The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 3 - Exhibit 13 - Part 1M arni M ose ley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Vitaliy Stulski <vstulski@gmail.com> Monday, March 21, 2016 10:23 PM Marni Moseley Planning Development of 339 and 341 Bella Vista Hello Mami and Planning Commission Officials, I, my wife Natallia and our sons David and Daniel live at 152 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032. We are owners of this property. It came to my attention that a new project plan for 339,341 Bella Vista property have been submitted to the Town. As you may find I and my wife strongly opposed two houses project that had been attempted on this property before. Though a single house is being proposed now, we still believe that this development is still present multiple problems to the community. From the issues that directly concern us I'd like to highlight the following: -Environmental impact. The project will require cutting down big healthy trees and removing other vegetation. -Safety concerns . We reside in a seismic zone and next earthquake is a scientifically imminent. Removing large chunk of the hill, destroying tree root systems and putting heavy construction on top does not sound like a safe proposal at all. I constantly come across articles about landslides in our area. These two are from this month: Santa Clara (http ://kutv.com/news/locallsanta-clara-homes-threatened-by-slow-moving-landslide), Moraga (http ://www .mercurynews.cornlci 29631461 /moraga-landslide-prompts-home-evacuations). -Financial loss to the residents around the project. This project will ·make properties in a direct proximity to a development decrease in their value, cascading to the rest of the neighborhood. -Significant inconvenience for the residents. During the time of construction noise, dust and light will impact the residences around. After construction -light in the evening and shadow during the day will impact residents below the development. I recognize that these project will also cause serious privacy and large safety for our neighbors who live directly down the hill from the proposed development. Thank You, Vitaliy Stulski and Natallia Stulskaya EXHIBIT 1 3 1 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To whom it may concern, Christopher E. Johnson <christopher@peraltacapitalholdings.com> Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:53 PM Marni Moseley Straight Forrest; Johnson Heather Regarding 341 Bella Vista Ave My wife and I live at 158 Maggie court, with our three children. We are writing this letter, to express our concerns regarding the proposed building adjacent to our neighbors, and our community. One of the things that we love the most about this community, and it's location, is the live Oak trees behind the property, and privacy we enjoy at the back of our Town House. Any planned buildings, or development of any kind, threatening these important Oak trees, and our privacy, is something we strongly would object to, under any circumstances. Thank you. *Sent from my iPhone 6s+ Best, Christopher E. Johnson Co Founder, Managing Partner Peralta Capitol Holdings, LLC Mobile#, (408) 624-0837 Office#, (408) 402-5029 *I l ikely dictated this message to my device, or typed this message very quickly. Please kindly excuse any extreme brevity, Apple auto correct weirdness, or total Siri dictati on fails. 1 M a rni M ose l ey Fr om: Sent: To : Cc: Subject: Marni, TRICIA L. CAPRI <tricia_capri@yahoo.com> Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:12 PM Marni Moseley TRICIA L. CAPRI Oppositio n to 341 Bella Vista I don 't understand how they plan to build a house at 341 Bella Vista on that sloping hillside. I love those three beautiful Coastal Oaks and I'm told they will be cut down!!!?? That is ridiculous -those take so many years to grow and they cannot easily be replaced. What is the plan? Will they move them adjacent to the property? Will they move them AND plant new trees? The trees add much to the asethetics of the open space and we are quickly losing the quaint, rustic feel of our town . How can this happen? We cannot let this happen. Tricia Capri Homeowner 255 Los Gatos Blvd. Los Gatos, CA 95030 1 Marni Mosel ey From: Sent: To: Subject: Marni Moseley RE: 341 Bella Vista Forrest Straight <fastcbra@aol.com > Wednesday, March 23 , 2016 12:44 PM Marni Moseley 341 Bella Vista Let me give the reasons for my objection to the proposed Structure at 341 Bella Vista. I bought my home 14 years ago with the knowledge that the Town (Los Gatos) determined the lots were unbuildable after years of trying. My realtor and new neighbors informed me of the Towns comments. After 6+ public hearings at the Town, the applicant continues to bring forth a plan that has increased size, bulk, and mass of a home 60' directly above me. Most importantly the Towns arborist (Ellis) said the site should be kept as an open space or low maintenance park .... then 3 years later the same arborist (hired by the developer) suggested the biggest trees were not in the best health. I have sent to the Town (years ago) two other Tree experts .and both state the trees are in good health and can live hundreds of years. Lets be honest ... for developments , The Town has many times in the past, demanded that trees (some the ugliest) not be cut down. But it now feels fine with cutting down three of the biggest (hundereds of years old) Coastal Oaks in town. The proposed house is 44' away from my house and is 6 stories high above me . That's more than a 60 degree angle when I look up . Sit in a chair and look at the ceiling .... then come down 30 degrees . That's what a neck stretcher I'm looking at. In the morning I get up at about 7am .... filtered sunl i ght comes into my many windows . With the proposed structure that will be totally gone . I won't see the sun till noon . Privacy ... you have to be kidding with 5 decks and a roof patio where is the privacy? Forget any measures to reduce the viewing ... all those measures will be eliminated as soon as the building i nspector is gone. What I really loved about the Magg i development was the privacy and quiet. I can hear the birds in the day .... see the various animals that make the park like area their home . There's an owl that lives in the trees that predates my 2004 purchase. Bats also come out at night. How can that be mitigated with a huge house and decks with a combined 6000sf living area. Plus .... taking away nearly 12000sf of Coastal Oak canopy . And too: .... I don't believe the cellar square footage used in the calculations . Previous drawings by the same architect have been wrong and misleading. Forrest Straight 146 Maggi Ct 1 M arn i M ose ley From: Sent: To: Subject: Kath y Murtfeldt <kmurtfeldt@aol.com > Thu rsday, March 24 , 2016 4:26 PM Marni Moseley 339/341 Bella Vista Avenue Dear Town of Los Gatos Planning Department, My husband and I live at 226 Bella Vista Ave in Los Gatos. We have been homeowners for 11 years . We have attended two hearings before on the development of these two properties. It continues to concern us that this property owner has chosen not to take the advice given him in previous Planning Commission and Town Council meetings to develop a house that complies with the City's building ordinances. The plans for these two lots have many issues that concern the neighbors on our street and below on Maggi Court. Among our concerns are privacy and the safety of the homes below. Also the drainage of this property on to the properties below. The preservation of the very large oak trees on this property are all at risk with the development of one large house. We have two houses being constructed currently next to us at 222 and 224 Bella Vista Avenue . The traffic mess that is created with building these large houses, with heavy equipment, contractor trucks and building materials often blocking the street to through traffic seems not to have been considered in the plan to bu ild on this property. The lot is so steep that all of the staging for the build will have to be done on Bella V ista Avenue. This street gets major traffic from the LGHS. I can not see how this project can be done without causing major traffic jams on our street. We think the house is too large for the lots and that only a small house about 1500 sq feet (less than half of what plans call for) that meets all of the hillside restrictions be developed. Sincerely, Kathy & Bob Murtfeldt 226 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos, CA 95030 408 399 3043 1 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Planning Commission, Janet Carmona <janetcarmona7@gmail.com > Thursday, March 24, 2016 4:50 PM Planning Marni Moseley 341 Bella Vista I urge you to deny the current application of 341 Bella V i sta Avenue for the following reasons: I. Disregard for Los Gatos Hillside Standards and Guidelines. This proposed development would be a three story structure. II. This