
maintained and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders.
116. STORMWATER DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF: All new development and redevelopment projects are subject to the stormwater development runoff requirements. Every Owner and/or Applicant or their design consultant shall submit a stormwater control plan and implement conditions of approval that reduce stormwater pollutant discharges through the construction, operation and maintenance of treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures. Increases in runoff volume and flows shall be managed in accordance with the development runoff requirements. 117. REGULATED PROJECT: The project is classified as a Regulated Project per Provision C.3.b.ii. and is required to implement LID source control, site design, and stormwater treatment on-site in accordance with Provisions C.3.c. and C.3.d.. 118. STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT: In the event that, during the production of construction drawings for the plans approved with this application by the Planning Commission, it is determined that the project will disturb one (1) acre or more of site area, the filing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and submittal of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of a State Construction General Permit will be required. These items shall all be completed and accepted by the Engineering Division before issuance of a grading/building permit.
119. NPDES STORMWATER COMPLIANCE: In the event that, during the production of construction drawings for the plans approved with this application by the Planning Commission, it is determined that the project will create and/or replace more than 2,500 square feet of impervious area, completion of the NPDES Stormwater Compliance Small Projects Worksheet and implementation of at least one of the six low impact development site design measures it specifies shall be completed and submitted to the Engineering Division before issuance of a grading/building permit. 120. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one of the following measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d. Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
121. BIORETENTION SYSTEM: The bioretention system(s) shall be designed to have a surface area no smaller than what is required to accommodate a 5 inches/hour stormwater runoff surface loading rate, infiltrate runoff through bioretention soil media at a minimum of 5 inches per hour, and maximize infiltration to the native soil during the life of the project. The soil media for bioretention system(s) shall be designed to sustain healthy, vigorous plant growth and maximize stormwater runoff retention and pollutant
ITEM NO. 9.
removal. Bioretention soil media that meets the minimum specifications set forth in Attachment L of Order No. R2-2009-0074, dated November 28, 2011, shall be used. 122. IMPAIRED WATER BODIES: Projects that discharge directly to CWA section 303(d) listed water bodies shall implement appropriate source control, site design and treatment measures for the listed pollutants of concern.
123. UNLAWFUL DISCHARGES: It is unlawful to discharge any wastewater, or cause hazardous domestic waste materials to be deposited in such a manner or location as to constitute a threatened discharge, into storm drains, gutters, creeks or the San Francisco Bay. Unlawful discharges to storm drains include, but are not limited to:
discharges from toilets, sinks, industrial processes, cooling systems, boilers, fabric cleaning, equipment cleaning or vehicle cleaning.
124. LANDSCAPING: In finalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment area(s), it is recommended that the landscape architect ensure that the characteristics of the selected plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention areas in Appendix D of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3 Stormwater Handbook.
125. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The Developer shall enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the Town of Los Gatos in which the Developer agrees to maintain the vegetated areas along the project’s Wood Road frontage located within the public right-of-way, including the proposed retaining walls as well as street light facilities and fixtures. The agreement must be completed and accepted by the Town Attorney prior to the issuance of any encroachment, grading or building permits. 126. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more than one (1) acre. A maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) must be developed forty-eight (48) hours prior to any likely precipitation even, defined by a fifty (50) percent or greater probability as determined
ITEM NO. 9.
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecast) which must accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on-site.
The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. 127. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur.
Streets shall be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one (1) late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust.
All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty (20) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
128. DUST CONTROL: The following measures shall be implemented at construction sites greater than four (4) acres in area:
a. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). b. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
c. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to fifteen (15) miles per hour. d. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
e. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 129. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)- recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or otherwise kept dust-free.
ITEM NO. 9.
b. All haul trucks designated for removal of excavated soil and demolition debris from site shall be staged off-site until materials are ready for immediate loading and removal from site.
c. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
d. As practicable, all haul trucks and other large construction equipment shall be staged in areas away from the adjacent residential homes. e. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as deemed appropriate by Town Engineer. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. An on-site track-out control device is also recommended to minimize mud and dirttrack-out onto adjacent public roads. f. All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour.
g. All driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within forty-eight (48) hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please provide the BAAQMD’s complaint number on the sign: 24-hour toll-free hotline at 1-800-334-ODOR (6367).
i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed twenty (20) miles per hour.
j. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
130. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, all pertinent details of any and all proposed stormwater management facilities, including, but not limited to, ditches, swales, pipes, bubble-ups, dry wells, outfalls, infiltration trenches, detention basins and energy dissipaters, shall be provided on submitted plans, reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, and approved for implementation. 131. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 132. STORMWATER DISCHARGE: New buildings, such as food service facilities and/or multifamily residential complexes or subdivisions, shall provide a covered or enclosed area for dumpsters and recycling containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Areas around trash enclosures, recycling areas, and/or food compactor enclosures shall not discharge directly to the storm drain
ITEM NO. 9.
system. Any drains installed in or beneath dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas serving food service facilities shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. The Owner and/or Applicant shall contact the local permitting authority and/or sanitary district with jurisdiction for specific connection and discharge requirements. 133. WATER FEATURES: New fountains shall have a connection to the sanitary sewer system, subject to West Valley Sanitation District’s authority and standards, to facilitate draining events. Discharges from these features shall be directed to the sanitary sewer and are not allowed into the storm drain system.
134. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate “NO DUMPING - Flows to Bay” NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.
These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If stormwater treatment facilities are to be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right-of-way. Alternatively, the facility(ies) may be located with an offset between 5 and 10 feet from the adjacent property and/or rightof-way line(s) if the responsible engineer in charge provides a stamped and signed letter that addresses infiltration and states how facilities, improvements and infrastructure within the Town’s right-of-way (driveway approach, curb and gutter, etc.) and/or the adjacent property will not be adversely affected. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property. 135. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: A storm water management shall be included with the grading permit application for all Group 1 and Group 2 projects as defined in the amended provisions C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. The plan shall delineate source control measures and BMPs together with the sizing calculations. The plan shall be certified by a professional pre-qualified by the Town. In the event that the storm water measures proposed on the Planning approval differ significantly from those certified on the Building/Grading Permit, the Town may require a modification of the Planning approval prior to release of the Building Permit. The Owner and/or Applicant may elect to have the Planning submittal certified to avoid this possibility. 136. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOTES: The following note shall be added to the storm water management plan: “The biotreatment soil mix used in all stormwater treatment landscapes shall comply with the specifications in Attachment L of the MRP.
Proof of compliance shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Town of Los Gatos a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site using the Biotreatment Soil Mix Supplier Certification Statement.” 137. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Certification from the biotreatment soils provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division Inspection staff a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site. Additionally deliver tags from the soil mix shall also be provided to Engineering Division Inspection staff. Sample Certification can be found here:
ITEM NO. 9.
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml?zoom_highlight=BIOTREATMENT+SOIL. 138. AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS: The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of the stormwater filtration devices required to be installed on this project by the Town’s Stormwater Discharge Permit and all current amendments or modifications. The agreement shall specify that certain routine maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and shall specify device maintenance reporting requirements. The agreement shall also specify routine inspection requirements, permits and payment of fees. The agreement shall be recorded, and an electronic copy (PDF) of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, prior to the release of any occupancy permits. 139. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and property owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town’s storm drains.
140. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The Owner and/or Applicant's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner and/or Applicant's expense.
141. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: Prior to the issuance of an encroachment, or grading or building permit, the Developer shall initiate a weekly neighborhood email notification program to provide project status updates. The email notices shall also be posted on a bulletin board placed in a prominent location along the project perimeter.
142. PERMIT ISSUANCE: Permits for each phase; reclamation, landscape, and grading, shall be issued simultaneously.
143. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered.
144. PRIVATE EASEMENTS: Agreements detailing rights, limitations, and responsibilities of involved parties shall accompany each private easement. The easements and associated agreements shall be recorded simultaneously with the map. An electronic copy (PDF) of the recorded agreement(s) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any permit.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
145. GENERAL: This application proposes installation of terrace level exterior standpipes in lieu of providing fire apparatus access, as outlined in CFC, Section 503.1.1. As the villas are built upon an elevated terrace level podium, compliant apparatus access and associated hose pull distances are exceeded. This alternative shall ensure an approved hose valve is accessible within 150-feet of all portions of the facilities and all portions of
ITEM NO. 9.
the exterior walls of the first story of each structure. 146. GENERAL: This request and associated drawings demonstrate terrace level exterior standpipe hose valves within 150-feet of all exterior portions of each structure, in lieu of apparatus access per CFC Sec. 503.1.1. An associated fire flow letter, provided by San Jose Water (SJW) indicates that they will construct a new looped public 8" water main installation with four new 6" public hydrants to supply the site. SJW has indicated in their attached analysis that they will be able to provide 1,500 GPM at a minimum 20 psi. throughout the site, including from the most demanding location, approximately 405' N/N Wood Rd. at an elevation of 525'.
147. GENERAL: All Building Permit drawings shall clearly demonstrate the water main and new hydrant installation.
148. GENERAL: A copy of the Alternate Means/Methods application form, with building and fire official's approval signatures and engineer's stamp and signature shall be made part of the building permit drawing set, to be routed to Santa Clara County Fire Department for final approval.
149. GENERAL: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive approval from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.
150. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: (As noted on Cover Sheet of Official Development Plans) In other than residential buildings, which require the installation of fire sprinklers for all new buildings according to the California Residential Code, an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and structures. Note: Sprinklers are required for all structures and covered areas such as walkways and gazebos. 151. EMERGENCY RADIO RESPONDER COVERAGE: (As noted on Sheet C108 of Official Development Plans) All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. Refer to CFC Sec. 510 for further requirements. Emergency Radio Responder Coverage requirements applies to all buildings. [SCCFD Standard Details & Specifications, C-2].
