The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 30Sally Zarnowitz From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Los Gatos Town Council, Angie Smith <a ngiecolemansmith@gmail.com > Tuesda y, August 29, 2017 3:08 PM Sally Zarnowitz; Janette Judd; Council Approve 339-341 Bella Vista As decade s-long Lo s Gatos re siden ts, we encourage you to approve Deb & Dan Ross' plan for 339-341 Bella Vista as proposed. Their plan has gone through multiple reductions and modifications based on feedback from Town Planning, Town Architect, Arborist, Engineering and Planning Departments. The plan is co mpatible in density and square footage with other homes in the neighborhood and should be approved. Thank you, Angie & Craig Smith 1 ATTACHMENT 30 Sally Zarnowitz From : Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: cc : Town Council Town Manager Janette Judd Monday, August 28, 2017 3:46 PM pat @pktlawoffice.com Sally Zarnowitz FW: 09 -05 -17 Town Council Meeting : 339 & 341 Bella Vista Ave. application TownoflosGatosTownCouncil.090517 .doc CDD Director J. Paulson Planning Manager S. Zarnowitz Good afternoon, Thank you for your e-mail and attached communication, received by the Town Council and Town Manager. By copy of this message, your correspondence is forwarded to Community Development Department (COD) staff. As you may be aware, this matter was continued from a prior Town Council meeting to the September 5 Council meeting agenda. Your communication will be included in agenda packet materials (along with all Public Comment) distributed for that meeting. Should you have additional questions or comments regarding this project, Planning Manager Sally Zarnowitz is the staff liaison and primary point of contact. Sally can be reached by phone at (408) 354-6873 or e-mail, SZa rnowitz @ Lo sGatosCA.gov . Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos. Best regards, Janette Judd • Executive Assistant Town Council and Town Manager• 110 E. Main St., Lo s Gatos CA 95030 Ph : 408.354.6832 • JJudd@ LosGatosCA.gov www .LosGatosCA .gov • https://www.facebook.com/losga t osca From: Pat Tillman [mai lto :pa t @pktl aw office.com ] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 3:06 PM To: Council; Town Manager Cc: 'Mary J Badame' Subject: 09-05-17 Town Council Meeting : 339 & 341 Bella Vista Ave. application Dear Council Members: Attached is Mr. Tillman's letter dated 08-28-17 to Town Council regarding the 339 & 341 Bella Vista application to be heard 09-05-17. Please respond that thi s letter will be included in the packe t provided the council members. 1 Thank yo u . Patric k K. Tillman Law Office of Patri ck K. Tillman 2021 The Alameda, Suit e 160 San Jose, CA 95126 Tel ephone: (408) 615 -9670 Facsimile: (408) 615-97 1 5 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTIC E: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the indivi dual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged , confidential and /or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSM ISSION IS CONF IDENTIAL AND MAY BE PROTECTED FROM UNAUTHORIZED USE OR DISSEMINATION BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIEN T AND /OR ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. If you are not the intended recipient , you are hereby notified that any viewing , copying , disclosure or distribution of this information is stri ctly prohibited and may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender immediately by e l ectronic mail or telephone at (408) 615-9670 of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any co pies. NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRITING: Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary, this e -mail message, its contents, and any attachments are not intended to represent an offer to enter into a contract or an acceptance of any offer, and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender , the Law Office of Patrick K. Tillman, any of its clients, or any other person or entity. e Viru s-fre e. www.avast.com 2 PATRICK K. TILLMAN Attorn ey at Law August 28 , 2017 Town Council Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Sent via e-mail to: council@losgato sca.g ov and manager(ii:Jos gatosca.gov Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications Applicant: Dan Ross Planning Commission Meeting -09-05-17 Supplement Dear Council Members: For the 3rd -4th time, the Town Council will reconsider the above referenced application to build a huge1 home perched just uphill of three (3) downhill neighbors, looking directly into our 3rd floor bedrooms (2) or kitchen (1 ). Our backyards, as well, will be spectator sport for these residents ... who will not include the developer 's family;2 not to mention the noise, the light (@ night), or the reflecting sunlight off the 1500 sq. ft. face of the building ( 60 ' x 25' = 1,500) that stares directly into the sun in the afternoon/evening. This application, like the 5th' 6th' 7th time before, all of which were unanimously denied by both the Town Council and the Planning Commission, must be denied. Applicant is abusing the "Cellar Policy" to build a home 50-70% bigger than allowed, and of those living below it, consequently also violating, inter alia, the FAR, the "cut-and-fill" policy, and the three (3) story building policy (the lowest level being above our 3rd floor windows). 1 I recogni ze that "huge" is a relati ve term in Lo s G atos. We live in a 1650 sq . ft . Townhom e which , to me , is large. +2800 sq . ft. is ridiculous but shy of ego maniacal. The demanded size s upp orts my opinion that thi s is a spec-home. (See fn . #2) 2 T hi s is a spec-home. 2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126 Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9 715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com Los Gatos Town Council August 28, 2017 Page-2- At the heart of the abuse are insupportable interpretations of our Town Codes. Our [the Court's] primary task in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature's intent, giving effect to the law's purpose. (In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393 , 406) We consider first the words of a statute, as the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. (Pineda v. William s -Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 524, 529)" ' "Words must be construed in context, and statutes must be harmonized , both internally and with each other, to the extent possible." [Citation.] Interpretations that lead to absurd results or render words surplusage are to be avoided. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Lo eun (1997) 17 Cal.4th 1, 9) (Emphasis added) Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.41h 1029, 1037 .3 No deference to agency interpretation of unambiguous text: If the reviewing court determines that the language being interpreted is unambiguous, it should give no deference to the agency's contrary interpretation ; nor, in those circumstances, should the court make use of any other extrinsic aid to interpretation. In the process of judicial interpretation of a statute, deference to the agency's opinion comes into play only if the language is ambiguous. [Bonnell v. Medical Bd. of Calif. (2003) 31 C 4th 1255 , 1264-1265; Szold v. Medical Bd. of Calif. (2005) 127CA4th 591, 595- 599, (recognizing Yamaha but deciding case without reference to variable deference factors); Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Super.Ct. (Calif. Dept. of Gen. Services) (2011) 196 CA4th 338, 350, (same)] Limitation-avoiding absurd result: A court may disregard explicit language in a statute that would produce an absurd result, since it is presumed that the Legislature would not have intended such a result. [In re Greg F. (2012) 55 C4th 393, 406) Consequently, an agency might be able to persuade the court that a particular interpretation of the statute that is contrary to its express language would produce an absurd result. (Emphasis added) RTG (2016) California Practice Guide: Administrative Law, Standards of Judicial Review, 17.41 -17.42 In situations involving fundamental vested rights, e .g. privacy (California Constitution, Article I), the independent judgment rule controls review. (CCP § 1094.5(b) & ( c); City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa (1980) 101 Cal.App.3rd 1012, 3 Cited by the Court in Grosvenor, et. al. v. Town of Los Gatos (2017)@ Decision 6:7-13. 2 Los Gatos Town Council August 28, 2017 Page-3 - 1016) In a matter not involving fundamental rights, the Town has conceded: "The Court [will} independently review [de nova} the Town 's interpretation of the law." (North-40 Response @ 11: 18-19) To date, the Town's interpretation of the law (Cellar Policy, FAR, cut & fill , & 3rd story) has been inconsistent, but its application of other laws/Codes/ Policies to the facts of this Applicant's proposals (multiple) has been consistent -non-compliant. part: Which brings us to "staff's" interpretation of the Cellar Policy, which reads in WHEREAS, the General Plan encourages use of basements and cellars to provide hidden square footage in-lieu of above ground visible mass (Policy L.P .2.1 ); and PURPOSE: General Plan policy L.P .2 .3 states: "Encourage basements and cellars to provide "hidden" square footage in-lieu of visible mass." The following policy shall be used by staff when reviewing plans that include a cellar: DEFINITION: A cellar is an enclosed area that does not extend more than four feet above the existing or finished grade in any location. Cellars, a s defined here, shall not be included in the FAR. That area of a cellar where the building height exceeds four feet above existing or finished grade shall not be included in this definition and shall be included in the floor area calculation. For purposes of this policy, whichever grade (existing or proposed) results in the lowest building profile of a building shall be used. (Emphasi s added) Resolution 2001-167 Signed 10-21-02 3 Los Gatos Town Council August 28, 2017 Page -4 - So : #1. What was the Town 's intent/purpose in formulating and adopting the Cellar Policy? Fortunately, the Town Council provided us with a direct answer. It was very specific -one ( 1) reason. (See above) #2. What is a "cellar"? "n . 