Attachment 21Sally Zarnowitz
From:
Sent:
Eric Colson <eco lson @gmai l.com >
Wednesday, May 31 , 2017 9:17 AM
To:
Subject:
Rob Rennie; BSpector; Marica Sayoc; Marcia Jensen ; Steve n Leonard is; Sa ll y Za rnowitz
339-341 Bella Vis ta Avenue
May 31, 2017
Mayor Sayoc and Council Members
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Sayoc and Council Members ,
I am writing regarding the property at 339-341 Bella Vista Avenue . The property owners , Deborah
and Dan Ross, are seeking approval for the design of their single-family home. I've been following the
series of events they've been put through over the last several years as they have sought approval for
their plans . I was in attendance at the Town Council meeting on December 6, 2016 when they last
presented their design. What I saw was surprising . I watched for over two hours as the Town
Council and community members debated the design for the Ross ' home. It was unintuitive to me
that this merited so much time and effort (after all, this was far from the first meeting that was held on
the matter -this goes back many years!). Further, I was surprised to learn that such parameters were
subject to the opinions , biases , and preferences of the Town Council and community members. If the
design of the home is compliant with all town zoning code requirements , what is there to talk
about? One could argue that a forum for hearing the practical requests of neighbors could be helpful.
Yet , such concessions should be made only voluntarily by the property owner. Otherwise , they are
effectively requirements and should be incorporated into the zoning code . Instead of such a lengthy
and bias-prone bureaucratic processes , we should respect the code as it was written at the time the
of purchase and rely on the reasonableness of the property owner for any subjective request. In the
case of 339-341 Bella Vista, the Ross' have been more than reasonable . They have granted
numerous concessions despite being fully compliant. I understand that some neighbors will only be
satisfied with complete forfeiture of the building any structure on the property. But, that is not theirs to
dictate . Nor should they allowed to use the town council process as their vehicle to stall and impede
progress .
On the next hearing on the matter on June 6, 2017 , I would like to see a demonstration of integrity
and practicality. If construction meets all the guidelines, I'd like to see it approved swiftly , free from
bias, and without the unnecessary consumption of Town Council resources.
Sincerely,
~
Eric Colson
246 Vista Del Monte
Los Gatos , CA 95030
ATTACHMENT 2 1
1
Town of Los Gatos
Re: Ross Project Proposal ... Bella Vista
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is written in support of the single family home proposed by Deb and Dan
Ross on Bella Vista Avenue. Deb and Dan Ross and their family are long time
homeowners and residents of Los Gatos. They are productive, caring , generous and
well known residents of the East side. It is truly mystifying to me and many others
that such a resident and homeowner is being unduly prohibited from building a
single family home in an existing neighborhood on a parcel that is zoned residential;
all the more so because their application has been pending for 10 years. Over this
same time, in a disastrous lack of planning, non-resident developers of planned
communities were permitted to densely pack their East side parcels with
developments at our most traveled intersections that do not resemble the
surrounding neighborhoods.
The Council and Planners are charged with looking out for the best interests of the
Town and its citizens. While you cannot undo what has alread y been done by the
developers, you can start to rebuild some trust w ith your East side residents by
making logical and consistent decisions and passing this proposal or at very least by
providing the Ross' with solid guidance about what is acceptable to be built on this
property and allow them get on with it instead of quibbling over legal tech nicali t ies
and asking them to redraw their proposal over and over and over aga i n, each t ime
with a new reason of why they cannot proceed.
Thank you for your consideration,
Carol Tinsley
16555 S. Kennedy Road
PATRICK K. TILLMAN
Attorney at Law
2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com
May 22, 2016
Sent via e-mail to: MMoseley@losgatosca.gov
and planning@losgatosca.gov
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications
Applicant: Dan Ross
Planning Commission Meeting – 05-25-16
Supplement
Dear Commissioners:
At the 04-13-16 Planning Commission hearing, I was asked to address three
(3) of the following, I added # 1 & 2:
#1. Three (3) Stories.
#2. Exceeded height.
#3. Exceeded the FAR.
#4. Exceeded “Cut and fill.”
#5. Exceeded driveway 15% slope.
#1. Three (3) Stories. 1st, look at it – it’s three (3) stories.