152. STANDPIPES REQUIRED: (AMMR-See note below) Standpipe systems shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with this section. Fire hose threads used in connection with standpipe systems shall be approved and shall be compatible with fire department hose threads. The location of fire department hose connections shall be approved. Standpipes shall be manual wet type. In buildings used for high-piled combustible storage, fire hose protection shall be in accordance with Chapter 32.
Installation standard. Standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 80. CFC Sec. 905. Locations of proposed interior standpipes and exterior terrace standpipes to comply with hose pull distances, are noted on Sheet C109.1 of the Official Development Plans. Terrace hose valves are
ITEM NO. 9.
not allowed to be combined with automatic fire sprinkler systems for SCCFD. This review verified proposed locations. Further determination and validation of these locations will be reviewed upon submittal of the system plans. 153. ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION REQUEST (AMMR): An AMMR request and associated drawings demonstrating terrace level exterior standpipe hose valves within 150-feet of all exterior portions of each structure, in lieu of apparatus access per CFC Sec. 503.1.1 and an associated fire flow letter, provided by San Jose Water (SJW) indicating that they will construct a new looped public 8" water main installation with four new 6" public hydrants to supply the site has been reviewed and approved by Chief Estrada on 09/14/21. SJW has indicated in their analysis that they will be able to provide 1,500 GPM at a minimum 20 psi. throughout the site, including from the most demanding location, approximately 405' N/N Wood Rd. at an elevation of 525'.
154. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: (As noted on Sheet C108 of Official Development Plans) Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 155. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT(S) REQUIRED: (As noted on Sheet C106 of Official Development Plans and in SJW fire flow letter) Provide public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 1500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, and Appendix B and associated Tables, and Appendix C. Hydrants are located on the complex side of the roadway and are immediately accessible (at road elevation) from the fire department access road. A fire flow letter, provided by San Jose Water (SJW) indicates that they will construct a new looped public 8" water main installation with four new 6" public hydrants to supply the site. SJW has indicated in their attached analysis that they will be able to provide 1,500 GPM at a minimum 20 psi. throughout the site, including from the most demanding location, approximately 405' N/N Wood Rd. at an elevation of 525'. 156. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION REQUIRED: (As noted on Sheet C109.1 of Official Development Plans) A Fire Department Connection (FDC) is required for each building to support its sprinkler system. They shall not be attached to the buildings. The FDC shall be installed at the street, on the street address side of the building. It shall not be on the opposite side of a roadway from the structure that it supplies. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless
ITEM NO. 9.
otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. FDC's supplying private onsite fire hydrants shall have a minimum four (4) way inlet coupling. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard]. Locations of all FDCs are noted on Sheet C109.1 of Official Development Plans, as reference only. Construction details of the FDC supply to fire protection systems will be subject to review of design details at time of installation permit submittal. One FDC is required for support of each individual building, as currently noted on the plans. Fire Department Connections are located within 100' from an approved fire hydrant.
157. REQUIRED SECONDARY FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS: (As noted on Sheet C108 of Official Development Plans)
Commercial and Industrial Developments -
a. Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have a least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure.
b. Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 mm) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 mm) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems.
Multi-Family Residential Developments (R-1 & R-2 occupancies)- a. Multi-family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. CFC Sec. Chp. 5. Two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads are required. Aerial access is required for 7 of the 8 buildings. A 26' wide fire lane is shown in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of a building more than 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department access. 158. REQUIRED AERIAL ACCESS: (As noted on Sheet C108 and C108.3 of Official Development Plans)
Where requireda. Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Roadways shall have a paved all weather surface, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 60 feet outside, a maximum slope of 15% and be able to withstand an imposed load of 75K pounds.
b. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height.
ITEM NO. 9.
c. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572mm) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official.
CFC Ch. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1. Aerial access is required for 7 of the 8 buildings.
A 26' wide circulating fire lane is shown on the plans. Special consideration shall be taken to support aerial operations. Aerial access demonstrated to the Villa parapets, and in turn to the roof decks via a structural ledge with permanently attached ladders is acknowledged and accepted. All aerial setup sections are noted to have a cross slope of no more than 2%. Conforming aerial setup capability is demonstrated for each villa on Sheet C108.3. 159. TURN RADIUS (CIRCULATING): (AMMR-See note below) The minimum outside turning radius is 42 feet for required access roadways. Greater radius up to 60 feet may be required where the Fire Department determines that Ladder Truck access is required.
Circulating refers to travel along a roadway without dead ends. The turn at the entrance to the south of the arrival court has been revised and submitted with a Request for Variance. While this revision does improve the existing condition, and may now be accessible for a shorter wheel-based vehicle such as an ambulance, the cross slope at this location is still impassible for larger fire apparatus. Conforming turnaround noted in front of Villa B. Appropriate radii and angles of approach and departure are required throughout the fire access roadway. [CFC 503.2.8]. As aerial access is required throughout the site, all turns shall provide a 60' outside radius and all slope transitions and points of approach and departure shall be no greater than 5%. An application for Alternate Materials, Design or Methods of Construction for this turnaround has been submitted per CFC 104.9 for consideration. The alternate has been approved by SCCFD however, the request form requires Building Official signature, architect/engineers signed stamp/seal and subsequent inclusion on the project documents. 160. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED FOR BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES: (As noted on Sheets C102 and C108 of Official Development Plans) Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. Compliant hose pull access routes leading to all portions of the exterior walls of the first story are shown on Sheet C109. Stair access from the Terrace level to the lowest level within each structure shown on Sheet C108. Proposed accessible paths for patient transfers between each villa and anticipated ambulance staging areas are noted on Sheet C108. Several locations along the proposed fire department access roadway are within an existing tributary area, draining toward Broadway. Sheet C102 Pavement Design Note indicates that the roadway design shall support: 1) 75K pound loading capacity, 2) Point loads for aerial apparatus outriggers, and 3) Drainage design sufficient to prevent roadway erosion. 161. TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: (As noted on Sheet C108 of Official Development
ITEM NO. 9.
Plans) Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with all current editions of NFPA 72, the California Electrical Code, the California Fire Code, the California Building Code, and the city or town ordinances, policies, and standards where a two-way system is being installed. [SCCFD Standard Details & Specifications, C-1]. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72. 162. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: (As noted on Sheet C108 of Official Development Plans) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure.
Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.
163. CLOSURE OF FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADWAYS: (As noted on Sheet C108 of Official Development Plans) The installation of gates, or other barricades across required fire department access roads or driveways shall comply with Standard Details & Specifications, G-1. Detailed plans showing the location and method of the closure are required. Due to site access constraints, Broadway will be considered the primary emergency vehicle access route. Signage shall be provided indicating it is for emergency access only as indicated on Sheet C108 and no obstruction to this access shall be installed or constructed without additional fire department review and approval. 164. FIRE LANE MARKING REQUIRED: (As noted on Sheet C108) Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per fire department specifications.
Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standards and Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-6. CFC Sec. 503.3. 165. PARKING: (As noted on Sheet C108 of Official Development Plans) When parking is permitted on streets, in both residential/commercial applications, it shall conform to the following: Parking is permitted both sides of the street with street widths of 36 feet or more; Parking is permitted on one side of the street with street widths of 28 – 35 feet; No parking is permitted when street widths are less than 28 feet. NOTE: Rolled curbs can be part of the curb/sidewalk and used to increase the roadway width with approval from the fire code official. Additional requirements may apply for buildings 30 feet in height or greater. No parking shall be allowed along the access road. Fire Lane markings applied throughout.
166. GENERAL: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the Fire Code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]
ITEM NO. 9.
SECTION VII
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on __________, and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on __________, and becomes effective 30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2022\04-05-22\110 Wood Road\Attachment 10 - Planned Development Ordinance.docx
ITEM NO. 9.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 9.
WOOD RD
BROADWAY
W MAIN ST
SB HIGHWAY 17
NB HIGHWAY 17 S CREEK TRAIL
TAIT AV
VICTORY LN
S SANTA CRUZ AV
FARWELL LN
NB 17 TO S SANTA CRUZ
FAIRVIEW PLZ
BAYVIEW AV
CLIFTON AV
OAK KNOLL RD
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Application No.
Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
Zone Change
Prezoning
From: R:PD To: R:PD
PD-20-001 A.P.N. # 510-47-038
Forwarded by Planning Commission
Approved by Town Council
Clerk Administrator:
Date:
Mayor:
Date:
Ord:
§
Santa Clara
County
Town of
Los Gatos
EXHIBIT A
January 12, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 9.
EXHIBIT
B Page 679 Page 859
ITEM NO. 9.