proposed development exceeds the FAR . The applicant is counting the sq . of the main floor and the second level. leaving out the sq. of the "cellar" with windows and bedrooms at an additional1,156 square feet. Ill. This proposed development DOES NOT fit with the neighborhood. The plan calls for a rooftop deck? Please, I urge you to visit the site. This proposed development should not be approved. Regards, Janet Carmona 160 Maggi Court 408-807-2426 1 From : Janet Carmona [mailto:janetcarmona7@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 9 :06 PM To : Planning Cc: Marni Moseley Subject : 341 Bella Vista Dear Planning Commissioners, Charles Erekson Kendra Burch Mary Badame Melanie Hanssen D. Michael Kane Matthew Hudes Thomas O'Donnell Joel Paulson I personally invite you and urge you to visit the proposed development. Please view it from our neighborhood on Maggi Court. My contact information is: Janet Carmona 408-807-2426 janetcarmona7@gmail .com I look forward to hearing from you . Kind Regards, Janet Carmona This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Subject: Kemp, Melanie < melanie.kemp@cbnorcal.com > Thursday, March 31, 2016 7:39 PM Marni Moseley Comments to Marni Moseley re: 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE review by Plann ing Commission Good afternoon Ms . Moseley, I'm a homeowner at 174 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way in Bella Vista Village which is being impacted by the new construction project that Dan Ross is proposing for 341 Bella Vista Avenue. I will be out of town on April 13 when a hearing is scheduled to review the recently submitted plans for this site so I'm submitting my concerns directly to you in hope you'll share it with others on the Planning Commission and those who attend the hearing. I've been a Realtor for 40 years and am very conscious of the negative impact an imposing home can have on adjacent neighbors. I've developed a half dozen s ingle family homes in Cupertino and Saratoga where impact on neighboring properties was a major consideration for the Planning Commission. My projects were scrutinized very closely with much less tolerance for stretching existing guidelines. Why does it seem this project becomes more onerous each time it's brought before the Planning Commission? I'm extremely concerned with the negative impact this 3,000 square foot, 3-story home will have on the neighboring properties on Maggi Court which will, in turn, affect the values of all 47 homes in Bella Vista Village. Why is the Commission even considering a home of this size that's clearly outside existing limits? I'm an original owner in this development having lived in a 3-story floorplan there for the past 16 years, and I know from firsthand experience that a 3-story home offers incredibly invasive views of properties at lower elevations directly beneath it. Decks that hang off the rear elevation add insult to injury. If anything were to be built on the proposed site, I would hope that it first meets the criteria for floor area ratio and slope density, that it would be no more than 2-stories, no mature trees of 6" d iameter or larger would be removed, and any decks that overlook the Maggi Court homes would be eliminated. I am happy to take your call if you 'd like to discuss further . My best to you, Melanie Kemp 1 iQl MELANIE ~KEMP ·' . ' ... ·,' , .. MELANIE KEMP BROKER ASSOCIATE COLDWEll BANKER 40 Years' Experience I International President's Premier I Top 1% Worldwide C: 408 .805.1555 I melanie.kemp@cbnorcal.com I www .melaniekemo .com 410 N. Santa Cruz Avenue I los Gatos, Californ ia 95030 BRE 00867212 The infonnati on in this e lectronic mail m essage is the sender's confident ia l business and m ay be legally p rivileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet e lectronic mail message by anyo ne else is unauthorized. If you are not th e intended reci pient, any disclosure, copying, dist ribu tion o r any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. The sender believes that this E-mail and any attachments were free of any virus, wonn, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. Thi s message and it s attachments could ha ve been infected during trans mi ssion. By reading the message and opening any attachme nts, th e recipient accepts full responsibili ty for taking protective and remedial action about viru ses and other defects. The sender's company is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Noth ing in thi s e mail shall be deemed to create a bindin g contract to purchase/sell real estate. The sender of this email does no t have th e authority to bind a buyer or sell er to a contract via written or verbal communications including, but n ot limited to, email communications. 2 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Subject: Fo llow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Ms Moseley, Dear Mr Paulson, williamsonnick@aol.com Monday, April 04, 2016 1:22 PM Marni Moseley; Planning 341 Bella Vista Avenue Follow up Flagged I am writing concerning the plans for development of 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue . I live directly below the project site and so I'm impacted , terribly. I would be most grateful if you could visit to see the story polls from my perspective, from below in Maggi Court, before filing your report for the Planning Commission . This is a peaceful hillside and it will be devastated by this development and I don't believe you have been given the complete facts. If you would also have some time to meet me in the next days, eithe r this evening , or tomorrow or possibly Wednesday I would be more than happy to come to your offices or to meet you at my home. Yours sincerely, Nicholas Williamson 1 Eleanor Leishman 332 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos , CA 95032-5415 April 3, 2016 Lead agency: Town of Los Gatos Project Title Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 and Location: 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-12-1 03 Subdivision Application M-12-008 Negative Declaration ND-16-00 1 Regarding: Objections to proposed development at 341 Bella Vista Ave. Dear _Ms . Mosely and Planning Commissioners, Town of Los Gatos: RECEIVED APR -5 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION My husband David and I live at 332 Bella Vista Ave, a few houses north and across the street from the proposed development at 341 Bella Vista Ave . I'm writing to express my concerns about, and objections to , the Architecture and Site Application S-12-103 at 341 Bella Vista Ave. A bit of history: I've been attending Planning Commission meetings on proposed applications to develop this property for 14 years, before the current owners purchased it. In 2002, the subject property was designated as 319 Bella Vista, and the owner of the property was Khalaf Ghayyen. The Planning Commission denied his residential building plan in 2002 and his subsequent appeal in 2003 was also rejected . The property was later sold to the current owner(s). I'm very concerned about the impacts that this proposed project will have on the environment: these concerns include questions about the slope stability of the building site; the loss of three protected Oaks and the effects of this loss will have on wildlife (including endangered bird spe- cies); and the creation of more traffic safety issues on Bella Vista Ave., where significant traffic and parking challenges already exist. Geology and Soils The site in question is a horizontal strip of land along the west edge of Bella Vista Ave. On page 43 of the Initial Study, the Town describes the site thus: "The project site slopes downhill toward the West with slopes averaging 53%. The proposed grading plan estimates that approximately 692 cubic yards could be cut and exported from the site ... " I ask you to consider this question: If the Town of Los Gatos were zoning this property today , would it zone it as a "build-able" Jot ? Given the extreme slope and proximity to the town home deve lopment directly below thi s site , I have no doubt that this site presents serious building chal- lenges . Yet the Town's Initial Study (Geo logy and Soils , page 43) states that the impacts of build- ing on this are "Less Than Significant," although some of these impacts are listed as "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ." It's my sincere hope that these proposed mitigation measures will be put into place and scrupu- lously followed , and that they will be sufficient to pre vent slope failure during an earthquake, severe rainstorm or other disaster. I urge the Planning Commission to consider these potential impacts and mitigation measures very carefully when deciding whether or not to allow this project to be built as proposed . Trees and Habitat Loss According to the plans submitted by the owners to the Town, the project will involve cutting down 3 protected Oak trees , and a number of other