1. An underground room usu . beneath a building. 2. A stock of wines." American Heritage Concise Dictionary, 3rd Edition "n. a room or rooms below ground and usually under a building ." Webster 's New World Dictionary More importantly, "cellar" is defined in the "Cellar Policy" under the heading: "DEF INITION," to wit: A cellar is an enclosed area that d oes not extend more than fo ur feet ab ove the existing or fini shed grade in any location . Cellars, as defined here, ... (Emphasis added) The one (1) sentence: "[a] cellar is an enclosed area that does not extend more than four f eet above the existing or .finished grade in any lo cation ," defines a cellar. All other aspects of the Cellar Policy derive from this definition. Add to the definition its stated purpose : "to provide hidden square footage in-lieu of above ground v is ible mass." In 2002, when the Cellar Policy was adopted, I doubt that anyone involved thought it was necessary to explain that the "enclosed area" -the room "or rooms" to which they refer-need be fully enclosed [by dirt]. That would be like saying you have to wear a helmet ... on your head. I believe any Superior Court Judge will understand the concept. 4 Los Gatos Town Council August 28, 2017 Page-5 - CONCLUSION Those impacted by proposed spec-home builders have a right to rely upon the law - as written, as intended. Those obligated to enforce the law must do so. Thank you. Respectfully, Isl Patrick K. Tillman cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail) Towno fl_osGatos .Plannin g.0 90 5 17 5 Eleanor Lei s hman 332 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos , CA 95032-5415 Lead agency: Town of Los Gatos Town Council Project title 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 and Location: 339-341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Applicati o n S-12-103 Subdivision Application M -12-008 Negative Declaration ND-16-001 August 30, 2017 Dear Mayor Sayoc, Vice Mayor Rennie, and Council Members Jensen , Leonardis and Spector, The site in question is severely constrained because of its very steep slope, its narrow width , and due to the number of Protected Oak Trees and other Protected Trees on it. The applicant claims he cannot save any of the three "key" Protected Oaks on the property and still be able to build the house he wants to build. This is because the house he wants to build is way too big . If he were to build a hous e with a much smaller footprint, appropriately-sized in relation to the severe constraints of this site , it could be possible for those three trees to remain. The Coast Live Oaks on the property are signature trees of California's Oak Woodlands, one of the major landscape types of our state . They are a fantastic habitat and food source for birds and other wildlife . Any time you walk by this property -day or night -you'll realize that these trees are teaming with life. The Consulting Arborist 's report of October, 2013 states that she cannot guarantee the survival of ANY of the trees once tree removal and site construction begin. Not only are the three major Protected Oaks slated for removal ; other protected trees on the property, and along the southern property line, and along Bella Vista, will be at risk due to the devastation of the slope that will occur during tree removal and site excavation if this project goes ahead as proposed. The Arborist specifies that quite a number of these other trees will be at SEVERE RISK. In the Arborist's description of the site, she explains that one danger of drastically developing this small remnant of Oak Woodland is that removing a few key trees from the site may cause the entire fragile eco-system to collapse, which means many or all other trees will not survive. This is NOT a good prognosis for the remaining 20 protected trees on the site, nor for those trees that are adjacent to the property lines. The Tree Preservation Ordinance has very strict guidelines about protecting trees on a site under construction, but how carefully can these rules be monitored and enforced once construction is underway? Who can guarantee that additional trees will not decline or die during or after site construction? Please take these questions into account during your deliberations. I urge you to deny the applicant's appeal , as well as his current building plans. These plans blatantly disregard the constraints of this very steep site; AND MOST OF ALL, the y violate the Town's mandated standards, guidelines and laws. Thanks for your consideration. Eleanor Leishman Oak at street level on Bella Vista Ave. Looking down the slope of applicant's property, imagine what site excavation will look like. (see photo opposite) Site excavation underway at 360 Bella Vista Ave. When you visit 339-341 Bella Vista Ave., please take a look at this project going on down the street. It's an essentially flat piece of land: imagine this type of excavation taking place on the very steep slope of the applicant's lot. Here's my letter from June 2, 2017: Dear Mayor Sayoc, Vice Mayor Rennie, and Council Members Jensen, Leonardis and Spector, Here are my reasons for objecting to the proposed building at 339-341 Bella Vista Avenue 1. My overarching objections to this development are: it's just too massive, too intense and too invasive for the severely constrained site itself; and is totally incompatible with the Bella Vista neighborhood , and the neighborhood down the hill on Maggi Court. 2 . The plans violate the Town 's Hillside Design Guidelines and Standards in terms of very specific guidelines , and in terms of their overall intent. The applicant's assertion that this project conforms to all Town standards and guidelines ignores all these violations -both in the specifics and in the overall intent of the Town 's guidelines! 3. The plans violate the Town's Tree Ordinance and the HOGS Tree Preservation Standards . 4. There are reasonable questions about slope stability on the site during and after construction . 5. 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 and potential traffic hazards 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? ls he/s he li - censed to pract ice in California? There are no credits , only a copyright for Jake Peters , Ketchum , Idaho . How realistic are these are highly conceptual renderings ? Why is no architect of record listed ? To elaborate on these points : All four variations of the applicant 's current plans violate the HOGS 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 "op- tions." 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 choose to 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 expressed persistent con- cerns 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 bird species. The existing tree roots con- tribute 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 begins . Jn addition, numerous protected trees on adjoining property will be at risk. 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 Commission 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 December 6, 2016 hearing . They do not address or remediate any of the violations of Town Standards and Guidelines detailed above. I urge you to deny this appeal . Yours truly, Eleanor Leishman Appendix A-Traffic and parking on Bella Vista Ave. 7:30 am school traffic on Bella Vista at the north edge of the applicant's property. -----Original Message----- From : Sally Zarnowitz Sent : Thursday, August 31 , 2017 8:34 AM To: 'Ellie Leishman' Subject: RE: 339-341 Bella Vista letter to Council Hello This is to confirm that your message and attached communication were received this morning. Your communication will be included in the agenda packet materials for the September 5, 2017 meeting as an Addendum to the staff report for this item . Thank you Sally Zarnowitz, AIA, LEED AP• Planning Manager Community Development Department• 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph : 408.354-6873•szarnowitz@losgatosca .gov www.losgatosca .gov • https ://www.fa ce book.com/losgatosca Community Development Department (CDD) Counter hours: 8:00 a.m. -1:00 p .m., Monday-Friday Please note the upcoming Town closure : September 4 -Labor Day CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address. -----Original Message----- From: Ellie Leishman [mailto:ellie@musicalmac.com] Sent : Thursday, August 31, 2017 8 :09 AM To: Sally Zarnowitz Cc : Planning Subject: 339 -341 Bella Vista letter to Council Dear Ms. Zarnowitz, Attached is a letter to the Town Coun ci l about the 339-341 Bella Vista Architecture and Site Application S-12-103. Please include it along with the staff report you forward to Council members today. Please let me know if there are problems with the attachment, or if you have other questions. I would also appreciate confirmation that you 've received this letter. Thanks very much, Eleanor (Ellie) Leishman Sally Zarnowitz From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: August 31, 2017 council@losgatosca.gov manager@losgatosca.gov lgvision@comcast.net Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:30 AM Town Manager For Council Meeting September 5, 2017 Council Meeting 9.5 .17 Letter.docx; Arborist Report 2001.pdf; Arborist Report 2014.pdf; Tree Canopy Measurements.pdf; Site Plan D.pdf Timothy S. Coughlin, O.D. 320 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 356-8092 L GVision@Comcast.Net RE: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applicant: Dan Ross Town Council Meeting 9/5/17 Please include the attached letter and supporting documents in the packet for the September 5 , 2017 Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. Tim Coughlin 5 attachments 1 August 31, 201 7 Town Council Town of Los Gatos 11 0 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 council (CV,l os gatosca.gov !nanager (a{losgatosca.gov RE: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applicant: Dan Ross Town Council Meeting 9/5/17 Timothy S. Coughlin, O.D. 320 Bella Vista Ave. L os Gatos, CA 95032 ( 408) 356-8092 LGVisioo@Comcast.Net Dear Council Members: ***NEW INFORMATION*** There are 3 major trees impacted by this proposed development. • # l and #2 are considered "specimen" trees • #3 is in "fair to poor" condition . See arborist reports attached My neighbor and I, without going on the property, were able to measure the tree canopies and found that the ''Tree Canopy'' study is Inaccurate. Our findings are attached showing that • the actual canopy for #1 is significantly greater, and • the canopy for #3 considerably smaller than indicated on the proposal 's site plans. In stead of removing the 2 best trees on the lot, why not move everything north and remove only #3? That would make more sense in trying to develop a lot with a marginal LRDA in the hillside zone. See Plan "D" attached . I regret that I am unable to make this presentation in person. Previous plans make it impossible for me to attend this very important meeting which has been re-sc heduled . Please deny this appeal of a planning commission denial. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. Tim Coughlin ~6 1 1 0 V !S!Cl '' ~r IJt' A.r :)oi<st ?i l . , for LOS Gatos Comrn,.inlly Oe·1 e !opnie n i ! .. 9 /20/01. (~J Most of the sma ll er oaks are not in very good condition because they have grown as understory tre es ber.e a t h the larger oaks. and the site cond itions here are what I would describe as "difficult". Th is site has a steep slope to the North, which provides more shade than most oaks would prefer. There is also a heavy groundcover of Vinco m a jor, which is quite comp etitive. Less water wil l also penetrate t he so il of a sloped area versus a flat or depressed area. The larger o a i<.s v ary i n condition from good to poor. The;e has not been much attenti on paid to a ny of t h 1 : trees here i n quite awhile, but long ago a few large scaffold branches were remov ed and fl ush cuts were made. Large oak #2 in particular, has some extensive decay in its main tru nk due t o an o ld flush cut. Large oak #3 is declining from reasons that ore n ot obvious. but a re probably t he resul t of a roo t system disease. Oak #1 is in fair t o good condition, it's main structura l defect ceing m u ltip l e trunks that have natural leans. Oak #12 near Bella Vista Road is in fair/good condition but it will be qu ite close to proposed construction. CONSTRUCTDON IMPACTS UN GENERAL: The following damage classes in order of decreasing se verity a nd likelihood ore expected to occur if construction p roceeds as planned: t8l class I [8J class 2 [81 c1ass 3 [8J closs 4 [8J c1os s 5"' [8J cla ss 6 General root sy stem destructi on Roo t collar and basal r oots domage Mechani cal damoge to stem f8lbark disr uption Ochemical or fire damage t8lwood damage Soil su rface problems f8leros ion I water availability (8Jntte r loss I c rusti n g r8Jcompaction I fills I cuts Otemporary soil or material storage f8lmicro-climate changes Wind load changes (if a djacent trees are removed) Maj or branch base damage •Note that Class 5 and above affect edge or island trees where clearing or thinning hos left tr ees prone to w indthrow. This is the only damage class not necessarily a res ult of direct mechanical or soil damage. ~r---::-:-=-::-:-:-~~--~~---:--:::-~~=---~~~--- M O~J VADJJAf8!.E f~~f$ ON sor~: -k 1 In my opinion, th e most valuable tre es o n site are coast live oak s #1, 2, 12, & 17 -,:}- Ll' ") ~,...·'< '\7 l LI C:r·1 ·r ;.-,~r\ ,~ r. ')C:Q'(I 1 ., 1 ;_I I .~ • ..,_' _. ' _, -'-· _..~::::I -, '>..J r ' ~ .._,, I .;-I 1 ·: i't\03'> 725-1357 .;c.ic 2 & k ·-·-:=-rr,,-,.,··1• ci ·:v--.~:•···!"u:·,.-1 r'i-.(·:>1• " :::.'· ' -··· •• ... ' ---··· ••• ,---.... J 'f:_ ,,1._,: Table 3 SPrCIA J. TREE (:LASS !FIC:A7 f ::]N~~· .I t--S-o-ec-lm_e_n_i_F_u_n_c_tl-o-n-o-l. -_~:·-=·=-=-~--=~-=--=JI~ui~~19.! fB.T:~torip>i_~iX."J 1.2. 12 I 1,2 .3.8 ._~._.1 0,__i2 .. 13:JS. !.?.!...l~U ____________ .: ..... _____ ·-······; 1 * 2 Tree Ratings Ex planation O Poor tree species anywhere (on thi• site). Ge7 rid of. Alc:o •nr:lude s trees tl1at o re deocL nP.Orl'.' d<-"fJO or in very poor conditio n. 1--5 "So-so'' trees , not re ally all t ho ~ v oluc.ibie 10 sit~. Mig ht sn t t:; i~ not rnuch 8fiorf or c os : i• 1r. ! 1 1 r.; 6-7 Good trees to retain fer lh~:; [1 J\./<~. 1:\'nL:!d 1r~· 1·c, scvc:. lhc".e l;.::C!~ un:ss~ c•:-:c.r.><si v •~ e : »' ;/• ,.,r;\ h /(Y :-::o . 8 -9 Excellent trees-mcke a gooci .:f·fu1 i0 r(.;1'0in tr.es•.: i ~~-:eo. Tt 1,-;y r.:idd V(;iue !i ; ,f1c: ~:1 ~. 10 Outstondlng specimen trees -tr1 to keep t"Jt oll rM.:. 3 Special Tree Classifications ---/~ o Specimen tree: a superior e xa mpl e: o f it~ sr.:iac.:ie;; " Functional tree: a tree that p ru-1id~s •;ome tvp<::· of fu r .c..\'ion (€:.<:"~· J:H.Vides shau•::. ::·.:.rpm:• or 1 °01 ..• , views, lines the street. shel!ers from •1.·ind . orlds t.K'Q:il /. crr .. l. • Me morial tree: a tree that is p lcrnl ec in :n~!rr\Of '/ of· a k. ,·c·.d or.t:. • Histori c tree: a tree that is assccioieJ w?th r:i s(:i~---:f:::: t·:i s10 :·:c .-,: t:.:v •.~·;L p 1a cr.: ~:r '.:...~~r·.·· ... : .. .-_.,, .. , '! · 11 .-:-'. .·io t<•< back to pre-settlement limes. • 1' • ")C 8c·1. 37 14. Sorotogo, (;:~. :·.:-./>;.· ;: ....... , .-·. ,.....,_ ~ ......__ Debora h Ellis, M S Co n su l ting Arborist & Ho rticu lturis t Sc111i'i:e .>lli.·,. 198~ Tree Ta b le (continued on the next page) • Not a p rotect ed tree SIZE ' . I ---·-- - ' TRUNK {Height Expected . Tree Common DIAM . Preservation # Name (ln.@3 Suitability x Construction Action Reason Notes Width Impact ft .) i n feet) ~ ., ~-. '"-.___ . : r ithin proposed house. l I 01 1coast live 120,18,9, Fa ir/Good 45x50 Severe Remove Construction 14,12,22 i j 1oak ! .! I I 148 ~ r emove !Construction 02 jcoast live 50x50 Severe jWithin proposed house. , oak I -f03Tc~ast -l ive oak 22,24 !Fa ir/Poor -[50X5o !Low fsave !OVera ll Con dition I ! .. 04 !a lmon d Is --4x4 lLow jRemove jDead I '05 jco ast li ve-~1·--)Fair ___ 22x12 .Low -rsave-1· -·-----1 f06 lcoast live oak ls jFair j20x 10 -~ow -!S ave 1-------! ; 07 Jco as t li ve oak 112. 10 IFair/Poo r · j30x18 ILow ---fs ave-,--- i 08 !co ast live oak !11 !Fa ir j20x16 ·Low/ModeratejSa ve I l 09 jco ast live oak 9, 11 , 13, 13 Fa ir !2ox30 Low/Modera te !s ave ·-r---·--=r· j 10 jcoast live 16 !Fair/Good 1l30x18 !Severe 1 Remove Construc-t-i o_n __ _,lw_it-h-i n-co-n._s_t-r u_c_t-io-n-access road. I ,oak I i , r-12 !coast live oak"j33 ___ jFa ir/Po or l30x4 5 !Mod erate ___ !save I --l ·---~---· _-_----~-j 1 13 . jvalley oak !11 ~[PoITT-~Ox25 jModera te!SeVfi re j save J N eig h bo r·~~ j J 114icoast live oak j4 ~ lsx9 !Mod erate /Severe !save jNeig hbor's tree 115 jcoast live 5,7,11 ,18 1 Fa ir 40x30 !Severe Remove Constructi on ----+jW-it-h--i n-p r_o_p_o_s_e_d _a_c_ce_s_s-ro_a_d_a_n_d_p_a_t-io-.___,1 ,oak ·--.:ino-~;----[3 ,3 ,5,9 jFair/Poor -j2 5x20 jSeve;.; jRem ~~-ejc-;;n~ction !Within P,.oposed access r oad and patio. ( 17 !coa st live oak j19 !Fai r/Goo d l50x30 !Low/Mode rate !save j -I - r 1a jcoast live oakT2 ra i r/Po~~ J~x2·5-f;--_ jsa :_J=---=~==--_f __ _ __ _! ------; PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga. CA 95070. 408-725-1 357. d ecah@pa cbell.net. http://www .deca h.com . 341 Be lla Vi sta , Review of Plans relative to Tr e e Protection. September 24 , 2014 . Page 3 of I I :::: ~ ~J .. __ 32' ?'. ---0 -· o -·:o: ,, / ~,~""""' II~ ·o .,... :l>i•<t•.•;K :"<H ---- 1 · ~ ,•' ... <!S-B I 25' II" r ·--~'..:·.".,·.::.":::.·---C> ~ -;.::.#----.» - EDGE OF PAVEMENT _.... -- BELLA VI S TA AV ENUE MAIN 1 095 sri tt LWR LVL 149 sq ft PROPOSED FAR TREES 10 Bf: REMOVF O 1SEE A· 1 0 FOR MORE I NFO) TOTA1. 111 • COASl LIVE OAK. 45' H X 6~' W tORli=' UNI:) l.244 sq I\ 112 • CPA(i!T 1.1\I~ OAK, 4 5' H X 65' W {DRIP LINE) #1 S • CO~ST LM! OAK , 35' H X 25' W (OR IP UNE) T.O'Ff.t.2 .325 S .F ~ ----_,_J t . l' 7' 7' l J . 7 CE LLAR 1 081 sq ft ALLOWABLE FAR 1,486 sq 't (;A RAGE 2708.F. ... I L r ---· ,,_J ~· _______ ) 4 9'-4;. ___ .,...,.._ .. ~¥€;-.. \.~-· .,.~ .. ,, ... ~ 0'.:Q" L --<'----+ ... !',,~1 ...... ;-. -{,:" 0 ri;~ o · @~ TREE CANOPY STUDY ·~ 0 .. . J ~I ~l SITE PL AN "F'' ATIACHMENT 22 ; , -N I._./ J c ,.va I r,,~~-~~-~·1 ~ l I I r ·----...1 :... ___ ----' I ~-1' ~ ;----t' ~ -~ : 1' r·------.J I • I -~~-I I j I .. . -'=~:-...::.:----:--~ -, • 32'·2 ' ' 25'·11 " ~'(', l I 4Q•.4 U<' I 'f' .•• ~ 1'-7'°'. ' ~ -/, -• •, .. " • I ·i ~ _,_-. -./---, ... - 164'• H ~ 1' ~ -··-·-···. • j ] . ~--• ~-, -~ ·;;.,· ---; I ---- 49'-4 '' f / --- --- i~ ,., >i,,J 2 -(>) o "' ~ l 0 ·..--- S'•H··:f l',!J., ! ~(\_ I I .. : ' I~ ;,. ;;,. ..... ____ • · ~1 ' o ~ -m ,. ~ ~' :li>)<ll ,..,. ,.1 i ~ 77 ~4 I I ·-··------;? • ....... . -•· // I I <.? -------: f .~, r;· • ~;>o ' I~ __ ...____ 1 0 I ~ . J / ;E ,,...·-~·· ... .,... i ----.... __ 0 v -. ~ / ' ~ • -----tll '; ..... • :.t;o.--~~-, , ., .. .. -.____ -----'.R"' ... '~, l ~ ·., }~::::r -· _,. ~-~ 90.72 "'J-t'"'' . . . _., :. ' .. • ---. \4 --,,..,,,...,... ... -> . a·.o· . -:---..:.. • ;,;__ . • . $ ~.!' a _ J .. ,.~,,. r ~--J. > • .J,. ..... A, x· _ __......__ ""· --f.~-1 'u....: . • _;;!• ,J" _....._ ,,r' . -.,,_ ~--·· • I r~ -·· -- __ ., -~OF PAV~M~~T __ _ ,_ _ --· - BELLA VISTA AVENUE M AIN 1,0 95 sq ft LWR LVL 149 Sq fl CELLAR 1 ,081 $Q It PROPOSED FAR TOlAL ALlOWABLE FA R 1,244 sq n 1 4 86 sq f1 (0 1AL 2 .325 S.F. GARAGE 270 S .F. T. C ov11tl:"' -..... - -,.,_, -·.--.._.r")._' o·-·r': '\ .. ,,.. --:::.--:::_ . ,..., .. -.... ,~ ..... l v·""t ll\ 0 -·.!!.