WOOD ROAD
BROADWAY
S SANTA CRUZ AVE
VILLA A
VILLA B
VILLA C
VILLA D
VILLA E
VILLA F
VILLA G
VILLA H
FARWEL ROAD
MAIN
ENTRANCE
LOADING/
TRASH
SECONDARY
GARAGE
ENTRANCE
GARAGE
ENTRANCE
EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD
100 Montgomery St., Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
T. +1 415 926 7900
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
1" = 100'-0"
C:\REVIT LOCAL\70580_Los Ga1/13/2021 9:42:22 PM
tos_Site_R19_m.destout.rvt
AERIAL VIEW
DIAGRAM
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
JULY 27, 2021
A000
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
1" = 100'-0"
1 AERIAL VIEW DIAGRAM
ITEM NO. 9.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
460465470 475
480
485
470 470 475 480
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
440
445
450
455
460
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
425
430
435
460
465
470
475
480
485
550 545 555 560
565
570
540 545
545
550
550
555
555 485 480495 490
460
465
470
475
480 485
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
560
565
565
565
570
570
570
575 580 585 590 595 600 605 610 615
480 485 490
485 480
490
495
110 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-038
HOOD MARLENA TRUSTEE
100 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-029
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
23 CLIFTON AVE
APN: 510-45-082
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
19 CLIFTON AVE APN:
510-45-082
EQUITY INVESTORS
200 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-47-042 BROADWAY
WOOD ROAD
EX. BUILDING TO BE REMOVED
EX. BUILDING TO BE REMOVED
EX. BUILDING,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. PARKING,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. LOADING AREA,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. ASPHALT ROAD ,
TO BE REPLACED
EX. ASPHALT ROAD ,
TO BE REPLACED
EX. ASPHALT ROAD ,
TO BE REPLACED
EX. BUILDING,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. BUILDING,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. BUILDING,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. BUILDING,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. BUILDING,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. ASPHALT ROAD ,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. BUILDING,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. ASPHALT ROAD ,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. ASPHALT ROAD ,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. ASPHALT ROAD ,
TO BE REPLACED
EX. SIDEWALK ,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. SIDEWALK ,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. UTILITY VAULT,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. FDC,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. UTILITY VAULT,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. SD CATCH BASIN,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. RETAINING WALL,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. RETAINING WALL,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. RETAINING WALL,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. BUILDING TO BE REMOVED
EX. RETAINING WALL,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. FENCE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SD CATCH BASIN,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. SD CATCH BASIN,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. SS MANHOLE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SD LINE,
TO BE REMOVED EX. SS LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. MANHOLE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. MANHOLE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX.WATER LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. 6" WATER LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. 10" WATER LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. MANHOLE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SS LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SD LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SS LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SD LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. PROPERTY LINE
TO BE REMOVED BY
LOT MERGER
EX. 6" WATER LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. FIRE HYDRANT,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. WATER LINE,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. MANHOLE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SS MANHOLE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX.SS LINE,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. FIRE HYDRANT,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SD CATCH BASIN
AND CURB CORE,
TO BE RELOCATED
EX. SD MANHOLE,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. SS LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. 10" WATER LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. 6" WATER LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SD CATCH BASIN,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SD LINE,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. FIRE HYDRANT,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. FIRE HYDRANT,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. FIRE HYDRANT,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. 6" WATER LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SD CATCH BASIN,
TO BE PROTECTED
SEVENTH DAY
ADVENTIST CHURCH
57 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
EX. BUILDING,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. BUILDING,
TO BE PROTECTED
JOHN L AND JEAN
RICHARDSON TRUSTEE
47 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
LG HOTEL LLC.
140 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-065
RAYMOND F. & GRACE LESTER
142 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-090
BERND J. NEUDECKER
109 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-041
JULIE A. RITTER TRUSTEE
135 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-034
EX. SD CATCH BASIN,
TO BE REMOVED
EX. MANHOLE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. SD LINE,
TO BE REMOVED
T.B.M NO.:
NORTHING: 1905946.12'
EASTING: 6128709.97'
ELEVATION: 477.32'
DESC.: CHECK-AT-3
T.B.M NO.:
NORTHING: 1906191.28'
EASTING: 6128802.86'
ELEVATION: 492.29'
DESC.: SET S/X
T.B.M NO.:
NORTHING: 1906520.20'
EASTING: 6128939.35'
ELEVATION: 465.13'
DESC.: FS
EX. SD LINE,
TO BE PROTECTED
EX. CURB TO BE
DEMOLISHED
EX. RETAINING WALL
TO BE DEMOLISHED
EX. RETAINING WALL,
TO BE REMOVED
10' DRAINAGE AVOIDANCE
AREA, EX. IMPROVEMENTS
TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE
CURVE TABLE
CURVE # RADIUS DELTA LENGTH
LINE TABLE
LINE # DIRECTION LENGTH LINE # DIRECTION LENGTH
LINE TABLE
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C101 DEMOLITION PLAN.dwg July 24, 2021 11:36:45am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
NORTH
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE
EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE
EXISTING WATER LINE
EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
ASPHALT CONCRETE/SIDEWALK PAVEMENT
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING TREES / REMOVE OR REPLACE
(REFER TO LANDSCAPE TREE PLANS)
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER/STORM DRAIN
MANHOLE
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
C101
PRELIMINARY
DEMOLITION PLAN
XXX
S
TITLE EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC USE FOR ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES FOREVER AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED NOVEMBER 07, 1969 IN BOOK 8732, PAGE 226 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. IN FAVOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AFFECTS: THE SOUTHERLY PORTIONS OF PARCEL 2.
LICENSE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF FENCE LINES OVER THE SOUTHEASTERLY
LINE OF LYNDON LANE AS GRANTED BY LOS GATOS MEADOWS, A CALIFORNIA
NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, TO DAWN PISORS AND GEORGE PISORS, RECORDED JULY 08, 1986 IN BOOK J756, PAGE 1514, INSTRUMENT NO. 8850136, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
AN EASEMENT FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AND COMMUNICATION PURPOSES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED APRIL 25, 2013 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 22191749 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. IN FAVOR OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AFFECTS: AS DESCRIBED THEREIN.
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
SITE NOTE:
AVERAGE SLOPE: 24%
ITEM NO. 9.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
460465470 475
480
485
470 470 475 480
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
440
445
450
455
460
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
425
430
435
460
465
470
475
480
485
550 545 555 560
565
570
540 545
545
550
550
555
555 485 480495 490
460
465
470
475
480 485
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555 555
555
560
560
560
565 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 610 615
480 485 490
485 480
490
495
EXISTING TRIBUTARY AREA DRAINING
TO EX. WOOD ROAD STORM SYSTEM.
(APPROX. 9.4 ACRES)
HOOD MARLENA TRUSTEE
100 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-029
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
23 CLIFTON AVE
APN: 510-45-082
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
19 CLIFTON AVE APN:
510-45-082
EQUITY INVESTORS
200 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-47-042 BROADWAY
WOOD ROAD
SEVENTH DAY
ADVENTIST CHURCH
57 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
JOHN L AND JEAN
RICHARDSON TRUSTEE
47 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
LG HOTEL LLC.
140 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-065
RAYMOND F. & GRACE LESTER
142 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-090
BERND J. NEUDECKER
109 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-041
JULIE A. RITTER TRUSTEE
135 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-034
24" SD
24" SD
24" SD
18" SD 18" SD
20" SD 24" SD
EXISTING TRIBUTARY AREA DRAINING
TO BROADWAY
(APPROX. 1.5 ACRES)
EXISTING TRIBUTARY
AREA DRAINING OFFSITE.
(APPROX. 0.04 ACRES)
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C101.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE PLAN.dwg July 24, 2021 11:36:55am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
NORTH
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE
EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE
EXISTING WATER LINE
EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
ASPHALT CONCRETE/SIDEWALK PAVEMENT
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING TREES / REMOVE OR REPLACE
(REFER TO LANDSCAPE TREE PLANS)
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER/STORM DRAIN
MANHOLE
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
C101.1
EXISTING
DRAINAGE PLAN
XXX
S
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
SITE NOTE:
AVERAGE SLOPE: 24%
ITEM NO. 9.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
470475 480 485
475 480 485
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
440
445
450
455
460
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
425
430
460
465
470
475
480
485
550 545 555 560
565
570
540 545
545
550
550
555
555 485 480495 490
460
465
470
475
480 485
EX. BUILDING
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555 555
555
560
560
560
565 570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 610 615
480 485 490
485 480
490
495
100 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-029
EX. BUILDING BROADWAY
WOOD ROAD
VILLA G
VILLA F
VILLA A
VILLA H VILLA B
VILLA E
VILLA D
VILLA C
110 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-038
REFER TO LANDSCAPE
PLANS FOR TERRACE DETAIL
REFER TO LANDSCAPE
PLANS FOR TERRACE DETAIL
COOLING TOWER/
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
WITHIN FENCED YARD
FAREWELL LANE TO BE
SIGNED AS EMERGENCY
VEHICLE ACCESS ONLY
HOOD MARLENA TRUSTEE
100 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-029
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
23 CLIFTON AVE
APN: 510-45-082
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
19 CLIFTON AVE APN:
510-45-082
EQUITY INVESTORS
200 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-47-042
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST
CHURCH
57 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
JOHN L AND JEAN
RICHARDSON TRUSTEE
47 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
LG HOTEL LLC.
140 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-065
RAYMOND F. & GRACE LESTER
142 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-090
BERND J. NEUDECKER
109 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-041
JULIE A. RITTER TRUSTEE
135 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-034
EX. BUILDING EX. BUILDING
EX. BUILDING
EX. BUILDING
EX. BUILDING
EX. BUILDING
PROP.
DRIVEWAY
REFER TO LANDSCAPE
PLANS FOR DECORATIVE
PAVING DETAIL
DECORATIVE
CONCRETE WALKWAY
(REFER TO LANDSCAPE
PLANS FOR DETAIL)
PROP. SHORT TERM
PARKING SPACES WITH
DECORATIVE PAVING.
SEE AUTONOMOUS
VEHICLE SPEC., THIS
SHEET FOR MORE DETAIL.
PROP. FIRE
HYDRANT (TYP.)
PROP. FIRE
HYDRANT (TYP.)
EX. FIRE
HYDRANT
EX. FIRE
HYDRANT
EX. FIRE
HYDRANT
25.0' 20.0'
R30'
R45' R10' R10'
20.0' 26.0' 40.4' 20.0'
26.0' 64.4'
3.0'
27.5' 5.0'
34.9'
14.0'
35.8'
24.3'
45.1'
42.0'
16.3'
8.0'
38.3' 48.4' 33.0'
5.0' 8.0'
5.0'
30.0'
9.0' 6.0'
R5'
5.0'
R120'
R10' R10' 18.0' TYP.
9.5' 15.0' 15.0' 13.0'
R42'
R5' 18.5'
R71'
R94'
26.0' 54.0' 11.0' 20.0'
8.0' 30.0' 5.0'
R20'
R30'
R30'
R95'
R75' 29.0'
R10'
26.0'
R34' 26.0' 10.0'
26.0' 55.5'
22.4'
PROP. FIRE
HYDRANT (TYP.)
PROP. FIRE
HYDRANT (TYP.)