non-protected trees . In addition, it seems very pos- sible that other trees will be damaged or destroyed in the excavation and building process. Small trees planted on the site will not compensate for the loss of the magnificent heritage Oaks. It would take 100 years for small trees to grow mature enough to replace the size, height and canopy of the trees that will be lost to this building construction. Would it poss ible to alter the building plans to save one or two of these protected trees without sacrificing the overall design goals of the project? I urge you to explore this possi bility with the owner(s) during the Planning Commission hearing next week, on April 13 . The Initial Study identified some mandatory mitigation measures to be followed regarding the wildlife habitat, specifically nesting of endangered bats . What safeguards exist to ensure that the owner follows these mitigation measures , and that the Community Development Department is adequately monitoring and enforcing them? What consequences would accrue to the owner if they were not followed? Traffic and Parking Increased traffic caused by the Blue Bird Lane development, and the ever-increasing amount of "cut-through" traffic from Los Gatos Blvd. have contributed to ongoing traffic problems on Bella Vista Ave . High traffic volume is especially noticeable during the commutes to and from the High School, but recent housing construction on the street has also significantly contributed to it. Traffic calming procedures implemented on Bella Vista several years ago (the installation of "speed humps ") have done little to slow down the speed of traffic. Pedestrians (many with chil- dren, strollers and dogs); joggers; and cyclists favor o ur street, and they all have to be careful about cars and trucks speeding along the street. There is little or no police enforcement of the posted speed limits . And there's very. little on-street parking available for those who need to park on Bella Vista , especially during the day. The short curve of the street and steep bank afford no on-street parking at the new property. I'm especially concerned about the safety of cars exiting the driveway from the proposed resi- dence , and also about the safety of southbound drivers. For all the above reasons, I respectfully urge you, the Planning Commissioners, to explore the risks and possible downsides of this project with extreme care as you come to a decision about whether or not to allow it to move forward. Yours truly, Ellie Leishman PATRICK K. TILLMAN Attorney at Law April 6, 2016 RECEIVED APR 6-2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Sent via e-mail to: MMosele@osgatosca.gov and pia tuti ng@/osgatosca.gov Marni Moseley Los Gatos Planning Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos , CA 95030 Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications Applicant: Dan Ross Planning Commission Meeting of04-13 -16 Dear Ms. Moseley: Please include the attached letter dated January 17, 2012, and all its attachments , in the materials you will be giving the Commissioners for the 04-13-16 Planning Commission Hearing. The information therein is still relevant to the current project proposed by Dan Ross. Thank you. Respectfully, Is/ Patrick K. Tillman Attachments cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail) Towno fLo sGa to s.0406 16 2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126 Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com This Page Intentionally Left Blank PATRICK K. T I LLMAN Attorney at Law January 17, 2012 Steve Rice, Mayor Los Gatos Civic Center 11 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos , CA 95030 Marico Sayoc, Chairperson Los Gatos Planning Committee 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Greg Larson Los Gatos Town Manager 110 E . Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEIVED APR 6 -2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PlANNING DIVISION Sent via e-mail to: srice(ii)Josgatosca.gov Sent via e-mail to: maricosavoc@Jvahoo.com Sent via e-mail to: manager(ij)Josgatosca.gov Wend ie Rooney, Director Sent via e-mail to: wrooney@Josgatosca.gov Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista A venue Applications Applicant: Dan Ross Gentlepersons: I live with Mary Badame at 150 Maggi Court, Los Gatos. Applications are pending for construction of two (2) homes to be built at 339 & 34 1 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, directly above u s. The applications should be rejected. lOll The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95116 Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com The history of this project and the inconsistent application of the law warrant special attention by the Planning Commission and Town Council. Something is terribly wrong when Town personnel recommend a project with umpteen HDS&G exceptions/waivers, that is directly contrary to its prior recommendation(s), will seriously invade our privacy and the privacy of six to eight (6-8) other townhome owners in our complex, recommend a project that, in fact, will be a "nuisance" within the legal definition, and inflicts a collective financial loss on us of well over $800,000 . As to the exceptions/variances requested, several seasoned contractors testified at the 10-12-11 Planning Commission hearing that they have never seen an application ask for this many exceptions, variances, and/or favors . A local architect, well familiar with the process, testified that the exceptions/variances are directly related to Applicant's design (aka mass & scale), not undue hardships created by zoning regulations and/or specific conditions of these lots -the standard for granting exceptions/variances. Approving/granting any number of Applicant's requests would re-set the bar for new construction applications -set a precedent contrary to the letter and spirit of the HDS&G. Procedurally, the Applicant's last presentation to the Planning Commission took place 10-12-11. The Commission rejected the proposal and advised Applicant to "dramatically" ... "significantly" reduce the size of both homes. In an e-mail dated 12-19-11 @ 10 :54 a.m., Suzanne Davis, Senior Town Planner, advised a member of our neighborhood that they received the revised plans 1 "late Thursday," 12-15-11. (Exhibit 10) These revised plans were meant to be addressed by the Planning Commission at the meeting set for 01-11-12. The delayed submission eliminated the staffs ability to evaluate them for the 01-11-12 Commission meeting, so the next Planning Commission meeting to address this project will be 02-09-12. 1 Consistent with Applicant's regard for the HDS&G , the Planning Commission, Town Council , and his neighbors, and contrary to the "'dramatically" ... 'significantly' reduce" admonition of the Planning Conunission, in the "revised plans" he reduced the Lot l home by 128' and Lot 2 home by 49'. (Exhibit 10) 2 HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN Adopted as part of the Los Gatos General Plan. Pursuant thereto, in January 2004, the Town adopted Standards to be used in the review of Hillside Development Applications: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ("HDS&G"). Consequently, the HDS&G are part of the Los Gatos General Plan ... and the law. (Town of Los Gatos 2020, GENERAL PLAN, Community Design, H. Hillside Development> pg. CD 21) The Town of Los Gatos Hillside Area and Viewing Platform Map (Exhibit 1) depicts large blocks of hillside acreage covered by the General Plan and the HDS&G. You will note thereon three (3) very small fingers of land, and only three (3), all on Bella Vista Avenue, well away from the main-covered area. They are equally protected. Special thought went into providing these three (3) fingers of land stated protections, probably because Bella Vista Avenue runs a ridge for 3/4th of a mile, a ridge that drops dramatically (50°, often 60 -80°) 40-80' immediately from the shoulder of the road. In one ( 1) section the ridge provides a nice backdrop for the Los Gatos High School baseball field. The Applications that are the subject of this letter apply to the middle finger (ironic) ofland on Bella Vista Avenue, above referenced . IDLLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ("HDS&G"). F. Standards versus Guidelines. "The Hillside development Standards and Guidelines contain both standards and guidelines. Standards are mandatory nondiscretionary regulations that must be followed. The words "shall" or "prohibited" denotes a standard of mandatory regulation. Guidelines are discretionary. ... Development plans must demonstrate full compliance with all standards. and substantial compliance with all applicable guidelines whenever site conditions require and there is not a substantial reason why the guideline should not be followed .... " 3 (Emphasis add~d) HDS&G @ pg. 10 THE STANDARD EVIDENCE CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA "Shall" and "May" Construed. "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive. Evid. Code § 11 I NTERPRETATI ON OF LOS GATOS REGULATIONS Construction -Intent of Legislature or Parties -General Subversive to Particular Provisions. In the construction of a statute the intention of the legislature, and in the construction of the instrument to intention of the parties, is to be pursued, if possible; and when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. (Emphasis added) Cal. Code ofCiv. Proc . §1859 4 PROPOSED PROJECT -Violations The project should be rejected for the following reasons: 1. Traffic Safety 2. Lot line change 3. Grading Standards 4. Building height, bulk, & mass 5 . Set-backs 6. Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") 7 . Architectural Design for Privacy & Respect for Neighbors 8. Tree Preservation 9. Geologic instability 1 0. Fire Hazard 11. Drainage 12 . Shade 13. Neighborhood support 1. Traffic Safety. Applicant requests a variance for his driveway, allowing him to make it shorter. Several families living on Bella Vista Avenue testified at the 10-12-11 Planning Commission hearing that the driveway(s) for this project are dangerous to children, joggers, bicyclists, young drivers, Mothers shutt1ing their High School children to school early in the morning, and basically anyone coming down the road . The road curves, the view is blocked; it's guesswork pulling out. Several Planning Commissioners seemed concerned. This application has been pending for over five (5) years, yet no one in Planning identified the problem, let alone attempted to solve it. I'll spare you the legalese on roadway and roadside safety, the Town has an attorney who should be well familiar with the concept of negligence and/or deliberate misconduct. In sum, the Town of Los Gatos is obligated to make our streets reasonably safe. It is now on notice that if anyone gets hurt as a result of this traffic condition, the Town of Los Gatos will be held accountable in a Courtroom. Let's hope they are only minor injuries, with ample coverage ... and do not involve children. 5 2. Lot Line Change. The proposed lot line change is illegal. (State: Gov. Code §66412( d); Los Gatos General Plan: "Lot line adjustments are reviewed according to Section 66412(d) of the Government Code of the State of California .... If the lots are currently nonconforming as to size, they cannot become more nonconforming (smaller)." 2 Aside from that illegality (above), the representations made by Applicant to the Planning Committee ( 10-12-11) that the lot line change is designed to save a protected tree appear to be an outright lie, not a mistake. (Exhibit 2) By design, the lot line moves North, taking land from Lot 2, giving it to Lot l. The new lot line will pass through the center of a large, protected Oak Applicant was . not allowed to cut down. (Tree #2) What Lot 2 gave up was unusable land-the building footprint for Lot 2 could not be placed in the Southern-most part of the lot beyond its own 8'-Southern setbackfrom the same tree. With the new lot line, Lot 1 now has an 8'-Northside setback.3 Without this gift, the proposed home on Lot 1 simply would not fit. In essence, between Applicant and his cousin, they agreed to share the area · dedicated as unbuildable because they could not get permission to cut down that tree. This tactic, this gift to Lot 1, still leaves Lot 1 a non-conforming lot. Credibility is always an issue when discretion is being exercised. The Town should not disregard this charade between family members to make themselves appear to be friends of the environment ... or this Town; they are neither. 2 I can not provide you with a citation of the Los Gatos regulation from which I take this quote. I can not figure it out from the Town's website. Instead, see Exhibit 13. 3 The proposed 17' foundation "cuts" into the hillside for both homes, each -8' from this old/large/sprawling tree ( 44.6 inch trunk diameter@ 3', 45-65' canopy), will kill it, anyway. (02-08-05 Arborist's Report@ pg. 17, Tree #2) 6 4. Building height, bulk, & mass. a. Height. Standards: 1 . The maximum allowed height for homes in hillside areas shall be 25 feet. Building height shall be measured in compliance with provisions of the Town's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The maximum allowed height is a building's tallest elevation shall not exceed 35 feet measured from the lowest part of the building to the highest part, except buildings extending above a ridgeline or that are vi.siblefrom a viewing platform where the maximum height from the lowest to highest points shall not exceed 28 feet. 3. Ridgeline and visible homes shall not extend more than 18 feet above the existing grade. 4. 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. 5. Three-story elevations are prohibited. (Emphasis added) HDS&G @ pgs. 35-36 The height of these proposed homes from the rear base to the 2nd floor roofline is 36'; 8' above the "shall not exceed" limit. (See #1 & 2, above) Applicant's architect, Britt/Rowe, says: "There is no view of the site from Downtown, Hwy 9 corridor, Hwy 17 or other view points given its location." (Undated letter stamped "RECEIVED" 09-0 1-07) You most certainly can see them from Hwy 9, and had Applicant properly "netted" the property, you could see it even better. The houses are not supposed to extend more than 18' above the existing grade (# 3, above), yet, by design, much of the house is close to 25' above existing grade. (A-7 Diagram) The "existing grade" (and foundation) at the downhill-most point is ~6' below the lowest part of the house-it's elevated by that -6'. (See #4, above) With the attached garage, these houses are three (3) story structures. (See #5, above) 8 5. Set-backs. Lot2 Lot 1 Required 339 341 (29.40 .270) Front 5.5' 7' 15' Rear 12' 25' 25' Northside 12.6' 8' 20' Southside 8' 2' 20' Height4 36' 36' 28' Lot 2 is 5Yz' from the front property line. They claim it's 12Yz' from the rear property line but that includes 5' of the gravel walkway/trail at the base of the hill that drops (80°) 3-5' from the natural grade of the hill. The topsoil is so soft that the 3-5' drop crumbles down to the trail. Aside from stuffing the house into a narrow property, there is no mention of a retaining wall at the base. "To limit the intensity of new development ... " "Building setbacks shall increase as mass and height increase." (Emphasis added; Gen. Plan, CD-2, 2.1) If the application is to build homes 3-4 times the FAR, increasing the setbacks is more appropriate; in fact, it's mandated (''shall"). To gauge what is appropriate, here, start with aFAR-sized home and work up. Applicant requests set-back waivers/variances of 50-90% of minimum Standards set for homes anticipated to be 25-30% (per FAR) the size of those proposed. 4 I threw in "Height" to give this panel a better concept of"stuffing." Also consider the project's downhill foWldation is 15-20 ' above our foundation, and starts just below our 3'd floor. The height standard listed above is per HDS&G @ pgs. 35-36. 10 2. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement corridors. 3. Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR or any accessory building will be minimized. 4. All standards and applicable guidelines are being met. ... 9. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties. (Emphas is added) HDS&G @ pg. 29-30 The Planning Commission/Town Council may not approve residential projects in excess of the FAR without satisfying items 1-9 , above -all of them. Here, at least five of nine ( 5 of 9) condi tions, above itemized, cannot be met. (Also see 29.40.075(c)) As to Applicant's plea: ljust want to be treated like the owners of 145 Bella Vista Avenue. Who wouldn't? Recall, that applicant pulled a fast one (1) by d emanding adherence to the Town Code to get approval of two (2) cellars for one (1) house5 ; thus eliminating 2053 square feet of area from the FAR. They forced removal from the FAR calculation more living area than they had to claim. 145 Bella Vista A venue is not a fair comparison because: 1. Two (2) cellars, eliminating 2053 sq. ft . from FAR. (" ... Mr. Kennedy is pushing the envelope ... " 11-01-01 Hearing Trans. 228:19-20) 2. 24° slope (versus 50-60° slope). 3. FAR, as written, was strictly enforced. 4. Built before HDS&G enacted. 5. Downhill is a baseball field (no residents). 6. Minimal tree removal. 5 Two (2) cellars; that was a good one, prompting the T own to change the definition of a cellar. 