2nd, the definition of a “Story” is provided by the Town Code:
Story means that portion of a building including between the
upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next
above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a
building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor
and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly
above a basement or cellar is more than six (6) feet above grade,
such basement or cellar shall be considered a story. Three story
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 2 -
___________________________
2
building elevations are prohibited in Hillside Residential and
Resource Conservation Zones.
(Emphasis added)
(29.10.020)
“Cellar” is defined by the Town:
“Cellar means an enclosed area that does not extend more than
four (4) feet above the existing or finished grade in any location
…”
(29.10.020)
This is not a cellar.
Three (3) story elevations are also prohibited by the HDS&G. (@ pg. 36)
#2. Exceeded height – twice (2x).
1st one: overall height.
“Height means the height of all structures … [and] shall be
determined by the plumb vertical distance from the natural or
finished grade, whichever is lower and creates a lower profile, to
the uppermost point of the roof edge … No point of the roof or
other structural element within the exterior perimeter of the
structure shall extend beyond the plane established by the
maximum height plane …” (29.10.020)
The height limitation for homes extending above a ridgeline is 28’. (HDS&G,
pg. 35) For ridgeline and visible homes, the height limitation is 18’. (Ibid @ pg. 36)
The “PROJECT DATA” sheet provided by Staff indicates the maximum height is
25’.
This is a visible home … even more so after Applicant cuts down all the trees.
The Staff Report indicates “the overall maximum height of [this project is]
33 feet.” (04-13-16 Staff Report, pg. 7) Applicant’s building diagram indicates
approximately 33’. (MND, Figure 9)
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 3 -
___________________________
3
2nd one: Main floor.
“The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure,
excluding cellars, shall not be more than four feet above the
existing grade to ensure that buildings follow slopes.”
(HDS&G, pg. 36, ¶E(4))
Applicant diagramed the point in the lowest level where the natural slope cuts
through at 4’ above the lowest floor. The distance from the lowest level floor to the
next level floor is 10’, leaving 6’ above the existing grade. Worse, he cantilevered
the Main level out beyond the lowest floor, creating a gap substantially more than 6’.
#3. Exceeded the FAR. The Staff Report incorrectly calculated the FAR.
The calculation should be:
10,155 sq. ft. lot
x .4 (60 % reduction)
4,062 sq. ft. applicable
x .345 FAR for under 11,000 s.f. lot (HDS&G 27-28)
1,401 FAR allowable
Staff also neglected to include the FAR total for the project. Not conceding the
cellar reduction of 1,179 sq. ft. claim, but allowing it for argument sake, Staff’s
figures total 1,564 (1,278 Main floor + 185 Non-cellar + 101 oversized garage).
Staff’s “Neighborhood Analysis Table” uses 7 of 8 FAR comparisons that are
across the street on Bella Vista. Appropriate. These comps all have flat, useable lots,
unlike this property.
#4. Exceeded “Cut and fill.” The Staff Report omits grading information –
specifics, and why the HDS&G should be disregarded.
The MND indicates +10’ of vertical “cut” into the hillside that runs +60’
horizontally, parallel to the road. (MND Figure 9) This evacuation is to
accommodate the lowest floor, referred to as a “cellar;” A “cellar” with its own
patio.
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 4 -
___________________________
4
Again, “Cellar” is defined by the Town:
“Cellar means an enclosed area that does not extend more than
four (4) feet above the existing or finished grade in any location
…”
(29.10.020)
This is not a cellar.
Maximum grading cuts are not to exceed 8’. (HDS&G, pg. 17)
“Cuts and fills in excess of [8’] are considered excessive and contrary to the
objectives of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines.” (Ibid)
Applicant requires another 5’ of vertical cutting to install a retaining wall that
“wraps around the below grade patio and the main living floor level to the south of
the site.” (Staff Report, pg. 6) Presumably, that retaining wall also runs for +60’,
plus an area for a patio; the patio area of the retaining wall having no more than
another 5’ of exposure. (Ibid)
We are talking about +15’ of vertical “cut,” running +60’ horizontally, through
a 53% slope, parallel to the road just above it; which is not 25’ from the structure.
Another “retaining wall,” referred to by Staff as simply “a wall,” is poorly
disclosed/described as being “… along the rear and side range from approximately 3
feet at the western edge to 10 feet along the eastern edge of the patio.” (Staff Report,
pg. 6, ¶D) NOT POSSIBLE, and show it somewhere, e.g. diagram. “NOT
POSSIBLE” because the 53% slope is east-to-west, headed downward.