OUTDOOR SEATING AREA
REFER TO LANDSCAPE
PLANS FOR DETAIL
R40'
R40'
R25'
R20'
22.7'
R40'
R60'
R34'
R60'
10' DRAINAGE AVOIDANCE
AREA, EX. IMPROVEMENTS
TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C102 SITE PLAN.dwg July 24, 2021 11:37:29am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
NORTH
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED ASPHALT CONCRETE
PAVEMENT**
PROPOSED SIDEWALK CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING
PROPOSED BIORETENTION
PROPOSED BUILDING
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
EXISTING TREES
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
PROPOSED STANDPIPE LOCATION
C102
PRELIMINARY
CIVIL SITE PLAN
NOTE: DIMENSIONS
ARE IN MILLIMETERS.
AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE SPEC.
N.T.S.
**PAVEMENT DESIGN NOTE
PAVEMENT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT 75K LB
LOADING CAPACITY, POINT LOADS FOR AERIAL APPARATUS
OUTRIGGERS, AND DRAINAGE DESIGN SUFFICIENT TO
PREVENT ROADWAY EROSION PER SANTA CLARA COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS.
ITEM NO. 9.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
470 475 480
485
475 480 485
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
440
445
450
455
460
435
440
445
450
455
455
455
460
465
465
465
470
475
425
430
460
465
480
475
470
485
550 545 555 560
565
570
540
545
545
550
550 495 490 485 480
460
465
470
475 480
490485 BROADWAY
WOOD ROAD
480 480
485 475
480 485 445 440 435
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
500
480
485
465
470
475 535 535
540
545
536 537 538
539
541 544 543 542
546
546 490
490 495
495 500
500
505
510
530
525
520
515 7.97% 2.29%
8.10% 8.10% 17.26%
17.59%
1.10%
4.81%
3.66%
13.47%
10.50% 12.50%
3.39%
8.24%
7.72% 0.99%
0.27%
3.64%
3.38%
1.16%
EX. SDCB (491.69')
18" INV OUT: 488.1'
525
530
535
540
545
550
480 480
485 490 495
500
505
510 515
520
525
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
555
560
560
560
565
565
565
570 575 580 585 590 595 600 605 610 615 2.00%
480
485
490495
505
2.60%
485
480
490
495
500
505
510
(477.9± FS)
ME
(489.0± FS)
ME
(512.2± FS)
ME
(493.9± FS)
ME
(531.0± FS)
ME
(545.3± FS)
ME
(547.9± FS)
ME
(550.0± FS)
ME
(549.0± FS)
ME
(540.9± FS)
ME
(537.0± FS)
ME
(430.0± FS)
ME
(430.1± FS)
ME
EX. SDMH (523.62')
18" INV IN/OUT: 517.7'
EX. SDMH (489.36')
18" INV IN: 483.3' (W)
18" INV IN: 483.3' (SW)
18" INV IN: 483.4' (NW)
20" INV OUT: 483.2' (E)
EX. SDMH (465.29')
24" INV IN/OUT: 460.0'
EX. SDMH (454.11')
24" INV IN/OUT : 447.1'
VILLA G
VILLA F
VILLA A
VILLA H VILLA B
VILLA E
VILLA D
VILLA C
110 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-038
TERRACE FFE: 505.00
GARAGE LEVEL 1 FFE: 488.00
GARAGE LEVEL 2 FFE: 478.50
GB GB
HP HP HP
GB
GB
GB GB
HP
TERRACE
FFE: 505.00
TERRACE
FFE: 505.00
FFE: FFE: 485.00
478.50
FFE: 488.00
HOOD MARLENA TRUSTEE
100 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-029
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
23 CLIFTON AVE
APN: 510-45-082
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
19 CLIFTON AVE APN:
510-45-082
EQUITY INVESTORS
200 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-47-042
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST
CHURCH
57 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
JOHN L AND JEAN
RICHARDSON TRUSTEE
47 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
LG HOTEL LLC.
140 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-065
RAYMOND F. & GRACE LESTER
142 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-090
BERND J. NEUDECKER
109 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-041
JULIE A. RITTER TRUSTEE
135 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-034
FFE: 488.00
EX. SDMH (562.34')
12" INV IN: 556.1' (N)
18" INV IN: 556.1' (W)
18" INV OUT: 556.0' (SE)
24" SD
24" SD
EX. SDMH 433.5'
24" INV IN: 430.2' (SW)
20" INV IN: 427.2' (NW)
24" INV OUT: 427.3' (SE)
24" SD
18" SD 18" SD
18" SD
18" SD
GB
18" SD 18" SD
18" SD
15" SD 8" SS
6" SS
6" SS
6" SS
6" SS
FFE: 505.00
FFE: 505.00 FFE: 505.00
FFE: 505.00
FFE: 505.00
20" SD
5.00%
5.80% 8.10% 2.20% 7.50%
6.85%
8.10%
18" SD
18" SD
532.45 FS
516.50 DOOR
534.36 FS
488.00 FS
487.50 FS
516.50 FS
528.00 FS
519.50 FS
519.50 FS
516.50 FS
504.97 FS
447.90 FS
448.16 FS
483.76 FS
487.05 FS
478.49 FS
477.86 FS
485.14 FS
477.19 FS
516.50 FS
516.50 DOOR
516.50 DOOR
539.50 DOOR
516.50 DOOR
519.50 DOOR
537.50 DOOR
488.08 FS
487.13 FS
485.00 FS
485.00 FS
484.53 FS
475.23 FS
474.73 FS
466.59 FS
471.88 FS
485.21 FS
487.50 FS
484.04 FS
494.00 DOOR
505.00 DOOR
503.46 DOOR
540.55 FS
527.50 FS
522.00 FS
533.00 FS
505.00 FS
522.19 FS
516.48 FS
505.00 FS
501.48 FS 498.97 FS
496.65 FS
491.72 FS
535.61 FS
520.46 FS
510.00 FS
505.00 FS
513.00 FS
529.00 FS
535.67 FS
539.40 FS
544.12 FS
528.52 FS 517.90 FS
534.72 FS
488.00 FS
505.00 DOOR
534.00 DOOR
487.58 FS
486.38 FS
487.54 FS
487.55 FS
487.48 FS
487.18 FS
EX. SDCB (493.58')
12" INV IN: 489.80' (W)
18" INV OUT: (489.6')
EX. 18" STORM
DRAIN LINE
EX. SDCB
RIM: 531.04'
PROP. SDCB 483.33
12" INV OUT: 480.83'
EX. SDCB 534.66'
INV: 526.6' (NE)
INV: 526.6' (SW)
PROP. SDCB 476.33
12" INV OUT: 473.83' (NW)
PROP. STORM DRAIN POC
INV: 484.00
PROP. BUBBLE UP RISER
INV : 480.83'
EX. SDMH 479.22'
15" INV IN: 472.4' (NW)
18" INV IN: (472.3') (SW)
20" INV IN: (473.1') (W)
24" INV OUT : (472.2') (NE)
PROP. SDMH 480.60'
12" INV IN: 472.88 (W)
15" INV IN: 472.88 (NE)
15" INV OUT: 472.68 (SE)
80 LF 15" RCP SD
LINE @7.8%
164' LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @1.0%
51 LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @ 10.2%
134 LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @ 10.0%
84 LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @ 10.0%
21 LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @ 10.0%
42 LF 15" RCP
SD LINE @ 1.0%
27 LF 15" RCP
SD LINE @ 1.0%
PROP. SDMH 481.83'
INV IN: 466.54' (W)
18" INV IN: 466.34' (NE)
20" INV OUT: 466.14' (SE)
PROP. SDMH 501.95'
18" INV IN: 494.35' (SW)
18" INV OUT: 494.15' (SE)
PROP. SDMH 511.75'
18" INV IN: 503.94' (SW)
18" INV OUT: 503.74' (NE)
PROP. SDMH 532.86'
18" INV IN: 517.18' (SW)
18" INV OUT: 516.98' (NE)
PROP. SDCB 533.70'
18" INV IN: 519.44' (W)
18" INV OUT: 519.24' (SE)
PROP. SDCB 490.61'
18" INV IN: 485.83' (W)
18" INV OUT: 485.63 (SE)
PROP. SDCB 471.33''
12" INV OUT: 454.84' (SE)
88 LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @ 3.6%
84 LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @ 10.0%
PROP. SDCB 495.83
12" INV OUT: 490.33' (NW)
PROP. SDMH 477.90'
15" INV IN: 473.7' (NE)
12" INV IN: 473.50' (SE)
15" INV OUT: 473.30' (SW)
PROP. SDMH 484.47'
12" INV IN: 479.77 (SE)
15" INV OUT: 479.97' (SW)
PROP. SDCB 485.42'
18" INV IN: 480.43' (W)
8" INV IN: 480.53' (NE)
18" INV OUT: 480.33' (SE)
494.36 FS
491.85 FS
513.58 FS
501.57 FS
490.61 FS
488.58 FS
486.53 FS
503.70 FS
495.88 DOOR
PROP. SDCB 452.33'
12" INV OUT: 448.33' (SE) 204' LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @1.0%
PROP. SDMH 458.7±'
20" INV IN: 452.1±' (W)
18" INV IN: 452.2±' (NE)
20" INV OUT: 452.1±' (SE)
536.81 FS
(538.7± FS)
ME
(532.4± FS)
ME
(554.5± FS)
ME
(550.7± FS)
ME
490.50 FS
498.00 FS
505.00 FS
GB
486.67 FS
485.83 FS
484.80 FS
480.15 FS
479.75 FS
476.48 FS
474.35 FS
467.15 FS
484.81 FS
TCM #3
TCM #2
TCM #1
TCM #6
TCM #7 TCM #8
TCM #11
TCM #5
TCM #19
TCM #9
TCM #12
TCM #10
TCM #13
TCM #14
TCM #15
TCM #16
TCM #18 TCM #21 TCM #23
TCM #24
TCM #25
TCM #17
TCM #20
TCM #22 TCM #26
E
D
E
D
A
A
F
F
G G
H
H
C C
B B
PROP. SDMH 471.64'
INV IN: 468.68' (W)
INV OUT: 468.48' (S)
PROP. SDMH 479.50'
18" INV IN: 476.10' (W)
18" INV OUT: 476.00' (S)
70 LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @ 10.2%
473.78 FS
EX. 20" STORM
DRAIN LINE
50' LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @28.0%
PROP. STORM DRAIN POC
INV: 481.00
73' LF 18" RCP
SD LINE @9.0% 18" SD
PROP. SDCB 499.50
2" TO BIORETENTION
INV OUT: 495.50' (NE)
12" OVERFLOW
INV OUT: 495.50' (E)
23 LF 2" PVC SD
LINE @1.0%
PROP. STORM DRAIN POC
INV: 484.00
PROP. STORM DRAIN POC
INV: 484.00
PROP. BUBBLE UP RISER
INV : 480.83'
AVOIDANCE
AREA
S
S
S
S
RAYMOND F. & GRACE LESTER
142 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-090
S. SANTA CRUZ AVENUE
6" SS 6" SS
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C103 PRELIM GRADING.dwg July 24, 2021 11:38:13am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
NORTH
CIVIL LIMIT OF GRADING
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED CONTOUR (1-FT)
EXISTING CONTOUR (1-FT)
PROPOSED GRADE BREAK
PROPOSED HIGH POINT
EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED SLOPE
PROPOSED ELEVATION
EXISTING ELEVATION
PROPOSED BIORETENTION PLANTER, SEE
SHEET C105.1 FOR DETAIL
PROPOSED ASPHALT CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED OVERLAND FLOW DIRECTION
LEGEND
C103
PRELIMINARY
GRADING AND
X.XX% DRAINAGE PLAN
(100.0± FS)
ME
100.00 FS
204
204
GB
HP
GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES
1. SITE AVERAGE SLOPE: 24%
2. FOR TCM GRADING DETAILS SEE SHEET C103.1. FOR
BIORETENTION PLANTER DETAILS SEE SHEET C105.1
3. PIPE FOR STORM SEWERS SHALL BE PVC PIPE AND SHALL
CONFORM TO ASTM D3034-SDR 35 OR CORRUGATED
POLYETHYLENE AND SHALL CONFORM TO AASHTO M294-97 & ASTM D3212 UP TO 10" SIZE PIPE. 12" AND LARGER SHALL BE
REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE.