12 7. Architectural Design for Privacy and Respect for Neighbors: A. Design Objectives: The standards and guidelines m this section are intended to encourage architectural design that is: 1. in harmony and visually blends with the natural environment, 2 . responsive to site constraints and opportunities, 3. compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and respectfuLof neighbors, and 4 . respectful of the rural character of the hillside (Emphasis added) HDS&G @ pg. 31 The proposed homes are contrary to items 1 -4, above. These homes are not in harmony with anything or anybody; they are stuffed into our backyards, towering over us, pointed directly into our bedrooms that are on the 3rd floor. Highlighting/explaining the abuse and disregard for items 1 -4 , above , would add +20 pages to this letter. A quick visit to the site by those responsible to vote on the project would serve the same purpose. B. Design to be neighbor friendly. Protecting the privacy of the neighboring homes is a high priorityin the siting and design of a new house or addition. The following design standards shall be followed to the greatest extent feasible to ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors. Standards: 1. Privacy impacts shall be addressed and resolved during the constraints analysis phase and initial design stage, not with mitigation measures imposed as an afterthought. Sight lines shall be studied so that windows and outdoors areas are placed to maintain privacy. 13 Guidelines: 1. The following design guidelines should be implemented to the greatest degree feasible where privacy impacts are of concern; a. Minimize second-story windows facing close neighbors properties. b. Orient upper floor windows, decks, and balconies to avoid impacting the privacy of neighbors. c. Incorporate screening measure (e.g., solid railing walls, lattice work, or planters) to obscure lines of sight to neighboring properties d. Limit the size of decks and balconies to six feet in depth in areas where privacy is a concern. This will limit their use to passive activities. e. Use landscaping to screen view to your neighbor's living areas most sensitive to privacy. Use evergreen trees and shrubs to provided year round pnvacy. f. Existing vegetation that protect privacy should not be removed. g. Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning and pool equipment). h. Locate outdoor activity areas adjacent to neighbors' out door activity areas rather than in close proximity areas (bedrooms). (Emphasis added) HDS&G @ pg. 32 "Privacy impacts," are "standards"-they must be (aka "shall") "addressed'' and "resolved." They were "addressed" in the MND dated June 2011 (Exhibit 8), but not "resolved." The audacity of the MND "resolutions" listed is not surprising having dealt with their ilk in other settings. That Planning Department personnel could walk the project and agree with their report/declaration absolutely amazes me. Seriously, it's not possible. With respect to the Guidelines (items a-h., above), due to the placement of each home, none of these guideline "resolutions" will eliminate or even alleviate the privacy invasion -the proposed homes are too close; the proposed homes are too big -we will be intimately familiar with their daily activities, and they ours. I addressed most of these items, and voiced my opinion of the reliability of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in a letter dated 07-01-11, previously submitted. (Exhibit 9) 14 9. Geological Hazards: Standards: 2. Construction shall be avoided in areas with geological hazards (e.g., slope instability seismic hazards , etc.) as identified in the in the site specific geological investigations and reports, unless adequate mitigation design measures are proposed to achieve a low level of risk. HDS&G @ pg. 23 The hillsides of Los Gatos are notoriously soft. In the Town 's file, the Geological Report compares the project site with the visible portion of the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road directly beneath Bella Vista A venue (overpass area). The pictures within the report clearly show soft dirt twenty feet (20') deep. Bedrock appears to be something deeper than 22 feet -the maximum depth of their borings -so we do not know where the bedrock is (how deep?). Several geological reports in the Town's file itemize serious concerns about the area and insufficient data being provided, all of which concerns are eventually blown off with a simple: no problem. The proposed two (2) houses will cut away the alluvial soil' in two (2) large swatches, each ~60' x 30', with "cuts" up to 17' deep. Lot 2 is only 50 ' deep. Couple this removal with the need to remove surface vegetation for a good distance to each side of the two (2) houses. We have two (2) homes in soft dirt. Worse, the project weakens the hill's slide resistance. Bella Vista A venue residents, the road itself, and the downhill complex -ours -are at risk. 10. Fire Hazards: Standards: 1. Building locations shall be selected and structures designed to minimize exposure to wildfires. 3. Development shall have adequate fire access. 4. A dependable and adequate water supply for fire protection and suppression purposes, as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, shall be provided for all properties ... HDS&G @ pg. 24 8 "Alluvial soil" is sediment deposited by moving water. 16 Guidelines: 1. Development shall avoid areas subject t o severe fire danger. In order to achieve this, development should: a. be set back from the crest of the hill b. not be located at the top of a canyon c. not to be located on or adjacent to slopes greater than 30°. d . not be located within densely wooded areas HDS&G @ pg. 25 The applicable area is at the crest of a ridge and slopes downward in excess of 50° (60° for Lot 2). Access to the back of these proposed homes is poor, at best -only via a narrow, gravel, downhill trail running parallel with the rear-face of these homes . The trail has no water supply . A fire at either of the proposed homes would likely bum both of them to the ground, then run downhill to the Maggi Ct. Properties, less than 25 feet away.9 Because of the steep slope and limited access, the back of these homes is secure from fire fighting equipment and effort. Applicant may have solved the tree-fire issue by cutting them all down, however, the house-fire issue remains. Has the Fire Department been consulted? It's not in the Report. 9 Note: the proposed homes wo uld be approximately 25 feet away laterally and tower over the condos on Maggi Court, malcing it an easy jump for ambers . Trees between us -for privacy?? (proposed but not functional idea) -that would only enhance the threat/risk. 17 12. Shade. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15070) requires a shade/shadow report. A Negative Declaration is required. (Pub. Res. Code §21 080) Casting a shadow over our residence for "more than three (3) hours" is presumed to have a "significant" impact on us . If the shadow/shade lasts only 21h hours and therefore not technically "significant," what is it? Inconsequential? The Shadow Study diagram (A-9; Exhibit 12) is not accurate. First, the lines depicting sun rays in Winter are bass-ackwards. They have the sun higher at 9:00 a.m. than at 12:00 p.m. Second, the 12:00 noon angle shows 30°; the 339 Bella Vista home towers +50 ' above us, that keeps the shadow on our home. Third, the diagram is supposed to depict how the shadows affect the buildings around them; no buildings are depicted. We are only 25' away. Please see comp. (Exhibit 12) Finally, Mary read a Shadow Report written by Geier & Geier that was in the Town's file. It reported shadows on our property for in excess of three (3) hours. She asked for a copy. Suzanne Davis refused to provide her with a copy. That report is no longer in the Town's file. (Also see "HDS&G-Inconsistent Enforcement/' infra, for further Suzanne Davis references) 13. Neighborhood support. Of the 69 pages of public comments made part of the 10-12-11 Planning Committee meeting record (Exhibit 11 of Hearing record), not one ( 1) neighbor supports this project. 19 the applicant to , should they resubmit an application, incorporate the following: -Merge the two lots , APN 529-23-015 and 529-23-016 ; -Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot; ... (Emphasis added) Mr. Ross knew or should have known the history of this property when he purchased it on or about 12-23-04 for the focused purpose ofbuilding on it. He's a seasoned developer of SFD (He has owned + 10 homes in Santa Clara County and developed several). In 2005-2006, Mr. Ross ' (Applicant's) Application -this project -was reviewed by Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner. Among the "DEFICIENCIES" he noted: 06-14-06 (Exhibit 3) 2. Reduced driveway variance 3. FAR calculation is not correct 4 . Max height exceeded 9. Cellar exception to FAR incorrectly calculated 12 . Provide a Letter of Justification/Description detailing how the proposed project is compatible with surrounding neighborhood, complies with HDS&G, complies with the General Plan. Justification for the variance, reduction in required setbacks, and exceeding the FAR is also necessary. 