Consequently, any point west of another point requires a higher wall.
10’ is higher/deeper than 8’.
/////
/////
/////
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 5 -
___________________________
5
#5. Exceeded driveway 15% slope. The Staff Report generally references
compliance in its Conclusion, under the sub-heading of “Pedestrian safety;” nothing
more. (Staff Report, pg. 8)
The maximum grade for a driveway is 15%, with adequate line of sight.
(29.10.06708; HDS&G pgs. 22-23)
Applicant’s diagrams are inconsistent and inaccurate. (MND, Figures 3 & 4;
05-17-16 Applicant Supplement (Exhibit 10); placement of Story Poles)
Applicant randomly picks a spot far left of the midpoint of the driveway
entrance off Bella Vista, and draws a line directly to the midpoint of the garage,
cutting across the actual slope of the driveway at an angle – assigning the distance as
44’. The garage floor is 6’ below the street level. Using only these two (2) points,
the percentage drop appears to meet the standard (6 ÷ 44 = 11.1%), but it simply
masks the slope of the primary area of ingress and egress, which is steeper.
Another problem with Applicant’s driveway presentation is: his 05-17-16
Supplement matches the Story Pole depiction, placing the garage door almost
perpendicular to Bella Vista, with a flat area directly in front of the garage, thus
shortening the distance for the calculation. As a consequence, the driveway actually
has a more dramatic drop (West) immediately coming off Bella Vista and getting to
the flat area and their garage. The slope, as depicted by its supporting wall (another
retaining wall??; 05-17-16 Applicant Supplement, Exhibit 10), where the slope is the
least, exceeds 30% for the 1st 15-25’.
No comment is made by Staff about visibility, e.g. at the south-easterly-most
corner of the lot, right next to the street, is a 33” Coastal Oak. It’s not on Applicant’s
property. Or a comment that across Applicant’s entire southerly property line are 20-
25’ tall bush-trees, blocking an exiting driver’s view. These drivers will be backing
out, onto Bella Vista, uphill, basically blind to Northbound traffic. The exiting
driver’s view of Southbound traffic is blocked by quite a few trees that line the
property close to Bella Vista, which tracks around these trees in a soft convex curve.
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 6 -
___________________________
6
CONCLUSION
The whole purpose of this process is to protect the neighborhood, not to assist
[a spec-home] developer.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
/s/
Patrick K. Tillman
cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail)
TownofLosGatos.Planning.052216
PATRICK K. TILLMAN
Attorney at Law
2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com
May 31, 2017
Sent via e-mail to: council@losgatosca.gov
and manager@losgatosca.gov
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications
Applicant: Dan Ross
Planning Commission Meeting – 06-06-17
Supplement
Dear Council Members:
I am attaching a copy of my 05-22-16 correspondence to the Planning
Commission. The concerns I voiced about the prior plans remain for the “revised”
plans, however, I want to elaborate on three (3) of them.
#1. Three (3) Stories. The revised plans still have two (2) levels of living
space with a garage on top. One-car, two-car garage, it doesn’t matter, it’s still a
three (3) story building.
Further, it is nonsense to allow elimination of the garage to satisfy the three (3)
story HDS&G Standard. The proposed ~3,000 sq. ft., three (3) bedroom home is
shoved right up to Bella Vista Avenue. Without a garage, the vehicles will appear to
be parked on a roof or in a parking lot cantilevered over a cliff. Either way, it’s
dangerous, not consistent with the neighborhood, and an eyesore.
This is a spec-home. The target buyer – the 1st buyer after Applicant lives in it
for one (1) year to get the tax advantage - will apply and receive a permit to build a
garage, rightfully claiming their “parking lot” is not safe, looks ridiculous, and it was
not their fault.
Los Gatos Town Council
May 31, 2017
Page – 2 –
_______________________
2
#4. Exceeded “Cut and fill.” The revised Plans concede that Applicant must
take a +17’ vertical cut out of the hillside to construct this house. The maximum
vertical “cut” allowed is 8’. (HDS&G, pg. 17)
The lot has a 53% average slope, but where this house will be sited is steeper;
it drops 38’ in a distance of less than 69’ – it drops more than 1’ for every 2’ of site
depth. (Note: a 50% slope has a gradient of 1:2)
At the last meeting, when asked by a Town Council Member about the
“contours” of the hillside, Applicant’s response was that he did not know.