4. ALL TOP OF CURB IS 6", UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
ITEM NO. 9.
VARIES
LANDSCAPE
1%
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0' - 24' HEIGHT)
2%
2.0'
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0' - 4' HEIGHT)
8'
SIDEWALK
2.0' 20'
FIRE ACCESS ROAD
2:1 MAX
2.0'
11' TYP.
EX. GRADE
1%
9.0'
PATIO
501.50 FG
521.20 TW
PROP. BLDG
FFE = 505.00
3:1 MAX
PL
VARIES
LANDSCAPE
2.0' 20.0'
ACCESS ROAD
5.5' LANDSCAPE
VARIES
BRS PLANTER
2.0' VALLEY GUTTER
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0' - 10' HEIGHT)
7.5%
476.50 FS 474.50 FS
471.50 FG
467.00
6" CURB 6" CURB
18"
6" MIN.
12"
PROP. BLDG
FFE = 488.00
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
20.0'
ACCESS ROAD
2.0'
VARIES
BRS PLANTER
8' LANDSCAPE 1' LANDSCAPE
20.5'
BRS PLANTER
467.00 FS
470.50 FG
2%
473.20 FG
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0'-20' HEIGHT)
449.50 FG
VARIES
EX. LANDSCAPE
444.50 EG
6" MIN. 18"
12"
6" MIN.
12"
6" CURB
6" CURB
18"
EX. GRADE
2:1 MAX
PL
VARIES
EX. LANDSCAPE
20.0'
ACCESS ROAD
8'LANDSCAPE
2'
LANDSCAPE
9.0'
PATIO
2%
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0'-3' HEIGHT)
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0'-10' HEIGHT)
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0'-9' HEIGHT)
10.0'
5% MIN.
EX. GRADE
PROP. BLDG
FFE = 516.50
2:1 MAX
FIRE
STAGING
AREA
VARIES
LANDSCAPE
6' LANDSCAPE
14.0'
PATIO
VARIES
LANDSCAPE
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0'-13' HEIGHT)
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0'-8' HEIGHT)
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0'-3' HEIGHT)
VARIES
EX. WOOD ROAD
EX. CURB
7.0'
5% MIN.
PROP.
TERRACE FFE =
505.00
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
PL
1.0'
6.5' LANDSCAPE
24.0'
ACCESS ROAD
2' LANDSCAPE
8.5'
BRS
480.00 FG
476.00
6" MIN.
18"
12"
5' EX. LANDSCAPE
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0'-3' HEIGHT)
479.00 FG
2%
6" CURB
6" CURB
2:1 MAX
PROP. BLDG
FFE = 478.50
PL
PLANTER
15'
LANDSCAPE
1%
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0' - 11' HEIGHT)
2%
2.0'
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0' - 10' HEIGHT)
8'
SIDEWALK
2.0' 20'
FIRE ACCESS ROAD
2:1 MAX
2.0'
11' TYP.
RETAINING
WALL
VARIES
EX. LANDSCAPE
PROP. BLDG
FFE = 505.00
3:1 MAX
PL
5'
LANDSCAPE
1% 2%
2.0'
PROP. RETAINING WALL
(0' - 10' HEIGHT)
8'
SIDEWALK
2.0' 20'
FIRE ACCESS ROAD
2:1 MAX
2.0'
11' TYP.
VARIES
EX. LANDSCAPE
RETAINING
WALL
10'
FIRE ACCESS
PROP. BLDG BUMP OUT
FFE = 505.00
3:1 MAX
PL
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C103 PRELIM GRADING.dwg July 24, 2021 11:38:31am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
C103.1
GRADING
SECTIONS
SECTION A-A
N.T.S.
SECTION D-D
N.T.S.
SECTION E-E
N.T.S.
SECTION H-H
N.T.S.
SECTION G-G
EX. GRADE
SECTION F-F
N.T.S.
N.T.S.
SECTION B-B
N.T.S.
SECTION C-C
N.T.S.
ITEM NO. 9.
465 460
470
470
475
470
471.33 TW/FG
474.00 TW/FG
467.83 FS
467.83 BW/FS
SEE DETAIL B
SHEET C105.1
468.50 TW/FG
463.47 BW/FG
471.63 TW/FG
467.83 BW/FS
468.50 TW/FG
468.50 BW/FG
467.84 BW/FG
536.00 TW
535.48 BW/FG
536.00 TW
535.47 BW/FG
535.69 TW/FG
535.33 FS
535.33 BW/FS
535.33 BW/FS
536.63 TW/FG
SEE DETAIL B
SHEET C105.1
536.35 TW
535.33 BW/FS
440
445
450
470
465
452.42 TW
449.50 TW
445.61 BW/FG
449.50 TW
448.00 BW/FG
455.17 TW
472.91 TW/FG
455.17 BW
462.05 TW/FG
452.42 BW
448.83 FS
452.33 BW/FS
452.33 BW/FS
SEE DETAIL C
SHEET C105.1
S
475
480
490.08 TW/FG
490.23 TW
487.47 BW
485.00 TW
477.37 BW/FG
481.90 TW
481.49 BW
477.00 TW
475.20 BW/FG
477.00 TW
473.51 BW/FG
480.31 TW/FG
478.78 BW
478.70 TW 480.34 TW
477.21 BW
484.33 FS
476.33 FS
485.00 BW/FS
484.33 BW/FS
476.33 BW/FS
477.00 TW
478.70 TW/FG
476.33 BW/FS
476.21 BW/FG
SEE DETAIL C
SHEET C105.1
SEE DETAIL C
SHEET C105.1
490.17 TW/FG
485.00 TW
481.35 BW/FG
542
538.33 FS
542.26 TW/FG 540.28 TW/FG
539.49 TW/FG
538.83 BW/FS 538.83 BW/FS
538.83 BW/FS
539.75 TW/FG
539.97 TW/FG
538.83 BW/FS
538.83 BW/FS
538.83 BW/FS
539.50 TW/FG
SEE DETAIL B
SHEET C105.1
480 480
485
490
495
486.15 BW/FG
489.58 TW/FG 486.00 TW
490.27 TW/FG
483.14 BW/FG
486.00 TW
485.33 FS
485.33 BW/FS
485.33 BW/FS
SEE DETAIL B
SHEET C105.1
482.08 BW/FG
486.00 TW
TW/FG
FS
TW
BW/FG
TOP OF MATERIAL
SEE SHEET C105.1
BIORETENTION BOX
SECTION DETAIL
TOP OF PLANTER BOX
BW/FS
8" MIN.
PROP. GRADE
PROP. GRADE
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C103.2 PRELIM GRADING BLOWUPS.dwg July 24, 2021 11:39:22am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
C103.2
PRELIMINARY
GRADING
DETAILS
TCM #1 DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=10'
TCM #2 DETAIL TCM #3 DETAIL
TCM #5 DETAIL
TCM #7 AND #8 DETAIL
TCM #6 DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=10' SCALE: 1"=10'
SCALE: 1"=10'
SCALE: 1"=10'
SCALE: 1"=10'
NORTH NORTH
NORTH
NORTH
NORTH
BIORETENTION GRADING SECTION
N.T.S.