+ rbl r 0 ~~i Orf'.' ~ ~J d" ,. ---3--:-:--- ',,, ,7TfACHMEITT n I \ ..... \ ........... , \ I I I i ~· i ..... I I I I I I I I o ! I ( --1 ·-----_J i : i " ! :: i: !l ~ q , ~ ' I ~ J \ o'f ) \\ ' '\ ' l .\ \''-.;«:-~fl . I .... I /o I I I I (;') / I c., . l __ _ I ___ _ --------·------__ .. ____ _ r =!>-Ji 1stTE Pl.AN COMPARIS ONS~PT C & -P1'()P()Sl;' ~RUlDE.NCE FOR. I :-"' ~ f,..,,. 341 BE LLA VISTA AVENUE ~ ,• lOSGATOS. CALIFORNIA . -. ----·---------·--... . _____ lull Sally Zarnowitz From: Sent: To: Subject: Debra Chin <debrachin@aol.com> Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:48 AM Marico Sayoc; Council; Town Manager Application for 339-341 Bella Vista Avenue Dear Mayor Sayoc and Council Members, I respectfully request that you deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and Site application S-12-103 and Subdivision Application M-12-008. As I pointed out in my letter to the Town in March 2016, this will be the third plan for the lots submitted by Dan Ross with the applications from 2012 and 2013 being unanimously denied for the same reasons of non-compliance with the mandated Hillside Development Standards and lack of neighborhood compatibility. While there is no question that the applicants have a right to build something on these lots, the revised development plans dated May 23 , 2017 persist in egregious violation of the following Hillside standards: • Three story elevation • Non-compliant height and use of a privacy fence • Not within the LRDA • Excessive bulk, mass and volume • Prominently visible from neighboring properties As I pointed out in my letter dated June 2, 2017, Mr. Ross' current plans do not address the specific direction provided by the Council at the Dec. 6, 2016 hearing to significantly reduce bulk and mass and avoid tree removal. As a resident of Los Gatos for nearly 20 years, I purchased my home at 154 Maggi Court in 2001 and support the consistent enforcement of the laws that preserve the beauty of our hillsides and the promotion of neighbor unity as codified in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines and the 2020 General Plan . It is in the purview and within the discretion of the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the proposed house is appropriate for the site, regardless of whether it meets individual zoning standards as Mr. Ross asserts. I urge you to support their decision to deny the appeal and require the applicant to comply with the standards and guidelines that were developed to foster sustainable development and preserve the natural environment consistent with the Town's vision for its hillsides. Sincerely, Debra Chin 1 Sally Zarnowitz From: Sent: To: Cc : Subject: Attachments: williamsonnick@aol.com Thursday, August 31, 2017 10:3 9 AM Marica Sayoc; Ma rcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; BSpector Joel Paulson ; Counci l; Town Manager; WilliamsonlauraA@aol.com Important: Rega rding 341 Bella Vista BV Town Cou ncil170831x.pd f Dear Madam Mayor, Mr. Vice-Mayor, an d Members of the Town Council, Re. 339 a nd 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Architecture and Site Application S-12-103 Attached please find a letter concerning this application that we would li ke you to have the opportunity to read and absorb ahead of the Council hearing of t his project on T uesday 5 September. We are sending this also to Staff ahead of the 1 1am deadline today. Kind regards , Ni ck and Laura Williamson 148 Maggi Court, Los Gatos 408 601 9284 1 August 28, 2017 The M ayor, Vice Mayor and Town Council of Lo s Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos California 95031 148 Maggi Court Los Gatos California 95032 Re. 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Architecture and Site Application S-12-103 Dear Madam Mayor, Mr. Vice-Mayor, and Members of the Town Council, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bella Vista Project. The Project is subject to the mandatory provisions within the Town's General Plan and the Hills ide Deve lopment Standards and Guidelines. The General Plan states : "In January 2004 , the Town adopted the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, which apply to all n ew hillside development and major hillside additions and renovations." The Town's website states: "All n ew hillside homes are r equired to comply with the standards and guidelines." The HDSG states: "Standards are mandatory non-discretionary regulations that must be followed ." "Development plans must demonstrate full compliance with all standards." The provisions of the HDSG are important and many are mandatory. The standards require 'full compliance' and even the guidelines require 'subs tantial compliance'. The Project does not comport with these provis ions and must be denied. Several standards stand out for non-compliance, please see Attachment 1 for illustrations: 1. Must locate buildings within the Lea st Restrictive Development Area (LRDA). The Applicants have not properly identified the LRDA. As they should do, the Applicants have identified several natural constraints on the project si te including the topography, the geology and certain individual trees and groups of trees. According to the consulting arborist' s report the most important and significant of these trees is the large oak located on the shared boundary b etween lots 339 and 341 Bella Vista (tree number 2 in the consulting arborist's report, include d as Attachment 2), however the Applicants are ignoring this fact and are proposing to remove thi s tree to accommodate thei r design. This action is incongruent with the intent and objectives of the HDSG and is not credible. Since the LRDA mu s t be identified prior t o startin g design it is not credible to s u ggest that the tree cannot be saved beca use of the d esign. 2. Must minimize bulk a nd m ass and volume . The mandatory r equirement here is that the Applicants must minimize -red u ce to th e smallest possible amount or degre e -their d esign. The Applica nts m ay h ave incr em enta ll y r educed the size of the Project but they have n ot minimized the bulk and m ass and volume of the Proj ect. Instead the Applica nts are s till try in g to maximize the Projec t on this s ite. O ption C is the most reduced of their fi ve op ti ons but it s till has a lon g way to go before this Projec t would be considered a minimized design. The house is prominently visible to surro unding properties, some thing which it mu st not be. Th e Mayor a nd th e council m emb er s have been to o ur ho u se, or h ad the in vi tation a nd opportunity to vis it, and they have seen the s tory p oles which are clearl y ve r y visible a nd ver y p rominent from every window and ever y elevatio n . This h o u se is n o t only prominently visib le, it looms over Maggi h o u ses. The s tor y poles p rovi d e an o bj ective measure to d etermine w h eth er the Project is prominentl y vis ibl e . 3. G rade to the minimum a m o unt necessary t o accommoda te buildings and t o si te s tru ctures con sis te nt with sl ope co ntours . The amount of grading tha t is bei n g proposed is not consistent with the goals and objecti ves of the HDSG. The Applicants have proposed grading for a greater than 2100 squ are foo t h ome, which is not a minimized d esign. The a pplica nts are ins tead maximizing the bulk, mass a nd volume of their design by seekin g an implicit exception as to the am ount of gradin g they m ay b e a ll owed. This amount of gr ading a nd use o f grading is not con sis tent w ith the goals a nd obj ec ti ves of the HDSG and must b e taken as the Applicants n ot complying fully with all of the sta nd ards. 4. Must n o t exceed a maximum cut of 8'. It is not clear to u s what si ze cut is m ade for the upper level of the h o u se h owever it a ppear s to be a cut in excess of 8', certainly a t or cl ose to the maximum. The lower level m eanwhile cle a rl y exceed s 8 '. The Applicants h ave argued that the lower level s hould be regarded as a cell a r, however it clearly meets the d efinition of a basem ent, no t a cell ar (th e Town's Resi d e ntial Guidelines d efines a Basement as "An enclosed area that ex t ends more tha n 4 feet above the existing or finished gr ade in an y loca tion." Cellars a nd basements a re mutu all y exclusive terms as set out in the HDSG . 5 . Three s tor y elevations are prohibited. We wond er what the Council sees w hen i t looks a t this design? Objectively we see a func ti o n al three story home and a three s tor y eleva ti o n. Whether the lower floor counts technica ll y as a s tory d e p ends on h ow much grading is a llowed. But regardless o f whether it co unts technically as a s tory it continues to fun cti o n like a stor y, in fact the lower floor h ere can b e con sidered much like the ground floor s tory in a h ot el where the rooms a ll have windows and walk out patio d oors at the fr o nt, som e interna l walls and an interna l co rridor a t the rear. And importa ntl y, s ince the lower floor has this significant and visi bl e fron tage it a lso h as its own building elevation . The Town d efi nes an elevation as "an h orizonta l mu s t be identified prior t o startin g design it is not credible to s u ggest that the tree cannot be saved beca use of the d esign. 2. Must minimize bulk a nd m ass and volume . The mandatory r equirement here is that the Applicants must minimize -red u ce to th e smallest possible amount or degre e -their d esign. The Applica nts m ay h ave incr em enta ll y r educed the size of the Project but they have n ot minimized the bulk and m ass and volume of the Proj ect. Instead the Applica nts are s till try in g to maximize the Projec t on this s ite. O ption C is the most reduced of their fi ve op ti ons but it s till has a lon g way to go before this Projec t would be considered a minimized design. The house is prominently visible to surro unding properties, some thing which it mu st not be. Th e Mayor a nd th e council m emb er s have been to o ur ho u se, or h ad the in vi tation a nd opportunity to vis it, and they have seen the s tory p oles which are clearl y ve r y visible a nd ver y p rominent from every window and ever y elevatio n . This h o u se is n o t only prominently visib le, it looms over Maggi h o u ses. The s tor y poles p rovi d e an o bj ective measure to d etermine w h eth er the Project is prominentl y vis ibl e . 