The Bella Vista Avenue side of the proposed home, which consists of soft
alluvial soil, is drastically steeper than the 53% “average.” Anyone visiting the site
knows that the 1st 25-30’ drop from Bella Vista Avenue is the steepest part of the lot,
making it even more dangerous and difficult to build/support properly. It also
explains why Applicant previously applied to build a bridge for a driveway.
To the contrary, Applicant’s latest diagrams depict the upper-hill contour as
flatter than the 53% average. That “factual” misrepresentation highlights a serious
credibility problem.
#5. Exceeded driveway 15% slope. The revised plans still omit the
immediate downward slope of the driveway coming off Bella Vista, yet they depict a
flat parking area in front of the garage. Assuming a flat area in front of the garage,
getting to and from it is the concern. Primarily, immediate access onto Bella Vista is
the safety hazard.
CONCLUSION
The same as it was a year ago when this Application was submitted: The
whole purpose of this process [Planning Commission and Town Council] is to
protect the neighborhood, not to assist [a spec-home] developer.
I will add: The whole purpose of the General Plan and the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines is to protect the neighborhood, not to assist
[a spec-home] developer.
Los Gatos Town Council
May 31, 2017
Page – 3 –
_______________________
3
Keeping in mind, “… the Court [will] independently review [de novo] the
Town’s interpretation of the law.” (N-40 Response 11:18-19) To date, the Town’s
interpretation and application of the law to the facts of this Applicant’s proposals
(multiple) has been consistent – non-compliant.
Keeping in mind, the Court will defer to the Town’s discretion on factual
determinations, that discretion need be supported with facts. (N-40 Response
9:8-11:19) Here, Applicant’s submission is, inter alia, not reliable.
Applicant’s latest plans come nowhere near satisfying the mandates of the
General Plan or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, and has the
same deficiencies as prior Applications.
The neighbors have a right to insist on, and the Town has an obligation to
consistently enforce … its rules.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
/s/
Patrick K. Tillman
Attachment
cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail)
TownofLosGatos.Planning.053117
Eleanor Leishman332 Bella Vista Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95032-5415
May 31, 2017
Lead agency: Town of Los Gatos Town Council 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030
Project title andLocation: 339-341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-12-103 Subdivision Application M-12-008
Dear Mayor Sayoc, Vice Mayor Rennie, and Council Members Jensen, Leonardis and Spector,
I’m writing to urge you to to deny this appeal by the property owners and to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the site application.
Here are my reasons for objecting to this proposed building:
1. The house is too big for this very steep and difficult building site.
2. The plans violate the Town’s Hillside Design Guidelines and Standards in terms of specific guide-lines and in terms of their overall intent.
3. The plans violate the Town’s Tree Ordinance and the HDGS Tree Preservation Standards.
4. The Town’s Cellar Policy is being inappropriately applied to double the square footage and signifi-cantly increase the bulk and mass of the building.
5. The vehicles entering and leaving the property will create unsafe traffic conditions on Bella Vista.
6. Additional on-street parking adjacent to the property will cause further congestion on the narrow street. (See appendix A on page 3)
7. Who is the architect of this project and why is he/she not named on the drawings? Is he/she licensed to practice in California? There are no credits, only a copyright for Jake Peters, Ketchum, Idaho.
To elaborate on these points:
All four variations of the applicant’s current plans violate the HDGS in terms of size and height, bulk and mass, and building intensity. They blatantly disregard the constraints of the very steep lot, and the privacy issues caused because of its extreme proximity to the Town Homes below it.
Instead of providing any substantive response to the guidance provided by the Town Council’s motion on Dec. 6, 2016, the applicant has chosen instead to present you with a set of design “options.” These “options” seem intended to put you in a position of making the design decisions for the applicant, and thus taking responsibility for them. For example, you could save some Protected Oak Trees, but in the process you’d sacrifice the safety of a driveway turnaround.
(Note: This turnaround feature was added to the plans only after neighbors on Bella Vista expressed concerns about the safety of vehicles exiting the property without a line of sight to oncoming traffic.)