13. Speak to the neighbors (he did not) Mr. Paulson, Assistant Planner, was taken off the case and it was assigned (?) to Suzanne Davis. Appropriate, here, is the attitude Suzanne Davis -and this Town -had toward enforcing the HDS&G circa 2006, prior to her taking the Dan Ross project. In a project she was assigned from before 05-08-06 until 09-24-08 (107 .Colorado Court, Los Gatos), a vacant lot way up in the hills, a SFD project objectionable to possibly one (1) neighbor from afar, her report to the Planning Commission (05-08-06; Exhibit 4) recites the same, numerous objections I set forth, above; she quotes the same nine (9) "criteria for allowing an exception to the FAR" and references that Applicant to the 21 same HDS&G as apply here. (Ibid; 05-10-06 Report, pgs. 4-5) She says the house proposed is too large (Ibid@ pg . 3), she 's concerned about the +30° slope (it wasn 't much more, if it was even a 30° slope; Ibid), the height (30') was too great (Ibid @ pg. 5), the grading cuts too deep (less than this project; Ibid), drainage is questionable (Ibid), too many trees will be cut down (fewer than this project; Ibid @ pg. 6), and ironically refers Applicant to specific violations of the HDS&G and General Plan. (Ibid @ pgs 7 -8) You don't see that detail -itemized violations-in her report on Mr. Ross. The Colorado Court Applicant was invited to re-submit plans, which they did. Ms. Davis' response -there was none, the case had been transferred to Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner-the same guy taken off this project. His response was "wake up," comply with the FAR, comply with the HDS&G, and comply with the General Plan. (Exhibit 5; 09-24-08 Report) To date, 107 Colorado Court has not been developed. Back to this project; not to be deterred by Mr. Paulson, Assistant Planner, after the initial application of Mr. Ross was denied, instead of modifying his Plans, he becomes a member of the 2020 General Plan Update Advisory Committee. He remained on the Committee through 2010. Mr. Ross was present for every committee meeting I could confirm. Very frequently, almost always, present was Wendie Rooney, who , we all recall, signed off on the Environmental Impact Report re : Mitigated Negative Declaration submitted on behalf of Mr. Ross (Exhibit 8) and the I 0-12-11 Staff Report with the "soft approval" recommendation. Also present was Suzanne Davis, who, too, signed off on Mr. Ross' "soft approval" Staff Report. In 201 0, to further ingratiate himself with those from whom he wants special favors, Mr. Ross completed the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Leadership Program. From early 2011 to present, Mr. Ross has been an active member of the North-40 Advisory Committee. A primary member of the North-40 committee is Wendie Rooney. I don 't have attendance records for this committee but I'd bet Dan Ross was present and helpful as often as he possibly could. Mr. Ross and his wife make it known that they are strong supporters of Council Member Diane McNutt, being named "Individual" endorsers of note in at least one (1) campaign brochure/handout for her November 2010 election. (Exhibit 6) 22 In March 2011, Mr. Ross graciously volunteered his band, The Blue Rockers, to play at a Friends of the Library fundraiser . (Exhibit 7) Mr. Ross and Suzanne Davis are "Facebook friends." GIVE THIS ONE MORE THOUGHT. Dan Ross stands to make a substantial profit from this project ... at our expense -a conflict. The Senior Planner (Suzanne Davis), with oversight responsibilities on this project, has provided or will provide The Town's recommendation on this project. One (1) of them had to ask the other to be my facebook friend. The other had to acknowledge -Yes, I would like that. A developer asked a Town planner? A Town planner asked a developer? Before? Or after the assignment of this project? No scenario bodes well. Mr. Ross advised me-twice (2x) -along with a group of others from our neighborhood, that he was getting help from someone in the Planning Department on this project. Mr. Ross advised me -twice (2x) -along with a group of others from our neighborhood, that he was told by some member of the Planning Department not to bother submitting plans compatible with the FAR on this project. Dan Ross is one (1) of you: a representative of the residents of Los Gatos. OTHER 1. City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett (2007) 1.49 Cal.App.4th 1530 2 . Los Gatos Citizens for Responsible Development vs. Town of Los Gatos (09-14-11), Case# 1-11-CV-209214 [The Netflix issue] I think we are all aware of the problems created by selective enforcement of the law. And if the Town is not going to enforce the law, do you really want to make all these exceptions for an insider? 23 EXHIBITS Exh. # Item 1 Hillside Development areas 2 05~16-06 Correspondence: Dan Ross to Town of Los Gatos 3 06-14-06 Report -Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner (Bella Vista) 4 05-08-06 Report ~ Suzanne Davis (Colorado Ct) 5 09-24-08 Report-Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner (Colorado Ct) 6 November 2010 Election Brochure 7 March 2011 Friends ofThe Library fundraiser 8 June 2011 EIR: MND 9 07 -01-11 PKT complaint re: MND 1 0 12-15-11 E-mail re : Submission of Revised Plan 11 Grading diagram (modified) & protractor 12 Shadow diagrams (2) 13 Lot line Regulation -Town of Los Gatos 24 EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 May 16 , 2006 To : Town of Los Gatos Planning Department From : Dan Ross I . ''l • · ·:: · , .. . . . -,: . . . ~ . ) Re: Letter of Justification-Single Family Residence with no demolition . I am writing on behalf of myself, owner of 34 1 Bella V ista Avenue and Mr. Ja ke Peters , owner of the adjacent lot at 339 Bella Vista Avenue. We have the mutual goal of each bu ilding a home, and have decided to pursue this process jointly to achieve some economies of scale as well as present a more cohesive plan to the Town and surrounding neighbors. We'd like to offer the following points : 1) Our plans have been designed around Town guidelines. fit into FAR requirements and fo llow the General Plan recommendations. 2) We have taken our design cue from the surrounding homes on Bella Vista , as well as the Town homes on the downslope of our lots. Our goal is to build homes that successfully integrate into the existing neighborhood. ·. 3) Our "footprint" cue comes from 145 Bella Vista , a more recent approved and constructed home on the same West downslope side of Bella Vista as our lots. 4) After site and tree location/arborist analysis, we are asking for a lot line adj ustment as part of this application. Viewing the 2 lots, it makes sense to move my Northern lot line approximately 15' to the North. This will put one of the large Oak trees on the lot line, between the proposed homes. Our goal is to save ttlis tree, and make two nonconforming lots more equally proportionate, as it relates to the mass and scale of each proposed home and surrounding homes. Mr. Peters and I are in agreement on this. 5) We propose to use fencing/landscaping at the back of our homes between the existing town homes to mitigate privacy issues and visual impact. There are numerous homes on this side of Bella VISta . We are asking for the same privileges enjoyed by the other properties in this vicinity. We are asking for a front setback variance, due to the downslope of the lot Town engineering has reviewed th is , they have stated that 18' of driveway from garage to edge of pavement is acceptable. Other setbacks are within guidelines. Than k yo u for your consideration. Best regards, ~th , Da n Ro ss 408-3 14-5626 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 The Planning Conunission -Page 3 107 Colorado Court/S-06-22 May 10,2006 Staff has forwarded the plans and supporting information to the Planning Commission so that direction can be provided to the applicant for a significant redesign of the project or the application can be denied . The · technical and peer reviews (includes arborist, architect, geotechnical and environmental evaluations) have not been completed in the interest of saving the applicant time and expense and saving staff and Town consultants from expending significant time to completely analyze plans that are significantly noncompliant with the HDS&G. Recommended conditions of approval have not been prepared for the same reason. If the Commission decides to remand the project for significant redesign, the technical reviews and evaluations and conditions of approval will be completed before the application is returned to the Commission for final action. B . REMARK$: Exhibit I provides general project data. The applicant has also submitted a letter of justification (see Exhibit J). Staff has summarized the main issues relative to the proposed project for the Commission's consideration and discussion as follows: House Size The proposal is for a 5,775 square foot house with an attached 1,230 square foot garage. The total floor area is 6,605 square feet excluding 400 square feet of the garage. In addition, there are 1,875 square feet of covered terraces and porches . The total floor area exceeds the maximum allowable FAR of 4,400 square feet ( 4,800 square feet including the 400 square foot garage exemption). Most of the property consists of slopes in excess of 30% and a new home cannot be built within the least restrictive development area (LRDA) of the site. However, Staff believes the encroachment outside the LRDA should be minimized as much as possible and that the size of house is too large for the site. The proposed project is located predominantly on slopes in excess of 30%, impacting most of the mature oaks trees and requiring a significant amount of grading and retaining walls. The Planning Commission -Page 5 107 Colorado Court/S-06-22 May 10,2006 5. Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards are shown using computer methods. The compliance margin must be at least 10.0. 6. The house will be pre-wired for future photovoltaic (PV) installation . 7. A minimum of 25% of hardscape material is permeable (certain types of interlocking pavers, grasscrete, pervious concrete, etc.). 8 . A significant cellar element is included in the design, unless it conflicts with other standards . 9. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties. The project does not comply with items 2, 3, 4 and 8 . The Commission should discuss these issues and provide direction on the overall bulk and mass, the size of the proposed home and the overall development area. Building Height The proposed house is 30 feet eight-inches at the highest point. This exceeds the 30 foot height limit established by the Zoning Ordinance and would require approval of a variance. The maximum height allowed by the HDS&G is 25 feet, and any increase in height would require approval of an exception. Swimming Pool The proposed pool is located on a slope that exceeds 30% which is prohibited by the HDS&G. The HDS&G also states that due to topographic constraints not every lot will be able to accommodate a pool. The applicant should eliminate the pool. Grading Cuts in excess of the HDS&G grading criteria are required to construct the proposed house, driveway and pool. The standards allow a maximum cut of eight feet, excluding cellars within the house footprint, and a four foot maximum cut in all other areas. A cut of 15-feet is proposed in the northwest house comer and a high stern wall is proposed . The driveway requires a 14-foot fill and fill depths of up to 10 feet are proposed around the rear deck (three feet is allowed by the HDS&G). The Planning Commission -Page 7 107 Colorado Court/S-06-22 May 10,2006 There are 16 Coast Live Oaks on the site that are concentrated on the front half of the property. Eleven of the oak trees are proposed to be removed, and two others will be severely impacted by construction. Three of the oaks can potentially be saved under the proposed plan. The Consulting Arborist has not yet evaluated the plans to evaluate the feasibility of maintaining any of the existing trees. Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the HDS&G: • The house and driveway have not been sited within the LRDA. • The overall square footage exceeds the maximum allowed and justification is not sufficient to grant an exception. • The height limitation is being exceeded by five feet. • Amount of development is extensive (building area is extremely limited by site constraints); the site may not be able to support the proposed pool. • Tree removals are significant. • Total grading volume is significant and cut and fill criteria has been exceeded. • Extensive use of retaining walls is necessary to construct the proposed project. General Plao Conformance The project may be in conflict with the following policies and implementing strategies from the General Plan: L.P.8.4 Emphasize preserving the natural land forms by minimizing grading. Grading should be limited only to the area needed to place the main house on the property. L.P.8.8 Existing specimen trees shall be preserved and protected as a part of any development proposal. L.l.8 .l 0 Hillside Design Standard: Houses shall be designed to step down the contours rather than be designed for flat pads . CD .P.2.3 Mass Grading in New Construction: Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided . Siting of the house must consider natural topography . The Planning Commission -Page 8 107 Colorado Court/S-06-22 May 10,2006 CD.P.2 .4 Reducing Visible Mass: Effective visible mass shall be reduced through such means as stepping structures up and down the hillside, a maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation following the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane. CD.P.2.6 Hillside landscaping: Hillside lands caping shall be designed with the following goals in mind: A. Preservation and use of native/natural vegetation D . Following the natural topography E. Preservation o f natural trees, vegetation C. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should deny this application because a complete redesign is required for the project to comply with the HDS&G. However, the Commission may refer this application back to staff with specific direction to the applicant for desired plan changes. If the Commission finds merit with the proposed development to the extent that it could be approved through redesign staff suggests direction be provided on the following issues : • house size • house height • overall development area • poolloutdoor area • grading • retaining walls • tree removals The Commission may identify additional issues that have not been raised by staff. If the applic ation i s continued,. staff recommends that a hearing date not be specified as the length of time to complete the technical and peer reviews cannot b e determined at this time. The applicant will be charged for the cost of the additional public notice. If the Commission decides to deny the application, findings for denial should be made. The Commission's input on the key issues would be helpful to the Council in the event an appeal is filed . EXHIBIT 5 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 1 07 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 EXHIBITS : 1. Location Map 2. Letter from Jack and Laurie Goldstein (2 pages), dated May 2, 2008 3 . Letter from Reza Nikfar, received May 5, 2008 4. Letter from Jerry S. Glembocki (6 pages), received May 5, 2008 5. Letter from applicant (2 pages), dated June 18, 2008 6. Presentation from applicant (29 pages), received August 28, 2008 7. Development Plans (16 pages), received February 6, 2008 PROJECf DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,380 square foot residence which contains four levels and includes an attached 853 square foot three-car garage and 2 ,884 square feet of ce11ar area. The cellar area is exempt and is not included in the floor area total noted above. Although the property is 40,075 square feet, the allowable floor area is 4,400 square feet for the home and 400 square feet for the garage due to the applicable slope reduction. The garage is accessed from and faces Colorado Court. There are a number of large oak trees located on the property and the majority of the lot has slopes greater than 30%, making it extremely challenging to develop . General project data is included in Exhibit 5. Additional information has been provided by the applicant in Exhibits 6 and 7 which provides discussion and exhibits illustrating the proposed pmject and previous proposals. BACKGROUND The subject property is one of two remaining undeveloped lots in the Alta Vista subdivision and is located on the west side of Colorado Court, two lots north of Santa Rosa Drive (see Exhibit 1). Most of the neighborhood was developed in the mid-1980s. In 1997, plans were approved for a new 5,923 square foot bouse with a 909 square foot garage and a swimming pool. However, that application expired in 1999 and is no longer valid . The approval was made prior to the adoption of the new General Plan in 2000 and prior to the adoption of the new Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines (FIDS&G). On May 10, 2006, the Planning Commission considered an architecture and site application to construct a 5,775 square foot house with an attached 1,230 square foot garage. The total floor area was 7,005 square feet including the garage . TI1e Commission receive d public testimony and discussed the project. The Commission voted 5-1 to deny the application based on the following: Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 3 1 07 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 • The proposed project was not in compliance with the HDS&G. • A complete redesign was needed to bring the project into compliance with the HDS&G. • There was significant neighborhood objection to the proposed project. On June 19, 2006, the Town Council considered an appeal of the Commission's decision. The Council detennined that the Commission's decision was conect and denied the appeal. REMARKS: This study