3. G rade to the minimum a m o unt necessary t o accommoda te buildings and t o si te s tru ctures con sis te nt with sl ope co ntours . The amount of grading tha t is bei n g proposed is not consistent with the goals and objecti ves of the HDSG. The Applicants have proposed grading for a greater than 2100 squ are foo t h ome, which is not a minimized d esign. The a pplica nts are ins tead maximizing the bulk, mass a nd volume of their design by seekin g an implicit exception as to the am ount of gradin g they m ay b e a ll owed. This amount of gr ading a nd use o f grading is not con sis tent w ith the goals a nd obj ec ti ves of the HDSG and must b e taken as the Applicants n ot complying fully with all of the sta nd ards. 4. Must n o t exceed a maximum cut of 8'. It is not clear to u s what si ze cut is m ade for the upper level of the h o u se h owever it a ppear s to be a cut in excess of 8', certainly a t or cl ose to the maximum. The lower level m eanwhile cle a rl y exceed s 8 '. The Applicants h ave argued that the lower level s hould be regarded as a cell a r, however it clearly meets the d efinition of a basem ent, no t a cell ar (th e Town's Resi d e ntial Guidelines d efines a Basement as "An enclosed area that ex t ends more tha n 4 feet above the existing or finished gr ade in an y loca tion." Cellars a nd basements a re mutu all y exclusive terms as set out in the HDSG . 5 . Three s tor y elevations are prohibited. We wond er what the Council sees w hen i t looks a t this design? Objectively we see a func ti o n al three story home and a three s tor y eleva ti o n. Whether the lower floor counts technica ll y as a s tory d e p ends on h ow much grading is a llowed. But regardless o f whether it co unts technically as a s tory it continues to fun cti o n like a stor y, in fact the lower floor h ere can b e con sidered much like the ground floor s tory in a h ot el where the rooms a ll have windows and walk out patio d oors at the fr o nt, som e interna l walls and an interna l co rridor a t the rear. And importa ntl y, s ince the lower floor has this significant and visi bl e fron tage it a lso h as its own building elevation . The Town d efi nes an elevation as "an h orizonta l orthographic projection of a building onto a vertical plane. An e levation includes the wall plane and roof."1 We have included some of these projections in Attachment 1, clearly showing three elevations. So we have thi s ques tion, what is the appropriate definition of a "three story elevation", partic ul arly in relation to hillside homes? The other issue at issue here is that the lower floor is part of a maximized design intended to bulk up and add square footage and volume and requiring excessive grading. 6. Privacy impacts shall be addressed and r es olved during the cons traints analysis phase and initial design stage, not with mitigation meas ures imposed as an afterthought. 7. Fences a nd walls shall not exceed a h e ight of s ix feet measured from the highest side of the fe nce or wall and should be limite d to those areas where fence s and walls of this h eight are necessar y for protection of ornamental land scaping, sec urity, or play areas. The Applicants are proposing an 11 or 12' fence/ wall presumably for the purpose of screening the building and providing privacy. The use of fence s and walls over 6', to hide buildings on the hillsides, even so-called living fences, is prohibited under the standards of the HDSG. 8. The s lope of the main roof must be in th e general direction of the slope of the hill. The roof of the upper level floor is flat and the slope of the roof of the garage appears to be at a significant angle to the direction of the slope. We respectfully request that the Town require the Project to comply fully with the provisions of th e HDSG prior to further consideration of the Proj ect. Yours s incerely, Nick and Laura Williamson williamsonnick@aol.com (Nick) 408 601 9284 (Nick) 1 Town Council Policy Committee H earing, May 18, 2017 ATTACHMENT 1 -ILLUSTRATIONS Summary 1. The standards in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG) are mandatory and have to be followed. 2. The standards need to be interpreted and applied correctly regard less of how they might have been interpreted or applied prev iously. 3. The applicants must preserve the most significant trees and bui ld only within the Least Restricted Development Area . 4. The applicants must m i nimize the bulk, mass and volume of their design not simply reduce it to something they are happy with. Minimize means to reduce to the smallest amount possible . ' ... The Arborist has identified the most significant trees Diagram of site from above showing significant tree s as identified by the Consulting Arboiist and approximate c;inopies of those trees a s depicted on t he Applicants' plans Town Council Hearing: 341 Bella Vista Ave. September 5, 2017 The desi n eliminates the most significant tree Large oak removed Di,1 9ram of si te from above showing significant trees as identified by the Co nsulting Arborist and <1pproxirnate canopies of those trees as depioed on the Applicants p!ans Town Council Hearing: 341 Bt>lla Vista Ave. St:ptember 5, 2017 Q) E :J -0 > -0 c ro Vl Vl ro E :J ...c Q) N ·-E ·-c ·-E 'Ci c :l 8 c 3: .c r- Three story elevation prohibited 148 Maggi Court 146 Maggi Court Town Council Hearing: 341 Bc•llil Vi sta Ave. Septernber 5, 2017 -0 Q) ~ ·-..c ·-...c 0 ~ Q.. c 0 ·-~ ro > Q) -Q) ~ ~ 0 " ~ ) i V') ' I I Q) I l l I l Q) ~ ...c 1-- Lower floor more like hotel rooms than cellar =;::;o:.-.m Diagram from the Applicants' plans Hyatt Reg ency Hotel, Monterrey Town Council Hea ring: 341 Bel la Vis ta Av e. Septem ber 5, 2017 Maximize grading to maximize design •. ,.\"°" .. ....., ~ ... ~·· ""' c ! ----------::1 ·- i~·~, ... ,ALLER SHIFTED F.P UNIT 1 CAR GARAGE SECTION PL AN ne tt -t.,..~-;-r"""' Town Council Hearin g: 341 Bella Vis ta Ave, September 5, 2017 Maximum allowed cut 8' 1ALLER SHIFTED F.P. UNIT 1 CAR GARAGE SECTIO N PL AN "C " -· -Yf:"""-:;.--r - Town Council Hea ring: 341 Bella Vista Av~. September 5. 2017 High retaining walls creating large, flat yard areas lOft retaining wall r and patio Town Council Hear in g: 341 Bell i\ Vi st a Ave, Septem ber 5, 201 7 -------rJ -....-- I . ---· I,.: i'J ~~ >.:. High fence n ;«, REVISED-SMALLER SHtFTEO F P. UNI T 1 CA R GARAGE SE.CTION PLAN "C" -.• •• X ""'' Town Council He11ring: 3 41 Bell;1 Vista Ave, Se ptember 5, 2017 '-+-0 0 ~ '-+-0 QJ Cl. 0 V') .. " :\ t I .. I I • t • • . I ·, ., ATTACHMENT 2 -CONSUL TING ARBORISTS REPORT Erwin Ordonez Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department 11 O E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 September 24, 201 4 Deborah Ellis, MS Cons u lting Arborist & Horticulturist Re: 34 1 Be ll a Vista Avenue, Review of 9/5/14 Revised Plans relative to Existing Tree Protection Dear Erwin : Srniu si11 re 198:/ My last Arborist Report for this project is dated October 28 , 2013. Fo r this current report I reviewed t he following 9/5/1 4 p lan sheets , w hich a re new to me for this project: • C 1 Demolitio n • C2 Grading & Drainage • C3 Site Logistics & Construction Management • C 4 Hillsid e Except ions Based upon these plans: • The foll owing 7 protected trees will be removed: #1, 2, 10, 11 , l S, 19, and 21 . • Th e foll owing 3 trees of less than protected size will be removed: #4 , 1 6 and 20. • The following 14 protected tre es will b e saved and protected: #3, s, 6, 7 , 8, 9 , 1 2, 14, 14, 17, 18 , 22 , 23 and 24. o O f the above 14 trees, #12, 13 and 14 are o n neighb o ring prope rty t o th e south. The Tree Map on the next page shows the updated dispositio n of the trees , and each tree is also identified and descri bed in the Tree Table o n pages 3 and 4. A Discussion of th e project in t erms o f e xisting tree retainment is on page 5. Recommendations are provided on pages 6 through 9. I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. http://www.decah.com. I 341 Bella Vista , Review of Plans relative to Tree Protection . September 24, 20 14 . Page 1 of 11 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sr11 ,i re si11a /')8:/ N Jl'~J' E 167.65' "'-c:RI~· .4rr ~, ~~18 I ' .... ·-.,,~ 1.2 [ ~1 ·~ '.">< + \ ...... -L __ ~--~E L L A ---i---\j \$1 ~---- ~ ' C.Rt,<>~:C ~t'A ' • .. -.-~ ·.-'--'.' --------- Tree Disposition Legend e Save )(Remove Tree Map (see Notes , pag e_). I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www .decah.com. I 341 Bella Vis t a , Review of Plans relative to Tree Protect ion. Septemb e r 24, 2014. Page 2 of l l Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horti c u ltur ist Sr n i u sina f <J8~ Tr e e Tabl e (c o ntinued on t he next page) * Not a p ro t ect ed tre e . ,. S IZE TRUNK Tree Common DIAM. Preservation Height Expected # Name (In. @ 3 Suitability x Construction Action Reason Notes Width Impact ft.) i n feet) -·---·-- I 01 r air/Good -coast live 20 ,18,9, r sxso Severe Remove Construction !Within proposed house. ' oak 14 ,12 ,22 I .-----,. ·. -~~ l~~:~t :ive F r air/Good yoxso ~ ISeve ~e___ ' I Remover onstructi-on F in p ropos ~ hous~~------~ 03 Tcoast live oak 122,24 jFa ir/Poor lsoxso fl ow !save -iovera11 Condit ion :=j 1 *04 !almon d -Is ]None 14X41LOw ----jRemove ]Dead -----_ _j fQSlco as t live oak 111 !Fair !22x12llow Jsave J I 06 !coast live oak Is !Fair l2ox1 O llow -!s ave T-I-- f-of l co asttve oak f12,10 jFair/Poo r --j30x18 flo;;-----l savej--,-- f08 l coast li ve oak f11 !Fair l20x16 Tl ow/Modera te js ave J ··r---~-------- 1 OS !coast li ve oa k Is . 