NORTH
ITEM NO. 9.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
470 475 480
485
475 480 485
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
440
445
450
455
460
425
430
460
465
470
475
480
485
550 545 555 560
565
570
540 550
545
550
555
555
560
560
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
460 465470 475
480
485
490
495
500
505
510
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550 490 485 480495
460
465
470
475
480 485 BROADWAY
WOOD ROAD
(477.9± FS)
ME
(489.0± FS)
ME
(512.2± FS)
ME
(493.9± FS)
ME
(531.0± FS)
ME
(545.3± FS)
ME
(547.9± FS)
ME
(547.2± FS)
ME
(547.6± FS)
ME
(538.2± FS)
ME
(537.0± FS)
ME
(536.7± FS)
ME
480 485
475
480 485 445 440 435
450
455
460
465
470
480
485
500 500
505
480
485
465
470
475 535 535
540
545 490
490 495
495 500 500 505
505
505
510
515
520
530
525
480 485
490 495
500
505 510
515
520
525
VILLA G
VILLA F
VILLA A
VILLA H
VILLA B
VILLA E
VILLA D
VILLA C
110 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-038
PROP. STORM
DRAIN LINE
PROP. STORM
DRAIN MANHOLE
EX. STORM
DRAIN LINE
PROP. STORM
DRAIN MANHOLE
EX. STORM
DRAIN LINE
PROP. STORM
DRAIN LINE
PROP. STORM
DRAIN MANHOLE
PROP. STORM
DRAIN MANHOLE
PROP. STORM
DRAIN MANHOLE
PROP. STORM
DRAIN POC
PROP. STORM
DRAIN LINE
PROP. STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
EX. STORM
DRAIN LINE
EX. STORM
DRAIN LINE
EX. STORM DRAIN
MANHOLE
EX. STORM DRAIN
MANHOLE
EX. STORM
DRAIN LINE
EX. STORM
DRAIN LINE
EX. STORM DRAIN
MANHOLE
EX. STORM DRAIN
MANHOLE
EX. STORM DRAIN
MANHOLE
EX. STORM
DRAIN LINE
EX. STORM
DRAIN MAHNOLE
2:1 MAX SLOPE (TYP)
2:1 MAX SLOPE (TYP)
2:1 MAX SLOPE (TYP)
2:1 MAX SLOPE (TYP)
2:1 MAX SLOPE (TYP)
2:1 MAX SLOPE (TYP)
2:1 MAX SLOPE (TYP)
EX. SDCB 478.77'
INV: 475.8' (NE)
INV: 475.7' (SE)
EX. SDMH 479.22'
INV: 472.2' (NE)
INV: 472.3' (SW)
INV: 473.1' (W)
EX. SDCB 493.58'
INV: 489.6'
EX. SDCB 491.69'
INV: 488.1'
EX. STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
PROP. STORM
DRAIN MANHOLE
PROP. STORM
DRAIN MANHOLE
PROP. STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
532.45 FS
516.50 DOOR
534.36 FS
488.00 FS
487.50 FS
516.50 FS
528.00 FS
519.50 FS
519.50 FS
516.50 FS
504.97 FS
447.90 FS
448.16 FS
483.76 FS
487.05 FS
478.49 FS
477.86 FS
485.14 FS
477.19 FS
516.50 FS
516.50 DOOR
516.50 DOOR
539.50 DOOR
516.50 DOOR
519.50 DOOR
537.50 DOOR
488.08 FS
487.13 FS
485.00 FS
485.00 FS
484.53 FS
475.23 FS
474.73 FS
471.88 FS
485.21 FS
487.50 FS
484.04 FS
494.00 DOOR
505.00 DOOR
503.46 DOOR
540.55 FS
527.50 FS
522.00 FS
533.00 FS
505.00 FS
522.19 FS
516.48 FS
505.00 FS
501.48 FS 498.97 FS
496.65 FS
491.72 FS
535.61 FS
520.46 FS
510.00 FS
505.00 FS
513.00 FS
529.00 FS
535.67 FS
539.40 FS
544.12 FS
528.52 FS 517.90 FS
534.72 FS
488.00 FS
505.00 DOOR
534.00 DOOR
487.58 FS
486.38 FS
487.54 FS
487.55 FS
487.48 FS
487.18 FS
494.36 FS
491.85 FS
513.58 FS
501.57 FS
490.61 FS
488.58 FS
486.53 FS
503.70 FS
495.88 DOOR
536.81 FS
486.67 FS
485.83 FS
484.80 FS
480.15 FS
479.75 FS
476.48 FS
474.35 FS
467.15 FS
473.78 FS
484.81 FS
466.59 FS
PROP. STORM
DRAIN MANHOLE 7.97% 2.29%
8.10% 8.10% 17.26%
17.57%
1.10%
4.81%
3.66%
13.47%
10.50% 12.50%
3.39%
8.24%
7.72% 0.99%
0.27%
3.64%
3.38%
1.16% 2.00%
2.60%
5.00%
5.80% 8.10% 2.20% 7.50%
6.85%
8.10%
AVOIDANCE
AREA
EX. SDCB 534.66'
INV: 526.6' (NE)
INV: 526.6' (SW)
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C104 PRELIM CUT-FILL.dwg July 24, 2021 11:40:07am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
NORTH
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED CONTOUR (1-FT)
EXISTING CONTOUR (1-FT)
PROPOSED GRADE BREAK
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE
PROPOSED SLOPE
PROPOSED ELEVATION
EXISTING ELEVATION
PROPOSED BIORETENTION PLANTER
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CATCH
BASIN
LEGEND
C104
PRELIMINARY
CUT AND FILL
PLAN
X.XX%
(100.0± FS)
ME
100.00 FS
204
204
GB
*NOTE:
- EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE RAW, UNADJUSTED
VOLUMES. THESE CALCULATIONS ASSUME 18"
FOUNDATIONS FOR PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND 12"
SECTIONS FOR PROPOSED ROAD PAVING. THE UTILITY
SPOILS ARE PRELIMINARY.
ITEM NO. 9.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
470475 480 485
475 480 485
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
440
445
450
455
460
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
425
430
460
465
470
475
480
485
550 545 555 560
565
570
540 545
545
550
550
555
555
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
505
510
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
480
485
475
480 485 445 440 435
450
455
460
465
470
480
485
500
525 520 515 510 505
530
480
485 485 480495 490
460
465
470
475
480 485
465
470
475
VILLA G
VILLA F
VILLA A
VILLA H VILLA B
VILLA E
VILLA D
VILLA C
110 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-038
14 DMA
490 495 500
505 505
505
510
515
525
520
530
535
540
545
490
495500
500
490
495
500
505 510
515
520
525
530
535
540
TCM #3
TCM #2
TCM #1
TCM #6
TCM #7 TCM #8
TCM #11
TCM #5
TCM #19
TCM #9
TCM #12
TCM #10
TCM #13
TCM #14
TCM #15
TCM #16
TCM #18 TCM #21 TCM #23
TCM #24
TCM #25
TCM #17
TCM #20
TCM #26 TCM #22
9 DMA
11 DMA
12 DMA
1 DMA
15 DMA
16 DMA
19 DMA
20 DMA
26 DMA
22 DMA
25 DMA
23 DMA
24 DMA
8 DMA 7
DMA
6 DMA
3 DMA
10 DMA
17 DMA
2 DMA
21 DMA
18 DMA
5 DMA
13 DMA BROADWAY
WOOD ROAD
HOOD MARLENA TRUSTEE
100 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-029
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
23 CLIFTON AVE
APN: 510-45-082
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
19 CLIFTON AVE APN:
510-45-082
EQUITY INVESTORS
200 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-47-042
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST
CHURCH
57 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
JOHN L AND JEAN
RICHARDSON TRUSTEE
47 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
LG HOTEL LLC.
140 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-065
RAYMOND F. & GRACE LESTER
142 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-090
BERND J. NEUDECKER
109 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-041
JULIE A. RITTER TRUSTEE
135 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-034
OFFSITE DMA
3 OFFSITE DMA
2 OFFSITE DMA
1 4
DMA
PROP. CURB CUTS,
10' ON CENTER
PROP. STORM
DRAIN POC
PROP. BUBBLE
UP RISER
PROP. BUBBLE
UP RISER
PROP. CURB CUTS,
10' ON CENTER
PROP. STORM
DRAIN POC
PROP. STORM
DRAIN POC
PROP. CURB CUTS,
10' ON CENTER
PROP. STORM
DRAIN POC
PROP. CURB CUTS,
10' ON CENTER
PROP. BUBBLE
UP RISER
PROP. CURB CUTS,
10' ON CENTER
PROP. OVERFLOW
STRUCTURE (TYP.)
PROP. BUBBLE
UP RISER
PROP. HIGH-FLOW
BYPASS INLET. SEE
DETAIL E, SHEET C105.1
AVOIDANCE
AREA
PROP. OVERFLOW
STRUCTURE (TYP.)
PROP. STORM
DRAIN POC
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200
Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C105 PRELIM STORMWATER.dwg July 24, 2021 12:04:56pm
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
NORTH
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED CONTOUR (1-FT)
EXISTING CONTOUR (1-FT)
PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE
FLOW ARROW
PROPOSED BIORETENTION PLANTER
DMA AREA
EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CATCH
BASIN
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
204
C105
PRELIMINARY
STORMWATER
CONTROL PLAN
204
X
DMA
LEGEND
S
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
ITEM NO. 9.
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C105 PRELIM STORMWATER.dwg July 24, 2021 11:40:50am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36" 6" MIN 2" 6" 2" 18" 12"
12" CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
PER CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS
4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC UNDERDRAIN (S=0.50% MIN) @
6' O.C., WITH PERFORATIONS POINTING DOWN.
PROVIDE CLEANOUTS AT FINISH GRADE LOCATED AT
BEGINNING OF LINE AND AS REQUIRED BY INDUSTRY STDS.
EXTEND GRAVEL LAYER AS NEEDED (12" MIN WIDTH)
TO WRAP UNDERDRAIN WHEN IT DROPS
BELOW ROCK LAYER.
18" BIOTREATMENT SOIL MIX (BSM)
PER "BASMAA REGIONAL
BIOTREATMENT SOIL SPECIFICATION
2016" DATED APRIL 18, 2016.
NATIVE SOIL 2% MINIMUM
SLOPE TO UNDERDRAIN
UNDERDRAIN CLEANOUT WITH RIM TO FG.