session was scheduled because staff identified the need for Planning Commission input on high level issues that will impact how the project design evolves. Staff has identified several key issues for the Commission's consideration as discussed below. No fmmal action on this application is requested at this study session. The technical and peer reviews (includes arbori~t, architect, geotechnical, and environmental evaluations) have not been completed in the interest of saving the applicant time and expense and saving staff and Town consultants fi ·om expending significant time to completely analyze plans that may need significant redesign. Recommended conditions of approval have not been prepared for the same reason . Staff and its consultants will undertake more detailed analysis prior to the Commission's formal consideration of the application. A. Site Constraints Most of the property consists of slopes in excess of 30% and there are a munber of existing trees . A new home cannot be built within the least restrictive development area (LRDA) of the site and an exception to this requirement will be necessary. However, staff believes the encroachment outside the LRDA shouJd be minimized as much as possible. The proposed project is located predominantly on slopes in excess of 30%, impacting most of the mature oaks trees, and requiring a significant amount of grading and excavation. B. Mass and Scale I Neighborhood Compatibility The proposed total square footage of the structure (house, garage, and cellar area) is 8, I 17 square feet. WhiJe ceUar area is not counted in the FAR, the Commission has raised concems on previous projects where above ground square footage is maxir~1ized and large cellar elements are incorporated. The proposed project has two levels that contain cellar area due to the parcel's topography. The downhiH elevation at the interior area of the two wings of the home presents the most visible mass of the proposed structure. While this will not be as apparent from the valley floor given the proposed retaining walls and grotto, it is still a concern that needs to be addressed because it will be visible from homes across the canyon on Madera Court Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 1 07 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 The following table compares the proposed project with other parcels on Colorado Com1 : Address House Garage Total Lot Size FAR* 4 71 Santa Rosa Drive 9,305 822 10,127 46,174 .22 1 08 Colorado Court 5,542 822 6,370 41,818 .15 I 09 Colorado Com1 4 ,578 1,020 5,598 45,302 .12 111 Colorado Court 4,798 1,008 5,806 88,427 .07 112 Colorado Court 5,239 780 6,019 42,253 .14 114 Colorado Court 3,896 611 4,507 50,030 .09 107 Colorado Court 5,775 1,230 7,005 40,075 .17 Previous Submittal 107 Colorado Court 4,380 853 5,233 40,075 .13 Current Submittal *FAR is ba.c:ed on lot size and building size from Metroscan and does not include cellar ar ea. As stated in the HDS&G, achieving the maximum floor area is not guaranteed due to individual site constraints. The priority is to comply with the standards and guidelines rather than designing to the FAR . The rA.R is a numerical guide and achieving the allowable square footage is not a goal. Greater weight will be given to issues including but not limited to height, building mass and scale, visual impacts, grading and compaJibility. C . Building Height I Visibility The proposed house is approximately thirty five feet at the highest point. This condition exists at the downhill side of the junction of the two proposed wings adjacent to the proposed courtyard/reflecting pool. This exceeds the thirty foot height limit established hy the Zoning Ordinance and would require approval of a variance. The other elevations of the proposed home are less than twenty five feet. However, the existing parcel is vis ible fr oni the viewing platfmm at Selinda Way and Los Gatos-AJmaden Road. As a result, the HDS&G state that the maximum height from lowest to highest point shall not exceed twenty eight feet. The proposed project is approximately thitty five feet from the lowest to the highest point and would require approval of an exception. Additionally. the maximum height allowed by the HDS&G when a home is visible is eighteen feet The proposed project exceeds eighteen feet and would require approval of an exception as well . Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 107 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 G. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the HDS&G: • A house cannot be sited within the LRDA. • The height limitation will be exceeded. • Tree removals are significant. • Total grading vohm1e is significant and cut and fill criteria will be exceeded. • Extensive 1.1se of retaining walls is necessary to constmct the proposed reflecting pool and grotto . GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLTCffiS The project may be in conflict with the following policies and implementing strategies from the General Plan: L.P.8.4 Emphasize preserving the nattu·alland forms by minimizing grading. Grading should be limited only to the area needed to place the main house on the prope1ty. L.P .8 .8 Existing specimen trees shall be preserved and protected as a part of any development proposal. L.l.8 .10 Hillside Design Standard : Houses shall be designed to step down the contours rather than be designed for tlal pad s. CDJ>.2 .3 Mass Grading in New Construction: Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction. Grading large, flat yard areas shaH be a vo ided. Siting of the house must consider natural topography. CD.P .2 .4 Reducing Visible Mass: Effective visible mass shall be reduced through such means as stepping structures up and down the hillside, a maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation following the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane. CD.P.2 .6 Hillside landscaping: Hillside landscaping shall be designed with the f ollowing goals in mind: A . Preservation and use of native/natural vegetation B . Following the natw·al topography C. Preservation o f natural trees , vegetation EXHIBIT 6 Additional Endorsements for Diane McNutt Toni Blackstock Debbie Blackwell Boyd Bowdish Jade Bradbury Beverley Bryant Carol Burt Jim Burt Don Callahan Barbara Cardillo Irene Carrion-Upson Dennise Carter Peter Carter Elizabeth Cilker Smith Brian Copeland Kim Couchee Phil Couchee Gay Crawford Jill Cronk Michael Cronk Mary P. Curtis Jane Decker Martin D . Dermer Sandra Hutchins Dixon Liz Dodson Lyn Dougherty Paul Dubois Kristen Dryden Charles Erekson Stuart Ferguson Dave Flick Shari Flick Susan Fitts Stan Garber Sandy Gordon Heidi Grassman Elke Groves Carl Guardino Charles Hackett Alice Hansen Eric Hansen Dave Henderson Bill Hirschman Teri Hope Holly Hunter Morley Chris Hutchins Duffy Jennings Marc Jensen Monique Jensen Bob King Kitty King Joan Kjemtrup http://www.smartvoter.org/20 1 0 /11102 /ca/scl/vote/mcnutt _ dlendorse.html Page 2 of 4 1/10/2 012 Additional Endorsements for Diane McNutt Donald Knight Jonathan Knowles Anne Johnson Sara LaBerge Mike Loya Jack Lucas Michelle Mann Jeanne Martin Mary Martin Janice McCabe Mary McCall Joe McCarthy Phil Micciche Chris Miller Phil Mills John Moore Sara Morabito Mike Moresco Eric Morley Nicole Morl ey Sean Morley Jan Morris Ike Nassi Ronee Nassi Larry Noon Maureen O'Connell Tom O'Donnell Rick Oderio Jane Ogle Peggy O'Laughlin Keith Plottel Aana Pregliasco Larry Pregliasco Jeanne Rajabzadeh Steve Ravel James Reber Linda Rice Steve Rice Lisa Richardson Dan Ross Deb Ross Ed San Juan Dave Sandretto Nancy Sandretto Eric Schmidt Mark Sglarto JoAnn Shank Paul Shephard Connie Skipitares Ervie Smith Margaret Smith http ://www.smartvoter.org/20 1 0 /11 /02/ca/scl/vote /rncnutt_ dlendorse.html Page 3 of 4 1/10/2012 Additional Endorsements for Diane McNutt Ken Spice Terri Spice Ed Stahl Rochelle Stone Marie Tallman Chris Tanimoto Nancy Thielmann Howard Thomas Sue Thomas Mary Tornassi-Dubois Kim Vestal Chad Walsh Mark Weiner Bill Wheelehan Dana Wheelehan Colleen Wilcox Chris Wiley Jan Willoughby Susanne Wilson Steve Yvaska Jim Zanardi Next Page: Issue Questions Candidate Page II Feedback to Candidate II This Contest November 20 LO Home (Ball ot Lookup) II About Smart Voter Page 4 of 4 The League of Women Voters does not support or oppose any candidate or political party. Created from infonnation supplied by the candidate : October 4, 2010 14:14 Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/> Copyright <0 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund htto:/lca.lwv.Orf http ://www. smart voter. org/20 1 0/11 /02/ca/scl/vote/mcnutt _ d/endorse.html 1/10/2012 EXHIBIT7 'Y Town turns out to equip new library « all things los gatos Page 2 of 11 Sandi Grenwell and Bob Long dance to the music of The Blues Rockers (Dan Ross on drums, Ed Goguen on bass) http://allthingslosgatos .com/20 ll /03 /23 /town-turns-out-to-equip-new-library/ 7/11 /2011