11 , 13 , 13 jFair 12ox30 jl ow/Mo deratejs ave -1 r--·-· -· l 10 ]~~:st live 116 f Fair/Good . r30x18 f Severe l Rem-;~iCon st ru ~tl on -!Within construction access road. I 12 !coast live oak j33 !Fa ir/Poor j 30x45 "JM oderate jsave l f131valle y oak 1 11 jPoo r l40xi 51Moderate/Severe !save !Neighbor's tree -, f 14 !coast li ve oak [4 fP oo r fSxS }Moderate/Severe jsave jNeighbor's tre e -·1 ' 15 1~~:st Ii ~ 11 , 18 t air 140x30 TSevere IRemove jConstru ction j ,_W_i-th-in-pr_o_p_o-sed_a_c_c_e-ss roa d and patio. , '*1 6 To live 13,3,5 ,9 ]Fair/Poor l25x20 l$evere !Remove !construction -[Wit hin proposed access road and pat~ 1171Co-ast live oak 11s f a ir/G ood --f50 x30 fl ow/Mo de rate !save I -----·------·--i : 18 !co ast li ve orrPom 120x20 llow---,Save .i --, --_J I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95076.---408-=725~3-57. decah@pacbe ll.net. http://www.decah.com. j 341 Be lla Vis ta, Revie w of Plans relative to Tree Protec t io n. Septe mb er 24, 20 14 . Page 3 o f 1 1 Deborah Ellis, MS Cons ulting Arborist & Horticulturist Tree Table (continued from the previou s page) ' \'rrr ire si11.:c 1 QIU TRUNK SIZE Tree Common DIAM. Preservation Height Expected # Name (In. @3 Suitability x Construction Action Reason Notes Width Impact ft.) In feet) - - - 19 Canary 13 Fair 60 x18 Severe Remove Construction I Island pine J '20 1•lmond . r 1 Poor 28x15 1Mod erate/Severe 1Remove Construction, . rlthln a few feet of overflow pi.mp well : Overall Condition and several underground p i pes requiring trenching. l 21 -lcoast uve l5 --·1 F;ir oak to several underground pipes. 118x16-1Moder at e/Sever e1Remove 1Construction ___ ~it hin 1o feet of house w~ll ,.and-closer · 1 r 22 !coast live oa k ja !Fair/Good f20X12 {LOW -1 save I --I 23lcoast li ve oak ~.4 -jFair j1 8x15 jLow ---!save I :------------------1 I 24 l coast live-oak Ta -_-_ j_Fair -=---f1ax16-l ow -------1 save --· ----~--.--~----------~------- End of Table Notes on Tree Map and Tree Table: 1. The plan sheet used for the Tree Map is the Site Logistics & Construction Management Plan , sheet C-3 . All of the proposed improvements shown on the 9 /5/14 C-Sheets (C 1-4) are not shown on this plan, so it may not be obvious why a particular tree is shown t o be removed. Read the "Action" and "Notes" column in the Tree Table to find out why a particular tree is listed to be removed. 2. Th e Trunk Diameter, Size and Condition ratings in the Tree Table are from my last evaluation of the tre es and the site on October 24, 2013. I did however, ride by the site las t week to take a brief look around. The site and th e condition of the trees do not seem to have changed appreciably since my October 2013 evaluation. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. de cah@pacbell.net . http:/ /www .decah.com. 341 Bella Vista, Review of Plans relative to Tree Protection. September 24, 2014. Page 4 of 11 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arbori st & Horticulturist Srrr,iu si11te !984 Disc ussion a b out thi s Proj ect in G eneral, from an Ex is ti ng Tr ee Prese rvatio n Pe rspective: This is a very difficult site to design and build a house on! I am impressed with the effort that has been put into this project from an existing tree retention perspective , It is inevitable that some trees will need to be removed in o rder to place a house on the lot, Reducing the number of houses from two to one has made it possible to keep the Northern portion of the lot undisturbed as green space. which is certainly of benefit to the neighborhood , There are few more trees that will need to be removed than are indicated on the C-3 plans, The reason for this is that not all improvements have been shown on all plans, and a few necessary tree removals were missed because of this, The current tree removal list in this report is a compilation of all improvements on all of the C-3 sheets. Most of the trees that will be removed except for trees #1 , 2 and 10 have been rated as having "Fair" or less preservation su itability. so the maj ority of trees that will be removed are not good specimens. Because the steepness of the slope on the property and the complexity of construction, additional damage to trees may occur than is anticipated from this , my most current review of the plans, On the other hand, it is also possible that some trees may be damaged to a lesser extent than I have estimated. Part of tree protection on this project will involve dealing with si te and tree conditions as they come up. We are going to have to do the best that we can in terms of tre e protection, given the difficult nature of this site . Commitment and cooperation from the property owner, the project architects and the general contractor will be necessary for successful tree protection. The involvement of a project arborist1 that will be on site frequently to monitor and assist in tree protection is essent ial. The temporary access road through the site will cause some damage to the trees. This access road is necessary however, because equipment and materials have to enter and move around the site somehow. How much damage this road will cause to trees is difficult to accurately predict until thi s road is actually under construction. Some root damage, both direct (physical damage to roots due to vehicle or equipment impact) and indirect (soil compaction) is inevitable. Root damage can be reduced by using the smallest equipment possible (e.g. small bobcat backhoe, versus standard full-size equipment) and spreading a protective layer of gravel on the roadway path. Post construction remediation of soil compaction can be attempted via methods such as water jetting followed by mulching, although it is always best to avoid compaction in the first place. Damage to tree canopies and trunks is possible as well , although trunk damage should be preventable with proper tree protection fencing placed as far from the tree trunks as possible. Damage to canopies (branches) is possible and could be reduced by using the sma llest equipment possible and knowing the height of the equipment and clearance needed for its travel , f o llowed by careful construction clearance pruning . Terms hiahlighted at their first occurr ence in this report a re explained in the Glossary on oaaes 10 and 11. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1 357. decah@pacbe ll.net . http://www.decah.com . 341 Bella Vis ta, Review of Plans relative to Tree Protect ion. September 24, 2014. Page 5 of 11 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticultu rist Srrrice since 1984 I loo ked through some of the 9/12/13 p lans , including sheet A-1.0, Tree Canopy Coverage Area Studies . Canopy coverage of the entire prope rty is listed as 403. This seems low. based upon the aerial photos on this same sh eet. I looked at the property in Goog le Earth™ a nd found the most recent image which is date d 2/20/14. There are many shadows in the 2/20 image, which could cause an over-estimation of canopy cover. The second most recent Google Earth image is 4/2013. which is somewhat better (in terms of fewer sh adows) but this is not the image in clu ded on p lan sheet A-1 .0. The p la n pic t ures are good and seem to be ta ken a t about noon so th e re are few or no sh ado ws . In any case however. I t hink the canopy cover is great er than closer to 703 a lthough t h is is a ro ugh est imate and I d id not perform any graphic analyses. I would like to kn ow how the 403 c anopy cover was c a lcula ted . The trees on this site grow in a tight grove fashion; nearly covering the site with their canop ies. It is g oing to be d ifficu lt t o es ti m ate the lo ss in canopy cover afte r trees to be removed are gone. I recomm end we wait until those trees have indeed been rem oved and then re- assess the remaining can opy cover and whether or not any tree replanting is warranted here. The site is really overcrowded w ith trees . Many trees do not have good individual struc ture due to crowding and shading by n eighboring trees. When exis ti ng trees are remov ed adjacent t rees shou ld be re-asse sse d as they m ay not be stable due to the greater e xposure and reduced she lter. Recomme ndations : l. Remove the following 10trees:#1 ,2,4,10, 11, lS, 16, 19,20and21. 2. Save and protect the following 14 trees : #3, s, &, 7, s, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 24. 3. For those trees that will be retained on the site , follow the Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions . A separate copy o f these Directions is attached and must be incorporat ed into the project final plans. Additional tree protecti on in formation is also available from Deborah Ellis if necessary. Remove the Tree Protective Notes on pla n sheet C-3 and replace them with t he To wn 's Directions. In the Tree Protecti on Details next to the No t es on sheet C-3 omit t he trunk wrapping drawing because all trees will be fenced off from construction. Trunk wrapping should only be used when trees will not otherwise be fenced off from construction. 4. Note the revised location for tree protect ion fencing on t he Tree Map in this repo rt. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. http://www .de cah.com. 341 Bella Vista, Review of Plan s rel ative to Tree Protect ion. September 24 , 201 4 . Page 6 of l l Deborah Elli s , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sr rt'ic~ sin ce I Q/l.J 5. An on-site supervising project arborist will be essential for this project. A q ualified consulting arbori st (the project arborist) should be hired to monitor tree protection a n d supervise a ll work underneath the dripli ne o f trees. This a lso applies to trees on neighboring p roperties whose canopies overhang th e work site. Construction or landscaping work done u n derneath the d ripline of existing trees sho ul d be done by h and t o the ex t e n t poss ib le, taking care to preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possib le and cutting root s cleanly b y han d when fir st encount ered, when those root s mus t be removed. 