PVC RISER SHALL BE THE SAME AS MAIN PIPE
DIAMETER BUT NOT LARGER THAN 6"
18" WIDE CURB OPENING
SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION
PLACE GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN
COBBLES AND NATIVE SOIL
FOR EROSION CONTROL
MIRAFI 140N PERMEABLE FABRIC
PLACE 4" MIN. DIA. APPROVED COBBLES 0.2 FT BELOW
CURB OPENINGS FOR DISTANCE OF 1.5 FT EITHER SIDE
OF CURB OPENINGS AT 8" DEEP.
CLEANOUT WITH CAP
AT FIN. GRADE
OVERFLOW RISER W/ ATRIUM GRATE - BEYOND
JENSEN 12"x12" OR APPROVED EQUAL
IF NATIVE MATERIAL IS USED FOR
SIDESLOPE, RELATIVE COMPACTION
OF SUBGRADE TO BE SIMILAR TO
ADJOINING NATIVE SOILS
3:1 SIDE SLOPE
NATIVE SOIL
DO NOT COMPACT
SOLID STORMDRAIN PIPE (SIZE & SLOPE PER PLANS)
STEGO WRAP 6MM PVC IMPERMEABLE LINER WHEN LESS
THAN 2 FT FROM IMPROVEMENTS WHERE IMPERMEABLE LINER IS USED, UNDRAIN TO BE INSTALLED AT BOTTOM OF DRAIN ROCK (TOP OF LINER). (EXTEND 1 FT BELOW BOTTOM OF ROCK)
N.T.S. A
BIORETENTION SYSTEM
BIORETENTION SYSTEM ADJACENT TO BUILDING B
NTS 18" MIN.
CLEANOUT
W/ CAP AT
FINISH
GRADE
BIO-TREATMENT
SOIL MIX (BSM)
PER APPENDIX C OF THE
SCVURPPP HANDBOOK
12" MIN. OF CLASS II
PERMEABLE ROCK PER
CALTRANS SPECS.
ROCK SECTION TO
INCREASE WITH SLOPE
OF PIPE.
PERFORATED PIPE (SLOPE
AT 0.50% MIN) W/
PERFORATIONS DOWN. SEE
PLAN FOR LENGTH AND
LOCATION.
BUILDING WALL
4" MIN. DIA. APPROVED
COBBLE 0.2' BELOW
DOWNSPOUTS FOR
DISTANCE OF 2' EITHER
SIDE OF DOWNSPOUT BSM 12"
REINF. CONCRETE
PLANTER 3.85'
TO
STORM
DRAIN
RISER
HEIGHT
SEE PLAN
PLACE 4" MIN. DIA.
APPROVED COBBLE 0.2'
BELOW CURB OPENINGS
FOR DISTANCE OF 2'
EITHER SIDE OF CURB
OPENINGS
WATERPROOF
MEMBRANE 7" TYP. 5.0' & VARIES
C
BIORETENTION SYSTEM ADJACENT TO RETAINING WALL
NTS MIN.
BIO-TREATMENT
SOIL MIX (BSM)
PER APPENDIX C OF THE
SCVURPPP HANDBOOK
12" MIN. OF CLASS II
PERMEABLE ROCK PER
CALTRANS SPECS.
ROCK SECTION TO
INCREASE WITH SLOPE
OF PIPE.
PERFORATED PIPE (SLOPE
AT 0.50% MIN) W/
PERFORATIONS DOWN. SEE
PLAN FOR LENGTH AND
LOCATION.
RETAINING WALL
4" MIN. DIA. APPROVED
COBBLE 0.2' BELOW
WEEPHOLES FOR
DISTANCE OF 2' EITHER
SIDE OF WEEPHOLE 12"
REINF. CONCRETE
PLANTER 3.85'
TO
STORM
DRAIN
PLACE 4" MIN. DIA.
APPROVED COBBLE 0.2'
BELOW CURB OPENINGS
FOR DISTANCE OF 2'
EITHER SIDE OF CURB
OPENINGS
WATERPROOF
MEMBRANE 7" TYP.
3" COMPOSTED
MULCH
D
CURB CUT
C105.1
PRELIMINARY
STORMWATER
CONTOL DETAILS
3" COMPOSTED
MULCH 3" MIN. 18"
CLEANOUT
W/ CAP AT
FINISH
GRADE BSM
RISER
HEIGHT
SEE PLAN
3" COMPOSTED
MULCH 3" MIN. 5.0' & VARIES 3" MIN.
** IN-LIEU TREATMENT:
THE 6,853 SF OF IMPERVIOUS AREA THAT IS GOING
UNTREATED TO BROADWAY IS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR
IN DMA 6. 6,853 SF OF IMPERVIOUS PAVEMENT ON
WOOD ROAD HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN DMA 6 AND TCM 6
HAS BEEN SIZED TO TREAT THIS ADDITIONAL WATER
QUALITY FLOW. THE 6,853 SF AREA IS NOT COUNTED
TOWARDS THE DMA 6 TOTAL AREA.
**
*
* REQUIRED TREATMENT AREA CALCULATED USING SIMPLIFIED
SIZING METHOD (4% RULE) AS DESCRIBED BELOW:
REQUIRED AREA = 4% * (IMPERVIOUS AREA + (10%*PERVIOUS AREA)) **
** ** ** **
N.T.S. E
HIGH FLOW BYPASS INLET
STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
HIGH FLOW BYPASS
PIPE OUT
LOW FLOW PIPE TO
BIORETENTION
ITEM NO. 9.
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C105 PRELIM STORMWATER.dwg July 24, 2021 11:40:51am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
C105.2
CALIFORNIA
BLUEPRINT FOR A
CLEAN BAY AREA
ITEM NO. 9.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
VILLA H
VILLA B
VILLA C BROADWAY
WOOD ROAD
FFE: 485.00
FFE: 478.50
FFE: 488.00
HOOD MARLENA TRUSTEE
100 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-029
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
23 CLIFTON AVE
APN: 510-45-082
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
19 CLIFTON AVE APN:
510-45-082
EQUITY INVESTORS
200 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-47-042
SEVENTH DAY
ADVENTIST CHURCH
57 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
JOHN L AND JEAN
RICHARDSON TRUSTEE
47 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
LG HOTEL LLC.
140 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-065
RAYMOND F. & GRACE LESTER
142 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-090
BERND J. NEUDECKER
109 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-041
JULIE A. RITTER TRUSTEE
135 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-034
VILLA G
VILLA F
VILLA A
VILLA E
VILLA D
110 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-038
TERRACE
FFE: 505.00
TERRACE
FFE: 505.00
FFE: 488.00
EX. 18" SD LINE
@ 20.1%
EX. SDCB (493.58')
12" INV IN: 489.80' (W)
18" INV OUT: (489.6') 8" SS
24" SD
24" SD
24" SD
18" SD 18" SD
20" SD 24" SD 8" SS
6" SS
6" SS
8" SS
6" SS
6" SS
6" SS
TERRACE FFE: 505.00
GARAGE LEVEL 1 FFE: 488.00
GARAGE LEVEL 2 FFE: 478.50
FFE: 505.00
FFE: 505.00
FFE: 505.00
FFE: 505.00
FFE: 505.00
PROP. 8" PVC SS
LINE @ 22.3%
PROP. 8" PVC
WATER LINE
EX. SSMH 485.75'
INV: (478.8±')
EX. 8" SS LINE
@ 29.6%
PROP. FIRE
HYDRANT
PROP. 8" SS POC
INV: 480.00 PROP. WATER POC
PROP. FIRE
HYDRANT
PROP. FIRE
HYDRANT
PROP. 8" PVC
WATER LINE
EX. 6" SS
LINE @ 14.7%
EX. 10" WATER LINE
EX. SSMH 453.42'
6" INV IN/OUT: 447.5' (NE)
EX. 6" WATER LINE
REPLACE EX. 6" WATER LINE
WITH 8" WATER LINE
EX. FIRE HYDRANT
EX. SSMH 435.00'
8" INV IN: 427.3' (NW)
6" INV IN:428.0 (SW)
6" INV OUT: 427.2' (NE)
EX. WATER TANK
EX. WATER PUMP
PROP. SS POC
INV: 479.50'
18 LF 8" PVC SS
LINE @ 4.0%
PROP. 8" PVC
WATER LATERAL
EX. 6" WATER LINE
EX. FIRE
HYDRANT
EX. 10" WATER LINE
EX. FIRE HYDRANT
EX. FIRE HYDRANT
EX. FIRE HYDRANT
EX. SANITARY
SEWER LINE
COOLING TOWER/
EMERGENCY GENERATOR
WITHIN FENCED YARD
EX. SSMH 524.69'
6" INV IN/OUT: 518.4'
EX. SSMH 549.82'
INV: 545.1' (NE)
6" INV OUT: 545.3' (SE)
EX. SSMH 480.55'
6" INV: 472.4' (NE)
6" INV: 472.5' (W)
EX. SSMH 465.65'
6" INV IN/OUT: 461.5 (NE)
PROP. WATER
BACKFLOW PREVENTOR
PROP. SSCO (475.3±)
**INV: (466.0±')
EX. WATER LINE
PROP. SSCO (460.4±)
**INV: (453.1±')
PROP. 8" PVC
WATER LINE
PROP. 8" PVC
WATER LINE
PROP. 8" PVC
WATER LINE
CONNECT TO EX.