In terms of the Protected Oak Trees, consider the many applicable mandates of the Town of Los Gatos Tree Ordinance, revised in 2015. The trees on this property provide habitat to many birds and wildlife species, including at least one endangered species of bird, and the existing tree roots contribute to soil stability. And according to the Consulting Arborist’s Report of Oct. 8, 2013, there’s no guarantee that other trees on the property will survive once tree removal and slope excavation begin.
The Planning Commission considered many aspects of this application over the course of three long meetings, and finally voted decisively to deny it. In making this appeal to the Town Council, the applicant has chosen to suggest that he was not given a fair hearing. This assertion disrespects and disregards the courtesy he was shown, and the thoroughness and professionalism with which the Com-mission deliberated upon each aspect of this project.
To summarize: In my opinion the appeal before you is without merit, and the design “options” do not address the overarching concerns you expressed, nor the specific directions you provided, at the De-cember 6, 2016 hearing.
I urge you to deny this appeal.
Yours truly,
Eleanor Leishman
7:30 am school traffic on Bella Vista at the north edge of the applicant’s property.
Apendix A – Traffic and parking on Bella Vista Ave.
Sally Zarnowitz
Subject: FW: For the atte ntion of the Tow n Council concerning 34 1 Bella Vis ta Ave nue
Importance: High
From: williamsonnick@ao l.com [mailto:williamsonnick@aol.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10 :58 AM
To: Council; Town Ma nage r
Cc: f astcbra@aol.com
Subj ect: For the attention of the Town Council concerning 341 Bella Vista Avenue
As he is cu rrently out of town , Mr Strai g ht who li ves immediately below the projec t site at 34 1 Bell a V ista Avenue, and
w ho is copied here, has asked me to forward yo u the below email on his behalf.
-----Orig in a l Message-----
From : Forrest Straight <fastcb r a@aol.c om>
T o: williamsonnick <williamsonnick@aol.com>
Sent: Thu , Jun 1, 2017 9 :07 am
Subject: le tt er
1June17
Los Gatos Town Council
RE: 341 Bella Vista
Hillsides, Trees, and the stability of Structures
This letter adds to my many letters over the 15 plus years to Planning and Town Council on the value of
keeping the two large (150 year old) Heritage Oaks on this Property.
Over the last 6 months I have driven several hundred miles over coastal hillsides between Salinas and the
Northern California border. I have observed hundreds of landslides and the common fact on all of
them .... none had trees. This affirms my contention that the root systems of the two Heritage Oaks on this
property helps to support the stability of the hillside.
The subject property lies in several Hazard Zones to include liquefaction, landslide , and earthquake. Removal
of the trees and root system destabilizes the hillside. Add to that a heavy structure and high water table
(like we had last year) ..... it adds further to the hillside instability. Now add an earthquake and that could be
the tipping point for failure. Think of an avalanche ... everything is in equilibrium until that one cannon shot ,
then failure .... like this hillside with an earthquake.
I have studied structural failures for 45 years. both as a builder and working in Soil Engineering. Both sides
of Bella Vista are in the same Hazard Zones ... but common sense will tell us the proposed structure is more
l ikely to fail vs the homes built on level land.
A home can be bui It on this property smaller than proposed and within the Square Footage allowed guidelines
where no Oak Trees are removed. I just can't see how the Town would condone removal of Huge Heritage Oak
Trees.
Thoughts on Cellars
I have built a home in Almond Grove years ago with a cellar (per the Town Codes). Not one side is exposed
that would add to Bulk and Mass.
The proposed Bella Vista home has three sides semi and fully exposed ... adding to Bulk and Mass. This is
not a cellar. Previous Staff and Mayors have testified at Planning and Council meetings that this is not a
cellar. To make it a cellar ... build the home 4 ' lower so all sides are semi under ground.
Further thought
Here's a game ... Give me 2 hours design time with an architect and I could design a building outer shell that
would be the correct square footage ... not have Bulk and Mass ... and not remove any Heritage Oaks.
But, it's not my job and it certainly isn't the Town Council to design a property or pick an alternative that's
close to the Town rules and codes.
This go around with four building plans and pick one I can build , is not the correct way for Town Council to
approve plans. Things must go through Planning and abide by all the rules and codes .
Forrest Straight
146 Maggi Ct
Los Gatos CA
2