6. For temporary access road construction : use the smallest equipment possible, such as a small bobcat versus larger, standard-size heavy construction vehicles. Prior to bringing these vehic les on site, know their height and width of t he equipment so that a qualified tree service can provide construction clearance pruning t o allow for vehicle and equipment access while avoiding tree branch breakage. The access road should be as narrow as possible. Prior to access road construction, remove any trees to be removed, and large shrubs within the access road path. Then mow th e pathway area if necessary, using a flail mower and cutting all vegetation down to a height of 6 inches or less. Cut vegetation may be left within the path area if it will not in terfere with the geotectile fabric (next). A f ter mowing, lay down on appropriate geotectile fabric product over the roadway path. The fabric should extend 12 -18 inches beyond the sides of the a ccess rood. Then sp read a 6-inch th ick layer of 1 /5 -2-inch base rock material within the roadway path, on top o f the geotectile fabric. Dump the rock, sp read it and drive on it with a front-end loader bucket attached to a bobcat, and then repea t the process until the roadway has been completed, always keeping the backhoe on t he gravel. Then spread a 6-inch layer o f organic mulch material (wood o r bark chips or tree trimming c hippings) on t op of the rock. All vehicles shou ld then remain on the grovel/mulch within the access road. M inor alterations t o this method may occur; but the goal is t o establi sh a roadway tha t is sui table for construction vehicles but significantly red uces soi l compaction by t hose vehic les. 7. Equipment and material storage: all storage must take place in areas where the building itself or pavement outside the building (e .g. driveway, patios) will be constructed . There sha ll be no storage w ith in tree protection zones. Vehicles may not park on the project site except for within these areas or on t he gravel-covered access road. 8. If the current design is revised or additional improvement plans are prepared, as part of the design process , try to keep improvements (and any additional over-excavation or work area beyond the improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible . SxDBH or t he dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, shou ld b e used as the minimum distance for any soi l disturbance to the edge o f the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolu t e minimum distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk o n one side of the trunk only, for root protection. Farther is better, of course . For d isturbances on mul tiple sides of the trunk, then 5xDBH o r greater shou ld be used , and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum n ecessary working margin around improvements as you locate those improvemen ts. Disturbance us ually comes m uch closer to trees than the lines shown on the p lans! I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -72 5-1357. decah@pa cbel l.ne t. http://www.de cah.co m. I 341 Be ll a Vista , Review of Plans relative to Tree Protection. September 24, 2014. Page 7 of 11 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Srn'ire since 1984 9. The Town's Consulting Arborist should review all site-based plans for this project: A dditional improvements not shown o n p lans that w e re not reviewe d may cause additional trees to be impacted and/or removed. The re fore the tree disposi tions (Save or Remove) li st e d in this report may c hange if and whe n addition a l p lans for this p roject are reviewed , or if plans that I ha ve reviewed are revised. Plans reviewed by the arbori st should b e f u ll -size , to-scale and wit h accurately located tree trunks a nd canopy d riplines re la t ive t o proposed im prove m e n t s. Sca le shou ld be l :20 or 1 :10. 10 . This site contains many oaks that are native to the immediate area (coast live oak, Quercus a grifolia and valley oak, Q. lobata ). All or most of these oaks are probably of natural growth. These tre e species fares best with no irrigation during the norma l dry months of the year. The best treatment of t he ground beneath the canopies of native oaks is nothing but their own natural leaf and twig litter mulch. Except ions t o the general ru le o f irrigation restriction include during the winter in extended drought periods, as temporary compensati on for root loss due to construction, a n d for newly p lant ed t rees during t heir 2 to 3 year es tablishment period a fter in sta ll a tion. Na t ive oak sp ecies are oft en kill ed d u e t o inappropriate la n dscaping t hat is install ed around them; most ly commonly land scaping that requires frequent irrigation such as lawns or other h igh wat er-us e plants. Large drought tolerant t rees such as nat ive oaks can become dangerous when exposed to fre q uent irri gatio n , especiall y close to their trunks. California nat ive oaks that are treat ed in this m a nner may con tra c t root rot disea se s and fall over at the roots ; often c ausing great damage and person a l injury I there are targets in their v ici ni ty su ch as h o mes , cars and p eople. It is impo rtant to la nds cape correctly around our native oaks; e.g. summer d ry. I have attached a publication entit le d Living among the Oaks, to a ss ist in best managing the o aks on the property. 11. Neighboring trees : whose c anopies overhang the p roject site must receive tree protection in the same manner as existing tre e s t o re main on t h e p rojec t si t e; fo r example tree p rotecti on f encing and sig n age. The general cont racto r sha ll fence off t he ground surface u nderneat h the dri pline of thes e t rees as much as p oss ible in o rder to avoid damagin g branches and c ompacting the soil beneath the canopy. If pruning is necessary in order to avoid branch breakage, th e general contractor sha ll hire a qualified t ree service t o perform the minimum necessary cons truction c learance prunin g . Neighboring t rees that requir e protection are: #12, 1 3 and 14. 12. The remaining trees on site should be re-evaluated aft er su rrounding trees are re moved. 13. General Tree Maintenance: a. The root collars and lower trunks of some of the trees were obscured from view by vegetation, excess soil or other covering . Such portions of the tre e sho u ld be uncovered and the tre e re -evaluated by the arborist. I PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -72 5-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www .decah.com. I 341 Bella Vista, Review of Plans relat ive to Tree Protection. September 24, 2014. Page 8 of 11 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Se ri-ice sin.-c 1')84 b. Do no unnecessary pruning, fertilization or other tree work . Pre-construction pruning should be li m ited to the absolute minimum req u ired f or construction clearance. Some pre-construction clearance pruning will be necessary for th is project. A qualified tree service shou ld be hired to p rovide such pruning. ******••*******~************** I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance. ~~ Deborah Elli s, MS. Consult ing Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professiona l Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 l.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B Enclosures : • Living among the Oaks - a Management Guide for Landowners. Johnson. University o f California Cooperative Extension, Na t ural Resour ces Program. No date. • Los Gatos General Tree Protection Di rections. Aug. 7, 2014. • Los Gatos Tree Pro t ect ion Sign Template (for tree protection signs to be p la ced on tree prot ection fencing) I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725~1357.--decah@pa cbel l.net . -http:i/~;~.d~~~h~~~~~---I 341 Bella Vista , Review of Plans relative to Tree Protection. September 24, 2014. Page 9 of 11 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Srrrtir~ si11ce 198-4 Glossary: 1. 5xDBH (3 to 5 X DBH): No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such as an excavation must be from the edge of the trunk of an individual tree to effect tree stability or health at a low, moderate or severe degree --there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or anticipate. 3xDBH however, is a reasonable "rule of thumb " min imum d istance (in feet) any excavation should be from the edge of the trunk on one side of the trunk . This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich , & Hendrickson 2002 , Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories). DBH is trunk "diameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a construction project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction . It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid taper. which is the area in which the large buttress roots (main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in d iameter with increasing distance from the trunk. For example, us ing the 3X DBH guideline an excavation should be no closer than 4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree . For trees with multiple trunks, an adjusted DBH is often calculated using 100% of the largest trunk plus 50% of the remaining smaller trunks. Such distances are guidelines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies , significant leans, decay, structural problems, etc. I will generally not recommend a root protection distance of less than 3 feet for any tree , even very small trees. It is also important to understand that in actual field conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines . 3xDBH may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 5X DBH or greater is the "preferred" minimum distance which should be strived for, and this d istance or greater should probably be used when there are multiple trenches on more than one side of the trunk. The roots beyond the zone of rapid taper form an extensive network of long , rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perenn ial roots are referred to as transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Maintaining a 5xDBH tree protection zone or greater around a tree will preserve more of these transport roots, which will have less of an impact on tree health than if the excavation were closer to the trunk. 2. Dripline: the area under the total branch spread of the tree , all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the dripline. a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree protection zone". 3. Grove: is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements , having "knit" canop ies. If of the same species , there is usually root grafting between trees , which lends support from the ground , as well as water and mineral sharing. Removal of one or some grove members could cause rema ining members to be unstable due to a reduction of previous shelter. Grove trees often have asymmetrical canopies when viewed as individuals . 4. Project Arborist: The arborist who is appointed to be in charge of arborist services for the project. That arborist shall also be a qualified consulting arborist (either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist) that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required. For most construction projects that work will include inspection and documentation of tree protection fencing and other tree protection procedures , and being available to assist with tree-related issues that come up during the project. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decoh.com . 341 Bella Vista, Review of Pla ns relative to Tree Protection. September 24, 20 14. Page 10 of 11 Deborah Ellis, MS Co n sulting Arbo ri s t & Hortic ulturist Srn:ice since 1984 5. Qualified Consulting Arborist: must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required . 6. Qualified Tree Service: A tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist , in a supervisory position on the job site during execution of the tree work. The tree service shall adhere to the most current of the following arboricultural industry tree care standards: • ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. (Covers tree care methodology). • ANSI Z133.1 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations. (Covers safety). • Best Management Practices . Tree Pruning . International Society of Arboriculture 7 . Root collar: area at the base of the trunk (usually flared) where the roots and trunk merge; also called the root flare or root crown of the tree or shrub. Buttress roots (the main support roots of the tree) originate here and are often visible for a short distance above the ground. The root collar is critical to whole-tree health and stability. 8. Root rot disease is caused by wet , poorly aerated soil conditions . Degradation of roots (root rot) and sometimes the lower trunk (crown rot) ensues on weakened , susceptible plant species not adapted to such a soil environment. Opportunistic plant root pathogens (such as watermold fungi) are often the secondary cause of the problem . Root rot is a particular problem among drought tolerant plants that are not adapted to frequent irrigation during our normally rain-free months, such as many of our California native plants . The problem is often worsened in fine-textured heavy clay soils that retain water more than do the coarser, fast-draining soils such as occur in the natural environment of many of our native plants . 9. Summer Dry: Our native oak species are adapted to our "summer dry" climate. When the soil in their root system is kept moist during our normally dry months, these oaks are predisposed to attack by fungal root rot pathogens that are usually present in our soils . Therefore it is important to keep irrigation as far from the tree trunk (preferably beyond the mature dripline) as possible. The best landscape treatment underneath native oaks is non-compacted soil covered with a 3 to 4-inch depth of oak wood , leaf and twig litter (the tree's natural litter). Keep this mulch 6 to 12 inches away from the root collar (junction of trunk and roots). An exception to the no summer water rule would be newly planted oaks (for the first 2 to 3 years after planting, until they are "established") and also during droughts that occur during the normal ra iny season. 10. Water Jet: (water probe , water needle, root feeder, hydrojet, etc.) is a hand-held metal probe, usually Yz too/. of an inch in diameter, with small side holes near the pointed tip end . The device is attached to a hose and the probe end with the holes is inserted into the ground by pushing on two perpendicular side handles at the top of the instrument. Water flows out of the holes horizontally, and a hole is also made vertically into the ground by the probe. The end result is the creation of vertical and horizontal tunnels filled with water and soft soil slurry. Water jetting probably does not increase soil aeration (diffusion of air through the soil), but it can help circumvent difficult water penetration of compacted, sealed soils or soil -especially on slopes . The probe creates voids in the soil that can more easily be penetrated by future irrigation and rain . The soft slurry created by the water jetting is also highly condu cive to fine root growth . Contact D . Ellis for specific water jet instructions and to companies that can provide this work. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pa cbell .net . http://www.decah .com. 341 Bella Vis ta , Rev ie w of Plans relati ve to Tr e e Prote ction. Septembe r 24, 2014. Page l l of l l ATTACHMENT 3 -PRIOR HEARING CONTENT Some of the points we have raised in this letter (L RDA, bulk and mass, etc) have been discussed at prior hearings of the Planning Commission and the Town Council including hearings of oth er appl ications. By reference to the hearing and the h earing date and b y copying a link to a recording of the hearing copied from the Town's website we would like to add the content of several of these hearings to the record of this letter: Planning Commission, June 28, 2017, http://losgatos.granicus.com /MediaPlayer.php? view id=S&clip id=1705 Planning Commission, June 22, 2016, http://losga to s.granicus.com /MediaPlayer.php? view id=S&clip id=1553 Planning Commission, April 13, 2016, http://los gatos.granicus.com /Med iaPlayer.php? view id=S&clip id=1528 Planning Commission, October 12, 2011, http://losgatos.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php? view id=S&clip id=890 Town Council, December 20, 2016, http://losgatos.granicus.com /Med iaPl ayer.php? view id=S&clip id=1618 Town Council, December 6, 2016, http://losgatos.granicus.com /MediaPlayer.php? view id=S&clip id=1607 Town Council, April 2, 2012, http://]osgatos.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php? view id=S&clip id=963 Sally Zarnowitz From: Janette Judd Sent: To: Thursday, August 31 , 2017 10:05 AM vs tulski@gmail.com Cc : Subject: cc: Town Council Town Manager Sally Zarnowitz FW: 341 Bella Vista COD Director J. Paul so n Planning Manager S. Zarnowitz Good morning, Thank you for your e-mail, received by the Town Council and Town Manager. By copy of this message, your correspondence is forwarded to Community Development Department (CDD) staff. As you are aware, this matter was continued from a prior Town Council meeting to the September 5 Council meeting agenda. Your communication will be included in agenda packet materials (along with all Public Comment) distributed for that meeting. Should you have additional questions or comments regarding this project, Planning Manager Sally Zarnowitz is the staff liaison and primary point of contact. We note that you copied Sally on your message. Sally can be reached by phone at (408) 354-6873 or via e-mail, SZarnowitz@Lo sGatosCA.gov . Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Lo s Gatos. Best regard s, Janette Judd • Executive Assistant Town Counci l and Town Manager• 110 E. Main St ., Lo s Gatos CA 95030 Ph : 408 .354 .6832 • JJ ud d@LosGatosCA.gov www.LosGa t osCA .go v • https://w w w .facebook.com /losga t osca From: Vitaliy Stulski [mailto:vstulski@gmail.com] Sent: Wedne sday, August 30, 2017 11:22 PM To: Council; Marice Sayoc; Town Manager Subject: RE: 341 Bella Vista To M ayor and Coun cil Members o f Los G ato s, I and my family used to own 152 Maggi Ct. We recently moved to 17024 Pine Ave. We are Los Gatos res idents for 11 years. Though we are not directly impacted b y a proposed construction project, I'd like to raise my concerns wi th the project. I and my wife expressed deep worries about 341 Bella Vista many times before. The project i s way too large for a such a constrained lot. I believe that bulk and mass are exceeding acceptab le norms. It is a direct result of 1 maximizing square footage through frivolous interpretation of cellar policy and building in excess of reasonable size. For downhill residents this construction creates apparent privacy issues and posses unnecessary danger in case of natural disasters (heavy rain, earthquake, landslide). Additionally the project requires removal of many healthy trees. It will re shape the look of the hillside s ignificantl y. I will not be able to attend the hearing on September 5th due to my travel. I ask to treat this letter as my request for you to act in the interest of the nearby residents. Please restrict construction on a seemingly unbuildable lot to sizes and architecture that will not cause any impact to surrounding properties. Best Regard s, Vitaliy Stulski 2