6" WATER LINE
EX. 8" SS
LINE @ 46%
EX. 8" SS LINE
8" INV IN: 458.47' (W)
6" INV OUT: 458.47' (NE)
EX. SDCB (491.69')
18" INV OUT: 488.1'
EX. 18" SD LINE
@ 20.7%
EX. SDMH (523.62')
18" INV IN/OUT: 517.7'
EX. 24" SD
LINE @ 8.6%
EX. SDMH (489.36')
18" INV IN: 483.3' (W)
18" INV IN: 483.3' (SW)
18" INV IN: 483.4' (NW)
20" INV OUT: 483.2' (E)
EX. SDMH (465.29')
24" INV IN/OUT: 460.0'
EX. SDMH (454.11')
24" INV IN/OUT : 447.1'
EX. STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
EX. 20" SD
LINE @ 28.8%
EX. 18" STORM
DRAIN LINE
EX. SDCB
RIM: 531.04'
EX. SDCB 534.66'
INV: 526.6' (NE)
INV: 526.6' (SW)
EX. SDMH (562.34')
12" INV IN: 556.1' (N)
18" INV IN: 556.1' (W)
18" INV OUT: 556.0' (SE)
EX. 24" SD
LINE @ 14.2%
EX. SDMH 433.5'
24" INV IN: 430.2' (SW)
20" INV IN: 427.2' (NW)
24" INV OUT: 427.3' (SE)
EX. 24" SD LINE
@ 12.8%
EX. SDMH 479.22'
15" INV IN: 472.4' (NW)
18" INV IN: (472.3') (SW)
20" INV IN: (473.1') (W)
24" INV OUT : (472.2') (NE)
EX. 6" SS
LINE @ 8.4%
EX. 8" SS
LINE @ 21.2%
EX. 8" SS
LINE @ 12.5%
PROP. STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.
SEE SHEET C103 FOR DETAIL
PROP. STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.
SEE SHEET C103 FOR DETAIL
PROP. FIRE
HYDRANT
PROP. STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.
SEE SHEET C103 FOR DETAIL
PROP. FDC (TYP.)
SEE SHEET C109.1
FOR DETAILS
S
S
S
S
RAYMOND F. & GRACE LESTER
142 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-090
S. SANTA CRUZ AVENUE 24" SD 6" SS
EX. 6" WATER LINE
EX. 10" WATER LINE
EX. 10" WATER LINE
EX. 6" WATER LINE
EX. 10" WATER LINE
EX. 6" SANITARY
SEWER LINE
EX. 6" SANITARY
SEWER LINE
EX. SANITARY
SEWER MANHOLE
EX. SANITARY
SEWER MANHOLE
EX. STORM DRAIN
MANHOLE
EX. STORM DRAIN
MANHOLE
EX. 12" & 24" STORM
DRAIN LINE
EX. 30" STORM
DRAIN LINE
EX. STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
EX. STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C106 PRELIM UTILITY PLAN.dwg July 24, 2021 11:41:24am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
NORTH
C106
PRELIMINARY
UTILITY PLAN
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE
EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE
EXISTING WATER LINE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE
PROPOSED 8" WATER LINE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
MANHOLE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CATCH
BASIN
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
PROPOSED FDC LOCATION
PROPOSED BIORETENTION PLANTER
BOX
LEGEND
S
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
SEE THIS SHEET FOR CONTINUATION
UTILITY NOTES
**NOTE: THE UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE FROM
SURVEY AND AVAILABLE PLANS ONLY - THE
INFORMATION IS VERY UNLIKELY TO BE COMPLETE
OR PRECISE. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY IN FIELD
EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AND SANITARY SEWER
INVERT ELEVATIONS.
1. PIPE SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PVC PIPE AND SHALL
CONFORM TO ASTM D3034-SDR 35 OR CORRUGATED
POLYETHYLENE AND SHALL CONFORM TO AASHTO
M294-97 & ASTM D3212
2. PIPE FOR WATER SHALL BE 8" PVC PIPE AND SHALL
CONFORM TO AWWA C900.
ITEM NO. 9.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
470 475 480
485
470 470 475480 485
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
440
445
450
455
460
435
450
445
440
455
455
455
455
4650
470
470 470
475
425
430
460
465
470
475
480
485
550 545 555 560
565
570
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
460 465 470 475 480
485
490
495
500
505
510
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550 495 490 485 480
460
465
470
475
480 485 BROADWAY
WOOD ROAD
VILLA G
VILLA F
VILLA A
VILLA H
VILLA B
VILLA E
VILLA D
VILLA C
110 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-038
GB
485
480
490
495
500
505
510
530
535
540
545
515510
505
500
520
525
CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE
SOIL STABILIZATION FOR ALL
2:1 MAX. PROPOSED GRADING
CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE
SOIL STABILIZATION FOR ALL
2:1 MAX. PROPOSED GRADING
CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE
SOIL STABILIZATION FOR ALL
2:1 MAX. PROPOSED GRADING
PROP. SILT FENCE
PROP. SILT FENCE
PROP. SILT FENCE
PROP. COONSTRUCTION FENCE
PROP. COONSTRUCTION FENCE
PROP. SILT FENCE
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
540 545
545
550
550
555
555
HOOD MARLENA TRUSTEE
100 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-029
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
23 CLIFTON AVE
APN: 510-45-082
CARRIAGE HOUSE LLC
19 CLIFTON AVE APN:
510-45-082
EQUITY INVESTORS
200 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-47-042
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST
CHURCH
57 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
JOHN L AND JEAN
RICHARDSON TRUSTEE
47 BROADWAY ST.
APN: 510-45-082
LG HOTEL LLC.
140 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-065
RAYMOND F. & GRACE LESTER
142 S. SANTA CRUZ AVE
APN: 510-45-090
BERND J. NEUDECKER
109 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-041
JULIE A. RITTER TRUSTEE
135 WOOD ROAD
APN: 510-47-034
475
480 485 445 440 435
450
455
460
465
470
480
485
500 500
480
485
465
470
475 535 535
540
545 490
490 495 495 500 500
505
505
505
510
515
520
530
525
490 495
500
505510
515
520
525
480 480
485
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP
IP IP
SCALE:
SEAL
DRAWING TITLE:
PROJECT TITLE:
PROJECT No:
NO. DATE ISSUE
KEY PLAN
Applicant:
Owner:
Civil / Site:
Structural:
Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing:
Landscape:
General Contractor:
70581.00
LOS GATOS
MEADOWS
2021-07-27
110 WOOD ROAD
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PLANNING SUBMITTAL
ROCKWOOD PACIFIC
36 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
ORINDA, CA 94563
(415) 816-7944
COVIA
2185 N CALIFORNIA BLVD, SUITE 215
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596
(925) 956-7400
KIMLEY-HORN
4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
(925) 398-4840
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
45 FREMONT ST, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415) 989-1004
GLUMAC
150 CALIFORNIA ST, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
(415) 398-7667
GATES + ASSOCIATES
2671 CROW CANYON RD
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 736-8176
DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC
690 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
MILPITAS, CA 95035
(408) 942-8200 Plotted By:Falgout, Mark Sheet Set:Kha K:\BAY_LDEV\197101001 - Los Gatos Meadows - MAF\08 CADD\Plan Sheets\DD SET\C107 EROSION PLAN.dwg July 24, 2021 11:42:01am 4637 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 300, PLEASANTON, CA 94588
PHONE:925-398-4840 FAX: 925-398-4849
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
1" = 40' ON 24" X 36"
NORTH
PROPERTY LINE
PROP. CONTOUR (1-FT)
EXISTING CONTOUR (1-FT)
PROP. GRADE BREAK
PROP. SILT FENCE
PROP. CONSTRUCTION FENCE
EX. STORM DRAIN LINE
PROP. STORM DRAIN LINE
PROP. INLET PROTECTION
PROP. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROP. BIORETENTION PLANTER
PROP. ASPHALT CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
PROP. STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
PROP. STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN
LEGEND
C107
PRELIMINARY
EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
204
204
IP
1.REFER TO TREE PRESERVATION/REMOVAL PLAN, SHEETS T1-T3, BY OTHERS
TREE PROTECTION NOTES
1. LOCATE FIBER ROLLS ON LEVEL CONTOURS SPACED AS FOLLOWS:
1.1. SLOPE INCLINATION OF 4:1 (H:V) OR FLATTER: FIBER ROLLS SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 20FT.
1.2. SLOPE INCLINATION OF 4:1 TO 2:1 (H:V): FIBER ROLLS SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 15 FT. (A CLOSER SPACING IS MORE EFFECTIVE).
1.3. SLOPE INCLINATION OF 2:1 (H:V) OR GREATER: FIBER ROLLS SHOULD BE PLACED AT A MAXIMUM INTERVAL OF 10FT. (A CLOSER SPACING IS MORE EFFECTIVE).
2. SLOPE SHALL BE PREPARED BEFORE INSTALLATION.
3. DIG SMALL TRENCHES ACROSS THE SLOPE ON THE CONTOUR. THE TRENCH DEPTH SHOULD BE 1 4 TO
1 3
OF THE THICKNESS OF THE ROLL, AND THE WIDTH SHOULD EQUAL THE ROLL DIAMETER, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AREA TO BACKFILL THE TRENCH.
4. FIBER ROLLS SHALL BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO WATER MOVEMENT, AND PARALLEL TO THE SLOPE CONTOUR.
5. TRENCHES AND ROLLS SHALL BE BUILT AND INSTALLED STARTING FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SLOPE AND WORKED UP.
6.PILOT HOLES SHALL BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE FIBER ROLL AND INTO THE SOIL FOR THE WOODEN STAKES USING A STRAIGHT BAR.
7.THE ENDS OF THE FIBER ROLL SHALL BE TURNED UP SLOPE TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM GOING AROUND THE ROLL.
8.IF MORE THAN ONE FIBER ROLL IS PLACED IN A ROW, THE ROLLS SHOULD BE OVERLAPPED, NOT ABUTTED.
9.STAKE FIBER ROLLS IN TO THE TRENCH.
9.1. DRIVE STAKES AT THE END OF EACH FIBER ROLL AND SPACED 4FT MAXIMUM ON CENTER.
9.2. USE WOOD STAKES WITH A NOMINAL CLASSIFICATION OF 0.75 BY 0.75 IN. AND MINIMUM LENGTH OF 24 IN.
FIBER ROLL INSTALLATION NOTES